Brian Rudman: Set up the barricades to protect volcanic views

Driving about Auckland you can't miss them. Round a bend and there in the distance is another of our volcanic cones. It's a key part of Brand Auckland and it's not by chance. Back in the mid 1970s, regional council planner Roy Turner identified 63 volcanic viewshafts - or sightlines - criss-crossing the isthmus and persuaded the politicians they had to be protected.

It was a novel concept but it quickly caught on. Sightlines from places like the northern approaches to the harbour bridge across to Mt Eden or from Tip Top corner on the Southern Motorway to One Tree Hill are now an integral component of Auckland planning regulations, and "thou shall not build inside a volcanic viewshaft" is one of Auckland's great planning commandments.

Even landmark Sky Tower had to abandon its preferred spot in upper Symonds St to protect views to Mt Eden and squeeze on to a corner of its present site to avoid becoming victim to another viewshaft.

What sparked off this flurry of concern 30 years ago was the building of the Pines apartment block on the lower slopes of Mt Eden. It was a salutary warning of the risk high-rise buildings were to the natural landscape.

With the burgeoning development of the next three decades, it came just in the nick of time.

Now a major revision of the viewshafts is approaching decision time. The Auckland Regional Council is proposing that around two-thirds of the existing sightlines be retained, either as is or in altered form, and the rest dropped. But it wants nearly 40 new ones added to the schedule.

New roads have opened up new views worthy of protection, the ARC says, and in some cases, growth of trees and other factors have had the reverse effect. In addition, provision has been made to protect the visual significance of Rangitoto and Browns Island out over the harbour.

A major breakthrough in the review has been the advance in surveying methods which has enabled the ARC to map viewshafts to an accuracy of millimetres. In the past, the actual height of a viewshaft had been an issue of some debate. Now, the permissible building height on affected properties can be quickly and accurately determined.

Being able to pinpoint the actual low point of a viewshaft as it passes across a site might sound like a good thing, but it seems to be upsetting the city councils. Manukau City, in its submission, supports all proposed viewshafts except two "which lie below the permitted district plan building heights and one viewshaft where insufficient information is available to ascertain its effect".

Auckland City says the same. "There are a significant number of key sites where the proposed viewshafts provide a lower height limit than what is either currently permitted or proposed under the growth strategy."

North Shore City also wants changes "to ensure the height of the viewshafts does not drop below the relevant maximum permitted heights specified in the North Shore City district plan".

It's enough to make you wonder how committed the cities really are to the concept. If volcanic sightlines have to bend to make way for the height of new buildings permitted by various district schemes then potentially no views are safe.

Auckland City's submission worryingly adds that "consideration needs to be given ... to achieving a balance between the objectives of the regional growth concept with those of maintaining regional viewshafts. In some instances the floor of proposed viewshafts cross key strategic growth areas that have been identified for urban intensification.

"To achieve growth objectives ... it is necessary to retain the capacity (and therefore building heights) of these areas or urban intensification."

Now maybe I'm missing something, but surely a viewshaft is a bit like a virgin. Either you are one or you are not.

The Auckland Volcanic Cones Society raises another interesting point. Why throw away any existing viewshafts? Arguing that, even if some of the old ones have become partly obstructed,"trees and buildings may disappear over time and if the viewshaft control remains, then there is always the opportunity to regain lost views".

The society argues for a clear philosophy that viewshafts "are not something that comes up for grabs every 30 years but something that will be strictly adhered to and expanded upon. In this way the public knows where it stands and there will be less pushing for exceptions . . "The debate continues.