Archive | Swanson

8 of 28 apartments & cross-leases sell at Barfoots

8 apartments, townhouses & suburban cross-leased properties were sold out of 28 offered at Barfoot & Thompson’s auctions in its city office this week. The auction for another 2 Docks apartments was postponed.

All up, 16 of the 60 residential properties taken to auction were sold, and no bid was offered on 26.

The one commercial property auctioned, a West Auckland industrial unit taken to court-ordered auction by the body corporate, was sold under the hammer.

Commercial

North-west

Glen Eden

9 Westward Ho Rd, unit H + accessory unit 16 (parking):
Features: single-level industrial unit, parking space, taken to auction by body corporate
Outcome: sold at court-ordered auction for $195,000
Agents: Colin Stewart & Philip Davis

Apartments & suburban cross-leases

CBD

Federal St

Hampton Court, 182 Federal St, unit 5C:
Features: 47m², one-bedroom apartment
Outcome: no bid
Agents: Stephen Shin & Justin Choi

Learning Quarter

Tower Hill, 1 Emily Place, unit 2C:
Features: 78m², 2-bedroom apartment, 33m² courtyard, carport
Outcome: no bid
Agent: Alan Vessey

Quay Park

The Docks, 2 Dockside Lane, unit 203:
Features: leasehold, one-bedroom apartment, balcony, parking space
Outcome: auction postponed
Agent: Sudesh Kumar

The Docks, 8 Dockside Lane, unit 236:
Features: leasehold, one-bedroom apartment, parking space
Outcome: auction postponed
Agent: Sudesh Kumar

Victoria Quarter

Harvard, 147 Hobson St, unit GJ:
Features: 2-bedroom apartment, deck, secure parking space
Outcome: no bid
Agents: Simon Cai & Julie Tri

Wiltshire, 89 Victoria St West, unit 10B:
Features: 56m², one bedroom, balcony
Outgoings: body corp levy $2676/year
Outcome: passed in
Agent: Fiona Lee

Isthmus east

Mission Bay

16 Atkin Avenue, unit 6:
Features: cross-lease, 1/8 share in 1664m², 3-bedroom apartment, balcony, tandem garage
Outcome: sold for $1.75 million
Agent: Dennis Dunford

9 Marua Crescent, unit 11:
Features: cross-lease, 1/12 share in 1011m², one-bedroom apartment, deck, carport
Outcome: passed in
Agent: Lynette Boyd

Panmure

60 Jellicoe Rd, unit 3:
Features: cross-lease, 1/6 share in 1012m², one-bedroom unit, deck, backyard, carport
Outcome: sold for $420,000
Agent: Jessie Yang

Remuera

27B Dell Avenue:
Features: cross-lease, 1/3 share in 903m², 3 bedrooms, garage
Outcome: sold for $1.41 million
Agents: Kathy Bower & Julie Fitzpatrick

12 Kelvin Rd:
Features: cross-lease, half share in 1292m², 4 bedrooms, study, double garage
Outcome: no bid
Agent: Duncan Wu

40A Monteith Crescent, unit G:
Features: 3 bedrooms, conservatory, double garage
Outgoings: body corp levy $1741/year
Outcome: no bid
Agents: Angus Campbell & Michael Bacher

1 Shore Rd, unit 16:
Features: standalone house on 200m² freehold section, 4 bedrooms, carport
Outcome: sold for $1.265 million
Agent: Liz Derbyshire

St Heliers

28 Tarawera Terrace, unit 1:
Features: cross-lease, quarter share in 1586m², 4 bedrooms, internal-access garage
Outcome: sold for $1.87 million
Agents: Bob Gordon & Trevor Wyness

Isthmus west

Eden Terrace

Der Rohe, 10 Flower St, unit 104:
Features: 57m², 2-bedroom apartment, deck
Income assessment: $450/week current
Outcome: passed in, back on market at $500,000
Agents: Aaron Cook & Betty Shao

15 Rendall Place, unit 503:
Features: 2-bedroom apartment, balcony basement parking space, storage locker
Outgoings: body corp levy $3732/year
Outcome: passed in
Agent: Anna Stephens-Brown

Grey Lynn

6 Schofield St, unit 10:
Features: 3-bedroom terrace, deck, carport
Outgoings: body corp levy $4596/year
Outcome: sold for $800,000
Agent: Liz Derbyshire

Hillsborough

15 Currie Avenue, unit 1:
Features: cross-lease, half share in 766m², 2-bedroom unit, basement garage & storage
Outcome: sold for $687,000
Agent: Robin Cross

Mt Eden

40 Horoeka Rd, unit 2:
Features: cross-lease, 1/9 share in 931m², 2-bedroom unit, offstreet parking
Outcome: sold for $700,000
Agents: Verena Lobb & Lisa MacQueen

Mt Roskill

56A May Rd:
Features: cross-lease, half share in 826m², 3 bedrooms, double internal-access garage
Outcome: passed in at $900,000
Agent: Alex Yang

Sandringham

65 Burnley Terrace, unit 5:
Features: one-bedroom ground unit, carport, parking space
Outgoings: body corp levy $1819/year
Outcome: no bid
Agent: Julie Hey

297A Mt Albert Rd:
Features: cross-lease, half share in 843m², 4 bedrooms, deck, carport
Outcome: no bid
Agent: Steve Hood

16 St Lukes Rd:
Features: cross-lease, 1/3 share in 1358m², 4-bedroom villa
Outcome: no bid
Agents: Reeka Lelaulu & Sue Cohen

34 Watea Rd, unit 3:
Features: cross-lease, 1/8 share in 1227m², 2-bedroom unit, garage
Outcome: no bid
Agents: Jeff Stretton & Monica Bajaj

North-west

Glendene

4 Lydford Place, unit 2:
Features: cross-lease, half share in 675m², 3 bedrooms, deck, garage, workshop
Outcome: no bid
Agents: Julia Barnett & Ryan Littler

Glen Eden

9 Evans Rd, unit 12:
Features: 2-bedroom unit, deck, internal-access garage
Outgoings: body corp levy $595/year
Outcome: passed in
Agents: Julia Barnett & Ryan Littler

Henderson

38 Eyre St:
Features: cross-lease, half share in 1026m², 3 bedrooms, basement garage, double carport
Outcome: passed in
Agent: Roger Franklin

New Lynn

2 Kiritoa St:
Features: cross-lease, half share in 870m², 3 bedrooms, garage
Outcome: no bid
Agent: Jennifer Peary

116 Titirangi Rd, unit 1:
Features: cross-lease, 1/10 share in 4116m², 3-bedroom bungalow, carport
Outcome: no bid
Agents: Aken Yuan & Michelle Zhou

Swanson

637 Swanson Rd, unit 1:
Features: cross-lease, half share in 1012m², 2-bedroom bungalow, deck, offstreet parking
Outcome: no bid
Agents: Raj Mitra & Maggie Altaf

Attribution: Auctions.

Continue Reading

Swanson special housing area subdivision approved

Commissioners have approved Neil Construction Ltd’s special housing area application to rezone 26ha at Swanson from future urban to the mixed housing suburban & single house zones, and an initial development application for part of it.

Neil will create 78 vacant lots, including 3 super lots, in 2 stages in Birdwood precinct 2 at 10 Crows Rd, Swanson (the area outlined on the map). The balance of the precinct lies across the road at 1-11 Crows Rd, 161 Birdwood Rd & 8 Yelash Rd.

The segment of map above shows the area designated in the latest version of the unitary plan as recommended by the independent hearings panel on the whole plan. 10 Crows Rd is in the area outlined, the balance of the precinct is across the road & north of it, and the rural:urban boundary wraps around the precinct.

The full site covers 26.1832ha, but Neil’s qualifying development application covers only 6.7987ha in the southern part of the precinct at 10 Crows Rd. The land was designated a special housing area in tranche 3 of the housing accord between the Government & Auckland Council, in May 2014.

Planning consultant Clare Covington, for Neil, told the commissioners at the hearing in June that, in broad terms, the qualifying development adopted the form & character of the adjacent subdivision at Bradmore Meadows Drive, while the rest of the precinct would be in the lower density single house zone.

2 adjoining structure plan areas – Birdwood & Swanson North – sit outside the rural:urban boundary proposed by the council and are intended to retain a countryside living character.

Neil’s proposal for its site is to create 55 lots ranging in size from 406-920m² plus a 1378m² superlot in stage 1, and 20 lots ranging from 418-547m² plus 2 superlots, each of 1328m², in stage 2.

All up, the Neil subdivision will provide at least 93 dwellings and the whole precinct about 250 dwellings, at least 10% of them in the affordable category.

Link: Swanson special housing area decision

Attribution: Decision.

Continue Reading

4 sales & a lease in north-west

Bayleys agents have signed 4 sales in the north-west of the region, and one lease.

North-west

Sales

Helensville

84 Commercial Rd:
Features: 293m2 site, 211m2 retail outlet built around 1910
Outcome: sold vacant for $312,000
Agents: Grant Miller & Laurie Bell

Henderson

192 Universal Drive, unit A6:
Features: 1210m2 retail unit in Lincoln North Shopping Centre occupied by pet store Animates NZ Holdings Ltd since 2006, renewed for a further 6 years in October 2015
Rent: $282,477/year net + gst
Outcome: sold for $3.25 million at an 8.7% yield
Agents: Alan Haydock & Cameron Melhuish

Kelston

24-26 Cartwright Rd (pictured):
Features: 1993m2 site in 2 titles, 490m2 warehouse on one title occupied by joinery business
Outcome: sold to tenant for $1.48 million
Rent: $61,000/year net + gst
Agents: Mike Adams & Grant Miller

Te Atatu Peninsula

29 Neil Avenue:
Features: 819m2 site, retail & residential block comprising 4 shops (dairy, hair salon & 2 food outlets), all with 2-year leases & 2 2-year rights of renewal, and vacant 3-bedroom flat recently refurbished & with potential rent of $400-$450/week
Rent: $39,219/year net + gst
Outcome: sold for $880,000
Agent: Tony Chaudhary

Lease

Swanson

114 Swanson Rd, unit 3: 
Features: 1750m2 warehouse
Rent: $140,000/year net + gst, leased for 4 years, with fixed annual increase of 2.5% plus one 4-year right of renewal
Agent: James Appleby

Attribution: Agency release.

Continue Reading

Update: 4 – make that 5 – West Auckland sales & a lease

Bayleys agents have recorded 5 sales & a lease in West Auckland – up one sale, in Glen Eden, reported just as I was posting the original version of this story on Monday.

Sales

Isthmus west

Avondale

1790 Great North Rd:
Features: 2 extensively refurbished buildings comprising retail, office, warehouse & potential apartment, totalling 890m² on 1646m² site zoned business 1
Rent: Front building tenanted by a café at $52,000/year net + gst from July 2015
Outcome: sold for $1.495 million
Agents: Scott Kirk & James Were

Mt Roskill

49 Carr Rd:
Features: 734m² warehouse on 809m² site
Outcome: sold with vacant possession for $1.21 million
Agents: William Coates, James Appleby & Mike Adams

North-west

Glen Eden 

212 West Coast Rd:

Features: 2 retail outlets on 460m² site, one occupied by Pizza Hut on  a 6-year lease from August 2011 and the other by a laundromat with a 6-year lease term from January 2010
Rent: $43,841/year net + gst
Outcome: sold for $725,000 at a 6.04% yield
Agents: Tony Chaudhary & Janak Darji

Henderson

1-13 Railside Avenue:
Features: 261m² retail building on 1404m² site with further development potential, leased to West Auckland Stationery for 3 years from June 2013 with 2 3-year rights of renewal
Rent: $77,000/year net + gst
Outcome: sold for $1.125 million at a 6.85% yield
Agents: Grant Miller & Harvey Zhang

Swanson

9 North Candia Rd:
Features: 16,992m² vacant land zoned business 6
Outcome: sold for $1.85 million at $109/m²
Agents: Simon Andrews & Dave Stanley

Lease

Isthmus west

Avondale

22 Fremlin Place:
Features: 774 m² warehouse, leased for 5 years with one 5-year right of renewal
Rent: $89,000/year + gst at $115/m²
Agents: William Coates, James Appleby & Grant Miller

Attribution: Agency release.

Continue Reading

Swanson foothills decision takes debate closer to resolution

Published 9 February 2009

Waitakere City Council has moved a step closer to resolving debate around future subdivision in the Swanson foothills area following an Environment Court ruling on the issue.

 

Planning & regulatory committee chairman Vanessa Neeson said the council was still considering the implications of the ruling, but commented: “The Environment Court has accepted that it is appropriate for there to be a structure plan in Swanson, but has determined that the final structure plan should take a more conservative approach to subdivision than the version that was proposed by the council.

 

“The council has been directed to rewrite the Swanson structure plan and make consequential changes to its district plan to reflect the court’s ruling.”

 

The landowners’ group, which appealed the council’s decision on the structure plan, had sought 198 additional lots. The council had proposed 116 potential further lots. The court found that 52 additional lots would be appropriate, which is more closely aligned with the outcome sought by opponents of development in the Swanson foothills.

 

“While the court opted for a lower density than that supported by the council, it has accepted the council’s position that subdivision applications that seek to go beyond the density provided for in the Swanson structure plan should be a prohibited activity. Under the Resource Management Act, no application can be made for any activity that is classified as ‘prohibited’.

 

“In its ruling, the court stated that it wanted the amended structure plan to allow fewer opportunities for subdivision because it considers that ‘the existing fine balance between rural & urban in the Swanson foothills is in real danger of being upset to its detriment by further subdivision & development’.

 

“The council had carefully considered the most appropriate outcome for Swanson, in terms of striking a balance between subdivision opportunities & environmental enhancement. We had hoped that the depth of this work would be reflected more closely in the outcome.

 

 “It is a large & complex decision though, so our lawyers are currently reviewing it to advise the council on its obligations & the process from this point.”

 

Want to comment? Email [email protected].

                                       

Attribution: Council release, story written by Bob Dey for the Bob Dey Property Report.

Continue Reading

Mawhinney fights urban limits & drainage line at Swanson

Campaign also includes submission on urban limit shift at East Tamaki

Peter Mawhinney & his Kitewaho Bush Reserve Co Ltd occupied a fair part of the Auckland Regional Council’s strategic policy committee meeting today, over separate issues concerning the metropolitan urban limit and the Auckland inner drainage area.

Mr Mawhinney has been fighting for several years to subdivide land just on the wrong side of the urban limit (MUL) boundary at Swanson and another piece nearer the Rodney District border.

The urban limit is being extended above Henderson, taking in the 80ha of Babich land, and it’s also intended to take in the Penihana block at Swanson in the next 5 years. The urban limit line skirts the Penihana block on 2 sides, while the drainage area line goes round the other 2 sides, incorporating it in the inner drainage area.

Mr Mawhinney has a 6.8ha block across Christian Rd from the Penihana block, looking across to the Swanson station & facing the foot of Tram Valley Rd. That puts his block immediately outside the drainage area and, when Penihana is included within the urban limit, immediately outside that as well.

Kitewaho application made in 1996

Hugh Jarvis, policy implementation manager for the regional council, told the committee in a report on the Environment Court decision on Kitewaho last year, and a proposed costs appeal to the High Court by the Waitakere City Council, that Mr Mawhinney’s companies tried to get non-notified consent in 1996 for various subdivision proposals on Anzac Valley Rd, which runs from the start of Bethells Rd.

“The subdivision applications were complex, involving bush lots, glasshouse lots & unit titles, but the objective was to achieve an average lot size well below the 4ha minimum lot size in the new district plan,” Mr Jarvis said.

“The normal procedure would be to treat the applications as non-complying and process them accordingly. However, Kitewaho sought to classify the applications as permitted, controlled or limited discretionary to oblige Waitakere City Council to process them on a non-notified basis.”

City council insisted on full assessment

The city council invoked s91 of the Resource Management Act to require Kitewaho to apply for consents from the regional council, ensuring a full range of effects could be assessed.

The court didn’t uphold any of the consent declarations Kitewaho sought and confirmed they were non-complying applications.

But Mr Jarvis said Environment Judge Treadwell made findings on the use of s91 & s92 of the Resource Management Act by the city council which that council felt should be appealed because of its “potentially far-reaching consequences: if applicants were to routinely refuse to comply with sections 91 &92 requests then this could have significant implications on the council’s ability to process resource consent applications.”

Judge ticks off council

Mr Jarvis said the city council was concerned about the judge’s comments because, in a related legal action, Mr Mawhinney was suing the council for development losses due to alleged council delays in processing his applications.

The city council’s solicitors said Judge Treadwell had erred I his finding, where he said: “Should the council endeavour to use s91 or s92 for the purpose of avoiding making a decision, if a decision is requested by an applicant, then it may find itself facing an order for costs.

“The sections are not to be used as a delay mechanism.

“If an applicant states he is not prepared to comply with s91 & s92 requests, and requests a decision, then council can simply refuse consent, leaving the matter for later determination by the court.”

Council says it doesn’t work that way

Too simplistic, the city council’s solicitors said.

“Whether or not an applicant for consent agrees that further consents or further information is necessary is irrelevant: the legal test is whether the additional consents are required and will better assist council’s understanding of an application (s9 of the Resource Management Act) or whether additional information will assist council to assess an application, including its effects (s92).

“Otherwise it makes it too easy for an applicant to refuse to co-operate, with the net effect being that council officers then have to continue processing a poorly prepared application. Inevitably that will result in officers having to spend more time undertaking their own appraisal of an application — so that they can prepare the planner’s report, as required by the Resource Management Act.

“It is simplistic for the judge to suggest that an application can simply be refused if an applicant refuses to comply with s91 or s92. Council is still required to determine the status of an application (eg, controlled, discretionary, non-complying), assess its relevant effects, assess who may be affected by the application, assess whether to notify an application, and ensure that a holistic appraisal of an application, taking into account all relevant effects, is undertaken.

“To undertake these activities council must be able to rely on its powers under s91 & s92, and not have to rely upon the agreement of an applicant.

“The suggestion by the court that sections 91 & 92 cannot be used as a ‘delay mechanism’ is also rejected: those provisions can legitimately be used to ‘stop the clock’ where an application is inadequate.”

The city council decided to lodge its appeal on 19 December and the regional council decided to support that appeal.

Drainage area application a separate matter

The regional council’s strategic policy committee considered reports last year on applications by Ecowater Solutions (Waitakere) and Manukau Water (Manukau City) to extend the inner drainage area, and Watercare has started the formal process under the Auckland Metropolitan Drainage Act, notifying the requests on 4 October and sending the petitions along to the Governor-general to alter the boundary.

Then along came Mr Mawhinney, the sole submitter, asking Watercare to include an extra area outside the metropolitan urban limits — the Swanson block.

Regional council senior planning officer Geoff Winn said this was most unusual: “Watercare staff cannot recollect any such submissions in the last 15 years when previous changes were advertised. I cannot recall any such submissions in my 33 years’ service with the ARA/ARC. Notwithstanding their infrequency, the act provides for submissions to be made by the public if they wish.

Under the drainage act, the Local Government Commission will conduct an inquiry, but Watercare said the scope of that inquiry hasn’t been settled. Watercare’s solicitors & the Internal Affairs Department want it limited to considering the extensions Watercare has proposed, leaving Mr Mawhinney’s land out.

Although the Penihana block is one inconsistency, being outside the metropolitan urban limit but inside the drainage line, the regional council doesn’t support creating another.

“Given the issues raised by Mr Mawhinney’s submission and the importance of the MUL & IDA for controlling future urban development, it is considered that the ARC should advise the Minister of Internal Affairs that it would like to be consulted and make representations to the inquiry that will consider his submission,” Mr Winn said in his report.

“We need to stress to any commission of inquiry that the appropriate procedure for planning & integrating urban growth & infrastructure services is through the district & regional planning processes under the Resource Management Act, and that the subject land should not be included in the IDA as it is outside the MUL.”

The committee endorsed Mr Winn’s report.

Conflict on what issues are

When Cllr Bill Burrill started discussing where the Mawhinney blocked drained to — thinking it might drain towards the Penihana block (soon to be urban), the regional council’s strategic policy director, Craig Shearer, said the Mawhinney application “is not an issue of whether it should be urban or not, but drainage. The issue at the moment is, can we have this area included in the inner drainage area.”

Technically, Mr Shearer is right: that’s what the Mawhinney application is immediately concerned with.

But Mr Winn acknowledged the wider urban planning complications of the Mawhinney application: “If you went into this block of land [extending the drainage area to the Mawhinney land at Swanson] there’s no end.”

The catchment stretches back up to the Waitakere Ranges regional park, so once either the drainage line or urban limit is breached at Swanson, any future restriction would be purely arbitrary.

Afraid of increasing urban pressure

Mr Winn said in his report that “to bring the area into the IDA when it is outside the MUL would inevitably add to the pressures for urbanisation of this area. As things now stand, a very clear signal is being sent that this area is rural land, outside both the MUL & the IDA. This area therefore should not be brought into the IDA and Watercare should be advised accordingly.”

Penihana is different. In the 1980 district scheme it was rezoned, from future urban to rural 3, which Mr Winn told the Planning Tribunal at the time would be appropriate for 20 years, though ultimately it would be needed for urban purposes.

Waitakere City recently released a draft structure plan for the Swanson catchment, reviewing future urban development requirements and recommending the Penihana block be returned to the inside of the metropolitan line.

So what’s wrong with the Mawhinney block? Mr Winn said neither the city council structure plan for Swanson nor a review by the city council of future growth areas for the west identified the Mawhinney land “as being either suitable, or needed, or appropriate for urban growth.”

Chance will come in Penihana submissions

Mr Winn said Mr Mawhinney would get his chance when the change to the Auckland regional policy statement to include the Penihana block in the metropolitan area is notified. The public could make submissions on the precise definition of the MUL and would have the right of appeal to the Environment Court, he said.

Of course, experience tells you that a member of the public (even one with a large block across the road) making submissions at such a hearing — and hoping to have land included which was not subject to all the environmental studies mentioned in the Waitakere appeal over sections 91 & 92 — would be told they should come back another day with their own application, and that the hearing would be about the Penihana land, nothing else.

That’s what Mr Mawhinney is likely to be told when he presents his submission on proposed change No 1 to the regional policy statement, which is to amend the urban limit at Flat Bush-East Tamaki (diametrically on the opposite side of the region) to give effect to the regional growth strategy.

Mr Winn gave a fair indication in his report of how others are likely to treat this application: “In his submission to proposed change No 1, Mr Mawhinney seeks that the boundaries of the MUL include his land at Swanson, not withstanding that proposed change No 1 deals only with the MUL in Flat Bush-East Tamaki.”

Mr Winn expected that a change to include the Penihana land inside the urban limit should be advertised late this year.

Continue Reading
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux