Planning commissioners have refused resource consent for a $200 million redevelopment on the Mission Bay waterfront that would have contained 7 buildings with heights ranging up to 28m.
The hearing panel’s view: “A step too far”.
Writing the commissioners’ overall conclusions in a decision dated last Thursday, panel chair Janine Bell said: “This is not an easy decision to make, and we hasten to add that there may well be scope for some additional height on the site, given the size & position of the site in the [Mission Bay town] centre. It could be said that the effects generated by the development sit close to the point of balance between being appropriate & inappropriate.
“In the context of our interpretation of the objectives & policies of the [council unitary] plan, we consider that we must take a conservative view of the scale & significance of the adverse effects generated.
“Taking the adverse effects together and looking at them through the lens of a plan that refers to development reinforcing planned character and being in keeping with surrounding environments, we have formed the view that the development takes a step too far from the planned outcomes for the area.
“In other words, the objectives & policies tip the assessment of the effects from being appropriate to being inappropriate. There are positive effects of the development which are supported by a number of objectives & policies. We do not consider that these positive effects tip the balance back the other way.”
In their reasons, the panel of Ms Bell, David Mead & Michael Parsonson said they’d determined that, overall, the adverse effects would be unacceptable: “The excess height of the proposal will result in adverse visual & dominance effects on the amenity of the surrounding environment, including the local centre environment itself, nearby residential areas that overlook the site, and the wider landscape.”
They considered the proposal was inconsistent with some of the key objectives & policies of the Auckland unitary plan, particularly those related to:
- the scale & intensity of development within the local centres being in keeping with planned outcomes identified in the unitary plan for the surrounding environment; and
- managing the height & bulk of development to minimise adverse effects on adjoining residential sites & developments.
The landowner & developer, Drive Holdings Ltd (Haydn & Mark Staples) sought consent for a redevelopment covering 6530m², an almost rectangular site fronting Tamaki Drive, the foot of Patteson Avenue and, at the rear, Marau Crescent.
It was to have 2 basement levels & 7 buildings of varying heights, rising from 3 storeys on Marau Crescent through to 8 storeys on the Tamaki Drive-Patteson Avenue corner, and a gross floor area of 35,120m².
Activities within the complex were to include 2920m² of retail (425m² of that on one basement level), a 5-screen cinema complex in the middle (replacing the existing cinema), 100 apartments & 266 parking spaces.
Hearing panel decision
31 July 2019: A more intensive Mission Bay centrepiece: Is this the way forward?
13 August 2018: New Urban Partners scheme for Mission Bay a $200 million project
15 February 2010: Drive Holdings faces new council opposition to Mission Bay project
17 April 2009: Panel tells council planners to stop playing internal politics with consent applications
27 March 2009: Commissioners weigh up rules on right to demolish Mission Bay shops
16 March 2009: Mission Bay project hinges on question over permission to demolish
Attribution: Hearing decision.