Hearing Report 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki

I hereby give notice that a hearing by commissioners will be held on:

Date: Tuesday 30 July 2019 Wednesday 31 July 2019 Thursday 01 August 2019 Friday 02 August 2019 Tuesday 06 August 2019 Time: 9.30am Meeting Rooms: Reception Lounge (Days 1 – 4) Level 2 Council Chambers (Day 5) Ground Floor Venue: Auckland Town Hall, 301-303 Queen Street, Auckland

HEARING REPORT 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 TAMAKI DRIVE, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 PATTESON AVENUE, 26, 28 & 30 MARAU CRESCENT, MISSION BAY DRIVE HOLDINGS LIMITED

COMMISSIONERS

Chairperson Janine Bell Commissioners David Mead Michael Parsonson

Larissa Rew HEARINGS ADVISOR

Telephone: 09 980 5216 or 021570675 Email: [email protected] Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as a decision of Council. Should Commissioners require further information relating to any reports, please contact the Team Leader Hearings. 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 WHAT HAPPENS AT A HEARING At the start of the hearing, the Chairperson will introduce the commissioners and council staff and will briefly outline the procedure. The Chairperson may then call upon the parties present to introduce themselves to the panel. The Chairperson is addressed as Mr Chairman or Madam Chair.

Any party intending to give written or spoken evidence in Māori or speak in sign language should advise the hearings advisor at least five working days before the hearing so that a qualified interpreter can be provided.

Catering is not provided at the hearing. Please note that the hearing may be audio recorded.

Scheduling submitters to be heard

A timetable will be prepared approximately one week before the hearing for all submitters who have returned their hearing attendance form. Please note that during the course of the hearing changing circumstances may mean the proposed timetable is delayed or brought forward. Submitters wishing to be heard are requested to ensure they are available to attend the hearing and present their evidence when required. The hearings advisor will advise submitters of any changes to the timetable at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Hearing Procedure

The usual hearing procedure is: • The applicant will be called upon to present his/her case. The applicant may be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses in support of the application. After the applicant has presented his/her case, members of the hearing panel may ask questions to clarify the information presented. • The relevant local board may wish to present comments. These comments do not constitute a submission however the Local Government Act allows the local board to make the interests and preferences of the people in its area known to the hearing panel. If present, the local board will speak between the applicant and any submitters. • Submitters (for and against the application) are then called upon to speak. Submitters may also be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses on their behalf. The hearing panel may then question each speaker. The council officer’s report will identify any submissions received outside of the submission period. At the hearing, late submitters may be asked to address the panel on why their submission should be accepted. Late submitters can speak only if the hearing panel accepts the late submission. • Should you wish to present written information (evidence) in support of your application or your submission please ensure you provide the number of copies indicated in the notification letter. • Only members of the hearing panel can ask questions about submissions or evidence. Attendees may suggest questions for the panel to ask but it does not have to ask them. No cross-examination - either by the applicant or by those who have lodged submissions – is permitted at the hearing. • After the applicant and submitters have presented their cases, the chairperson may call upon council officers to comment on any matters of fact or clarification. • When those who have lodged submissions and wish to be heard have completed their presentations, the applicant or his/her representative has the right to summarise the application and reply to matters raised by submitters. Hearing panel members may further question the applicant at this stage. • The chairperson then generally closes the hearing and the applicant, submitters and their representatives leave the room. The hearing panel will then deliberate “in committee” and make its decision. • Decisions are usually available within 15 working days of the hearing. 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019

SUBMITTERS: VOLUME ONE Page 23 Desmond Hunt 10 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 24 Robert Bree 88a Kurahaupo Street Orakei Page 27 Gary Paykel 44 Arney Road Remuera Page 28 Anthony Edwin Falkenstein 3 Dudley Rd Mission Bay Page 29 Auckland Planning Limited - Nick Culpan 34 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 104 W.A Henderson 125 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 105 Jill McCarthy 63 Hawera Road Kohimarama Page 107 Winsome Ruth Matches 1/15 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 109 Jo Thompson 1E/80 Aotea Street Orakei Page 112 Liz Pollard 1/22 Speight Road Kohimarama Page 113 William Edward Galpin 116/207 Riddell Road Glendowie Page 115 Donald & Audrey Coster 2/105 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 116 Antony Guy Jack Brabant 44 Comins Crescent Mission Bay Page 118 Pam Rudelj Apt 9/9 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 120 Robyn Ballantyne 96 Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 122 Manuel Venegas 9A Cliff Road Auckland Page 124 Lisa Moore-Bocarro 63 Ngaio St Orakei Page 126 Jane Martinovich 37 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 129 German Fernandez 14 William Fraser Cres St Heliers Page 131 Matthew Nant 121B Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 133 Robert Murray 132 Kohimarama Road Kohimarama Page 135 Junette Elizabeth Marylyn Wrathall 4/43 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 137 Anthony Goddard 1/19 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 139 Georgina Sawyer 89 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 141 Chris Wadsworth PO Box 41071 St Lukes Page 143 Kim Michelle Posner 54 Rosepark Crescent St Johns Page 145 Lucy Duncan 148A Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 147 Hadeel Kadir 1/30 Felton Mathew Ave Saint Johns Page 149 Chris von Batenburg 3A Sprott Rd Kohimarama Page 151 Darren Anderson 44 Smythe Rd Henderson Page 153 Mark Herbstein 17 Kempthorne Crescent Mission Bay Page 155 Mangere Elizabeth Wright 16 Andes Avenue Bridge Page 157 Guy Richardson 10 Cowell Place Onehunga Page 159 Margaret Platt 5/84 Kohimarama Road Kohimarama 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 161 Laura Austin 133 West Tamaki Rd Glen Innes Page 163 Andrea Aragon Echano 2/17 Clarendon Road St Heliers Page 165 Megan Burgess 10B Emily Lane Greenhithe Page 167 Tracey Goldstine 38a Ronaki Road Mission Bay Page 169 Nadia de Blaauw 77a Fancourt St Meadowbank Page 171 Michelle Crooks 72 Sprott Road Kohimarama Page 173 Jarrod Kerr 13a Rukutai Street Orakei Page 175 Suzanne Melville 14 William Fraser Cres St Heliers Page 177 Dale Clements 23 Lisburn Ave Glendowie Page 179 Megan Coates 21 Benbow Street St Heliers Page 181 Debbie MacDonald 2/70 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 183 Lijuan Xu PO Box 133168 Eastridge Page 185 Vanessa Hurt 47 Whitehaven Rd Glendowie Page 187 Christine Helen Johnston 44 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 189 Anthony Hurt 32 Waimarie St St Heliers Page 191 Mary-Clare Brownlie 1/24 Hawera Road Kohimarama Page 193 Stuart Clarke 1/24 Hawera road Auckland Page 195 Ian Deynzer 4 Cullwick Road Mission Bay Page 197 Graham French 46D Rawhitiroa Road Kohimarama Page 199 Gillian Cran 2/29 Atkin Avenue Mission Bay Page 201 Carolyn Jean Harrison 5/5 Brookfield Street St Heliers Page 203 John Grant Borrows 15 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 205 Robyn Fairley 14A Hartland Ave Glendowie Page 207 Junwei Wu 3 Simmental Crescent Somerville Page 209 Angela Dyer 2/123 Riddell Road Glendowie Page 211 Christine Mary Melvilleo 296 Riddell Road Glendowie Page 213 Sam Lawson G03/3 Bluegrey Ave Stonefields Page 215 Elisabeth Stevens 1/95 St Johns Road St Johns Page 217 Briar Dentice 308/4 Bluegrey Ave Stonefields Page 219 Rex Potter 89 Tephra Boulevard Stonefields Page 221 Jan van Deventer 4/17 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 223 Barb Ross 33 Hampton Drive St Heliers Page 225 Toby Gwilym 17 Gerard Way Meadowbank Page 227 Holly Muller 8b Abbotts Way Remuera Page 229 Sally-Anne Forde 645 Remuera Road Remuera Page 231 David Ballantyne 96 Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 233 Jayden Grant 23 Comins Crescent Mission Bay 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 235 Michael Shaw 25 Trojan Crescent New Lynn Page 237 Mango Communications - Ian Benet 2/161 Long Drive St Heliers Page 239 Matthew Connolly Riddell Road Auckland Page 241 Kirsty Dale Cowie 93 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 243 Catherine Anne Woodley 151b St Heliers Bay Rd St Heliers Page 245 Rodrigo Bottieri 31 Speight Road Kohimarama Page 247 Heather Rogers 9 Beere Place Meadowbank Page 249 Carmen Szeto 15b Melling street Glen Innes Page 251 Thais Bottieri 2/31 Speight Rd Kohimarama Page 253 Rhys Mountfort PO Box 17121 Greenlane Page 255 Shareen Smith 41b Roberta Ave Glendowie Page 257 Laureen De Sa 2/91 Long Drive St Heliers Page 259 Colleen Barbarich 8 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 261 Andrea Armishaw 97 Atkin Avenue Mission Bay Page 263 Raewyn Stone 2B Pukeora Ave Auckland Page 265 Rachael Ferris 255 Kohimarama Road Kohimarama Page 267 David Robert Ferris 255 Kohimarama Rd Kohimarama Page 269 Paul Stanfield 104 Godden Crescent Mission Bay Page 271 Rossella Quaranta 231b Marua Road Mt Wellington Page 273 Elena Lezhneva 77 Atkin Avenue Mission Bay Page 275 Curtis Atkinson 7/32 Coates Ave Orakei Page 277 Samantha Caretti 10 Cotter Avenue Remuera Page 279 Yvonne June Joass 76 Whitehaven Rd Auckland Page 281 Janine McKenna-Woodley 2/113 Rukutai St Orakei Page 283 Ross Porter PO Box 99 887 Newmarket Page 285 Brian Retief 25a Awarua Crescent Orakei Page 287 Selena Armstrong 24 Walmsley Road St Heliers Page 289 Mark Strachan 122 Riddell Road Glendowie Page 291 Elizabeth Robinson 73 Patteson Avenue Mission Bay Page 293 Clementine Gardner 10 Towai Street St Heliers Page 295 Empire Capital Limited c/o - David Boersen Auckland Page 297 Naja Urlich 2/23 Coates Avenue Orakei Page 299 William Pott 52 Upland Road Auckland Page 301 Brett Horsfall 64 Lunn Avenue Mt Wellington Page 303 Elena Arduini 86 Aotea Street Orakei Page 305 Elena Arduini 86 Aotea Street Orakei Page 307 Jing Lu and Xuelin Zhou 64 St Andrews Road Auckland 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 309 John Gerty 4/155 Gillies Ave Epsom Page 311 Kris Bainbridge 696A Te Atatu Road Te Atatu Page 313 Sangeeta Desai 33 Norana Ave Remuera Page 315 Jocelyn Whyte 26 Hopkins Crescent Kohimarama Page 317 Lyn Gillanders 529 Riddell Rd Glendowie Page 319 Michael Christie 2/15 Eltham Road Kohimarama Page 321 Jean Cogle 1/2 Thatcher street Mission Bay Page 323 Jonathan Smith 1/28 Eastglen Road Glen Eden Page 325 Liam McKanny 9 Waitara road St Heliers Page 327 Robert and Diane Strevens 2/35 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 329 TFRD NZ - Andrew Parsons 2c Nihill Cr Auckland Page 331 35A Truro Road, Rita Hunt Camborne Porirua Page 333 Chris de Lautour 46 Garnet Rd Auckland Page 335 Wai o Taiki Gulina Kubanychbekova 18 Clairville Crescent Bay Page 337 Phil Wheeler 33 Hopkins Crescent Kohimarama Page 339 Annette Mary Moody Eastcliffe Retirement Orakei Village Apt 2f, 80 Aotea Street Page 341 Michael Wanless 20 Barrack Road Mt Wellington Page 343 Dr Karen Jones 78 Grampian Road St Heliers Page 345 Saroch Torthienchai 27A Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Page 347 Peter Haarhaus 46D Godden Crescent Mission Bay Page 349 AJHayes and JMWaite Family Trust - Andrew and Jeanette Hayes 51 Ripon Crescent Meadowbank Page 351 Louise Lusty 14 Granada Place Glendowie Page 353 Chen Jiang 52 Comins Crescent Mission Bay Page 355 Allison Willis 65 Kurahaupo St Orakei Page 357 John Service 54 Codrington Cres Mission Bay Page 359 Grahame and Prue Taylor 125D Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 361 Gloria Seaman Saint Johns Auckland Page 363 David King 32 Ganley Terrace Stonefields Page 365 Mattie Aspen Queale 19 Patteson Avenue Mission Bay Page 367 Elisa Norah McLennan 3/117 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 369 Elsie Margaret McKee 92 Aotea St Orakei Page 371 Shona Carle 15B Paunui St St Heliers Bay Page 373 Rex Frye 8 Ronaki Road Mission Bay Page 375 Alan Garny 7/10 Tagalad Rd Mission Bay 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 377 Yan Jiang 11 Bryant Place Glendowie Page 379 Robert John O'Donnell 6/9 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 381 Paul Lovrich 139 Shore Road Remuera Page 383 Robyn Hoskins 39 Sayegh St St Heliers Page 385 Oksana Alexeichik Rukutai Street Orakei Page 387 Donald Ian Hope 64 Patteson Road Mission Bay Page 389 Eddye Zhang 79 Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 391 Jose Franco 4/217 Tamaki Dr Kohimarama Page 393 Malcolm Ewart 27 Geraldine Place Kohimarama Page 395 Phoebe Sarah Dobson 21 Glover Road St Heliers Page 397 Linda Adams 1/89 Kurahaupo St Orakei VOLUME TWO Page 399 Colleen Halkett 125 c Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 401 Colleen Christina Halkett 11/36 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 403 Rebecca O'Shea 3/15 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 405 Craig Wedge 6 Deborah Hatton Lane Otahuhu Page 407 Kip Marks PO Box 25920 St Heliers Page 409 Apt 51, 184 St Heliers Bay Bruce Anderson Road St Heliers Page 411 Susan Gibbs Trust - Susan Diana Bayly Gibbs 9 Dudley Rd Auckland Page 413 Jennifer Gill 59 Bay Road Glendowie Page 415 Carol Janice Frye 8 Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Page 417 Andrea Young 16 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 419 Benjamin Dallimore 59 Southern Cross Road Kohimarama Page 421 Chris Fairbairn 25 Melanesia Road Kohimarama Page 423 Matt Issolah 20 Palmer Crescent Mission Bay Page 425 Ewen Christie 2/8 Taranaki Road Auckland Page 428 Kaye Moxon 15 Codrington Crescent Auckland Page 430 Catherine Mountfort P.O. Box 125052 St Heliers Page 432 Berthine Bruinsma 10 Warwick Ave Titirangi Page 434 Alan Barraclough 9 Corinth Street Remuera Page 436 Amy Ang 2/4 Dinglebank Rd Mt Wellington Page 438 Warren George Whyte 26 Hopkins Crescent Kohimarama Page 440 Craig McLean Fraser 33 Vale Road St Heliers Page 442 Judith Anne Moresby 89 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 444 Hans Peter Haarhaus 46D Godden Crescent Mission Bay Page 446 Melissa Murphy 8 Hillview Avenue New Windsor 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 448 Tamba Carleton 9 Kenderdine Road Papatoetoe Page 450 Rachel Karen Mason-Thomas 2 Harvey Place St Heliers Page 452 Nigel Merrett 20 Ronaki Road Mission Bay Page 454 Abigail Elizabeth Milnes 47 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 456 Mau Wah Yung 38B John Rymer Place Kohimarama Page 458 Greg and Carolyn Snell 2/31 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 465 Chris Burnett 8 Colenso Place Mission Bay Page 467 Karin Galle 17 Kinsale Ave Auckland Page 469 Apt 17 Garden Court, 105 Carole Larraine Hutchinson Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 471 Karen Mason 46C Rawhitiroa Road Kohimarama Page 473 David Zander 1/32 Patteson Avenue Mission Bay Wai-o-taiki Page 475 Jane Jackson 4 Inglewood St Bay Page 477 Kay Merrett 20 Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Page 479 William Whitburn P O Box 125182 St Heliers Page 481 Maulik Thakkar 24 Parry St Sandringham Page 483 Dorothea Frances Derrick 11a Cullwick Road Mission Bay Page 485 Jeff Meltzer 46C Rawhitiroa Rd Auckland Page 487 Leanne Lowery P O Box 42010 Orakei Page 489 Nick Rees 17 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 491 Robyn Jane Thorn 4 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 493 Kaye Muriel Wilson 12a Melanesia Road Kohimarama Page 495 Annette Delugar 1/18 Walmsley Road Saint Heliers Page 497 Frank Douglas Bryson Thompson PO Box 133260 Eastridge Page 499 Richard B Oliphant P O Box 133.080 Mission Bay Page 501 Margaret E Oliphant P O Box 133.080 Mission Bay Page 503 Danita Nel 2/87 Tautari St Orakei Page 505 Rebekah Williams 26a Rukutai St Orakei Page 507 Mr Murray John Willis 65 Kurahaupo Street Orakei Page 509 Russell John Greenwood 32A Atkin Ave Mission Bay Page 511 Megan Jennings 82A Coates Ave Orakei Page 513 Philip Coop 56 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 517 Susan Mary Wood Hansen 4 Ronaki Road Mission Bay Page 521 George and Alison Clark 31 Piccadilly Place Kohimarama Page 523 Kimberly Englert 1 Cyclarama Crescent Massey Page 525 Elaine de la Rossi 2 / 43 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 527 Gerald Fava 2/29 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 529 David Chambers 1/88 Coates Ave Orakei Page 531 Lorraine Anne Seaton 2/12 Piccadilly Place Kohimarama Page 533 Vicky Young 35a, Riddell Road, Glendowie Page 535 Michael Wood 13 Paddington St Glen Innes Page 537 Barbara Foreman 39 The Parade Auckland Page 539 David Cattrall PO Box 25-413 St Heliers Page 541 Jennifer A Rowe 56 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 547 Neil Prestwood 101 Atkin Ave Mission Bay Page 549 Joanne Eldrett 10 Cullwick Road Mission Bay Page 551 Melinda Nolan 12 Bongard Rd Mission Bay Page 553 David and Judith Sheary 1/29 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 555 Di Holland 46 Comins crescent Mission Bay Page 557 Jane Carmichael 201 Riddell Rd Auckland Page 559 Naumai Hughes 11b Te Arawa St Orakei Page 561 Anne Martin 14 Melanesia Rd Kohimarama Page 563 Gared Thomas PO Box 133 1213 Eastridge Page 567 Generation Zero - Malcolm McCracken 35 Tahuhu Road Mt Wellington Page 569 Chris Kinley 125a Long Drive St Heliers Page 571 Daria Murray 132 Kohimarama Road Kohimarama Page 573 Michael Chambers 18/160 Kepa Road Orakei Page 575 Edward Plunkett 16 Tagalad Road Mission Bay Page 577 Richard Thomas Steel 52 Castleton Drive Howick Page 580 Julian Kennedy Mumford 54 Sprott Road Kohimarama Page 582 Yun du 9 Atkin Ave Mission Bay Tech Futures Lab future Masters 35 Liley Place Auckland Page 584 Student - Richard Hugh Cave Page 586 Dinko Martinovich 7 Anne Street Devonport Page 590 Judith Moresby 89 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 592 Simon and Bridget Tompkins PO Box 55273 Eastridge Page 594 Marcelo Alberto Lardies 61 Meadowbank road Meadowbank Page 596 Ernesto Henriod PO Box 25008 St Heliers Page 598 Rowena Bird 2/20 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Page 600 Ramon Lewis Apart 9i, 156 Vincent St Auckland CBD Page 602 Robert Kohler 110 Coates Avenue Orakei Page 604 Colleen Gene Behrens 14/1-5 Tamaki drive Mission Bay Page 606 Gay Scaniglia 1/13 Speight Road Kohimarama Page 608 Rex Maitland Findlay PO Box 25234 St Heliers Page 610 Ivan Martinovich 37B Marau Cresent Auckland 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 614 Quantock Trust - Desmond and Yukiko 10 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Hunt Page 616 Marian Beryl Vercoe 17A Goddem Cres Mission Bay Page 618 Victor Manuel Scaniglia 1/13 Speight Road. Kohimarama Page 620 Paul Malcolm Gillard and Anne-Marie Gillard 70 Atkin Avenue Mission Bay Page 622 Rosemary Thomas P O Box 25055 St Heliers Page 624 John Duncan 148A Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 626 Sven Derek Hansen 4 Ronaki Road Mission Bay Page 628 Judy Ranelle Skyrme 104 Atkin Ave Mission Bay Page 630 Blu Steven P.O. Box 9744 Newmarket Page 632 Susan Bowkett 77 Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 634 Kenneth Trevor Penniall and Roma 33A Marau Crescent Mission Bay Beatrice Penniall Page 636 Kim Ileene Crow 37C Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 639 Fairfax Moresby 89 Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 645 Joanne Henderson 22 Cullwick Road Mission Bay Page 647 Ralph Lyle Thompson 22 Cullwick Road Mission Bay Page 649 Pippa Styles 4/3 Towai St Auckland Page 651 Sheryl Doonan 291C Tamaki Drive Kohimarama Page 653 Residential Maintenance Services - Eileen Audrey Harris 16 Allum St Kohimarama Page 655 Jane Smart 19b Godden Crescent Mission Bay Page 657 Charles Robert Hadfield 2 Pembroke Crescent Glendowie Page 659 John and Jillian Hickey 2/32 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 661 Samantha Jane Becker 57 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 663 Katherine Peat #2-9 Eltham Road Kohimarama Page 665 Lee Clifford 132A Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 667 Felicity Buche 66a Ashby Avenue St Heliers Page 669 Stuart Murphy 8 Hillview Ave New Windsor Page 671 Roy Hawkins 42 Polygon Rd St Heliers Page 673 Don Liggins 51 Atkin Ave Mission Bay Page 675 Adam Hutchinson 25C Eltham Road Kohimarama Page 677 Murray Scott 22 Sayegh St St Heliers Page 679 Support Mission Bay Incorporated PO 106215 Auckland CBD Page 688 Jan Martin 84 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Page 690 Judith Melanie Simpson 16 Rukutai Street Mission Bay Page 692 Spark - Matt Cole 1205/145 Nelson Street Auckland Page 694 Thomas Alan Ryan 2/39A Marau Cres. Mission Bay 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 696 Kaylene Anne Subritzky P O Box 55209 Mission Bay Page 698 Neil Hawkes 14/171 Tamaki Drive Kohimarama Page 700 Warwick and Julie Lewis 4-27 Holgate Road Auckland Page 704 Stephanie Mary Thompson 161 Kohimarama Rd Kohimarama Page 706 Jon Frank Trust - Leslie Peter and Claire Ginette Bruell 36 Auckland Rd St Heliers Page 708 John Gilbert Beckett 9F Taranaki Road Kohimarama Page 711 Solita Ann Lincoln 98A Atkin Avenue Mission Bay Page 713 Robert Everitt P O Box 87070 Meadowbank Page 715 Ecoshield - John Walker 5 Palmer Crescent Mission Bay Page 717 Anne Tinson 57 Pembroke Crescent Glendowie Page 719 Leslee Sinton 87 Kurahaupo St Orakei Page 721 Jane Allen 14 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 723 Philip John Norman 3/37 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 725 Karen Ann Del 55 Coates Ave Orakei Page 727 Wendy Laraman PO Box 133365 Mission Bay Page 729 Eric Simpson G3 217 Kupe Street Orakei Page 731 Peter Kurz 17 Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Page 733 Karen O'Connell 2 Karori Cres Orakei Page 735 Raewyn Bennet 35a Allum Street Auckland Page 737 Harley Ogier 47b Rukutai Street Orakei Page 739 Jacqueline Whalley 47B Rukutai Street Orakei Page 741 Christine Olsen 20 Cullwick Road Mission Bay Page 743 Chris de Lautour 46 Garnet Rd Auckland Page 745 Margaret Armstrong Baker P.O.Box 55-029 Eastridge Page 747 Sharmian Firth 34 Ngake St. Orakei Page 749 Prudence Gay and Christopher Ross 3 Allum Street Kohimarama McConnell Page 751 Rowan Mark Carroll 40 Waimarie Street St Heliers Page 753 Strevens Services Ltd - Walter John 43 Arney Rd Remuera Strevens Page 755 Strand Management Ltd - Barry and 58 Allum St Auckland Rosemary Wallace Page 757 Teresa Mary Davies PO Box 25 262 St Heliers Page 759 Margaret Neill 11 Dudley Rd Mission Bay Page 761 Virginia Reeves 38 Speight Road Kohimarama Page 763 Hilary Mitchell 19 Holgate Road Kohimarama Page 765 Stephen Moore 14c Edmund St St Heliers Page 767 Gerald Avon Davies PO Box 25 262 St Heliers 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 769 Mrs. Deborah Wallis 112 Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 771 Barbara Jane Furley 1/26 Patteson Avenue Mission Bay Page 773 Maurice Addy 2/20 Patterson Ave Mission Bay Page 775 Jamie Simmonds 15 Balmoral Road Epsom Page 777 Andrea Geary 83A Kurahaupo Street Orakei Page 779 Annette Faigan 41 Awarua Crescent Orakei Page 781 Janet Vanderwee 37 Grampian Road St Heliers Page 783 Ellen Giles 55 Whytehead Crescent Auckland Page 785 Wendy Norman 3/37 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 787 Dianne Whiteacre 125a Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 789 Marina Sunde 3/ 289 Tamaki Drive Kohimarama Page 791 Christine Malaghan 3/29 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 793 Jolene Harrison 60 Divich Ave Te Atatu South Page 795 Elizabeth Eva Collins PO Box 133190 Mission Bay Page 797 Susan Nementzik 6 Sylvia Rd St Heliers Apartment 3 / 29 Tamaki Page 799 Neil Malaghan Drive Mission Bay Page 801 Brian McKay 4/14 Regent St Papatoetoe Page 803 Augusta Amadio 34A Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 808 Andrew Edward Reeves 34A Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 813 Emma Instone 68 Bay Road Glendowie Page 815 Peter Richard Morton 20 Ashby Ave St Heliers Page 817 David George Whalley 7 Pukenamu Road Rainbow Point Taupo Page 819 John Wardle 74 Melanesia Rd St Heliers Page 821 Teresa Mary Porter 27A Rangitoto Ave Remuera Page 823 Erika Whittome 105 Kupe St Orakei VOLUME THREE Page 827 Matthew Duder 9 Melanesia Rd Kohimarama Page 829 Ian Stewart Morton 59a Melanesia Road Auckland Page 831 Julie Morrison 2/29 Geraldine Place Kohimarama Page 833 Ross Taylor 17 Baddeley Ave Kohimarama Page 835 Peter and Leah Ashton 11 Penrhyn Rd. Mt Eden Page 839 Valerie Robinson 2/137 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 841 Keith George Savory 39 Waimarie St St Heliers Page 843 Michael Peter Joseph 13 Ronaki Road Mission Bay Page 852 Greig Staples 8A Howard Hunter Ave Saint Johns Page 854 Abraham Breetvelt 6/32 Marau Cres Mission Bay 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 856 Wendy Brown 4/35 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 858 Maureen Letitia Fletcher 7 Sayegh Street St Heliers Bay Page 860 Naresh Singhal 4/164 St Heliers Bay Rd St Heliers Page 862 Richard Charles Oddy 45 Tarawera Tce St Heliers Page 864 James Johnston 121A Kohimarama Rd Kohimarama Page 866 Louise Elizabeth Northorpe 11 Tautari Street Orakei Page 868 Cherie Cook 47B Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 870 Ronald Colin William Hamilton 32b John Rymer Place Kohimarama Page 872 Peter Terence Garner 40 Nihill Cres Mission Bay Page 874 Linda Jean Hall 1 Hopkins Crescent Auckland Page 876 Alison Stenberg 17 Allum Street Kohimarama Page 878 Christine J Malaghan 3/29 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 880 Rene Koome 20 Rautara Street Orakei Page 882 Howard James Small 11 Hawera Rd Kohimarama Page 884 Fiona Mackinnon 1/29 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 886 Beverley Caroline Verdon 20/105 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 888 Geraldine Simian 35 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 890 Anne Raeburn Willetts Garden Court, Apartment Mission Bay 18, 105 Tamaki Drive Page 892 William Francis Carlin 11 Robley Crescent Auckland Page 894 Alena Molina 105 Patteson Avenue Mission Bay Page 896 Lee Picot 33 Devore St St Heliers Page 898 D A Hopper 50B The Parade Auckland Page 900 Carol James PO Box 55031 Eastridge Page 902 Kathleen Evelyn Mary Ward 30A Jefferson Street Glendowie Page 904 Sue Wilcock 57 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 906 Ian Lester Stenberg 17 Allum Street Kohimarama Page 908 Iain Campbell 1/1 Walmsley Road St Heliers Page 910 Dean Ashley Crow 37C Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 912 Christine O Arlington 8/36 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 914 Mary Craig 111 Kohimarama Road Auckland Page 916 Graeme Frank Reeves 38 Speight Road Kohimarama Page 918 Juliet Yates MNZM 11 Berowald Place St Heliers Page 920 Megan Hirst 6/26 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Page 922 Noel Thompson 14 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 924 Jackie Greenwood 32A Atkin Avenue Mission Bay Page 926 Don and Wendy Stock 12A Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Page 933 Michael Tomlinson 30 Auckland Road St Heliers 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 935 Simon Luke Moriarty 101 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 937 David Bower PO Box 25141 St Heliers Page 939 Celia Coster 25 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 941 Gordon Whiteacre 125A Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 943 Shona Carol Brown 35 Comins Crescent Mission Bay Page 945 Kate Morgan-Rees 135 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 947 Philip Henley 81 Godden Cres Auckland Page 949 Hilary Ann Rayner 57 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 951 Mark Vanderwee 37 Grampian Road St Heliers Page 953 Mark Goldstine 38a Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Page 955 Lee Murray 14 Siota Crescent Kohimarama Page 957 Murray Thomas Lockhart and Robyn Patricia Lockhart 29 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 959 Nicola Sharyn Baillie 120 Allum St Kohimarama Page 961 Jeanette Thorne 88 Te Kawa Rd Greenlane Page 963 Mervyn and Madelene Strong 7 Palmer Crescent Mission Bay Page 965 Raiza and Stephen Hughes 1/24A Ronaki Road Mission Bay Page 967 Kate Price 7 Cullwick Road Mission Bay Page 969 Carolyn Fougere 6/10 Tagalad Road Mission Bay Page 971 Lucinda Mary Smith P O Box 26897 Remuera Page 973 Christoph Drefers 72 Kohimarama Road Kohimarama Page 975 Neal Lambess Baden Prebble 1/41A Ronaki Road Mission Bay Page 977 Robyn Campbell 7 Rutherford Tce Meadowbank Page 979 Leanne Tattle 97 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 981 Ormond Hall Trusts 1 &2 - Michael Charles Mackenzie Howat 3/36 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 983 Mark Timmins 97 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 985 Resident in Orakei - Beverley Anne Goodwin 77 Kurahaupo St Orakei Page 987 Stewart Selwyn Ferguson 18 Ronaki Road Mission Bay Page 989 David Barratt-Boyes 4/171 Tamaki Drive Kohimarama Page 991 Yukari Prebble 1/41A Roanki Road Mission Bay Page 993 Edward Cran 4/3 Towai Street St Heliers Page 995 Gillian Cran 2/29 Atkin Avenue Auckland Page 997 Walter Hart 24 Siota Crescent Kohimarama Page 999 Paul Martin Maskell PO Box 276-069 Manukau City Page 1001 Dave McCrorie 29 Comins Crescent Mission Bay Page 1003 Colin Stephen De Freyne 5 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 1005 Barrister - Anna Nathan care of James PO Box 25-160 Wellington Gardner-Hopkins Page 1011 Roy Bishop 1 / 40 Polygon Rd St. Heliers Page 1013 Helen Stroude Duder 3/19 Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 1015 Ivana Goljerova 124b Kohimarama Road Kohimarama Page 1017 Elizabeth Young PO Box 28663 Remuera Page 1019 Rajesh Jeram 10a Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Page 1021 Joanna Boileau 32 Hawera Rd Kohimarama Page 1023 Aruna Jeram 5 Marau Cresent Mission Bay Page 1025 Stephen Sampson 2/ 33 Ronaki Road Auckland Page 1027 Sheryl Anne Beange 15 Tarawera Tce St Heliers Page 1029 John Wilkinson 11 Cheverton Place Kohimarama Page 1031 Peter George Dormon 35a, Riddell Road Glendowie Page 1033 Karen Munro 3/87 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 1035 Winton Jones 20a Siota Cres Kohimarama Page 1037 Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents P O Box 3320 Shortland St, Association Inc - Gill Chappell (Vulcan Auckland Building Chambers) Page 1046 Lorna Stansfield 335 Tamaki Drive St Heliers Page 1048 Neil Brabant 7 Speight Rd Kohimarama Page 1050 Maria de los Angeles Rodriguez 29 Comins Crescent Mission Bay Gonzalez Page 1052 Peter Williamson 1/103 Tamaki Dr Mission Bay Page 1054 The Stephen Owen Family Trust - Craig Russell McVeagh, Level Auckland Brockliss 30, Vero Centre, 48 Central Shortland Street Page 1062 Julie Thompson 14 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 1064 Sara LaBrooy 10a Long Drive St Heliers Page 1066 9 Reihana Street Orakei Kenneth Palmer - [committee member Tamaki Drive Protection Society] Page 1078 Technology & Security Solutions Ltd- PO Box 25-813 St Heliers Bay Lucia Loy Page 1080 Pamela Eve Hayward 6 Long Drive St Heliers Page 1082 Rita Fay Radley (c/o – Helen Andrews, 34 Ronaki Road Mission Bay Berry Simons Page 1088 John Harper 80 Atkin Ave Mission Bay Page 1090 John Moyes 181 Tamaki Drive Kohimarama Page 1092 John Verdon 20/105 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 1094 Vicki Ohms 87A Selwyn Avenue Auckland Page 1096 Howard Roger Hill 10 Kirkmay Place St Heliers 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 1098 Petal and Dave Moran PO Box 42 020 Orakei Page 1100 Andrew Portman 4/121 Riddell Road Glendowie Page 1103 Susan Riddell PO Box 55144 Eastridge Page 1105 Annabel Goodson PO Box 133137 Eastridge Page 1107 Dave Foreman 39 The Parade Auckland Page 1109 K W Bywater 6/14 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 1111 Dongluo Jiang and Li Guo 52 Comins Crescent Mission Bay Page 1113 Mrs. Christine Mercia Savory 39 Waimarie Street St Heliers Page 1115 Sarah Clayton 15a Dudley Road Mission Bay Page 1117 Brian Keith Clayton 15A Dudley Road Mission Bay Page 1119 Elizabeth Sampson 2/33 Ronaki Road Auckland Page 1121 Lisa McMillan 1/70 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 1123 Bronwen Ray Arlington 8 / 12 Pukerangi Crescent Ellerslie Page 1125 Raewyn Johnson 45 Selwyn Avenue Auckland Page 1127 Richard Bruce Allen 14 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 1129 Michael James Walsh - St 3 Dingle Road St Heliers Heliers/Glendowie Residents Association Page 1133 Michael James Walsh 3 Dingle Road St Heliers

Page 1135 David E J Williams 6 Ronakai Road Mission Bay Page 1137 Andrew Brown 4/35 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 1139 Joyce Mary Frances Austin 120 Allum Street Kohimarama Page 1141 Anna Spreys 3/103 Tamaki Drive Auckland Page 1143 Bruce Sai Louie 4-34 Marau Cres Auckland Page 1145 John N McCallum 27 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 1148 John Coutts 59 Te Arawa Street Orakei Page 1153 Henrietta Wilkinson 11 Cheverton Place Kohimarama Page 1155 Rebecca Wu 2/99 Aotea Street Orakei Page 1157 Annette and Vidas Petraska 32a Melanesia Road Kohimarama Page 1159 Mihiri Abeysundara 72 Atkin Avenue Mission Bay Page 1161 Dianne Burgham 57 Te Arawa Street Orakei Page 1163 Mike Booth 28 Palmer Crescent Mission Bay Page 1165 Peter Murray Whyte PO Box 12772 Penrose Page 1167 Alice Skidmore 11 Nihill Cres Mission Bay Page 1169 Victoria Fulford 7 Melanesia Road Kohimarama Page 1171 Dean Fulford 7 Melanesia Road Kohimarama Page 1173 Talia Pua 103 Patteson Ave Mission Bay

75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 1175 Julie Zou 15A Utting Street Birkdale Page 1177 Geoffrey Edwin Faithfull 103 Aotea St Mission Bay Page 1179 Kenneth Leroy Norton PO Box 25904 St Heliers Page 1181 Via Kennedy 2 Gorgonzola Wendy Piemonte Milan 2006 Page 1183 Karin Speight 42b Rarangi Road St Heliers Page 1185 Nicola Jill Tollemache 2/10 Tagalad Rd Mission Bay Page 1187 Terry James Gibson 25 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 1189 Jill Hadfield 2 Pembroke Crescent Glendowie Page 1191 Jennie Field 1C Thatcher St Mission Bay Page 1193 Jane Boyd and Frank Barrow PO Box 42-144 Orakei Page 1195 David Michael Crown 16 Rukutai Street Mission Bay Page 1197 Robert Paque Benton 32B Rawhitiroa Rd Kohimarama Page 1199 Janne Margaret Pender 43 Bell Road Remuera Page 1201 Hannah Andrew 16 Park Hill Road Birkenhead Page 1203 Abigail Marshall 31A Baddeley Avenue Kohimarama Page 1205 Barbara Joan Poole 4/59 St. Heliers Bay Road St. Heliers Page 1207 Callum Thorpe 31A Baddeley Avenue Kohimarama Page 1209 Michele Jane Williams 59A Melanesia Rd Kohimarama Page 1211 Martin and Diana Sweetapple 3/37 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Page 1213 Mary Pope 2/36 Nihill Cres Mission Bay Page 1215 Catherine Mackenzie 100 Kohimarama Road Auckland Page 1217 Paul Mackenzie 100 Kohimarama Road Auckland Page 1219 Chris and Trish Ward 16 Alfriston Road Manurewa Page 1221 Frederick Ross Duder 3/19 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 1223 Graham Trevor Mathieson 97 Melanesia Road St Heliers Page 1225 Paul Wood P O Box 55110 Eastridge Mission Bay Page 1227 Adrian David Hynds 30 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay VOLUME FOUR Page 1229 Joo Boon Phua 103 Patteson Avenue Mission Bay Page 1231 Mary Lynne Scott 3D/18 Cranbrook Place Glendowie Page 1233 John Pearce 276A Victoria Avenue Remuera Page 1235 Robyn Bridget Hynds 30 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 1237 William Anthony Caughey and Shona E 125B Tamaki Drive Mission Bay R Caughey Page 1241 Jana Wood 34A Hawera Road Auckland Page 1243 David E J Williams 6 Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Page 1245 Elwyn Firth 34 Ngake Street Orakei 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 1247 Nicholas Payton 15 Norman Lesser Dr St Johns Page 1255 Laurel Teklich 13 Godden Cres Orakei Page 1257 Stuart Mackie 97 Atkin Avenue Auckland Page 1259 Louise Mary Davie 13 The Parade St Heliers Page 1261 Felicity Anne McCardle PO Box 133105 Mission Bay Page 1263 Angelika and Thomas Klotz 7 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 1265 Hewitson Hayes Consulting - Mel 7 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Hewitson Page 1267 Darren Jonathan Sharpe 18 Melanesia Road Kohimarama Page 1269 Peter Moses PO Box 106 419 Auckland Page 1275 Oliver Hay 9/33 Royal Terrace Sandringham Page 1277 Jeff Robertson 20 Whytehead Cres St Heliers Page 1280 Leith Alix Margaret Hamilton 32b John Rymer Place Kohimarama Page 1282 Trevor Alfred Goldschmidt 27 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 1284 Janet B McCallum 27 Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 1286 Lynn Plom PO Box 25578 St Heliers Page 1288 Kathleen Glass PO Box 25027 St Heliers Page 1290 L Julinda Simons PO Box 74604 Market Rd Greenlane Page 1292 Jane Lucinda Williams 15 Sage Road Kohimarama Page 1294 Douglas Kirby 99 Selwyn Avenue Auckland Page 1296 Sam Chow P O Box 5247 Auckland 1141 Page 1298 Yaqing Li 8a Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Page 1300 Martin Plom 5 Maheke Street St Heliers Page 1302 Paulette Benton-Greig 4/20 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Page 1305 Lyn Walker 17B Rukutai Street Orakei Page 1307 Matija Mira Lovrich and Marin Frank 16 Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Lovrich Page 1309 Peter Riddell 98 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 1311 Malcolm Walker 17B Rukutai St Orakei Page 1313 William Harrison Furley 73 Glengarry Rd Glen Eden Page 1315 Nicole Paula Pfeifhofer 73 Glengarry Rd Glen Eden Page 1317 Julie C Robson - Julie Robson Consulting 170 St Heliers Bay Road Auckland

Page 1319 Angela Robinson 2/39 Hawera Rd Kohimarama Page 1321 Samuel Goldstine Mission Bay Auckland Page 1323 Mark O'Connell 2 Karori Crescent Orakei Page 1328 Felicity Berry 2/26 Patteson Ave Auckland Page 1330 Roger Seaton 2/12 Piccadilly Place Kohimarama Page 1332 Jillian Ruth Brewis 39 Polygon Road St Heliers 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 1334 Iyanthi Wijayanayake 287A Kepa Road Mission Bay Page 1336 Monica Tattersall 5/36 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 1338 Nick Brightwell Atkin Avenue 31, Flat 1 Auckland Page 1340 John Gilbert Beckett 9F Taranaki Road Kohimarama Page 1343 Jim Arnold 3/12 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Page 1345 Paul Robinson 2/39 Hawera Rd Kohimarama Page 1347 Michael Barrie Swift 2/217 Tamaki Drive Kohimarama Page 1349 PO BOX 55071 Eastridge Mission Bay Tennis Club - Huw Beynon Page 1351 Carol Margaret Archie 1/4 Taranaki Road Kohimarama Page 1353 Emeritus Professor Michael Gedye 87A Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 1355 Ian Hall 2 Athol Place Auckland Page 1357 Kicki Hall 2 Athol Place St Heliers Page 1359 April Glenday 53 Prospect Tce Mt Eden Page 1361 Rachel Goldstine 38A Ronaki Road Mission Bay Page 1363 Patricia Ann Bonney 12 Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Page 1365 Jacqueline Francis Everett 2/209 Tamaki Drive Kohimarama Page 1367 Meadowbank and St Johns Residents 48A Meadowbank Road Auckland Association - Tim Duguid Page 1369 Tema Pua 103 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Page 1371 Greg Mikkelsen 106 Long Drive St Heliers Page 1373 Maren Ariane Kracke PO Box 25-022 St Heliers Page 1375 Maryann Hope 90B Kohimarama Rd Auckland Page 1377 Dennis Millard 1-1 Rarangi Rd St Heliers Page 1379 Annette Short c/o Gold Girls 55c Atkin Ave Mission Bay Page 1381 Jacque Lloyd 37 Piccadilly Place Kohimarama Page 1383 Miles Cain 98 Allum St Kohimarama Page 1385 Ronald Macmillan Craig PO Box 47830 Ponsonby Page 1387 Stefano La Cava 90 Aotea St Orakei Page 1389 St Heliers & Glendowie Residents PO Box 25 225 St Heliers Association - Guy King Page 1391 Elizabeth Motion 18B Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 1393 Wendy Walker 9 Cullwick Road Mission Bay Page 1395 Harold Frederick Short 55C Atkin Ave Mission Bay Page 1397 Matthew Buer 15B McArthur Avenue St Heliers Page 1399 Lesley Cork 22A West Tamaki Road St Heliers Page 1402 Bruce Harland 90 Rukutai Street Mission Bay Page 1404 Adult Literacy Tamaki Auckland Inc - 25 Mayfair Place Glen Innes Pete Davis 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 1406 Linda Jane Fletcher 39 Dudley Road Mission Bay Page 1408 Colin Douglas Church 24 Dudley Road Mission Bay Page 1410 Kerryanne Tisdall 41 Codrington Crescent Auckland Page 1412 Philip Yock 2/42 Reihana Street Orakei Page 1414 Martina Bohm 10c Holgate Rd Kohimarama Page 1416 Gavin McCardle 3/41A Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Page 1418 Graeme Clark 14 Burrows Avenue Parnell Page 1420 Hazel Mignonne Lanyon 1F /82 Aotea Street Orakei Page 1422 Susan Diana Sim 77A Patteson Avenue Mission Bay Page 1424 Dean Buchanan 35A Rawhitiroa Road Kohimarama Page 1426 Urban Legacy and Partners Limited Level 2, 103 Carlton Gore Newmarket Rd Page 1428 Diana Kassabova 47/c Nihill Cres Mission Bay Page 1430 Raewyn Johnson 45 Selwyn avenue Auckland Page 1432 Henry Leung 12A Cullwick Road Mission Bay Page 1434 Jennifer Duder 9 Melanesia Road Kohimarama Page 1436 Maurice Prendergast 3/35 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 1438 Kerry Prendergast 3/35 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 1440 Barbara Kay Clephane 56 Clonbern Road Remuera Page 1442 Jean Lewis 45 Lammermoor Drive St Heliers Bay Page 1444 Diane Robinson Po Box 42067 Orakei Page 1446 Sally Wallis 3/37 Tarawera Terrace St Heliers Page 1448 Anthony Gates Villa 8, Summerset at Mt Wellington Heritage Park, 8 Harrison Road Page 1450 Karen Chretien 22 Bay Road St Heliers Page 1452 John Kenneth MacRae and Julie 78 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Elizabeth Kennedy Page 1454 Penelope Jane Coman 19 Palmer Crescent Mission Bay Page 1456 Richard John Leckinger 1/191 Park Road Grafton Page 1459 Allan and Lesa McGilvray 17 Holgate Road Kohimarama Page 1461 Douglas and Denise Edwards 66A Rukutai St Orakei Page 1463 Fleur Heather Nixon 101B Rukutai St Orakei Page 1465 ApiNZ - Jude Earles 73 Melanesai Road Kohimarama Page 1467 Dawn O'Connell-Pfahlert 43 Hanene St St Heliers Page 1469 Joanne Hutchinson 3/101 Kohimarama Road Kohimarama Page 1471 Gillian Clark 41B Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 1473 Emma Treadwell 41B Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 1475 John Cutler 10 Sage Road Kohimarama 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 1477 Stewart Paul Hawkins 75 Vale Road St Heliers Page 1479 Tony and Sue Knighting 83a Selwyn Avenue Auckland Page 1481 Christine Carroll 40 St Heliers Bay Rd St Heliers Page 1483 Caroline Louise Shepherd 75 Vale Road St Heliers Page 1485 Richard A Mann 38B Atkin Avenue Mission Bay Page 1487 Lisa Martin 14 Melanesia Rd Kohimarama Page 1489 Michael Lawrie 80 Rukutai Street Orakei Page 1491 P O Box 42274 Orakei John David Hole and Susan Janet Hole Page 1493 Robyn Lynette Millar 11 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 1495 Jules Turner 38B Atkin Ave, Mission Auckland Bay Page 1497 Colleen June Turner P O BOX 133278 Auckland Page 1499 Brenda Higgins 301/8 Turua Street St Heliers Page 1501 The Character Coalition Inc - Sally 39 Hawera Road Kohimarama Elizabeth Hughes Page 1505 Brenda Higgins 301/8 Turua Street St Heliers Page 1507 Brett Frank Lornie 237 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Page 1509 Jacqueline Straffon 4 Emerald St Auckland Page 1511 Hilary Dineen 15D Waimarie St St Heliers Page 1513 Henry Hawkins 75 Vale Road St Heliers Page 1515 Sally Anne Lornie 43A Marau Cresent Mission Bay Page 1517 Sally Anne Lornie 43A Marau Cresent Mission Bay Page 1519 Paul Oei 53 Codrington Cresent Mission Bay Page 1521 Kathleen Siobhan Morrissey 3/59 Ballarat Street Ellerslie Page 1523 Ann Louise Quickenden 45 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 1525 John Mackenzie 49 Baddeley Avenue Kohimarama Page 1527 John Edwin Abbott 51 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 1529 Annabelle Jerram 14 Keswick Crescent Huntington Hamilton Page 1531 Roger John Richardson 56 Godden Crescent Mission Bay Page 1533 Lesley Jacqueline Abbott 51 Coddington Cres Auckland Page 1535 Helen Mackenzie 49 Baddeley Avenue Kohimarama Page 1537 Andy Kilgallon 6 Etherege Place Howick Page 1539 Campbell Waugh 29 Tawa Road Onehunga Page 1541 Melanie Abbott 51 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 1543 Rachel Buer 15B McArthur Avenue St Heliers Page 1545 Andrew John Kilgallon c/o Next Gen 2/58 Elliot street Howick Places Ltd Page 1547 Lisa Allcott and Keryn Kliskey 18 Godden Cres Auckland 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay Tuesday 30 July 2019, Wednesday 31 July 2019, Thursday 01 August 2019, Friday 02 August 2019 and Tuesday 06 August 2019 Page 1549 Carolyn 5 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Page 1551 Jeffrey Guy Thomson 12 Awaroa Road Helensville Page 1553 Janet Williams 18 Siota Crescent Kohimarama Page 1555 Sarah Jane Travaglia 154 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Page 1557 Nigel Hewitson 7 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Page 1559 City Stays Auckland - Hannah 198A Point Chevalier Road Point Mcquilkan Chevalier Page 1561 Sue Teo 103 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Page 1563 Jan Williams - William Justin Williams 18 Siota Crescent Kohimarama

Page 1565 Philippa Collins 46B Rawhitiroa Rd Kohimarama Page 1567 Estelle Tant PO Box 25601 St Heliers Page 1569 Orakei Community Association PO BOX 9932 Newmarket Page 1571 James Timothy Knox Jerram P O Box 25033 St Heliers Page 1573 Andreas Holdings - Roger Stirling 75 Queen Street Auckland CBD Page 1575 Brian James Shackleton PO Box 25-022 St. Heliers Page 1577 Sam Jerram 249 Mt Pleasant Rd Mt Pleasant Christchurch Page 1579 Roy Clifford Clements 12A Apirana Avenue Glen Innes Page 1581 Alyssa Pua 103 Patteson Avenue Mission Bay Page 1583 Mark Duncan Dwen PO Box 25772 St Heliers Page 1585 Hans Ernst Kracke and Helga Emma PO Box 25 022 St Heliers Kracke Page 1587 L Lawson 10a Puna Street Orakei Page 1589 Margaret King 25 Clarendon Road St Heliers Page 1591 David Michael Byrne 32A Kohimarama Road Kohimarama Page 1593 R Jerram Unit 4/9 Marau Cres Mission Bay Page 1596 Kathryn Ellen Davies PO Box 55 265 Eastridge Page 1606 Civic Trust Auckland - Audrey van Ryn PO Box 74049 Greenlane Page 1608 James Timothy Knox Jerram P. O Box 25033 St Heliers Page 1612 Alexandra Dempsey 33 Te Arawa Street Orakei Page 1616 Christian Giannotti 12a Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 1617 Anne Gifford 125 Selwyn Ave Mission Bay Page 1618 Navalneet Anand 10 Calcite Ave Flat Bush From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 9:16 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2619] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Application description: Drive Holdings Limited has applied for resource consent to demolish all existing buildings on the land, construct seven new multi-level buildings extending across the entire area, providing for retail, food & beverage, entertainment (cinema) and residential activities. Land use consent and a ground-water diversion permit is required and assessed together as a discretionary activity under the Auckland Unitary Plan (OIP). Closing date for submissions: Midnight, 10 October 2018.

Submitter contact details

Full name: Matthew Duder

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +6421675960

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 9 Melanesia Rd, Kohimarama Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? Height - The allowable height under the Unitary plan is 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form. This development is up to 28m All buildings to the east of the development are limited to 8m, so that 20m-28m buildings will really stand out

1 827 and dominate the surrounding area even more. Future Growth - Mission Bay is expected to grow. The Local Centre zone is expected to provide local facilities to support that growth. This development reduces the floor area for hospitality and retail by a substantial amount, undermining the intent of the zone and reducing the level of facilities to local residents and visitors.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 828 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 9:31 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2622] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: IAN STEWART MORTON

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021612452

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 59a melanesia road auckland auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I OBJECT TO THE WHOLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

What are the reasons for your submission? The development height of 28m is much higher than the height allowed in the Unitary Plan. If the Unitary Plan 'rules' are ignored in this instance this will set a precedent for all future applications. Why did we go through the long and

1 829 costly process of developing a Unitary Plan if it is not to be adhered to so soon after implementation. The amount of retail and hospitality outlets are reduced from the present level and these are a major attraction for Mission Bay. The bulk of the development will be unsightly and change the character of Mission bay in a detrimental manner. Wherever there are high buildings i find they create a wind tunnel effect and winds are increased, this is not pleasant. Two basement levels going way below the water table, probably below even high tide level. Will I as a rate payer have to pay for flood mitigation to preserve the integrity of these basements? I think it will cost the Council additional monies in the future when (not if) these basements flood. I have heard a rumour that the cinema may not be built even though it is shown on the submitted plans. This would be a great loss to the area and character and village 'feel' of Mission Bay and the greater Eastern Bays area.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? DECLINE THE WHOLE OF THE APPLICATION.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 830 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 9:45 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2623] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Julie Morrison

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 022 65182

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/29 Geraldine Place Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height & Character

What are the reasons for your submission? The development is excessive and not in keeping with the character of the area

1 831 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I am all for development at Mission Bay and it sorely needs it. However, that being said I think the height of the development is excessive and it needs a storey removed. It should not exceed the height restrictions proposed by the unitary plan or what is the point of the Unitary plan? In addition it needs a more Art Deco flavour to reflect the character of the buildings currently there. It is a very cheap design at present and it needs more retail. Mission Bay is sorely in need of decent restaurants not a cheap mall and a pile of apartments. While MB needs a development this one looks cheap and not in the best interests of the local community.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 832 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 9:45 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2624] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Ross Taylor

Organisation name: Mr

Contact phone number: 0274994154

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 17 Baddeley Ave, Kohimarama Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I have an issue with the height of the Development. After considerable time ,effort and best intentions the Council arrived at an Unitary Plan. This development would be completely opposed to that plan. This is an integrity issue above all else.

1 833 What are the reasons for your submission? The Unitary plan must be adhered to. Much discussion was held over height at waterfront and a conclusion was arrived at. How can the Council even contemplate a change. Mission Bay is a very popular destination for Aucklanders. They go there to the beach as families and use the restaurants and public support businesses. Why should a few apartment dwellers who do not exist at present disadvantage others as a means of extracting more profit for a Developer. We need Developers but they must abide by the rules and the rules on height on our beach fronts are clear.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the proposal based on non-compliance with the Unitary plan. Abide by the rules or go away. I am not apposed to the development or design just the height.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 834 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 9:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2626] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Submission on application by Drive Holdings - 6-10-2018 (3).pdf

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Peter and Leah Ashton

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 6388698 021419090

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11 Penrhyn Rd. Mt. Eden Auckland 1024

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height Infringement and overall building design

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 835 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application or alternatively impose conditions which avoid remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the proposal

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information: Submission on application by Drive Holdings - 6-10-2018 (3).pdf

2 836 SUBMISSION ON PUBLICLY NOTIFIED APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT BY DRIVE HOLDINGS LIMITED (BUN60324987, LUC60324989 & WAT60325010)

To: Auckland Council

Name of submitter: Peter and Leah Ashton

1. This is a submission on an application from Drive Holdings Limited for a resource consent to demolish all existing buildings on the land at 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay, and construct seven new multi-level buildings extending across the entire area, providing for retail, food & beverage, cinema and residential activities (“Proposal”)

2. We are not a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308B of the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. This submission concerns the entire Proposal.

Reasons for this submission

4. We opposes the Proposal because it:

a. Is contrary to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991;

b. Does not promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources;

c. Does not enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety;

d. Does not appropriately avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects;

e. Does not have particular regard to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values, the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment;

f. Is contrary to, or fails to properly apply, the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan and other relevant planning documents.

5. Without limiting the generality of the above:

a. Given the significance of the site and its gateway location, development will have a substantial and enduring effect on the amenity values and character of Mission Bay. A precedent will be set and a strong contextual design response is required;

837 b. The Proposal seeks to substantially exceed the prescribed height limit in the Auckland Unitary Plan, particularly on the prominent corner of Patteson Avenue and Tamaki Drive. We consider that this height exceedance must be justified by exemplary design;

c. There are fundamental issues with the overall architectural design of the Proposal. It fails to make any meaningful reference to the architectural vernacular and planned character of Mission Bay, or the natural context of the coastal environment;

d. The design appears to be derivative of local developments from the 1980’s which are not good exemplars of local character. It fails to properly respond to its location within the local centre and as such, the proposal fails to make a positive contribution to the streetscape of Mission Bay and will not maintain or enhance amenity values;

e. We are not opposed to appropriate re-development of this site and we appreciate that the site has been zoned for a higher intensity of development under the Auckland Unitary Plan. However, we consider that the applicant should reconsider the proposal and produce a revised design which appropriately responds to the site’s context.

Relief sought

6. We seek the following decision from Auckland Council:

a. Decline the application; or

b. In the alternative, impose conditions to better avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the Proposal.

7. We wish to be heard in support of its submission.

8. If others make a similar submission, we will consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing.

Peter and Leah Ashton

Electronic address for service of submitter: [email protected] Telephone: 6388698 021419090 Contact person: Peter Ashton

838 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 10:00 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2627] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Valerie Robinson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274780711

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/137 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: 1. Height 2. Design 3. Bulk 4. Environ impact

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. The proposal grossly exceeds the Unitary Plan height in 7 of the 8 proposed buildings. 2. The too modern square shape of the buildings, negatively impacts on the remaining village buildings. 3. The overall bulk literally 'swallows' the

1 839 village and could set a precedent for the whole of the area & Tamaki Drive. 4. The nature of Mission Bay would be irretrievably changed. This is an area for relaxation & fun. Retail shops and even more vehicle parking, would be sacrificed.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the proposal unless it complies with the Unitary Plan. No consideration for the rising sea levels as this area could be prone to flooding - see Council modelling.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 840 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 10:01 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2628] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Keith George Savory

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +6421942176

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 39 Waimarie St St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the application as it does not comply with the Unitary Plan

What are the reasons for your submission? The height is far in excess of that allowed in the Unitary Plan. The current design is far too big and would have an unreasonable dominant influence in the area.

1 841 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I am not against redevelopment but the project must comply with the Unitary Plan as it currently stands.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 842 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 10:30 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2632] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Mission Bay 2.pdf

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Michael Peter Joseph

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 528 305

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 13 Ronaki Road Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Please see attached submission

What are the reasons for your submission? Please see attached submission 1 843 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Please see attached submission

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information: Mission Bay 2.pdf

2 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 10:31 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2633] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Greig Staples

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021371636

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 8A Howard Hunter Avenue, Saint Johns, Auckland 1072 Auckland Auckland 1072

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I am in support of the Mission Bay development. The current facilities are dated and the retail offering uninspiring. I look forward to seeing a development that will endure for generations of Aucklanders and provide a quality retail hub to the east of the city center. I believe this is an opportunity to introduce world-class new infrastructure to the city and we need focus on the benefit it offers to the city as a whole, rather than the perceived disadvantages to a handful of residents

1 852 What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Approve resource consent for the proposed Mission Bay development.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 853 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 10:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2637] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Abraham Breetvelt

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021723650

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 6/32 Marau Cres Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height and visual impact

What are the reasons for your submission? We live on the west side of an apartment block hard up against where these buildings are proposed. We mainly get

1 854 the afternoon sun but this will be blocked if the building goes ahead. We will also lose our privacy as the balconies of the proposed units look straight into our home.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We would like to make sure that the Unitary Plan height allowance is not exceeded and that towards the Marau Cres side the building height is lowered so that we do not lose the sun in the afternoons

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 855 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 11:00 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2642] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Wendy Brown

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021883262

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4/35 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Some buildings exceeding the local centre zone height limit Reduced car parking for residents

What are the reasons for your submission? I support the building meeting the height limit of the unitary plan, which was a long process and consultation and approval on such things was agreed for many reasons, hence the plan.

1 856 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Only approve the allowed height of all of the buildings as per the unitary plan. Provide local residents, particularly in streets directly behind the shops/eateries etc with residential parking stickers.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 857 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 11:01 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2643] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Maureen Letitia Fletcher

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 535 536

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 7 Sayegh Street St Heliers Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Ratepayers were assured that the controversial Unitary Plan, which Council introduced, would ensure a unified approach to future development in Auckland City. The Plan has specific guidelines for developers. The current proposal for Mission Bay exceeds these guidelines by a massive proportion. The Plan is supposed to state the boundaries in which new consents would be considered - the Mission Bay proposal should not even be considered in it's current form. The height allowable in the Plan is 16 - 18 metres - this proposal is up to 28 m. The bulk of the

1 858 building is not compatible with the surrounding area - this is a coastal suburb. The buildings that currently occupy the site do need upgrading - but they should be upgraded in keeping with the nature of the location. We need UNIQUE we do not need GENERIC design. The reason people visit Mission Bay is because it is unique - there are only about 3 coastal villages left in Auckland City. St Heliers - only just - Devonport and Mission Bay. Why do we have to become another Gold Coast - if we go down this track you could be anywhere in the world. The height will create wind problems - Christchurch has some fantastic new buildings in the City Centre - but people are reluctant to spend a lot of time there because of the WIND TUNNELS that have resulted from `no forward thinking' on behalf of the developers. Flooding has been an issue in Mission Bay for years. The fact that this development is proposing basement levels seems ludicrous. The ratepayers will end up having to face the cost of remedying the situation if this occurs in the future. The lack of local amenities is not offset by the supposed increase in housing. There was a time in the 1980's when Mission Bay boasted in excess of 14 DIFFERENT types of shops and facilities - in other words a complete village. Over the years this has been eroded to the point it is in today - very few local shops - and this development will decrease the numbers even more. Parking is a problem now - it is not good enough to argue that a huge carpark will be provided - what is the waterfront for? The enjoyment of the natural environment? - or the parking of cars in a ugly carpark? My main objection is - this proposal is the `thin edge of the wedge' - if approved it will create a precedent in the area that will NEVER BE ABLE TO BE REVERSED!

What are the reasons for your submission? See above -

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The current proposal should be declined. Any future application should comply (at the very least) with the Unitary Plan.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 859 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 11:31 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2651] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Naresh Singhal

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 039 1008

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4/164 St Heliers Bay Rd St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: 1) The proposed height of all buildings, except one, exceeds the 16 m livable height prescribed in the Unitary Plan. 2) The potential loss of existing amenities (e.g., loss of cinema (if deemed financially non-viable. By whom? Over what timeframe?), a decrease in "effective" car park spaces on Tamaki Drive - a hot spot area for the whole of Auckland!, loss of view to other households). 3) A substantial increase in traffic density on Tamaki Drive (which is already congested) with no alternatives proposed to effectively manage the clogging.

1 860 What are the reasons for your submission? The reasons are listed above. The benefits are limited to the property developer (and are of purely monetary gains) and will result in significant negative impacts on existing residents and community. The wording of commitments by the developer is misleading and leaves ample room to back out - the lack of transparency raises questions about intent and willingness to deliver to common good.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The Council needs to ensure compliance with its Unitary plan, and to ensure the current standard of living of the residents is not compromised.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 861 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 11:31 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2652] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Richard Charles Oddy

Organisation name: none

Contact phone number: 09 585 0996 027 293 6096

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 45 Tarawera Tce St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the Application in its entirety. It is a disgrace and should not be considered for a moment

What are the reasons for your submission? It is way above the unitary plan height allowance, which in turn is far too high in my view. An exception should not be made. What is the point in having a Plan if exceptions are made ? Visually it will ruin Mission Bay. The maximum

1 862 permitted height in that area should be no greater that the current buildings; a greater height would dominate the area and spoil it completely. Currently the features of Mission Bay are the Reserve with fountain, the beach and the Mission House. An eight storey building, or even a four storey would be entirely inappropriate. Leave it as it is. Don't ruin it as Auckland Council has ruined so much of Auckland. If the Council in its stupidity allows this then there would be no reason not to allow other exemptions and monstrosities.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject this Application completely. Leave the area as it is. Save Mission bay from developers who only interest is making money (and Auckland Councils only interest seems to be to gather more rates.) Whilst more housing is required, this is inappropriate. Don't ruin Mission Bay as Auckland Council has allowed St Heliers to be ruined. Auckland Council's many bad decisions include: destruction of Durham mill, destruction of buildings on upper Parnell Road which had stood for close to 100 years. The replacement buildings don't fit the character of the area and nor does the Mission Bay development.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 863 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 12:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2655] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: James Johnston

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095212183

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 121A Kohimarama Rd auckland auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The adherence to the Unitary Plan for the area regarding height and visual impact.

What are the reasons for your submission? I firmly believe the height restrictions mandated in the UP should be complied with and no departure is warranted at this time. The effort that went into developing the UP and the consultation was done for a purpose and was justified

1 864 and represented the feeling and outcome local residents wanted. To consider ignoring this height aspect and outcome is not justified in any form and goes against the local community wishes.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Accept the logic and height restrictions in the unitary plan as it stands today and enforce that for the proposed development. The new amenities will be positive but any departure to the height restriction will not only impact on the area as it is today BUT importantly create a precedent for future applications to go against the Unity Plan in other area of the Mission Bay, Kohimarama and St Heliers Bay locations.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 865 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 12:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2659] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Louise Elizabeth Northorpe

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5242605

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11 Tautari Street Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposal fails to maintain the relaxed seaside character of Mission Bay, which is it's charm, and the reason it is an iconic destination in Auckland for locals and visitors. The proposed development mars the beauty of Mission Bay,

1 866 and with the reduction in retail combined with the increase in expensive apartments will make it less accessible and less attractive than it is currently instead of the reverse.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 867 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 12:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2660] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Cherie Cook

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0276986099

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 47B Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? Effect on the valued open space and character of Mission Bay - Mission Bay is the most important Auckland City Harbour Beach. Selwyn Reserve is a valued green space with the Melanesian Mission House, the Fountain, the

1 868 children's playground and Pohutukawa and providing a place for people from all over Auckland to socialise. It is also on the tourist route for overseas visitors. It is vital to protect this valued space. Mission Bay is an amphitheatre, the proposed development would dominate the horizon from the Reserve and all surrounding areas e.g. Bastion Point. It would be a tragedy to have Selwyn Reserve, the beach and other scenic areas dominated by large buildings as occurs in some overseas beach environments. Proposed plan doesn't meet Unitary Plan height requirements. Proposed buildings (apart from one) height up to 28m, way over the allowable height in the Unitary Plan of 6m + 2m allowance for roof form. If this proposal went ahead it would set a precedent undermining the rules and intent of the Unitary Plan. The site is adjacent to residential areas, including single housing zone and character buildings. Buildings east of the development are limited to 8m - the 20m-28m building will dominate the surrounding area. The effects of such tall buildings together hasn't been considered in the plan e.g. wind effects. Mission Bay retail area could benefit from being upgraded and increased space - this development reduces the floor area for hospitality and retail. The bulk of the development is for apartments. It could be said that this proposal will be important for increasing Auckland's much needed housing. The retail price of the proposed apartments in this development will not be in the price range to meet this need. Increased housing and driveways from this development will increase traffic flow at the Patterson Ave/Tamaki Drive junction and Marau Crescent. Parking and traffic flow are already an issue and will only increase with the size of this development. Mission Bay is experiencing more frequent flooding from high tides that NIWA have advised will increase with climate change. Current flooding has been reaching the buildings on Tamaki Drive. This development is within the Council's Coastal inundation zone yet it has two basement levels including retail space below sea level. I am concerned about the effects of flooding e.g. insurance, and worried that the cost to protect from flooding will eventually fall on ratepayers. It is important that Auckland Council is proactive in recognizing and plans to mitigate the effects of climate change and flooding when considering the proposal for this new development. If this development is to be a gateway to Mission Bay as proposed by the Developer, then it would seem that they have in mind another development on the other side of Paterson Avenue/Tamaki Drive. The future effects of such a concept need to be considered when viewing the current proposal. The dominance of tall, over powering buildings on Tamaki Drive and effects on the amphitheatre nature of Mission Bay and the open space of Selwyn Reserve to the sea and views across the harbour.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 869 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 12:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2664] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Ronald Colin William HAMILTON

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095289624

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 32b John Rymer Place Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The intent of the proposal is inappropriate for the site chosen for the development.

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. Mission Bay is a natural amphitheatre and its focus is on the beach and the recreational environs. 2. A high-rise building will detract from the amphitheatre characteristic. 3. High-rise tower blocks will create wind tunnel effects in

1 870 the vicinity . 4. Adding dense housing to the area will do nothing to add to the alleviation of Auckland’s housing problem. 5. The likely occupants of the apartments will not diminish the demand for low cost housing. 6. Service facilities will be reduced, compared with the current availability. 7. The loss of public parking will add to the pressure on parking facilities caused the area’s attraction to visitors. The proposed parks will most likely be used by apartment tenants. 8. Traffic density is already high at certain times of the day and evenings. 9. The proposal is totally inconsistent with the Unitary Plan.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To disapprove the proposal.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 871 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 1:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2668] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Peter Terence Garner

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 921693

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 40 Nihill Cres Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I completely object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? The height and overall bulk of the proposal will not create a "minor" impact on the Mission Bay shopping precinct .Rather , it will have a major and negative impact on the area. It fails to comply with the Unitary Plan height allowed of

1 872 16m + 2m allowance for roof form. It's dominance of the Mission Bay shopping and entertainment precinct will be severe . It will diminish in a material way the character of the Mission Bay shopping and beach precinct and would be materially different in size to adjoining residential buildings which contribute in a positive and effective way to the overall character of this Mission Bay precinct which is a cornerstone of the whole beach and Bay. The proposes development will be too intrusive of the outlook currently enjoyed by patrons of the beach and grassed parkland immediately opposite. The potential loss of the cinema facility is a serious negative . The current four screen complex is a major draw card for locals and trades very well . It is untenable to not have a cinema operating within this entertainment precinct. One can only speculate as to the flow on implications of further requests for departure from the Unitary Plan should Auckland Council approve this application. Either we have a Unitary Plan or we do not . Declination of this application will give certainty to developers and local residents alike , so that all interested parties can move forward in a cohesive and less confrontational way ,which in turn should speed up compliant redevelopment in the short to medium term. The proposed development lacks merit in its design and is unremarkable in character and style. It is in no way sympathetic to the immediate surrounds of existing buildings with its art deco flair . Given the propensity of the Tamaki Drive area generally to flood in high tides/high winds , how will it be structurally and operationally viable to allow the proposed development to have retail and carparking facilities below sea level. ( which risk may be exacerbated by rising sea level with global warming ). I understand there has been no modeling of wind factors that could arise form the size and height of the proposed development. This is short sighted and unacceptable.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The proposal is so far out of sync with the needs and desires of locals and is so non-compliant with the Unitary Plan , it should be declined in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 873 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 1:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2669] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Linda Jean Hall

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095215360

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1 Hopkins Crescent Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The height of the buildings. Keep the exisiting number of public places to eat. The cinema - no guarantee that it will be included in the plan. The huge difference in appearance within a residential area

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 874 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To reduce the height of the buildings. Guarantee that the cinema will exist and be the same size with the same number of screens. Ensure the same number of public eating places. Consider the huge difference these buildings will make to the character of Mission Bay.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 875 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 1:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2677] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Alison Stenberg

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5219577

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 17 Allum Street Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Allowable height over the unitary plan rules Creates a dangerous precedent for all Tamaki Drive properties Dominates the whole area Undermines the character of the area, refer unitary plan again Reduces the amount of area for commercial activities available Reduces carparking Marau Cres already not able to cope with traffic volume at any time of day Creates a wind tunnel esp for the restaurants Flooding happens regularly along the Waterfront especially in basement car parks Very much against losing the cinema which will not be replaced if ‘not financially viable

1 876 What are the reasons for your submission? As above

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Refuse the whole application and ask the developer to start again referring to the unitary plan on all aspects

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 877 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 1:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2681] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Christine J Malaghan

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 962 721

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/29 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay AUCKLAND 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The current unitary plan is 16 m, with a 2m allowance for the roof form. The proposed development is 28m The proposal is way too high & setting a precedent for future development in Mission Bay.

What are the reasons for your submission? This building is way too tall and bulky for Mission Bay. The development dominates its surroundings. This dominance

1 878 undermines the character of the Mission Bay foreshore and the entire suburb. Mission Bay is an amphitheatre, with the beach, Selwyn Reserve and the pohutukawa as the stage, and the sea, Bean Rock and Rangitoto as the backdrop

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 879 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 2:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2685] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Rene Koome

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021813060

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 20 Rautara Street Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole Application

What are the reasons for your submission? A development of this scale will forever change the whole feel and visual appeal of the greater Mission Bay area. It will completely dominate all other aspects of the area. People from all over Auckland come here to get a sense of

1 880 getting out of the city. This will be lost with a development of this scale / height. Auckland should be preserving the few older iconic buildings where it can. These should at least be incorporated in the design. There will be less space for hospitality to cater for the growing local residents/community and visitors. I can't see any reason the rules and guidelines from the unitary plan should be broken without and decent return for the Mission Bay area or the greater Auckland area. If this can go ahead any other developer can do whatever is the most profitable option regardless what the Unitary plan allows for.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the whole application as it is. Keep to the Unitary plan. That's is what it is for!

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 881 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 2:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2686] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Howard James Small

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +64274964547

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11 Hawera Rd Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? 1.The height far exceeds that allowed under the unitary plan, and there are minimal, if any, features or facilities , which mitigate this height breach. The unitary plan gives ample height to build an appropriate commercial and

1 882 residential development. The excess residential is not necessary as the unitary plan allows, within its guidelines, for significant increase in residential density throughout Mission Bay, without the need to place an over imposing building right on the foreshore. 2. the development provides no increase in commercial space, which is what this site should be primarily for, as there is ample residential zonings in the streets behind Tamaki Drive, but there is not commercial zones of any significance other than on Tamaki drive & lower Paterson Ave . The application's proposal of providing picture theatres as part of its public amenities must be ignored as that is conditional on their future assessment of its financial viability, and therefore there is no obligation to proceed with this feature. 3. Mission Bay does not need a feature building as a focal point. Mission Bay already has an abundance of focal points - the beach, the Selwyn reserve, the fountain, the trees, the vista of the harbour and Rangitoto. What it needs is modern facilities, ie cafes, restaurants, bars, public spaces, to enhance the experience of the many visitors (& locals) that are already attracted to Mission bay by its existing features as described above.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 883 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 2:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2688] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: FIONA MACKINNON

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210600975

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/29 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Mission Bay 1017

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Demolishing the existing art deco period buildings

What are the reasons for your submission? I believe they are historic buildings and at the very least should be incorporated into any new design.

1 884 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The new design should have any original art deco buildings incorporated into it.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 885 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 2:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2693] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Beverley Caroline Verdon

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102238511

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 20/105 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? Height- this is considerably higher than what is allowable under the Unitary Plan, which is 16ms- not 28ms. The claims by the developers that their design ensure " suitability of scale and intensity "is blatantly untrue. What is the

1 886 point of having Unitary Plan if the council ignores it. It is a breach of our zone and local business centre use. Visual Impact. This is not the Gold Coast with kilometres of shoreline for this development to fit into. It will dominate and dwarf the Bay. It will detract from the natural beauty of the beach, grassed and tree areas and the focal points of Bean Rock and Rangitoto. The Bay is a popular attraction for tourists and aucklanders to enjoy, and the impact of this development will be like taking a sledge hammer to a buttercup. The domination of a parade of towering concrete blobs in an area of natural beauty is totally unacceptable. Loss of character-Mission Bay is of significance in our history for both Maori and European. Other recent developments such as the Mission House Café have been planned in a way that is respectful of this and sensitive to it. Mission Bay has its own identity, character and history. Intensified high rise concrete buildings detracts from this and has no place in it. The original buildings developed in the1930s in an Art Deco style ( Garden Court and the cinema) and later the facade on the corner of Tamaki Drive are iconic part of the Bay's identity and not at all reflected in the clumsy, blobbish concrete rectangles and circular windows proposed which are redolent of the 1980s. Loss of amenities- This development delivers reduced amenities to a community that currently enjoys a mixed business environment : including pharmacy, convenience stores ,hairdresser, cafes , restaurants and Real Estate agency. We were robbed of our pub some time ago which , without explanation, hasn't been in operation for many months. The design clearly prioritises residential apartment buildings over planned amenities. This includes a continuation of our beloved cinema- but only if" financially viable" - which doesn't inspire confidence. The Berkeley Cinema has been part of the Bay and supported by the wider community since1935 and seeing it close would be travesty. Instead the emphasis is on building a hundred apartments , purely for profit, as the purchase prices will not be helping those needing social housing nor first home buyers. It has to be asked- what then is the community getting out of this proposal? Traffic-Tamaki Drive is already choked in the weekends and with work traffic Monday to Friday. Marau Cresent is already choked , with parking on both sides, effectively reducing it to a single lane.The traffic from the proposed apartments will a to add to an already unsustainable situation. Wind, Sunlight shading- The size of this development will literally block out the sun for many of the residents living near and around it and shade lovely sunny spots currently where you can sit outside and have a coffee or meal . Wind tunnels are created by high buildings. The area on Level One will have wind whipping through the narrow openings between buildings making the Plaza a very unpleasant place to be. Setting a Precedent- The developers currently own some of the land on the opposite corner to this proposed one. If this development is consented by council it sets a precedent for similar development in the future, ultimately creating v huge concrete wall between the community and the beach destroying the access , views, and natural beauty of this small bay. This is truly unacceptable and not what the Unitary Plan envisioned, nor does it give communities any confidence that their views , needs and rights have any impact on a council that says one thing but does another. Flooding and Subsidence - In recent winter months the roads have flooded here, and will again. The Bay is in the Council's Coastal Inundation one and yet 425 suare metres of retail facilities and two basement levels are below sea level. This is putting the community at risk and is not only unacceptable but dangerous in terms of health and safety.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 887 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 2:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2695] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Geraldine Simian

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211305688

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 35 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Building Height Amenities Transport Heritage of architecture Heritage values Eco Values

1 888 occupants living there in apartments. There are just more apartments, more private vehicle traffic, more people driving to facilities in nearby areas since the development does not improve the amenities such as food supplies and other retail. This is purely a business deal with no value for the community. There is no justiciation for the exceeded height. Do we need more housing? Most definitely! Do we need watefront properties that only wealthy people be able to afford while destroying the current family environment that we have in the neighborhood? NO! The new development is lacking in amenity values. There is zero relationship with the coastal environment, no coastal village feel, rather tall 80s looking apartments plonked onto the coast with all their parking spaces. The Height in the unitary plan is a core standard for Auckland. This height must be followed, and this building is too high and will dwarf the surrounding village because it does not follow the Unitary plan height restrictions. There is no bike parking in the plans. The private motor car is the only form of transport being accommodated for the apartments. More car parking spaces means more congestion since the entrances to parking garages only allow one car at a time. They will bumble and queue in the surrounding streets getting into their one lane entrance and pollute the air with fumes. There are no electric vehicle charging stations either in the parking areas. There are no eco features in this design which is important in New Zealand, a country known of its relationship to nature, especially in suburban village by the sea. The building development has no solar panels, no mention of air ducts, air conditioning, heat exchanges or climate control. One can only assume that in a 7-storey glass facade facing north will be a large glass heat box for its occupants, and the balconies or the rooves will soon be covered in noisy air conditioning units. There are no features like Fonterra and ASB have done at the Wynyard quarter with 5-star Green Star ratings. https://www.vxv.co.nz/vision/ fonterra- centre/with air ducts and low energy consumption for climate control, low water consumption and harvested rain water. There is no plan to improve the infrastructure of the area so that we will be able to cope with the increased traffic flow. Similarly, what no mention of the impact of sewage of all these new apartment on our waterways and the beach that we all enjoy. The heritage values of this seaside suburb are destroyed when the art deco buildings are destroyed. It is possible to preserve facades and build the allowed height and set the taller buildings back from the street, so they are tiered allowing for large rooftop terraces on the 1st level. E.g. Ocean Drive, Miami Beach is a mecca for art deco architecture while having retail, restaurants and prioritizing pedestrian traffic. One does not have to drive to reach retail and food supplies due to proper planning for its residents. The natural character of the existing historic buildings is demolished in this proposal. As of 8 Oct, 452 people signed this petition to keep the Art Dec Character of these buildings. https://www.change.org/p/ auckland-city-council- preserve-mission-bay-s-art- deco- architecture The curved glass facade is not Art Deco rather 80s from the gold coast Australia or Dubai. Mission Bay has Art Deco buildings which cities outside Auckland preserve with great care and details. For example, Napier, and Miami Beach are cities with wonderful Art Deco buildings and a large amount of tourism just because of this architecture. The Mission Bay Cinema and DeFontaine buildings are beautiful examples of Art Deco architecture and need to be preserved. Unfortunately, Auckland City Council does not deem Art Deco historic like it does Victorian villas. The unitary plan allows for several story buildings which is great progress for Mission Bay, however the facade of the architecture can be preserved without destroying these fine pieces of architecture. This submission is to consider a redevelopment that preserves the art deco architecture and keeps the front (facades) of the buildings and within the existing height rules of the unitary plan. Other large Auckland buildings are capable of preserving heritage facades. The Post Office facade at Britomart is being preserved while a rail tunnel goes underneath. The Auckland Tepid Baths Art Deco facade has been preserved in the Viaduct on lower Hobson Street. There is no reason why the Art Deco facades cannot be kept and preserve this heritage.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Deny this application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 889 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 2:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2696] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: ANNE RAEBURN WILLETTS

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272459988

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: GARDEN COURT APARTMENT 18 105 TAMAKI DRIVE MISSION BAY AUCKLAND 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: OPPOSING THE ENTRE BUILDING

What are the reasons for your submission? THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING THE BULK OF THE BUILDING THE UGLY DESIGN TAKING AWAY THE BEAUTY THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE ABORTION

1 890 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? CANCEL THE WHOLE APPLICATION & COME TO A REALISTIC BEAUTY OF DESIGN IN KEEPING WITH THE BEACHY STYLE THAT IS SO ENJOYED BY ALL WHO LIVE LOCALLY & WHO VISIT FOR IT QUAINT STYLE - BEACH, RESTAURANTS, THEATRE, PLAYGROUND, ETC.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 891 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 2:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2698] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: William Francis Carlin

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095758580 09 4290 879

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11 Robley Crescent Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The Application is outside the Unitary Plan limits on height and will overall have a much greater then minor impact on the Misson Bay community and visitors.

What are the reasons for your submission? The Mission Bay seaside community area proposed for development is a regional and local amenity for leisure. It is

1 892 very popular and has hundreds of thousand users. The reserve and beach are a major attractions in summer and the restaurant and movie theatre are all year round attractions. The height of part of the proposal would totally dominate the overall visual setting and diminish the charm of the location especially the reserve and adjacent heritage buildings.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the Council to decline the proposal. It should seek a new design that meets the Unitary Plan requirements and the community's desire to retain amenity in the Mission Bay environment. I would also like the Council to decline the use of the site for apartments as these can be built away from the seashore.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 893 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 2:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2700] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Alena Molina

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021336680

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 105 Patteson Avenue Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole Application

What are the reasons for your submission? The allowable height under the Unitary plan is 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form and this development's height is up to 28m. The development is out of character and will dominate surroundings, block the views. Putting extra

1 894 apartments will impact negatively on the traffic along Tamaki drive. The development is reducing area for hospitality, which is key attraction of Mission bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 895 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 3:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2706] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Lee Picot

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021588620

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 33 Devore St, St Heliers Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? This is way over the allowable height and there is no special reason for the developers to have to do this. It will dominate the waterfront and look completely out for character. If they are allowed to build way over the allowable

1 896 height then it could set a precedent for every other developer to do the same. Then Mission Bay and Kohi and St Heliers will end up looking like the Gold Coast of Australia.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 897 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 3:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2707] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: D A Hopper

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 1758740

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 50B The Parade Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: * In the first instance I object to such a huge development in an area that already struggles with infrastructure management. *I do not believe that any dispensation should be given with regard to exceeding the current unitary plan for height restriction.

1 898 What are the reasons for your submission? I believe that any large scale development that exceeds the newly implemented unitary plan will set a precedent for future developments without taking the communities' best interests into consideration. Buildings of such proposed height are not in keeping with the community. What is the point of a unitary plan if developers can constantly push the boundaries to their own benefit as opposed to the community they are affecting! Mission Bay is frequently grid-locked at the weekends and a huge development of this nature will further contribute to this.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I do not want the council to allow a development that exceed the boundaries of the unitary plan

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 899 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 3:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2708] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Carol James

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02747196125

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 55031 Eastridge Auckland 1146

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. The building height does not meet the Unitary Plan Height requirements. 2. The apartments will require separate parking. Parking is already limited given the number of visitors to Mission Bay particularly during the Summer months

1 900 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 901 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 3:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2711] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Kathleen Evelyn Mary Ward

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210699222

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 30A Jefferson Street Glendowie Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? I am strongly opposed to this development as it is higher than the Unitary plan allows!This plan is so huge and oversized it will dominate the area, and detract from the beach and park area which is so special to the area. I also

1 902 have concerns about the 2 basements and retail space below Sea Level , with flooding issues in this area- an incredulous plan!!!

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the Application in Full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 903 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 3:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2712] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Sue Wilcock

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5281575

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 57 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. Height - The allowable height under the unitary plan is 16m. This development far exceeds the allowable height which will have a major impact on its surroundings. It is far too tall and dominates its surroundings and undermines

1 904 the character of Mission Bay. 2. Integrity of the Unitary Plan - The Unitary Plan should be followed - what is the point of having a unitary plan if the guidelines are not followed. This also goes for all developments across Auckland. Developers should follow the rules of the Unitary Plan - no exceptions. If the extra height is accepted here then those same arguments will be used to further develop other over-height buildings in the area. What is the point of having a Unitary Plan if we are just going to ignore the rules? 3. Loss of Natural Character - This development will destroy the natural character of Mission Bays foreshore. Because of its height and dominance it will detract from the natural character which people come to enjoy. 4. Design - The design of the development has no connection to Mission Bays character or history. It will be a visual eyesore - the rounded rectangles and circular windows are not a good look and are not in keeping with its surroundings. 5. Traffic - There are too many apartments which would add to traffic and parking problems in the area. 6. Potential for Flooding - Also, after recent flooding along Tamaki drive it is a concern that there are 2 basement levels which are below sea level. I am in support of developing the site but only if it is within the Unitary Plan, (eg.16 metres high with the 2m allowance for roof form) and if the design is more up to date with the look and feel of Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 905 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 3:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2715] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Ian Lester Stenberg

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095219577

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 17 Allum Street Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I oppose the application in its entirety.

What are the reasons for your submission? 1 The proposed buildings do not comply with the requirements of the unitary plan in terms of allowable height. (The proposed height is at least 10metres higher than allowed in terms of the plan) 2 The height and bulk of the proposed

1 906 buildings will be a monstrous intrusion on the existing ambience created by the foreshore reserve, the recreation facilities provided on and by that reserve and the seaside village environment. 3 The estimated 2 year construction period for the development is far too short and hence the interference of the public's enjoyment of Mission Bay and its current facilities will extend over a far longer period than forecast. 4 During and after completion of the planned project car parking will be reduced from the level that currently pertains. 5 There is no provision in the proposal for the effects of sea level rise associated with climate change. There is a significant risk that future flooding and storm water drainage problems associated with sea level rise will incur costs to general rate payers unless the risks are addressed by the developers at the planning and construction stages. 6 There are risks that existing infrastructure including water supply, sewerage capacity, power and communication services as well as car parking will be inadequate for the massive residential development contained in the application compared to that that would pertain in a development that complies with the requirements of the unitary plan. 7 Approval of the application in its present form is certain to establish a precedent for other developments in the bay and this is totally unacceptable. The application must comply with the requirements of the unitary plan.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Refuse the application in its entirety and insist that any proposal for development in Mission Bay must comply with the requirements of the unitary plan. Any proposal should also be accompanied by information that shows that future sea level rise can be accommodated without adverse effects on the use and enjoyment of its residents and the public at large as well as information that demonstrates that existing infrastructure can provide for the development without risk of future costs for upgrades to such infrastructure.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 907 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 3:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2718] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Iain Campbell

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021965065

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/1 Walmsley Road St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height of the proposed buildings

What are the reasons for your submission? I disagree with the the application's request to obtain departure from existing regulations regarding heights of the new buildings

1 908 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To refuse departure from existing regulations on building heights

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 909 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 4:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2721] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Dean Ashley Crow

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021904684

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 37C Marau Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? Under the Unitary Plan the allowable height is 16m, with an additional 2m allowance for a roof form. At up to 28m, the proposed development is way over the allowable height. This height, along with the overall bulk of the proposed

1 910 development, will visually dominate Mission Bay in a way that will detract from the area's character and the residents' and visiting public's enjoyment of the suburb. The proposed development will visually dominate Mission Bay from many vantage points, including the natural spaces of Selwyn Reserve, Bastion Point and the ocean; places a large number of Aucklanders visit to escape the presence of the city's many large man-made structures. It will also destroy the natural character of the area by towering over the pohutukawa that symbolise Mission Bay. I am also concerned with the precedent that approval of this application would set, both for the rest of the eastern suburbs and the integrity of the Unitary Plan itself. Surely the point of the Unitary Plan rules is to make sure that any approved developments are in keeping with the character of their proposed locations. I am sure that it would be possible to rejuvenate the Mission Bay commercial area with a more appropriate and sensitive development that worked within the Unitary Plan rules.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 911 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 4:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2723] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Christine O Arlington

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095781922

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 8/36 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: (1) The overall undesirable impact on the Auckland and NZ quality of life and environment. (2) The precedent of making a mockery of the Auckland Unitary Plan for the future of Auckland's growth. (3) The net negative impacts on the Mission Bay area itself (which includes the increased height) and the loss of amenities to the local and wider community (which includes the reduced retail and hospitality space). (4) The significant increase in congestion that

1 912 will arise from an additional 100 apartments and their visitors on Marau Crescent, which is a narrow street and already encounters periodic congestion.

What are the reasons for your submission? When I was a young child living in South Auckland, coming to Mission Bay for a picnic was a super-special treat. I thought then that there couldn’t be anything better in the world than Mission Bay. I have since traveled the world and have lived overseas for much of my adult life. And after all that, I still think it is fair to say, that Mission Bay is about as good as it gets for the regular public. Mission Bay has amazing natural scenery including the beach, the wide open sea view, the Selwyn Reserve and fountain, the mature trees along the waterfront, the greenery of Bastion Point and the Joseph Savage Memorial Park. It is a place that is available for the enjoyment of local residents, day-trippers, and overseas tourists. Almost all of the homes between Tamaki Drive and Kepa Road have a pleasant outlook. They are generally arrayed so that there is minimal blocking of each others’ views, and for even those homes that do not see Rangitoto or the sea, there is some view of natural beauty. But, the proposed development will tower over the trees and block the scenery. It will become the dominant feature of Mission Bay and it will overpower all the natural beauty of the area. It will cast a long shadow and will create a windy backdrop. Mission Bay will no longer be a unique, desirable location; it will be just like anywhere else in the world. Auckland and the rest of NZ are extraordinarily beautiful, naturally. We need to be looking at making the most of their natural attributes, not ignoring them and ultimately destroying them. The skyline along the waterfront needs to be low-lying. High buildings belong at the crest of the rise, not front and centre in everyone’s faces on the waterfront.. Manhattan island of New York City has a population of 1.7 million people in an area of 59 square kilometres. The importance and value of nature as an enhancement to daily life is recognized in the creation of the magnificent Central Park, a 340-hectare park, which encompasses lakes, recreational areas, parks, playgrounds, gardens, bridal path, and 20,000 trees and bird-life. In Auckland, we don’t need to create a man-made natural environment, we need to take advantage of what we already have. The Auckland Unitary Plan was devised to balance the burgeoning population growth with the preservation of the environment. The proposed development flies in the face of that plan. Approval of the development would open the door for other projects that benefit only the property developer at the expense of the wider community and city. There is room for everyone in Auckland, there’s no need to cram an additional 100 apartments into one small pocket in the Mission Bay town centre.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the Council to deny the application in its entirety.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 913 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 4:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2725] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Mary Craig

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 1360 183

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 111 Kohimarama Road Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? I object mainly to the excessive height and bulk of the proposed development. It ignores the regulations for the recently introduced Unitary Plan. It provides less than the current square area for retail and hospitality. There seems to be no guarantee that a cinema complex will be included. Retail, hospitality and the cinemas provide a"destination point for the community and for wider Auckland and this proposal lessens that provision of services. I believe there is

1 914 a strong possibility that many of the proposed 100 apartments will be unoccupied for much of the time.It cannot be claimed to be assisting with the city's housing problems. For those using the beach and Selwyn Reserve, there will be a significant, negative impact visually and will undermine the character of the whole suburb. I am concerned that if this proposal is accepted it sets a precedent for any future development, particularly that on the other side of Patteson Avenue which is owned by the same developer. What is the point of having a Unitary Plan if it is being challenged so blatantly and so early after its introduction?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 915 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 4:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2726] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Graeme Frank Reeves

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5284750

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 38 Speight Road Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object strongly to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? The complete disregard of the height set out in the Auckland Unitary Plan and therefore its inappropriateness to the Mission Bay location which is mainly a residential area with the sea and natural surroundings being of significant issue and which is the reason so many come to Mission Bay . Any new development should have some regard to the

1 916 important history of Mission Bay. Of how important it is because of the Mission House and the flying school. Also portions of the art deco building should be retained.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 917 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 4:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2727] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Juliet Yates MNZM

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095280581

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11 Berowald Place St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Exceeds Height adverse effects on Tamaki Drive as a scenic route and on Mission Bay

What are the reasons for your submission? I am a member of the Tamaki Drive Protection Society Inc. I was an Auckland City Councillor for 20 years, and the chair of many planning hearings both as a councillor and later as an independent Planning Commissioner. I was a member and chair of the former Orakei Mission Bay Community Committee, inaugurated in 1973. I live on the border of St Heliers and Kohimarama. My submission does not purport to represent the collective views of the committee of

1 918 the Tamaki Drive Protection Society. Reasons for Submission The height of the proposed development will have an adverse effect on amenity. The inclusion of balconies on some of the buildings will overhang public space and act as an extension to first floor retail area and will add to the bulk and dominance of the development. S 104 (a) (1) states that: “the consent authority must have regard to any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity.” Environment has a broad definition which includes natural and physical resources and amenity values. Amenity values may be affected by social economic aesthetic and cultural conditions. S2(d). The environment of Mission Bay is referred to in the application documents. It is described by applicant’s planner as “a scenic route of regional importance.” Peter Neeve Planning Consultants , Assessment Of Effects On The Environment 2.112 Planning Environment. I note that it is a scenic route, and not just a local business centre. Mission Bay was classified as part of the Tamaki Drive Scenic Way in the Auckland City District Plan Operative 1999. It is part of the 2013 Tamaki Drive Masterplan (MP) which states in the forward that Tamaki Drive “is home to seaside villages and communities an area rich in cultural history and significance….” Orakei Local Board recorded that the purpose of the Masterplan was to consider all the issues affecting Tamaki Drive in an integrated manner. “at its heart is the preservation of the unique coastal and seaside character. ” The seaside village identity will be preserved by protecting historic heritage and character of the area St Heliers, Kohimarama and Mission Bay. Page 26 refers to solutions highlighted in previous studies including the Tamaki Drive Design Guidelines and the Eastern Bays Coastal Management Strategy. The Design Guidelines was the outcome of intensive public consultation and submissions and District plan hearings. While MP is not referenced in the newly operative UP, I was informed by Auckland Council that the MP sits alongside the UP as a strategic non-statutory document. Consideration of effects on the environment must take into account the coastal and seaside village character. As Auckland city grows there will be many Business -Local Centres, but only one is located on the edge of the sea. Only one is viewed by international visitors arriving on cruise ships, and overseas yachts. Located at the edge of Selwyn Reserve the height will give a sense of enclosure and obscure the residential hinterland which runs up to the Kepa Rd ridge. A business centre located on the ridge (opposite to Eastridge) would have had less impact as it would not detract from the landform but emphasise it. Clustering over height buildings on the sea level Tamaki Drive edge of the valley floor will obscure the natural landform, the shape of the valley and its historic hinterland. I note that the three UDP reports give support, “subject to fundamental changes…”and the Panel would encourage a wider contextual and character analysis (built form and natural coastal environment (report of 10 April 2018.) Urban Design Panel Recommendations. This coastal environment was described in many previous studies and plans. I remember suggestions that a waharoa would be a fitting entrance to Mission Bay, if located near the steps leading to the Whenua Rangitira. The sense of entry is emphasised by the natural cliffs at both ends of the beach. These define the area. The development does not consider the effect on users: the daily thousands of commuters, buses, cars and cyclists who will suddenly come up against the big tower looming over the road. At present tourists come because of the beach and the Waitemata and do not expect find development reminiscent of the Gold Coast. Focal point Applicants planner Mr Neeve reports in 6.57 “I support the additional height proposed because it will help to legibly reinforce the focal point and literal heart of the Mission Bay centre at the Tamaki Drive and Patteson Avenue intersection;” Patteson Avenue is not the focal point for commuters. It is the entire Tamaki Drive and waterfront experience. Nor does the beach have a focal point. Mission Bay is a beach. A beach is a landform carved out by the sea, curved by the waves, and in the case of Mission Bay, carpeted with sand by the former Auckland City Council to provide the seaside experience for current and future generations. Mission Bay is particularly popular because unlike Okahu Bay and St Heliers Selwyn Reserve is right next to the beach and is popular with families from throughout Auckland who come for the day, bringing food and picnics and enjoy the beach or play games. It is a quick bus trip from the city and attracts many young people who buy takeaways and wander over the grass to the sand and take part in beach activities. While a great deal of time in the reports has been spent describing the need for a “focal point” there is little by way of mitigation of adverse effects for users. The applicant reports assure affected residents that the effect of a complying development could have been worse. This is an old tactic used on previous occasions. But residents are not the only group who will suffer loss of visual amenity. The user groups and the international visitors will experience a loss of place and change of identity, from distinctly kiwi seaside views along the only waterfront road to the city to a more urban landscape and the dominance of overheight apartment blocks. Juliet Yates MNZM LLM (Hons) LLB(Hons) Dip LGA, BA

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 919 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 4:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2735] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Megan Hirst

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0292620103

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 6/26 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole application

What are the reasons for your submission? - Height - I would like to see a proposal for Mission Bay to follow the height regulations within the Unitary Plan. This is way over the height of 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form. It is way too tall visually and does not fit with the character of Mission Bay. We need to stop this type of development in the Bays - because if we allow one - that will set a precident for future developments. Why do we have a Unitary Plan if we choose to ignore it? We do not want

1 920 Mission Bay to look like the Gold Coast - it is cold, dark and has no personality. The development proposed will certainly loose the character of Mission Bay - to which we all love and the reason people why flood here in the weekends and the holidays. - Parking/Traffic- The proposed design does not provide adequate parking. Marua Cres is only one lane wide with cars parked on each side and is considerably dangerous. Patteson is now being used as a main feeder for the Eastern Bus service which is ridiculous. Have you seen 2 buses trying to pass on this very busy street? The feeder roads around Mission Bay cannot disperse of traffic now Has anyone considered any off street parking for residents who need to find parking on the street - should we not have reserved parking areas for residents??? We currently have cars parked on the brass berms which creates a dangerous situation when backing from the property - and this will only get worse if the council does not make some rules around parking. It is not good enough. What happens when Tamaki Drive is closed off for events? Round the Bays? Auckland Marathon??? What if there was an emergency??

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like to see the council decline this application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 921 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 5:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2742] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Noel Thompson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095284794

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 14 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. I object to the excessive height and request that the whole project be limited to 3 stories. 2. When the Unitary Plan was finally approved the height limit of 16m affecting Mission Bay were beyond what we as a resident wanted along Tamaki Drive. No building should be allowed to exceed that stated in the Unitary Plan. 3. I have been a MB resident since 1972 (46 years) reluctantly accepting the final version of the Unitary Plan for Mission Bay assuming that the

1 922 height limits would be strictly adhered. It would be a terrible breach of faith in the Unitary Plan process if this development was approved as proposed. 4. Mission Bay is a unique harbour area with a safe sandy beach strip. It has a flat grassed reserve known as Selwyn Reserve with historic Mission House, historic fountain, more recent Millennium clock tower and pohutukawa trees along the foreshore and road frontage. With Bastion Point to the west and the historic buildings on the reserve and the natural pohutukawa trees it has been described as an Amphitheatre that does not need tall buildings as a focal point - the foreshore already serves this function as the character and focal point that makes the bay. 5 The visual impact of the development as proposed is too tall, dominant & concentrated to "fit in" to the style of Mission Bay area. I believe it will upset the balance and undermine the character of the bay. 6. In my 46 years residency I have seen the changes to the commercial area to mainly now hospitality and food service. The current 2 story Art Deco featured cinema & corner site add character to the area and compliment the foreshore. The commercial area I feel is adequate for the purpose of supporting the whole area. The current proposal takes away the natural character focus and destroys the appeal of the foreshore experience. 7. I do not support "high rise" buildings to make the area look like the Aussie Bondi or Gold Coast beach area. The present development completely destroys the character of the bay. 8. I have travelled extensively overseas and it is the charming older European historic villages and seaside locations that leave a feeling of relaxation and atmosphere when visiting and I credit the local municipalities for maintain the charm that is maintained. Mission Bay fits in the this concept. 9. A few kilometers from the city's high rise buildings, Mission Bay "location" with its beach and foreshore has a historic charm, that we should treasure and not degrade by over commercializing the area. 9. If this development is allowed to proceed, I am most concerned about setting a precedent for other buildings along Tamaki Drive, Patterson Ave. & Atkin Ave. 10. Any residential parts of the development should be in keeping within the 3 story limits and style similar to the recent apartments on the corner of Tamaki Drive & Atkin Avenue. 11. Mission Bay can be very windy at times and this development will add to the "wind tunnel effect" through the buildings which will be unpleasant to pedestrians and those seated at tables. 12. The Local Community Board and the Council have been supportive to maintaining the Eastern Bays area with sanding the beach, maintaining the reserves, upgrading the Mission House, widening the pavements alongside the commercial area and pathways and this proposed development seems to be out of character to the area. Parking is already an issue and this project will only add to congestion with the very limited street parking available. 13. It is unreasonable that a developer can bring an excessive proposal completely outside the guidelines set, and force concerned residents and concerned citizens to spend precious time and cost to voice their opposition to get some sensible outcome.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 923 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 5:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2746] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Jackie Greenwood

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021524782

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 32A Atkin Avenue Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: *The proposed height infringement of the Unitary plan. *Change in the identity and functions of the site which will lead to changes to the immediate environment, such as the historic beach and reserve areas; destruction of both public and private views of the beach and surrounding areas, including the trees on the reserve, the historic fountain, and because it will set dangerous precedents for other parts of the waterfront along Tamaki Drive,and other coastal areas of the Auckland isthmus.

1 924 What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed development will change the identity and functions of the site, by introducing high-end,high-rise apartments ; by reducing the restaurant and cafe areas, by introducing private parking to service the apartments, all of which will contribute to a sense of exclusivity and privilege to the area thus potentially deterring what is currently a very wide and varied demographic from visiting the beach and surrounding amenities. The proposed reduction in the restaurant/cafe/eatery space will further deter the wider general public, the current lifeblood of the area, from visiting, because it follows that high-end apartment dwellers will encourage higher-end eateries. A third consideration is the current Cinema complex - to be retained 'subject to viability', but who decides what is viable? Currently the Berkeley Cinema offers a wonderful amenity for families visiting the area, especially in cold/wet weather, and for local residents who can enjoy an afternoon / evening out without having to pay through the nose for parking. There is also a problem of the proposed height of the development. This will set a dangerous precedent for future building/development along the waterfront, and flies in the face of the Unitary Plan. The height will cast a huge shadow both on the reserve/beach side of Tamaki Drive, and on properties further back up Patterson Avenue and Ronaki Road. The height and bulk of the proposed development will dominate the waterfront in ways such as the Gold Coast, Benidorm in Spain, and other Latin American resorts. In addition, it will destroy or substantially restrict public and private views of Bastion Point, and other notable land and sea features.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would recommend a complete rejection of this proposed development. It is architecturally and socially unimaginative and clearly aimed at enhancing the fortunes of the developers, not the interests of the wider public. There is scope for redevelopment of Mission Bay, but the current proposal is a blueprint for how not to go about it.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 925 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 5:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2749] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Don submission.pdf

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Don and Wendy Stock

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272215207

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 12A Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: We oppose the entire application

What are the reasons for your submission? See attached file

1 926 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the application in its entirety

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information: Don submission.pdf

2 927 Don and Wendy Stock 12A Ronaki Road Mission Bay Auckland 1071

8 October 2018

Auckland Council Refernce BUN60324987

Submission on publicly notified resource consent application

We wish to OPPOSE the resource consent applications BUN60324987, LUC60324989 & WAT60325010 from Drive Holdings Limited for a development in Mission Bay. We believe that the application is inconsistent with the objectives and requirements of the Unitary Plan and that Auckland Council must REJECT IT IN ITS ENTIRETY. We wish to be heard in opposition to this application. Our reasons for opposing the application are: Height and bulk

1. The height and bulk of the proposed structures are completely inappropriate for this location. 2. The Local Centre Zone envisages a predominantly 4 storey environment and imposes height limits of 16m and an additional 2m allowance for roof form. 3. Every single structure bar one in this proposal exceeds these heights; with the tallest building almost double the allowable height at 28m. 4. A development of this height and bulk would result in serious loss of amenity value to the residents of and visitors to Mission Bay. 5. There is no need for this development to go over the height limits. All of the benefits to the community are shown to be provided within the allowable height.

Substantial loss of visual amenity

6. The proposed structures are of a totally different scale to current buildings in the vicinity, and to the built environment envisaged by the Unitary Plan for this zone and the zones of the surrounding suburb. 7. This mismatch of scale has a particularly severe impact in Mission Bay because of the specific form of the suburb. 8. Mission Bay is effectively an amphitheatre, with semi-circular ridges surrounding a flat basin. The focal point or stage of the amphitheatre is the beach with its adjoining reserve and iconic row of pohutukawa. The backdrop is the harbour, Bean Rock and Rangitoto. 9. From vantage points throughout the suburb, the eye is drawn to this coastal strip. This is what defines Mission Bay. 10. This development would tower over the pohutukawa and beach environment and would become the dominant visual feature from virtually all vantage points throughout the suburb. This would fundamentally change the very essence of Mission Bay. 11. People come to Mission Bay to escape the intense urban environment and to relax in a setting which is largely natural, even if heavily modified. Currently, as perceived from within the reserve 928 and beach, the landscape is almost totally natural with only occasional peeps of buildings intruding through the pohutukawa. This situation would remain much the same even if the site were built to the 18m limit. However, the proposed development would tower over the reserve and the urban environment would intrude into this otherwise natural haven. 12. The foreshore also contains notable and historic elements that are not compatible with the proposed development. The Melanesian Mission House, the Trevor Ross Davis Memorial Fountain and the Garden Court apartments are all unique and of great importance to Mission Bay and beyond. They are currently set in a low-rise environment that allows them to be fully appreciated. This proposal would set them against a backdrop of tall bulky buildings which would massively intrude into the views around these icons. 13. Bastion Point is of great cultural importance, and is visited by large numbers of visitors and tourists. A large part of the experience is the magnificent view. From this location, the proposed development would stand out dramatically, and draw the eye away from the natural charm of the beach and adjoining suburb. 14. The applicant has ignored any consideration of the existing character of Mission Bay and has therefore severely underestimated the impacts from this development on the community. Their analysis is fundamentally and fatally flawed. 15. Whereas I have started by looking at what makes Mission Bay special and then moved in to consider how the proposal would impact this, the applicant has started by looking at the site, and then considering only the adjacent buildings and potential future built environment. This completely misses the big picture and ignores the characteristics that make Mission Bay so attractive.

Dominance

16. The proposed buildings are dramatically larger than anything existing or envisaged under the zoning for the site and surrounding area. 17. The zoning to the east of the site is Single House Zone limited to 8m, with a large part of this subject to a historical character overlay. The proposal would provide an 8 storey 28m backdrop to this low rise zone. The contrast between the two areas would emphasise the massive bulk of the proposed development. 18. For many of the residents of Marau Crescent and Ronaki Road to the south of the development, of which I am one, this development would totally dominate their outlooks and indeed their lives. While an 18m conforming development would also have a significant impact to some of these residents, there is no comparison to the dominance the full development would have. 19. The applicant accepts that these residents would suffer severe negative impacts, but argues that those impacts would somehow be more than mitigated by the design, and would not be much worse than if the area was fully built out to the maximum height under the Unitary Plan. This is fanciful and ignores various legal and practical constraints on such development. 20. From all approaches to Mission Bay for pedestrians and drivers, this development would be the dominant visual feature. Whether approaching northwards on the upper of lower portions of Patteson Ave, westward or eastward on Tamaki Drive, or along Marau Crescent, the development dominates everything else in the view. It would be taller than the Norfolk pine in Selwyn Reserve opposite, almost twice as tall as the iconic row of pohutukawa in the reserve. 21. The new buildings would dominate outlooks over Mission Bay from elevated positions throughout the suburb; Selwyn Ave, Ronaki Rd, Codrington Crescent, Palmer Crescent, Rukutai St, Aotea St, Kupe St and Bastion Point to name a few.

929 Urban Design

22. Local Centre Zones are intended to support and serve as focal points for their local communities. The applicant has chosen to interpret this to mean a tall architecturally striking building to define a sense of place. A focal point, however, is not necessarily architectural. In fact, the definition relates more to how the community uses the local centre rather than how big a building is. 23. Mission Bay, however, already has a natural focus, the foreshore. The role of the Local Centre Zone has been to complement and support it, primarily with dining options. This support is provided entirely at ground and first floor levels, and has been well supported by the community. 24. We do not need a new tall building to define a new focal point. While the proposed development will upgrade the quality of the facilities, they will still be all on the ground and first floor levels, with no need for additional height. Everyone will happily find them whether there is a tall building on the corner or not. 25. If this application is approved, it would create an architectural focal point which would conflict visually with the existing natural focus. Rule 1 of amphitheatre design is ‘don’t build a tower in front of the stage!’

Design

26. While design is a subjective concept, the design chosen here seems particularly inappropriate. There is no recognisable link to the area, either through complimenting existing buildings or through references to historical design elements relevant to the area. 27. Instead, the rounded corners, circular windows and heavy concrete frames evoke memories of 1980’s architecture, not the art deco design alluded to in the application. 28. The primary design style element appears to be the solid, white, rounded rectangles which outline each level of each building. This emphasises the edges of the buildings and exacerbates the issues with scale and bulk. If the design is intended to minimise the perception of height and bulk, I would have expected an attempt to make the edges recede, rather than to emphasise them.

Loss of hospitality/retail space

29. The primary objective of a Local Centre Zone is to service the needs of the local community. 30. In this application, the floor area allocated to retail and hospitality is around 500m2 LESS than is currently available. Even worse, 425m2 of the new space has been located in basement 2, far from a prime location for the community. 31. I strongly object to a proposal which reduces the facilities for the community in a zone where the prime objective is to serve the community. 32. I also note that while a new movie theatre is included in the proposal, this is subject to financial viability. In short, the existing movie theatre will be lost, but there may or may not be a new one. This cannot be claimed as a community benefit if it is not guaranteed.

The proposal conflicts with objectives and policies of the Unitary Plan

33. The zone objectives include a requirement to “maintain the amenity values of [residential zones], having specific regard to dominance, overlooking and shadowing”. 34. This proposal falls well short of this, with major loss of amenity value and substantial issues with dominance and overlooking. 35. The proposal conflicts with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, which states in part that development must ‘avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects on natural character of the coastal environment’

930 Precedent value

36. Approval of this application would set a dangerous precedent that would make it difficult for the Council to reject future applications with similar height infringements. 37. None of the arguments raised to justify the additional height are specific to this site or to Mission Bay, or even to the Local Centre Zone. 38. As a result, approval of this application could lead to a wall of tall buildings the length of Tamaki Drive. 39. We note that the applicant describes the development as a gateway. This analogy may be unintentionally revealing. Noting that gates require two posts, and that the applicant owns the site across Patteson Ave from the first 8 storey gate post, a precedent set here seems very likely to result in another gatepost on the opposite corner. Gates are usually set in a wall or fence; our concern is that indeed we will end up with a wall separating the community from the beach if this first application is approved.

Integrity of the Unitary Plan

40. Approval of this application would undermine the integrity of the Unitary Plan, a document only recently completed after extensive public consultation. 41. While non-compliances to the rules can sometimes be justified, such breaches must surely require exceptional circumstances. If a breach could be justified on the basis of broad generic arguments that could apply equally throughout Auckland, then breaches could become the norm, and compliance with the rules the exception. That is clearly not the outcome the Unitary Plan envisioned. 42. We see no exceptional reasons to permit this breach of the height rules. The arguments raised are generic, not specific to Mission Bay, and could be widely applied. 43. We note that the applicant made no submission asking for a height overlay for this area during the Unitary Plan process, despite now claiming that this development has been under consideration for many years. 44. To preserve the integrity of the unitary Plan, this application must be declined.

Construction

45. We note that construction noise is expected to exceed construction noise limits set out in the Unitary Plan. The management plan for this would appear to be primarily to ask for consent to infringe the rules. 46. We see no reason to provide consent to infringe these rules. The rules have only just been put in place and are said to represent a modern approach to noise measurement and control. They therefore can be assumed to provide a realistic balance between inconvenience to residents and practicality, and developers should be required to adhere to them. We note that the applicant did not make any submission on these rules during the Unitary Plan process. 47. There will be considerable disruption to the community resulting from construction activities, including reduced footpath access, noise, vibration and loss of restaurants over a period of several years. It is recognised that some inconvenience to the community is to be expected during any construction, and this can normally be balanced by the long term benefit to the community from the finished facilities. 48. In this case, the extent and duration of construction has been increased by the decision to breach the height rules, but with no added community benefits. It is unreasonable to expect the

931 community generally and a few residents more directly impacted to shoulder the increased construction nuisance with no long term compensating benefits. General

49. We are disappointed with the deliberate attempt to mislead in the application. All photomontages have been taken with a 17mm lens to try to make the visual impact appear smaller, despite Council guidelines requiring 50mm lens photos. Photomontages for our house, 12A Ronaki, are taken from our basement level, not from our living area, so as to over-represent the impact from a conforming development. The applicant has taken a fanciful view of the likely future built environment, comparing the proposal to a virtually impossible hypothetical scenario. 50. We believe that the best way to reduce the apparent height and bulk of the development is to reduce the actual height and bulk, not to adjust graphics to disguise the problem.

Yours sincerely

Don and Wendy Stock

932 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 6:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2750] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Michael Tomlinson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021899555

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 30 Auckland Road St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The proposed height is out side the Unitary plan and not acceptable for Mission Bay. We agree with redevelopment of Mission Bay but not the height that was proposed.

What are the reasons for your submission? We have lived in the eastern suburbs for forty years and don’t want the ambience destroyed

1 933 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? As I’ve said before lower the height to remain within the unitary plan.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 934 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 6:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2751] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Simon luke moriarty

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5211164

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 101 Selwyn avenue Mission bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: All of it

What are the reasons for your submission? This application is a net negative for the residents of mission bay and for visitors to the area. 1. The development is not in keeping with mission bay in any way at all - it is not a fit with the coastal environment or the natural character that makes mission bay so special 2. It has low if not negative amenity value compared with what residents already have today. 3. The only thing in its favour is it is a redevelopment ... but everything else is against it, including a

1 935 reduction in commercial space, a sure reduction in net available parking spaces once the impact of the apartments is taken into account, and the price of the apartments is unlikely to be affordable. 4. The height is ridiculous, unnecessary, nd not in keeping with the Tamaki Drive ‘strip’ - Mission Bay cannot be compared to the Gold Coast where no ridge line exists 5. The pupose of this development is for the developer to make money out of 100 apartments - the intent is not to increase the amenity value of mission bay 6. Approval would create serious issues for remaining development in the area

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the council to decline this application in its entirety

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 936 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 7:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2752] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: David Bower

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +6421907012

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 25141 St Heliers Auckland 1740

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The height of the proposed buildings and therefore the overall scale of the development.

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposal adopts heights extending significantly above the Unitary Plan ordinance regarding height in the zone. The height will have unacceptable impacts beyond the site of the property and the amenity of the Mission Bay commercial area. The integrity of the Unitary Plan is challenged both on height and scale and a precedent would be set if the height limit was approved.

1 937 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To not approve the current resource consent application. To impose controls on the height of the development to the limits specified in the Unitary Plan and to then permit development within that height limit.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 938 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 7:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2753] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Celia Coster

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211370143

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 25 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I support the application mostly in part

What are the reasons for your submission? Mission Bay is a wondeful suburb to live in and a favourite place to visit by many with its choice of cafes, restaurants, Movenpick and the small cinema. The main attraction is the beautiful beach and harbour views, along with the reserve being huge draw cards. Let’s not forget the established pokutukawa trees and playground for children to enjoy. Land marks such as the memorial fountain and the Melanesian historic stone buildings provide a foundation of history for

1 939 Mission Bay. Unfortunately the biggest let down is the existing dated, old commercial buildings that are fortunately now proposed to be demolished and redeveloped. In my opinion, de Fontains frontage is the only building that is not visually detracting.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the height to be reduced

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 940 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 7:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2754] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Gordon Whiteacre

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272723943

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 125A Tamaki Drive Mission Bay AUCKLAND 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole application

What are the reasons for your submission? Height especially in relation to the Unitary Plan, Visual impact, poor design.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline application

1 941 Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 942 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 7:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2755] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Shona Carol Brown

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095286888

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 35 Comins Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? I have lived in Mission Bay for 41 years and enjoyed being a member of the Tennis Club - my husband was a member of the MIssion Bay Bowling Club for over 30years And our son enjoyed the Reserve Playgound. I reserve the right to enjoy these local Amenties. This development dominates and undermines the character of the foreshore and the entire suburb. Residents and visitors alike loose the natural character of the area. We stand to loose the many

1 943 takeaways, restaurants and cinema which serves the Eastern Suburbs as whole. Parking for locals is a concern and the height of the proposed buildings is offensive' As it lacks integration with the character of MIssion Bay Waterfront as a whole.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the Application in Full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 944 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 7:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2756] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Kate Morgan-Rees

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021995621

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 135 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: This application contravenes the Unitary Plan in relation to its excess height. The Unitary Plan was developed to protect our neighbourhoods from excessive developments and I strongly object that this development is breaking this code. Mission Bay is one of the jewels in Auckland’s crown. Locals, visitors and tourists enjoy this beautiful inner city beach as it is a special space. I have lived all over the world and there aren’t many cities that offer such a beautiful and unique experience. We have an exciting opportunity to develop an architecturally unique space that reflects our special place in NZ and the world. This currently is a wasted opportunity with ordinary architecture that is boring, ugly and too big for the seaside environs. It is the duty of our council to protect and develop our city as a place where people want to be. 1 945 What are the reasons for your submission? We are at risk of losing a special and unique part of Auckland to greedy developers who are intent on making profit by selling off apartments.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 946 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 7:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2757] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Philip Henley

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5289434

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 81 Godden cres Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: This application attacks the integrity of the Unitary Plan to such an extent it is laughable.

What are the reasons for your submission? The height of some or all of the proposed buildings are well in excess of what is permitted as of right . This leads to the bulk of the buildings being unsuitable for the built environment. Approval of this plan will weaken the UP and set an unexpected and unwanted precedent.

1 947 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in its entirety and invite the applicants to re-submit a more realistic proposal that complies with the rules

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 948 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 8:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2758] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Hilary Ann Rayner

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211680184

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 57 Rukutai Street Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole application

What are the reasons for your submission? I feel that the current design does not take into account the surrounding suburbs or reserves or the Maori history and lochal community. The recent upgrade to the Stonehouse in Mission Bay has been a great development which embraced the heritage building and built upon it, enhancing the area and blending in with nature. I fully understand that the current buildings along Tamaki Drive do need to be replaced, as they are not earthquake proof and they have

1 949 been allowed to deteriorate over time. The new building should be modern, but be able to blend into the local community, in a similar way as the new Okahu Bay yacht club does. It should incorporate Maori artwork and work with nature, the local Pohutakawas, the beach and the beautiful Rangitoto. I love the fact that you can stand on the beach or be paddling on the sea and the only thing you can see is the reserve and the Pohutakawas, not a concrete block of appartments. People flock to Mission Bay from Auckland and overseas to enjoy the natural beach and local eateries, this could all be wrecked if we do remember this as we move forward and develop this area. The local community wants a new development to not take away from what we currently have, we want a development that can offer things for young and old, able bodied and disabled. We want to keep our cinema, and also have other community based services like ATMs, good quality cafes and restaurants like the Wynyard Quarter, that offers something to everyone, providing indoor and outdoor dining, where we can sit in the sun and look out to the beautiful Hauraki Gulf. The height of the current plan does not meet the requirements of the current unitary plan, which is four floors maximum. The eight floors do not provide anything extra to the community like mixed housing (affordable housing). Although there are an extra 30car parking spaces in the new build I imagine these will be quickly absorbed by the large number of appartments and their visitors. So again the area will lose car parking spaces. Nothing is mentioned about bicycle parking, something that is required more and more as we encourage people to cycle around the city. I am concerned that this building will set a precedent, especially as I believe the properties across from this development will be next for demolition. We could end up with a giant gateway at the entry to Patterson Avenue, that would be a wind tunnel, it is bad enough as it is, when the wind blows and the sand is blown along Tamaki Drive. It also annoys me that we have only recently developed and beautified the pavement along Tamaki Drive, giving improved pedestrian accesss and improved outside dining, which has been great. Sad to see that this will just be ripped up and the money wasted if this development goes ahead.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 950 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 8:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2759] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Mark Vanderwee

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021706449

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 37 Grampian Road St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: the application as a whole

What are the reasons for your submission? There would be fewer community facilities when Mission Bay and surrounding suburbs are growing, therefore there should be more facilities not fewer. The buildings would be an eyesore from all angles, and are far too bulky and would take away from the natural character Mission Bay now has. The unitary plan just released specifies a limit of

1 951 four storeys and already a developer is wanting to extend the height. People come to Mission Bay to enjoy nature and we do not want a Gold Coast look in Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To decline the application in its entirety.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 952 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 8:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2760] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Mark Goldstine

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0275 595 375

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 38a Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: 1. The over HEIGHT and its relation to the Unitary Plan 2. The PRECEDENCE this will set for the rest of Tamaki Drive, Mission Bay and greater Auckland 3. The DESIGN design 4. The LOSS OF SPACE FOR AMENITIES, in particular retail and hospitality

What are the reasons for your submission? The first point I want to make is I am not against a new development. I believe it would be a good thing for Mission Bay to see some redevelopment and support this in principle. As a local resident of I partook in discussions, meetings

1 953 and submissions on the Unitary Plan . There was a lot of community consultation around this before the Council came up with its final Plan. As I understand the HEIGHT agreed for this area between Tamaki Drive and Marau Cres and all the way along to Atkin Ave is 16m plus an additional 2m for services. I don't know whether you can get a full 5 level building within this height but I am sure you can get 4 levels plus services. I strongly believe the height requested by the developer including buildings of 4, 5,6 7 and 8 levels up to a maximum of 28m is far too high for the area and will result in a huge bulk of buildings changing the character and look of Mission Bay dramatically and not in a good way. As well this will significantly effect many peoples outlooks and not just those from directly behind this development. I feel if the proposed height of this development is allowed it will set a PRECEDENT potentially allowing buildings of 5,6,7 or 8 stories all along Tamaki Drive which would be devastating for Mission Bay in the long term. I am not against change but I do believe this development if allowed in its proposed state will impact negatively on the look and feel of Mission Bay. I also have concerns this would set a precedent not just in Mission Bay but anywhere else covered under the Unitary Plan in Auckland City. Also it concerns me greatly that after much consultation by the Council around the UNITARY PLAN and their allowance of 16m plus 2m in this location that they would throw this this out and allow for buildings of up to 28m. If this happens then my question is simple. What have we just spent years in consulting on and producing a plan if any development can come along and disregard, in this case, the height by such a great factor? Indeed what is the point of even having the Unitary Plan if this development is allowed to proceed in its proposed form? Is there any integrity to the Unitary Plan then? I acknowledge DESIGN is very much of a personal nature and it would be difficult to get a design everyone loved. In this case my personal opinion is this is a very 80's inspired design and I have concerns that not just now but particularly into the future it will really date. I however appreciate the developer who is paying for the project has the major say in its design which is totally expected. I just hope the Urban Design Panel of Architects or whichever body is tasked with agreeing to a design can ask for or demand and agree on a design more in keeping with Mission Bay and yet still modern and up to date that can take Mission Bay into the future and not consign us forever to the past. Mission Bay is already one of the most popular beach and seaside destinations in Auckland with its fabulous Selwyn Reserve and supported by a significant number of retail and mostly hospitality outlets. If this proposal for 80 to 100 additional apartments is allowed traffic will significantly effect vehicle movements around Mission Bay. As importantly though I feel if there are going to be a significant number of additional apartments then I can't understand why there would be such a large reduction from the amount of space currently allocated for retail and hospitality of around 3,500 square meters down to approximately 2,500 square meters. I would have thought if anything this space would have to increase to offer additional services for an increased number of residents, locals, visitors and tourists to Mission Bay in the future.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like to see the development significantly REDUCED IN HEIGHT more in keeping with the Unitary Plan. I do NOT WANT TO SEE A PRECEDENT SET allowing further buildings to be be built to these extreme heights in Mission Bay altering the look and feel of the seaside suburb substantially for the future. There would be no turning back. I would like to see the INTEGRITY OF THE UNITARY PLAN MAINTAINED - otherwise what is the point of even having the plan if it is going to be ignored from the outset. I hope the Design Panel charged with agreeing to a DESIGN can facilitate one more befitting Mission Bay, still contemporary and suitable to lead Mission Bay into the future and not back into the past. Also with only expected increases of residents, locals, visitors and tourists to Mission Bay I would like to see more amenities in the way of retail and hospitality and not significantly less. I would also like to ensure the cinemas are a must keep as they are a fantastic anchor for the Mission Bay precinct.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 954 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 8:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2761] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Lee Murray

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272844101

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 14 Siota Crescent Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? Unitary Plan Auckland City undertook an extensive process in establishing the Unitary Plan. There is no reason why developments should exceed the limits detailed in the Unitary Plan, otherwise why does the city have a plan. Height - this development far exceeds the allowable height under the unitary plan. It will dominate the Bay visually, create greater shaded areas and create wind tunnels. None of this is necessary or desirable. Visual impact - Mission Bay is

1 955 one of Auckland's iconic destinations. This development would dominate the natural beauty and change the whole character of Mission Bay. I do not want the bays to turn into a Gold Coast lookalike. We need to preserve the character of this special area which Aucklanders and tourists flock to. Precedent setting - I do not wish this development to set a precedent along Tamaki Drive. We need to preserve the natural beauty of the waterfront and surrounds.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 956 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 8:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2762] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Murray Thomas Lockhart and Robyn Patricia Lockhart

Organisation name: Resident Of Mission Bay

Contact phone number: 5215542

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 29 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The Unitary plan has taken a while coming into being but straight away we see a developer trying to exceed the limits as laid out and on this basis we cannot understand how the Akl City council hasn't rejected it.

What are the reasons for your submission? 1 The height of the proposed buildings another ten meters higher than allowed by the Unitary plan. 2 The effect of this extreme height of building on the residents in Marau Crescent due to the change in winds and effect of eddies caused by the airflow. 3 The shape and size of this proposed development will do little to enhance the relationship we have

1 957 with the history of the beach.Walking along the beach front looking at a diagram of what is envisaged you can cannot find any relationship between the history of some of the buildings with this development. 4 The proposed development shows some additional 100 apartments in Marau Crescent, the increase in traffic would untenable as the present situation is grid locked and when not is a race track to beat the Patteson Avenue lights 5 I have been visiting Mission Bay since I was a child, some fifty years ago. I always anticipated what Mission Bay meant to me and our Family. The Beach, play ground reserve, the fountain with the proximity of the Mission house and with my interest in aviation knowing this is where the Walsh brothers had their flying school. The proposed development does represent the true nature of Mission Bay, it will just be a large concrete structure with no soul.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The application must be declined in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 958 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 8:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2763] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Nicola Sharyn Baillie

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021880445

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 120 Allum St Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I oppose the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? This development will negatively affect the natural beauty of the area, and the flow from unobtrusive urban, to park to sea. Places of natural beauty with a sense of surrounding space are precious in an urban setting. This development is in complete contradiction of the Unitary Plan which I understood was a height restriction, not a height recommendation. This proposal makes a mockery of all the consultation and processes to come to the agreed height

1 959 in the Unitary Plan. There will be less space for locals and visitors in terms of retail and restaurant space compared to what there is now. The cinema proposal is conditional on it continuing to be viable, it is not a given. If this is approved, it will set a precedent for similar height buildings along the waterfront which would close in and completely change this treasure that the Auckland waterfront currently is.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the application to be declined in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 960 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 8:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2764] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Jeanette Thorne

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 9211284493

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 88 Te Kawa Rd Greenlane Auckland 1061

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Over height limit, height to boundary limits broken too, buildings proposed ugly and not in sync with the rest of the neighbourhood. Many iconic places will be demolished, and it will be to the detriment of the neighbourhood.

What are the reasons for your submission? The buildings suggested should be in sync with other buildings in Mission Bay. Proposed buildings will block sun and views from many residents if they are go over the suggested hieght limit. Also, Tamaki Drive should be only for light

1 961 rail, and cycling, walking , skating and scootering. No more cars , as they can go on the upper roads instead. As Tamaki Drive , is a target for rising seas, it is not sensible to put high rise into the area.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Only build on vacant land, and keep to council limits in regards to height and appearance . Tamaki Drive needs to be for light rail, cycles, scooters, skaters and walkers/runners. No cars /or trucks/or buses.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 962 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 9:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2765] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Mervyn and Madelene Strong

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021675580 0272818562

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 7 Palmer Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: We object to the whole of this application

What are the reasons for your submission? The Integrity Of The Unitary Plan This proposed development exceeds the allowable height by a large factor. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify such a major departure from the Plan and the extra height will have more than a minor impact on the community. In this way, this development severely impunes the integrity of the Unitary Plan. A Precedent For further Non Complying Developments If this proposed non -complying development is

1 963 approved the Council will come under enormous pressure to approve future neighbouring proposed developments of a similar scale which do not comply with the Plan and further undermine the integrity of the Plan. Natural Character of the Area One of the objectives of the Unitary Plan, is to ensure that areas of coastal environment with outstanding natural character are preserved and protected from inappropriate development. Mission Bay is such an area. The bulk and height of the proposed buildings and their design will dominate and undermine the character of the Mission Bay foreshore; the reserve, the beach, the Melanesian Mission Buildings, the fountain and the truly authentic Art Deco apartment buildings adjacent. These wonderful local features should not be compromised by a large, bulky and unattractive new form of development. Design These proposed buildings have been lauded falsely by the developers as suggestive of Art Deco style. The design is clumsy and does not bear or reflect the refined detail of Art Deco nor is it is in keeping with the aesthetics of the period.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 964 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 9:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2766] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Raiza and Stephen Hughes

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021812369

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/24A Ronaki Road Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? Height The allowable height under the Unitary plan is 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form. This development is up to 28m. This is way over the allowable height. Rules should only be waived where there are exceptional circumstances that mean extra height is Setting a precedent If the arguments for extra height are accepted here, then it will set a precedent for those same arguments being used successfully all the way along Tamaki Drive and Mission

1 965 Bay, ultimately creating an over-height wall between the beach and the community. Surely this was not what the Unitary Plan envisioned. The same developer owns the site across Patteson Ave. He claims he is building a gateway to Mission Bay. Gates have 2 posts, so he could propose another 8 storey building on that site. Integrity of the Unitary Plan What is the point of having a Unitary Plan if we are just going to ignore the rules? The rules should be applied unless there are exceptional reasons. After reading the Applicant’s documents, I can’t see any exceptional reasons at all. Loss of natural character and amenity value People come to Mission Bay to escape the urban environment and relax in pleasant natural surroundings on the beach and foreshore. This development will destroy that natural character by intruding into the outlook from everywhere on the beach and reserve. It will dominate the pohutukawa and even the Norfolk pine to become the dominant visual feature of the foreshore.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 966 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 9:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2767] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: KATE PRICE

Organisation name: Resident

Contact phone number: 021377996

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 7 CULLWICK ROAD Mission Bay AUCKLAND 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height and precedent issue Visual Impact Character and Amenity Value

What are the reasons for your submission? The Unitary Plan decided on a core standard for this area,was ratified only last year and yet this proposal violates the unitary plan core standard by nearly 100% on height alone. If this proposed height was considered acceptable for this part of Auckland (which is a tourist focus) why was it not made the core standard?? If allowed this proposal sets in motion a precedent for development in Mission Bay which bastardizes the inherent character and amenity value of the

1 967 suburb by reducing commercial space by 1000 m2 and overshadowing the natural 'eviron' of the area in its totality. The architectural expression is so lacking in thought and style it makes a mockery of the profession of itself.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the Council to reject this proposed development in its entirety. I think development is a very good thing for the area within the parameters of the Unitary Plan and this particular proposal wastes an opportunity to showcase architectural brilliance and Auckland's planning designs for the future.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 968 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 9:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2768] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Carolyn Fougere

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274437632

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 6/10 Tagalad Road Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: 1. Size of the development 2. Height of the buildings 3. Character of the area 4. Unusable space 5. Parking problems

What are the reasons for your submission? Per above 1. Size - The entire development overpowers the Mission Bay frontage. From all angles it would visually overwhelm the beach area. Looking down from Bastion Point, your eyes would be drawn to the development instead of the beautiful harbour and beach seaside. From the water, Mission Bay is a spectacular beach lined with beautiful old trees and then the suburb slowly rises up the hillsides from behind the trees. If a development of this size were

1 969 allowed to progress that would completely destroy that. You wouldn't be able to see anything except buildings in the middle of the bay dominating over everything else. 2. Height - this proposal is 12 meters higher than the unitary plan. To keep the integrity of the unitary plan it must be enforced. There is nothing in the Mission Bay area that requires buildings of this height. The adjacent buildings have height restrictions of 8 metres. The lowest building in this proposal is something like 14 metres which will overpower the buildings to the East. Nothing on the beach side of this suburb should be higher than what already exists. The apartment blocks on the level part of Mission Bay are a maximum of 4-5 stories. This should be maintained for visual consistency. 3. Character - this is a seaside suburb in the middle of Auckland city. It is filled with families who use the Selwyn Reserve, play in the playground, sit under the pohutukawa trees, swim in the sea. My grandchildren ride their bikes, build sandcastles, watch the fountain and we buy ice cream and fish and chips. If a development of this size is allowed in the area it will overwhelm the suburb. We will lose the seaside character as it will become overpopulated with residents instead of visitors to the beach. This is not the gold coast which is what this development looks like. The picture theatre is special to the residents as we don't have to travel to the city to enjoy the movies. The development does not guarantee a movie theatre will be built. 4. Unusable space - the design lends itself to a cold windy central area in the middle of all the buildings. Anyone who has walked around a block of tall buildings will know that it creates wind tunnels which are cold due and no one wants to enjoy spaces like these. They look great on design paper but a totally unrealistic. This is also beachfront which always attracts the wind. The plan also appears to reduce the actual space we have already for entertainment/dining/community activities. If there are going to be more apartment blocks in the area due to the unitary plan then we will need more community facilities, not less. 5. Parking - this is already a problem in the area. All residents visitors struggle to find a carpark in the weekend. If we increase the number of residents where are the vehicles going to park? The design does not allow for carparks to match the number of apartments. Marau Crescent is unpassable mid summer due to cars parking and having to back into driveways to let other vehicles past.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I believe the council should turn down this application in full. It is not in keeping with Mission Bay.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 970 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 9:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2769] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Lucinda Mary Smith

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 364 244

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P O Box 26897 Remuera Remuera Auckland 1541

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? Massive height of intended buildings up to 28m which will have a huge impact on the area Will overwhelm and undermine the historical foreshore, recently restored Mission House and surrounds Loss of retail space and possibly the cinema No connection between the design and Mission Bays character or history The Unitary Plan took a long

1 971 time and a lot of money to "get it right" The height and bulk of this development as proposed is "not right" for the Mission Bay area.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 972 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 10:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2770] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Christoph Drefers

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021642477

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 72 Kohimarama Road Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? Height The allowable height under the Unitary plan is 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form. This development is up to 28m. This is way over the allowable height. Rules should only be waived where there are exceptional circumstances that mean extra height won’t cause more than a minor impact on the community. Visual impact This building is way too tall and bulky for Mission Bay. The development dominates its surroundings. This dominance

1 973 undermines the character of the Mission Bay foreshore and the entire suburb. Mission Bay is an amphitheatre, with the beach, Selwyn Reserve and the pohutukawa as the stage, and the sea, Bean Rock and Rangitoto as the backdrop. An amphitheatre does not need a tall building to act as a focal point; the foreshore already serves this function. Inserting a tall building in front of the ‘stage’ undermines the natural character of the entire suburb The site is immediately adjacent to residential areas, including single house zone and an historical character overlay. All buildings to the east of the development are limited to 8m, so that 20m-28m buildings will really stand out and dominate the surrounding area even more. Loss of natural character and amenity value People come to Mission Bay to escape the urban environment and relax in pleasant natural surroundings on the beach and foreshore. This development will destroy that natural character by intruding into the outlook from everywhere on the beach and reserve. It will dominate the pohutukawa and even the Norfolk pine to become the dominant visual feature of the foreshore. Loss of community facilities Mission Bay is expected to grow. The Local Centre zone is expected to provide local facilities to support that growth. This development reduces the floor area for hospitality and retail by a substantial amount, undermining the intent of the zone and reducing the level of facilities to local residents and visitors. Setting a precedent If the arguments for extra height are accepted here, then it will set a precedent for those same arguments being used successfully all the way along Tamaki Drive and Mission Bay, ultimately creating an over-height wall between the beach and the community. Surely this was not what the Unitary Plan envisioned. The same developer owns the site across Patteson Ave. He claims he is building a gateway to Mission Bay. Gates have 2 posts, so he could propose another 8 storey building on that site. Integrity of the Unitary Plan What is the point of having a Unitary Plan if we are just going to ignore the rules? The rules should be applied unless there are exceptional reasons. After reading the Applicant’s documents, I can’t see any exceptional reasons at all. Urban design Everywhere in Mission Bay, the eye is drawn to the foreshore strip. This contains the beach, the reserve, the fountain, the Melanesian Mission historic buildings, and the row of pohutukawa. If this development goes ahead, the eye will be drawn to this set of buildings. This will replace the current natural character focus with a new urban focus, destroying Mission Bay’s unique character. The commercial area exists to support people using the foreshore, not to destroy the appeal of the foreshore Traffic Marau Cres is already choked. With parking on both sides, there is only room for single lane traffic, leading to frequent delays and arguments Design No connections between the design and Mission Bay’s character or history The rounded rectangles and circular windows have nothing to do with art deco, but date back to the 1980’s The existing façade on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Ave is iconic to Mission Bay Wind High buildings always result in higher winds. The wind report indicates no modelling has been undertaken but suggests winds will increase based on experience. I find little comfort in that. The public plaza area on Level 1 is likely to be subject to severe winds funnelling through the narrow openings between buildings, making the plaza a very unpleasant place in the wind. Potential for flooding This area has flooded in the past and will again in the future Totally within the Council’s Coastal Inundation zone and yet has 2 basement levels plus 425m2 of retail below sea level Worried that cost to protect from flooding will eventually fall on ratepayers

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 974 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 10:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2771] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Neal Lambess Baden Prebble

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212166906

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/41A Ronaki Road Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Hideous design of new buildings destroying the heritage and charm of Mission Bay. Increase in road congestion in area. Changes to traffic flows dangerously affected by proximity of vehicular access to proposed site being too close to the Tamaki Drive/ Patterson Ave intersection Proposed parking changes will lead to less free parking in the immediate area and congestion in weekends is already horrendous in our, and surrounding streets. Increase in noise levels with the 102sqm overhanging balcony adding to already high levels.

1 975 What are the reasons for your submission? I am an Aucklander and have been a resident of Saint Heliers for 12 years prior to moving to MissionBay 14 years ago. I was raised in Parnell. I have seen too much character lost from all of these areas in my lifetime and have never made a submission before when perhaps I should have. As a being a member of the "silent majority" I have left it to others to act.. but this has to be stopped and I will do what I can to help.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? SAY NO! Keep Mission Bay as it is, on the scale it is now. Mission Bay is at the same critical stage of development currently challenging Queenstown and Wanaka. Development will destroy it's charm, and originality of character once lost, is never replaced.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 976 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 10:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2772] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Robyn CAMPBELL

Organisation name: X

Contact phone number: 021-031- 6622

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 7 Rutherford Tce, Meadowbank AUCKLAND 1072

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: (a) The overwhelming HEIGHT SIZE of the proposed development, seeking a departure from what is currently permissible under the Auckland Council's new Unitary Plan.

What are the reasons for your submission? The granting of consent for Drive Holdings to proceed with this proposal would overwhelm the current landscape character and dimensions of this popular urban beach space and community that is widely used by a large cross section of Auckland's suburban families and visitors, especially in summer months. Pacific Islanders for example

1 977 picnic on the Selwyn Reserve and are often seen to play a version of cricket there. Children from all backgrounds run around and overlap. It is already, a 'go to' happy recreational place where the diversity of our city manifests itself. All socio-economic groups are seen to interact at this popular location, enjoying the unique chance to simply be Kiwis families. The impact of this proposed, oversized, 'up -market' development would compromise the more egalitarian and non-threatening ethos of what exists now. Natural social Interaction, especially where children are involved breaks down barriers ... softly, softly Auckland Council, prune back the developer's ' gross' high rise request .. slash it by half.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? An upgrade of the area in question has some appeal. A more minimalist version of the proposal could be a 'starting point' However, the visual and emotional impact of granting the 7 or 8 storeys plan would generate negative impact for the character and community balance now desired for this highly prized Mission Bay jewel. Current and future generations deserve better.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 978 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 2:15 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2773] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Leanne Tattle

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095289399

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 97 Rukutai Street, Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The overall density and height of the planned appartments, the loss of sea views this will have for surrounding properties, no consideration has been given to the existing congestion at peak hours and on beautiful fine days when the beach and retail areas here are very crowded. The need to safe road crossing to access the beach has not been considered. Loss of parking, probable restricted access to properties and services, and the disruption during the construction appears to be of minor concern to the developers.

1 979 What are the reasons for your submission? The fact that this development gives no consideration to the unitary plan or to the loss of views or the added congestion and traffic in the area is of major concern as is the fact that such a large development here will overall impact the current seaside feel of Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I feel that the developers should be asked to reconsider their scale of this project and look at something more in keeping with the current environment and unitary plan, which I suspect will require the developers to go back to the drawing board.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 980 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 3:30 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2774] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Michael Charles Mackenzie Howat

Organisation name: Ormond Hall Trusts 1 &2

Contact phone number: 09 5283629

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/36 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Congestion, loss of character and reduction in facilities to the public

What are the reasons for your submission? Residential concern

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Deny building applications.

1 981 Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 982 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 4:15 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2775] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Mark Timmins

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095289399

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 97Rukutai Street Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The height and size of the proposed structures exceed the limits given in The Unitary Plan. The proposed development would make Mission Bay an eyesore both from the sea, from all overlooking properties and from Bastion Point Reserve.

What are the reasons for your submission? I live in one of the overlooking properties. The proposed development will severely restrict the pleasure that I get from living in Mission Bay. Mission Bay is frequently congested by the needs of vehicular traffic conflicting with the needs

1 983 of many sports activities and people just enjoying the beach, the park area, and the many other amenities available. These will be jeopardised by this ill thought out development which also appears to be governed by the maximum amount of money the developers can make out out of it.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The Council should demand that the developers should withdraw these plans. And engage architects who will appreciate the qualities that nature has given us here and design something that will only enhance it.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 984 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:15 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2776] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Beverley Anne Goodwin

Organisation name: Resident in Orakei

Contact phone number: 0212585453

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 77 Kurahaupo St Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Total loss of character of one of the few remaining iconic and much loved landmarks in Auckland. Horrible visual impact on the whole area with no consideration to the historical importance of the site. A design which totally breaches the rules of the Unitary Plan. The height regulations have been totally ignored and a false impression is given of the impact to the area. The assumption that the developer can totally change an enormous land area and has the right to destroy the nature of Mission Bay. That Mission Bay can be turned into a shopping mall when it functions as a meeting place for all Aucklanders to enjoy the beach, the playground and the already adequate eating places and the movie theatre. That the area is already congested and with expected sea level rises, there is no way such a development should be consented. 1 985 What are the reasons for your submission? Loss of natural character and historical importance to all of Auckland. Mission Bay is an iconic landmark in Auckland. It’s very charm is in the way it has remained ~ contained and attractive and much loved by all visitors and local residents. The land - seascape - Rangitoto are all one. They work perfectly together to present a taste of what iconic Auckland is, and of which so little remains today. The interesting and numerous eating places, the cinema and coffee shops already provide choice and variety. Mission Bay is not a place where people go to shop. It is loved as a place to relax on the lawns, lie in the sand, have a swim, have a picnic, play ball, or cross over the road to any one of the restaurants. Children and teenagers make it their place. Mission Bay is already a destination site and during the weekends it overflows with visitors - and why do they come? Because it’s the remaining place where things are as they used to be, where the beach is a beach and not a built up shopping site. It’s a place where we can escape from the shop shop shop atmosphere. The lawns, fountain, trees, sea and sand are thoroughly enjoyed by locals, families and tourists. It’s already at capacity point and can’t absorb 100s of new residents, cars and doesn’t want to be a shopping Mecca. There’s absolutely no need for a so-called modernisation and commercial development. What is left of the Art Deco features need to stay where they are. Visual Impact The proposed development design is completely out of character with the area. Apart from it infringing the Unitary Plan, the design is a hotch potch of ugliness. It has no style. It is like a huge mushroom growth gone mad. How could a developer come up with such a distressing project and why should they even think they can change so fundamentally a treasured landscape? Since when do developers have the right to try to completely change a historical landscape in such a massive way? The light and views will be blocked and massive shadows will cast their coldness over the streets and houses The design completely misrepresents the actual effects of all aspects on Mission Bay. Instead of the beautiful landscape, this overpowering monstrous construction will force its attention on everything and ruin the enjoyment for all. Why state that there will be a cinema as if one isn’t already there? That is again a case of pretending there will be an added benefit. How can Mission Bay contend with all the extra apartments, all the shops, all the parking spaces when it works as it is. There is no place in Mission Bay for a Mall. Yet another negative aspect of the planning, This whole project is an excellent example of how to further increase Auckland’s reputation as an unliveable city. Climate change hasn’t been considered. Can 2 underground floors be developed so near to the shoreline? Is that sound reasoning? It’s very concerning that a developer can submit such a misleading proposal. The lives of thousands of residents in the Mission Bay Area will be adversely affected by this unbelievable project. The council must adhere to the Unitary plan and also must designate areas like Mission Bay as heritage sites. Sites that cannot be tampered with. I consider the proposal as outlandish, unwarranted and an invitation by one developer to destroy one of Auckland’s most important heritage sites.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To decline the application in full and not allow any leeway or out to reapply.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 986 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:30 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2777] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Stewart Selwyn Ferguson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021954730

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 18 Ronaki Road Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The height of the proposal is way over the allowable 16 meters as per the Unitary plan.

What are the reasons for your submission? Don't want the development to go ahead as per the proposal as it will ruin the beachside community feel not to mention the influx of new residents where there is no room for them. Also the traffic congestion would be worse than it is now.Mission Bay is unique to Auckland - we don't want it looking like Miami or the Gold Coast.

1 987 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? For the proposal to meet the current unitary plan.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 988 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 7:16 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2778] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: David Barratt-Boyes

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210365743

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4/171 Tamaki Drive Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: No benefit to community because it 1.fails to guarantee the movie theatres. 2.Massively exceeds the height limit and is far too dominant overpowering and obtrusive. 3.The design is brash crude outdated cheap and nasty totally at odds with the art deco look we all love

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 989 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Change the design to something tasteful,Auckland offers many architects who are innovative. Change or lower the height by three floors. Guarantee more hospitality space and the cinemas/

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 990 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2779] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Yukari Prebble

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095217017

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/41A Roanki Road Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Ugly, massive and totally ignoring the heritage of the area. Soulless and Looks like a childs lego building! Will date very badly. Traffic and parking congestion , already bad, will only become impossible.

What are the reasons for your submission? Every weekend and every school holiday specially in the summer season or on any fine day, Mission Bay is packed.

1 991 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Keep it as it is, with it's art deco style and matches with the Garden Court apartments at 105 Tamaki Drive .

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 992 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:01 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2780] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Edward Cran

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0017783022955

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4/3 Towai Street St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I am submitting on all aspects of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? While I agree that a major overhaul is required of mission bay. Putting mid / high rise buildings down there is simply not the way forward. The essence of the bay needs to be protected, as a warm, friendly, approachable destination for locals. The architectual look and feel should also not be messed with, we can't turn the bay into a modernest eyesore!

1 993 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Stipulate that there be no buildings greater than 2 stories. Mandate that any new development must fit the current look and feel of the surrounding architecture.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 994 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:31 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2781] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Gillian Cran

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0224298270

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/29 Atkin Avenue Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: All aspects

What are the reasons for your submission? Would like to see development go ahead - The area is shabby and looks run down - Mission Bay is a prime visitors location and very badly needs upgrading - there is nothing attractive about it at the moment - lets the area down.

1 995 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like to see the development accepted as is.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 996 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:01 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2782] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Walter Hart

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5284304

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 24 siota crecsent Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to most of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? The hieght of the building is well over the unitary plan agreements. It will dominate the area and will not suit the character of the area. Iam sure that it could be desighned to suit the beach enviroment better. With the ammount of appartments and businesses added the traffic and parking will be a major problem as it is already overloaded. At the size and hieght planned it must create large shadow areas and wind problems.

1 997 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The application rejected and a total rethink with the character of the beach front and natural suroundings being the focus.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 998 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:16 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2783] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Paul Martin Maskell

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5212102

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 276-069 Manukau City Auckland 2241

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The whole application

What are the reasons for your submission? I have been a resident of Mission Bay for 34 years. I have seen changes in the area both good and bad. The area needs quality planned developments rather than ad hoc changes. Having perused all of the available documentation and noting commentary by some who are opposed to the development, I am satisfied that this development will be in the best interests of our area and the majority of our residents.

1 999 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I support the application without change.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1000 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:31 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2784] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Dave McCrorie

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 513230

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 29 Comins Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: the height and scale of the proposed buildings

What are the reasons for your submission? I live in Mission Bay and do not want it's unique character destroyed by a development that goes well beyond the unitary plan for the area. The proposed buildings appear to be up to double the allowable height of the unitary plan and will totally dominate the visual appearance of Mission Bay. The buildings will be seen from all over Mission Bay, from the sea, from the beach and from Bastion point. They are too tall and do not fit the rest of the area.

1 1001 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The council should stand by it's unitary plan and make the proposed buildings fit the height restrictions of the plan

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1002 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2785] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Colin Stephen De Freyne

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274899885

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 5 Nihill Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height and bulk of the proposed development. Non compliance with the Unitary Plan. Adverse visual impact on the Mission Bay environment.

What are the reasons for your submission? I have lived in Mission Bay with my family for 23 years and in the wider Eastern Suburbs for 28 years. Our children grew up here and so we have a strong connection with land on which Mission Bay has developed. We have a photo from 1930 showing much of Mission Bay being covered by cabbage trees and grazing horses. We feel a strong

1 1003 connection to Bastion Point, a place of outstanding natural beauty and home to Ngati Whatua. My son and I regularly wheel our kayaks down to the beach to enjoy the views of our suburb from the sea. Kayaking back into Mission Bay is something which everyone should try, to appreciate its natural beauty. Our suburb has clearly come a long way since 1930 and much of this is to be celebrated as previous Councils have been sensible with its development. That's not to say there is no room for improvement and that is why I have a vested interest in any development. When news of this proposal came out I decided to find out more and so sought more information from our Residents Association. I am not a town planner, but thought the Unitary Plan would be the guidance for any new development and, given its relatively recent introduction, there would be broad compliance with it. To be honest, it is difficult to understand why this Mission Bay development proposal has got this far because it shows no respect for the Unitary Plan in terms of its height or visual impact on the environment. The Unitary Plan allows for a 16m height limit (plus 2m for roof design), which translates to a 4 storey building. As the proposed design has a flat roof its height limit should be 16m, whereas one of the proposed blocks is 28m (how did this get past first base?). If the Unitary Plan is to have integrity it must be a benchmark or yardstick which developers comply with, not wilfully ignore. Otherwise, the ratepayers and residents of Auckland will be forever objecting to developers' plans. Surely this is in no ones interest. When we walk down to Mission Bay for dinner, a movie or to take our kayaks out on the water we feel proud of our suburb. When we walk up to Bastion Point and take in the surrounding beauty we feel incredibly privileged to live in our suburb. The height and bulk of this proposal will have an adverse impact on the amenity value and natural character of Mission Bay. The visual flow of the suburb with our outstanding coastline would be destroyed as the only thing to catch the eye would be the development itself. I am not a NIMBY and I believe the sensible development of Mission Bay would be good for the community, but we must have a Unitary Plan we can rely on to guide such development. We may then be in a position were we can support the development proposals which are put before us.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1004 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 11:01 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2786] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Nathan submission.pdf

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Anna Nathan care of James Gardner-Hopkins

Organisation name: Barrister

Contact phone number: 0212771425

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 25-160 Wellington Wellington 6011

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The submission relates to the whole of the Proposal, but the submitter is particularly concerned about the height, bulk / massing, and dominance of the Proposal, and its consequential adverse effects on the character and amenity of the area, including on the submitter's views and amenity.

What are the reasons for your submission? The general reasons the Proposal is opposed are, if it is approved, that the Proposal: (a) is inappropriate and fails to

1 1005 promote sustainable management of resources and will not achieve the section 5 purpose of the RMA; (b) will not maintain or enhance amenity values, and will not maintain or enhance the quality of the environment, matters to which particular regard is to be has under section 7(c) and (f) of the RMA; (c) is demonstrably in breach of the relevant standards, objectives and policies of the Unitary Plan; (d) will not meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations around it; (e) will not enable social, economic and cultural well-being of those around it; (f) will not ensure the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources of those around it; and (g) does not avoid, remedy or mitigate its adverse effects. Please also refer the written submission attached.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The submitter seeks the following decision from the Council: (a) The Proposal be declined consent. (b) In the alternative, the Proposal be modified and reduced in scale so that it meets, at the very least the relevant height standards for the zoned land.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information: Nathan submission.pdf

2 1006

SUBMISSION ON APPLICATION CONCERNING A RESOURCE CONSENT

SUBJECT TO PUBLIC NOTIFICATION BY THE CONSENT AUTHORITY

UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 (“RMA”)

TO: Auckland Council (“Council”)

SUBMISSION ON: An application by Drive Holdings Limited (“Applicant”) for a resource consent to demolish all existing buildings on the land, construct seven new multi-level buildings extending across the entire area, providing for retail, food & beverage, entertainment (cinema) and residential activities, at 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay, referenced as BUN60324987 (“Proposal”).

SUBMITTER: Anna Nathan

COPIED TO: The Applicant, c/: [email protected]; [email protected]

Introduction

1. I live at 6 Ronaki Road, Mission Bay. I am one of people most affected by the Proposal, as illustrated by the photographs / simulations on the following page, which shows the Applicant’s images of the “existing” view from our property, and the view after the Proposal is developed. I have some concerns about whether the images accurately show the effects on us, but I will return to that issue later.

2. As a resident, I am not a trade competitor of the Applicant for the purposes of section 108B of the RMA.

Background

3. I bought the property at 6 Ronaki Road in 1994 after my husband died, and moved in in 1995. The land was bare as the previous house had been removed some years previously. The house was designed to take advantage of the east-west site orientation, and the northerly views of the harbour. Over the past years the surrounding properties have been rebuilt, and the area has been upgraded sensitively by the residents to the present high standards.

4. This is a house I love, as do my children, and I think of as the family home holding the articles belonging to past generations, as well as my own life.

1007

5. I have also lived in the area as a child, as well as now an adult, and seen how much the wider community of Auckland enjoys this bay. The languages spoken by the population coming here are numerous, and are a real cross section of our vibrant Auckland.

6. I think with higher density living spaces, we see more and more people using these bays as an essential space to walk, enjoy the fresh air, and meet with their families.

7. Accordingly, any major development needs to be sensitive to, and respect the amenity of the area and how it meets the needs of the people and community that use it.

Figure 1 – “Current view”:

Figure 2 – “View with the Proposal”:

1008

Nature of submission

8. My submission relates to the whole of the Proposal, but I am particularly concerned about the height, bulk / massing, and dominance of the Proposal, and its consequential adverse effects on the character and amenity of the area, including our views and amenity.

9. I oppose the Proposal in its current form.

Reasons for submission

10. The general reasons that I oppose the Proposal are, if it is approved, that the Proposal:

(a) is inappropriate and fails to promote sustainable management of resources and will not achieve the section 5 purpose of the RMA;

(b) will not maintain or enhance amenity values, and will not maintain or enhance the quality of the environment, matters to which particular regard is to be has under section 7(c) and (f) of the RMA;

(d) will not meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations around it;

(e) will not enable social, economic and cultural well-being of those around it;

(f) will not ensure the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources of those around it; and

(g) does not avoid, remedy or mitigate its adverse effects.

11. Without limiting the generality of the above, the Proposal if granted will have the following further effects:

(a) Loss of retail: As I understand it, the development will have 1000sq meters less space of retail for restaurants, and cafes than present, which will be a great loss to Mission Bay.

(b) Overdominant scale and proportion: I feel this development is completely out of proportion to the confined area between the cliff and the beach, and will overpower a quite small area. The size and height will overwhelm the beach and foreshore, and change Mission Bay from a relaxing and reviving space, to more of a city scape. The buildings need replacing, and the commercial area reviving, as it is

1009

old and unattractive, but this development is huge and overbearing from all angles. It will definitely change the atmosphere loved by Auckland's of a seaside escape from the city. The only benefactors will be the developers and the expensive apartments they will sell, at the detriment of the area, and residents. They are not really adding anything to compensate for what is a blot, that will advantage only a privileged few.

(c) Impact on views: While it may be that private views are not specifically protected under the Unitary Plan, other than for specified viewshafts, the proposal will have a very significant impact on my views. That will also affect my property values. As mentioned above, I am concerned that the images purporting to show my views do not correctly reflect what I will see, including the proper height and bulk of the proposal.

Decision sought

12. I seek the following decision from the Council:

(a) The Proposal be declined consent.

(b) In the alternative, the Proposal be modified and reduced in scale so that it meets, at the very least the relevant height standards for the zoned land.

13. I wish to be heard in support of this submission.

14. If others make a similar submission consideration I would consider presenting a joint case with them at any hearing.

DATED 9 October 2018

Signature ______

Anna Nathan

The Submitter’s address for service is C/- James Gardner-Hopkins, Barrister, PO Box 25-160, Wellington 6011.

Documents for service on the Submitter may be sent to that address for service or may be emailed to [email protected]. Service by email is preferred, with receipt confirmed by return email.

1010 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 11:16 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2787] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Roy Bishop

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5758278

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1 / 40 Polygon Rd. St. Heliers Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The whole application is not acceptable.

What are the reasons for your submission? What is proposed is predominantly a residential development with 100 apartments. The amenity value be severely reduced with the reduction from approximately 3500 square metres of floor area to 2500. Additionally the Unitary Plan height restriction at 16 metres should be enforced in such an iconic waterfront position.

1 1011 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? This application should be declined.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1012 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 11:31 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2788] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Helen Stroude Duder

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274324897

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/19 Selwyn Ave. Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Does not comply with the height restriction according to the Unity Plan

What are the reasons for your submission? The design and height of these buildings are totally out of character with the Mission Bay we enjoy today... whilst not opposed to change, I object to the dominance this development will provide over the whole of the present Mission Bay character and atmosphere...I do not believe the additional car parks promised, will benefit the community, as the

1 1013 majority of these will be taken up by the new apartment dwellers... as the retail space will be smaller than the area currently enjoyed by the cafes at present, I also see that as detrimental to our community..

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I should like the council to reject this proposal, and ask the developers to submit a further design, which fits the guidelines set out by the Unitary Plan, more fitting for our delightful seaside suburb where the emphasis is on the beach and the green.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1014 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 11:31 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2789] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Ivana Goljerova

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102625465

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 124b Kohimarama Road Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Building Height Amenities Transport Heritage of architecture Heritage values Eco Values

What are the reasons for your submission? The new proposal is ignoring the unitary plan height restrictions. There is less space for hospitality and retail in the design which does not improve the facilities in the village. There are no more community amenities, just more occupants living there in apartments. There are just more apartments, more private vehicle traffic, more people driving to facilities in nearby areas since the development does not improve the amenities such as food supplies and other

1 1015 retail. The new development is lacking in amenity values. There is zero relationship with the coastal environment, no coastal village feel, rather tall 80s looking apartments plonked onto the coast with all their parking spaces. The Height in the unitary plan is a core standard for Auckland. This height must be followed, and this building is too high and will dwarf the surrounding village because it does not follow the Unitary plan height restrictions. There is no bike parking in the plans. The private motor car is the only form of transport being accommodated for the apartments. More car parking spaces means more congestion since the entrances to parking garages only allow one car at a time. They will bumble and queue in the surrounding streets getting into their one lane entrance and pollute the air with fumes. There are no electric vehicle charging stations either in the parking areas. There are no eco features in this design which is important in New Zealand, a country known of its relationship to nature, especially in suburban village by the sea. The building development has no solar panels, no mention of air ducts, air conditioning, heat exchanges or climate control. One can only assume that in a 7-storey glass facade facing north will be a large glass heat box for its occupants, and the balconies or the rooves will soon be covered in noisy air conditioning units. There are no features like Fonterra and ASB have done at the Wynyard quarter with 5-star Green Star ratings. https://www.vxv.co.nz/vision/ fonterra- centre/with air ducts and low energy consumption for climate control, low water consumption and harvested rain water. The heritage values of this seaside suburb are destroyed when the art deco buildings are destroyed. It is possible to preserve facades and build the allowed height and set the taller buildings back from the street, so they are tiered allowing for large rooftop terraces on the 1st level. E.g. Ocean Drive, Miami Beach is a mecca for art deco architecture while having retail, restaurants and prioritizing pedestrian traffic. One does not have to drive to reach retail and food supplies due to proper planning for its residents. The natural character of the existing historic buildings is demolished in this proposal. The curved glass facade is not Art Deco rather 80s from the gold coast Australia or Dubai. Mission Bay has Art Deco buildings which cities outside Auckland preserve with great care and details. For example, Napier, and Miami Beach are cities with wonderful Art Deco buildings and a large amount of tourism just because of this architecture. The Mission Bay Cinema and DeFontaine buildings are beautiful examples of Art Deco architecture and need to be preserved. Unfortunately, Auckland City Council does not deem Art Deco historic like it does Victorian villas. The unitary plan allows for several story buildings which is great progress for Mission Bay, however the facade of the architecture can be preserved without destroying these fine pieces of architecture. This submission is to consider a redevelopment that preserves the art deco architecture and keeps the front (facades) of the buildings and within the existing height rules of the unitary plan. Other large Auckland buildings are capable of preserving heritage facades. The Post Office facade at Britomart is being preserved while a rail tunnel goes underneath. The Auckland Tepid Baths Art Deco facade has been preserved in the Viaduct on lower Hobson Street. There is no reason why the Art Deco facades cannot be kept and preserve this heritage.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Deny this application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1016 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 11:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2790] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Elizabeth Young

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274888198

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 28663, Remuera, Auckland Remuera Auckland 1541

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Do not want 8 storey structures in that part of Mission Bay. Also the design of the buildings/development are not visually pleasant and will date.

What are the reasons for your submission? It will block the view of many properties behind.

1 1017 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Limit to three stories and have a more considerate/thoughtful/ environment ARCHITECT involved.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1018 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 11:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2791] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Rajesh Jeram

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272307224

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 10a Ronaki Rd Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? Height is far to height would like it reduced to height allowed under unitary plan which is 16m. Visual impact for area is far to high for area, to dominate I also don't like the design or look of the new building it looks old fashion and not iconic which this area deserves, I understand why they made it look like art deco to keep with current design but nobody likes art deco and it will date very quickly.. for something which is going to be there for another 100 years.

1 1019 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline application reduce height to what is allowed in unitary plan (about 3-4 levels) and provide more modern design

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1020 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 11:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2792] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Joanna Boileau

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5281174

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 32 Hawera Rd Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I am submitting on the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. The proposed 5-8 storey development is well in excess of the maximum allowable height for occupiable space under the Unitary Plan (16m). What is the purpose of the Unity Plan if developers can readily flout the rules. The integrity of the Plan should be maintained; after all large amounts of time, money and effort have been devoted to creating a coherent plan for Auckland's development . If this development is approved it will create a dangerous

1 1021 precedent and make it difficult for Council to decline future breaches of the plan. 2. The scale of the development is out of keeping with the character of Mission Bay and will dominate the beach and reserve. 3. It will have a major impact on the local community, shading surrounding properties and blocking views. 4. While it will provide improved retail and hospitality facilities, it will add up to 100 residential apartments. This will place pressure on existing infrastructure such as sewage and drainage which is already inadequate and generate increase traffic flows. 5. Demolishing the iconic art deco De Fonteyn building will diminish the heritage character of Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the development in its current form. Require significant amendments to the proposed development before it can be approved - no higher than the allowable height limit of 16m; a maximum of 3 levels - step back each level to reduce visual impact - require full consultation with the community such as the Kohimarama Mission Bay Residents Association during the design phase, which was not done in the earlier proposal.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1022 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 11:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2793] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Aruna Jeram

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272511546

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 5 Marau Cresent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height & Design

What are the reasons for your submission? way to high for area, needs to be reduced to half its height or to whats allowed under unitry plan also design already looks OLD needs cool trendy modern design which appeals

1 1023 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? decline & reduce height and provide design options

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1024 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 11:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2794] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: stephen sampson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274949085

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/ 33 Ronaki Road, Auckland, New Zealand Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The height of the majority of the proposed development exceeds the allowable height for this location . The bulk/ size and height of the proposed development is out of scale to the character of Mission Bays public tourist and private amenity for the location it blocks the view shaft from Patterson Ave to the beach and beach front , and the view shaft from the beach front to the South , the bulk and height will create shading effects on surrounding buildings and pedestrian paths to and from the beach front . The bulk , height and scale of the development will block view shafts from Bastion point over Mission Bay and take away a public amenity of enjoyable views across Mission Bay from the iconic viewing platform of Bastion Point The effect of this development will be to intensify traffic congestion at the intersection of Patterson Ave , Tamaki Drive , and Ronaki Road , Patterson Ave and Marau Crescent with the higher 1 1025 level of residential use , pushing more traffic into these intersections and creating more restrictions of pedestrian acess to the beach front . The bulk and height of the proposed development will disconnect the surrounding neighbourhood from a visual connection with the Mission bay beach front and pedestrian views and connections to the water front , the harbour and views to Rangitoto when walking down Patterson Ave .

What are the reasons for your submission? As a resident of Mission Bay the pedestrian and visual connection to Mission bay and the waterfront views from a pedstriation perspective is very important for me , the bulk and height of the proposed development creates a considerable visual barrier and the the related vechicle traffic issues from increased residential development and combined commercial use will create more traffic and vehicles problems and vechicle vs pedestrian access to Mission Bay .

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the resource consent for the development on the basis the height of the majority of the proposed development exceeds the allowable height limit .

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1026 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:39 PM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2795] Submission received on notified resource consent

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2795] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.. Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Sheryl Anne Beange

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095757583

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 15 Tarawera Tce St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

1 1027 Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? Height - way over the allowable height. Way too tall, bulky and ugly for Mission Bay. Undermines the character of the whole area.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the current application and start again with a much smaller and architectually outstanding development - something Aucklanders and visitors can be proud of.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1028 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:39 PM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2796] Submission received on notified resource consent

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2796] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: John Wilkinson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 464101

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11 Cheverton Place Kohimarama, Auckland Kohimarama, Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

1 1029 Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height and bulk exceeding unitary plan

What are the reasons for your submission? It would change the whole culture of people who currently visit Mission Bay. Currently Mission Bay is a natural amphitheatre with the fountain and beach being the stage which can be viewed by existing residents. This structure going up to 28 metres high would block many of the existing residents views. The requirement for the replacement cinema only going ahead if it was financially viable would I assume be at the developers discretion. This is a nonsense as Council would have no say. Approving a development hugely outside the unitary plan would create an unwelcome precedent for all of Auckland city

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Ratepayers have contributed a significant amount of money and and council employees have contributed a significant amount of time developing the unitary plan. The development should be within the unitary plan and in addition there should be a requirement to replace the cinema to an equivalent size irrespective of the financial viability.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1030 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:39 PM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2797] Submission received on notified resource consent

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2797] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Peter George Dormon

Organisation name: Mr

Contact phone number: 095751114

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 35a, Riddell Road, Glendowie Glendowie Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

1 1031 Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Excessive height outside the Unitary Plan specifications. Excessive visual and environmental negative impacts on the locality Loss of historical and notable character of the Belgian pub Significant reduction in retail and restaurant space Creation of unwanted wind acceleration Setting an unwanted precedent Contrary to good urban design practices Fails to take Climate Change into account (refer latest IPCC Report) Likelyhood of basement flooding

What are the reasons for your submission? This application is inappropriate for the locality. It does not comply with Unitary Plan requirements. This application is asking for an excessive amount of development. This application is unrealistic in view of Climate Change impacts (Refer recent IPCC Report). The concept is poorly designed. The destruction of a notable building, currently housing the Belgian Pub, would destroy the delightful character of Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the application in its entirety.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1032 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:39 PM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2798] Submission received on notified resource consent

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2798] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: karen munro

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102979549

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/87 selwyn avenue mission bay auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

1 1033 Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height, visual impact

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed height far exceeds the allowable height specified in the unitary plan. It's visual impact on the local environment will alter the entire character of the area. In general I believe we should not be interfering with the natural curves of the landscape in Auckland. Wherever possible, the building heights should be in keeping with the ridgelines and not dominate them. We have wonderful hills that flow naturally to the sea - let's appreciate that and don't approve buildings that will stick out way above the natural land contours and therefore dominate the skyline.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application and rethink the entire proposal.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1034 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:39 PM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2799] Submission received on notified resource consent

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2799] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: WINTON JONES

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +64274430830

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 20A SIOTA CRES KOHIMARAMA AUCKLAND 1071

Submission details

This submission: is neutral regarding the application in whole or in part

1 1035 Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the total application in its present form.

What are the reasons for your submission? The unitary plan was established after much consultation ,so why are those rules not being applied in this situation? It is so bizarre, that Council would process an application that is 12meters above the current height limit , established in the unitary plan. Obviously council does not appreciate that a substantial number of home owners paid a premium for their property with a view of the water and in some cases a view of the beach, only to face the possibility of losing that view, and face a subsequent reduction in value. Does this application now set a precedence , so that many other properties in other seaside bays, may also lose their current views?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline this application, and adhere to the maximum height in the unitary plan.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1036 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:38 PM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2800] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: MBKRA table 1.pdf; MBKRA table 1_20181009122545.875.pdf

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2800] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Gill Chappell

Organisation name: Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association Inc

Contact phone number: +6493001259

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Vulcan Building Chambers, P O Box 3320, Shortland Street Auckland Auckland 1140

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part 1 1037 Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: See attached

What are the reasons for your submission? See attached

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? See attached

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information: MBKRA table 1.pdf MBKRA table 1_20181009122545.875.pdf

2 1038 Table One – Submission of Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association Inc

H11.2 Objectives / Policies Comments

General objectives for all centres, Business – Mixed Use Zone, Business – General Business Zone and Business – Business Park Zone

1 A strong network of centres that are attractive environments The centre has its place in and attract ongoing investment, promote commercial the network - part of that activity, and provide employment, housing and goods and place is the scale of services, all at a variety of scales development.

2 Development is of a form, scale and design quality so that It does not require additional centres are reinforced as focal points for the community. height to achieve this.

3 Development positively contributes towards planned future It does not require additional form and quality, creating a sense of place. height to achieve this: an 8 storey building does not create a sense of place for a reasonably low scale suburb.

4 Business activity is distributed in locations, and is of a scale The area focusses on and form, that: tourism/eating more than (a) provides for the community’s social and economic the local community needs; although there are some (b) improves community access to goods, services, conveniences for local community facilities and opportunities for social interaction; residents. There is possibly and marginal improvement in (c) manages adverse effects on the environment, including (b), although this is not effects on infrastructure and residential amenity. clear. The over height aspects do not manage effects on residential amenity generally.

5 A network of centres that provides: The Proposed Development (a) a framework and context to the functioning of the urban is not focussed on local - area and its transport network, recognising: development and is more (i) the regional role and function of the city centre, like a higher level centre metropolitan centres and town centres as commercial, that is trying to attract cultural and social focal points for the region, sub-regions people from outside the and local areas; and local area. (ii) local centres and neighbourhood centres in their role to provide for a range of convenience activities to support and serve as focal points for their local communities. -(b) a clear framework within which public and private investment can be prioritised and made; and (c) a basis for regeneration and intensification initiatives.

Business – Local Centre Zone objectives

6 Local centres enable commercial activity which primarily As for Objective 3 and 5. It services local convenience needs and provides residential fails to primarily service living opportunities. local convenience needs. It does not need to be 8 levels high to provide residential opportunities.

7 The scale and intensity of development within local centres The overall scale is is in keeping with the planning outcomes identified in this significantly higher than Plan for the surrounding environment. surrounding existing and

1039 Table One – Submission of Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association Inc

H11.2 Objectives / Policies Comments

future environment. There is no THAB in the Bay so lower level residential is the planned outcome for the residential areas in the surrounding area. This is combined with some single house zone and special character overlay, some of which is adjacent.

8 Local centres are an attractive place to live, work and visit. The design aspect is at issue, particularly in view of the dominance caused by the height.

General policies for all centres, Business – Mixed Use Zone, Business – General Business Zone and Business – Business Park Zone

1 Reinforce the function of the city centre, metropolitan The Proposed Development centres and town centres as the primary location for does not achieve this and commercial activity, according to their role in the hierarchy has the potential to of centres. undermine the centres strategy of the plan. 2 Enable an increase in the density, diversity and quality of Managing reverse sensitivity housing in the centre zones and Business – Mixed Use has led to poor public Zone while managing any reverse sensitivity effects access on the first level including from the higher levels of ambient noise and plaza area with much of this reduced privacy that may result from non-residential privatised. activities 3 Require development to be of a quality and design that There are issues with positively contributes to: through site movement (a) planning and design outcomes identified in this Plan for requiring use of stairs (or the relevant zone; lifts), safety of upper area (b) the visual quality and interest of streets and other public with respect to crime, and open spaces; and effects on the visual quality (c) pedestrian amenity, movement, safety and convenience of reserve and Bay for people of all ages and abilities 4 Encourage universal access for all development, This is achieved although it particularly medium to large scale development could be improved.

5 Require large-scale development to be of a design quality The design aspect is at that is commensurate with the prominence and visual issue, particularly in view of effects of the development the dominance caused by the height. 6 Encourage buildings at the ground floor to be adaptable to The ground floor residential a range of uses to allow activities to change over time. units on Marau Cres are not readily capable of being adaptable as they are bedrooms and part of the residential units on the next level which only contain living rooms / kitchens. The ceiling heights at ground floor level are also too low for future retail.

1040 Table One – Submission of Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association Inc

H11.2 Objectives / Policies Comments

7 Require at grade parking to be located and designed in Improved design could such a manner as to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on result in lowering the pedestrian amenity and the streetscape. podium area to ground level

8 Require development adjacent to residential zones and the The over height aspects of Special Purpose – School Zone and Special Purpose – the Proposed Development Maori Purpose Zone to maintain the amenity values of result in dominance. those areas, having specific regard to dominance, overlooking and shadowing. 9 Discourage activities, which have noxious, offensive, or No issues undesirable qualities from locating within the centres and mixed use zones, while recognising the need to retain employment opportunities 10 Discourage dwellings at ground floor in centre zones and See Policy 6 comments enable dwellings above ground floor in centre zones 11 Require development to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse The wind report is wind and glare effects on public open spaces, including unfavourable – it identifies streets, and shading effects on open space zoned land. an increase in wind conditions to cat C in some places. Given the nature of the centre and zone objectives and policies and the use of Mission Bay this is a concern.

12 Recognise the functional and operational requirements of There is no functional need activities and development to have over height buildings

13 In identified locations within the centres zones, Business – No such additional height Mixed Use Zone, Business – General Business Zone and has been recognised. Business – Business Park Zone enable greater building Adjacent residential zones height than the standard zone height, having regard to are low scale (11m max). whether the greater height: (a) is an efficient use of land; (b) supports public transport, community infrastructure and contributes to centre vitality and vibrancy; (c) considering the size and depth of the area, can be accommodated without significant adverse effects on adjacent residential zones; and (d) is supported by the status of the centre in the centres hierarchy, or is adjacent to such a centre.

14 In identified locations within the centre zones, Business – Height is not reduced at the Mixed Use Zone, Business – General Business Zone and site location. Business – Business Park Zone, reduce building height below the standard zone height, where the standard zone height would have significant adverse effects on identified special character, identified landscape features, or amenity 15 In areas surrounding the city centre, recognising their No offices are provided. proximity and accessibility to the Business – City Centre Zone and Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone at Newmarket, provide opportunities for substantial office activities in the Business – Local Centre Zone and Business – Mixed Use Zone. Business – Local Centre Zone Policies

1041 Table One – Submission of Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association Inc

H11.2 Objectives / Policies Comments

16 Enable activities for the local convenience needs of the This proposal does not surrounding residential area, including retail, commercial provide for much additional services, office, food and beverage and small scale retail etc, if any. supermarkets 17 Enable large scale commercial activity where this: (a) As the Proposed supports: Development does not (i) a diversity of activities within the local centre; and provide for large scale (ii) the centre's on-going ability to provide for the local commercial activities, this is convenience needs of its surrounding community; not an issue. (b) does not significantly adversely affect the function, role and amenity of the Business - City Centre Zone, Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone and Business – Town Centre Zone beyond those effects ordinarily associated with trade effects on trade competitors; and (c) manages adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation of the transport network including effects on pedestrian safety and amenity 18 Provide for the expansion of local centres to better provide The expansion is generally for community social and economic well-being, where limited to the new residents. expansion is suitable for growth in terms of strategic and local environmental effects 19 Recognise: N/A (a) the positive contribution supermarkets make to centre vitality and function; (b) the functional and operational requirements of these activities; and (c) where preferred built form outcomes are not achieved, the supermarket needs to achieve a quality built environment by positively contributing to public open space, including the activation of streets 20 Require activities adjacent to residential zones to avoid, The overall height creates remedy or mitigate adverse effects on amenity values of adverse amenity effects. those areas. 21 Restrict maximum impervious area within a riparian yard in N/A order to ensure that adverse effects on water quality, water quantity and amenity values are avoided or mitigated.

NZCPS Policy 1 Extent and characteristics of the coastal environment Location of site sits within (2) (1) Recognise that the extent and characteristics of (f) as an area that contributes the coastal environment vary from region to region to the visual qualities and and locality to locality; and the issues that arise may amenity values of the coast. have different effects in different localities. The reserve area also fits (2) Recognise that the coastal environment includes: within the coastal (a) the coastal marine area; environment. (b) islands within the coastal marine area; (c) areas where coastal processes, influences or qualities are significant, including coastal lakes, lagoons, tidal estuaries, saltmarshes, coastal wetlands, and the margins of these; (d) areas at risk from coastal hazards; (e) coastal vegetation and the habitat of indigenous coastal species including migratory birds;

1042 Table One – Submission of Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association Inc

(f) elements and features that contribute to the natural character, landscape, visual qualities or amenity values; (g) items of cultural and historic heritage in the coastal marine area or on the coast; (h) inter-related coastal marine and terrestrial systems, including the intertidal zone; and (i) physical resources and built facilities, including infrastructure, that have modified the coastal environment.

B8.2. Natural character B8.2.1. Objectives (1) Areas of the coastal environment with outstanding and high natural character are preserved and protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. (2) Subdivision, use and development in the coastal There are potential effects on environment are designed, located and managed to preserve the natural character of the the characteristics and qualities that contribute to the natural reserve area character of the coastal environment. (3) Where practicable, in the coastal environment areas with degraded natural character are restored or rehabilitated and areas of high and outstanding natural character are enhanced.

B8.2.2. Policies (4) Avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or There are potential adverse mitigate other adverse effects on natural character of the effects on the character of coastal environment not identified as outstanding natural reserve area character and high natural character from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

B8.3. Subdivision, use and development See above B8.3.1. Objectives

(1) Subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment are located in appropriate places and are of an appropriate form and within appropriate limits, taking into account the range of uses and values of the coastal environment. (2) The adverse effects of subdivision, use and development on the values of the coastal environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

B8.3.2. Policies Use and development

(1) Recognise the contribution that use and development of the coastal environment make to the social, economic and cultural well-being of people and communities. (2) Avoid or mitigate sprawling or sporadic patterns of subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment by all of the following: (a) concentrating subdivision, use and development within areas already characterised by development and where natural character values are already compromised; (b) avoiding urban activities in areas with natural and physical resources that have been scheduled in the Unitary Plan in relation to natural heritage, Mana Whenua, natural resources, coastal, historic heritage and special character; and (c) ensuring that subdivision, use or development involving land above and below the mean high water springs can

1043 Table One – Submission of Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association Inc

provide for any associated facilities or infrastructure in an integrated manner. (4) Require subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of activities above and below the mean high water springs, including the effects on existing uses and on the coastal receiving environment. (7) Set back development from the coastal marine area, where practicable, to protect the natural character and amenity values of the coastal environment.

E18 E18.2. Objectives [rcp/dp] (1) The natural characteristics and qualities that contribute to the natural character of the coastal environment are maintained while providing for subdivision, use and development. There are potential adverse (2) Where practical the natural character values of the coastal effect on the coastal environment are restored or rehabilitated. environment due to the scale and dominance of buildings E18.3. Policies [rcp/dp] (1) Manage subdivision, use and development of land adjoining scheduled outstanding natural character or high natural character areas that have a biophysical or visual linkage with the scheduled area to: (a) avoid adverse effects on the natural characteristics and qualities that contribute to the natural character values of outstanding natural character areas; and (b) avoid significant adverse effects, and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects, on the characteristics and qualities that contribute to the natural character values of high natural character areas. (2) Maintain significant landforms and indigenous vegetation and habitats that are connected to outstanding natural The natural character of the character and high natural character areas. reserve area is adversely (3) Manage the effects of subdivision, use and development in affected by the building the coastal environment to avoid significant adverse effects, scale. and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects, on the characteristics and qualities that contribute to natural character values, taking into account: (a) the location, scale and design of the proposed subdivision, use or development; (b) the extent of anthropogenic changes to landform, vegetation, coastal processes and water movement; (c) the presence or absence of structures, buildings or infrastructure; (d) the temporary or permanent nature of any adverse effects; (e) the physical and visual integrity of the area, and the natural processes of the location; (f) the intactness of any areas of significant vegetation, and vegetative patterns; (g) the physical, visual and experiential values that contribute significantly to the wilderness and scenic values of the area; (h) the integrity of landforms, geological features and associated natural processes, including sensitive landforms such as ridgelines, headlands, peninsulas, cliffs, dunes, wetlands, reefs, freshwater springs, streams, rivers and surf breaks; (i) the natural characteristics and qualities that exist or operate across mean high water spring and land in the coastal

1044 Table One – Submission of Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association Inc

environment, including processes of sediment transport, patterns of erosion and deposition, substrate composition and movement of biota, including between marine and freshwater environments; and (j) the functional or operational need for infrastructure to be located in a particular area. (4) Promote land use practices and restoration activities that will restore or rehabilitate natural character values.

1045 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 1:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2801] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Lorna Stansfield

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 575 1300

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 335 Tamaki Drive St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The entire application

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. I object to the height and bulk of this proposal. It is well beyond the allowable height under the zone rules, and is of a totally inappropriate scale for this part of Mission Bay. 2. I was one of the local residents affected by a previous proposal for the same site by the same developer. At the time, the developer similarly wanted to build over-height structures, and was opposed by local residents. The resource consent application was taken all the way to the

1 1046 Environment Court in 2000 where the applicant lost and was restricted to a much lower height. 3. While I recognise that the operative plan was different at the time, the principles of the arguments raised were similar and remain relevant today, notwithstanding the increased allowable height under the new zoning rules. 4. It is frustrating that the developer has chosen to ignore the arguments accepted by the Environment Court at the time, and is again attempting to build well beyond the allowable limits. How often do local residents have to spend time and substantial money opposing the same issues just because the developer wants to make more profit? 5. Since then, the Unitary Plan has been proposed, consulted on and adopted. The new zone height limits are ironically higher than the buildings proposed by the developer at that time. This indicates that the developer at that time was comfortable to stay within the heights that have now become the new rules. 6. During the Unitary Plan consultations, the applicant made no submission requesting an overlay to allow greater heights. This suggests they remained comfortable with the proposed heights, which were greater than they had wanted up to that point. 7. Now that the new rules have been confirmed and taller buildings are allowed, the developer wants to be able to go higher again. It would appear that the developer views the rules in any operative plan as a starting point for negotiation for a much better deal, rather than a set of rules that should be adhered to. 8. This approach is perhaps expected from developers interested only in the maximum profit that can be achieved from a given site. This is not, however, an acceptable approach for the community. The Unitary Plan is the guide to future development of Auckland. It cannot be allowed to be overridden for large developers with deep pockets and only applied to individuals without the resources to engage expensive experts. 9. Approval of this application would completely undermine the integrity of the unitary Plan. 10. The Council MUST reject this application entirely.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the application entirely

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1047 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 1:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2802] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Neil Brabant

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021635553

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 7 Speight rd, Kohimarama Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I oppose the whole submission

What are the reasons for your submission? It will be an eyesore on the waterfront because of its height proposal. It also appears to have less retail and community involvement and picture theatres should be compulsory. Vehicle and parking once again will be an issue like the rest of auckland CBD and the apartments will only be for the wealthy and will do little for the housing problem.

1 1048 It is purely an apartment development with little regard to the community. It also doesnt appear to comply with the Unitary plan...what is the point of a unitary plan if it isnt adhered to.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1049 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 1:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2803] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Maria de los Angeles Rodriguez Gonzalez

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021587068

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 29 Comins Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I do not support an 8 story building.

What are the reasons for your submission? the buildings are too tall

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Council must reject the proposal unless it fits the height restrictions for the area.

1 1050 Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1051 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 1:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2804] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: PETER WILLIAMSON

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211530263

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/103 TAMAKI DR. MISSION BAY AUCKLAND 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: TOO MUCH HOUSING SPACE AND NOT ENOUGH RETAIL SPACE. TAKING AWAY THE VILLAGE ATMOSPHERE AND THE WEAKENING OF THE TOURIST ATTRACTION POTENTIAL.

What are the reasons for your submission? IT WILL TAKE AWAY THE ATMOSPHERE AND QUAINTNESS THAT ATTRACT TOURISTS AND LOCAL VISITORS, WHO COME TO SEE SOMETHING OF OLD NZ. A BUILDING OF THIS NATURE WOULD MAKE IT , " JUST ANOTHER MODERN BUILDING DEVELOPMENT LIKE SO MANY OTHERS"

1 1052 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? SCRAP THE WHOLE IDEA OR IF THIS PROJECT IS FORCED UPON US, AT LEAST MORE RETAIL SPACE AND OUTSIDE PRIVATE RESTAURANTS AND FOOD AND DRINK OUTLETS. NOT FRANCHISES , WHICH ADD NO ATMOSPHERE.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1053 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 2:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2805] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: The Stephen Owen Family Trust submission.pdf

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Craig Brockliss

Organisation name: The Stephen Owen Family Trust

Contact phone number: +64 9 367 8606

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Russell McVeagh, Level 30, Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street Central Auckland 1140

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: As specified in full in the document attached, the submission relates to the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? It is submitted that the height, bulk and location of the Proposal will reduce the amenity of the Mission Bay area, create adverse visual effects, and fail to achieve the objective and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan. The submission in full is attached.

1 1054 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The height of the Proposal is reduced to largely comply with the Zone height standards. The design of the Proposal be modified to reduce its bulk. For more details, see the submission attached.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information: The Stephen Owen Family Trust submission.pdf

2 1055 1

SUBMISSION ON PUBLICLY NOTIFIED APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT

UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

TO: Auckland Council

SUBMITTER: The Stephen Owen Family Trust

1. The Stephen Owen Family Trust makes this submission in opposition to an application from Drive Holdings Ltd for a resource consent to demolish and construct buildings ("Proposal") on land at 75-79, 81-87 and 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6-12 and 14 Patteson Avenue and 26, 28 & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay ("Site").

2. The submitter is not a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308B of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Scope of submission

3. This submission relates to the whole of the application.

Nature of submission

4. The submitter opposes the Proposal.

5. It is submitted that the height, bulk and location of the Proposal will reduce the amenity of the Mission Bay area, create adverse visual effects, and fail to achieve the objective and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan ("Plan"), specifically of the Business Local Centre zone ("Zone").

Reasons for submission

6. The reasons for this submission are that the application, if granted:

(a) is inconsistent with the relevant planning documents including the Auckland Unitary Plan;

(b) will not avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the Proposal on the environment;

(d) will not achieve the purpose principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA").

3625249

1056 2

Specific reasons for submission

7. Without limiting the general reasons above, the submitter takes issue with the adverse visual and amenity effects of the Proposal arising from its height, bulk and location.

8. This is not a situation where there is a height infringement on part of the site. Instead, the lowest building of the northern face of the Proposal is at the height limit of 18 metres,1 and the highest building extends to 30 metres enabling up to 4 additional storeys.2

9. The additional height is inappropriate in this context and, as a consequence, the Proposal fails to achieve the objective and policies of the Zone. Particulars are set out below.

Introduction

10. Mission Bay is renowned for its coastal amenity. The waterfront is the focal point of the area, including as it does golden sand, smooth waters and clear views out to Rangitoto, Motutapu and Little Barrier beyond. The Mission Bay area is enclosed by gradual ridgelines to the east, south and west. A natural amphitheater, residents and visitors alike look down to the Mission Bay centre and out to the Manukau Harbour.

11. The Mission Bay centre (that being the Site and surrounding properties zoned as Business Local Centre (“Zone”)) therefore occupies a key position. Its contribution to the amenity of the surrounding area is of key importance, as is its potential to create significant visual effects if inappropriate development is allowed to occur. The Auckland Unitary Plan ("Plan") through the applicable zoning provisions acknowledges as much. The following objectives of the Zone place an emphasis on amenity values and visual effects. It is submitted the Proposal fails to advance such objectives and policies.

Residential amenity

12. Objective 3 requires development to occur in a way that manages adverse effects on the environment, including effects on infrastructure and residential amenity, and Policy 8 requires development adjacent to residential zones to maintain the amenity values of those areas, having specific regard to dominance, overlooking and shadowing.

13. The Site is directly adjacent to residential zones. To the south is a Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone (“MHU Zone”). To the east, and further south is a Residential – Single House zone (“SH Zone”). Both of these areas have a distinct residential feel to them. This is fostered by the relevant zone provisions. For example:

1 H11.6.1. 2 Drive Holdings Ltd's Application, Buchan plans, section 12.

3625249

1057 3

(a) The MHU Zone has a building height restriction of 12 metres (approximately 3 storeys).3 The SH Zone includes a building height restriction of 9 metres (approximately 2 storeys).4

(b) The SH Zone to the east requires the maintenance of the “amenity values of established residential neighbourhoods including those based on special character informed by the past, spacious sites with some large trees, a costal setting or other factors such as established neighbourhood character.”5 The objectives of the MHU Zone also place an emphasis on amenity. For example, Objective 2 requires development “in keeping with the neighbourhood's planned urban built character of predominantly three-storey buildings, in a variety of forms and surrounded by open space.”6

(c) Both zones require new buildings to have a yard space to the front, side and rear, and landscaped areas of at least 35% of the net site area.

14. The Proposal neither manages its adverse effects on the surrounding residential amenity, nor does it maintain the amenity values of adjacent zones. This is most clearly the case in respect to the height of the Proposal. The Proposal ranges from 18 - 30 metres in height along Tamaki Drive.7 At the north western corner of the Site the Proposal extends 21 metres above the SH Zone height standards to the east, and 18 metres above the MHU Zone height standards to the south.8 To this end, the Proposal breaks with the form of the surrounding area, and dwarfs surrounding buildings. This is clearly demonstrated by images in the application.

15. The bulk of the Proposal also adversely affects the surrounding residential amenity. Images provided in the application depict large white facades facing to the east, south and west of the Site. The sudden cut of the roof makes the Proposal appear block-like and severe against the sea and islands that lie beyond it. Though from some angles the Proposal is broken by pedestrian walkways and other lines, its bulk as against the surrounding area is dominating and breaks with the residential feel of the place.

3 H5.6.4. See figure H5.6.4.1. 4 H3.6.6. See figure H3.6.6.1 5 H3.2(1). 6 H5.2(2). 7 Drive Holdings Ltd's Application, Buchan plans, section 12. 8 In many instances, the surrounding residential properties do not currently extend to the height standard of their zone. This means the height difference between the Proposal and the surrounding environment is further pronounced. For example, the Courtney Flats located two sites to the east of the Proposal are protected by a Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place, which restricts modifications to the existing structure. Development of other residential areas is not expected for some time. In any case, as has been argued above, even if the surrounding residential zones are developed to full capacity, the height of the Proposal is visually awkward.

3625249

1058 4

16. The attractiveness of the area for residents will be reduced. Views over and beyond the local centre will be significantly affected. Instead of sitting discretely behind the reserve and beach, below the line of sight of Mission Bay residents, the Proposal will completely change how the local residents experience and view the local centre. It will be "front of mind" and residents from Marau Crescent to Kepa Road will look directly at it rather than over it, with many experiencing a feeling of dominance.

17. The height and mass of the Proposal result in adverse visual and amenity effects for residents. Unless the height and mass of the Proposal are reduced significantly, it is submitted these adverse effects on amenity are not managed as per the Zone objective.

Scale and intensity

18. Objective 7 requires the scale and intensity of development within local centres to be in keeping with the planning outcomes identified in the Plan for the surrounding environment.

19. It is submitted that the scale and intensity of the Proposal is not in keeping with the planned outcomes of the surrounding residential environment.

20. The way in which the Proposal breaks with the scale of the surrounding residential environment has been described above. In some cases the Proposal is more than 21 metres (or up to 7 storeys) higher than the height standards of the surrounding environment, and its bulk stands out against the patchwork of residential properties.

21. It is submitted that the intensity of the Proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding residential environment either. As a result of its height and bulk, the capacity of the Proposal to host shoppers, diners and movie viewers is enormous. The presence of short-term visitors in these numbers will increase noise, and pedestrian foot traffic, thereby breaking with the surrounding residential ambiance. It is acknowledged that the intensity of the Mission Bay centre is anticipated to increase pursuant to the zoning of the area. However, it is submitted the Proposal will lead to change in the extreme.

22. In summary, the scale and intensity of the Proposal is not amenable to the planned outcome for the surrounding residential environment.

Attractive place to live, work and visit

23. Objective 8 requires local centres to be an attractive place to live, work, and visit.

24. The popularity of the area has always been in connection to the natural amenity of the waterfront. The sand, sea and natural feel of the beach is what the Mission Bay area is renowned for. It is submitted that no work is necessary to upscale the attractiveness of the area - its natural charm is self-evident. In fact, it is submitted that changing the urban intensity of the Mission Bay area to the

3625249

1059 5

extent the Proposal entails, may well reduce the attractiveness of the area by dramatically increasing the level of built development.

Summary

25. The Proposal will reduce the amenity of the Mission Bay area in an unacceptable way, and give rise to significant adverse visual effects for the residents of Mission Bay. It fails to achieve the objectives and policies of the Zone.

26. It is acknowledged that aside from providing for the continued amenity of the Mission Bay area, the Plan also anticipates high levels of change. The submitter understands and expects that the Mission Bay centre will be subject to development in coming years, and that such change may alter the current amenity of the place. However, the amenity values should be further improved or enhanced by development, rather than eroded.

27. The submitter requests appropriate consideration be given to the surrounding residential amenity of the Mission Bay area, and the amenity of the waterfront reserve and beach. The submitter requests Council reduce the bulk and height of the Proposal to a level more closely aligned with the Zone height standards. It is submitted that without such modifications, the Proposal is not of a kind the Plan anticipates.

Decision sought

28. The following decision is sought from the Council:

(a) The height of the Proposal is reduced to largely comply with the Zone height standards; and

(b) The design of the Proposal be modified to reduce its bulk. This could be done, for example, by stepping the roof-line, further modulation of facades, and more visual breaks through the Proposal when viewed from the south.

29. The submitter wishes to be heard in support of this submission.

3625249

1060 6

30. If others make a similar submission consideration would be given to presenting a joint case with them at any hearing.

THE STEPHEN OWEN FAMILY TRUST by its solicitors and authorised agents Russell McVeagh:

Signature: Bronwyn Carruthers

Date: 10 October 2018

Address for Service: C/- Brittany Couper Russell McVeagh Barristers and Solicitors Level 30 Vero Centre 48 Shortland Street PO Box 8/DX CX10085 AUCKLAND 1140

Telephone: +64 9 367 8869

Email: [email protected]

3625249

1061 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 2:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2806] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Julie Thompson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095284794

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 14 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? 1.0 Proposed plan needs to be rethought through and greatly reduced to fit in with the proposed Unitary plan. This resource consent application does not fit in with Mission Bay's unique position of the foreshore, Historic House , fountain, the green with the backdrop of the pohutakawas. All of which is a big draw card for residents and visitors alike. 2.0 Mention of retaining the Art Dec concept with the rounding of the buildings and shaped windows do nothing

1 1062 for Art Deco! What is there at present should be an example. 3.0 The 100 proposed apartments are more important than the retail/commercial spaces which have been scaled back from the number at present, 4. Buildings on the western side of Patteson Ave will be earmarked for similar construction if eastern side is allowed to progress - above height and bulk from Unitary Plan. 5. The proposed theatre and mall will be only an afterthought if finances allow? That will never happen with rising costs which will inevitably occur. 6. Those large concrete buildings will spoil the ambience and look for residents and visitors when approaching Mission Bay or when enjoying the surrounds either walking or driving. 7. Traffic - with the number of apartments intended - owners owning 1-2 cars - plus their visitors - parking for the public and retail businesses will be horrendous. Also the buses use the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Ave as a bus stop. Weekends and event days are virtually impossible to find parking in Mission Bay. 8. With tall buildings with gaps between - wind funnels are the result - also casting long shadows on adjacent properties and loss of sunlight.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1063 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 2:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2807] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Sara LaBrooy

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 880470

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 10a Long Drive St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I oppose the application on the grounds that it is not within the guidelines of the Unitary plan, that it degrades the natural environment, that it reduces the amenities of the existing Mission Bay residents and other local areas who visit, and that it may set a precedent in any future similar applications.

What are the reasons for your submission? Reasons Why Council Should not allow the Proposed development to proceed. • The proposed development of these buildings, the highest being eight stories high, is totally unsuitable for the local environment. The buildings’ design

1 1064 displays absolutely no relationship to it’s coastal environment. The bulk of the proposed building will make it the dominant feature in Mission bay towering over the low undulations of the landscape. • The proposed apartments are likely to be sold to high net worth individuals who will likely not be in residence for much of the year. The developers interest in the apartments being built above the unitary plan allowed height is pure greed. The higher the building the more money he makes. This does not provide any amenity to the local community. • In the event the apartments are occupied by locals, the probability is that each of the proposed 100 apartments has a minimum of two people residing, and if those people have a car each, there will be 200 hundred more cars to park. The addition of 30 more parking places proposed by the developer is grossly lacking. Where will the visitors to these 100 apartments park? This will affect the present surrounding residents ability to park on their streets, as well as all the visitors Mission Bay currently hosts. If the proposed plan is allowed to go ahead, the amenity of Aucklanders to come and park in the already meagre parking areas will be lost. Business confidence in the restaurants will be lost if their customers cannot park. Where in the application is there any consideration for the flow of traffic through Mission Bay, and the increase of parking required? • The proposed building does not comply with the current council plan for the area. If Auckland Council allow this development to proceed it makes a mockery of the present Unitary Plan. The integrity of the Council planning will be lost and with it goes the trust of Auckland ratepayers. • The Unitary Plan does not include buildings that are not in keeping with the surrounding environment. The developers say they have taken local history into account by the curved windows referencing the Art deco period of the present building. What they propose does not in any way echo the Art Deco building design. Any historian will dispute their claims. The original character will be lost forever. • The proposed building will cast a shadow on many properties to the south of it, and cause a loss of view from the hillside properties standing there. Why should a developer be allowed to harvest huge profits from high rise apartments, to the detriment of values to smaller housing to the south side of the site that do comply with council unitary plans? The Council needs to consider the present ratepayers loss, in terms of amenity, if the application for the development is allowed. • I understand the developer who is making the application also owns the strip of buildings on the west side of Patterson Avenue presently occupied by well established and loved restaurants. If council approves the present building application a precedent will be set for the developer to build another similar building. This is not what ratepayers in the area want, and it is not in keeping with the coastal environment. • Mission Bay is a naturally formed amphitheatre created by volcanic activity. If the base of the natural land levels are not considered by the council, and this eight story building is allowed to be sited in the bowl of the landform, the very nature of the community will be lost. The central point of the community is the beach front area and its original historic structures. The natural flow of residents walking down the hill with the coast in sight is what the area is renowned for. The same applies to Kohimarama and St Heliers bays. Residents are worried that if this development is allowed the precedent will prevail along the coast. This is New Zealand not Hawaii and we need to remember that. If the council is going to allow high rises in the landscape then at least a consideration to build them on the natural ridge of hills like neighbouring Eastridge would be a more sensible choice. • Mission Bay is a community of people who have chosen to live in this historic beach environment. Aucklanders and tourists alike visit Mission Bay because of its charm and originality. The very nature of the community would be destroyed if the building was allowed to proceed. The intimate relationship of residents in the community with the coastline will be lost • The views from the waterfront to Michael Joseph Savage Memorial Park will be obscured by this development. The park is an important historic element of the community and sighting it from the local surrounds should be sacred in the development of any part of Mission Bay. The Park forms part of the history that attracts people to the area, both visitors and residents. In addition the view from Michael Joseph Savage Memorial Park down to and across Mission Bay will be destroyed forever. The historic reference to the natural landscape is essential to the story of Aucklands’ history, and the proposed development will destroy that reference of Mission Bay to the land surrounding it. When is it ok to plunder natural historic land formations? • The present application by the developer does not include the replacement of the cinema. The adjunct to their proposal for a cinema if funds permit is not acceptable in any form. Local residents rely on this amenity and if it were lost would need to get in their cars to travel to the city to a cinema. A loss of the cinema would also reduce the liveability of the area. • What Mission Bay does need is improvement in seating areas for enjoyment of Selwyn reserve, the fountain and the beach. The present building proposal equates to a loss of retail and hospitality space from the present 3,500sq Mtrs to 2,495sq Mtrs. Why would the Council, who are responsible to their present ratepayers, even consider an application that reduces the ratepayers local amenities?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the Council to reject the application for the proposed multi building development and invite the developer to redesign in such a way that is not destructive to the local environment, or degrading of the local residents outlooks and amenities, and above all restrict any development to four levels.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1065 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 2:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2808] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: K Palmer Mission Bay app -5.docx

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Kenneth Palmer

Organisation name: [committee member Tamaki Drive Protection Society]

Contact phone number: 099237828

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 9 Reihana Street Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: All aspects of the proposed development

What are the reasons for your submission? Please see the attached submission

1 1066 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Please see submission. Possible reduction in high to remove level 8 (penthouse), and level 7 (4 apartments). If consent granted, a condition that the applicant enter a development agreement under the LGA with Auckland Council to secure the cinema complex and other restaurant and retail facilities for the future.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information: K Palmer Mission Bay app -5.docx

2 1067 1

Submission on basic legal and planning issues

Subject: Project Beachside Mission Bay – Drive Holdings Ltd development

From: Dr Kenneth Palmer

Date: 9 Oct 2018

Preliminary

This asessment has been prepared independently by Dr Kenneth Palmer, a former chair and longtime member of the Tamaki Drive Protection Society Inc (www.tamakidrive.org.nz). He is a retired Associate Professor at the Auckland Law School and a specialist in the RMA and planning matters. He is a 50 year resident of Orakei. The assessment does not purport to represent the collective views of the committee of the Tamaki Drive Protection Society.

1 Introduction

Drive Holdings Ltd have applied for a resource consent to develop a large site fronting Tamaki Drive, Patteson Avenue and Marau Crescent in Mission Bay, with various comprehensive buildings spread over several allotments of 6527sq m. The main block on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Avenue will comprise one underground carpark level, a ground floor retail area, a first floor mixed retail and apartment level, five higher apartment levels, and a top penthouse level set back from the main facade. Car parking for 265 vehicles is included in basement and ground floor levels. The proposal includes 2920sq m hospitality and retail space; a 955sq m cinema space of several levels constructed within a separate building within the centre court yard space; up to 100 apartments across all the buildings. Overall the drawings indicate five to seven levels, and an additional penthouse level on the Patteson Road corner with Tamaki Drive.

2 Issues

The proposed development will have a dominant effect in relation to the existing site and adjacent commercial and residential developments which are presently no higher than two or three levels. A development of the proposed height or the height approved could set a precedent for other commercial or mixed use development at Mission Bay, and change the character of the waterfront location.

A major issue is whether the development, which will rebuild the existing cinemas as well as a mixture of businesses and add the multiple residential units, should be supported as consistent with the Auckland Unitary Plan, the future development of the Bay, and the purposes of the RMA. These matters include consideration of the amenities of the neighbourhood, and capacity of the infrastructure, including traffic managment to acommodate the increased density, and the vision for the next 50 years being the minimum projected life of the development.

3 Rules

1068 2

The zoning for the location fronting 75-79, 81-87 Tamaki Drive is H11. Business– Local Centre Zone in the operative Auckland Unitary Plan.

Under H11.3 Policies, a number of relevant policies are set out which are important in any consideration of a resource consent application. All the proposed activities appear to be listed in Table H11.4.1 Activity table, as either permitted or restricted discretionary or discretionary activities.

Under C1.7 Activities not provided for, these must be considered to be discretionary activities. Under the RMA, the development overall will probably require consents for discretionary activities. If approved, conditions can be imposed.

Building height rule Under, table H11.6.1, the rule prescribes a maximum occupiable building height of 16m, additional height for roof form 2m, total building height 18m. For visual impact the permitted 18m height is the effective standard. A resource consent is necessary to exceed the standard permitted height. It is understood the maximum building in the proposed development is between 22m and up to 28.2 m above the penthouse level, depending on the various buildings. The several heights can be checked on the drawings included in the notified application.

A purpose of the building height rule, includes to manage visual dominance effects, and greater height in areas identified for intensification. The standard limitation is subject to a further possible “height variation control” under Table H11.6.1.2 , but at the present time, it appears that this control does not apply to the location.

It is clear that the proposed development exceeds the permitted 18m height rule, and this will be a major issue in the resource consent application. The increased height will increase the visual dominance of the building, probably establish a precedent as to other development in the Mission Bay forefront, and could compromise to a limited extent existing views of the harbour and Rangitoto Island from properties situated to the south of the development.

The Tamaki Drive Masterplan (2013), prepared and endorsed by the Orakei Local Board, (and supported by the TDPS) contains policies on future improvements to Tamaki Drive as a premier arterial road for transportation including cycling and walking, and enhancement of enjoyment of the seascape amenity. A major objective is to avoid new commercial development on the northern side of Tamaki Drive. The report includes a statement (at p24) “through planning and design controls, preserve seaside village identity, protecting historic heritage and character of the area and beach communities including St Heliers village”. The Masterplan (prepared under the LGA) is not part of the AUP, but is a relevant document in respect of any development that could detract from the function and enjoyment of Tamaki Drive.

4 RMA provision for resource consents

1069 3

The main guideline or direction for evaluation of the resource consent application is section 104 of the Resource Management Act.

s 104 Consideration of applications

(1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to–

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and (ab) any measure proposed or agreed to by the applicant for the purpose of ensuring positive effects on the environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or may result from allowing the activity; and (b) any relevant provisions of— (i) a national environmental standard: (ii) other regulations: (iii) a national policy statement: (iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement: (v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: (vi) a plan or proposed plan; and (c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. (2) When forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if a national environmental standard or the plan permits an activity with that effect. (3)….

Under s 104(2), the consent authority may apply the “permitted baseline” principle, which means that the height and bulk of a building permitted by the new rules for the zone must be accepted, and the focus is on consent for the excess in height and bulk that is proposed.

The evaluation under s 104 is “subject to part 2”. The most relevant sections in part 2 are set out:

Section 5 Purpose (1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. (2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while— (a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Section 7 Other matters In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to— (a)…. (aa)…. (b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources: (ba) …. (c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:

1070 4

5 Application of rules to development

The supporting document, “Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects”, put forward by LA Architects on behalf of Drive Holdings Ltd, assesses the effect on the environment of the proposal. The consultants, with respect, advance the conclusion that the proposed development as a matter of bulk, height, and design, could be approved by the consent authority under section 104 as presently proposed. A particular emphasis is on the provision for an architectural statement to give prominance to the building appearance on the corner of Patteson Avenue and Tamaki Drive. A further objective is to recognise and enhance the Mission Bay waterfront as a premium visitor destination and public amenity area. The “Urban Design Assessment” authored by Ian Munro, applying a comprehensive independent analysis, comes to a similar conclusion that the consent could be granted on urban design grounds.

A matter to be considered by the applicant and submitters is the weight to be given to the Auckland Unitary Plan which for the location came into effect in 2016. The proposal is not a prohibited activity in any respect, and is legally able to be presented to the Council for consideration for resource consents under RMA section 104.

Whether the development is assessed as a discretionary activity or a non-complying activity, has some relevance. If the activity is a non-complying actiivity under the plan, then the activity must first satisfy one of two gateways under section 104D. The gateways are either that the adverse effects on the environment will be minor, or in the alternative that the activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan.

On the understanding that the application is for discretionary activity consent overall, then the gateways under s 104D are not relevant, and the question returns to section 104 as to whether or not the consent should be granted as sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In considering the application, the consent authority must, subject to part 2 of the RMA, first have regard to any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity.

The term “effects”is defined expansively in s 3:

S 3 Meaning of effect In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term effect includes— (a) any positive or adverse effect; and (b) any temporary or permanent effect; and (c) any past, present, or future effect; and (d) any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects—regardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect, and also includes— (e) any potential effect of high probability; and (f) any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.

The reference in s 3(a) to both positive and negative effect is relevant to the provision of the cinemas which can be regarded as a positive effect. The reference in s 3(f) to any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact could be relevant to any future flooding or inundation risk for the underground carpark area.

1071 5

The term “environment” is defined under section 2 environment includes— (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and (b) all natural and physical resources; and (c) amenity values; and (d) the social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) or which are affected by those matters

Within this definition, the recognition of amenity values and the social, economic, aesthetic and cultural conditions which affect the matters are important.

The definition of “amenity values” in section 2 states:

amenity values means those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes

Accordingly, in the context of the present application the effect of the development on amenity values is a relevant matter to be assessed and determined. If the proposed development will have a substantial adverse effect on the amenity values of the present community and visitors, and other bodies with an interest in the conservation or continuation of the character of the existing character at Mission Bay, then the proposal could be declined. Alternative development could then be invited on a lesser or revised scale.

A similar exercise has been undertaken in respect of two large developments at St Heliers where the replacement buildings have been approved and erected to an equivalent four- storey height. The success of those developments varies arising out of the architectural styles. The stark 2006 waterfront building on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Maheke St, supported by the Auckland City Council during Environment Court mediation, could be viewed as not enhancing the character of St Heliers village. The subsequent 2013 building in Turua Street, replacing three Art Deco cottages, contributes in sympathetic vibrant design to an enhancement of the township character. Quality design can be more important than the height of a building.

6 Weight to be given to the policies and rules in the AUP

The significance of rules in a council plan have been described by Chief Justice Elias in the case of Discount Brands Ltd v Westfield (New Zealand) Ltd [2005] 2 NZLR 597 at [10]:

“The district plan is the key to the Act’s [RMA] purpose of enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing. It is arrived at through a participatory process, including through appeal to the Environment Court. The plan has legislative status. People and communities can order their lives under it with some assurance”.

A district plan is a framework within which the resource consent has to be assessed. But the judicial statement needs to be taken in context, and the merits a resource consent application may outweigh and supersede the existing broad brush zoning .

1072 6

More recently, a significant case RJ Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2018] NZCA 316 has progressed through the Environment Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The case concerned the refusal of a marine farm development. The Court of Appeal judgment was released on 21 August 2018. The importance of the judgment is that the Court of Appeal gives specific advice, following an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in EDS v NZ King Salmon[2014] NZSC 38, on the relationship of higher-level documents such as regional policy statements and regional plans and district plans, in the evaluation of resource consent applications.

Formerly a view had been taken that in a resource consent application, the consent authority could in reliance upon section 5 of the RMA, make a “broad overall judgement” under s 104 as to sustainable management and the outcome of the consent application, without giving any particular weight to the higher level New Zealand coastal policies, and other regional policy and district plan documents. Two paragraphs in the judgment spell out the approach and weight to be given to policies included in regional and district plans, to the effect that these policies are not to be set to one side or given little weight as was commonly the situation in the past. The Court stated:

[73] We consider a similar approach should be taken in cases involving applications for resource consent falling for consideration under other kinds of regional plans and district plans. In all such cases the relevant plan provisions should be considered and brought to bear on the application in accordance with s 104(1)(b). A relevant plan provision is not properly had regard to (the statutory obligation) if it is simply considered for the purpose of putting it on one side. Consent authorities are used to the approach that is required in assessing the merits of an application against the relevant objectives and policies in a plan. What is required is what Tipping J referred to as “a fair appraisal of the objectives and policies read as a whole”.

[74] It may be, of course, that a fair appraisal of the policies means the appropriate response to an application is obvious, it effectively presents itself. Other cases will be more difficult. If it is clear that a plan has been prepared having regard to pt 2 and with a coherent set of policies designed to achieve clear environmental outcomes, the result of a genuine process that has regard to those policies in accordance with s 104(1) should be to implement those policies in evaluating a resource consent application. Reference to pt 2 in such a case would likely not add anything. It could not justify an outcome contrary to the thrust of the policies. Equally, if it appears the plan has not been prepared in a manner that appropriately reflects the provisions of pt 2, that will be a case where the consent authority will be required to give emphasis to pt 2. [italics added]

The directions of the Court of Appeal implicitly acknowledge that where a regional, district or unitary plan has been prepared close in time to the application with a focus on the main issue, the policies should be given significant weight, and the procedures establishing the policies and rules should not be set to one side as not relevant or not addressing the appropriate determinations on the content of the plan. The expectation is that in the absence of a justifiable case, in the majority of situations the plan rules should apply to maintain the integrity of the plan. In practicwe, the significant cost of any notified plan change or resource consent application, and risk of appeals, are factors which restrict most developments to the permitted activity parameters.

1073 7

It could be asserted that the determination of zoning for the Eastern Bays, including Mission Bay in particular, followed a thorough process of public consultation, submissions and hearings before the Independent Hearings Panel on the PAUP. The hearings panel was chaired by an Environment Court Judge, and could be accorded the equivalent weight of the Environment Court. The acceptance of the policies which relate to Mission Bay by Auckland Council, should be taken as an acceptance of the height limits provided under the Business - Local Centre Zone.

But it needs to be acknowledged again that the proposed development by Drive Holdings Ltd was not before the Hearings Panel. In any event, the consequences of higher apartment buildings and structures of 4 and 5 storeys now permitted in the upzoning in Mission Bay under the AUP will be to change and significantly diminish the past small village seaside character of the Bay.

An alternative view is that for the height rules in the AUP to be overridden by a development, there should be special reasons which justify the departure from the plan. This is an approach acknowledged in the past by the Courts where a precedent could be set, and the ability to grant a consent for substantial discretionary activities, requires careful evaluation. Concerning the precedent issue, any development at Mission Bay will not give rise directly to a precedent applicable to Kohimarama waterfront or Okahu Bay, which have their own character and do not have any significant commercial zoning. St Heliers has its own character overlay and development history.

7 Height and design evaluation

In the present situation, the additional floors added to the building above the permitted height propose a balance of apartments of 1, 2, 3 bedrooms. The apartments will be attractive and affordable for many wealthy owners, investors or corporate owners. Under recent law changes, the apartments could be sold to overseas investors, subject to occupancy limitations. Although there is a range of new apartments in other eastern bays locations becoming available, especially to the top tier of owner-occupiers and investors, there could be a legitimate demand for apartments on the waterfront at Mission Bay. The policies for Mission Bay in the district plan do not envisage a truly high-rise apartment use or development (10 storeys plus) as found in the CBD (and Takapuna).

At the eastern end of Mission Bay, a 5 storey apartment building fronts the cliff face. Further along Tamaki Drive on the approach to Kohimarama, several older apartment blocks are located against the cliff face. Numbers 165 and 175 Tamaki Drive are 7 storeys; and number 167 is 12 storeys in height. Accordingly, several buildings above the 18 m height line and one building above 28m already exist in proximate places. Several large 5/6 storey apartment blocks are under construction along the Kepa Road above Mission Bay, and a 6 storey block is being constructed adjacent to the Coates Avenue shops in Orakei. These observations on comparative building heights are relevant to the assessment of the the four level 7 apartments, and the one penthouse on level 8. By comparison a number of retirement villages in the Auckland area have buildings of up to 5-7 storeys.

1074 8

From the developers perspective, special reasons, other than economic advantage to the developers and private benefit for the future apartment owners and occupiers, should be put forward. To the credit of the developer, the indicative design provides for a generous floor height for each level, and does not truncate the floors to obtain maximum floor levels within the permitted or proposed height limits.

The design feature of the increased tiered building height on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Avenue may also be premised on a fact that presently within the proximate Mission Bay flat area, at 16 Atkin Ave, a substantial 4 storey apartment building exists, and in the future more 4 or 5 storey apartment blocks will arise. A further 3 or 4 storeys above that future ambient level to provide a corner focus, may be advanced for the proposed mixed commercial and residential development, as a desirable upgrade and visual centrepoint of the mixed use character of the Mission Bay waterfront.

A debatable consideration as to amenity and character is that the design does not provide on the upper floor levels 6-8 for any public facilities or access, such as a roof garden, viewing area or public restaurants and bar area. The corner facade does not include a traditional clock face structure. The existing modest clock tower and the splendid water fountain across Tamaki Drive positively contibute to the heritage character and amenity of the Bay. As noted, the floor plans indicate the upper levels 2-7 and penthouse 8 level will be privately owned apartments, and with no public access or benefit.

8 Cinema complex as a benefit and environmental compensation

A justification for the building height that may be advanced by the applicant is the retention of and capital investment in the cinemas. This entertainment space could be economically dependent upon the consent to exceed the permitted height of 4/5 storeys by the extra 3 storeys, as a necessary trade off to retain the benefit of the public complex.

Section 104(1)(ab) of the RMA (inserted 18 Oct 2017), recognises that a relevant matter for consideration is “any measure proposed ... by the applicant for the purpose of ensuring positive effects on the environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or may result from allowing the activity”.

If raised, the provision of the hospitality space, shops and cinema complex could come within the scope of positive effects on the environment, as defined. The closest other cinema complexes are in the CBD and Newmarket. With an increasing local population and visitors, the entertainment complex is a desirable facility with positive effects on the environment. This is a matter to be considered on the merits, including any alternative uses or solutions. Discontinuance of the cinema complex would be a significant loss of amenities and public enjoyment of the Bay, especially by senior citizens and young persons.

If the development is approved, a condition should be imposed that the developer will provide the entertainment complex under an additional development side agreement with Auckland Council, and ensure through title covenant that the use is not abandoned. Otherwise a risk arises that the cinema complex could revert to a commercial office use,

1075 9 with little or no public benefit. A development agreement is authorised under LGA, ss 207C, 207D.

The proposal to allow for outdoor dining on the verandah areas, raises similar issues of amenity impact and continuation. The verandah provision has merit in enabling public access and enjoyment of the grandstand view of Selwyn Reserve and outstanding seascape across to Rangitoto Island. On any assessment this facility should be regarded as a positive public benefit, and superior to the present limited provision for outdoor table space on the existing footpath area. The footpath area is affected by pedestrian numbers and vehicle fumes.

9 Building separation and facade design

The separation of the several buildings to allow for light access to all the apartments and providing limited view shafts is a commendable design feature. Althougth the subject of differing views, the framing of the facades reduces the bulk of the overall development and captures some of the past Art Deco character of Mission Bay, and is greatly superior to a long unbroken curtain glass facade. A disallowance or removal of the top floor level 7 and the penthouse level 8 could affect the classical design proportions, but would not appear to be a critical element. Any reduction below level 7 could significantly compromise the design proportions and result in an insubstantial and mediocre appearance. The proposed design should be asessed against the likely building amenity in 10 years time, and not against the present dated structures.

The location of the cinema in the centre court is a commendable feature for sound isolation and public access. The shelter provided by the outside buildings should mitigate any wind effect within the concourse. Looking ahead, the cinemas could also be adaptable for other community and entertainment activities.

10 Summary

An evidential burden to support the proposed development rests on the developers to justify the additional floor levels above the permitted 18 m height line.

The provision for a resource consent application to undertake a development outside the permitted rules is recognised under the RMA as entirely legitimate. The present application could set a benchmark and stimulous for the future development of Mission Bay.

The redevelopment bildings will last for at least 50 years, and the assessment should take on board the probable character of Mission Bay in 10-20 years time, with an increasing number of 4-5 storey residential buildings. Although the proposed development may be a challenge and unattractive to the senior generation at the present time, the younger generations could well regard increased building levels up to 7/8 floors as the norm. Mission Bay will still retain the character of an exciting and dynamic place to visit and enjoy.

In support of the submission that the development should be evaluated against the future environment as well as the present environment, RMA s 104(1)(a) refers to consideration of

1076 10

the actual and potential effects on the environment. Effects include positive as well as adverse effects. Section 5(2)(a)(sustainable management purpose), includes consideration of sustaining the potential of resources to meet “the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations”. Subject to matters noted, the present proposal could be supported as promoting sustainable management of the location.

The provision for the cinemas, and other public restaurant and cafe space, should be a condition of any approval, to be secured by a development agreement (under the LGA) with Auckland Council, to recognise the positive compensation for any consent to the extra building levels. This agreement would safeguard against future reversion of those community spaces to commercial office or residential use.

The author wishes to generally acknowledge the analysis and recommendations in the “Urban Design Assessment” authored by Ian Munro.

As indicated, this submission and assessment does not purport to represent the collective views of the Tamaki Drive Protection Society or of other members of the management committee. Other members may make personal submissions.

A majority view of the Society committee is that level 7 (4 apartments) and level 8 (1 penthouse) should be deleted, as presently providing no direct public benefit and not being essential to the design and proportions of the higher buildings and corner feature.

Dr Kenneth Palmer Barrister Auckland

1077 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 3:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2809] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Lucia LOY

Organisation name: Technology & Security Solutions Ltd

Contact phone number: 021465505

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 25-813 st. Helier's Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Building Height Amenities Transport Heritage of architecture Heritage values Eco Values

What are the reasons for your submission? There is zero justification for ignoring the unitary plan height restrictions. There is less space for hospitality and retail in the design which does not improve the facilities in the village. There are no more community amenities, just more occupants living there in apartments. There are just more apartments, more private vehicle traffic, more people driving to facilities in nearby areas since the development does not improve the amenities such as food supplies and other

1 1078 retail. The new development is lacking in amenity values. There is zero relationship with the coastal environment, no coastal village feel, rather tall 80s looking apartments plonked onto the coast with all their parking spaces. The Height in the unitary plan is a core standard for Auckland. This height must be followed, and this building is too high and will dwarf the surrounding village because it does not follow the Unitary plan height restrictions. There is no bike parking in the plans. The private motor car is the only form of transport being accommodated for the apartments. More car parking spaces means more congestion since the entrances to parking garages only allow one car at a time. They will bumble and queue in the surrounding streets getting into their one lane entrance and pollute the air with fumes. There are no electric vehicle charging stations either in the parking areas. There are no eco features in this design which is important in New Zealand, a country known of its relationship to nature, especially in suburban village by the sea. The building development has no solar panels, no mention of air ducts, air conditioning, heat exchanges or climate control. One can only assume that in a 7-storey glass facade facing north will be a large glass heat box for its occupants, and the balconies or the rooves will soon be covered in noisy air conditioning units. There are no features like Fonterra and ASB have done at the Wynyard quarter with 5-star Green Star ratings. https://www.vxv.co.nz/vision/ fonterra- centre/with air ducts and low energy consumption for climate control, low water consumption and harvested rain water. The heritage values of this seaside suburb are destroyed when the art deco buildings are destroyed. It is possible to preserve facades and build the allowed height and set the taller buildings back from the street, so they are tiered allowing for large rooftop terraces on the 1st level. E.g. Ocean Drive, Miami Beach is a mecca for art deco architecture while having retail, restaurants and prioritizing pedestrian traffic. One does not have to drive to reach retail and food supplies due to proper planning for its residents. The natural character of the existing historic buildings is demolished in this proposal. As of 8 Oct, 452 people signed this petition to keep the Art Dec Character of these buildings. https://www.change.org/p/ auckland-city-council- preserve-mission-bay-s-art- deco-architecture The curved glass facade is not Art Deco rather 80s from the gold coast Australia or Dubai. Mission Bay has Art Deco buildings which cities outside Auckland preserve with great care and details. For example, Napier, and Miami Beach are cities with wonderful Art Deco buildings and a large amount of tourism just because of this architecture. The Mission Bay Cinema and DeFontaine buildings are beautiful examples of Art Deco architecture and need to be preserved. Unfortunately, Auckland City Council does not deem Art Deco historic like it does Victorian villas. The unitary plan allows for several story buildings which is great progress for Mission Bay, however the facade of the architecture can be preserved without destroying these fine pieces of architecture. This submission is to consider a redevelopment that preserves the art deco architecture and keeps the front (facades) of the buildings and within the existing height rules of the unitary plan. Other large Auckland buildings are capable of preserving heritage facades. The Post Office facade at Britomart is being preserved while a rail tunnel goes underneath. The Auckland Tepid Baths Art Deco facade has been preserved in the Viaduct on lower Hobson Street. There is no reason why the Art Deco facades cannot be kept and preserve this heritage. No heritage architecture. It's Heritage week soon. If we demolish all our heritage buildings, how ridiculous will heritage week be? It may as well be an 80s building you'd see in a Robocop movie.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? decline the application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1079 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 3:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2810] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Pamela Eve Hayward

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5755035

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 6 Long Drive St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The Applicant wants eight story buildings to be built right on the waterfront of Mission Bay. It breaches the Unitary Plan, does not allow for sufficient retail businesses and is not community focused for the people of Auckland.

What are the reasons for your submission? If the Unitary Plan is taken into consideration then surely developers have to abide by it too otherwise why have a Unitary Plan? The Plan has 100 new residences but those affording them will not be Aucklanders rather investors keen to make money. Mission Bay is a focal point for Eastern suburbs and indeed for the whole of Auckland. They

1 1080 come with their families and expect to participate in dinning in family friendly restaurants and take in a Movie. If these are reduced or not there at all Mission Bay becomes another pass through suburb. The Plaza as on the application, will become a wind tunnel. The application as it stands will have adverse affects on Mission Bay with most of the parking will be for residents, if there is to be a reduced movie theatre less people will want to visit and the economy of the area will suffer. The Community were not consulted before the application was submitted consequently we need to have a voice.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the application, have the developer meet the unitary standards, put more of the art deco aspect of the buildings (not just rounding the buildings) We need an upgrade of the buildings but certainly unitary height and asethics are not present in the application Consider the Ampitheather aspect of Mission Bay, Orakei and St Heliers have that lends itself to Building High on the back area and coming down to the lower levels with lower buildings so everyone gets a chance of Rangitoto and a small view of the sea.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1081 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 3:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2811] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Drive Holdings Limited - Submission by Rita Fay Radley 09 10 18.pdf

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Helen Andrews

Organisation name: Berry Simons

Contact phone number: 021929334

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 3144 Auckland Auckland 1040

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: See attached.

What are the reasons for your submission? See attached.

1 1082 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? See attached.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information: Drive Holdings Limited - Submission by Rita Fay Radley 09 10 18.pdf

2 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 3:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2812] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: John Harper

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274954593

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 80 Atkin Ave Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the scale of the development, in particular the height which is way outside Unitary Plan limits. There are too many residential apartments planned which will put more pressure on already stretched facilities, in particular car parks.

What are the reasons for your submission? I live in Mission Bay and do not want to see the unique character of the area destroyed. In addition,Mission Bay is a character seaside destination enjoyed by communities right across Auckland. This development will destroy the look

1 1088 of the area and put facilities such as reading and car parks under extreme pressure. The additional apartments will not help the housing shortage as they will be priced well beyond the reach of the avaerage purchaser.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Keep the development within Unitary Plan limits to minimise the impact on the character of Mission Bay. The new apartment development on Kepa Road is within Unitary Plan limits and is fitting into the community quire well. Reduce the number of residential apartments and increase the number of required car parks.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1089 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 3:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2813] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: John Moyes

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0275959797

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 181 Tamaki Drive Kohimarama Auckland 1971

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? I object to the proposed height, as it is way over the allowable height under the unitary plan. Traffic is a major issue the area is already choked with lots of delays and lack of parking which will only get worse. The visual impact will be detrimental to the whole area, as it will dominate the surrounding area.

1 1090 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1091 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 4:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2814] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: John Verdon

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5757873

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 20/105 Tamaki Drive Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? Height - the proposed development clearly exceeds the allowable height under the Unitary Plan of 16m. The excessive height of the buildings will have a major adverse impact on the community, not just the development's immediate neighbours. Visual Impact - The height and bulk of the development will severely detract from natural beauty of Mission Bay including the focal point of the beach, trees, reserve and the sea as a backdrop. Loss of

1 1092 character - Mission Bay is of significant historical importance to both Maori and European. The recent upgrade of the Melanesian Mission House and Mission Bay Pavilion cafe has been sensitive to and respectful of this history. Retention of the Art Deco style (as per Garden Court, the cinema and De Fontain) is imperative to the Bay's identity. Nothing in the development reflects the Bay's history or style. Loss of amenities - The development does not take account of the expected growth of Mission Bay nor the number of visitors. The floor area for hospitality and and retail is severely reduced from what is there currently. The cinema, which has been an integral part of the Mission Bay community since 1935, will only be retained "if financially viable", which does not inspire confidence. It would be a travesty if the cinema closed. The emphasis is on residential apartments for "high end" buyers. The local pub closed, without explanation - the loss of another community facility. Traffic - Tamaki Drive is choked with traffic on the weekends and with work traffic in the mornings/evenings. Marau Crescent also suffers from overuse/parking issues with traffic down to a single lane. The number of proposed apartments will exacerbate an already major traffic problem. Sunlight/Wind - the size of the development threatens to cast shadows over or reduce sunlight to many existing houses. The high buildings also will increase the "wind tunnel" effect. Setting a precedent - if height of the proposed buildings is accepted this will set a precedent for future development along Tamaki Drive essentially allowing the creation of a "wall" between the beach and the community in general and destroying the natural beauty of the Bay. The developer owns opposite land on Patteson Avenue. Allowing the proposed height of this development would set a precedent for the height of any development on the land opposite. Unitary Plan - the excessive height and bulk of the proposed development is surely not what the Unitary Plan envisaged. The application cynically ignores the height limits in the Unitary Plan. Flooding/Subsidence - In recent winter months, the roads have flooded and will again. The development is within Council's Coastal Inundation zone but has 2 basement levels and 425m2 of retail area below sea level!! Will the cost of protection from flooding fall on the ratepayer?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the Application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1093 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 4:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2815] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Vicki Ohms

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272896430

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 87A Selwyn Avenue Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? Visual impact The bulk and height of the proposed buildings are not sympathetic with the existing buildings which comprise the Mission Bay waterfront strip and environs. The proposed back to back apartment block style buildings will dominate the landscape as seen from all aspects: the approaches to Mission Bay along Tamaki Drive, the water, the beach and the Eastridge/Pattison Avenue approach. The development will become a focal point of the bay

1 1094 detracting from the existing varied points of beauty which comprise the bay: the Pohutukawa lined reserve, the fountain, the view of Rangitoto and Bean Rock as seen from the beach. All of these will be overshadowed by the proposed buildings. The unique character of Mission Bay which embraces the natural features of the landscape and the remaining historic buildings will be completely lost. The placing of buildings with concrete and glass facades will completely change the suburb which will thus lose its relaxed seaside character and appeal. Loss of amenity value and community facilities People flock to Mission Bay every weekend and on week nights to enjoy the seaside restaurants and to walk along the promenade and picnic and play on the reserve. Most of these people do not live in the area but have come from inland areas of Auckland. Mission Bay offers something special that they do not have in their own neighbourhoods - an opportunity to enjoy outside dining either in one of the restaurants or on the beach or foreshore reserve. Enjoying a pizza or icecream at Mission Bay is an outing accessible to Aucklanders from all walks of life at all socio -economic levels. This development which reduces the number of available retail/restaurant spaces and replaces them with residential apartments for the exclusive few who can afford to buy them will adversely impact upon that accessibility. This development reduces the space available for restaurants and food outlets and retail which is inconsistent with the needs of a growing Auckland resident and visitor population. A huge investment has been made recently to improve public transport to the Bays via the Auckland Transport Tamaki Link. If a development of this nature which reduces the existing level of public amenity is allowed to proceed the needs of the large numbers of public who visit using public transport will not be able to be met and that investment will have been pointless. On the one hand we will be encouraging people to visit the bays using the Tamaki link and on the other we will be taking away the amenities avaliable to them at their destination. The proposal does not guarantee the retention of the Berkley Cinema which has served the Bays for many years.The loss of this iconic theater with its Art Deco facade, one of the last remaining of its kind in Auckland, would be very sad. Height The proposed buildings will exceed the allowable height specified for the area by the Unitary Plan. Why should this rule infringement be permitted? Surely there would need to be significant benefit to the community if such an infringement were to be permitted. This proposal does not provide any real benefit to the community that a development within the permitted height would provide. The benefit is all for the potential purchasers of the apartments - a view and for the developer - bigger asking prices for sea views. Setting a bad precedent If this overheight development is permitted, it will open the door for the rest of Auckland’s Eastern bays to be developed in a similar manner. It will be “Surfers Paradise” from Okahu Bay to St Heliers. Surely this was not what the Unitary Plan envisioned. The same developer owns the site across Patteson Ave. He claims he is building a gateway to Mission Bay. Gates have 2 posts, so he could propose another 8 storey building on that site. Wind High buildings always result in higher winds. The increase in wind levels will adversely impact upon the enjoyment of the public areas and street dining. The proposed public plaza area on Level 1 is likely to be subject to significant wind funnelling through the narrow openings between buildings, making the plaza a very unpleasant place to linger. Potential for flooding This area is prone to flooding. Is there any guarantee that basement areas will not be unusable in times of very high tides which we are told will become more frequent with global warming. Who will be responsible for the cost of repairing damage resulting from flooding or installing flood prevention measures. Traffic There will be increased traffic congestion at the Pattison Avenue intersection and around Marau Crescent leading to delays in public and private transportation and greater difficulty for visitors from outside the Bays in search of parking.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1095 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 4:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2816] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Howard Roger HILL

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021634650

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 10 Kirkmay Place St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Our family has been long time resident of the Eastern suburbs. We see this application: Destroying the natural character of not just Mission Bay but potentially: Okahu Bay, Kohimarama and St Heliers Destroying the relationship with the shoreline Destroying the view (and value) of most properties in Mission Bay Producing over-crowding in Mission Bay making travel to the other Eastern suburbs a nightmare Making a mockery of the Unitary Plan

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 1096 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the Application and ensure that any future application has to comply with the height requirements of the Unitary Plan and also preserve the "village character" of the Eastern suburbs.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1097 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 4:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2817] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Petal and Dave Moran

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 265 4409

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 42 020 Orakei Auckland 1745

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Over height. Looks out of place, not in keeping with seaside natural character of Mission Bay. Traffic congestion/parking Strain on services eg sewerage/power/council

What are the reasons for your submission? We have a unitary plan for a reason. How can something so wrong on so many levels be even considered by Council. Not only is it visually unappealing it will be a blot on the landscape.

1 1098 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Be true to your restrictions. Realise the vibe and history of Mission Bay will be forever lost with a concrete jungle in its midst. I can only image the dark shadows being cast over anything within its boundaries.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1099 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2818] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Unitary Plan (1).pdf

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Andrew Portman

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211828654

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4/121 Riddell Road Glendowie Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The demolition of historic buildings.

What are the reasons for your submission? If the proposed development goes ahead, the historic buildings on the corner block including, but not limited to, the Berkeley Theatre and De Fontein Belgian Beer Cafe, will be lost forever. Part of Mission Bay's charm are these Art Deco buildings.

1 1100 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? A complete rejection of all proposed redevelopment of the site. No exceptions!

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information: Unitary Plan (1).pdf

2 1101 1102 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2819] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Susan Riddell

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5286868

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 55144 Eastridge Auckland 1146

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? The height and dominance compared to the existing buildings and the natural environment of Mission Bay. It is not sympathetic to the charm of Mission Bay. The excessive height disregards the guidance of the Unitary Plan and sets a precedent for the rest of the foreshore. For the sake of 31 apartments that are above the Unitary Plan allowable

1 1103 height the outlook of residents in large areas of Mission Bay is adversely affected and the commercial area is reduced from what is currently available.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To restrict the height so that it complies with the Unitary Plan. A design more sympathetic to the environment. A greater proportion of retail to residential in the development.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1104 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2820] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Annabel Goodson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021835524

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 133137, Eastridge Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I want to object to the whole application

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. The visual impact is awful, to high and is not in fitting with the area, at the moment it has a beautiful village feel with buildings being only 2 story's high in keeping with tree height line and it has a lot of character as it is. This proposed building is to dominant and modern, and totally undermines the areas character and seaside feel. 2. the development actually reduces the retail space size, and there is likely to not be a theater here anymore, this does not make sense

1 1105 given the area is set to grow in population. 3. Height - it is above the unitary plan allowable height, so will set a precedent and then more of these awful tall buildings were emerge, and I believe the same developer owns part of the retails spaces across the road so this will likely be in an effort to do the same there! It will block views, and be a complete eye sore that can be seen for miles 4. Amenity Value - it will destroy the historical feel of the neighbourhood, and the natural character of the waterfront park and beach. 5. Overall design does not reflect the historical feel of the area or the seaside aspect, it certainly does not blend in with its surroundings it will totally dominant the entire area

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the council to decline the application in FULL

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1106 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2822] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Dave Foreman

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021625724

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 39 The Parade Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The proposed height

What are the reasons for your submission? The Council has made its decision on the new Unitary plans taking into account height restrictions and this proposal shows a blatant disregard for the new rules. This will allow any future developers to ignore such restrictions and allow wholesale development at an unacceptable height level. We do not want 'the Bays' to become a mini Gold Coast!

1 1107 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Please refuse consent to this application. I have no objection to development of this area but the height restrictions currently in place should be adhered to.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1108 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2823] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: K W Bywater

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 521 9058

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 6/14 Marau Cres Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. Unitary Plan/Height Under Auckland’s Unitary Plan the allowable height for any development in Mission Bay is 16metres (with 2m allowance for roof form). As this proposed development is up to 28metres it is 10metres (4 storeys) over the allowable height. Why is this even being proposed when the Unitary Plan is quite specific? The Unitary Plan makes it clear that height standards refer to the maximum height allowed, 16 metres in Mission Bay.

1 1109 What is the point of Auckland’s long process in producing a Unitary Plan if it is to be ignored? In addition to 8 floors above ground the proposal includes two basement levels plus retail space below sea level. Why, when Mission Bay is prone to flooding from rain and king tides? 2. Visual impact on this unique suburb. Mission Bay’s unique character is defined by its beach, Selwyn Reserve, fountain, playground, pohutukawa, Bastion Point, and views beyond its foreshore to the magnificent Rangitoto. These are the features the residents love and the points of difference from the rest of Auckland city, that the large numbers of visitors come here to enjoy. Mission Bay does not need a “gateway”. Not with the height and bulk of the current proposal. As stated in the Unitary Plan, building height has a significant impact on the appearance and character of an area. The proposed 8 storey building is 4 storeys over allowable height and much too bulky for Mission Bay’s unique and quirky character. A building of this bulk will dominate and destroy the natural character of the beach and reserve. 3. Losing the community facilities. Why is this proposed “development” not providing any further facilities for the community, and is in fact reducing floor area for hospitality? There is no guarantee being given that the cinema will remain - only “if financially viable”. Therefore we conclude that the only reason for this “development” is to provide the speculators with a huge profit from their sale of 100 apartments, at costs starting over $1million : obviously not contributing in any way to Auckland’s need for affordable housing. 4. Transport/Traffic. Where in the proposal are there provisions for the increase in traffic on Tamaki Drive from the occupants of an additional 100 apartments? Tamaki Drive already has signs “High crash risk” and is nose to tail 20Kph or less from 7:00am working week and all day weekend visitor traffic. The new bus service has actually decreased the number of buses through Mission Bay and drivers will continue to use cars. 5. Design The existing facade (De Fontein) on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Ave is iconic to Mission Bay, together with the Berkeley Cinema facade, and is recognised throughout all of Auckland and possibly nationally and internationally. The overall architectural character and context of the proposed design is boring and bland and has no connection to Mission Bay’s character and history. The design shows no connection to Art Deco or the Melanesian Mission historic buildings. Any proposed “gateway” to Mission Bay must be of exceptional design and retain and complement its current iconic character. But Mission Bay does not need a “gateway” because it’s natural features - the beach, the foreshore, the promenade, the fountain, the pohutukawa and Norfolk pines - must remain as the dominant visual focus. 6. My story - why I’m personally affected. In 2011, after surviving the Christchurch earthquakes, I decided I could no longer handle the disruption of after shocks, and would retire to Auckland, so bought a small third floor apartment in Marau Cres. I bought in good faith that this third floor could not be built out. An 8 floor apartment block to my east side will completely dominate my view and I will lose my early morning sunshine. In addition to the concern of losing sunshine, I’m concerned that two to three years of the building process - the disruption, destruction, earth works, heavy machinery, noise, vibrations - will be just like living through the earthquakes and aftermath again. And that’s the reason I left Christchurch and moved to Auckland.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To reject the application in its entirety.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1110 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2824] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Dongluo Jiang and Li Guo

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 139 1767

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 52 Comins Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height of the proposed buildings and their design

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed builders (8 storeys) are too tall - they should be limited to four storeys or under. Eight storeys will be very overbearing and intimidating in relation to the road and the beach and surrounding area. It would be inconsistent with the relaxed atmosphere of the beach and area. we would prefer to see the development limited to four storeys or less. we are otherwise supportive of redeveloping the area - as it will bring some new life to the beach and area.

1 1111 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To limit the height of the buildings to four storeys or under.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1112 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2825] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Christine Mercia Savory

Organisation name: Mrs

Contact phone number: 021423211

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 39 Waimarie Street St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height and bulk and not complying with the Unitary Plan

What are the reasons for your submission? The buildings would dominate the site and spoil the character of the area

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the council to disallow the application

1 1113 Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1114 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2827] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Sarah Clayton

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102324738

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 15a Dudley Road Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Aesthetics of building is not pleasant and not in keeping with character of the area. The building is a huge monstrosity and far too high for the site.

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed development will degrade the area. It would be great to develop the area and upgrade the retail and dining options but not at the expense of the aesthetic appeal of the area and also not blocking the views of the rest of the residential area.

1 1115 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the proposal.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1116 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2828] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Brian Keith Clayton

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274360395

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 15A Dudley Road Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The proposed development

What are the reasons for your submission? The development is too big and there could be loss of public amenities.

1 1117 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Height and building envelope restrictions. Maintaining existing size of public amenities (which probably means less apartments).

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1118 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2829] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Elizabeth Sampson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274119400

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/33 ronaki road Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The whole development

What are the reasons for your submission? I believe the development has no architectural merit to it at all. It takes away the character buildings that exist at present in Mission Bay eg de Fontein bar and Berkley the movie theater. It will take away car parks in the area. The development as designed at present will totally dominate the area. It will create a wind like funnel in Patteson Avenue and along Tamaki Drive as the wind will have no where to go because of the denseness of the development. The

1 1119 development will not add any more shops to the area whether they be cafes, retail or perhaps an tourist shop. The development will be an eyesore from any point in Mission Bay, walking from Bastion Point or Kohimarama and on entering Mission Bay all you will see is this monstrosity. Driving down Pateson Avenue, anywhere along Tamaki drive and especially on the grass surround at the Bay which so many people enjoy spending time on.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? If this development is to proceed I want the development to be totally redrawn with input from the Mission Bay- Kohimarama Residents Association and perhaps some locals who can offer some advice as to the type of buildings we as residents would like eg in keeping with the development of apartments next to subway on Tamaki Drive which are only 3 storeys high. Council let a development proceed in St Heliers which is way above the other buildings that surround it, and at least two storeys higher than the unitary plan allows and I don't want this to happen in Mission Bay and I don't want this to be used as a precedent for this development. The traffic lights at Patteson Avenue and Tamaki Drive already cause traffic jams/delays on Tamaki Drive and this will only get worse if this development is allowed to proceed.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1120 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2830] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Lisa McMillan

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02040903944

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/70 Rukutai Street Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height, bulk, appearance, eyesore, destruction of character buildings, unsightly buildings, impact to local area and on local resources, negative impact on wider Auckland

What are the reasons for your submission? The height is excessive and exceeds the unitary plan. The unitary plan is there for a reason. It's size is massive and bulky. It will be a concrete eyesore detracting from the natural beauty of the area. Any buildings here should work in harmony with the surrounds, not appose it and or block it out. It's appearance is that of a concrete block with no

1 1121 consideration of styling to fit the area and or to add character. If anything it should be tiered to be lower in the front up to the unitary plan height maximum, if that, at the back, to follow the natural contour of the area. Proposed is a 'concrete wall' going straight up on the most prominent corner. It would result in the destruction of character art deco type buildings of the cafe/bar and movie theater. The existing movie theater in my opinion is the best in Auckland and I would hate to see it destroyed. Any building growth should support and compliment these iconic character buildings. The community facilities such as cafes, bars and restaurants will be decreased, let alone they are proposing a greater demand with increased housing - the later of which will only be affordable by extremely rich. The number of apartments in such a small area will put a strain on other local resources also including parking and freedom to move about. The proposal offers no gains for the community. Mission bay is a unique 'get away from it area' in the heart of Auckland. Please do not let this be destroyed.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1122 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 5:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2831] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Bronwen Ray Arlington

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274523089

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 8 / 12 Pukerangi Crescent Ellerslie Auckland 1051

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to it totally! Its illegal height violates and disrespects the Unitary Rules. It causes a severe reduction of retail and hospitality square meterage. The basement underground area is of no direct benefit or pleasure to all Hospitality and Retail consumers. It kills the elegant lively convivial atmostphere of Mission Bay, but also impacts on the whole Waitemata Harbour

What are the reasons for your submission? I am Auckland born and bred - and regard the beachs, coastal suburbs, and the Waitemata harbour as my birthright. I

1 1123 value (and am proud of ) its natural beauty (beach, walkway, park, trees, lovely restaurants, and the "amphitheatre" lay of the land). It is the reason many of us continue to keep living in this Island Paradise of NZ

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject it in total

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1124 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 6:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2832] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: raewyn johnson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +6495285323

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 45 selwyn avenue auckland auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: -General Overview -Environmental Impact- -Visual Impact -Unitary Plan

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Do not issue Resource Consent for this project

1 1125 Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1126 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 6:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2833] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Richard Bruce Allen

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212734712

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 14 Rukutai Street Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: 1.The Proposal exceeds the unitary plan building height specifications of 16 m 2.Building design encroaches on public footpath space with large pillars 3.amenity values for instance alfresco dining environment impeded through poor architecture

What are the reasons for your submission? that the proposed development will create a negative impact on the physical qualities and characteristics of an area

1 1127 that contribute to people’s appreciation of it’s pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Follow the Unitary Plan and reject this submission.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1128 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 6:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2834] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: St Heliers Glendowie Residents Association Submission on Mission Bay Development.docx

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Michael James Walsh

Organisation name: St Heliers/Glendowie Residents Assocaition

Contact phone number: 021 780 334

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3 Dingle Road St heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: We object to the whole application.

What are the reasons for your submission? In summary we object to the height and bulk of the development which will have a serious adverse effect on the character of Mission Bay. There will be a loss of amenity value for the community. The community would suffer a

1 1129 significant adverse effect.The development would set an unwelcome precedent. Please refer top our attachment which sets out our concerns in detail.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information: St Heliers Glendowie Residents Association Submission on Mission Bay Development.docx

2 1130 St Heliers/Glendowie Residents Association Submission on Mission Bay Development proposed by Drive Holdings. We object to the whole application. The reasons for our submission are as follows:

1. The height is excessive. The Unitary Plan height limit of 16m plus a 2m roof allowance should be complied with unless there is substantial benefit to the community. In this case the purpose of the extra height (up to 28m) is to allow the developer to build a number of expensive apartments which could easily be built elsewhere, in Mission Bay or nearby. The extra height would be major contributor to this development having a significant adverse effect on the community.

2. Bulk and Visual Impact. The height and scale of the development means it will completely dominate its surroundings and undermine the very pleasant and much loved seaside village character of the existing commercial sector of Mission Bay. The scale of the proposed development damage the natural environment of the Selwyn Reserve park opposite by dominating the scene which at present is a tranquil seaside environment. It would not fit with the nearly built environment. It is especially incongruent with the buildings to the east along Tamaki Drive which are protected at a height of 8m. Please refer to the visual renditions prepared by the Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents association which show the visual impact around the suburb and park in a much more realistic fashion than those prepared by the applicant.

3. Breach of Unitary Plan. The proposed development is way outside the limits set in the Unitary Plan with no good reasons or benefits to the community from doing so. Quite the reverse. There will be significant costs to the community. It seems to us that the departure form Unitary Plan limits is responsible to most of the potentially adverse effects on the community arising from this development. It is our strong view that this development should remain within the height limits of the Unitary Plan. In addition, why have a Unitary Plan if we are going to allow breaches like this with no overall community benefit. The Unitary Plan will have no credibility.

4. Loss of Community Facilities. While there could be community benefit in having the various commercial facilities in the village upgraded, it appears that the commercial area will be smaller than the existing area and we have no guarantees as the preservation of some facilities. For example the application says the cinema complex, much loved by local residents, will be preserved if it is financially viable. Overall the community facility outcome this looks like a net negative for locals and visitors using Mission Bay facilities. Clearly the design aims to maximize high profit residential apartments, to some extent at the expense of growing commercial facilities that would serve the growth of visitors and local residents.

5.Traffic Congestion, Parking and Wind. Marau Road will be expected to handle a high volume of extra traffic, including access by residents and staff of the commercial facilities and this road is already very congested. The parking proposed to be built in the new development will not be sufficient to serve the new residents. In addition, the Unitary Plan

1131 already allows a very significant increase in population of Mission Bay and nearby suburbs which is going to put roading and other infrastructure under pressure. This development would make it worse.

6. Design. The design is pretty ordinary. It very similar to various developments designed by the Australian project architect. The buildings seem to have minimal connection with Mission Bay’s history and natural environment.

7. An Unwelcome Precedent would be set if this development is approved leading to other out of scale developments along Tamaki Drive. This would include a matching development on the other corner of Patterson Avenue and Tamaki Drive, more than doubling the damage caused by the development under review in terms of the adverse visual impact from inappropriate height and bulk, loss of character, increased wind tunnel effects, traffic congestion and other infrastructure problems. Our concerns are magnified by the fact that the applicants and related parties appear to own most of the commercial property along the Mission Bay section of Tamaki Drive and there appears to be little realistic opportunity for competing property owners to offer alternatives if this developer does not meet community needs here.

8. We support the recent report from the Orakei Local Board to Auckland Council prepared under s.15 of the Local Government Auckland Council Act 2009 which elaborates on the adverse effects of the proposed development on the wellbeing of the local community.

9. Our conclusion is that the application should be declined in its entirety. It would have a much more than minor adverse effect on the community. We would have no objection in principle to an application which did not exceed the Unitary Plan limits and met reasonable retail and service needs of the community.

M J Walsh Member of the St Heliers/Glendowie Reiddents Association 9 October 2018

1132 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 6:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2835] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Michael James Walsh

Organisation name: NA

Contact phone number: 021 780334

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3 Dingle Road St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the submission.

What are the reasons for your submission? I object to the height and bulk of the proposed buildings which will have a major adverse impact on the character of Mission Bay and the Selwyn Reserve, cause traffic congestion around the village, set an unwelcome precedent for other preopsals to build out of scale buildings along Tamaki Drive. It would have a serious adverse effect on the nearby community and to vsistors to Mission Bay.

1 1133 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1134 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 6:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2836] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: David e j williams

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0275976739

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 6Ronakai rd. Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The shear Bulk and appearance of the proposed development is excessive and out of character of the present charm of the existing Mission Bay Comunity .

What are the reasons for your submission? I would like to see the area developed in a far more planned and thoughtfully way ,The height of the proposed development far exceeds the heights set out in the existing unitary plan, the height,if allowed to proceed would

1 1135 impinge on the many view shafts of the Rangitoto north head and browns island volcanic cones that are all visible from the Mission bay ampetheater .

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the current development proposal from the applicant and listen to the mission bay residence and greater residential and commercial ratepayers ,hear their voices and listen to what they need to maintain a very special Auckland beach side development.Most important of all for any future development proposals ::set the height at or below the height set out in unitary plan ,increase the retail space to better serve the shear number of daytime and evening visitors .and make allowances for more casual car parking (underground ) and reduce the number of what will be expensive and exclusive apartment dwellings for the very few who can afford them!! I would Like to see any bulk apartments and housing Positioned On the Ridge Lines or against the Base of the bastion Point Reserve Where there is no view impingement of the beach and coastal views that are enjoyed by so many residents and Ratepayers

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1136 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 6:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2837] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Andrew Brown

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0275833694

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4/35 Marau Cres Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height of Building. Parking. Noise

What are the reasons for your submission? Concerned local resident. I am concerned that this will have a devastating impact on the availability of parking for local residents. I am also concerned that the proposed height of the building does not fit with the local environment.

1 1137 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Approve development with height restrictions as per unitary plan. Make residents exception to time restraints on street parking. Limit noise of construction to reasonable hours.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1138 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 6:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2838] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Joyce Mary Frances Austin

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +64 2748114777

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 120 Allum Street Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Rejecting this development in full. Addressing that this development is not suitable for this landmark beach village, the unacceptable size of development, the environmental and social impact of this development - a complete lack of awareness around what the residents and visitors of this community want, the lack of heritage protection in this proposed development, the fact that it is contrary to the Unitary Plan height on Tamaxi Drive of 16metres, which was accepted (with significant reservation) in the community. Auckland Council presented the Unitary Plan to us, canvassed the recommendations, and conveyed the agreed outcomes. This development makes a farce of that process and the millions of dollars spent on that process involving this community. My submission addresses the failure to deliver an aesthetic, appropriately sized development that has as its priority the servicing of the community. 1 1139 This development sets a precedent for unacceptable building height on Tamaki Drive and beyond in closing the free flowing view of the amphitheatre that is Mission Bay - a free view to the sea, strand, reserve and boulevard from the heights above. This proposed development gives first priority to the new wealthy residents wishing to come into the area, to offshore investors wishing a slice of our waterfront. It does nothing to support existing residents, rather, it creates a formulaic ghastly oversized building that will dominate a village that is loved for its small, artisan feel. This village as it is, is a landmark tourist destination, loved as it is. Address the point that residents on neighbouring streets and above, whose treasured space will be ruined by this building, removing the very appeal they moved to Mission Bay for and diminishing their property value. The disruption to residents who gain no added advantage in this development is outlandish. - at least two years without the hum of their village (except for trucks, machinery and building) and a new retail space that will be glass and concrete lead without any quirky or heritage character - a formulaic retail offering in which the residents have no say on who the tenants will be. Those spaces will go to the highest mass market retail giants who can afford the retail space - not the interesting, quirky, boutique operators who add true character to a village. That leaves the residents with no confidence on how this retail space will evolve. (Witness: the arrival of The Warehouse into the Stonefield Ridge Development - and example of how locals have no control of what retail giants move into their village communities). What we do know is that the retail and hospitality space will be smaller than currently in our community, that the treasured cinema (which is not guaranteed in the development) may be lost. It is a greedy self serving move by the developers who will service their apartment investors as their lead priority - not the mission bay and eastern bays community residents.

What are the reasons for your submission? I have lived in this community for 25 years and chose it for the integrity of its villages - their small, artisan feel, their distinctive buildings, the heritage feel they offered (mission bay, kohimarama and st. Heliers) This plan demolishes that emotional connection, it paves the way for a concrete jungle on our waterfront, an eyesore completely out of kilter with the style of village we residents want. This is a development servicing the wealthy of New Zealand and offshore - it does not have at its core a vision for the village to improve it for the currrent community. It paves the way for our waterfront as the tacky Gold Coast of Auckland. It creates major disruption for residents and International visitors and the currrent infrastructure falls short in servicing it. The proposed differing heights up to 28metres make a farce of the Unitary Plan process designed to embrace the input of community - which set down heights of 16 metres. This community loses with this development. There is nothing in the current plan that conveys a win for the community. It is all about the apartments, which in turn will set a dangerous precedent. In no time, the feel of a village is lost to the greedy developers.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1. To reject this development plan in full. 2. To call for submissions for a new plan that serves the community first. This is a landmark centre of Auckland. It’s development should embrace the community first, the retail and hospitality space second, and any apartment dwellings last. 3. To adhere to the universally agreed height in the Unitary Plan of 16 metres. 4. Thereby to retain the character, smaller feel of this village. 5. To develop a bold vision for Mission Bay that is lead by the community experience, not the apartment dweller experience. To set the heights at16 metres and to seek input from the Kohi and Mission Bay Resients society on the type of retail, hospitality and experience space we wish to see. 6. To require an unequivocal commitment to retain the cinema. 7. To explore the cinema and surrounding space (if it is developed) as a combined Cinema and Theatre. 8. Auckland Council to present a definitive study on the impact of this development and relative capacity of our planned infrastructure investment in the area to service 100 new apartments. 9. Involve the Orakei Local Board in the design of a streetscape and potential apartment development in which proposals are put to the local community to both vote on and contribute to. One in which they obtain meaningful input on the type of retail, hosptality and lifestyle experience space they wish to see. 10. Involve the heritage groups of the area to make their contribution on retaining our heritage feel. 11. Call for the input by Maori groups on giving protection to the air space in this area currently achieved with the current heights (the view from Bastion Point will be ruined). 12. Give a true voice to the community on the village they have chosen to make their home. Do not let the developers dictate how our environment presents itself.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1140 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 7:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2839] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Anna Spreys

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102524860

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/103 Tamaki Drive Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Oppose to the construction of multi-level buildings.

What are the reasons for your submission? Mission Bay has a unique quiet and peaceful atmosphere. It is a paradise residential suburb away from the business of the CBD and other commercial areas. Having multi-story buildings built in the heart of Mission Bay will change the clean and quiet environment, which the residents of Mission Bay treasure a lot. This will affect relaxed and peaceful lifestyle, which is the main attraction for the current residents and visitors. We don't want Mission Bay to become a

1 1141 crowded commercial area. There is not enough infrastructure to support the inflow of extra visitors. The Tamaki Drive is already congested every weekend and it will worsen with the proposed building of 100 new apartments. We want to save and preserve Mission Bay as a unique beautiful peaceful suburb, where people can travel to to enjoy nature and have laid-back quality time.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We are opposed to the building height of 7 stories. Current 2-story height is perfect. It doesn't obstruct the views and cater for a perfect number of entertainment options for the existing number of residents/visitors.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1142 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 7:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2840] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Bruce Sai Louie

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021774522

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4-34 Marau Cres Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Exceeding height under the new Unitary Plan. Such a bulk development would adversely affect the physical characteristics of the local neighbourhood environment.

What are the reasons for your submission? An 8 level tower block would be out of keeping with this suburban environment plus cast a shadow over many neighbouring properties including mine. The scale and intensity of this proposed development would be out of character in this central location.

1 1143 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Keep this development height to within the new Unitary Plan.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1144 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 7:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2841] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: John N McCallum

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 027 4878771

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 27 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: All of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? Height The recommended height proposed under the Unitary Plan for this same block of land after consideration of the Developer' previous UP submission is 16m for the habitable space. The proposed development design now shows habitable spaces up to 28m in height. The adopted UP design recommendations should apply unless there are circumstances that justify a departure and that do not cause a real adverse impact on the surrounding community. My

1 1145 submission is that the height in excess of the UP recommendation is excessive and causes significant community impact because: Mission Bay is an Iconic part of the Auckland public estate and is very important to all Aucklanders Mission Bay is really a small cove, not and a visually extensive unobstructed beach such as is seen at the Gold Coast Australia or Miami USA where building of the proposed scale abound. The Development as a whole is too high and bulky and will dominate the "small cove" and will destroy the small beachside village character which is presently much of its attraction, especially with the younger population who flock to the beach, reserve and ice-cream shops at every opportunity. The location of this block of tall buildings on the road front at the focus of the natural bowl which leads down to the Bay disrupts the aspect of sea, beach, reserve and trees which presently forms a very pleasant natural backdrop to the beach area, without overpowering buildings looming over all. The proposed buildings will loom high over the adjacent low and heritage areas, shading them, and demeaning their continued existence in projecting the Mission Bay Village atmosphere. which is the reason for heritage listing in the first instance. This development will irreversably damage the Mission Bay Village atmosphere so treasured by visitors and locals alike. The proposed development will provide many very high value apartments, attractive to high net worth and overseas owners, but will not provide homes for most new Zealanders. The development will greatly reduce the net existing retail and hospitality area available and thus the diversity and types of small restaurants and stores currently catering for the visiting beachgoers. The continued existance of the Berkley Theatre is highly unlikely given the "small print" caveats. These factors constitute a substantial dis-benefit to local residents and visitors. Approval of this Proposal as one of the early projects put forward under the UP would set a grave precedent in unilaterally abandoning all of the Commissioner's prior UP process considerations, the effects of the prior UP submissions, the evidence presented and the Commissioner's considered decisions, all at the first hurdle. It would render the UP irrelevant other than as a legal playground. I refer to the Hazard Mitigation Report provided by the Submitter. The Mission Bay foreshore has been affected within the last two years by 3 significant storm events which closed and caused flooding on Tamaki Drive in Mission Bay, and one of which brought floodwater into the entrances of the restaurants at the proposed development location. The frequency and severity of such events appears to be increasing statistically, and these events did not involve all the potential causal factors simultaneously. The proposal accepts the likelihood that there is a risk of the development being flooded. The frequency of such flooding cannot be calculated, only an estimate of its probability. Such probability estimates have often turned out to be under-estimates, because the risk factors are hard to evaluate and the statistical results are a lottery. This Development on the Mission Bay Flood Plain is vulnerable to inundation from various combinations of High Tide events, Wind driven Coastal Storm Surge, Flooding from Cyclonic Rainfall and gradual Sea Level Rise. Damage anticipated in the Hazard Mitigation Report is described as - Flood damage to ground floor and basement below the inundation levels. Result -. Evacuation of the property, Affected areas are:- Commercial at street level, storage and car parking. Residential activities are above inundation and flood levels.(comment - but will not be unaffected, ie entry foyers, lift wells, vehicles, services, access) The Hazard Mitigation Report States:- Four number dewatering pumps are provided at the lowest level to enable the water to be pumped out after inundation. Pumps are not provided in an attempt to stop the basement areas from inundation but to remove water after a flood The Report talks about other mitigation measures such as: . Structural design adequate to withstand storms Structural design of building, podium, habitable floor levels for residential building designed to provide flexibility for future activities at street level (raised floor heights) and driveway access to parking and the basement levels. A “portal barrier” is to be installed around the perimeter to mitigate the flow of water into the facility. My comments are:- The nature of any such “Design Flexibility” is not indicated. Storms and floodwaters are commonly shown to be irresistible by flexible/temporary or hastily assembled barriers. It is impracticable to barricade the entire site or even some of the site or the underground areas given the street level interaction proposed and the modifications that will be made by tenants over time. It is inevitable that combinations of flood creating factors will in time result in flooding of the site, and submergence of two levels of underground parking and the associated underground 425sm retail There is an equal chance of this flood occurring in the year after opening as in the last year of any calculated statistical return period, and a significant chance of it occurring twice, and my submission predicts that it will occur more often than the submitter’s prediction. Council needs to consider the situation that arises after say the third such basement flooding event, where many expensive cars are written off, the ground level tenancies are silt damaged, the basement tenancies are destroyed, services to the residents are cut off for a time and insurance companies refuse to provide further cover. After the 100 private apartments are sold and the numerous tenancies are let, there will fall on Council a concerted political pressure to assist with the flood defense of the Development, which residents will say Council approved, they relied on approval, and therefore Council should assist them to protect their valuable property. The Flood protection they will seek could be horrendously difficult and expensive requiring possible combinations of sea walls (impeding beach access?), bunds on Selwyn Domain?, relocating the Mission House?, raising Tamaki Drive? and mechanically pumped outfalls. These are not palatable options, and Council should not be approving such a large high value project in a flood plain in times of inexorably increasing storm and sea levels. I submit that the proposed design with the extensive underground features is not appropriate for this site. I suggest the design be completely revised to result in the ground level tenancies being able to accommodate surface flooding events and quickly recover, with parking either at ground or in a building above ground level. It is also not appropriate to permit a development on this flood prone site which greatly exceeds the overall bulk and density (and value) envisioned for the site by the Unitary Plan, which has taken these factors into consideration. In approving even a reduced scale, above ground, lower risk project, Council should take all possible steps to avoid incurring liability for flood protection or mitigation of this Development. Any future engineering works on Selwyn Domain, the Stream, or Tamaki Drive, has the potential for triggering such liability. Auckland ratepayers would be rightly unhappy should this situation arise.

2 1146 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full on the grounds of: Height exceeding the UP recommendations without compensating amenity values. Unsuitability of the proposed overall development scale for a flood plain area. Unsutability of large underground carparks and commercial space in a floodplain area

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

3 1147 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 7:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2842] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Mission Bay Submission to council.docx

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: John Coutts

Organisation name: Resident

Contact phone number: 09 5211509

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 59 Te Arawa Street Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Bulk and Density , Canopies , Public Amenity and Cinema , Amenity Loss , Cultural Significance

What are the reasons for your submission? As a resident we overlook the proposed development.

1 1148 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Those issues as detailed in the attached document

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information: Mission Bay Submission to council.docx

2 1149 Submission to council re Mission Bay Developement

Subject: Project Beachside Mission Bay – Drive Holdings Ltd development

By J M Coutts Date : 9 October 2018

Project :- Mission Bay Central - 6 Patteson Avenue, 8-10 Patteson Avenue, 12 Patteson Avenue, 14 Patteson Avenue, 26 Marau Crescent, 28 Marau Crescent, 30 Marau Crescent, 81-87 Tamaki Drive and 89 Tamaki Drive, Mission Bay.

Submission :- I am making this submission as a long time resident of Mission Bay at 59 Te Arawa St. Orakei. As we overlook the area in question, the bulk and density of this development is of a concern to us.

Fundamental Issues :-

Bulk and Density and Over dominance :- The height and massing on Tamaki Drive and Patteson Avenue is too imposing, and will create a dominant and oppressive feel to the pedestrian visitor and will detract from the serenity of the beach reserve visitor. A reduction in the planned height is therefore necessary and should be kept within that which is provided by in the existing zone.

Canopies and Outdoor Dining :- The existing canopies create a protective shield from the sun (in Summer) and the rain when applicable for the pedestrians using the footpath and outdoor dining. These MUST be retained.

Public Amenity and Cinema :- Mission bay is an Auckland wide resource as evidence of the visitors on a fine weekend, thus this development must increase the existing public amenity by maximising the ground floor laneway. It can do this by lowering the entrance to the cinema to street level thus removing the vertical separation of the public areas. This would maximise the retail/restaurant public amenity and create a better urban design outcome.

The continuance of the Cinema MUST be mandatory. The Cinema is a major amenity for the Eastern Bays and the wider Auckland community, and has a historical significance. If the development is approved, a condition MUST be imposed that the developer will provide the Cinema complex under an additional development side agreement with Auckland Council, and ensure through title covenant that the use is not abandoned. Otherwise a risk arises that the cinema complex

1150 could revert to a commercial office use, with little or no public benefit. A development agreement is authorised under LGA, ss 207C, 207D.

Amenity Loss :- The existing Art Deco buildings have a historical relevance to the feel of the Mission Bay environs and their removal will be an amenity loss.

If the proposed development replaces the existing hospitality space without substantially INCREASING it, then this will be an amenity loss.

The existing cinema lounge area offers a unique public space with an outlook over the Mission Bay beach area. This space acts as a meeting venue for several community groups, providing a sociable occasion for twenty to thirty people two to three times a month. Other local restaurants have be tried for these meetings but the clutter of the restaurant facility does not provide an open space environment. This will be an amenity loss.

Visual Amenity Value of the proposed development will be an amenity loss.

Cultural Significance :- The bulk and density of this proposal will have a great impact on Mission Bay and of the wider area. The Eastern bays are the gateway to Auckland from the sea. The following HE MIHI (Auckland Plan 2012) sets this development in perspective –

1151 The Mayor’s Forward to Auckland Plan 2012 plan states –

I ask you to concider these words when making your desision on this project.

Summary :- 1 - The allowed height MUST be kept within that which is provided by in the existing zone. 2 - The existing canopies MUST be duplicated it the design. 3 - The continuance of the Cinema MUST be mandatory. 4 - There MUST be an amenity increase to compensate for the real losses.

J M Coutts AMIProdE 59 Te Arawa St Orakei Auckland

1152 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 7:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2843] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Henrietta Wilkinson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 022 1002272

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11 Cheverton Place, Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: * The development would be much higher than is allowed under the Unitary Plan. It makes a farce of having created the Unitary Plan if it is allowed to go ahead. * It will construct fewer retail, cafes and restaurants than are there already and so offers nothing more back to the local community. * The cinema, not being a definite item in the construction, would be a great loss for the local community if not included. * The rest of the development is high end apartments , of no benefit to the local community at all.

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 1153 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? * Auckland Council should take a lesson from Port Douglas in Australia where all buildings must be lower than the trees. * I am horrified that the Council is even considering resource consent for this development as it is not in keeping architectually with the local environment and is brazenly breaking the boundaries of the Unitary Plan with it's plans for eight and six storeyed buildings instead of four.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1154 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 7:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2844] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Rebecca Wu

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021524751

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/99 Aotea Street Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the application in its entirety.

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. The overall height of the proposed structure breaches the Unitary plan: The allowable height under the Unitary Plan is 16m with an added 2m allowance for roofs which are not a basic flat roof. Every building except for one in this plan exceeds this limit, with a height of up to 28m which is way over the limit in the Unitary Plan. 2. The bulk of the proposed structure: the overall size combined with the height produces an overall massive structure that completely

1 1155 dominates that entire area of Mission Bay, giving a visual impact that is entirely not in keeping with the rest of the buildings and general appearance of the surrounding environment. 3. Sets precedent to break the rules: If this application is allowed to proceed in spite of the fact that it violates the provisions in the Unitary Plan , it will set a dangerous precedence that the Unitary Plan has "no teeth", and should there be applications in future for a similar size building in this as well as other areas, it will be extremely difficult for those future applications to be rejected even if in hindsight, this current proposal is found to be detrimental on Mission Bay. 4. Inappropriate bulk and height for an iconic Auckland seaside suburb and loss of natural character: One of the major attractions of Mission Bay to both the local and wider Auckland community as well as out of town and international visitors is the seaside oasis atmosphere it creates, with the beautiful sandy beach, wonderful green open space of the Selwyn Reserve, the central focus of the fountain and the generally relaxed and inviting atmosphere created by the natural environment of Mission Bay. The existing low height buildings do not detract from the natural beauty and openness of the area but blends in and maybe even enhances the overall relaxed feeling given its contrast to the high rise buildings of the CBD just a few kilometres down the road. The feeling of natural open space of that particular part of Mission Bay is a key reason for the popularity of this central city haven. If the proposed structure is allowed to be built, the sheer height and bulk will dominate, dwarf the greenery, the park, the beach and become the focus, whether intentional or not. The area will lose its feeling of open space because everywhere you look, you will only see this huge building obscuring the trees and green hills of Bastion Point and the hills that overlook Mission Bay beach. 5. Dubious long term benefit to the suburb: There is no doubt a new development on the existing proposed site is welcome, as the existing buildings are overdue for an upgrade. This can be achieved with a tasteful, modern and architecturally attractive design that is in keeping with its surrounds and general public use of the area. While there is a need for high density housing in Auckland city, there are other sites within the central city (eg, Wynyard Quarter) which is more suitable for building so many apartments than in the middle of an iconic green treasure of the city. Proposing to build so many apartments (hence the height and bulk required) with comparatively small retail and hospitality areas gives the impression that it is solely done with profitability for the developer in mind, without due consideration to the long term detrimental effects on the area many years later. 6. Traffic chaos: The traffic flow in that beach and retail area of Mission Bay (including the streets in the immediate vicinity) is already extremely busy everyday of the week, reaching choking point on weekends. Adding 100 odd apartments in the heart of the busiest part of an already chaotic area will certainly cause even more traffic chaos, and more dangerous for the already high pedestrian and cycle flow. This proposal is simply located in the wrong part of the city.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To reject the proposal in its entirely. Or at the VERY LEAST, to enforce the height restrictions set out in the Unitary Plan to 16m (plus 2m maximum roof allowance).

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1156 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 7:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2845] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Annette and Vidas PETRASKA

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212255803 0212255807

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 32a Melanesia Road Kohimarama Auckland 1971

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: We object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? We are opposed to this application mainly for the following reasons: If this development goes ahead in the proposed manner it will set a height and bulk precedent and more similar sized builds will start to dominate our eastern waterfront suburbs. We don't think Aucklanders want our waterfront drive to look like the Gold Coast beaches of Australia. Tamaki Drive is one of the most beautiful and admired drives in the world - by locals and tourists. The new

1 1157 Unitary plan was developed by AC to make sure Auckland was protected from out of control developments - often for monetary gain reasons and not for the good of Auckland. Was there a good reason for the new Unitary plan - surely to protect what we have but allow suitable progress for the future. This newly proposed development blatantly ignores Unitary Plan rules! The proposed design is outdated and not really Art Deco! Why try to copy what was designed/built 80+ years ago. Art Deco should not be considered for modern day Auckland. 80 + years ago Art Deco was the trend which may have suited other countries 80+ years ago and with very different climates to what is experienced in Auckland. New Auckland developments should reflect our Pacific place and our life style - a modern approach would be more desirable. Tamaki Drive has huge parking issues and traffic flow is very slow every day. Many people come from outer suburbs to park all day along the waterfront to catch buses into the city for work, clogging already busy roads. Already it is difficult for beach goers (often families with young kiddies), to find suitable parking close to the beaches, thus making one the best assets Auckland has for the public and tourists to enjoy. This development will only make these issues more serious. The proposed height is well over the height allowed in the Unitary Plan. There should be no dispensation allowed to this development as the impact will impinge on the existing neighbors and the views of existing valuable properties behind and above this huge proposed build. Aucklanders who own existing homes in the close vicinity will have their properties devalued. The construction noise and disturbance will go on for years. This is totally unacceptable in this beautiful beach suburb of Auckland. Tourists flock to Mission Bay and the bays beyond - they come for the serene natural fun environment. They do not want to see what other countries have to offer and we certainly, as Aucklanders, don't want to see our lovely waterfront drive, including Mission Bay, destroyed by Gold Coast (Queensland Aust) style developments. This would never be allowed in Noosa. Noosa has been protected from such hideous developments and is a highly desirable holiday destination. The bulk of the current design seems out of proportion to the size of the relatively small beach and recreational reserve directly in front of this proposal.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline this application totally.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1158 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 7:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2846] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Mihiri Abeysundara

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5288234

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 72 Atkin Avenue Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The Urban Planners application for the development in Mission Bay Is truly disgraceful. There are numerous sections of the Unitary Plan it which is has largely breached. And also the planner has not put in any thought about the local community and its needs. I personally moved to Mission Bay to be in small community based close to the ocean. Waking up in the morning and looking out into the ocean is by far one of my favourite things about living in Mission Bay. However with the Urban Partners development there would be a loss in my view, a loss in the community atmosphere and furthermore also several breaches in the Unitary Plan. As I have specified below: Section H11.2.2 of the Unitary Plan has the objective of a development to be of form, scale and design quality so that centers are reinforces as focal points for the community. The Auckland Urban Design Panel has fundamental issues with the 1 1159 overall architectural character and context and this also doesn’t justify the increase height. The Panel believes in this case that additional height needs to be earned by exemplary design which this development fails to provide. The Panel believe the application is looking for a sense of identity without reference to the connection of the NZ coastal location, local vernacular building forms or coastal land forms. The Auckland Urban Design Panel does not support the development in its current form due to the design and scale not being in line with this section of the Unitary Plan. Section H11.2.4 (c) of the Unitary Plan has the objective of managing the adverse effects of the environment including the effects on infrastructure and residential amenity. The area fails to have the infrastructure for such a large development and also will have a significant effect of the residential amenity. While bus routes and cycle ways are allowed for, as stated in the Traffic Report, there are at times significant queues and delays on Tamaki Drive. To add more cars into this already congested area of the city without altering the roading infrastructure to deal with it is untenable. The plan for the Central Interceptor is proposed to start construction in 2019, however, not due to be commissioned until 2022. The proposed development is attached to this existing wastewater system which is already significantly over capacity. While there is no legal right to a view, the loss of the view is seen as a detriment to the visual amenity of the resident. The height and location of this building has a significant effect of the residents as the outlook of the surrounding properties will be completely blocked. Section H11.3.11 of the Unitary Plan Requires the development to avoid shading effects on open space zoned land. The Urban Design Assessment states with development will result in adverse bulk, massing, shadowing and overlooking effects. The shadow studies provided by Urban Partners, clearly shows the extent of the shadowing. At times adjacent properties are in complete shade by the proposed development, blocking all adequate sunlight and daylight access. Section H11.6.0 of the Unitary Plan discusses the restricted activities allowed for within 30m of a residential zone. These include bars and taverns, outdoor eating areas and entertainment facility. The applicant has not detailed who they intend to lease their retail space to. This needs to be specified to ensure they meet these requirements. A cinema can also be considered an entertainment facility and the proposal doesn’t outline how the applicant will deal with the adverse effects of this on the adjoining residents. Section H11.6.1 of the Unitary Plan discusses Building Height. The height of this building exceeds the maximum height allowed for in the Unitary Plan. The site is not subject to a Height Variation Control. With that, the purpose of this section of the plan is to manage the effects of building height and manage visual dominance effects. With other adjacent buildings being 1 and 2 levels the building height will have a dramatic effect on the neighborhood amenity. The building will be out of scale with the surroundings can will overshadow and visually dominate other buildings, private property, public open space and the street.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I believe that the council should fully decline the submission, due to the numerous amount of breaches to the Unitary Plan. The Auckland Council should be looking out for the well being of the small communities around the city and not give in to large developers.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1160 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2847] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Dianne Burgham

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021793100

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 57 Te Arawa Street Orakei Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Visual Impact Integrity of the Unitary Plan Urban Design

What are the reasons for your submission? Visual Impact The size of the proposed development is totally out of proportion with every other building in the Mission Bay commercial area. The most suitable building development in this situation would be one that is sympathetic to the geographical contours and complements rather than competes with the natural and historical features of the area, which are the beach, the fountain, the pohutukawa trees, the reserve, the wide views of

1 1161 Rangitoto, the Mission House, the historic Garden Court building and nearby Bastion Point. The proposed building would dominate all of the above as well as the outlook for many Mission Bay residents. I would also significantly affect views for the large number of Mission Bay residents living in the area bounded by Kupe St, Kepa Road, Kohi Road and Selwyn Avenue. Integrity of the Unitary Plan The proposal does not fit within the guidelines of the Unitary Plan – the plan that took so long and so much effort from so many people to formulate!!!!!!! I can see no good reason for ignoring the guidelines of the unitary plan. Urban Design Mission Bay has a long history as a place where people have gathered at significant times in their lives. This gives it special significance in our shared history. People from all over Auckland (…New Zealand, …the world) have a personal history attached to icons of Mission Bay. They may remember for example - jumping or falling into the fountain on a hot day (even fully clothed), sailing model boats in the fountain, roller skating on the smooth concrete surrounding the fountain, evening car trips to get some chips and watch the fountain lights change, swimming and sunbathing at the beach, wincing and walking over the sharp shells on the beach(hurray for the imported sand), double ice creams, family picnics on the grass, wedding breakfasts at the Berkeley Lounge, browsing market stalls, cheering ‘Round the Bays’ runners, marathon starts and finishes, and much more. Everyone seems to know that Mission Bay is a place to gather and people continue to come and grow their own personal histories associated with the icons of Mission Bay. All this gathering adds vitality to the area and the similarities of the memories developed fosters social unity and stability. Further commercial diversity and development which could support and facilitate the use of amenities at Mission Bay would be welcomed. BUT the proposed development doesn’t even guarantee to replace existing facilities let alone improve or add to them! It seems to be predominantly residential units.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1162 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2848] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Mike Booth

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0297707880

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 28 Palmer Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: All aspects

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reduce height of development to be within guiding standards

1 1163 Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1164 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2849] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Peter Murray Whyte

Organisation name: Private

Contact phone number: 64 21579626

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Po box 12772 Penrose Auckland 1642

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height

What are the reasons for your submission? Mission does not suit this horrible complex. The beautiful quaint area will be ruined.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Three stories high maximum

1 1165 Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1166 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:16 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2850] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Alice Skidmore

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212854462

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11 nihill cres, Mission Bay Auckland 1072

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The proposed height of the buildings

What are the reasons for your submission? I oppose the height of the proposed buildings. I agree that Mission Bay could do with an upgrade but there is no benefit of the proposed height to anyone with the exception of developers.

1 1167 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Stick with the height of the unitary plan, 3 to four stories maximum keeping Mission Bay vibrant and bustling. High apartments are not suitable for this beautiful area.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1168 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:16 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2851] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Victoria Fulford

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212222257

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 7 Melanesia road Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Oppose application in full

What are the reasons for your submission? This development is up to 28m. This is way over the allowable height. Rules should only be waived where there are exceptional circumstances that mean extra height won’t cause more than a minor impact on the community. Visual impact This building is way too tall and bulky for Mission Bay. The development dominates its surroundings. This dominance undermines the character of the Mission Bay foreshore and the entire suburb. The site is immediately adjacent to residential areas, including single house zone and an historical character overlay. All buildings to the east of the development are limited to 8m, so that 20m-28m buildings will really stand out and dominate the surrounding 1 1169 area even more. Loss of natural character. This development will destroy that natural character. Setting a precedent If the arguments for extra height are accepted here, then it will set a precedent for those same arguments being used successfully all the way along Tamaki Drive and Mission Bay, ultimately creating an over-height wall between the beach and the community. We don’t want to live on the Gold Coast where the beach is surrounded by high rises casting shadow over the beach. Surely this was not what the Unitary Plan envisioned. What is the point of having a Unitary Plan if we are just going to ignore the rules? This will replace the current natural character focus with a new urban focus, destroying Mission Bay’s unique character. Traffic Marau Cres is already choked. With parking on both sides, there is only room for single lane traffic, leading to frequent delays and arguments No connection between the design and Mission Bay’s character or history. The rounded rectangles and circular windows have nothing to do with art deco, but date back to the 1980’s The existing façade on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Ave is iconic to Mission Bay. The colour boxes look terrible and like a child’s toy house. It looks like a cheap surfers paradise with an absence of creative clever design.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1170 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2852] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Dean Fulford

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212222933

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 7 Melanesia road Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Oppose the application in full

What are the reasons for your submission? This development is up to 28m. This is way over the allowable height. Rules should only be waived where there are exceptional circumstances that mean extra height won’t cause more than a minor impact on the community. Visual impact This building is way too tall and bulky for Mission Bay. The development dominates its surroundings. This dominance undermines the character of the Mission Bay foreshore and the entire suburb. The site is immediately adjacent to residential areas, including single house zone and an historical character overlay. All buildings to the east of the development are limited to 8m, so that 20m-28m buildings will really stand out and dominate the surrounding 1 1171 area even more. Loss of natural character. This development will destroy that natural character. Setting a precedent If the arguments for extra height are accepted here, then it will set a precedent for those same arguments being used successfully all the way along Tamaki Drive and Mission Bay, ultimately creating an over-height wall between the beach and the community. We don’t want to live on the Gold Coast where the beach is surrounded by high rises casting shadow over the beach. Surely this was not what the Unitary Plan envisioned. What is the point of having a Unitary Plan if we are just going to ignore the rules? This will replace the current natural character focus with a new urban focus, destroying Mission Bay’s unique character. Traffic Marau Cres is already choked. With parking on both sides, there is only room for single lane traffic, leading to frequent delays and arguments No connection between the design and Mission Bay’s character or history. The rounded rectangles and circular windows have nothing to do with art deco, but date back to the 1980’s The existing façade on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Ave is iconic to Mission Bay. The colour boxes look terrible and like a child’s toy house. It looks like a cheap surfers paradise with an absence of creative clever design.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1172 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2853] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Talia Pua

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210600601

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 103 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Auckland Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? I oppose the consent for the proposed development on Tamaki Drive, Marau Drive and Patteson Ave for the following reasons: Firstly, the Unitary Plan states that its purpose is to help meet Auckland’s economic and housing needs. Whilst this development includes the building of apartments, due to its location it will be unaffordable to most people living in Auckland. As a young Aucklander hoping to purchase my own house someday, I do not see how this development will assist in meeting our housing needs. Secondly, the sheer size of the development, a proposed 28m tall building, is against the rules of the Unitary Plan. Thus, if allowed, this could lead to a slippery slope by providing 1 1173 other developers with a precedent that may support their desire to break the Unitary Plan’s height restriction also. Furthermore, due to its size, the development will stick out like a sore thumb amidst the surrounding 1-2 story high buildings. Thus, this will draw unwanted focus away from the natural beauty of the surrounding beach, which Mission Bay is known and loved for. Moreover, it disrupts Mission Bay’s local and nature-focussed character. Aucklander’s love Mission Bay because it provides an escape from the urban environment. Allowing an 8story development at the beach’s front would disrupt this characteristic and would make Mission Bay look like an upper-class resort area like many other urbanised beaches like we see in the Gold Coast and the United States. Overall, I oppose the approval of this development because it goes against the Unitary Plan and disrupts the character of Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1174 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2854] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Julie Zou

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212659630

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 15A Utting Street Birkdale Birkdale 0626

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I support this application as a whole

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? --

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

1 1175 Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1176 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2855] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Geoffrey Edwin Faithfull

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5211704

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 103 Aotea St. Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? The height - it is way over the allowable height under the Unitary Plan. What is the point of having the Unitary Plan specifications if anybody can just ignore it. Also thde buildings are far too large for Mission Bay and would dominate all the surroundings and undermine the character of the area. The development would also reduce the floor area of all the restaurants and shops which Mission Bay is well known for and with the number of apartments being built there woukd be more need for hospitality/ restaurants etc . I understand the same developer owns property across the road in Patterson Avenue -so he could then build another huge development over the Unitary Plan height on that side if 1 1177 this submission is allowed- destroying the whole character of the area even further. Also I feel that parking would be a serious issue - even though more parks would be created under the apartments, I cannot imagine these expensive apartment residents would have only 1 car each and therefore where would parking be available for their other vehicles or for visitors - let alone people who wish to come to Mission Bay beach, restaurants or cinema. Marau Cres, Atkin Ave and Patterson Ave are already choked leading to single lane traffic only on weekends and evenings- causing problems.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1178 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2856] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Kenneth Leroy Norton

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 099484826

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 25904 St Heliers Auckland 1740

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to all aspects of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? I feel the height and bulk of the proposed development is totally out of character for Mission Bay. The developer is proposing buildings that are up to twice the height allowed for the area under the Unitary Plan and if approved, would dominate their surroundings and the Mission Bay foreshore that gives the area its unique feel and charm. Mission Bay is an amphitheatre with focus on the beach, Selwyn Reserve and the pohutukawa as its "stage" This focus on the foreshore is what gives the area its charm and attracts visitors from around Auckland and many of the international visitors that come to see Auckland. Inserting tall bulky buildings onto the front of the stage undermines the natural 1 1179 character of the entire suburb and detracts, not adds to, the focus of the area and the visual features of the foreshore for which Mission Bay is noted. I am also greatly concerned that the buildings proposed in this application greatly exceed the height limits of the Unitary Plan which were arrived at through a long and time consuming process. The integrity of the Unitary Plan must be upheld if the Council is to have any credibility with the people of Auckland. Under previous plans, developers took height limits as the starting point for their plans, not the upper limit and, as they have here, proposed buildings far in excess of the allowed limits. Unfortunately, in the past the Council all too often chose to not enforce the limits but "compromised" with developers by allowing excess height. If the Council allows this happen in Mission Bay, it will set a dangerous precedent to allow oversize building elsewhere. Once that happens the integrity of the Unitary Plan will be undermined and all the time and effort put into the plan by so many people will be wasted. The Unitary Plan was a long fought compromise and its integrity must be upheld. Why have a plan if the rules are not enforced?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1180 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2857] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Wendy Piemonte

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0039 02 9517137

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Via Kennedy 2 Gorgonzola Milan 2006

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Sets a precedent, visual impact, loss of natural character

What are the reasons for your submission? I am a Kiwi and former Mission Bay resident living overseas. The existing buildings are quintessentially Kiwi and should be maintained to preserve the Kiwi heritage. When I return to NZ that is what I associate NZ with, the project involves buildings that can be found anywhere in the world. I know this is fertile ground for property speculators so why don't they concentrate on Queen St. instead which is the first impact tourists have of Auckland and gives a terrible first impression - it's an eyesore! Let's make NZ stand apart from the rest of the world!

1 1181 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1182 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2858] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Karin Speight

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021900477

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 42b Rarangi Road St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: As a resident in the near neighbourhood.

What are the reasons for your submission? I believe Mission Bay would benefit from redevelopment. The current buildings are old and a little "tired". The proposed development appears to include more retail and commercial opportunities which I would welcome in the Bays.

1 1183 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like a favourable decision and do not have an opinion in regards to amendments.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1184 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2859] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Nicola Jill Tollemache

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0220343788

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/10 Tagalad Rd Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: 1. Height of the proposed buildings. 2. The size of the proposed development 3. The affect on the community 4. The general character of the area 5. Problems affected by the proposal, I.e. parking

What are the reasons for your submission? As mentioned above Also on a personal level my view will be affected and partially lost 1. Height of the proposal The mere height of the proposed development is over and way above the Unitary Plan, which should be enforced for any planning. The buildings adjacent to this proposal have height restrictions of 8 metres. The lowest building within the proposal is around 14 metres! Surely nothing should be higher than what is in existence. 2. The Size. From all aspects this proposal is overpowering and an eyesore. Visually from the beach, Bastion Point, Tamaki Drive and even 1 1185 further up towards Codrington Cres, it is totally overwhelming. Mission Bay is a charming beach suburb. Sadly if this proposal were allowed to progress, the charm and current layout of Mission Bay would be destroyed and dominated by an unappealing group of buildings. 3.Affect on the Community One always hopes that any proposal will benefit the community. I have yet to read or see any benefit that this proposition would enhance or give benefit to our community. As I understand they will demolish the Berkley Theatre and MAY develop a new cinema complex, but only if financially viable! This theatre has been special and enjoyed by many residents over a lot of years. The seaside character is also enjoyed by many tourists and residents alike. A lot of us have grandchildren and enjoy the Selwyn Reserve, the playground and the foreshore of Mission Bay. With a proposal of this nature, the whole infrastructure will change. It will dominate the entire suburb and the seaside character will be lost and become unattractive. 4. General Character of the Area. This speaks for itself. There will be no character, should this go ahead. It will be like a Gold Coast development. The Art Deco buildings in existence will become totally insignificant. Currently Mission Bay enjoys Alfresco dining, which has added character to our area. It appears that the proposal would be reducing dining and entertaining space. Surely more facilities should be available if the Unitary Plan is going to allow additional apartments. 5. Problems Parking during the summer, or even on good weather winter days has become difficult, in the area. Marau Cres all but grinds to a halt with cars parked on either side of the road. Our visitors struggle to find a park in Tagalad Rd. There is limited parking now and I can only imagine this would become almost impossible with such a large volume of additional apartments. I grew up in Mission Bay. I lived overseas for 35 years. On returning to look after elderly parents, I made a decision to buy and relive there. I enjoy the area immensely as do my family when they visit, and feel saddened to think that this great area could be ruined by a proposal which will only benefit the purse of developers and certainly not our community.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like to see the Council turn down this development application in full. We don’t need it in Mission Bay and it is certainly not in keeping with the area nor the coastline.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1186 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:46 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2860] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Terry James Gibson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: (09) 5217431 02745999

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 25 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The total submission

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed development: Does not comply with the Unitary Plan the Council has recently spent a huge amount of time, ratepayers money and paid/unpaid efforts of thousands of Auckland residents. Would dominate and ruin the character of Mission Bay. Would create traffic problems that would be impossible to accommodate. Create wind and shadow effects that would make the the development a most unpleasant place to be. Auckland was called the City of Sails for a reason - we have a lot of wind and this city prevailing from the South West which blows down the Mission Bay bowl and the proposal sits right in it's path. Wind doesn't go through buildings, it accelerates when it hits a solid 1 1187 objects. Personally the idea of an 8 storey building towering over my house and staring into our bedrooms is physical domination. The proposal is ugly, hideously out of place, has no architectural merit and apart from providing the developers with beachside apartments to sell then manage has very doubtful viable use. The fact that the developers own the site on the opposite corner suggests they are seeking to create precedent for future non-complying development.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The council must support the Unitary Plan and deny this proposal. Amending or mitigating the proposal would just be changing a "Massive Monstrosity" to a "Huge Monstrosity."

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1188 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:46 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2861] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Jill Hadfield

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 575 6449

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2 Pembroke Crescent, Glendowie Aucklands 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the submission in its entirety

What are the reasons for your submission? The following are among the many reasons for my objection to this proposal: Height and bulk are not within permitted conditions : 28 metres is almost twice the permitted 16 metres. There is a reduction in retail space and more apartments Mission Bay is an 'iconic' Auckland landmark. Its 'art deco' look is quite special (and a draw for visitors and Auckland residents alike). It is the closest good beach to the CBD, a 'seaside village' which reminds New Zealanders of their heritage and offers a snapshot of this to overseas visitors The Unitary Plan actually makes an important point of "conserving the seaside village character" of the Eastern Bays. This development is in direct 1 1189 contradiction of this aim! The new development does away with any 'heritage' / character feel of Mission Bay. It looks like Khyber-Pass-on-Sea. Will tourists really flock to enjoy this lovely place if this grotesque development is allowed? Climate change means that rising sea levels will affect the 'basement retail section'. This won't affect teh developers as they will have already had a profit. But it should be a consideration. The apartments proposed for 100 new homeowners will have an impact on resources - parking, drainage etc. Also the developers say that this will help the current housing shortage . Affordable housing? - This is disingenuous in the extreme. These high end flats witha very high price tag are not likely to do anything to ease the housing shortage. They will atttract millionares and overseas investors. The Unitary Plan speaks of preserving the seaside village feeling of the Tamaki Drive waterfront. This development would ruin any seaside vilage atmosphere The developers made deceptive use of wide angle photography to minimise the impact of the buildings. Heritage aspect - The Berkley Cinema does indeed date from 1937, and is an Art Deco building as stated in Auckland Cinemas by Jan Grenfstad. this development will be butted right up against the character protected Garden Court apartments, so two very incongruous building types will be side by side. Also it means Garden Court is a recognised part of Mission Bay’s local character, as a mid-1930s design by architect Surrey S. Alleman of a virtually unchanged a two-storey brick complex of 20 flats. The Berkeley is part of the Bay’s heritage and f people’s sense of place there. It is THE identifying building at that end of Mission Bay, a landmark used in promotion and advertising by businesses, the business association and even the developers themselves (on their website!) The lovely Selwyn Reserve is beloved by everyone - families couples, children, tourists alike . The proposed bulidings would be the height of the iconic Norfolk Pine , towering above the and spoil Mission Bay for everyone apart from those rich enough to live in the apartments with their views over the harbour. This development would destroy the unique seaside village character of one of Auckland's best-loved suburbs. What kind of Auckland do we want to have - one with distinct characterful 'villages ' Or a look-alike bland and amorphous city where every suburb resembles the others in ugliness? You have already gone down this road with the monstrous developments and heritage destruction in St Heliers. Do you want to repeat this in Mission bay? It's your choice...

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To reject the proposal in its entirety

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1190 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:46 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2862] Submission received on notified resource consent

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Jennie Field

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211240190

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1C Thatcher St Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? (1)The Unitary Plan It makes a mockery of the Unitary Plan! What is the point of having a Unitary Plan if we are just going to ignore the rules? The rules should be applied unless there are exceptional reasons. After reading the Applicant’s documents, I can see there are absolutely no exceptional reasons at all. •If the arguments for extra height are accepted here, then it will set a precedent for those same arguments being used successfully all the way along Tamaki Drive and Mission Bay, ultimately creating an over-height wall between the beach and the community. •Surely this was not what the Unitary Plan envisioned •This development reduces the floor area for hospitality and retail by a 1 1191 substantial amount, undermining the intent of the zone and reducing the level of facilities to local residents and visitors. (2) The Design The existing façades of the Berkeley and the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Ave is iconic to Mission Bay. It even has the name up there on the building. The loaction lends itself to an Art Deco seaside town and could carry off a more Napier style than the Miami or Gold Coast style of the design put forward. There are No connections between the design and Mission Bay’s character or history The rounded rectangles and circular windows have nothing to do with art deco, but date back to the 1980’s or modernist 60's. Mission Bay Berkeley Theater was built in 1939. It's part of Aucklands short history that should be preserved. •Everywhere in Mission Bay, the eye is drawn to the foreshore strip. This contains the beach, the reserve, the fountain, the Melanesian Mission historic buildings, and the row of pohutukawa. •If this development goes ahead, the eye will be drawn to this set of buildings. •This will replace the current natural character focus with a new urban focus, destroying Mission Bay’s unique character. •The commercial area exists to support people using the foreshore, not to destroy the appeal of the foreshore. •This building is way too tall and bulky for Mission Bay. •The development dominates its surroundings. This dominance undermines the character of the Mission Bay foreshore and the entire suburb. •Mission Bay is like the shape of an amphitheatre, with the beach, Selwyn Reserve and the pohutukawa as the view, with the sea, Bean Rock and Rangitoto as the backdrop. An amphitheatre does not need a tall building to act as a focal point; the foreshore already serves this function. •Inserting a tall building in front of the ‘stage’ undermines the natural character of the entire suburb •The site is immediately adjacent to residential areas, including single house zone and an historical character overlay. All buildings to the east of the development are limited to 8m, so that 20m-28m buildings will really stand out and dominate the surrounding area even more. (3)Sun and Wind I believe the height of the buildings will severely affect the sun and wind , especially on the Pattison Ave side, and if any development of that height is mirrored on the other side it will block all the sun. •The same developer owns the site across Patteson Ave. He claims he is building a gateway to Mission Bay. Gates have 2 posts, so he could propose another 8 storey building on that site. (4) Traffic •Marau Cres is already severely congested. With parking on both sides, there is only room for single lane traffic, leading to frequent delays and arguments and cars having to cut in and out. The construction will also lead to even worse congestion. Tamaki Drive being the other congested way to the city will also be affected especially in rush hour traffic

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full and tell them to go back to the drawing board to produce something within the requirements of the plan that will satisfy the community and the city.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1192 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2863] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Jane Boyd and Frank Barrow

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274906415

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 42-144, Orakei Auckland 1745

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: 1. the Size of the development 2. height of the development 3. special character of Mission Bay 4. issues with parking 1. The size of the development - this development would overshadow Mission Bay, the beach, the road frontage and the reserve areas. The buildings would completely dominate the area. 2. Height of the development - the development is 12 metres above the unitary plan and as such is way above the allowable height. There is no justification for the development to be above what is reasonable, that is the Unitary Plan allowance of 16 metres. The design of the new buildings need to have a connection to the past in such an historic area. 3. Special Character of Mission Bay - Mission Bay provides a special place for many Aucklanders to have a seaside experience and this proposal will overshadow the beach, there will be less parking available and families will not be able to come here as 1 1193 they have for generations. The picture theatre is important to the residents who cannot get into the city or wish to walk to a local cinema and the development does not guarantee a theatre to be built - it will only be built if it is cost effective....what does that mean?? Mission Bay does not need high density residential apartments in an area that all Aucklanders should have the opportunity to enjoy a beach environment close ot the city. 4. Parking - there will be less parking for visitors to the area or people wishing to go to the beach for the day as there will be 100 apartments that will require extra parking for visitors

What are the reasons for your submission? We are concerned for the reasons listed above and concerned that Mission Bay's character will completely change and no longer provide a holiday seaside experience for many Aucklanders

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We believe that the council should decline the application in full - there is nothing in the public interest in this proposal.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1194 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2864] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: David Michael Crown

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021976889

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 16 Rukutai Street Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the entire application

What are the reasons for your submission? The zoning is for local centre. The reason I understand for this zoning is for business yet the application is mostly for residential. It does not support business for the community and is based on personal wealth growth which is not the intent of the zoning. The proposed development in addition to not serving the wider community will completely ruin the balance on the area and inclusion on beach park and other community based ammenities. The proposed building

1 1195 would ruin the natural position of the entire mission bay, the natural amphitheatre. It is a wonder that this was even zoned th is way as there is already a local centre at east ridge. We elected a council to protect our interests and it would seem that this submission completely over looks these interests. It is a non compliant submission and should be rejected immediately This application in NO WAY supports the intent of the Unitary Plan.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1196 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2865] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Robert Paque Benton

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095212811

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 32B Rawhitiroa Rd Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Reduction in the retail and restaurant, café and bar areas from the current situation - the height of the development has a considerable negative impact on the area - the possible flooding of the basement areas and the likelihood of setting a precedent for other parts of Tamaki Drive if the application is approved.

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 1197 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? decline the application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1198 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2866] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Janne Margaret Pender

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095245450

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 43 Bell Road Remuera Auckland 1050

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The removal of all existing buildings. The height of the proposed buildings.

What are the reasons for your submission? The removal of all the buildings destroys a major part of what is a reasonably cohesive settlement/community. I can appreciate that some buildings do need to be replaced but not all. The proposed buildings break planning rules in relation to height and because of this these buildings by their very height and bulk will destroy sight lines in every direction and cause excessive shading. Their very design is not in any way sympathetic to the existing housing either

1 1199 along the waterfront or in surrounding streets. There is no doubt that the charm and appeal of Mission Bay to residents, visitors both New Zealanders and overseas, will no longer exist with the proposed high rise bulky buildings. This little suburb will look like any other in places such as Sydney, Honolulu or the beaches of Los Angeles - bland and boring.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Say "no" to the request for exceeding the allowable building height. Request design changes to reduce the bulk and ensure a "fit" with current commercial buildings and residences. Retain some of the waterfront properties.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1200 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2867] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Hannah Andrew

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0226898140

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 16 Park Hill Road Birkenhead Auckland 0626

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Whole submission- physical construction

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed development is not in keeping with the neighbourhood. The proposed development is likely to leave legacy issues beyond just Transport issues.

1 1201 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject application

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1202 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2868] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Abigail Marshall

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021665866

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 31A Baddeley Avenue Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object the the whole application.

What are the reasons for your submission? There are a number of reasons why I object to this application. I am deeply concerned about the impact the proposed development would have on Mission Bay. Visually the plan is very unappealing and not in fitting with the Art Deco style of the area. One of the nice things about Mission Bay is the character and community feel of the area. The proposed buildings would be an eyesore that would strip the character of Mission Bay. Not only would this be an

1 1203 eyesore close to the buildings, the size of them would mean the vista for the whole area would be ruined. They would also overshadow the beautiful park and beach areas, which again give Mission Bay it’s unique feel and character. The size of the proposed buildings would ensure it dominates and overwhelms the local area. Buildings of this size, as identified within the unitary plan have no place in this setting. In return I don’t believe the community would get anything from the proposed development. There would be reduced facilities, which is ridiculous, given that local residents, as well as people from all over Auckland, New Zealand and international visitors come to Mission Bay and rely on them. What the proposed development would offer are more residential dwellings (I’m assuming at a price that only the minority could afford) and bring with them increased traffic – which is already an issue in the area. In an area that has already been developed to a significant level, I believe we should protect what natural resources we have left. I believe the impact of increased traffic would have a detrimental impact on the local environment. I would support a application that was well thought out, and proposed to add the local amenities and better serve the area, the residents and visitors. An application that didn’t undermine the unitary plan, and was developed in conjunction with the wishes of local residents and users of the area. Given opportunities in less over developed areas to build residential dwellings to address the housing shortage, the obvious visual impacts and reduction in facilities and amenities, I do not support this current application.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1204 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2869] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Barbara Joan Poole

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5758353

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4/59 St. Heliers Bay Road St. Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Bulk and height

What are the reasons for your submission? The height exceeds the 16 metres allowed under the unitary plan

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? For the Council to not grant the application as presented

1 1205 Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1206 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2870] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Callum Thorpe

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 075 6353

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 31A Baddeley Avenue Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole application

What are the reasons for your submission? The allowable height under the Unitary plan is 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form. This development is up to 28m which is significantly over the allowable height. Rules should only be waived where there are exceptional circumstances that mean extra height won’t cause more than a minor impact on the community. I firmly believe this development will have a significant impact on the amenity of the area for the local community and for visitors. I come

1 1207 to to Mission Bay to relax in natural surroundings on the beach. I believe that if this development were to go ahead is would lessen the visual and feel of the local environment reducing the enjoyment by all that come to the area. The proposed design appears to favour increasing housing at the expense of amenities such as hospitality venues. While this maybe good for the bottom line of the developer it is difficult to see how it adds value to anyone else.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1208 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2871] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Michele Jane Williams

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 171 4724

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 59A Melanesia Rd Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed development will significantly change the look and feel of Mission Bay. The height of the buildings will dominate the landscape and take the focus from the natural beauty of the area - the beach, the sea, the domain and the native trees. I am concerned that this change of visual focus will take away much of the natural beauty of the place that is a significant drawcard for tourists and locals alike. Significantly, the development breaches the height

1 1209 limits set by the unitary plan. The height limit in the unitary plan is set at 16 m plus 2m for roofing. The proposed development at 26 metres tall is significantly higher and will have a major impact on many of the surrounding dwellings and the look of the of area. The breach of the Unitary Plan will set a precedent that could have effects for all suburbs along Tamaki Drive. If this submission is approved it may pave the way for for further over height buildings which, eventually, would result in a large barrier between the sea front and the neighbouring suburbs. This development would surely have a significant impact on the traffic and car parking in surrounding streets which are already clogged at times. In addition, there have been floods in recent years at Mission Bay and various sites along the waterfront. I understand that this development has two basement levels. I am concerned that the cost of managing this will be passed on to ratepayers. If the consent is granted and a precedent is set this same developer could then apply to build another similar development on the opposite corner thus further disrupting the suburb.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1210 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2872] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Martin and Diana Sweetapple

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021884414

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/37 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: 1. The height and bulk of the proposed buildings which will be intrusive on the visual amenity of the Mission Bay neighbourhood generally and will cause a certain loss of natural light; 2. The cumulative effects of buildings of similar dimensions, which may be permitted on nearby sites, on the visual amenity of the neighbourhood; 3. Heightened traffic volumes (arising from the additional residents) with the replacement of approximately 10 existing residential dwellings with 100 new apartments and townhouses. 4. Preservation of the suburban nature / amenity value of the Mission Bay community.

1 1211 What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Maintain the existing permitted maximum building height of 18 metres including the 2 metre height allowance for roof form.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1212 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2873] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Mary Pope

Organisation name: Domestic householder

Contact phone number: 5289164

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/36 Nihill Cres, Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Parking is a huge concern with over 100 new apartments to be included with a minimal number of extra parking spaces.

What are the reasons for your submission? We are concerned at the size and height of the buildings. They surely must stick to the existing plans guide lines. Also most concerned that there is no guarantees as to continuing the cinema theatres.

1 1213 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reassess the project to ensure it all complies with current requirements.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1214 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2874] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Catherine Mackenzie

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212861231

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 100 Kohimarama Road Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? History and Design: Mission Bay is a character filled Art Deco seaside destination. The Deco facades of the De Fontein and Berkeley match the iconic Mission Bay fountain and beautiful apartments at Garden Court. There is absolutely NO connection between the proposed design and Mission Bay’s character or history. It looks like a 1980s Gold Coast development – with no architectural merit or historical relevance to the community. Flooding Hazards:

1 1215 Stormwater and Wastewater The Mission Bay area has flooded in the past and will again in the future. How does the Council propose to protect the new development and all those houses further back on Patteson etc that flood too? What about all the extra stormwater and wastewater from all the apartments and large buildings? When it is flooded or a really high king tide and it’s been raining heavily the risk of flooding is very high. The flooding will only get worse particularly with global warming. In the past, I have witnessed raw sewerage floating past including human faeces when there has been Mission Bay flooding. Height and visual impact: Dominating Development! The allowable height under the Unitary plan is 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form. However this development is up to 28m. This is totally unacceptable. Why is this developer allowed to break the rules to build a visually offensive, over-height development? This development is far too tall and bulky for Mission Bay and does not match the rest of the community. It totally dominates its surroundings. This dominance undermines the character of the Mission Bay foreshore and the entire suburb. Mission Bay is an amphitheatre, with the beach, Selwyn Reserve and the pohutukawa as the stage, and the sea, Bean Rock and Rangitoto as the backdrop. An amphitheatre does not need a tall building to act as a focal point; the foreshore already serves this function. Local Facilities: Mission Bay continues to grow. With the new development, there is no guarantee of a Movie Theatre, a treasure to our locals. The Local Centre zone is expected to provide local facilities to support that growth. This development reduces the floor area for hospitality and retail by a substantial amount, undermining the intent of the zone and reducing the level of facilities to local residents and visitors. Potential for further inappropriate development: Approval of this overheight development will set a dangerous precedent, ultimately creating an over-height wall between the beach and the community. The same developer owns the site across Patteson Ave. He claims he is building a gateway to Mission Bay. Gates have 2 posts, so he could propose another 8 storey building on that site too. There will also be major issues concerning traffic congestion and questions around parking. The area will become a large unfortunate wind tunnel. AS A RESIDENT OF MISSION BAY AND KOHIMARAMA FOR 25 YEARS I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COUNCIL NOT TO PROCEED WITH THIS INNAPPROPRIATE AND DOMINATING DEVELOPMENT. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1216 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 9:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2875] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Paul Mackenzie

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021867377

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 100 Kohimarama Road Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? Local Facilities: Mission Bay continues to grow. With the new development, there is no guarantee of a Movie Theatre, a treasure to our locals. The Local Centre zone is expected to provide local facilities to support that growth. This development reduces the floor area for hospitality and retail by a substantial amount, undermining the intent of the zone and reducing the level of facilities to local residents and visitors. Flooding Hazards: Stormwater and Wastewater

1 1217 The Mission Bay area has flooded in the past and will again in the future. How does the Council propose to protect the new development and all those houses further back on Patteson etc that flood too? What about all the extra stormwater and wastewater from all the apartments and large buildings? When it is flooded or a really high king tide and it’s been raining heavily the risk of flooding is very high. The flooding will only get worse particularly with global warming. In the past, we have witnessed raw sewerage floating past including human faeces when there has been Mission Bay flooding - particularly around Patteson Ave and Nihill Cres. Height and visual impact: Dominating Development! The allowable height under the Unitary plan is 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form. However this development is up to 28m. This is totally unacceptable. Why is this developer allowed to break the rules to build a visually offensive, over-height development? This development is far too tall and bulky for Mission Bay and does not match the rest of the community. It totally dominates its surroundings. This dominance undermines the character of the Mission Bay foreshore and the entire suburb. Mission Bay is an amphitheatre, with the beach, Selwyn Reserve and the pohutukawa as the stage, and the sea, Bean Rock and Rangitoto as the backdrop. An amphitheatre does not need a tall building to act as a focal point; the foreshore already serves this function. History and Design: Mission Bay is a character filled Art Deco seaside destination. The Deco facades of the De Fontein and Berkeley match the iconic Mission Bay fountain and beautiful apartments at Garden Court. There is absolutely NO connection between the proposed design and Mission Bay’s character or history. It looks like a 1980s Gold Coast development – with no architectural merit or historical relevance to the community. Potential for further inappropriate development: Approval of this overheight development will set a dangerous precedent, ultimately creating an over-height wall between the beach and the community. The same developer owns the site across Patteson Ave. He claims he is building a gateway to Mission Bay. Gates have 2 posts, so he could propose another 8 storey building on that site too. There will also be major issues concerning traffic congestion and questions around parking. The area will become a large unfortunate wind tunnel.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1218 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2876] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Chris and Trish Ward

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210666781

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 16 Alfriston Road Manurewa Manukau 2102

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Support the application to demolish all of the existing buildings on the site and construct 7 new multi level buildings, providing mixed commercial, entertainment and residential.

What are the reasons for your submission? As a frequent visitor to this area I believe it would be an asset to the area. In my opinion the development Mixed use Project at 75 - 97 Tamaki Dr., 6 - 14 Patterson Ave, and 26 - 30 Marau Cres., Mission Bay, Auckland will revitalize the Mission Bay retail precinct and provide more commercial and residential space in a highly desirable area which is on

1 1219 existing Public Transport routes and is within 10kms of Auckland City centre. I believe it will make the area more pedestrian friendly and give more options to the large number of visitors that frequent Mission Bay each year. From my experience Mission Bay restaurants and food outlets in and surrounding the proposed development are especially busy in weekends and holiday periods and a development to increase and improve these facilities can only be of benefit to the local community and visitors whom frequent them. I have observed that there has been consents approved for developments in other areas of Auckland with less transport infrastructure and proximity to the city centre since the Unitary plan came into effect, and as part of the decision documents wording that has been used by the consent authority has included:- “The changes to the neighbourhood character as a result of this development will be noticeable; however, they are consistent with the planned development intentions for the zone and, in that context, will have less than minor adverse effects. In terms of adverse effects on adjacent properties, dominance, shading and loss of privacy are comparable to those permitted under the AUP(OP) for the zone and will be minor. The overall built form of the development is in keeping with that anticipated by the underlying zoning”. It is hoped the council is consistent in its treatment of this consent, and as with other areas of Auckland when referenced to the Unitary plan, applies the intent of the document to intensify housing developments in close proximity to public transport, commercial services and recreation and community facilities.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To approve the consent as submitted by Drive Holdings Ltd (DHL)

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1220 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2877] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: frederick ross duder

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +6495286378

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/19 selwyn avenue mission bay auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: building height ;> UP allowable 16+2m; dominant visual impact; over half buildings too tall & bulky intruding on land &sea views; loss of natural character& amenity values:loss of community facilities & values: an apparent reduced floor area for appropriate hospitality, local & visitor retail space & parking

What are the reasons for your submission? although local resident for only 22 years learnt valued & cherished both Maori & pakeha history .Ive appreciated the strategic position of the current business houses backing apen open space Selwyn reserve between the recently

1 1221 resanded beach. As a volunteer with TDPS & in support of business houses ve submitted & worked with Council on the upgrading & preservation of the reserve & beach sand. Together they allow both passive relaxed family picnics & as a mecca for the more formal multi sport events.i am disappointed with the proposed development design ,the over height & bulk .it does nothing to enhance the history & heritage & natural character of the area, nor amenity value or community facilities for the locals nor prepare for the growth anticipated in flux of regional & international visitors.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? decline the application in full

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1222 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2878] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Graham Trevor Mathieson

Organisation name: N/A

Contact phone number: 09 5755485

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 97 Melanesia Road, St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height of buildings and visual impact of such a dominating structure.

What are the reasons for your submission? The current height of commercial buildings in Mission Bay does not exceed two stories and for very good reasons. The impact on residents to the south of the proposed development would be VERY significant. Northerly views in particular for many residents would be adversely impacted . The 28metre height of such a new development would impact residents aspect to the north from at least a kilometre away. The visual impact of such a substantial building

1 1223 would not be in keeping with the charm of the current Mission Bay precinct and certainly be at odds with the architecture of the historic Mission House buildings . The charm of Mission Bay is its beach, reserve, history and beautiful fountain. Why detract from this with such a dominating structure.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? If the development proceeds in even a scaled down version, additional public parking space is absolutely necessary, given the public's attraction to Mission Bay . How else will the future demand for additional public parking be met if Council fails to require all such developers to provide it? The current application should be declined.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? Yes

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: Yes

Supporting information:

2 1224 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2879] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Paul Wood

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274967333

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P O Box 55110 Eastridge Mission Bay Auckland 1744

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I oppose going over the height agreed in the district plan

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Lower the height so building will not dominate the space and affect the horizon when viewed from the harbour.

1 1225 Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1226 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2880] Submission received on notified resource consent

We have received a submission on the notified resource consent for 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay..

Details of submission

Notified resource consent application details

Property address: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.

Application number: BUN60324987

Applicant name: Drive Holdings Limited

Applicant email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Submitter contact details

Full name: Adrian David Hynds

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274751150

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 30 Selwyn Avenue Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The height and the character of the proposed development is not in keeping with the natural built environment of the Mission Bay area. It is much greater than the Unitary Plan regulations - which are already over and above what should be retained in this area. The increase in carparking and intensive population of the waterfront area will detract from the natural beauty of this area.

What are the reasons for your submission? This proposed development will damage the historic look and feel of the Mission Bay urban environment.

1 1227 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To not approve the submission as proposed. Do recommend to build within the Unitary Plan regulations while seeking to maintain the historic look and feel of the Mission Bay urban environment.

Are you a trade competitor of the applicant? I am not a trade competitor of the applicant.

Do you want to attend a hearing and speak in support of your submission? No

If other people make a similar submission I will consider making a joint case with them at the hearing: No

Supporting information:

2 1228