Hearing Report 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12

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 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 1 October 2018 10:45 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2166] 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]

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: Colleen Halkett

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 64212546944

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 125 c Tamaki Drive 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 redevelopment-it would be great to have the area upgraded- I have concerns relating to the height, noise during construction, traffic and parking congestion also the on going standards of upkeep.

What are the reasons for your submission? I live close to the redevelopment and feel this will have an ongoing impact on me

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like them to restrict the height in keeping with the beach suburb. I would like them to restrict construction times

1 399 to minimise disturbance to residents I would like them to have a clause in relation to the number of parking spaces being adequate for the proposal If possible I would like them to include ongoing maintenance and cleanliness clauses - to ensure high standards as are expected of the area are 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:

2 400 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 1 October 2018 11:00 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2169] 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: Colleen Christina Halkett

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095781599

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11/36 Marau Cres 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: The height, traffic and noise

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To restrict the height to something appropriate for a beach environment For noise during construction to be minimised in keeping with the residential area surrounding the site. And restrictions to trading noise on completion.

1 401 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:

2 402 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 1 October 2018 11:00 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2170] 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: Rebecca O'Shea

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0273092406

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/15 Nihill Crescent Misson 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: Plans and VisualsPart 1-15

What are the reasons for your submission? Being a local resident of mission bay I'm concerned with the amount of congestion this is already a massive issue in summer, and loosing the authenticity and charm of the area.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The design of the development is too commercial. Would prefer to see something that maintains the iconic frontage of

1 403 the De Fontein etc. Retain some charm, original frontage, and character. It feels to me more of a downsized Sylvia Park on the waterfront. No concerns around the increase of housing and retail, more concern around the eyesore of a building. The rounded 'bubble' style will date so fast, and doesn't suit the area at all.

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:

2 404 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 1 October 2018 12:30 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2173] 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: Craig Wedge

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 0733 004

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 6 Deborah Hatton Lane Otahuhu Auckland 1062

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 plan, especially the development on the corner of Tamaki Dr and Paterson Ave, and the proposal to build multi-story buildings.

What are the reasons for your submission? As a long-time resident of Auckland, and frequent visitor to Mission Bay, I am concerned at the impact this development will have on a unique area of Auckland. The proposed development will kill the laid-back, village-like ambience of Mission Bay which is refreshingly free of retail shops, and which provides a relaxing, family-friendly place for people to meet, play and eat. There is already a wide range of cafes/restaurants to choose from, as well as a multiplex cinema. This proposed development feels much more like a money-making venture for Urban Partners 1 405 which they are trying disguise as something that will benefit the community. The plan as proposed will effectively turn Mission Bay in to a mini-Surfers Paradise which will change forever the character of Mission Bay and was we know and enjoy now.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the council to reject the proposal as it stands, and request a new proposal that leaves that the heart of Mission Bay intact.

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:

2 406 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 1 October 2018 1:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2174] 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: Kip Marks

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 843879

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 25920, 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 building, whilst attractive, exceeds the height and bulk allowed for in the unitary plan.

What are the reasons for your submission? Apart from it exceeding the plan the building shows a selfish attitude on the part of the developers in that it takes no regard of the other citizens living in the immediate area and how they might be affected by it. If this building is approved as is, it sets a precedent for others to follow

1 407 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The council has a unitary plan . Use it!! Allow the building provided it fits within the confines of the plan. It is essentially a good design and concept, it just goes too far and needs scaling back.

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:

2 408 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 1 October 2018 1:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2175] 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: bruce anderson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095755788

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Apt 51, 184 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: height, Bulk, Architecture

What are the reasons for your submission? Height and bulk excessive,beyond permission of Unitary plan. Developer asks for much more so that a compromise can still exceed permitted heights and bulk. Shouldnt happen. Architecture not in keeping with any form of sympathy with history or situation.

1 409 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Refuse application. Require it to fit with unitary plan and appropriate situational archtecture.

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:

2 410 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 1 October 2018 1:30 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2176] 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: Susan Diana Bayly Gibbs

Organisation name: Susan Gibbs Trust

Contact phone number: +6421407980

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 9 Dudley 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: Design

What are the reasons for your submission? Mission Bay has been my home for 28 years. I have lived in the Bays for over 50 years. The Project has been architecturally designed to provide a very poor level of visual quality. It will make Mission Bay look like the Gold Coast! Everyone who has seen the design is horrified!!

1 411 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I suggest a different architect, with an understanding about what would look outstanding. Patterson? Herbst? Mission Bay had a lovely vibe with the art decor thing going on, so cant we have something wonderful again?

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:

2 412 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 1 October 2018 3:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2181] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Jennifer Gill

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272616052

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 59 |Bay 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: Demolition of all heritage buildings on Tamaki Drive and Patterson Ave, height of proposed multi-level structures, addition of new retail, hospitality and residential areas that increase the number of people living and visiting the area due to the inability of the existing infrastucture to handle the increased number of people.

What are the reasons for your submission? The heritage buildings on Tamaki Drive and Patterson Ave lend character to the area which helps provide a laid-back,

1 413 relaxed aura that people enjoy and is one of the reasons Mission Bay is a popular tourist and visitor area. The proposed height of the multi-level structures will completely ruin this laid-back and relaxed vibe and will ruin the seaside resort feeling of the suburb. Currently, the influx of visitors already exceeds that which local infrastructure can support, ie on 30 Sept 2018 (one of the first sunny weekend days of spring), the traffic queue to enter Mission Bay extended around 3.5 kms back to Ngapipi Road intersection and street parking was full in a 1 km radius of the main reserve. An increased number of retail outlets, hospitality venues and increased residential numbers cannot be supported by current infrastructure and will detrimentally affect current residents of Mission Bay and also those living further along Tamaki Drive in Kohimarama, St Heliers and Glendowie who rely on Tamaki Drive as a link to the city and motorways heading West and North.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Not allow the currently proposed demolition of the heritage buildings and not allow an increase in venues and residences beyond what is currently available.

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:

2 414 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 1 October 2018 6:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2190] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 Janice Frye

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095218601

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 8 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: Too high and too big

What are the reasons for your submission? Will change the character of Mssion Bay in a very negative way.

1 415 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Make the height of the development much lower . Make the totsl size of the development smaller.

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:

2 416 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 1 October 2018 9:00 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2194] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Andrea Young

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021739018

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 16 Codrington Crescent, Mission Bay,Auck 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: Blocking Water views enjoyed by those behind Tamaki Drive

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 417 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To restrict the height of the development to its current height - two storeys . This is in keeping with the rest of Mission Bay and still allows a seaside neighbourhood feel.

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:

2 418 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2018 8:45 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2200] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Benjamin Dallimore

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212402396

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 59 Southern Cross 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: (1) Height - I don't support the current design's proposal to exceed the permitted maximum height limit. (2) Traffic - I don't support access to a large carpark from Marau Crescent, given it is a residential street, which for all intents is only one lane wide when cars are parked on both sides of the road. The proposal will have a detrimental affect on an already congested street at peak times. (3) Building Form and Style - I don't believe there is enough variation in form, colour, material or style of the development. While it is broken into a number of blocks its a massive form of uniform

1 419 style out of proportion and context with the surrounding area. More differentiation is required. It looks more like a development at the Mount or Gold Coast than seaside Auckland.

What are the reasons for your submission? We own a property on Marau Crescent.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? (1) Limit the developments height to what is allowed under the current planning rules. (2) Do not allow carpark access or service vehicle's access from Marau Crescent. (3) Require more development of the building's form so the design is better expressed as separate buildings.

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:

2 420 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2018 1:30 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2208] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 Fairbairn

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274477789

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 25 Melanesia Road 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: The height of the proposed development being outside the Unitary plan guidelines

What are the reasons for your submission? I live in the area and agree it needs to be developed to allow the area to be a world class city

1 421 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Approve as it 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 422 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2018 7:00 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2254] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Matt Issolah

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021894577

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 20 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 need to preserve the waterfront and promote a sustainable development of the city which would not impact negatively the lifestyle of Aucklanders. You want Auckland to be the most liveable city and promote a green NZ, then develop parks and cycle lane along the costs, preserves the views on the Hauraki golf and from the sea, not new buildings (again). Focus on the reasons why Auckland and NZ are attractive, not on short term development projects which are not aline with any long term visions / strategy.

1 423 What are the reasons for your submission? Please see above.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? See above. Otherwise what would be the next step? 20 floor buildings along all the coasts of NZ?

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:

2 424 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2018 9:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2264] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: MIssion Bay submisison.pdf

Categories: Achini

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: Ewen Christie

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 25215971

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/8 Taranaki 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: Height, bulk and scale of the proposed development.

What are the reasons for your submission? This submission opposes the above application on the following basis: 1. Mission Bay, one of three bays, is defined by its low rise residential scale and character. The existing buildings are no higher than 4-storey equivalents and any

1 425 significant increase in height would materially and adversely change the svisual quality and character of the area. 2. Because of its substantial dimensions (width, length, frontage) the proposal with its 8-storey towers will have massive physical and visual bulk, compared with existing surrounds. Viewed in the context of what exists, this will have significant adverse effects on Mission Bay. 3. Buildings of the height proposed should only be allowed where located against land of similar height, in this case. Kohimarama has for example, 12-storey buildings located against similarly high ground, and this demonstrates no adverse effect on the adjacent low rise area. 4. An example of the effect of a 4 level equivalent building exists in Turua Street, St Heliers Bay. The visual bulk of this building, in the context of its surrounds, is massive and demonstrates that the addition of a further 4-storeys would have seriously adverse effects on the scale and character of the neighbourhood, which is similar to that of Mission Bay. 5. The three bays, Mission Bay, Kohimarama and St Heliers have similar low-scale environments, and are close enough together to have a high degree of association or continuum. To materially change one bay (as the application would if approved) must influence similar change to the others. 6. It is appropriate to question whether there is a “need” for any increase in height, and resultant density, in Mission Bay. There does not appear to be any valid “need” for any increase in height beyond that permitted in the existing urban plan. 7. The extent of the application beyond the existing height rules, goes well beyond accepted limits of the process of application for dispensation, any substantial increase in height beyond that of the existing rules should be addressed by rule change, not by dispensation from the existing rule.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? On the basis of the forgoing submission, I recommend that the application for the height increase requested, 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? 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 submisison.pdf

2 426 Submission RE proposed 8-storey development at Mission Bay

This submission opposes the above application on the following basis:

1. Mission Bay, one of three bays, is defined by its low rise residential scale and character. The existing buildings are no higher than 4-storey equivalents and any significant increase in height would materially and adversely change the svisual quality and character of the area. 2. Because of its substantial dimensions (width, length, frontage) the proposal with its 8-storey towers will have massive physical and visual bulk, compared with existing surrounds. Viewed in the context of what exists, this will have significant adverse effects on Mission Bay. 3. Buildings of the height proposed should only be allowed where located against land of similar height, in this case. Kohimarama has for example, 12-storey buildings located against similarly high ground, and this demonstrates no adverse effect on the adjacent low rise area. 4. An example of the effect of a 4 level equivalent building exists in Turua Street, St Heliers Bay. The visual bulk of this building, in the context of its surrounds, is massive and demonstrates that the addition of a further 4-storeys would have seriously adverse effects on the scale and character of the neighbourhood, which is similar to that of Mission Bay. 5. The three bays, Mission Bay, Kohimarama and St Heliers have similar low-scale environments, and are close enough together to have a high degree of association or continuum. To materially change one bay (as the application would if approved) must influence similar change to the others. 6. It is appropriate to question whether there is a “need” for any increase in height, and resultant density, in Mission Bay. There does not appear to be any valid “need” for any increase in height beyond that permitted in the existing urban plan. 7. The extent of the application beyond the existing height rules, goes well beyond accepted limits of the process of application for dispensation, any substantial increase in height beyond that of the existing rules should be addressed by rule change, not by dispensation from the existing rule. On the basis of the forgoing submission, I recommend that the application for the height increase requested, be declined.

Submitter:

Ewen Christie (Architect)

2/8 Taranaki Road

Kohimarama

(09) 521 5971

427 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2018 12:32 PM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2280] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2018 10:45 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2280] 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: Kaye Moxon

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272869211

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 15 Codrington Crescent Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

1 428 This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

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

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Height restricted to meet the recommended guidelines of 4 levels. Design proposed will 'date' and should be more contemporary.

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:

2 429 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 7:24 AM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2284] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2018 6:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2284] 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: Catherine Mountfort

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021749117

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P.O. Box 125052 St Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

1 430 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 development

What are the reasons for your submission? It is not in keeping with the unitary plan or the special character of the area I don't want this development to set a precedent for further sky scrapers on our waterfront

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The Unitary Plan is more than generous allowing a 4 storey development Please stand firm and keep the 4 storey limit designated considering residents and ratepayers who live in this area and the money already spent on 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:

2 431 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2018 6:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2285] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Berthine Bruinsma

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212149333

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 10 Warwick Ave Titirangi Auckland 0604

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: * demolishing buildings that have iconic and heritage character * height

What are the reasons for your submission? *I value and love De Fontein's corner on the intersection and find it to have great iconic value. Destroying it and replacing with a modern straight building would be a sore mistake. * I hate the height and character of these buildings so close to and out of scale with the waterfront and surrounding dwellings. It will block the view and throw shade for

1 432 many dwellers. * I am afraid that residents will oppose and complaing about the entertainment character of Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1. To keep the corner of De Fontein on the intersection as it is, including the balcony. 2. To allow for no more than 3 levels 3. and for the levels to be terraced up from the waterfront like the apartments on 43 Tamaki Drive. 4. If not included yet: allow for parking for all residents.

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:

2 433 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2018 7:30 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2287] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Alan Barraclough

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0223910351

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 9 Corinth Street Remuera 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 coastal and flood assessment

What are the reasons for your submission? The assessment is based on a 2015 sea level rise study estimating a sea level rise of only a metre im 100 years which is false

1 434 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The council should seeks its own independent estimates of sea level rise (about 2.3 metres) based on revised estimates from the scientific community. The rate of sea.level rise has been revised upward considerably since 2015.

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:

2 435 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2018 9:00 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2289] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Amy Ang

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021883133

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/4 Dinglebank Rd Mt Wellington Auckland 1060

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Against demolishing the existing iconic buildings

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the building plan

1 436 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:

2 437 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2018 9:30 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2290] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Warren George Whyte

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5284824

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 26 Hopkins 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: Height of buildings, general appearance of buildings, and relationship with the immediate surrounding area.

What are the reasons for your submission? I have been a resident in the Eastern Suburbs for 70 years having been brought up in Mission Bay, lived in Remuera all my working life and now a resident in Kohimarama. I am deeply concerned that the proposed development does not reflect the existing environment that makes Mission Bay such a popular and special place to visit.

1 438 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1) The development should not exceed the permitted height limits as set out in the Unitary Plan. 2) The majority of the buildings in Tamaki Drive, Mission Bay were built in art deco style. Any redevelopment should reflect that unique style so as not to create a hotch potch of various architectural styles. 3) The height of all buildings in the redevelopment, especially on Tamaki Drive and Patterson Ave should all be of the same height, hopefully no more than four stories above ground, so that they reflect the image created by the protected Garden Court Flats at the other end of the block. 4) The buildings should be set back from the footpath so as to allow a "green strip" of garden between the footpath and the retail shops - as is done in many, many overseas countries in shopping areas by the beach. Mission Bay is known as a garden suburb so why not keep it that way? The garden aspect is already reflected in many of the properties along Tamaki Drive such as the Garden Court apartments and the Donald apartments opposite the fountain, to name just a couple of examples.

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:

2 439 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2018 9:45 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2291] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 mclean fraser

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274728832

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 33 vale 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: this application goes outside the height limits within the council unity plan

What are the reasons for your submission? There is a need/want problem here. the developers want to exceed the height limits and there is no need we are an island country and as such have plenty of coastline for developers to develop to provide for those that wish to live by the sea. There is no need to stack people on top of each other by building more floors than the unity plan allows

1 440 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? the council officers who decide on this must be clear in there minds as to the need for any height amendments to the unity plan they allow they must be able to justify the need for such a decision I believe there is no need to go higher than than the hieght rules in the unity plan as such I say just leave things as they are and do not pass this 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:

2 441 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2018 11:30 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2293] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Judith Anne Moresby

Organisation name: resident

Contact phone number: 09 5211868 021521594

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 89 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: I am against the developments height and bulk of the proposed buildings as they would dominate Mission Bay and detract from the community feel and appeal.The proposed buildings are too big and bulky. Mission Bay has a community feel the restaurants and small shops the visual appearance is casual with the green areas trees and beach being the main feature enhancing the natural area. The proposed new buildings will take the ambiance away by towering over the lovely areas.We enjoy the relaxed feel of a pleasant beach community along with the theatre. Mission Bay does not need a block of essentially appartments with a few shops underneath the main purpose of this

1 442 development is to make money with the sale of expensive exclusive residences and not to enhance the area for the community at all. The proposal has less retail areas marginally more carparks which will most likely be taken up with the owners of the appartments friends etc and not much to increase parking for general public,theatre goers and restaurant clients. The Unitary plan is supposed to protect to enhance not detract from the communities. Specific hieghts have been set and this proposal goes well over those heights. Mission Bay is also a destination for the tourist tour buses Auckland has few places where tourists can get a feel for our city to put up huge buildings here turns Mission Bay into a boring concrete high rise area far from what it is now which is an attractive seaside community.

What are the reasons for your submission? This proposed development will impact the community and effect the enjoyment of so many coming to Mission Bay. It is ill conceived unattractive, far too high does not have a seaside community feel and does not enhance the art deco feel which we enjoy at the moment. The existing buildings are ready for upgrading or a rebuild but this concept is far away from anything that would benefit and enhance Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the entire concept and go back to the drawing board and come back with something that is within the Unitary Plan and is in keeping with Mission Bays culture.

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:

2 443 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 8:51 AM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2295] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 8:45 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2295] 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: Hans Peter Haarhaus

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210358654

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 46D Godden Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

1 444 This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Proposel totally unacceptable for Mission Bay

What are the reasons for your submission? The design, scope and monstrosity is not acceptable for this beautiful landmar location

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

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:

2 445 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 10:15 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2297] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Melissa Murphy

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211223752

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 8 Hillview Avenue New Windsorp Auckland 0600

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 agree for the resource consent to be approve for the building of the multi storey development.

What are the reasons for your submission? I have live in Auckland for the past 30 years and really enjoyed beautiful Mission Bay. Recently my walking grp do a trip to Mission Bay for walk and have lunch to celebrate our grp 5th Anniversary. All of us had an awesome time,

1 446 enjoying the beautiful beach, surroundings amd God's beautiful creation. Please reserve Mission Bay for all to enjoyed and stopped the resource consent from happening. Thank you.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Please reserve Mission Bay for all to enjoyed and stopped the resource consent from happening. Thank you.

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:

2 447 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 11:30 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2298] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Tamba Carleton

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +64212010902

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 9 Kenderdine Road Papatoetoe Auckland 2025

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: height, bulk, scale, design

What are the reasons for your submission? My name is Tamba Carleton. I am 27 years old and live in South Auckland. I am making a submission in support of this development because it will benefit Auckland. - The current buildings are old and tired. They are no longer fit for purpose. Mission Bay attracts domestic and international visitors and we need to provide them with attractive places

1 448 to dine and spend to support the local economy. Apartments over the new retail will provide a boost to the retail catchment in the area. - Mission Bay is a prime place for residential intensification. It is less than 6km from the CBD as the crow flies. It is supported by public and active transport investments. It has natural amenity with the beach and reserve. It is clearly a desirable place to live, reflected in median house prices averaging $1.76 million in the three months to August 2018 (REINZ). - I attended the Mission Bay-Kohimarama Residents Association meeting on 3rd October 2018. There appeared to be a misunderstanding of the Unitary Plan. I wish to be heard in person to make it clear to the everyone what the Unitary Plan is. The Unitary Plan is a planning document that intends to accommodate Auckland’s growth by zoning to allow a feasible enabled capacity of 422,000 residential dwellings. The site is zoned Local town centre, allowing for four storeys. The Residents Association argument is that the proposed development exceeds this four storey height limited and should be turned down on this basis. I would like to remind everyone that Local town centre zoning means that a development of four storeys is allowed as a right. A development proposal exceeding Unitary Plan limits is assessed on a case by case basis of its individual merits. In my view the CBD fringe location and characteristics of the site means that an eight storey corner building and other buildings in the 4-7 storey range are appropriate and should be allowed. - The prime location means that the proposed apartments will not be cheap. It is ironic that the main demand base will be locals, who are the few that have sufficient wealth to buy into such a development. If Mission Bay locals fail to support the development with presales it simply does not proceed. The approximate average age of the 350 attendees at the meeting on 3rd October was early 70s. An apartment development allows locals to downsize and age in place in an area they clearly love and are attached to. It has the additional benefit of freeing up larger family homes for younger kiwi families. A larger Mission Bay population creates further commercial opportunities such as an expanded medical centre, greater variety in hospitality or small supermarket. - The issue of carparking was raised at the meeting. There is more than one carpark per household. This is sufficient for a location so close to the CBD and already well served by public and active transport. I believe that if buyers of the apartments have more cars than carparks they are more likely to give up a car than park on the street. - Another issue raised was the natural amphitheatre landscape of Mission Bay and how the development was too tall in this context. The development is almost as tall as the wall of Pohutukawa trees in the reserve. The natural amphitheatre layout in my view supports a development of the proposed height because Mission Bay residents retain their Rangitoto and water views. - I am concerned that the views of a vocal minority of Aucklanders will count more than a neutral or supportive majority of Aucklanders. We need more housing in Auckland to accommodate growth, especially in places where people want to live. The proposed development looks nice and is suitable for the site. It will benefit the local community and have trickle down benefits to the rest of Auckland. To decline the application would effectively reduce housing supply, further driving a wedge between the haves and have nots and seriously impacting on societal inequality. Low housing supply resulting in high housing costs has been and will continue to lead to poverty and lower standards of living for a growing segment of the population.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like council to approve the issuance of resource consent for this development 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: No

Supporting information:

2 449 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 11:30 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2299] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Rachel Karen Mason-Thomas

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021418033

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2 Harvey 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: The height of the proposed buildings and the look of the proposed buildings.

What are the reasons for your submission? As a lifelong resident of Auckland, I believe it is very important to maintain our local, national, and international reputation and visual integrity of our waterfront.

1 450 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Enforce the current height restrictions and not allow this development to go above those restrictions, and to request the developers to redraw the plans to have the proposed development keep within the look 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: Yes

Supporting information:

2 451 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 12:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2300] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Nigel Merrett

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021404606

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 20 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, bulk, and mix of hospitality/retail to residential

What are the reasons for your submission? The unitary plan has a maximum occupiable height of 16m. This development has 7 building which exceed that limit, including one building a massive 28m high. Mission Bay is special to not just the people who live in the area, but also to the whole of the city. It is a unique amphitheatre to enjoy. The amenity values and natural character of the Bay will

1 452 be hugely affected by this colossal development. The beautiful views that we currently enjoy will be affected hugely, the bulk of the building will dominate the skyline, and many natural sightlines from many homes (mine included) will be hugely affected. For example with our house we will completely lose our view of North Head, possibly Bean Rock, and the view of all of the pohutikawa trees that boarder Selwyn Reserve. The views also from Tamaki Drive and Selwyn Reserve will also be hugely affected. The view of the ridgelines from Selwyn Ave (looking South) are lost, and the building being so tall will be bulky and intimidating to walk past and be near. The Unitary Plan is surely in place to protect existing residents, and we have a right to expect that the Council will uphold the height rules to ensure that our current views are unaffected by developers looking to make a profit at the expense of the community. I have no problem with a development being approved that is 16m high for occupiable use and another 2m for an interesting roof. Having said that I am disappointed that it appears that under the proposal the amount of space for hospitality and retail is going to reduce by up to 1000m2. I would love to see the current buildings be rebuilt and more space is given to hospitality and retail, with these spaces becoming modern, spacious, funky, trendy, interesting. So it is a shame that we don’t even retail the same space we have now with the proposal. I am also concerned about the extra demands on parking that 130 apartments will place on public parking, as friends come and visit the owners. My understanding is that the public parking on the site increases from 70 to 100, so 30 extra parks do not seem enough. The developer has also said that the cinema might only be rebuilt if it is economically possible. This is a nice asset for all of the Eastern Bays, and I would like to see this facility retained. The developer should not have an 'out', to decide whether they will go ahead or not with this. Finally, I am also concerned that if you let any development on this site proceed that exceeds the 16m occupiable height limit what precedent have you set? Does this mean that we will see another building in time on the other side of the intersection of Tamaki Drive and Patterson Ave that will also exceed the allowable building envelope? This would also hugely affect views, and the look of Mission Bay. We do not want a 'Surfers Paradise' look to Mission Bay. In closing, I support something that meets the Unitary 16m occupiable height maximum, that upgrades the hospitality and retail, allows all of the community to still enjoy the beautiful views of the Bay, enjoy a stroll to the beach or the reserve and not feel oppressed by this hugely bulky building. If this development goes ahead it will hugely affect our amenity values, the natural character, and our enjoyment of Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Stop this development, ensure that any development meets the maximum height rules of 16m occupiable and another 2m for an interesting roof, ensure that we get a modern, spacious and interesting hospitality zone (ie restaurants and bars) that at least is no smaller than what we have now, and retain the cinema. Do not allow a precedent to be set that might mean the other side of Tamaki Drive and Patterson Ave can also be built higher than the Unitary Plan 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? Yes

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

Supporting information:

2 453 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 12:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2301] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 Elizabeth Milnes

Organisation name: Resident

Contact phone number: 0274950316

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 47 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 size, design and scope of the development needs further consideration

What are the reasons for your submission? I enjoy Mission Bay as a place to exercise and socialise. The current buildings (proposed for redevelopment) have an art deco facade that contribute to the attractiveness of the location. The proposal design would destroy this and replace it with a modern build that lacks style and character (modern builds per se do need to be lacking in these

1 454 areas). The height also seem excessive and will attract even more people to Mission Bay over weekends and public holidays. Underground parking will be essential. As well as increased and ongoing up keep of all amenities in the area, including clean up.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Review design and come up with something that keeps the heritage of the existing buildings. Ensure adequate parking and/or public transport options. Review also whether the development really needs to be that high.

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:

2 455 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 12:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2302] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Mau Wah Yung

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102350037

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 38B 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: Project too big and not in line with unitary plan

What are the reasons for your submission? Height of the new buildings too highproj

1 456 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Restrict the height of new buildings

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:

2 457 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 12:45 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2303] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Submission Oct 2018.docx

Categories: Achini

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: Greg and Carolyn Snell

Organisation name: Private Individuals

Contact phone number: 021757031

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/31 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: 1 Height of the Proposed Development 2 Traffic and Parking 3 Location of "Services" on the building on the South Eastern corner of the Development

What are the reasons for your submission? See attached file

1 458 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1 See attached file but in brief the Council should only accept a proposal which falls within the Unitary Plan and if the developer continues to want a "flat" roof that should be 16 meters maximum as allowed in the Unitary Plan. 2 See attached file - but in brief the residents car park should be accessed off Patteson Ave not Marau Cres. 3 See attached file - but in brief the services should be located more "within" the development and not where they have such a dominant impact on the local 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: Submission Oct 2018.docx

2 459

[email protected]

Submission regarding

Re Application Numbers BUN60324987, LUC60324989, WAT60325010 Demolition and Construction of Buildings at 75-79, 81-87 & 89-97 Tamaki Drive 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent Mission Bay

Submission by

Greg and Carolyn Snell

2/31 Marau Crescent

Mission Bay

Auckland

021 757 031

[email protected]

We wish to be heard.

To Whom It May Concern,

We wish to oppose the application in the presently proposed form as follows

1 Height

2 Traffic/Parking

3 Services location

460

1 Height

Reason for opposing

We find the proposed height of 28 meters totally unacceptable. This would totally dominate the entire area. At present Mission bay is a nice mixture of beach, parks, fountain, exercise areas, native trees and restaurants. All activities blend together nicely. The Council (ratepayers) have been through an exhaustive process in recent years to ultimately settle on the present Unitary Plan which for the area in question allows for 16m habitable plus 2 m roof, total 18m. Anything above 18m will be far too dominating and the Council should reject. We do not buy the Developers commentary during their recent door to door sales pitch that if the 8 story proposed model is rejected they will be forced to go to the Unitary plan height of 18 meters over the entire site.

The proposal seems to provide roughly the same retail area as present (or maybe less), the same movie theatre numbers as present – and yes a tidy up of the area. The addition of 100 or so apartments provides zero benefit to the suburb. We are also aware anecdotally that the Developer is prepared to settle for a 22 m building and the initial application at 28 meters is purely a start point. What a waste of everyone’s time and money that is.

Decision requested of Council.

Council needs to draw the line in the sand and stick rigidly to the Unitary Plan. 18m is the maximum height acceptable to us and should be the maximum the Council allows. (Note – if revised plans continue to be “flat roof” the height should be 16m maximum). To accept anything above this makes a mockery of the Unitary Plan and would set an undesirable precedent – not just in Mission Bay but across all of Auckland. The Developer has already talked about a “Gateway” to Mission Bay. The Council must not allow anything over the Unitary plan to set the precedent for when the developer inevitable applies to develop the other side of Patteson Ave/Tamaki Drive which is also land that they own.

461 2 Traffic Parking

Reason for Opposing The impact of additional traffic on Marau Crescent from the proposed development is excessive and potentially dangerous.

We note the proposal allows for 129 Residents Car Parks – accessed off Marau Cres. The application also suggests 50 resident car movements per hour “during peak time”. The Developer informs us the requirement for the residents to access of Marau Cres is at AT’s request?

There is also surveys in the traffic segment of the application showing vehicle movements during a Thursday evening and a Saturday 11.45 am – 12.45pm. What the surveys do not reveal – which is especially relevant with the Saturday survey – what time of year – what were the weather conditions? The Developer verbally informs us when measuring traffic volumes one shouldn’t use peak times. Maybe that is true but the variance of traffic using Marau Cres. is massive. Wet week day in winter versus a hot Sunday or holiday in January would see 10 fold plus more vehicles.

I have conducted three surveys myself – counting car movements past my property at 2/31 Marau Cres. The table below reflects on the first line the Developers Submission. The second two are the results of my surveys.

Surveyor, Date, Day, Time, Weather East to West to Total Variance West East over Developer Developer Date?, Saturday, 1145 – 1245, 75 29 104 100% Weather? My Survey 1 23/09/2018, Sunday 1500- 158 54 212 204% 1600, Fine 17 Degrees cloudy – beach day but not swimming My Survey 2 29/09/2018, Saturday 1200 – 156 28 184 177% 1300 Overcast wind 26kmh 17 degrees, light shower – not beach or swimming weather My Survey 3 30/09/2018 Sunday 1340 – 182 76 258 248% 1440 Sunny/overcast 18 Degrees, 15knh wind – beach weather but not swimming Totals 571 187 758 75% 25%

Clearly the Developers figures don’t paint a full picture. Would also suggest the numbers the Developer reports on Tamaki Drive are similarly light relative to weekend volumes.

It should be noted – Sunday’s (not Saturdays) are the busiest days and “mid afternoon” the busiest times. While my surveys are designed to show a comparison with the Developers survey, the numbers shown would increase dramatically on sunny summer weekend afternoons and holidays when people are heading to the beach and restaurants. With another 100 plus residents’ cars and proposed additional restaurants these car numbers will become even more unacceptable than they

462 are now. The situation is even more dangerous when triathalons, bike races, Round the Bays, Fairs and the like take place.

PLEASE demand the developer has the access for resident’s car park off Patteson Ave.

The application also refers to eight crashes in a 5 year period. What it doesn’t account for are the many minor – non injury accidents and the dozens of “near misses.” We have lived here for 2.5 years and have witnessed several accidents – non- injury – just outside our place. Car hitting opening car doors, nose to tail type accidents. The street has lots of families parking, unloading children, prams etc. on the way to the beach. Cars speed down the road and with the additional cars exiting the development it is only time before a major – injury – accident occurs.

If it is the Councils direction to have the residents cars added to the existing traffic flow a major injury accident is bound to happen.

According to my calculations an additional 129 cars using Marau Crescent over doubles the existing “residents” cars. Marau Crescent is not suited to this volume of cars and to a degree the application acknowledges this - “Marau Crescent is a narrow residential street .”

It should also be noted Marau Crescent is used as a short cut – during peak times – for cars wanting to “beat the lights” on Tamaki Drive. Vehicles greatly exceed the speed limit to beat the lights – right along where the development intends having “50 cars per hour” enter/exit the road. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

Decision Requested of Council The ‘residents’ Car Park should be accessed off Patteson Avenue where there is already an entrance to the existing car park and where the proposal already has another entrance.

463 3 Location of “Services” on top of the Building in the south east corner of the site

Reason for Opposing Some of Services are proposed to be located on top of the building on the South Eastern side of the development near Marau Cres and the existing four level flats. The height of these services are proposed to be 21 meters. The Developers graphic shows the services taken from street level. From our living areas these Services will be very visible and quite confronting. It’s not about losing view as we don’t have one in that area it’s just going to be very imposing & totally dominant.

Decision Requested of Council

Please request the services be located more “within” the development, perhaps closer to the retail areas – further toward Tamaki Drive.

4 Other

a) We wish to take this opportunity to register how appalled we are with the Local Orakei Board Chairman (Kit Parkinson) who has deemed it acceptable to not only be involved in the Developers promotional material but is seen to condone an application which so obviously breaches the Unitary Plan b) Finally we wish to say we are for the beautification and development of Mission bay – it is long overdue – BUT – only within the rules of the Unitary Plan

Yours Faithfully

Carolyn and Greg Snell

Copy to

Quentin Budd – Auckland Council [email protected]

Troy Churton Orakei Ward [email protected]

Ellis Gould Solicitors

[email protected]

464 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 1:00 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2305] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 Burnett

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211430676

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 8 Colenso Place 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: Ignores the spirit and intention of the Unitary Plan The size of the developement. The visual impact. The developments cultural impact.

What are the reasons for your submission? So soon after the implementation of the Unitary Plan it is (at best) ironic the way this application can ignore the Plan in so many aspects of the Plan. The proposed development will not add any apparent amenity to Mission Bay while

1 465 having considerable negative impact. Its size is too high. This development is only about residential apartments. There are no more restaurants, bars, shops. There is no guarantee that the picture theatre will continue to be there. Mission Bay is an important recreational amenity that is for Aucklanders both from within the suburb and from further afield. The development will change the tone of the area and impact on this important cultural characteristic of the Eastern Bays. If passed this development would set a precedent for future developments in Mission Bay and surrounding suburbs. Like it or not developers do have a responsibility to the area that they place their development in.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the proposal in its entirety. I think the developers and their architects should be sent 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 466 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 1:00 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2308] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 Galle

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210530920

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 17 Kinsale Ave 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: Building height(s), dominance over natural amenities, aspect, Unitary Plan provisions.

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. I think that the Mission Bay area will be overwhelmed by the proposed development. 2. If this goes through, then it will be hard for the council to refuse a similar project on the other side of Patterson Ave, crowding the place even more. 3. It goes way beyond the limitations set by the Unitary Plan - what exactly is the UP for, if developers can just

1 467 ignore its rules? 4. It would set a dangerous precedent for other developments in other areas of Auckland to go ahead, regardless of what provisions are set out in the UP.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1. Reject this proposal and invite the developer to come up with a project that is *within* the framework of the Unitary Plan, with a maximum building height of 16 metres (plus 2metres solely for the purpose of roof decoration). 2. Retain the iconic art deco fascade of the Belgian Beer house.

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:

2 468 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 1:00 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2309] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Carole Larraine Hutchinson

Organisation name: N/A

Contact phone number: 0272744709

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Apt 17 Garden Court 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: Height of proposed buildings...... Bulk of proposed Buildings....Design of proposed buildings

What are the reasons for your submission? This proposal is totally out of context for Mission Bay landscape and design. The proposal is abhorrent lacking in thought or taste. I live in Garden Court which is a landmark of this wonderful bay and the proposed buildings will be

1 469 an eyesore on the landscape. To allow this proposal would set allow future developers to further ruin this iconic beach and surrounds.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I believe the council should not allow any of this proposal 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:

2 470 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 1:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2310] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 Mason

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021921001

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 46C Rawhitiroa 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: Exceeding the Unitary Plan height restriction and the impact on the area.

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed height and bulky design of the development impinges on the natural beauty and integrity that is Mission Bay. This area is an Auckland icon known and visited by Aucklanders, national and international visitors. The proposed building will exceed the height restrictions imposed by the Unitary Plan and will dominate the Road, beach

1 471 and reserve. To build something this ugly and high in such a beautiful setting is a travesty. It will blot the landscape from every view point around the periphery of Mission Bay. It is not in keeping with any of the surrounding buildings. I am a born and bred Aucklander who has always loved "fish and chips on Mission Bay" as the signal of summer. It is what Aucklanders and visitors do. This proposal in its current presentation adds absolutely nothing to the environment and local residents will have no gain whatsoever. There is a huge cost to the community with the reduction of public facilities. Furthermore, what was the point of the Unitary plan if you as the Council can not adhere to it. In particular, the height restrictions and the design and whether or not it is in keeping with the area and of some benefit to the community? What will be the future impact of non compliance of the Unitary Plan be on the waterfront, if this proposal is accepted in it's present form? A Gold Coast travesty look a like? I hope not.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1. That the height of the development be in line with the Unitary Plan and not exceed it. 2. That the design of the building be changed to reflect the area. 3. That there is an assurance that the cinema will remain as a benefit for the community and to attract visitors. And that the parking available is increased and not 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:

2 472 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 2:30 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2312] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 Zander

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0275378796

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/32 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: 1. Historical significance of buildings and surrounding area will be lost 2. Over height when compared to the Unitary Plan. 3. Too bulky 4. Local business interests

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. Historical buildings such as the Art Deco Cinema & De Fontain will be demolished under this proposal. The proposal is also out of proportion compared to other buildings of historical interest in Mission Bay. 2. The proposal is

1 473 over height under the Unitary Plan, 16m is 16m and NOT 28m. This will set a poor precedent for future developments in Mission Bay. 3. the Bulk of the proposal is outsized in the bay. Selwyn Reserve is an attraction for visitors and this proposal will overwhelm the park. 4. Local business owners have indicated they will not return to the location due to the increase in rents and they DO NOT want to operate in a Gold Coast environment.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I want the Council to reject the entire proposal The Art Deco buildings to have an historical listing and to be carefully restored. I will bring pictures to the hearing.

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:

2 474 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 2:45 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2314] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 Jackson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212082090

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4 Inglewood St Wai-o-taiki 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 height of the building far exceeds the maximum under the Unitary Plan. The design has no architectural merit. It will have an adverse effect on the local environment and the sea side charm of Mission Bay.

What are the reasons for your submission? If this building is consented it will end all height restrictions along Tamaki drive. The developers already own property on the other side of Patterson Ave. and see this as a "gateway project" to build to the same height there as well. The

1 475 retail area will be reduced and now the developers seem to be saying there might not be enough money for the return of the cinema. They are only interested in building a large block of flats which will not address the housing shortage in any way and will be un affordable for most New Zealanders. There is also the risk of the Wynyard Quarter effect with the residents not liking the noise of any returning businesses. The lack of cafes etc. for at least 2 years will turn away most visitors and there will be disruption to traffic on Tamaki Drive. There seems to be nothing to compensate those businesses for loss of income and jobs. Most livable city? Not if this sort of development is consented.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Deny resource consent. Stay with in limits 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? Yes

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

Supporting information:

2 476 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 3:15 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2316] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Kay Merrett

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 6421500010

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 20 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: This development exceeds the maximum height in the unitary plan and the bulk of the buildings will dominate Mission Bay. The height and number of these buildings will have a huge impact on Mission Bay. Mission Bay is a destination for many Aucklander's, tourists and of course locals. This development will not benefit the community as it reduces the much needed area for hospitality and retail. The buildings will be very intrusive and change the feel of the beach. One of the beauties of Mission Bay is the Tree lined beach. This beautiful natural outlook can be seen from many aspects between Kepa Road and Mission Bay. This building will dominate the entire area and destroy the look and

1 477 feel of Mission Bay. The reduction if views from people homes will impact of the value of many peoples properties. Mission Bay can not cope with 130 new apartments. The demand for parking is already huge. This will have a significant impact on all residents in Mission Bay. The cinema is a huge benefit to Mission Bay and the experience of people here. The developer will only develop the cinema if financially viable. This must be development and improved from the existing cinema, not taken away.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To stop the development going ahead as this isn't the correct type of development for Mission Bay. We need something to enhance the hospitality, retail and dining experience in Mission Bay. Any new development should fit within the existing 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:

2 478 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 3:30 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2317] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 Whitburn

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0221750061

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P O Box 125182 St Heliers Auckland 1170

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: My main concerns regarding this development is the height that is proposed by the developers which is well in excess of the unitary plan guidelines and the bulk of the development that is massive in the context of the Mission Bay area precinct and the surrounds. If this development gets the go ahead it would fundamentally change the character of the Mission Bay centre, particularly the reserve and beach area. It is a development that is foreign to the area and would DOMINATE and degrade the character and livelihood of the suburb. I also note that if the development proceeds in its current form would result in less services to the public than currently exists. i.e less retail & restaurant space. There

1 479 would however be a significant increase in residential accommodation catering for the high end of the market that would do little to solve the residential housing shortage in Auckland because it would be unaffordable to most people. I would stress that I am not against development of the Mission Bay precinct. Parts of it are old and tired and could do with an upgrade. However, any development should be within the Unitary Plan guidelines, particularly height restrictions and have affinity to the existing area. i.e. less dominant.

What are the reasons for your submission? I am a resident of the Eastern suburbs domiciled in Kohimarama which is adjacent to Mission Bay. I often frequent the Mission Bay reserve and beach with family members.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would request Council decline the application in full. If the developers want to develop the area they should do so within the Unitary Plan guidelines and have empathy and give consideration to the residents that live in the 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 480 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 3:30 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2318] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Maulik Thakkar

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0220844198

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 24 Parry St Sandringham Auckland 1041

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Mission Bay is a valuable public space and important to the Unitary Plan's push for intensification of urban density. Developments must serve generations that are yet to come and not solely those who benefit from the status quo.

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 481 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I support the Auckland Design Office's proposal to reduce the bulk of the development so that the development can become a landmark in our city's intensification efforts. Age gaps during consultation must be accounted for and meaningfully addressed wherever age differences between attendees and those absent at a consultation are observed. Less space allocated to car parking in the space would encourage mental and physical well-being by allowing for uptake of transport alternatives, principally walking and cycling - I would urge the council to opt for lower car parking space in 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:

2 482 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 8:14 AM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2324] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 5:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2324] 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: Dorothea Frances Derrick

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09274525046

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11a Cullwick Road Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

1 483 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 structure The EVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of the proposed structure The DESIGN of the proposed structure

What are the reasons for your submission? The height of the building is twice the size of what is legally allowed under the new unitary plan. It will look far too bulky & dominate all the surrounding buildings & it will not sit well with other surrounding buildings of character. It will be a complete eyesore! Shades of the ugly Gold Coast deveopments. Views from the water, Bastion Point & all surrounding vantage points will be dominated by this great hulk of an ugly building. It is completely foreign to a characterful area like Mission Bay which is known as an iconic Auckland suburb enjoyed not only by residents but visitors from all over Auckland, NZ & the world. Why would you want to destroy this? The developers state the design is a nod to art deco. I am no architect or expert on art deco architecture but this propsed construction looks to me like a mass of oversized chilly bins stacked on top of each other. There are no architectural features of any merit contained in this proposed structure. It is purely designed from greed to maximise the number of apartments the developer can sell at over inflated prices. It does nothing to alleviate Auckland's housing crisis as prices will be several million per apartment for this area with views. In summary I am not opposed to the area being developed & upgraded however I do believe the developers need to go back to the drawing board & design a building in keeping with true art deco theme - look at Maimi Beach perhaps? Also they need to stay within the laws the Council has spent years & large amounts of ratepayer dollars to refine. What is the point of having this comprehensive unitaryplan if it is not going to be adhered to?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the proposed development on all aspects outlined above. Go back tothe drawing board & design something all of Mission Bay, the Eastern suburbs & Auckland can be proud of. Its as simple as that!

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:

2 484 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 8:10 AM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2326] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 6:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2326] 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: Jeff Meltzer

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +6421922226

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 46C Rawhitiroa Rd Auckland Auckland 1071

Submission details

1 485 This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Exceeds the height limits set by the Unitary Plan

What are the reasons for your submission? Auckland went through a very lengthy and expensive process to finally arrive at a Unitary Plan. The Plan is very detailed and specifically imposes height limits. This proposed development significantly exceeds this limit for this area of Auckland. What was the point of the Plan if Council are prepared to consider ANY height above the maximum permitted? If Council agree to allow this breach of the Plan by consenting to exceeding the height, this will open the door for further applications with exactly the same breach. Soon the landscape will be of high rise buildings. This proposal is of no benefit to Aucklanders who want to enjoy the uniqueness of Mission Bay. There will be fewer community facilities, eating/cafes and a very real possibility of no movie theatre. The true benefit of this development will be to those who can afford very expensive apartments and to the owner/developer of the site. There will be no benefit to tens of thousands of Aucklanders and visitors who crowd to Mission Bay in summer. Mission Bay is unique. Let us keep this uniqueness.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I want Council to be bold and look after the interest by representing Aucklanders as you are charged to do. There is a Unitary Plan - just follow it and adhere to its maximum height limit. Put the responsibility for bold innovation back to developers - just stay within the agreed limits.

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:

2 486 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 8:09 AM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2328] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 8:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2328] 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: Leanne Lowery

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 6421834415

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P O Box 42010 Orakei AUCKLAND 1745

Submission details

1 487 This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height of the development. Design of the architecture. Environmental impact on the landscape.

What are the reasons for your submission? The height of the building is twice the size of what is legally allowed under the new unitary plan. It will dominate all the surrounding buildings & it will not sit well with other surrounding buildings of character. Views from the water, Bastion Point & all surrounding vantage points will be dominated by this great hulk of an ugly building. It is out of character for an area like Mission Bay which is known as an iconic Auckland suburb enjoyed not only by residents but visitors from all over Auckland, NZ & the world. Why would you want to destroy this? Also the impact on the environment. How would services cope such as traffic, parking. Also shading other buildings and obstructing views to Rangitoto.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To decline this application and redesign to adhere to the unitary plan. Also consider an environmental building that is covered in living plants.

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:

2 488 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 8:09 AM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2329] Submission received on notified resource consent

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2018 9:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2329] 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: Nick Rees

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021832527

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 17 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

1 489 Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: -Height of building

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed development is almost double the height permitted under the unitary plan. We do not want a building of this size on our water front.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We do not want to stop the development however we want the developer to reduce the height of the proposed building so it complys 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 490 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 8:06 AM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2339] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 6:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2339] 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: Robyn Jane Thorn

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274857244

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4 Marau Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071

Submission details

1 491 This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I believe the height is too extreme

What are the reasons for your submission? Just too dominant on the frontage

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Just a slightly lower building would be preferable

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:

2 492 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 8:02 AM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2343] Submission received on notified resource consent

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 7:31 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2343] 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: Kaye Muriel Wilson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 322 118

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 12a Melanesia Road Kohimarama Auckland 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

1 493 Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The height and size of the development. The development is monstrous and above the height guidelines provided in the Unitary Plan that was agreed for Auckland.

What are the reasons for your submission? Today I have seen an artists impression of the visual effects of the proposed development at Mission Bay. What an eyesore!! How can such a development be approved when it defaces our lovely coastal Mission Bay. The great attraction of Mission Bay is its lovely array of restaurants that look out to the reserve and our harbour. This area belongs to the people of Auckland to use and enjoy. Not for a developer to make his millions.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Council have to decline this application in its entirety. The developers should abide by the plan guidelines.

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:

2 494 Ranjeeta Singh

From: Robyn Pilkington on behalf of Central RC Submissions Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 8:01 AM To: Premium Submissions Subject: FW: [ID:2345] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz [mailto:NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 7:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2345] 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: Annette Delugar

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: (09) 5756560

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/18 Walmsley Road Saint Heliers Auckland 1071

Submission details

1 495 This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The height of the the new structure which is higher than the unitary plan allows. The architecture is out of character with the other parts of the suburb.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Ensure the height of the building complies 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 496 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 9:31 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2355] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Frank Douglas Bryson Thompson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0219988090

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 133260 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: The size of the development (height and bulk), the reduction in amenities provided by the existing buildings

What are the reasons for your submission? The development will have a major negative impact on the whole Mission bay and surrounding areas as well as the Selwyn Reserve and Mission bay beach

1 497 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reduce the height down to the height permitted under the unitary plan and require the square meters for hospitality and amenities to be not less than at present. Require the theater to be included in the redevelopment.

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:

2 498 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 10:16 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2359] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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 B OLIPHANT

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5283709

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P O Box 133.080 Eastridge Auckland 1146 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 height being above that permitted under the Unitary Plan - The proposed 28 meter height will excessively obstruct the sight lines of local residents to enjoy the sea views and local surroundings. Wind patterns will be adversely affected The design appears not to be in keeping with the surroundings.

What are the reasons for your submission? I agree the area is due for redevelopment on a scale in keeping with the area. Mission Bay is a n area with a long

1 499 history enjoyed by many going back pre-European days which must be preserved the Bay is bounded by Bastion Point and the surrounding amphitheater

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Lower the height as this could set a precedence 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 500 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 10:46 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2363] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Margaret E OLIPHANT

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 - 5283709

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P O Box 133.080 Eastridge Auckland 1146 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: Firstly I object to the obscene height of the development that overshadows every aspect of this charming and unique suburb. I consider the design to resemble over-sized modular blocks bearing no connection to the amphitheatre in the background or beachfront, harbour or Rangitoto to the north . I consider the design to be selfish and an example of environmental greed.

1 501 What are the reasons for your submission? I feel affronted that a developer would consider this design for Mission Bay showed any empathy for the local environment and the enjoyment of all visitors to the Bay

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like Council not to give resource consent for this Development in this proposed design. I agree the area is ready for redevelopment but in a manner that enhances the experience for all users and is sympathetic to the natural 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:

2 502 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 11:01 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2365] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Danita Nel

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210547511

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/87 Tautari 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: Redeveloping and changes to Missionbay

What are the reasons for your submission? As an icon of Auckland, I don't think a change in the face will be very attractive. Except for changing, it will also bring a lot of other problems. First of all, the proposed height of the development is against the rules - what will happen if

1 503 there is i.e. an earthquake or tsunami?? Also: what about parking?? As it is, it is very hard to find parking anywhere near the centre, specially for older people with disabilities or young mothers with babies and todlers

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Leave Missionbay as it is and just tidy up the present buildings.

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:

2 504 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 11:31 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2369] Submission received on notified resource consent

Categories: Achini

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: Rebekah Williams

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021976739

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 26a Rukutai 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: Mission bay 7 stories and demolishing the iconic De fontein building!

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. new zealand has hardly any old iconic buildings why not keep and upgrade around it like Bondi beach has done with similar buildings! 2. 7 stories would be like surburbia and look atrotious and no natural light around andthe sunny

1 505 park would not be a sunny park no longer! 3. mission bay does need a face lift but one way road to and from will not handle the traffic, it doesnt already!!!

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1. Mission bay DEFINTELY needs an upgrade but intergrate what you already have look at Bondi beach and how they have done it. 2. do not go higher then 4 stories max as this will look and feel out of place and block the sunlight to the park which is regulary used instead of the beach

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:

2 506 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 12:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2373] 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: Murray John Willis

Organisation name: Mr.

Contact phone number: 0274734043

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 65 Kurahaupo 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 exceeds max allowed in Auckland Unitary Plan. It would significantly change the character of the area as it would become the focal point rather than the natural amenity of the reserve and beach.

What are the reasons for your submission? Much work went into the recent development of the Unitary Plan which concluded with max height of 16m or 18m is optimal in areas with this zoning. Approval of this project as proposed would exceed that restriction by a very significant margin and permit a very imposing set of buildings on our iconic Tamaki Drive. The high rise buildings in Kohimarama do not set a precedent for this height as they are immediately in front of the cliff on their southern side and blend into that cliff. If this project was to be permitted it would set a regrettable precedent for further development 1 507 of this size and height along Tamaki Drive which would degrade it's amenity value. We do not want our eastern beaches to be dominated by high rise buildings as they are in places like Maroochydore. The additional traffic generated by the additional residential space will place even more stress on Tamaki Dr and surrounding streets .

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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 508 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 1:16 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2377] 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: Russell John Greenwood

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5280707

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 32A 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: My submission relates to: changes in the identity and functions of the site; intended height infringements of the Unitary Plan; changes in focus for surrounding areas, especially the historic beach and park areas across the road; destruction of numerous current private and public viewing shafts, and invidious precedents for local and other Auckland areas.

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. The development changes the identity and function of the site. It introduces a dominant apartment element into what is primarily a restaurant/cafe entertainment site. This will disadvantage public use in three ways. First, it will inevitably lead to a wealth-centered living complex, leading possibly to friction between apartment dwellers and the 1 509 restaurant/park/beach element of the area in a manner similar to that between the public park/restaurant areas and the Tamaki Drive apartments East of the exit to Atkin Ave. These latter frictions seem to relate mostly to closing times and noise from restaurants and the public park area. Secondly, the development envisages a reduction in the restaurant/cafe element of a thousand square meters compared with the current footprint. This is a significant reduction of eatery space, I think somewhere between a third and a quarter. Thirdly, the renewed Cinema complex is subject to 'viability'. Depending on how 'viability' is interpreted, we could lose our cinema altogether. 2. The development will infringe in two major ways against the Unitary Plan. The two-meter roof-line tolerance will be swallowed up by further flat roof apartment density, and the project as a whole will go far beyond the Plan's protective height restrictions for the site. 3. Instead of interacting with Mission Bay park and beach sites it will dominate them like a junior version of Gold Coast, Benidorm and Miami seafront buildings. 4. It will destroy or severely obstruct many current public and private viewing shafts from Bastion Point, rearwards and the Kohimarama hill end of Mission Bay. In addition it will substantially limit the view of Bastion Point from some angles of the east end of Mission Bay's recreational space. 5. The development will load in a high volume of private parking spaces to serve the dominant apartment element in the design. This could instead have been used to serve the restaurant/cafe outlets and the public beach/park areas across the road. 6. If accepted in whole or part, the proposal will set a disturbing precedent for the remainder of the Tamaki Drive section of Mission Bay. These other sections are mostly occupied by cafes and restaurants, many of which I gather are subject to demolition clauses in the current leases. One can easily conceive of a similar proposal being advanced for these area. This would be a major failure of the Unitary Plan, leaving many other important public areas of Auckland vulnerable to the wrong kinds of development.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I support a complete rejection of this turgid, unimaginative plan, because it will largely destroy rather than expand many of the the distinctive positive characteristics of Mission Bay. There remain many other parts of the Eastern Suburbs which could support 100 new apartments without changing the character of local areas in this way. Further development of Mission Bay is necessary, but this proposal is an object lesson in 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:

2 510 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 1:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2378] 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: Megan jennings

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021996882

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 82A Coates Ave 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 above unitary plan

What are the reasons for your submission? The unitary plan is there for a reason and I don't believe we should be making exceptions to the rule. I also think that it is a very imposing set of buildings for this corner and would be to the detriment of the community.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? They should configure to the unitary plan currently in place and not be allowed to be so high.

1 511 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:

2 512 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 1:46 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2381] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: PhilCOOPSUBMISSION.docx

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 Coop

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274417574

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 56 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Mission Bay 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: HEIGHT, SCALE, BULK OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. The height and bulk of the proposed development are completely out of line with the Unitary Plan for the area. The Unitary plan has been developed and agreed (at great expense) across all of Auckland. The Unitary Plan forms a blueprint to balance the needs of a growing population, with the needs of residents to know that there is, in fact, a

1 513 plan for our city, backed up with a set of rules to be followed. These developers are choosing to ignore these completely for their own financial gain. Please see attached doc.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? REJECT THIS PROPOSAL, and ANY OTHER PROPOSAL FOR THIS SITE THE EXCEEDS THE LIMITS 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? Yes

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

Supporting information: PhilCOOPSUBMISSION.docx

2 514

PHILIP COOP

56 CODRINGTON CRES MISSION BAY AUKCKLAND 1071

5 TH OCTOBER 2018

AUCKLAND COUNCIL REF BUN60324987

Dear AUCKLAND COUNCIL,

In relation to the application to develop the Mission Bay site, I wish to OPPOSE the application.

In my opinion the only acceptable course of action for Auckland Council to follow is to REJECT the application.

My reasons to OPPOSE the application are:

1. The height and bulk of the proposed development are completely out of line with the Unitary Plan for the area. The Unitary plan has been developed and agreed (at great expense) across all of Auckland. The Unitary Plan forms a blueprint to balance the needs of a growing population, with the needs of residents to know that there is, in fact, a plan for our city, backed up with a set of rules to be followed. These developers are choosing to ignore these completely for their own financial gain. 2. The height will completely dominate the precinct. Visual amenity is a benefit to all people who live in, pass through or visit Mission Bay. It is the ability to see the sky, to see the ridges, to see the sea from up the hill, to feel connected with the reserve and beach, to feel that you are not being towered over when you walk along the shops. Visual amenity is not a resource to be greedily consumed by a single property developer for financial gain. 3. The proposed design is particularly visually unappealing. There are plenty of examples of stunning contemporary New Zealand architecture that shows a sympathy to the

515

environment and surrounding nature. The proposed design does neither. Any argument that the scale of the design adds to the visual appeal of the area is completely nonsense. 4. There will be increased traffic and Mission Bay is already a traffic bottle neck during all weekends of Summer and in peak times all year. 5. The proposed height will block, obscure or degrade views, and lose the connection with Mission Bay for nearly all residents of Mission Bay. 6. Mission Bay does not need “a defining central point or tower”, “a new example of monumental architecture”, or “a bold new vision for how Auckland will look in the future”. The developers just need to stick to the limits set out in the Unitary Plan, and design a building that is sympathetic to the surroundings within these limits. 7. Mission Bay is a natural amphi-theatre and has been since before arrival of European or Maori settlers. As a single generation living at this particular point in time, we certainly have no right to ruin this for all future generations with one towering edifice.

This is a very important case not just for a few Mission Bay residents with multi-million dollar mansions who are having their views blocked (as has been positioned in the media), but for all of Auckland.

This is a pivotal case for Council to set a legal precedent.

Council should send a message to would-be Property Developers who think that the Unitary Plan is something that can be completely ignored, that the Unitary Plan is there for a reason, and it will be upheld.

I wish to be heard at the submission to express my views.

Sincerely,

PHILIP COOP

2 516 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 2:01 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2383] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Submission.pdf

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 MARY WOOD HANSEN

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021667783

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4 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: Height Scale

What are the reasons for your submission? The AUP was widely consulted over a considerable period and provided considerable wealth creation for investors. The developers should be grateful for what they have been granted and not always want more. Obliterates the view from many houses, including our own. The height and scale are so inconsistent with a seaside suburb anywhere in the developed world, never mind New Zealand.

1 517 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Comply with the AUP.

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.pdf

2 518 OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN MISSION BAY 1 FOR ON BEHALF OF THE HANSEN FAMILY TRUST, 4 RONAKI ROAD

As residents of 4 Ronaki Road there are two main issues:

i) 180 degree view of Hauraki Gulf from 4 Ronaki Road will be seriously diminished. ii) Mission Bay is at serious risk of losing its character. i) Sea view compromised

It was reported on 12 September, 2018 that a penthouse in Parnell was sold for $9.25M. Later that day on National Radio’s Jim Morra Show a commentator from realestate.co.nz estimated $2M of that price was for the construction of the building, the balance was for the view – that is $7.25M. The view at 4 Ronaki Road is now being obliterated.

When we purchased in 2005, it was promoted as a home with ‘never to be built out views’. Recognition of property rights is one of the defining characteristics of a civilized society. It is reasonable to expect that when you purchase a property with a view and you do your due diligence to ensure that view does belong to the property it cannot and should not be taken from you.

The Unitary Plan (AUP) was widely consulted and well thought out. It is no doubt generous in itself to the developers, but still they want more.

The developer’s submission, ‘Neighbouring Analysis’ includes an assessment of our property and the impact it will have. The assessment is very misleading and I invite you to please come to our home and look for yourself. It is amusing how the AUP is referenced – why is it not good enough for their development, if it is good enough for their impact assessment?

[email protected] October 2018 519 OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN MISSION BAY 2 FOR ON BEHALF OF THE HANSEN FAMILY TRUST, 4 RONAKI ROAD ii) The detrimental impact on the character of Mission Bay

This proposed development is a monstrosity, out of proportion to the rest of Mission Bay. Iconic landmarks like Bean Rock and Rangitoto will be scarcely visible - substituted by an austere, imposing block obliterating the character of a very special place.

We have raised a family in this seaside village where we have been very fortunate to enjoy the community, the hospitality, the cinemas, the beach activities. I am devastated that this development will be detrimental to the charm and character of Mission Bay and others may be deprived of the privileged healthy lifestyle we have had.

The submitted analysis has scant regard for the impact this proposed development has on our family’s and the community’s wellbeing. We care for our family, our neighbours and the community and this is creating a lot of stress and costing a lot of resources for everyone.

[email protected] October 2018 520 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 2:01 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2386] 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: George and Alison Clark

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5285192

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 31 Piccadilly 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 height of the proposed building/s.

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed height is in clear contravention of the Unitary Plan. Buildings of this magnitude and height would destroy forever the character of the waterfront along Tamaki Drive. We see no advantages to local residents and day trippers, just many disadvantages.

1 521 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The council should decline this 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:

2 522 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 2:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2388] 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: Kimberly Englert

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0275663899

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1 Cyclarama Crescent MASSEY AUCKLAND 0614

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 structures is absurd.

What are the reasons for your submission? The originally proposed 4 stories, fine, 8 is greedy. Mission Bay is beautiful. I have lived there for a year and loved driving down from Kepa overlooking bots of the bay. The 8 stories is too tall for the area.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 4 stories maximum. Maybe 3 stories max for these particular developers in spite.

1 523 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:

2 524 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 2:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2390] 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: Elaine de la Rossi

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 006421801802

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2 / 43 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: Choosing my word to be as inoffensive as possible I believe, the proposal for the redevelopment for Mission Bay would be a unmitigated disaster. The height and bulk of the proposed eight story project that will with out doubt dominate and dwarf Mission Bays elegant landscape. This giant glass stump would be better suited to a larger denser city landscape. Despite the enormity of this building it fails to deliver retail and hospitality space. The existence of the inclusion of picture theatres included is unclear. It is critical that the Unitary Plan is not undermined but rather honoured when consideration is given to the time and financial resources in implementing this document.

What are the reasons for your submission? I believe and concur that for to long Architects and developers have been myopic and too concerned about 1 525 themselves rather than what communities want and need their urban village to be. They have thought they are beyond criticism and on a pedestal beyond reproach. Buildings should not be intrusive and dominate the landscape they occupy. Surely here, if anywhere, is the time and place to sacrifice some profit, if need be, for generosity of vision, for elegance, for dignity, for a building which would raise Mission Bay residence and indeed Auckland and our faith that the pleasure and delight are returning to architecture rather than buildings that dominate and dwarf the elegant landscape of Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? With courage and vision Mission Bay could keep its real character which is much better suited to the community and express the hopes and aspirations of the community and people of Auckland and bring people together, not create division. I would very much like the Unitary Plan to be honoured and any proposal over the allowable height of this would be a tragedy. With courage and vision Mission Bay could keep its real character which is better suited to communities.

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:

2 526 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 3:01 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2394] 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: Gerald Fava

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +64274978520

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/29 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 general bulk and height of the buildings and reduction of retail space .

What are the reasons for your submission? Reason being that it falls outside the parameters set by the Unitary plan in particular the height and that if granted sets a dangerous precedence

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? That the buildings concerned are built to meet the current regulations and are in keeping with surrounding areas. As a

1 527 apartment developer myself I am aware of the council requirements for the building to have sympathy and connection to the immediate area. This structure appears to be building as much bulk as possible with NO connection. As a developer I like to see development but done well and not just for profit. It is ultra important the council gets this right and does not just think about future income from rates and development contribution. BUILD TO 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:

2 528 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 3:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2395] 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: David Chambers

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274 486 759

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/88 Coates Ave 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 complex is too high and is outside of Unitary Plan height limits. It will overwhelm the area and make Mission Bay look like another Gold Coast.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reduce the height of the complex to what is allowed under the Unitary Plan

1 529 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:

2 530 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 4:01 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2397] 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: Lorraine Anne Seaton

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272934623

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/12 Piccadilly 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 ruining of a popular neighbourly beach suburb with a monstrosity akin to the awful ugly concrete impersonal structures of the Gold Coast in Australia.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Do not be swayed by big monies and promises

1 531 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:

2 532 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 4:16 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2399] 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: Vicky Young

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +6495751114

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

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

What are the reasons for your submission? Opposition to the application as follows:- The floor area available for retail and hospitality is greatly reduced, meaning the community, local and other Aucklanders and visitors are losing out compared with current facilities. There will be a reduction in carparking by the time the one or two cars owned by the new apartment dwellers take the spaces. The height and bulk of the development are in question. The bulk of the eight buildings is much too large for the Mission Bay village and the development does not fit in with the current village and area ambience - far too dominant. The

1 533 height is well over that mentioned in the Council Unitary Plan, apart from one building. This is unacceptable. These 100 apartments are not low cost housing for first-home buyers which is what is needed in Auckland.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I am not against some sort of development in Mission Bay, but I believe the Art Deco buildings should be retained and the block tidied up. The cinemas must be retained too. Any developent must be in keeping with the current height and look of the Mission Bay suburb.

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:

2 534 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 4:16 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2400] 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: Michael Wood

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 012885615

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 13 Paddington St Glen Innes Auckland 1072

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Traffic - congestion along Tamaki Drive, lack of support to a motorway network other than ports which is entirely congested onto Beach rd every morning to get to any motorway system, i.e. north, west or south Tamaki drive is in dire need of widening or at least cycle way improvements as once cyclists on road becomes a real problem to use both lanes in one direction. Environmental Pollution - in terms of the sad state of our waste water and sewage systems already overburdened and splling into our creeks and rivers, i.e. Madills Farm, Okahu Bay. Smells many days of the year when walking past. School systems - at secondary and primary overflowing - Kohi and St Thomas's school and Selwyn college already bulging and no plans to build new schools to cope with the overflow or the teenagers coming out of the latest development which was Stonefields. where do all those kids go to High School?? Do we want 35-40 kids in a class at primary level? No teachers anyway as cant afford to stay in Auckland. 1 535 What are the reasons for your submission? Neighbourhood noise pollution from traffic, overcrowding on narrow roads not designed for large traffic flows and pollution downhill flowing to the beaches along Tamaki drive. On the narrow isthmus that is Tamaki Drive which is in dire need of upgrade. See above. The best solution would be to move Ports of Auckland (trucks are a massvie problem as many move containers by road around the country) and develop the land wiht apartments/green spaces and bring rail and movement of people out to the bays but not to overload existing infrastructure that is not sufficient as already failing to cope with numbers of residents and tourists alike. There is a lack of long term cohesion in terms of weighing the cost of developing further infrastructure vs the cost of living. We all end up bearing the burden of development in an area like Mission Bay which is overburdened and not set up to cope with the extra cost that must be ancipated when as will happen, investors buy apartments, charge a forturne and this forces seven people (stuudents) to live in a three bed apartment all with cars and all using resources. The solution here would be to ban street parking to but to do this they need to make major improvements to rail/bus networks from Tamaki to the city and beyond. In intrinsic nature of The Bays is that of a seaside destination not a mall/cinema/generic giant with homogenous housing and the obvious removal of many ancient trees (barraen) which developers tend to do to get their machinery in and out.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Long term plan for more schools esp at primary and secondary school level to cope with influx of families. No sure how to resolve the above but ideally this development doesn't go ahead as much to big and infrastructure not fit to cope.

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:

2 536 Linda Butler

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 4:31 PM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2402] 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: Barbara Foreman

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095755744

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: I object to the height of the proposed development. I feel the unitary plan height should be adhered to.

What are the reasons for your submission? Having lived in the Eastern Suburbs for 35 years we see the waterfront as being a very special part of Auckland and do not want to see such high buildings being allowed. The identity of Mission Bay and the rest of the Bays is at risk and as such must be stopped. I have no objection to the area being developed - just the height exceeding that stipulated by the Unitary Plan.

1 537 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Allow the development within the height restrictions imposed by 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: Yes

Supporting information:

2 538 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 4:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2404] 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 Cattrall

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0210643663

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 25-413 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 and design of the proposed development.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I accept the need for change and development in the area, but the designs and proposals published to date are in my view totally inappropriate and of no architectural merit. The design is a mish mash of styles, attempting to mimick Art

1 539 Deco and the scale of the buildings is totally unsuitable for the area for which it is proposed. Mission Bay as the name signifies is an historic site and a bustling low level, centre for food, sport and entertainment. All development done to date has complemented the existing style, scale and spirit of the Bay. This new project sticks out like a roundabout in the middle of a motorway. I could be less delicate. As I've said, in my view It has little or no architectural merit, is far too large and it raises two fingers to the existing residents and commercial outlets views and opinions. Development yes, but tasteful and appropriate development only.

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:

2 540 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 5:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2406] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Scan019615.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: Jennifer A Rowe

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 659 870

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 56 Codrington Crescent Mission Bay Mission Bay 1071

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Maximum height Mass, bulk and visual appearance of the development Visual design Providing for community's social and economic needs

What are the reasons for your submission? see attached

1 541 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: Scan019615.pdf

2 542 543 544 545 546 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 5:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2407] 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 Prestwood

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095210513

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 101 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: My wife, Christine Prestwood and I are not opposed to the development per se except for the proposed height. We feel strongly that a 7 storey building is excessive and that the height should not exceed 3 storeys.

What are the reasons for your submission? We feel the predominant height levels in the area should be maintained and do not wish to see the area start to resemble many other overseas highrise developments

1 547 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Restrict the height as above

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:

2 548 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 5:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2409] 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: Joanne Eldrett

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0225150572

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 10 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: 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).

What are the reasons for your submission? There is a movie theatre at Mission Bay which has been at the heart of the area for all my life (I am 46 years old) and

1 549 I would be devastated if the new development did not follow through on the intent to build a new cinema. I am also very concerned by the number of apartments they are proposing. Where are all these people going to park? And even if there were carparks built the congestion in the area would make it hard for the residents and tourists to continue to use the area as they do now - it would become so crowded and not a nice place to live. The height of the proposed building is also of extreme concern. The impact of reducing sunlight to the properties behind them in Marua road is of concern.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the council to make the developer commit to providing more retail space and definitely ensure a cinema complex has to be provided. Less apartment space and more retail space - the area definitely needs better restaurants etc. The height of the development needs to be reconsidered to ensure the residents of Mission Bay do not end up being disadvantaged by a shadow causing monster. The potential for losing the cinema complex and the height of the building (along with too many apartments causing traffic congestion) is my main concern.

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:

2 550 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 5:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2410] 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: Melinda Nolan

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5780283

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 12 Bongard 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: Height and bulk of the proposed development.

What are the reasons for your submission? The unitary plan has recommendations for height restrictions that should be followed. The plan was created to guide Auckland ‘s development and to prevent developments that will have a negative impact on the city. While I am supportive of development of the Mission bay shopping/ retail area, it needs to be done with consideration if the test of the suburb (and city) and within the height restrictions.

1 551 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Ensure the proposal does not exceed height and bulk restrictions as described 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:

2 552 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 5:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2411] 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 and Judith Sheary

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021988298

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/29 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: We have just invested huge time, effort and money into creating a Unitary Plan which supposedly sets out the rules for development to ensure Auckland develops in a coherent and attractive way. The height and bulk of the buildings would totally dominate the beach and reserve and exceed the exciting unitary plans by a large margin. What is the point of having a unitary plan if developers can show little regard for it and seek exemptions which if granted will open the flood gates for other large highrises to be placed Tamaki Drive .

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 553 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We would like the council to adher to the unitary Plan and decline this development until it fully complies.

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:

2 554 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 6:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2413] 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: Di Holland

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0276641041

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 46 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: Don’t want to lose the cinema and I don’t feel the height should be allowed. It should be the height allowed and not higher,

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 555 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Lower the height and make sure the developer is allowing for what the community wanted ie a cinema and new buildings but not so high, and not just Mandy making scheme

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:

2 556 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 6:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2414] 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 Carmichael

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102777470

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 201 Riddell 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: Height of proposed buildings and design

What are the reasons for your submission? Height outwith Unitary Plan allowable heights Design not in keeping

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reduce the heights of the proposed buildings to within what Council under Unitary Plan had previously set as the

1 557 maximum height Re-look at the design of the buildings - late 1970's style does not add to beauty of the area - look to design of Stonehouse - Herbst Architects

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:

2 558 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 6:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2419] 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: Naumai Hughes

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021774367

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11b Te Arawa 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: Height and size needs to be kept within the zone restrictions

What are the reasons for your submission? Retain character and open spaces for future generations. Do not want to set a precedent to allow further developments like this to go ahead

1 559 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Keep under the height and size 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:

2 560 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 7:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2420] 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: Anne Martin

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211483084

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 14 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: Height of development, size of development Aesthetics of development and change to the area Lack of community facilities Lack of public parking Contravening the unitary plan Setting an unfavourable precedent in the area

What are the reasons for your submission? Height of development is visually overwhelming and is well over the unitary plan. Aesthetically unpleasing development and changes the feel of the area. Development does not increase community facillities. It is possible there will be less community facilities and cinemas than the current situation. Development proposes minimal public

1 561 parking. This development contravenes the unitary plan which we all must abide by. It sets an unfavourable precedent in the area, which means futher oversized developments will be more common. Marau Crescent will become dark, cold and unappealing. Traffic in this street will be highly congested.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Ask the applicant to go back to the drawing board and redesign the development. It should not contravene the unitary plan. In particular, it should not go over the unitary plan height restriction. It needs to be aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with the feel of the area. The majority of the development should support the community with community facilities and parking 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:

2 562 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 7:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2421] 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: Gared Thomas

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021856858

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 133 1213 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: Height of the proposed development.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Limit the height of the development to the current permitted height under the unitary plan.

1 563 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:

2 564 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 9:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2426] 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: fsadfsd

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 12324367

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1 hjkhg jhkjh 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: ff

What are the reasons for your submission? hthfhhg

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

1 565 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:

2 566 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 9:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2427] 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: Malcolm McCracken

Organisation name: Generation Zero

Contact phone number: 0278578880

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 35 Tahuhu Road Mt Wellington Auckland 1062

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Generation Zero Auckland supports the proposal in full. Mission Bay is a popular centre for all of Auckland and all Aucklanders from different backgrounds and areas. The rejuvenation and growth of hospitality and retail in the proposal reflects this demand. Developments like this need to serve the needs of future generations not just those who benefit from the present. We also support the addition of the 100 apartments as there is a demand for all standards and typologies in the current housing crisis and there is a need to intensify in all areas of Auckland. The design of the building references the Art Deco heritage of the area that has been destroyed by constant renovation and destruction of the existing buildings.

1 567 What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We have concern with the number of car parks and what impact oversupply will have on the centre. There is currently 70 car parks on the site with the plan to increase that to 100 public plus 100 for apartments. This will increase the traffic in the area which will be detrimental to the ambience of the centre. We would like to see the number of public car parks reduced. Or if they are going to be built, then use these extra parks to remove surface parking at the Mission Bay reserve across Tāmaki Drive. The development is served by the frequent network in the form of the Tāmaki Link which will likely have 10 minute frequencies in future. More cycle parking and end of route facilities would be great as well given the area is already popular for cycling.

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:

2 568 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Friday, 5 October 2018 11:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2430] 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 Kinley

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095398381

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 125a 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 height and visual imposition on the Mission Bay waterfront are unacceptable. There should be nothing developed over three or max four stories in the bays. Whilst I support some modernisation of the complex the excessive scale and height of the proposed development should not be permitted Mission bay has a village feel and we do not want large city buildings destroying the character of the area

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 569 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reduce height to 4 or less ideally 3 stories max 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: No

Supporting information:

2 570 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 7:15 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2432] 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: Daria Murray

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0273087576

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 132 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 My understanding under the Unitary plan is 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form is permitted. This development is up to 28m which is nearly double 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 much too tall and bulky for Mission Bay. It will totally dominate its surroundings. This dominance

1 571 undermines the character of the Mission Bay foreshore and the entire suburb. Mission Bay is a beautiful character filled suburb with the beach, Selwyn Reserve and the pohutukawa as the stage, and the sea, Bean Rock and Rangitoto as the backdrop. This setting does not need a tall building to act as a focal point; the foreshore already serves this function. Permitting this monstrous Gold Coast like building in front of Mission Bay undermines the natural character of the entire suburb. The site is right next 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 a 28m building will dwarf the surrounding area even more. Loss of natural character and amenity value People come to Mission Bay to get away from this sort of over development and relax on the beach and foreshore. Many generations of whanau and people from all walks of life come together peaceably here. This development will destroy that natural character by intruding into the outlook from everywhere on the beach and reserve. It will shadow pohutukawa and even the Norfolk pine to become the dominant visual feature of the foreshore. Loss of community facilities Part of what is missed in this whole development is that you cannot just throw extra housing into place with no 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 council accepts the arguments for extra, 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 the council allow rich and powerful developers to ignore the rules? What does this tell the man and woman on the street? 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 From every angle in Mission Bay, the eye is drawn to the strip. Containing the beach, the reserve, the fountain, the Melanesian Mission historic buildings, and the row of pohutukawa it is one of the most diverse and spectacular sights in Auckland. 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 There is zero connections between the design and Mission Bay’s character or history. Auckland is a young city, why destroy what little nods to the past we have?! 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! Further impact on the environment 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! I am 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:

2 572 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 8:15 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2436] 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 chambers

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 85292298635

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 18/160 Kepa road Orakei Auckland 1062

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Buildings are to height and do not reflect the historic nature of mission bay

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reduce the height of buildings Encourage a more historic aspect

1 573 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:

2 574 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 8:30 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2437] 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 Plunkett

Organisation name: N/A

Contact phone number: 095281223

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 16 Tagalad Road, Mission Bay 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: Size and scope of the development

What are the reasons for your submission? The reason I live in Mission Bay is because of its unique atmosphere and sense of community. I feel that the development as proposed makes a mockery of the recently completed Unitary plan and will severely detract from the charm visual attraction of the Mission Bay forefront. I have stood at various points around the area and visualised what the development would look like and it's affect on the surrounding buildings and dwellings and quite frankly it's

1 575 simply appalling. The developers plans show a nice orderly area around Marau Crescent wit people strolling around and with the odd car parked here and there, we all know that that will not be the case. At present Marau Crescent and Tagalad Road are bedlam at week ends and this development will only make matters worse. The council have spent a lot of ratepayers (My) money creating the unitary plan and now we have a developer breaking all the rules with little consideration for the surrounding properties. This proposed development will overpower all the natural beauty and charm of Mission Bay.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like to see a development that keeps within the Unitary plan and does not assault the eye and detract from the charm of the Mission Bay waterfront. I would like to see council stick to their guns and enforce the Unitary plan rather that bow to big business and be swayed by the prospect of increased ratesrevenue.

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:

2 576 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 8:45 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2438] 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 Thomas Steel

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021537349

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 52 Castleton Drive Howick Auckland 2014

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Notwithstanding proposed mitigations and management strategies the scale and form of the proposed development appears to be contrary to the provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) regarding coastal hazard risks as it does not (a) avoid increasing the risk of social, environmental and economic harm from coastal hazards; and does not (b) avoid redevelopment, or change in land use, that would increase the risk of adverse effects from coastal hazards. Notably the risk assessment carried out and presented in the application does not address the need to assess changes in likelihood and consequence over time (100 years) nor does it provide a detailed or quantified assessment of economic, social and environmental consequences. The scale and form of the proposed development is significantly different to the existing development and includes:- 1. The intensification in residential 1 577 and commercial activities 2. Two basement levels of car parking Given the inadequacy of the risk assessment the proposed mitigations and management strategies cannot be assessed for their effectiveness or appropriateness. For example:- it appears the applicant acknowledges the basement car parks would flood in a coastal inundation event and has provided only to pump the basement dry after the event. Clearly any vehicles left in the basement levels (some owners could be out of Auckland or overseas at the time of an event) will be damaged and any oils etc that escape will be uncontained when pumped out. The frequency of such events will increase over time as sea levels rise but there is no assessment in the application that provides an understanding of that risk. Similarly there appears to be no quantified assessment of the change in the frequency of inundation events when considering street and ground floor levels in relation to 1% AEP storm tide levels and future sea level rise projections. In this regard while ground floor levels of the building may be raised it appears no consideration has been given to the need or otherwise to adapt or modify street and connecting utility infrastructure – a cost that would presumably fall to Council.

What are the reasons for your submission? If a consent were granted for the proposed development – it would appear such a decision would be contrary to statutory obligations under the NZCPS and related case law. Under such circumstances it would seem entirely reasonable for occupants and or owners of the proposed development to contend that Council failed comply with statutory obligations when granting the consent and should therefore be held responsible for the consequences of coastal inundation and any future measures that may be required to provide protection against such hazards. It is also possible that parallels could be drawn with the consequences of leaky buildings where the responsibility of Council and the resultant economic and social consequences are painfully clear. Ultimately the consequences of such situations fall back on ratepayers. For ease of reference I have included what appear to be the most relevant sections of the NZCPS, the Regional Policy Statement and MfE guidance to Local Government. New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement The NZCPS 2010 came into force on 3 December 2010. The New Zealand coastal policy statement (NZCPS) is mandatory national policy statement under the RMA. The purpose of an NZCPS is to state policies to achieve the purpose of the RMA, in order to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in relation to New Zealand’s coastal environment (section 56 RMA). The parts of Objective 5 and Policy 25 of direct relevance to the proposed development are:- Objective 5 To ensure that coastal hazard risks taking account of climate change, are managed by: a) locating new development away from areas prone to such risks; b) considering responses, including managed retreat, for existing development in this situation; and Policy 25 Subdivision, use, and development in areas of coastal hazard risk In areas potentially affected by coastal hazards over at least the next 100 years: (a) avoid increasing the risk of social, environmental and economic harm from coastal hazards; (b) avoid redevelopment, or change in land use, that would increase the risk of adverse effects from coastal hazards; Section 55 of the RMA requires regional policy statements (RPSs), proposed RPSs, plans, proposed plans, and variations to give effect to any provision in the NZCPS that affects those documents. Regional Policy Statement Sections of the RPS of particular relevance to the proposed development are:- B10.2. Natural hazards and climate change B10.2.1. Objectives (1) Communities are more resilient to natural hazards and the effects of climate change. (2) The risks to people, property, infrastructure and the environment from natural hazards are not increased in existing developed areas. (4) The effects of climate change on natural hazards, including effects on sea level rise and on the frequency and severity of storm events, is recognised and provided for. B10.2.2. Policies Identification and risk assessment (4) Assess natural hazard risks: (a) using the best available and up-to-date hazard information; and (b) across a range of probabilities of occurrence appropriate to the hazard, including, at least, a 100-year timeframe for evaluating flooding and coastal hazards. Management approaches (8) Manage the location and scale of activities that are vulnerable to the adverse effects of natural hazards so that the risks of natural hazards to people and property are not increased. (10) Encourage redevelopment on land subject to natural hazards to reduce existing risks and ensure no new risks are created by using a range of measures such as any of the following: (a) the design and placement of buildings and structures; (b) managing activities to increase their resilience to hazard events; or (c) change of use to a less vulnerable activity. Coastal Hazards and Climate Change – Guidance for Local Government Dec 2017 This guidance is a major revision of the 2008 edition, and includes the findings and projections of the latest Fifth Assessment Report produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It also includes advances in hazard, risk and vulnerability assessments, collaborative approaches to community engagement and changes to statutory frameworks. It explains adaptive approaches to planning for climate change in coastal communities, including integrating asset management into such planning. The guidance notes that: - “Hazard risk is compounding in areas adjacent to coasts, estuaries and harbours, because of the rising frequency of coastal hazard impacts and the increased exposure of people and assets as areas are developed and property values increase, together with legacy issues from past decisions. Sea level will continue to rise for at least several centuries, posing an ongoing challenge for managing the transition to more sustainable coastal communities, both globally and locally.” The guidance comprises two volumes:- • Guidance Document - http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/coastal-hazards-guide- final.pdf • Appendices - https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/coastal-hazards-appendices-final_0.pdf Appendix A sets out the statutory framework and Appendix B lists a series of relevant court cases concerning consent applications and plan changes – the majority of which refer directly to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010). In addition a NIWA site provides a very useful summary of those cases. https://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co.nz/files/Court%20Case%20Summaries_Coastal%20Environment%20_Oct%202 016.pdf

2 578 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like to see Council uphold the statutory obligations as set out under the NZCPS and decline a consent for the proposed 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:

3 579 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 8:45 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2439] 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: Julian Kennedy Mumford

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021402304

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 54 Sprott 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 many aspects of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? The building is way above the allowable height, it would appear that the rules set out by the unitary plan have been ignored. Are we to assume the Unitary plan are for "little people", if you have money and influence you can flout the rules that everyone else has to follow. I see little point in having a unitary plan if then people can just ignore it. I am very much in favour of developing the area as this is badly needed but any such development needs to be in keeping

1 580 with the look and feel of the area. I believe this building is too high, destroys peoples long held sea views and is NOT in keeping with the Mission bay area. If the building was kept to a lower height more in keeping with the plan, I do not believe people would object. Consideration should also be given to the look and feel, is this style of building really suited to a iconic beach side location and are we intending to ditch the current art-deco style completely and adopt a Miami beach style frontage?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application or seek major adjustments to the scope of the development more in keeping with the integrity and intention 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? Yes

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

Supporting information:

2 581 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 9:15 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2440] 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: Yun du

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0223724068

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 9 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: 8level is too much high 3~4 is fine

What are the reasons for your submission? Doesn’t fit in the environment

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Change the planning

1 582 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:

2 583 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 9:30 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2441] 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 Hugh Cave

Organisation name: Tech Futures Lab future Masters Student

Contact phone number: 021524030

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 35 Liley Place Auckland Auckland 1050

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

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

What are the reasons for your submission? I am a passionate user of the area

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Oppose all

1 584 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:

2 585 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 9:45 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2442] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: x MB Submission_20181006093813.908.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: Dinko Martinovich

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 4452097

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 7 Anne Street Devonport Auckland 0624

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?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full 1 586 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: x MB Submission_20181006093813.908.docx

2 587

1). I am 84 years of age and, although I now live in Devonport, I have had a close association with the Kohimarama-Mission Bay area ever since I was a late teenager. Also I have lived in various other New Zealand locations and (for 4 years) in Australia.

2). Over the last 60 years I have observed many developmental projects and have taken a keen interest in the “between and after” aspects of those projects, a few of which are listed below:

*The establishment (on previous farm land) of the Marsden Point refinery, the Glenbrook steel mill and the University of Waikato campus.

*The tasteful conversion of previously under-utilised land into public amenity space in the Whangarei Town Basin. (Parallel but larger Australian projects of a similar type can be observed in the vicinity of the Sydney Opera House, at Southbank in Melbourne, and adjacent to the Brisbane river.)

* The relatively recent establishment on previously under-utilised land of several Ryman Healthcare retirement villages in various Auckland locations, and the establishment of the Kiwi Property company’s large retail complex at Sylvia Park.

3). Regardless of whether we choose to regard any one of the above listed project as a local, a regional or a national project the common thread that runs through all of them is that the vast majority of the populace affected by the project have experienced undeniable and significant benefits from the projects’ implementation.

4). At this stage it is pertinent to supply a few more brief comments about Ryman and Kiwi. Each of these companies has demonstrated that their business culture is such that they can deliver their respective products to locations where those products are wanted and in a manner that is not overshadowed by a profit motive.

I will now deal more specifically with the Mission Bay proposal and compare that with what I have outlined above:

5.) The residential, shopping and café area known as Mission Bay is a unique jewel in Auckland’s crown. The particular area proposed for redevelopment could perhaps benefit from a limited amount of reconstruction and a limited amount of extension but (if the proposal proceeds) the enormity of the new buildings and the inevitable accompanying worsening of what is already a disturbing traffic problem will be seriously detrimental to the continuation of the uniqueness that now exists.

588

6). In Paragraph 3 I have indicated that, for all of the projects listed above, the final product has (for the vast majority of “the affected community”) been undeniably preferable to what existed previously. This is not surprising. After all it is entirely consistent with what the expectation was at the outset! Unfortunately, with the Mission Bay proposal the expectations are not positive. If the proposal is allowed to proceed, I can’t see that any worthwhile benefits for the general populace will accrue. Such benefits as will accrue can be expected to be either financial benefits that will line the pockets of the authors of the proposal, or else they will be location benefits to the buyers of some of the new residential units who will have effectively usurped the views of “pre-existing” Mission Bay citizens who live immediately to the south of the proposed development. Meanwhile the general pre-existing Mission Bay community, as a whole, will generally finish up with something worse than it had before. [And, as a side issue, we must keep in mind that allowing the proposal to proceed will create a precedent that will make it easier for the general populace to be hoodwinked by similar proposals in the future!!]

7). In Paragraph 4 I have commented about Ryman and Kiwi delivering their products to communities that want those products and I have also commented on how the two companies have delivered their products in a manner which is not overshadowed by the profit motive. Regrettably I have to observe that authors of the Mission Bay proposal appear to be hell-bent on blatantly foisting their product on a local community that does not want their product. Furthermore I cannot but conclude that the profit motive is by far and away the main reason why those same authors want to build skywards (in contravention of existing height restrictions!) on a small geographic footprint that doesn’t lend itself to lateral expansion.

8). Some comment is appropriate regarding the main thing that the Mission Bay proposal offers in addition to what already exists. That “additional thing” is a significant amount of extra residential accommodation. I get the impression that the authors of the proposal could be trying to curry favour by being seen as “doing something” to alleviate Auckland’s current serious housing shortage. My belief is that the profit incentive is unquestionably the dominant factor at the centre of the proposal and that the sale price of any “extra apartments” will be such that eventual buyers are more likely to be well-healed foreigners than average Aucklanders. Prudent town planning policy should be encouraging concentrated residential development away from the very small area bounded be Tamaki Drive, Patteson Avenue and Marau Crescent. The proposal under discussion seeks to achieve exactly the opposite result.

9). My emphatic view is that the present Mission Bay proposal should be totally declined.

589 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 10:15 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2444] 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: judith Moresby

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 521594

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 89 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: I object to all aspects of this Development. I feel very strongly about that this is so wrong I want to add to my earlier submission.

What are the reasons for your submission? The height and bulk of this building is over the Unitary plan and totally inappropriate for this site. There is no reason that this height should over the 18metre allowable height It does not fit visually with this area and would become an ugly feature overpowering the area. This build is not in the character and nature of this beautiful area. This build is

1 590 next to housing areas that are single house dwellings so would stand out and dominate even more. People from all over Auckland come to Mission Bay to enjoy the open green areas for picnics and recreation with its lovely trees and water frontage a building close to this area straight up from the road would be so ugly and over powering. This build should not be so out of style and character-for example Arrowtown completely redeveloped its main street to match the early settler feel with small buildings in keeping with the earlier buildings. Another example is Parnell keeping the flavour of the area. Mission Bay should have a lot of research done into what this small burgeoning beach suburb is before allowing developers to come up with a design which does nothing to keep the Bay feel and its present usage. The trees and Norfolk pines should remain the feature- they have even historical value Norfolks were planted to stand out to guide the old ships in This building is way over the height and would dominate these features. The purpose and usage now as it has developed is social -Beach picnics ice creams and dining -NO RETAIL SHOPS and plaza/mall There are shops up the hill at Eastridge and also St Heliers-Mission Bay is for dining and pleasure not shopping. If you allow this build then you will be unable to stop further like development on the rest of the Mission Bay area ....This cant be what the Unitary Plan envisioned! A wall of buildings along the road .Presumably experts wrote the unitary plan -so don't just over ride it so a developer can profit and not the community. There is nothing about this build for the community. There is huge development of apartment blocks going in along Kepa road. Many areas in the vicinity for further development ie Orakei etc. Mission Bay should be kept as a social area centre and hub. People coming to Mission Bay come here because of its appeal as open space, sea and sun -dont block it up with unnatural heavy builds. The design is not in keeping with The character of the area. The art deco corner is the immediate landmark feature it should be kept, It is iconic of Mission Bay along with the Mission House,green areas, playground, Norfolk Pines and Fountain. Big buildings shade and attract winds we dont want cold draughty corridors and entrances. Mission Bay is apart from the foreshore cheerful small buildings with chacacter restaurants balconies for dining ice cream shops, sun hats and outdoor enjoyment It is not intensive apartment blocks and malls.! Consideration also with rising sea waters. I have seen buildings in this area with basements dug and fill with water.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I want the the whole development DECLINED, thrown out I want research with good planning and sensitive designwork done to redevelop an area which will enhance Mission Bay and its community. This should incorporate the existing features already here. The RESPONSIBILITY is on this council to protect our environment and history for now and future generations-that is a HUGE responsibility. Any development done in Mission Bay must be done with due care for our future not for profiteering 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? Yes

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

Supporting information:

2 591 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 10:15 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2445] 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 and Bridget Tompkins

Organisation name: Mr

Contact phone number: 021421936

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 55273 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: We would submit that the council should reject the application in full

What are the reasons for your submission? We have lived in Mission Bay for 36 years in three different houses. Mission Bay has a special seaside village character which helps create a livable city and attracts many people to enjoy the public amenities focused on the hospitality facilities, reserve and beach front. The entire Bay feeds down to the focal point of the reserve and beach which, along with the current urban housing, low rise commercial spaces and green spaces is what provides the

1 592 special feel and character of the entire Mission Bay area. It is like living in a small seaside village within the city. The construction of such a large and dominating set of buildings would both dominate the landscape to an unacceptable level and would cut off the Bay from the very focal point that currently exists. To us this is the prime reason why this development should be rejected. There are a number of other strong reasons that back this up. In particular • A long time was spend preparing the current Unitary Plan and much discussion was directed towards setting the maximum height limits along the Eastern Suburbs waterfront. Intensification is necessary in a growing city but the importance of maintaining the special seaside character of these suburbs was recognised when finalising the plan. It is a huge concern that the first major development proposal in the area post the Unitary Plan is attempting to depart so significantly from the spirit of the Plan. • One of the arguments in the Development proposal is that the waterfront area is zoned for 16m so the 28m proposal will eventually not look so out of place. This argument is worrying and makes a mockery of the Unitary Plan. If we want to maintain the special character of the area as a family and sports orientated central beach suburb it is particularly important that the first development should be within the current allowances. Allowing anything else would almost certainly lead to further proposals for buildings beyond the 16m height both in Mission Bay and the other waterfront suburbs. This setting of a precedent of ignoring all the height limits set in the Unitary plan will inevitably lead to further applications for over height buildings not only in Mission Bay but also Kohimarama and St Heliers. As a consequence the Unitary Plan will fail in its objective to provide a livable city while also failing to balance commercial and public requirements. Such wholesale over height development will lead to the loss of the seaside nature of Auckland's eastern beaches and turn them into areas like the Gold Coast or South Florida which would be completely contrary to creating a livable, people friendly city. • When considering the affect on neighbouring properties the proposal states that most of the affected properties would be almost equally affected by a 16m development. This argument is both spurious and not true and it completely ignores the fact that such a large structure on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Avenue would unnecessarily dominate the landscape. The extra height is to be used for apartments but there is already ample scope in the current Unitary Plan for 16m apartment developments spread along the waterfront. In addition we understand that the commercial and retail area in the proposed new development is actually about a third less than is currently provided in the low rise buildings. So as well as dominating the landscape there will in fact be a considerable loss of public amenity as a result of the development. The developer has not shown any reason such as increased public amenities or any other exception circumstances which would justify departing from the current heights limits by such a considerable margin. There even seems to be doubt as to whether the cinema will actually be retained as the proposal qualifies the inclusion of a cinema by saying only if it is financially viable. The current cinema not being replaced leads to even greater loss of public amenity and provides a further reason why the proposal should be rejected • The proposed development will contribute to traffic congestion and parking problems in Mission Bay, not to mention problems for through traffic to Kohi and beyond. Instead of increasing car parking, the removal of the current carpark behind the cinema is likely to mean decreased casual parking. The car parks proposed in the Development are only likely to cater to apartment and business owners, with a few for the cinema patrons. Accessing Mission Bay using public transport is unrealistic for the majority and a number of sporting events take place in this area at times when public transport does not provide the necessary access both into and out of the area.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We urge the council to completely reject the application as totally out of keeping with the character of the Mission Bay area and with no exceptional circumstances or design features which justify such a enormous departure from the limits 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? Yes

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

Supporting information:

2 593 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 11:30 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2447] 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: Marcelo Alberto Lardies

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274710422

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 61 meadowbank road 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: height and density

What are the reasons for your submission? the proposed development is too high for a coastal area

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? to refuse consent

1 594 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:

2 595 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 11:45 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2448] 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: Ernesto Henriod

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274898393

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 25008 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 proposed buildings exceed the maximum height in the Unitary Plan and creates a serious disruption of the character of the beautiful coast of the Eastern Bays. It also affects the amenity and wellbeing of the immediate neighbours in Mission Bay -- and it would set a precedent that could affect all the bays surrounding it.

What are the reasons for your submission? I am concerned about the establishment of an exception to the Unitary Plan which may become the rule in terms of our Common Law.

1 596 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Change the design to fit the height limits of the Unitary Plan and ensure that the architecture fits within the general environment of the East Bays.

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:

2 597 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 12:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2451] 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: Rowena Bird

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212440721

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/20 Patteson Ave Mission Bay Auckland 2012

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Removing historical architecture Complete change of style not connected to the area of which it is known .ART DECO

What are the reasons for your submission? Complete disrespect for not maintains historical significance of the existing buildings as far as style goes . Too high density living - too many apartments .therefor too many people . The buildings will feel too tall for comfort . Seaside means sun- not shaded areas . Peaceful area changed into a very busy noisy area.

1 598 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Upgrade with respect given to a small boutique seaside resort and its special character it has now . Create and maintain seating , relaxing environment. Reject proposal in total and insist on new 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: No

Supporting information:

2 599 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 12:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2453] 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: Ramon Lewis

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0226907802

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Apart 9i 156 Vincent St Auckland Central Auckland 1010

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. Reducing retail and entertainment in an area supported by such.

What are the reasons for your submission? This would change the character of Mission Bay for the worse. Taking away retail areas that I enjoy going to and dominating the park & beach area opposite

1 600 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Turn down the development as a whole.

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:

2 601 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 12:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2454] 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 Kohler

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5210 725

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 110 Coates Avenue 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? 1. Theatre future not guaranteed Businesses will close for the duration of the development. The theatre draws patrons locally and from other suburbs. These people also use the other local retail businesses, especially the bars and restaurants. If the theatre goes, many of these will lose business and may close. Attracting businesses back may prove more difficult if the theatre is not there to attract patrons. 2. All about apartments, not about amenities. Mission

1 602 Bay is a facility enjoyed both by locals and visitors. During the season thousands throng to the beach and park area behind, many supporting local businesses during their visit. This proposal appears to offer little by way of improved amenities for locals and visitors. One hundred apartments averaging 122 sq m floor area. These will be priced well beyond providing any relief to Auckland’s housing needs, probably sold to overseas interests who will occupy on a part time basis. 3. Blot on an amphitheatre landscape The backdrop of Mission Bay forms a natural amphitheatre to the sea. It is a jewel to be cherished, not sacrificed Gold Coast style. Dumping a pile like this on the shorefront is nothing short of architectural and town planning vandalism. 4. Precedent for development of opposite corner The western corner of Paterson Avenue and Tamaki Drive is similarly ripe for redevelopment. Should this proposal be allowed to proceed the way will open for like structures there. The chilling winds funnelling down Patterson Avenue will turn this area into a pedestrian no-go area. 5. Council/ratepayer liabilities This site is adjacent to the sea. The proposal includes two sub levels. Who will be liable when these flood? The developer and associated companies will be long gone. Experience with the Leaky Buildings scenario suggests it will be council and ratepayers who will be left to pay the bills. 6. The Unitary Plan ... flagrant disregard. During the consultation phase of the Unitary plan the density and height increases proposed for Mission Bay were vigorously opposed by the local community, to little effect. The locals were forced to accept considerably greater height and higher density in future developments, inevitably changing the village character of the area. This proposal pays little heed to the Unitary Plan. The degree to which it bypasses the height restrictions is not minor, it is a flagrant disregard. The intention may be to seek what the developer may consider middle ground, but that middle ground has already been established. Development of this site needs to comply, 16 meters is the limit.

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:

2 603 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 1:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2455] 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: colleen gene behrens

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211995321

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 14/1-5 tamaki drive mission bay mission . bay aucklnd 1079

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: the buildings are too high and unattractive ...

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? lower buildings . and less appts

1 604 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:

2 605 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 1:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2456] 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: Gay Scaniglia

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 578 2181

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/13 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: This development will only suit the developer as he will make a lot of money from the apartments and the development is of no benefit to the community. In fact, it is detrimental to the local community. Parking in Mission Bay is at a premium. Apartments (2 cars possibly) and their visitors will place extra stress on Mission Bay parking, a bay which should be designated as a family destination for recreation. I understand that public parking will diminish if this project goes ahead.

1 606 What are the reasons for your submission? The Unitary Plan was created at great expense to ensure suitable development in Auckland. The proposed development DOES NOT OBEY THE RULES! What is the point of rules if they can be readily flouted. My message is KEEP WITHIN THE UNITARY PLAN RULES (as I have had to do when altering my home!)

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Scrap the whole proposed development UNLESS the developer is willing to KEEP within the rules! The proposal will interefere not only with the light of lower buildings behind the structures but those properties will have to look upwards to get a glimpse of blue sky. It will be like a WALL on the seafront . Not only that, it will destroy the village and seaside atmosphere for which Mission Bay is famous. Secondly, the council has required the owners of many properties in Auckland which are of Art Deco date to comlpy with regualtions to ensure their character is retained. Demolishing the local Berkeley Theatre and also the corner building on Patteson Avenue is surely against Council's rules. Allowing this development to go forward will create a precedent for other seaside properties in Auckland so I want Council to completely oppose this plan! I understand that the developer owns property on the other side of Patteson Avenue. This development could be just the start as if allowed why can't he do the same on the other side of the road? What a mess ! We don't want dominant buidlings creating an eyesore! If we wanted to live on the Gold Coast then we would! If allowed, then Council should consider a sizable rate reductions for properties whose views, sunlight and ambient light are affected.

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:

2 607 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 1:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2457] 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: Rex Maitland Findlay

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274935279

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 25234 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 the whole application

What are the reasons for your submission? The height of the property is way over the allowable height of 16m under the Unitary plan and the proposed development will dwarf the surrounding properties. The design concept does not even suit the area apart from being such an obscenely overpowering structure that does nothing to enhance the natural Mission Bay foreshore. Parking in the area is at a premium now and with this vast development even though there will be some parking in the

1 608 development it will more likely be for tenants rather than casual parkers. Marau Cresc. is now full with parking on both sides leaving only a single lane in the middle for thru traffic and obviously the current pay to use carpark behind the shops will disappear. It concerns me that developers try to bend the rules like this and if successful can open the door to a tidal wave of similar applications. I think the Council needs to make a stand for once and put a halt to approving concepts like this and listen to the people for a change.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The whole 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:

2 609 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 1:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2458] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: img001_20181006132817.388.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: Ivan Martinovich

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 022 050 3647

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 37B Marau Cresent 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: Height Bad planning Absolutely no benefit to the local community

What are the reasons for your submission? See Attachment

1 610 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline application and restrict any future development on the Mission Bay waterfront area to existing 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? Yes

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

Supporting information: img001_20181006132817.388.pdf

2 611 612 613 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 1:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2459] 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: Desmond and Yukiko Hunt

Organisation name: Quantock Trust

Contact phone number: 021669048

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 10 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: We feel the development should be within the Unity Plan. The building unfortunately will dominate its surroundings and character of Mission Bay. We are lucky today development hasn't followed many overs places which all look the same which are dominated with high buildings. With all the outside visitors both local and tourist Mission Bay is already becoming very crowded.

What are the reasons for your submission? Mission Bay stands out with an amphitheatre setting and does not need tall buildings to spoil such a lovely beach

1 614 area. We do not want to see such a tall development undermining the natural character of Mission Bay. This development will dominate the visual affect of the foreshore. The same developer owns the sites across Paterson Avenue and if accepted here, then it is likely to a precedent for forte buildings along the water front. Whats the point of having a unity, plan if developers are going to ignore the rules and cause us ratepayers cost to fight unrealistic proposals. Currently many properties enjoy views over the beach etc and will continue to do so if development id kept within the unity plan.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Oppose the application in total form as presented.

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:

2 615 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 2:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2461] 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: Marian Beryl Vercoe

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 528 5270

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 17A Goddem Cres Mission Bay Auuckland 1072

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Does not conform to the Councils Unity plan - grossly over height, far too bulky - set a precedence for future over height, inappropriate developments Reduced retail space Will destroy the uniqueness of the Bay.

What are the reasons for your submission? To try and ensure that Mission Bay and the rest of Tamaki Drive is not destroyed and is available to be enjoyed by all the citizens of Auckland

1 616 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The developer states that he is helping to tackle the housing problem by proving a number of new apartments. However, I suspect that these apartments will be very pricey - probably several million plus - which means that it is highly probable that the buyers will be wealthy overseas buyers, not Auckland citizens. Therefore, these apartments will not address the current housing problem, so the developers statement is spurious. There is also the point to consider that the buyers will use the apartments as "holiday homes" which means they would be used for only a few months each year - definitely not easing the housing problem, probably contributing to the problem by excalating prices. The developer also states that the theater will stay 'provided it is financially viable' . I suspect that the decision will be that the theater is not financially viable. This decision will have an adverse effect on the retail traders as at the moment people have the opportunity to have a meal either before of after viewing a film, making for a very enjoyable evening. The developers plan shows that the retail area will shrink which will be detrimental not only to the local community, but also to the wider Auckland community as people from all over Auckland visit Mission Bay on a regular basis. As well as the Auckland community, overseas visitors also enjoy the uniqueness of Mission Bay. This uniqueness will be irrevocably destroyed by this development. Why is the council even entertaining the idea of buildings/developments which exceed its own unity Plan rules? If the council is not prepared to support it's own plan and allows developers exceed the height regulations why was the plan proposed, worked through and passed into law at, I suspect, great cost to the Auckland ratepayers, in the first place? I understand that the developer owns property on the ther side of Pattersion Ave. If the council allows the current proposal to proceed, a precedent will have been set and council will not be able to stop a similar, over height, bulky development happening not only across the road, but also elsewhere on Tamaki Drive and other scenic areas of Auckland. The Auckland Community deserves a council who is prepared to put the communities welfare first and not allow monstrosities such as this development to ruin the 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? Yes

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

Supporting information:

2 617 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 2:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2463] 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: Victor Manuel Scaniglia

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5782181

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/13 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: This project is over height and does not comply with the Unitary Plan specifications. Secondly, if it is passed by Council then the charm of a seaside village will be lost. There is no benefit to the residents of Mission Bay. In fact, it will be detrimental as far as parking is concerned, not to mention the loss of views and sunlight to some ratepayers properties.

What are the reasons for your submission? Will spoil the beautiful beach area which attracts numerous tourists from around the world who come to Mission Bay

1 618 to see beautiful natural sights which they don't have in their own country. The tourists don't come here to see huge towers of buildings. They have those in their own country and that is why they come to places like Mission Bay because it is unique and is part of beautiful New Zealand.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? A few years ago we had a similar occurrence when some bright spark thought it a good idea to pour all the Auckland sewage by pipe line into our beautiful harbor. Thanks to the power to be we had a Mayor (Robinson) who fought very hard to keep the beautiful harbor for all people to enjoy and not for one person to gloat about having the most beautiful view from his eighth floor apartment.

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:

2 619 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 2:45 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2466] 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 Malcolm Gillard and Anne-Marie Gillard

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274320310

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 70 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: We oppose the proposed height of the development, and wish its height to remain within current approved levels. We do not like the design of the development and wish the design to be more in keeping with the character of Mission bay.

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed development, primarily because of its height, but also because of its design, would irrevocably and detrimentally change the character of Mission Bay’s waterfront.

1 620 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We would like the council to require the developer to stay within the current building height restrictions, and, to the extent the council has the power to do so, only approve a design which is consistent with the current character of the Mission Bay waterfront. The current design is very “70”s looking (e.g. portholes/rounded edges).

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:

2 621 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 3:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2467] 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: Rosemary Thomas

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 626 792

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P O Box 25055 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 am objecting to everything to do with this development

What are the reasons for your submission? We live in the radius of Mission Bay where we grew up and then continued to live bringing up our family. We have enjoyed Mission Bay for its beach, playing in the fountain, playground, picnics, swimming, relaxing and taking in the ambience of this natural playground as well as the many cafes and regularly going to the Berkeley Theatre which we love as it is walking distance and has a very friendly atmosphere. I am discusted about the idea of this development, it

1 622 would scar & block the landscape to 28M which would look like a huge block of concrete towering over the beach and our family playground. What is a beautiful arena for all ages it would dominate this aspect entirely. I cannot believe what 100 apartments would do to Mission Bay and the extra cars, people, strain on the already stretched facilities. The developers are just greedy only thinking of their own interests, what about our community. WE ONLY HAVE 4 BEACHES ALONG TAMAKI DRIVE, one is Mission Bay and to tell you the truth do we want another Surfers Paradise with the huge ugly development block shading the entire area behind of natural light, how would you feel if you were of these people who lived there!!! If Mission Bay was developed as the developers want it to be we would only have 3 family friendly beaches. I also believe the retail and hospitality floors are very much reduced creating an outdoor cold wind tunnel. This is the area we need to be increasing with the increasing population in Auckland. I cannot imagine going for a coffee in this huge monstrosity, NOT what we Aucklanders want. We love our little village atmosphere and this will change dramatically. I hope you listen to this and everyone else's ideas as it is very important for the development of our beautiful city of Auckland.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the council to look at the impact this monstrosity would have on the landscape and how it visually towers over the people of Auckland's playground. If the greedy developers were to get away with this our beautiful city of Auckland would be changed for the worst forever.

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:

2 623 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 3:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2468] 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 Duncan

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5284331

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 148A 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 aspects.

What are the reasons for your submission? Many and varied. I will bullet point them to save time reading them all. -The bulk of the buildings especially the height is out of all context with the surroundings. -The Unitary Plan has been a long time in the planning and this application is completely out of line with it. - The design is unsightly and at odds with its surroundings and out of kilter with the rest of Mission Bay. - There is no certainty a cinema complex will be retained (depends on financial "viability"?) -

1 624 There are no extra retail or hospitality services just another 100 apartments. - These apartments will be of such a high cost that the people buying them may not even live in Mission Bay permanently and certainly will not help the current lack of housing for ordinary families. - It is imperative that a precedent is not set if allowing this project to go ahead. The developers own the opposite site and exactly the same ugly monstrosity will be built there. -Mission Bay is unique and draws on many visitors, not just the locals. Most of us would like it to retain its charm and character. - These objections do not even being to address the questions of construction disturbance, traffic congestion once completed (100 extra apartments), flooding (floors below sea level), wind tunnelling through the separate buildings, blocking of sunlight, to say nothing of some residents' views being restricted or worse. -Keep the tower blocks are the back of Mission Bay if we have to have them, do not spoil the connection to the reserve and the beach. -We have lived in Mission Bay for 37 years and have seen many changes in that time, not all of them good but this project would be a very large and ugly blot on the landscape. Most people I have spoken to agree with me.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Complete rejection 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:

2 625 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 3:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2469] 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: Sven Derek Hansen

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 730 995

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4 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: 1. Impact on Auckland's popular beach community resource 2. Poor fit of application to needs of community and visitors 3. Impact on residents' home experience and house value

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. Mission Bay is the focus point of a large open geographic bowl with views down to a stunning natural park, beach and ocean experience enjoyed by residents, Auckland and tourists. This development lands a massive concrete bulk into the middle of this scene that substantially detracts from the Mission Bay experience. There is the risk of

1 626 destroying an iconic Auckland asset and turning the Bay into a concrete tower zone. 2. The developer's current buildings are badly dilapidated, ugly and neglected showing limited appreciation of aesthetics, community experience and tenants needs. Mission Bay does need a more attractive commercial centre and it could improve the experience. The fact that the developer is reducing community entertainment by 1000m2 demonstrates an interest in profit rather than shared benefit. These are not the right people for this development. 3. As a long term resident we face an application that will remove most of our ocean views. We will look straight into over 100m x 28m of concrete wall. This will destroy our family home experience and house value. We have no option but to fight this with all our resources

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1. This development must be stopped 2. The council might work with a proven developer who will consider community, environmental and visitor experiences. 3. The council must protect residents from such an obviously inappropriate and profit driven 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:

2 627 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 3:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2470] 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: Judy Ranelle Skyrme

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211181513

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 104 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 whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? The Unitary Plan in this area is for a maximum height building (including raised roofline) of 18 metres, so why should a 28metre application even be considered? It is far too tall for the area & would dominate the outlook from all over the beach & suburb, not to mention towering over the existing buildings alongside or tucked in behind! I don’t want a precedent set making it easier for other developers to do the same thing in this area in the future. A special feature of

1 628 Mission Bay are the restaurants & retail catering for many visitors from all over, less space not more is being provided in this plan. The Berkeley Theatre is treasured & should never be sidelined due to viability. I feel the Council would be doing a massive disservice to resident & ratepayers to consider going ahead with this application.

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

2 629 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 3:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2471] 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: Blu Steven

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021934933

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P.O. Box 9744 Newmarket Auckland 1149

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 is way over the height allowed under your Unitary Plan. - The proposed development would completely dominate the surrounding buildings, reserve and beach of Mission Bay. It would completely destroy the charming character of Mission Bay . - This development would actually reduce the amount of retail and hospitality area available to the public. This is in complete contradiction of the zoning ideals specified in the Unitary Plan. - The

1 630 design of the proposed development in no way echoes the Art Deco theme well established by the existing building on the site. It would look completely out of place from a design aesthetic point-of-view.

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:

2 631 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 3:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2472] 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 Bowkett

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095283791

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 77 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: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? The height of the proposed development, up to 28m, far exceeds what is allowable under the Unitary plan. Why did we all spend so much time figuring out the Unitary plan if it is going to be ignored at the whim of a developer for private gain at the expense of community amenity? There are no exceptional reasons for allowing the extra height applied for. Locals and visitors come to Mission Bay to relax in natural surroundings and to enjoy food from many

1 632 different retail outlets. The bulk and height of the proposed buildings will destroy the natural, low key character of the area. It would loom over peoples' outlook from most areas where recreation occurs. We want to retain our typical NZ character, not become an Australian clone with tall apartments blocking views and sun. Auckland is growing, there is more infill housing, and we need to retain the Local Centre feel to be enjoyed by all. The proposed development reduces the floor area available for hospitality and retail considerably, this would not cater to the growing requirements of a Local Centre. If the application is granted it would set a very unfortunate precedent, imply that the Unitary Plan is not worth the paper it is written on and can be ignored at the whim of an individual. If this application is granted, a precedent could be set that allows a high wall all along Tamaki Drive between the beach and the community. Individuals lucky enough to live in the 'barrier wall' would enjoy the sea views but at the expense of the rest of the community. I am concerned about higher winds funnelled by taller buildings. The public plaza area in the St Heliers commercial building constructed recently on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Maheke St is an example of an open plaza where wind funnelled down from walls above makes it virtually unuseable. The glass wall doors always appear to be shut, people do not linger in that plaza. Flooding - the proposed development is entirely inside the Auckland Council's Coastal Inundation zone yet it proposes 2 basement levels of carparking and some retail areas below sealevel. There has been flooding in the area this year and in the past. Would ratepayers in the future find themselves liable to pay for flood protection or remediation for this development?

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:

2 633 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 3:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2473] 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: Kenneth Trevor Penniall and Roma Beatrice Penniall

Organisation name: Resident of Mission Bay

Contact phone number: 021 704 666

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 33A 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: We totally oppose the application in its current form and cannot understand how an application such as this, and contrary to the new Unitary Plan; was not rejected by Auckland Council.

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. The new Unitary Plan allows for buildings in height up to 16m with 2m allowance for a roof if required. This application is 28m in height. 2. Visual impact will be substantial and a detriment to the residents of Mission Bay. The character of Mission Bay is derived from the Beach area,trees on the foreshore and protected buildings such as the

1 634 Mission House and Art Deco apartments protected on the eastern end of Mission Bay. The proposed buildings, in total up to 28 m in height, will destroy the character of Mission Bay by its sheer dominance. 3.Loss of natural character and community facilities. The bulk of the proposed buildings will dominate the Beach and foreshore, and destroy its historical character. 4. Retail area proposed. This application will reduce the floor area for hospitality and retail, thereby reducing the level of facilities to local residents and visitors. 5. Urban Design. Mission Bay is recognised for its Beach and foreshore strip. Being a local resident, we know that attracts many visitors, including international visitors. In our opinion the bulk and height of the proposed buildings will detract from the natural character of Mission Bay. 6. The application is proposing up to 100 apartments on the upper floors of the project buildings. This could degrade the local residential area and have a huge impact on traffic flows especially in Marau Crescent. (Which is already choked on summer weekends) 7. Setting a precedent. The Unitary Plan was formulated about 2 years ago, and this application far exceeds what was set in concrete for Mission Bay and other similar areas. Surely this is not what the Unitary Plan envisioned. If approved this will surely lead to similar applications across Auckland. The same developer owns the commercial buildings across Patterson Avenue/ Tamaki Drive. One could assume if successful here, the applicant will later apply for approval across the road. 8. There is no connection between the proposed design and Mission Bays character and history. The facade on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patterson Ave is iconic to Mission Bay

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? This 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:

2 635 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 4:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2478] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Mission Bay Development Council Submission_20181006161056.183.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: Kim Ileene Crow

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212752666

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 application

What are the reasons for your submission? Many reasons, please see the attached file.

1 636 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: Mission Bay Development Council Submission_20181006161056.183.docx

2 637

I am writing to express my opposition to this development. Development and progress is good in any area, but the scale and height of this project are not in keeping with this beautiful beachside location. It is hard to see how a mass block of eight, seven and six storey buildings are “suitable to the iconic location”, or how the loss of the natural suburban character of Mission Bay resulting from this development, can be seen as a form of enhancement.

The Local Community The fact that the public (and namely local residents) first heard of this through a Herald article, and that the developers are proposing heights way above those allowed in the Unitary Plan, indicate that this is not a project with local community in mind. Since then, as a local resident, it has become evident to me that the local community does not want this development, as we learn more about the sheer height and bulk of it, the actual reduction of hospitality and retail areas, the blatant breach of the Unitary Plan specifications and, with this breach, the alarming prospect of a precedent being set for the rest of Tamaki Drive.

Greater Community The beauty of the foreshore, the fountain, the pohutukawas and the reserve bring visitors from all over the city, and further, to the unique jewel that is Mission Bay. They come for the hospitality venues combined with the sea, sand and green spaces that currently make up the heart and soul of Mission Bay. They do not come to see an eight-storey building, or indeed six or seven storey buildings that will create shade, wind tunnels, visual dominance and more parking issues. (The proposed extra car parks are mainly assigned to residents of the proposed apartments).

Breach of Unitary Plan The development is proposed to be 28m tall, not the 22m announced in their Herald press release. Under the Unitary Plan zone rules, the maximum allowable height for occupiable space is 16m, and so the development is almost double the allowable height. I do wonder what the point of all the years and effort of creating the Unitary Plan was if it is going to be ignored.

Loss of Retail/Hospitality Amenities I am not against development of this site. The current buildings are generally of poor quality, run down and quite ugly from the rear. A high quality development of this site, designed within the rules of the Unitary Plan, would be most welcome. On closer examination, the proposed development reduces the floor area for hospitality and retail by a substantial amount. The majority of it is made up of residential units, built to such heights that will allow occupants to see over the pohutukawa trees, blocking out existing residents to the south and visually dominating the surrounding area. These dwellings will be out of the average Aucklander’s price range, thus making no contribution to Auckland’s housing-shortage problem, which pertains to lower to middle-income earners.

Traffic Marau Crescent is currently a two-way street that, due to the parking on both sides, really only has one lane. The development will only add to the delays and frustration already experienced by visitors and local drivers. The intersection of Ronaki Road, Patteson Avenue and Marau Crescent is badly designed and has been the cause of several accidents due to lack of visibility. The development will exacerbate this.

Precedent Possibly the most negative aspect of this proposal is the possibility of it setting a precedent for Tamaki Drive. It is bringing the city to the beach, Surfers Paradise to Mission Bay. The prospect and consequences of this happening are, on their own, enough to reject the proposal entirely.

I see no reason why the proposed development should have any need to breach the Unitary Plan heights to such an extreme extent. In its current form the development is too prominent, dominant and bulky to be trimmed. It should be rejected in its entirety.

638 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 4:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2479] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Submission – 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: Fairfax Moresby

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 006495211868

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 89 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: I object to the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? Submission – Mission Bay Development I make the following submission to strongly oppose the development presented to enhance Mission Bay and provide benefits to the residents of the area and the substantial number who visit from out of the area. There has never been a more important time for the council to listen to the people they

1 639 represent. The decision that is made will be a precedent decision in the perspective that should the developer get consent then this is just the start and all Mission Bay will follow the same course. It would be ultimately impossible and unjust to not allow another developer to prevent them following the same rules as this development. This decision will affect both the residents and visitors now and in the future. When the new Urban plan was proposed for the area there was at that time a number of objections however ultimately they were over ridden so already the area has a plan which the residents felt went way too far. The development proposed has not only taken this uritary plan as a benchmark but gone so far beyond it to in effect it suggests there was no point in even having a plan to start with. Perhaps what it best demonstrates is their total contempt to the regulations, the spirit of these regulations - plan and what this unique area represents to the residents, community and visitors to Auckland In reality the developers approach has been to maximize profit from a residential development. While they have added a token amount of social business opportunities, in effect this is not only less than what currently exists but will be less functional from the residents perspective. What is provided is a sideline to the profits out of residential luxury units. I appreciate the unitary plan is a strong guideline for council but as a guideline all proposals can be looked at as both above but equally the reverse. By this I mean in situations such as this the proposal should not consider the unitary plan as the minimum but the development needs to be less than the plan allows. The importance of other factors of the plan should take a priority over a building construction. The balance is only one way with this proposal. Mission Bay has established itself as an important area for people to socialise. It is an environment where people can leave the density of urban living and escape to free space, outdoor activity, and entertainment. It has become a critical area for all ethic groups to enjoy of all decile categories. This importantly needs to be placed in perspective with the future. The Eastern Bay area is now under rapid development in which will increase substantially the residents. Mission Bay is the hub of all this area and community. The future will see more and more people using Mission Bay as their place to socialize in the many ways available. To in effect transform Mission Bay in an elite residential area is against, what every fair minded and forward thinking Aucklander would want. The point I am trying to make is this area will in fact become more and more important to our city which balances dense residential to areas of social outlets. It is no different than the importance of sports fields and play parks in the area. While there is an argument that Auckland needs more housing the reality is that these apartments and the projected retail price will go beyond all the market segment that is desperately needing housing and there is a strong possibility that this would become an area for absentee overseas owners. There are many areas in our area where high-rise is both practical, not invasive to the spirit of the community and does not take away a critical resource of the area. It is also important to appreciate our community doesn’t need more retail shopping areas – We already have established areas for these within the area. Currently Mission Bay retail is all focused on food and entertainment at affordable levels for the visitors and residents. Our council has vision that Auckland must attract tourists and in the economic cycle to ensure they spend a few days enjoying what Auckland has to offer. Auckland too often is simply a stop and start point allowing other areas in New Zealand to capture the Tourist Dollar. I question whether the attraction of Mission Bay as a Tourist attraction has been considered in this proposal evaluation. Mission Bay is close to the city and with Cruise market now expanding Mission Bay is part of the City tour. Many times, both morning and night, tourists come and enjoy both the beach area and the dinning facilities. It has a unique atmosphere and experience and one that people have as a highlight. To change the area to a series of apartments will reflect a mini Gold Coast and this important Auckland feature will no longer exist. With it will be substantial tourist dollars for Auckland, which are so needed to balance our city infrastructure and development. To this point I haven’t mentioned the buildings or design as I have no doubt that this is now the topic of every person who has seen them. People have gone past the flashy view of the buildings presented by smart technology and Architectural imagination to really view how they fit in with the environment. It doesn’t matter from where you view these buildings they will in fact dominate the skyline and the environment. It is clear they are designed for residential value to ensure the greatest unit price however they are just a concrete monster over shading all the park and beach, all the other buildings on the Mission Bay strip and takes away the back drop of bastion point. There is also a major question of shading and the building arrangements creating a series of wind tunnels. Should the buildings be a maximum of 3-4 stories then this proposal would take on a different consideration. Rather than 95% of people strongly objecting to the proposal the issue would be more “does the design mirror what is needed for the area”. Mission Bay does have a style, which is all part of the importance to its emotional impact. eg You wouldn’t design a beach house in the mountains . The point I am making here is fourfold 1/ The height of the buildings is totally against what the area needs and not supported by all residents and visitors 2/ The bulk of the construction makes it the center of attention for the whole area and will be the start of others 3/ design needs to be in keeping with the area, and environmental factors of the area and 4/ finally it needs to add value to the thousands of residents, visitors and tourists and not simply be designed to maximize profit to a development company that has as its sole motive immediately taking profits knowing the losses will be the people and future generations which is and will not be not their problem . The principle of profit not community progress A further consideration must also be given to the issues of construction. It is accepted that construction does inconvenience the flow of the area however the size of the proposed construction takes this to a whole new level . In effect you will for a period of 2.5-3 years turn Mission Bay into a construction zone – There will be hundreds of workers with vehicles which will result in the area been of little use to anyone. A construction of 3-4 floors would result in under half the time to develop with considerably less construction people and logistical issues. In the past 2 years we have had high tides in which Tamaki drive has been closed – I would question the merits of having underground levels especially if they are used for any retail space. I also believe this developer owns the property across the road and therefore it would be realistic to believe that this is just stage one of their residential investment. The fact it is mentioned they want this to be the gateway to Mission Bay suggests it is already planed. This just reinforces my comment as this is a precedent decision but also highlights that

2 640 if one development follows to the next then Mission Bay will be effectively a construction zone for years and years. The granting of exceptions to a unitary plan must factor these issues as equal importance to the construction itself. The unitary plan has been developed to assist the future development and growth of our city – The plan incorporates a multitude of important living features which all need to be balanced. There are times when one feature has a greater ranking than another. In this situation while the plan does cover heights it also has other equal factors in the importance to consider. In this case the recreational area, entertainment etc has a higher priority than simply allowing for maximum building height. Mission Bay is really the only Bay in the Eastern Suburbs that has a reasonable park area and dinning area together. That is why it is so popular. It is just a further reason why this development must take second in specification to ensure we don’t loose what is now a real community benefit. A number of times I have mentioned this does not have the support of residents. As you will no doubt know residents while very unhappy are not confident to follow a submission or a complaints process and therefore the true depth of feeling is not heard . This is such an important precedent decision the council needs to take this into their decision process. With the sophistication of Technology there is no reason why a web site cant be set up to allow a comprehensive survey by residents which would allow you to fully appreciate the depth of feeling and to understand the best path for future development. There has been a comment passed that the developers already feel this design will not be accepted but by going to the extreme the compromise will be more than the spirit of the unitary plan would provide. Should there be any truth in this which personally judging by what they have presented I believe there is then it just demonstrates their total lack of responsibility to Auckland, the people and their belief they can manipulate the council who represent everyone of us. The developers comment that a movie theatre will be part of the complex if it is profitable just underlines their real motives. There is no commitment to keep the movie theatre, which is for our community an important entertainment center. In fact it would suggest down the track the proposed theatre would become more apartments, as they would provide a greater return. As a final point I acknowledge this proposal has been submitted as a company with Limited Liability protection. It appears this company is owned by another and then another which ends up as a nominee company. While I accept the construction industry works with this structure I feel with the size and impact that this project will have on our community the ultimate shareholders should be transparent. Without transparency there is no appreciation as to if they are foreign investors and developers, out of town investors or Aucklanders . If they are not close to the greater community then it would help understanding there total lack of empathy with the area and their sole focus on personal profit. To conclude I am asking to reject outright the developers application on the grounds 1/ The development does not meet the unitary plan and underlying guidelines 2/ The development does not meet councils intention to balance Auckland with community facilities 3/ The design / size / bulk is not in keeping with what is an historic, current and future image of the area needs and people wants 4/ The development would set a precedent and in effect destroy all the value this area has provided for residents and visitors. 5/ The area would loose all tourist appeal, which is fundamental to Auckland’s growth and financial benefit. 6 / The proposal was done with a total lack of community spirit but simply an extreme profit motive and allow all the cost to transfer to future generations which they have no responsibility for. 7/ Mission Bay is very unique [ only area ] in the eastern suburbs as the green park is a size which allows for a comprehensive array of social activities .This area does not need luxury apartments overlooking and dominating this space 8/ Mission Bay is the hub of the region – Its use, as the area will increase. In will be more and more important. 9/ A construction site of this size would logistically destroy Mission Bay in every way for at least 3 years if not longer 10/ The focus of the development on apartments is the wrong focus – The focus should be on to support the purpose of the area and the unique historical environment we have.

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: Submission – Mission Bay Development.docx

3 641 Submission – Mission Bay Development

I make the following submission to strongly oppose the development presented to enhance Mission Bay and provide benefits to the residents of the area and the substantial number who visit from out of the area.

There has never been a more important time for the council to listen to the people they represent. The decision that is made will be a precedent decision in the perspective that should the developer get consent then this is just the start and all Mission Bay will follow the same course. It would be ultimately impossible and unjust to not allow another developer to prevent them following the same rules as this development.

This decision will affect both the residents and visitors now and in the future.

When the new Urban plan was proposed for the area there was at that time a number of objections however ultimately they were over ridden so already the area has a plan which the residents felt went way too far. The development proposed has not only taken this uritary plan as a benchmark but gone so far beyond it to in effect it suggests there was no point in even having a plan to start with. Perhaps what it best demonstrates is their total contempt to the regulations, the spirit of these regulations - plan and what this unique area represents to the residents, community and visitors to Auckland

In reality the developers approach has been to maximize profit from a residential development. While they have added a token amount of social business opportunities, in effect this is not only less than what currently exists but will be less functional from the residents perspective. What is provided is a sideline to the profits out of residential luxury units.

I appreciate the unitary plan is a strong guideline for council but as a guideline all proposals can be looked at as both above but equally the reverse. By this I mean in situations such as this the proposal should not consider the unitary plan as the minimum but the development needs to be less than the plan allows. The importance of other factors of the plan should take a priority over a building construction. The balance is only one way with this proposal.

Mission Bay has established itself as an important area for people to socialise. It is an environment where people can leave the density of urban living and escape to free space, outdoor activity, and entertainment. It has become a critical area for all ethic groups to enjoy of all decile categories. This importantly needs to be placed in perspective with the future. The Eastern Bay area is now under rapid development in which will increase substantially the residents. Mission Bay is the hub of all this area and community. The future will see more and more people using Mission Bay as their place to socialize in the many ways available. To in effect transform Mission Bay in an elite residential area is against, what every fair minded and forward thinking Aucklander would want. The point I am trying to make is this area will in fact become more and more important to our city which balances dense residential to areas of social outlets. It is no different than the importance of sports fields and play parks in the area.

While there is an argument that Auckland needs more housing the reality is that these apartments and the projected retail price will go beyond all the market segment that is desperately needing housing and there is a strong possibility that this would become an area for absentee overseas owners. There are many areas in our area where high-rise is both practical, not invasive to the spirit of the community and does not take away a critical resource of the area.

It is also important to appreciate our community doesn’t need more retail shopping areas – We already have established areas for these within the area. Currently Mission Bay retail is all focused on food and entertainment at affordable levels for the visitors and residents.

Our council has vision that Auckland must attract tourists and in the economic cycle to ensure they spend a few days enjoying what Auckland has to offer. Auckland too often is simply a stop and start point allowing other areas in New Zealand to capture the Tourist Dollar. I question whether the attraction of Mission Bay as a Tourist attraction has been considered in this proposal evaluation. Mission Bay is close to the city and with Cruise market now expanding Mission Bay is part of the City tour. Many times, both morning and night, tourists come and enjoy both the beach area and the dinning facilities. It has a unique atmosphere and experience and one that people have as a highlight. To change the area to a series of apartments will reflect a mini Gold Coast and this important Auckland feature will no longer exist. With it will be substantial tourist dollars for Auckland, which are so needed to balance our city infrastructure and development.

To this point I haven’t mentioned the buildings or design as I have no doubt that this is now the topic of every person who has seen them. People have gone past the flashy view of the buildings presented by smart technology and Architectural imagination to really view how they fit in with the environment. It doesn’t matter from where you view these buildings they will in fact dominate the skyline and the environment. It is clear they are designed for residential value to ensure the greatest unit price however they are just a concrete monster over shading all the park and beach, all the other buildings on the Mission Bay strip and takes away the back drop of bastion point. There is also a major question of shading and the building arrangements creating a series of wind tunnels. Should the buildings be a maximum of 3-4 stories then this proposal would take on a different consideration. Rather than 95% of people strongly objecting to the proposal the issue would be more “does the design mirror what is needed for the area”. Mission Bay does have a style, which is all part of the importance to its emotional impact. eg You wouldn’t design a beach house in the mountains . The point I am making here is fourfold 1/ The height of the buildings is totally against what the area needs and not supported by all residents and visitors 2/ The bulk of the construction makes it the center of attention for the whole area and will be the start of others 3/ design needs to be in keeping with the area, and environmental factors of the area and 4/ finally it needs to add value to the thousands of residents, visitors and tourists and not simply be designed to maximize profit to a development

642 company that has as its sole motive immediately taking profits knowing the losses will be the people and future generations which is and will not be not their problem . The principle of profit not community progress

A further consideration must also be given to the issues of construction. It is accepted that construction does inconvenience the flow of the area however the size of the proposed construction takes this to a whole new level . In effect you will for a period of 2.5-3 years turn Mission Bay into a construction zone – There will be hundreds of workers with vehicles which will result in the area been of little use to anyone. A construction of 3-4 floors would result in under half the time to develop with considerably less construction people and logistical issues.

In the past 2 years we have had high tides in which Tamaki drive has been closed – I would question the merits of having underground levels especially if they are used for any retail space.

I also believe this developer owns the property across the road and therefore it would be realistic to believe that this is just stage one of their residential investment. The fact it is mentioned they want this to be the gateway to Mission Bay suggests it is already planed. This just reinforces my comment as this is a precedent decision but also highlights that if one development follows to the next then Mission Bay will be effectively a construction zone for years and years. The granting of exceptions to a unitary plan must factor these issues as equal importance to the construction itself.

The unitary plan has been developed to assist the future development and growth of our city – The plan incorporates a multitude of important living features which all need to be balanced. There are times when one feature has a greater ranking than another. In this situation while the plan does cover heights it also has other equal factors in the importance to consider. In this case the recreational area, entertainment etc has a higher priority than simply allowing for maximum building height. Mission Bay is really the only Bay in the Eastern Suburbs that has a reasonable park area and dinning area together. That is why it is so popular. It is just a further reason why this development must take second in specification to ensure we don’t loose what is now a real community benefit.

A number of times I have mentioned this does not have the support of residents. As you will no doubt know residents while very unhappy are not confident to follow a submission or a complaints process and therefore the true depth of feeling is not heard . This is such an important precedent decision the council needs to take this into their decision process. With the sophistication of Technology there is no reason why a web site cant be set up to allow a comprehensive survey by residents which would allow you to fully appreciate the depth of feeling and to understand the best path for future development.

There has been a comment passed that the developers already feel this design will not be accepted but by going to the extreme the compromise will be more than the spirit of the unitary plan would provide. Should there be any truth in this which personally judging by what they have presented I believe there is then it just demonstrates their total lack of responsibility to Auckland, the people and their belief they can manipulate the council who represent everyone of us. The developers comment that a movie theatre will be part of the complex if it is profitable just underlines their real motives. There is no commitment to keep the movie theatre, which is for our community an important entertainment center. In fact it would suggest down the track the proposed theatre would become more apartments, as they would provide a greater return.

As a final point I acknowledge this proposal has been submitted as a company with Limited Liability protection. It appears this company is owned by another and then another which ends up as a nominee company. While I accept the construction industry works with this structure I feel with the size and impact that this project will have on our community the ultimate shareholders should be transparent. Without transparency there is no appreciation as to if they are foreign investors and developers, out of town investors or Aucklanders . If they are not close to the greater community then it would help understanding there total lack of empathy with the area and their sole focus on personal profit.

To conclude I am asking to reject outright the developers application on the grounds

1/ The development does not meet the unitary plan and underlying guidelines

2/ The development does not meet councils intention to balance Auckland with community facilities

3/ The design / size / bulk is not in keeping with what is an historic, current and future image of the area needs and people wants

4/ The development would set a precedent and in effect destroy all the value this area has provided for residents and visitors.

5/ The area would loose all tourist appeal, which is fundamental to Auckland’s growth and financial benefit.

6 / The proposal was done with a total lack of community spirit but simply an extreme profit motive and allow all the cost to transfer to future generations which they have no responsibility for.

7/ Mission Bay is very unique [ only area ] in the eastern suburbs as the green park is a size which allows for a comprehensive array of social activities .This area does not need luxury apartments overlooking and dominating this space

8/ Mission Bay is the hub of the region – Its use, as the area will increase. In will be more and more important.

643 9/ A construction site of this size would logistically destroy Mission Bay in every way for at least 3 years if not longer

10/ The focus of the development on apartments is the wrong focus – The focus should be on to support the purpose of the area and the unique historical environment we have.

644 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 4:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2481] 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: Joanne Henderson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0273709485

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 22 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: The developer is breaching the height limits for the zone and there will be less than minor adverse effects arising from this. The impact such a massive 8 story development like this this will have on the suburb is huge. It is ugly and imposing and dominating.

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 645 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Disallow this application in its current 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 646 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 4:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2482] 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: Ralph Lyle Thompson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021990200

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 22 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: I do not think that the provisions of the Unitary Plan should be exceeded, I am unhappy that the buildings are taller than allowed in the Unitary Plan.

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed buildings are over dominant.

1 647 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Disallow the application in its current 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 648 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 5:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2483] 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: Pippa Styles

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021669769

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4/3 Towai St 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 proposed development is higher than that allowed by the unitary plan. This development will be incredibly dominant visually and will dominate the bay from every direction. It will affect the quiet and relaxed ambiance that Mission Bay has. In addition it may set a precedent to allow the entire waterfront to become over- developed.

What are the reasons for your submission?

1 649 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:

2 650 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 5:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2484] 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 Doonan

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0292725607

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 291C 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: The height of the proposed development at Mission Bay is nearly double that permitted under the new Unitary Plan.

What are the reasons for your submission? I object to the height of the development and the lack of enough car parks for the number of apartments that are proposed. Parking around Mission Bay is a problem already. The iconic movie theatre should stay.

1 651 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Do not set a precedent by allowing a development that breaks the height rules under 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:

2 652 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 6:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2487] 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: Eileen Audrey Harris

Organisation name: Residential Maintenance Services

Contact phone number: 021521079

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 16 Allum st Kohimarama Kohimarama 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, variance to the Councils Unitary plan, lack of retail space, overall lack of parking , change of the feel of the mission bay. The area already has a focus - the green and the beach it does not need this large bulky development.

What are the reasons for your submission? Mission Bay provides a resource for the wider community and I feel this design does not support the current usage of the area with a reduction in the retail space - we as a community are being asked to approve above height buildings

1 653 but the development is not providing anything back to the community. The buildings will visually dominate the area and look bulky and not a design led development

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the application to be fully 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:

2 654 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 6:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2488] 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 Smart

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02712442340

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 19b Godden 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 which exceeds what is allowed under the Unitary plan. The development is up to 28m There are no reasons given to waive the rules under the unitary plan The design is not aligned to the special character of Mission Bay. It takes over the overall surroundings dominating with no style or consideration for the history. The proposed development is totally incongruent with Mission Bay including the single house zoning, and the maximum building height (8m) east of the development. The dominance of the development is out of character and sets the precedence for future developments. The sea, beach and pohutakawa character will be lost to a Gold Coast looking complex. The current natural character will be lost forever The design looks cheap, bitty with no reference to the history of the area.

1 655 Environmental effects such as flooding and increased winds with the high rise development will add to the negative changes of the development

What are the reasons for your submission?

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:

2 656 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 7:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2490] 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: Charles Robert Hadfield

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102972329

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2 Pembroke Crescent 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 the whole of the application in its entirety

What are the reasons for your submission? The following are among the mny reasons for my objection to this proposal: Height and bulk totally overwhelm the surrounding area - 28 metres is almost twice the permitted 16 metres. Reduction in retail space It proposes more residential accommodation so this will skew the proportion of residential / retail space 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

1 657 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 new development does away with the 'heritage' and looks like any other development anywhere else in the world - it will give the feel of Gold Coast, Costa Brava, any other place you can think of that has lost its character through such overdevelopment of an unsympathetic nature. Rising sea levels.... not that this will affect the developers in question within the next decade or two...as they will pocket their profits and move on. But the very idea of subterranean carparks and a basement retail area is ridiculous given the threat of rising sea levels over the next century. 100 more residents are proposed (and will the apartments actually be inhabited year round, or simply holiday homes for expats?) which will have big impact on the local infrastructure - storm drains, sewage, roads, parking.... The Unitary Plan speaks of preserving the seaside village feeling of the Tamaki Drive waterfront. Seeing what has happened up the road in St Heliers over the last ten years, with the hideous developments on Maheke and Turua Streets, I have very little confidence that this 'promise' is any more than empty words. Clever use of wide angle lens was made for the photo montage of the proposals by the developers..... in fact the visual (and light and shade) impact would be much greater, as shown if one uses a more natural 'human eye' 50mm lens. 'Affordable housing'.... if this is a serious goal of the Council, this hardly fits in... this development is upmarket high end accommodation appealing only to people with deep pockets. Heritage aspect - the 'art deco' buildings. There is not even a hint of a reference to this history in the proposed designs. The 'art deco' style of the current Belgian beer café/ Mövenpick ice cream and the Berkeley cinema is part of the 'heritage' of Mission Bay, and a large part of the 'draw' for visitors The Selwyn Reserve, with its beautiful trees and link to the beach, is a small haven of nature where city dwellers can forget the urban environment - the proposed ugly looming buildings towering above the trees would be an infringement of this beauty and spoil Mission Bay for everyone apart from those lucky enough to live in the apartments with their views over the harbour Overall: such a development would be yet another huge nail in the coffin of Auckland's unique attractions - a step towards turning it into just another look-alike city of boring high-rise strips. I have traveled a lot in the world and lament the fact that so many cities, on every continent (except Antarctica), look almost exactly the same, having lost their unique individuality. Reject this application for pity's sake! What kind of Auckland do we want to pass on to future generations? Please reject these proposals in their entirety

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:

2 658 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 7:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2491] 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 and Jillian Hickey

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 905630 5288461

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/32 MARAU CRESCENT MISSION BAY 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 and the bulk of the build are too overpowering for the nature of Mission Bay *the proposal is not in keeping with the existing pleasant aesthetics/character of Mission Bay *the proposal sees a decrease in hospitality/retail space which is one of the draw cards of Mission Bay *It's not guaranteed that the Movie Theatres will remain *The planned apartments will not alleviate Auckland's housing problems as they are high end properties *

What are the reasons for your submission? Mission Bay is one of Auckland City's greatest amenities and needs to be preserved as such. Any development needs

1 659 to enhance the environment not detract from it. If a monstrosity like this intended development was to be built in the middle of any other Auckland asset (such as Cornwall Park/One Tree Hill) would the council allow it or would Aucklanders tolerate it? A development of this scale has the potential to cause issues/problems as a result of the excavations and underground drilling vibrations such as movement, cracking and damage to existing buildings, roading, footpaths (as was the case recently in Conifer Grove and the nearby motorway roadworks) and it has the potential to cause instability in the surrounding land elevations and coastal cliffs. The water table of the area could also be affected causing an increase in flooding which already is a problem in some parts of Tamaki Drive.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? This proposal needs to be abolished and the developers need to come back with a new one that is within the Unitary Plan laws especially those regarding height. Any new development must not overlook and over power the jewel in the crown which is Selwyn Reserve.

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:

2 660 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 7:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2494] 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: Samantha Jane Becker

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102564408

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: Height and mass of the building site The visual impact of the building complex on mission bay The 100 residual flats and possible conflict with the restaurant and bars underneath The loss of retail space and community amenities. Car parking No community benefit

What are the reasons for your submission? Height The current proposal does not fit in the surroundings and community feel of Mission Bay and the surrounding Orakei neighbourhood. And will tower above the shore front detracting for the natural beauty of the area casting a

1 661 literal and architectural shadow over the area. The proposed central plaza will be perpetually in shadow as it is surrounded by the towering 8 storey building. This will not only make it a cold and uninviting space to sit and enjoy the outdoor area but a potential echo chamber that will disturb the occupants of the 100 flats above! This will bring the residual needs of the flat owners into conflict with the business owners and the community that will use the restaurants and bars there in. I had the misfortune of staying in a flat over the bar area in the viaduct. It was hell, even with all the windows and doors closed the noise was unbelievable. A future headache for the council. Has any sound proofing provision been made for the flats? The proposed height breaks the unitary plan! I suggest that the proposed height is for the benefit of views for the top flats in order for the builder to make as much money as possible. It will not benefit the community. The luxury penthouse flats will not help the current housing market which is lacking in affordable homes for first time home buyers. It will also set a precedent of height for the surrounding area. Particularly for the other side of the road. My understanding is the developers also own this side and are proposing a ‘‘gateway’’. In my mind this means not one but two huge towering complexes of flats. A great financial plan the developers and their shareholders but poor planning for the local community. Mass/bulk of the structure of the complex is not in keeping with the typical sea side frontage for New Zealand. As you drive along the coast line of New Zealand the charm of the towns are in their low rise, diverse small shops. Mission Bays is known for its fountain, its beach and close location to the city as well as the reserve that many people BBQ on and make their own during the summer holidays. It is an uncluttered space where people feel they can escape the city. The large, over bearing mass of buildings will alter this ambiance. It will lose some of its summer time resort feel that attracts tourists and city dwellers in equal measure. Visual impact A huge flat complex that dominate the landscape will diminish the beauty of the area. It will not be in keeping with the Bastion point which is being returned to native bush. Some the building have a height restriction and this will result in a hotch potch of buildings and not be a cohesive visual sight to behold! I paddle board in the area and feel this will make an eyesore from the water. Loss of retail space I note the council recently spent 1000’s of dollar on widening the pavement for outside dining. In the new graphic for the proposal this is gone! This cost seems to have been a complete waste of council money. The paving will be destroyed by the heavy machinery as they get access to the site and the new proposal has appears to have abandoned it. There also only appears to be one floor of retail space. The second floor has gone. Currently the Belgium bar, Indian restaurant and the cinema use the upper floor. The cinema may stay if ‘‘financially viable’’. It currently seems viable, so what do the developers mean by that term? Who decides if it is viable? I wonder if it just a marketing ploy to make the community feel like it is getting a smart new cinema to cut the cinema from its plans later to to make way for more profitable new flats? Car Parking The current 70 parking spaces will be extended to 100. I am concerned about where the new resident’s visitors will park. In the 100 spaces or the extra 30 spaces? It doesn’t seem like a gain to me? The current side roads, where I live, are already being full with the extra cars being generated by the infilling and sub-dividing plots. Where once a one-level house stood now two or three houses with 3 storeys each occupy the same space. So Orakei and Mission bay are already increasing their population density. Adding an 8 storey, 100 apartment block with less local amenities seems poorly thought out. I imagine that the flats will not be sole occupancies with more than one car. Not everyone will work in the CBD and take the bus! Can the buses cope with that many people? Often there is standing room only at rush hour into town from Mission Bay. What is the community benefit? How will it survive? Already shops are closing and businesses closing early on the strip of shops on the opposite side of the road. With one side of Mission Bay being completely demolished for several years it feels as if the opposite row of shops is being set up to fail. How is the council going to ensure the other heart of Mission Bays survives? The visitor numbers will be effected. Who will want to visit Mission Bay with the construction, noise and dust and dirt it will make? Is this a ploy to turn this area into purely residential? The current development appears to have many more negatives than positives such as gaining more cars, a high density living area (potential for more crime), a loss of retail amenities, a potential loss of leisure facilities (the cinema).

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Restrict the height to two levels or at least implement the unit plan height of 4 floors. Blend in the architecture with nature Ensure the cinema is a mandatory component For the pavement/outside dining to remain Remove the residential part and maintain the area for business use only. Increase the retail opportunities not diminish it. Retain Mission Bays unique character and make sure it doesn’t turn into a Sylvia park by the sea. Make sure the project is completed in a timely fashion to avoid the loss of more businesses in the area. Ensure heavy lorries and construction equipment do not trundle up and down the residential streets to and from Kepa road. No building work on Sundays.

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:

2 662 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 8:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2495] 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: Katherine Peat

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211388126

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: #2-9 Eltham 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: The complex does not need to go ahead. Tamaki Drive cannot cope now with the traffic flow around the water front. We do not want Surfers Paradise or Mount Maunganui here in Auckland - Have some class please.

What are the reasons for your submission? WE do not need Surfers Paradise or Mount Maunganui here in the Bays. At the weekend the traffic is awful and during the week getting to work and home again.

1 663 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Like you to think for a change. STOP trying to pack everyone into the city. Move them out REDUCE all TRANSPORT FARES to a $3.00 flat fee THEN you will get people out of cars and into buses and trains. Putting fares up is going back ward. America LA they have flat fees $2.00 USA and you can go for miles on this.

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:

2 664 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 8:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2496] 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 Clifford

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095211948

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 132A 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: I object to the whole of the application.

What are the reasons for your submission? The planned buildings are way to tall for the area and way above the allowable height in the unitary plan. A development of the planned size would over shadow all surrounding buildings ruining the character of Mission Bay as it is today. If one development of this size were allowed in Mission Bay I am deeply concerned that this may set the precedent for future developments to be of similar size, which would ruin the character of the suburb. What is the

1 665 point of having the Unitary Plan if we are just going to ignore the rules? Some attempt has to be made by any future developer to keep the iconic Art Deco design of the buildings currently on that plot and to stay 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: Yes

Supporting information:

2 666 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 9:00 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2497] 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: Felicity Buche

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021334014

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 66a Ashby Avenue 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: Size is too big and exceeds the height restrictions as per the Unitary Plan

What are the reasons for your submission? Local resident who objects to the sheer size and bulk of a very ugly building. Reduced hospitality and entertainment (cinema) space

1 667 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Stick to the height restrictions permitted under the Unitary Plan. Modifications to increase retail and hospitality spaces. Change the ugly building design to something more in keeping with coastal/ beach setting.

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:

2 668 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 9:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2498] 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: Stuart Murphy

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021319698

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 8 Hillview Ave new windsor auckland 0600

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height above unitary plan limits, would be an imposing bulk of a building, i have been a regular visitor for many years, this would do nothing to benefit the community it would set a dangerous precedent that may cause more oversize buildings in future. and would destroy the character of mission bay.

What are the reasons for your submission? very concerned at developers trying to get around planning limits and destroying community character areas for purely financial gain. there needs to be a balance! the unitary plan is a good plan and should be followed.

1 669 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Limit the development to the unitary plan height limits, that have been developed in a robust process with many parties consulting to come to a sensible decision. Do not permit any buildings over 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: No

Supporting information:

2 670 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 9:30 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2499] 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 Hawkins

Organisation name: none

Contact phone number: 095754778

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 42 Polygon Rd St Heliers Auckland 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 opposed to the bulk and height of the proposed development, as outlined in the documentation prepared by the Mission Bay Kohi Residents Association.

What are the reasons for your submission? I have lived in St Heliers for more than 30 years and have welcomed the Mission Bay upgrades that have taken place during this time. The current proposal however will degrade rather than enhance the area, and will only benefit the developer and the few people able to afford the apartments.

1 671 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? By all means allow the applicant to refresh the buildings, but do not allow an increase in the height or bulk.

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:

2 672 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 9:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2500] 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: Don Liggins

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5218187

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 51 Atkin Ave Mission Bay Auckland1071 1071

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? Alters character of area

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Do not exceed height rules

1 673 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:

2 674 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2018 11:15 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2501] 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: Adam Hutchinson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +6495282459

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 25C Eltham 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 am against the whole proposal

What are the reasons for your submission? After studying the proposal and reading the effects of such a project my conclusion is that there are no benefits to mission bay. Whoever the developers are they have no concern for anything else but capital return. Absolutely no social conscience and foresight. Mission bay has been an icon destination for so many over the years and a very

1 675 important part of Auckland. The shops and facilities are imperative and essential to the attraction and not to mention the architecture being something that must be preserved.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would hope that the Auckland City Council has the foresight to vote against such a project and take the future significance and importance of mission bay being preserved and enjoyed for many years to come by Aucklanders as of far more beneficial importance than allowing a monstrosity to be built in order to acquire short term gain.

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:

2 676 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 5:45 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2502] 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 Scott

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021494793

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 22 Sayegh St 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: Increase in housing supply, number of houses.

What are the reasons for your submission? Auckland needs more houses. Where will my kids live at current house price levels; and where ASB are suggesting 40% of Auckland sales are to foreign capital.

1 677 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Increase the height of the buildings and add more units. 30 story buildings would be optimal

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:

2 678 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 9:01 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2503] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Support Mission Bay 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: Support Mission Bay Incorporated

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021629964 3741653

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO 106215 Auckland City Auckland 1143

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Entire Application

What are the reasons for your submission? See attached

1 679 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: Support Mission Bay Submission.pdf

2 680 SUBMISSION ON PUBLICLY NOTIFIED APPLICATION CONCERNING RESOURCE CONSENT

TO: AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Name of submitter: SUPPORT MISSION BAY INCORPORATED

1. This is a submission on an application from DRIVE HOLDINGS LIMITED for a resource consent for to demolish all existing buildings on land at 75-79, 81-87 and 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 and 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28 and 30 Maru Crescent, Mission Bay – application number BUN60324978, LUC60324989 and WAT60325010 (Application).

2. Support Mission Bay Incorporated (SMB) is not a competitor for the purposes of section 308B of the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA).

3. This submission relates to the entire Application.

4. SMB opposes the Application.

5. The reasons for the SMB’s opposition are as follows:

Support Mission Bay Incorporated

(a) SMB is an incorporated society with approximately 50 members who all own properties in Mission Bay;

(b) The Objectives of SMB are to:

i. To ensure a liveable and sustainable living environment for Mission Bay;

ii. To promote good design that caters for all sectors of the Mission bay environment and its surrounds;

iii. To protect the coastal environment;

iv. To ensure the quality and the amenity of the environment at Mission bay and its surrounds currently enjoyed by residents is protected;

v. To actively oppose any application that in the opinion of the Society diminishes the quality of the environment at Mission Bay;

681 2

vi. To seek and rely on professional advice in the achievement of these objectives.

vii. Do anything necessary or helpful to the above purposes.

The Mission Bay Environment

(d) Given the size and prominence of the structures proposed by the Application, the environment that is affected extends well beyond the immediate environs of Mission Bay (including the immediately surrounding residential areas and associated commercial facilities);

(e) The Application has failed to properly identify and articulate the features of the environment which will be affected by the Application;

(f) In particular there has been no proper assessment of:

i. The relevant coastal environment;

ii. The relevant natural features;

iii. The relevant historical and heritage features (the Environment),

(g) As a consequence of failing to properly identify and/or contextualise the Environment, there has been no proper consideration of the relevant statutory documents, and/or the relevant Objectives and Policies in the Auckland Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement (RPS) that should have been assessed in preparing the Application;

(h) Also as a consequence of failing to properly identify and contextualise the Environment, there has been no proper assessment of the effects on that Environment if the Application is granted;

(i) The Application is not a sustainable use of natural and physical resources, and creates potential adverse effects that cannot be avoided remedied and/or mitigated and will not allow people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing;

Alan 1.docx 682 3

Without limiting the generality of the above:

Environment

(j) There will be serious adverse effects on the natural and physical Environment if the Application is granted.

(k) The application has not properly identified such effects as the landscape and visual assessment, provided in support of the Application is deficient and misleading including because it:

i. Provides a fanciful depiction of the permitted baseline, particularly for development along Tamaki Drive leading to western entrance to Mission Bay;

ii. Has failed to address the full range of potential effects that the proposal will generate – both for the public domain and in relation to the local community of residents that live around Missioon Bay’s commercial centre;

iii. Overlooks or ignores some relevant viewpoints; and

iv. Does not lend appropriate weight to the full range of landscape and amenity effects anticipated, either in the analysis of inidividaul viewpoints or in the conclusions reached about the proposal’s effects – with reference to relevant objectives, policies and assessment criteria in the AUP.

(l) These defects are not cured by any other documents provided in support of the Application;

Urban Design

(m) The design of the structures proposed by the Application (Design) will create serious adverse effects on the Environment;

(n) SMB adopts the criticism of the Design set out by the Urban Design Panel;

(o) SMB has further criticisms of the Design including that:

i. This particular Design is not required in order to give effect to the relevant RPS and other AUP Objectives and Policies. A different, more aesthetically appropriate, design of reduced height and scale scale could achieve that purpose;

Alan 1.docx 683 4

ii. There is no requirement for the major breaches of the height controls for this area of Mission Bay. Any requirement to provide for a focal commercial/retail hub for Mission Bay can be achieved though a better, more sympathetic design;

iii. Sound urban design principles, particularly as they relate to pedestrian access and access to goods and services in the proposed development, are inappropriate, confused and – in some cases - unworkable; and

iv. The Design is out of character with the other commercial and residential structures in Mission Bay, and will have a serious adverse effect on the Environment that cannot be avoided remedied or mitigated;

Residential Properties

(p) Granting the Application will have serious and irreversible adverse effects on the residential properties in Mission Bay including (but not limited to) properties in Marau Crescent, Ronokai Road, Tagalad Road and Patteson Avenue (Properties) facing the southern facade (and to a more limited extent the weatsern and eastern facades) of the structures proposed by the Application;

(q) In particular the height, bulk, design and location and other aspects of the structures will not:

i. Preserve, maintain and enhance the amenity values and particularly the visual amenity currently enjoyed by those Properties;

ii. Preserve, maintain or enhance the quality of the environment currently enjoyed by those Properties;

(r) Consequently, the Application cannot give effect to the relevant Objectives and Policies and Rules in the AUP that seek avoid remedy or mitigate potential adverse effects on Properties in the relevant residential zones, and preserve the residential amenity enjoyed by those Properties, including but not limited to effects from:

i. Noise;

ii. Traffic;

iii. Visual amenity;

Alan 1.docx 684 5

iv. Shading;

v. Bulk and dominance; and

vi. Stormwater.

Planning

(s) Approving the Application will cause serious adverse effects on the integrity of the AUP:

i. The AUP is in its infancy, but is to provide the planning template for Auckland for the next 30 years;

ii. The Application seeks permission to breach primary controls in the AUP relating to height, that residents in Mission Bay (and greater Auckland) should be able to rely on;

iii. Given the significance of the proposed breaches of the AUP standards, the proper avenue is to apply for a plan change so that a proper evaluative assessment can be made, and informed decisions, supported by an analysis under s32 of the RMA, can be made and adopted as part of the AUP; and

iv. It is not appropriate to seek permission for such large scale breaches of the AUP through a resource consent application.

(t) Approving the Application will create a negative precedent effect:

i. There is nothing unique about an application to develop a new and more intensive commercial hub within an existing commercial area;

ii. Accordingly, if the Application is granted, other developers could justifiably point to this Application as a further reason in support of other over intensive and inappropriate developments; and

iii. Approving future applications would therefore be seen as allowing a more coherent and consistent application of the controls in the AUP, and it is therefore critically important, that the purpose and intent of the relevant controls are strictly applied in relation to this Application.

6. SMB wants the Council to decline the Application.

Alan 1.docx 685 6

7. In the event that the Application is approved, SMB reserves the right to propose conditions on such approval.

8. SMB wishes to be heard in opposition to this submission.

9. If others make a similar submission SMB will consider presenting a joint case with them at the hearing.

Signature: Support Mission Bay Incorporated by its authorised agent:

Alan G W Webb

Date: 28 September 2018

Address for service: Mr Alan Webb Quay Chambers Level 7, 2 Commerce Street PO Box 106-215 AUCKLAND

Telephone: (09) 3775070

Facsimile: (09) 3775071

Email: [email protected]

Note to submitter

If you are making a submission to the Environmental Protection Authority, you should use form 16B.

The closing date for serving submissions on the consent authority is the 20th working day after the date on which public or limited notification is given. If the application is subject to limited notification, the consent authority may adopt an earlier closing date for submissions once the consent authority receives responses from all affected persons.

You must serve a copy of your submissions on the applicant as soon as is reasonably practicable after you have served your submission on the consent authority.

If you are a trade competitor, your right to make a submission may be limited by the trade competition submissions in Part 11A of the Resource Management Act 1991.

If you make a request under section 100A of the Resource Management Act 1991, you must do so in writing no later than 5 working days after the close of submissions and you may be liable to

Alan 1.docx 686 7

meet or contribute to the costs of the hearings commissioner or commissioners. You may not make a request under section 100A of the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to an application for a coastal permit to carry out an activity that a regional coastal plan describes as a restricted coastal activity.

Please note that your submission (or part of your submission) may be struck out if the authority is satisfied that at least one of the following applies to the submission (or part of the submission):

• it is frivolous or vexatious:

• it discloses no reasonable or relevant case:

• it would be an abuse to the hearing process to allow to allow the submission (or the part) to be taken further:

• it contains offensive language:

• it is supported only by material that purports to be independent expert evidence, but has been prepared by a person who is not independent or who does not have sufficient specialised knowledge or skill to give expert advice on the matter.

Alan 1.docx 687 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 9:16 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2504] 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: Jan Martin

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274925183

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 84 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 support a development but not this one as it currently stands. Aspects I object to are: 1.Height of Development 2. Impact on Parking and street congestion 3.Exterior colour scheme /cladding

What are the reasons for your submission? 1.Height of Development The development is too high, and should be no higher than 4 stories, or kept to similar heights as multi storey development in St Heliers. The proposed height would be a blot on the landscape, as is not backed by cliffs as is the case with multistorey apartment buildings between Mission Bay and Kohimarama. While not

1 688 affecting me the proposed height would significantly impact the views of residents in Marau and surrounding streets. 2.Impact on Parking and street congestion Local residents pay significant rates , and are continually being affected by community events held at Mission Bay during the year , which impact traffic flow, and the ability to park near the beach which should be enjoyed by locals, who often have to drive elderly residents or equipment to the beach. Parking provisions must be increased, as the new development , both with residential and restaurant/amenity visitors will increase demand on parking. Parking should be free for locals, who have suffered lack of parking, especially around Mission Bay for years. 3.Exterior colour scheme /cladding I may be mistaken but Art Deco , and pastel colours is definitely outdated and not in keeping with our local environment. The council did a good job, with the Waka Bridge over the stream, and I think the colours should represent , wood, bush as per Bastio Point, the waitemata harbour and the magnificent views to Rangitoto. Surely the designers can do something that belnds in better with the natural environment that New Zealand is best known for. We should consider the view from the water, so the natural beauty of beach and trees is not overtaken by buidling dominance.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1.Reduce the development height to no more than 4 stories 2. Ensure colour scheme/cladding works well with the local environment and blends in , not stands out 3. Ensure increased public parking is offered (free) as part of the deveopment, due to additional residents/visitors and additional restaurants etc , which will bring more visitors to the area. 4. Protect the rights of rate paying locals who want access to beach and recreation, and be able to park

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:

2 689 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 9:31 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2506] 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: Judith Melanie Simpson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211474300

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 am not against re development, I am against the bulk and height of the proposed buildings. They are totally out of scale and will dominate the entire suburb and beach side reserve. I am worried that this ignores the Unitary Plan and seems to render it meanlingless. Further more it will set a precedent for the area and we could end up like the Gold Coast which is not why people live and come to Mission Bay. I feel we are getting reduced facilities in favour of a set of apartments that will benefit a few and now the wider community. The impact on the traffic in the area also concerns me as it is currently already incredibly busy especially at the weekends. What is the traffic management plan and where will everyone park.

1 690 What are the reasons for your submission? I live here and am concerned about the impact on my community.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject this plan 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:

2 691 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 9:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2507] 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: Matt Cole

Organisation name: Spark

Contact phone number: +642108498518

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1205/145 Nelson Street Auckland Auckland 1010

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height and nature of the proposed development

What are the reasons for your submission? As indicated by the artists impressions to date - the proposed height and nature of the development is not in keeping with this much loved local area - a maximum of 3 storeys would be in line with the existing site & would preserve the human scale of the built environment in this iconic area of Auckland. The local infrastructure is already under pressure, adding a development of the scale proposed would cause it to be overloaded, reducing the safety and

1 692 amenity for all. The existing facades in many cases are part of Aucklands visual presence shared around the world - would suggest a more modest development preserving the most iconic facades would be a far better addition to the area.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reducing the height of the proposed development to 3 storey maximum. Retaining a series of the most iconic facades. Ensuring local infrastructure, including capacity for cars, bicycles & pedestrians is enhanced to match. Not allowing work start until a popular option with local residents and wider Auckland has been identified.

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:

2 693 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 10:01 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2510] 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: Thomas Alan Ryan

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5280481

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/39A 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: It exceeds the permitted height by a very big Margin.

What are the reasons for your submission? it does not add to the look or feel of Mission Bay The applicant does not have a very good reputation as a landlord in Mission Bay and does not appear to have a sense of co-operating with other persons. Itis a very large site and the proposed @200 Million could easily be exceeded. Dont want an unfinished & ugly building site

1 694 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:

2 695 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 10:16 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2511] 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: Kaylene Anne Subritzky

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211625210

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P O Box 55209, AK 1146 Mission Bay AK 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 application

What are the reasons for your submission? Totally ignoring the unitary plan, loss of natural character, setting a precedent, height and visual impact, setting a precedent

1 696 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:

2 697 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 10:16 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2512] 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 Hawkes

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274337291

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 14/171 Tamaki Drive Kohimarama Auckland 1072

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Height and loss of existing facade

What are the reasons for your submission? Concerned local resident

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1) retain existing facades onto Tamaki Drive of existing Belgian cafe and cinema 2) limit overall height to five stories.

1 698 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:

2 699 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 10:46 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2516] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Objection to Mission Bay development-Warwick and Julie Lewis.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: Warwick and Julie Lewis

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +64274822223

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4-27 Holgate 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: see attached

What are the reasons for your submission? se attached

1 700 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: Objection to Mission Bay development-Warwick and Julie Lewis.docx

2 701 Warwick and Julie Lewis

4-27 Holgate Road, Kohimarama.

Phone 0274822223

Email: [email protected]

Application numbers BUN60324987, LUC60324989, & WAT60325010

The reason I am making this submission is because my wife and I have lived in Mission Bay and Kohimarama for over thirty years. We love the location and would love to see a new development, that complies with new town planning rules be built on this land.

The council recently took a long time to come up with a new unitary plan for all of Auckland City and surrounding suburbs and in doing so, reviewed all Auckland suburbs future needs and wants and in many instances increased the height and density limits to take care of future commercial/retail and residential developments in prime commercial locations, like Mission Bay.

In doing this, we as residents would have expected that Council took into account, all possible scenarios.

My reason for my submission is to ask Council to only allow a development on this site that complies in ALL RESPECTS to the latest council unitary plan for Mission Bay.

Most of the residential houses in Ronaki Road, the road that is positioned above this land will essentially loose most, if not all their views of the upper Auckland Harbour, Rangitoto and further east towards Waiheke Island, if the council approves a development that is higher than the new unitary plan allows, as of right. The Ronaki

702 Road resident’s properties are worth millions of dollars. These owners deserve to have their interests and land values protected.

Developers that produce plans for buildings that rise above current height limits only do so because they know that in the past, Council will suggest a compromise and allow them to build one or two levels above the height limit, which is, in reality all the developer is seeking to achieve. From now on the council must be firm and stop pampering to developer’s blatant wishes.

We are opposed to this resource consent application on the basis of its height being far greater than allowed under the Unitary Plan, the visual impact that will have on Mission Bay, the precedent it could set for other height breaches along Tamaki Drive, and the way it undermines the integrity of the Unitary Plan.

I therefore ask the Council NOT TO APPROVE the application until it complies fully with the current AUCKLAND DISTRICT UNITARY PLAN and especially it height restriction that I believe is a maximum of 16 metres. Therefore I decline the application in full.

I do not wish to be heard in support of my submission.

I have served a copy of this submission to the applicant’s solicitor Ellis Gould by email. in conjunction with my email to Auckland Council.

Signed

Warwick and Julie Lewis

8th October 2018

703 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 11:01 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2517] 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: Stephanie Mary Thompson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021983399

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 161 Kohimarama 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: The height where the unitary plan limits are exceeded and the area allocated to amenities in particular to hospitality.

What are the reasons for your submission? The application has several negative impacts on Mission Bay and surrounding areas. 1. The height and bulk on the proposed buildings will visually overwhelm the area. The buildings will be the dominant feature and impact on many properties in Mission Bay, Orakei and Kohimarama. 2. The unitary plan specified height limits. We assume the planners gave careful consideration to the limits. If they were valid then, why ignore them now. 3 Mission Bay is an

1 704 important tourist area for Auckland with international and local tourists as well as local residents using Selwyn reserve and the amenities provided by the hospitality retailers. The proposed developments will change the environment significantly and will have a negative effect on people using the reserve. 4. The character of Mission Bay is personified by the beach, Selwyn reserve, restaurants and the movie theater. 5, Population intensification will need more hospitality and car parking, The proposal reduces hospitality from 3500 sqm to 2500 sqm. 6. The proposal does not include the replacement of the movie theater unless it is "financially viable" 7. The apartments on the upper levels will be priced to value the views, They will only be available to a small number of people and will do little or anything to aid the population intensification program in the unitary plan. 8. I understand the proposers own property on the western side of Patterson Ave. If 8 stories are authorized under the proposal, the council will find it difficult to refuse the same on the western side or other sites in the area. This will create a wind tunnel and will affect both the reserve and the beach. 9. I believe the community feels very strongly that the height restrictions in the unitary plan should be adhered to, the amenities provided should be not less than exist at present, and the movie theatre should be a condition of consent.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Height restrictions under the unitary plan should be adhered to. Hospitality retail should be no less than exists at present. The movie theatre should be a condition of consent. Consent should minimize disruption to businesses in the area and to people using the reserve and beach during construction.

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:

2 705 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 12:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2521] 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: Leslie Peter and Claire Ginette Bruell

Organisation name: JON FRANK TRUST

Contact phone number: 021937663

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 36 Auckland 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: We object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. Height outside of the Unitary Plan. Proposal is 75% higher than what is permitted 2. Architecture not in keeping with the historical nature of the buildings. The design of the buildings is certainly not in keeping with the existing buildings. We understand that the decks of the apartments will be on the cold southern side of the complex, which will render them virtually unuseable. 3. Proposed buildings completely dominate the surroundings and obscure the natural

1 706 beauty of the reserve and the beach. 4. Proposed buildings will be a visual eyesore. It looks like a mausoleum! 5. No guarantee that cinemas will be developed. Has been a movie theatre in Mission Bay for generations and would be missed if not replaced. 6. Will change the nature of the village-like nature of the suburb. 7. Will increase the number of residential units in the area, without providing adequate parking for both casual visitors and residents. 8. Granting of this development would set a precedent of community and council agreeing to developments which ignore the requirements of the Unitary Plan. Why do we have a new Unitary Plan worked out after much consultation with residents and experts at a considerable outlay, only to grant permission for a development which ignores the current Plan. There do not appear to be any exceptional circumstances which would justify the extent of this breach of the Unitary Plan. 9. Reducing the traffic to a single lane for the 2 year construction period would completely gridlock residents from further east and prevent them from using Tamaki Drive. 10. The street behind the proposed complex (Marau Cres) is already jammed up most of the time. Adding the cars of residents or the 100 apartments and their visitors would completely `prevent any movement through this street most of the time. 11.The area is flood prone with 2 basement and some retail below the Council's Coastal inundation zone. Any costs associated with remedying flood precautions or damage would fall on the tenants. 12. Application is in bad faith! Return on investment should not be the prime motivation for allowing a development that does not meet the criteria of the Unitary Plan in so many ways. The charm and beauty of Mission Bay exists because of natural beauty, enhanced by the wonderful iconic fountain donated by Sir Ernest Davis, the lovely beach, resanded by Council from ratepayers funds, the Norfolk Pines which bookend the reserve and the wonderful waka bridge approach to the beach and reserve on the western side.

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:

2 707 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 12:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2523] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION BAY.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: John Gilbert Beckett

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 494 794

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 9F Taranaki 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? as set out in attachment

1 708 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: SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION BAY.pdf

2 709 SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT MISSION BAY

7 October 2018

I was brought up in Kohimarama from 1947 to 1967. I returned to live here in 2007. My daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren live here too. I am keen that the Eastern Bays remain an attractive place to live and for recreation for all Aucklanders.

All attractive cities in the world have height limits that have been enforced over the centuries. Only public buildings of note, such as cathedrals, penetrate those limits. In Auckland we went through a unitary plan process in 201x, during which height and other restrictions were established. The outcome was the result of a compromise between the interests of property developers, on the one hand, and existing residents protecting the values of their properties, on the other hand — under the aegis of the Council.

In my view, the Council must now insist that the development of the site in Mission Bay — bordered by Tamaki Drive, Patterson Avenue and Marau Crescent — should be required to conform to the height limit set in the Unitary Plan.

I would be gravely disturbed if the council took the view that the developer wants eight floors; the Unitary Plan says four floors; and so six floors will be okay. The limit must be the limit.

If the Council allowed the development to be more than the Unitary plan envisages, I would be most concerned about the precedent that would be established. It would make it difficult for the Council to not give the same latitude to other redevelopments along Tamaki Drive on the western side of Paterson Avenue. Then there would be a wall 28m high between the suburb at large and the Selwyn Domain, the waterfront, the beach and the harbour.

Having said that, I am not opposed to the redevelopment of that site. It is in sore need of redevelopment. The developer argues that, if the development proceeds as planned, there would be 100 more new homes in the apartments contributing towards solving the current housing shortage. In my view, that argument should not carry any weight with the Council. The current housing shortage can be solved by additional developments on other sites in the Eastern Bays that do conform with the Unitary Plan requirements. This particular proposal would, of course, be more profitable to the developer than one that conforms with the Unitary Plan — but that is not a factor that should be given any weight by the Commissioners or the Council.

There has been some suggestion that, if the development creates a feature of special significance, there would be grounds for exceeding the height limits in the Unitary Plan. The current proposal has no such special significance — unless it is its sheer height, bulk and dominance of a lovely and historic bay.

I therefore urge the commissioners and the Council to respond to the developers that to obtain consent their plan must conform to the height and other restrictions established in the Unitary Plan.

Yours sincerely,

John Beckett

9F Taranaki Road

710 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 12:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2524] 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: Solita Ann Lincoln

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 168 5372

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 98A 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: I object to the whole application

What are the reasons for your submission? The 7 -8 storey height will block out the sky, sunlight and the green horizon The natural beauty of Mission Bay is one of the gems of the City. Excellent bus service so visited by many people and families other than local residents. Any redevelopment should offer more area for public amenities ie retail, cafes theatre

1 711 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Preserve its beauty while you can. Stay within the height of the Unitary Plan. ie 16m plus 2m roof allowance. this will allow for indoor/outdoor cafes, restaurants, bars and theatre on first two levels and luxury apartments on the upper levels. Retain Unitary Plan height for minimum of whole block behind foreshore of the 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:

2 712 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 1:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2526] 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 Everitt

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274889887

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P O Box 87070 Meadowbank Auckland 1742

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: The whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? As a resident of Mission Bay I am concerned that the bulk, height and form of the proposed development is inappropriate in its proposed location. Viewed out of context, as a set of plans on paper it has the appearance of the type of reasonable development that might be expected in an urban environment. However, when viewed in the context of the wider physical environment of the suburb, including from important locations such as Bastion Point, it

1 713 becomes apparent that the building is overly dominant. When observed from various vistas around Mission Bay it will become the defining point on the horizon and will therefore adversely affect the amenity values of the wider suburb. Good design in this location should respect the natural environment and complement rather than detract from it. The Unitary Plan has enabled significant additional development throughout Mission Bay and the eastern suburbs. For example, Terrance Housing and Apartment buildings have been zoned for areas such as Kepa Road, where they do not intrude on or detract from, the natural ampitheatre of Mission Bay. There are also large areas of Mixed Housing Urban zoning. This development claims to provide for additional residential development that Auckland needs, yet 69 units would still be provided if the applicant conformed with the height standards in the Plan. To allow the additional height and units is effectively a transfer of height and its economic value from other landowners to the developer. The citizens of Auckland have the right to expect that the Unitary Plan will be applied consistently so that they can reasonably plan for developments on their own properties. If height becomes interpreted as something that can be "earned" through good design, the ramification is that there is no certainty as how developments may occur, which undermines faith in the Unitary Plan and the process applied to adopt it. I am also concerned that the nature of the development reduces the amount of retail provided and that factors such as the overheight nature of the development will result in additional construction, prolonged construction and traffic that might otherwise have been managed over a shorter period. In addition, the design of the proposal is questioned. There appears to be little retail benefit for the wider community or consideration given to the way in which the podium area could be better developed to enhance the environment. As a ratepayer I am also concerned at the use of below ground levels in a location that is prone to sea level rise and the potential for ratepayers to eventually have to meet the costs associated with protecting such buildings.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I seek that the application 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:

2 714 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 1:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2527] 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 Walker

Organisation name: Ecoshield

Contact phone number: 095211167

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 5 Palmer Crescent - Mission Bay 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: Bulk of the development in a Business Local Centre on a significant corner opposite the reserve. Height of building being over the maximum allowable height of the zone. Total disregard for the streetscape and surrounding environment. Inappropriate bulk of the development within this block where the adjoining zoning is single House zone.

What are the reasons for your submission? The zoning of Business -Local Centre adjoining a single purpose zone is an anomaly in itself. The heirarchical nature of residential zoning next to a Business zone and within a block of land surrounded by three streets is that one would

1 715 expect a more intensive residential zoning of either MHU- Mixed Housing Urban or even Mixed Housing Suburban. However this is how it is and then to have a development exceeding the maximum allowable height of 16 metres in the Business zone will be further accentuated by the allowable height of the adjoining single house zone of 8 metres. This proposal will therefore stick out like a sore thumb and will set a precedent for any adjoining or adjacent developments. The sites are due for upgrading but not at the expense of the streetscape of all sites. The site could be developed ina more modern and tasteful manner.The apartments at 37 Tamaki drive on a corner site and opposite the historic Melanesian Mission House fit in perfectly with the historic building and also of the reserve being of a colour palette of black, charcoal , grey and white. This is more subtle and does not distract from the surrounding nature of the reserve. We rally don't need tacky pastels as a nod to the art deco era or a Miami look alike or a surfers paradise copy. This architectural style is reminiscent of the Manukau City Council Civic building constructed in the late 70's- the horizontal windows turned in a vertical direction in a modular manner.The height and bulk of the building is unrelenting and dominates this corner when viewed from any direction. The developer probably wishes to go above the height of the pohutukawa trees to maximise the views for those few owners who occupy the upper levels but...sorry those trees are existing and will continue to grow so this will become a pointless exercise for so few. The community will be left with the bulky building. Overall I consider that the visual and landscape effects on the area will entirely unacceptable within the context of the existing and planned future business and residential environment. This development which exceeds maximum allowable height cannot be accommodated within on this large corner site with three road frontages without adversely affecting the visual amenity, character,aesthetic value and integrity of the surrounding Mission Bay area or of the scenic Tamaki Drive natural landscape and streetscape.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like Council to refuse this application. We are not opposed to modern tasteful architecture or a redesign that complies with the Business-Local Centre activities and rules of the Auckland Unitary Plan which is a very recent document and which is still at the Operative in Part stage. Ignoring these recent rules will severely undermine the status and integrity of not only the Business - Local Centre zone but also the Single House zone within this block of land surrounded by streets. Everyone will want to exceed maximum height levels to compete or to be treated evenly. We are currently putting up with all our streets reduced to single lane traffic only as a result of the THAB development on Kepa Road and the resulting construction staff parked there 6 days a week. We also know that the effects on us will continue with the impossible task of turning traffic out of the THAB zone across Kepa Road will increase the traffic flow through all out quiet local streets to get to the city. We as a community have accepted these more than minor adverse effects and realize that intensive developments within a Terraced Housing Apartment zone is where it is allowed to be within the AUP:OP rules but we don't want it to also be on the level frontage of the communities beautiful reserve and beach of Mission Bay. We don't want to sacrifice our pristine amenity just for those that want to live in higher apartments right on the beachfront and need to exceed the height to do so especailly when the THAB zone allows for this.

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:

2 716 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 2:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2529] 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: Anne Tinson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0064095759189

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 57 Pembroke Crescent 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 height of the buildings is higher than the Council's own plan. The building is inappropriate for Mission bay which is a seaside heritage suburb from before Tamaki Drive was constructed(1930s) It is a adjacent to residential areas including single house/heritage zones. It would change the whole character of the area. I believe that the development actually reduces the area of retail and hospitality areas. Why would you need a new Cinema as the present one is very poorly patronised. (Going to the Movies is on the way out) It is completely wrong that people who have chosen to live there many years ago, now will have their sunlight and outlook obscured. Locals and tourist alike come to Mission Bay for relaxation and the natural beauty of reserve, Rangitoto, old trees. It will set a precedent for

1 717 building similar structures all the way along Tamaki Drive. What is the point of a Unitary Plan if you keep bending the rules. The traffic and lack of available parking for locals to enjoy the area is already fairly horrendous.

What are the reasons for your submission? As Above

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Lower the height. Reduce the size. Preferably don't do 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: Yes

Supporting information:

2 718 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 2:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2533] 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: Leslee Sinton

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 5211634

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 87 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: I am dismayed that the applicant plans to create less retail /hospitality space than there is now. A multi screen Cinema must be included. The applicant want to build higher than the unitary plan allows. The building is too bulky

What are the reasons for your submission? The proposed buildings are not suitable

1 719 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Stick to the unitary plan. Inclusion of cinemas to be mandatory

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:

2 720 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 3:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2534] 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 Allen

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5283367

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: Height and sheer mass of proposed development. Consideration for a classic, timeless design to enhance the area.

What are the reasons for your submission? The Unitary Plan allows for development of 16 metres height plus 2 metres for roof line. The proposed development far exceeds this, which could if allowed create a precedent for other development in the area.

1 721 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:

2 722 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 3:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2537] 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 John Norman

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 667 210

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/37 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 huge bulk and height of the proposed development. The Unitary Plan provides well considered guidelines for building heights and now, just a short time after adoption of that plan, a developer is seeking to construct buildings that exceed those guidelines massively. What is the point of the Unitary Plan if resource consent can be obtained to exceed its guidelines. I am also concerned that if the development is approved, Drive Holdings, will use that approval as a precedent to build a similar development of the site it also owns on the other side of Paterson Avenue. The retail and hospitality space that is part of the proposed development is less than now exists and 100 apartments are planned. The apartments in the upper levels of the development will command high prices and presumably provide attractive returns for the developer. It my view that this selfish motive is the primary driver for 1 723 the development. We do not need another 100 apartments on the foreshore at Mission Bay. This character of iconic suburb should be preserved and not destroyed by greedy developers. I live just down the road from the proposed development precinct and can envisage 2-3 years of total disruption around the area with construction works. It is virtually impossible for our visitors to find parking close by now and the development will render the situation intolerable. We regularly entertain take our grandchildren in reserve and the development will have negative impact on this amenity value. The same will apply to our own quiet enjoyment if this suburb. There is the possibility that the development could erode property values in the immediate vicinity. While hard to quantify, this presents a concern to us as we enter our retirement years. We are frequently woken at night on the weekends with louts carousing on the reserve - drinking and shouting till daylight in complete disregard on the Council's no drinking by-law on the reserve. The Council has already demonstrated that it could not care less about local residents in connection with this issue as it has consistently ignored lots and lots representations to police those by-laws. This situation will only get worse with more and more people being crammed into the area adjacent to the waterfront. In summary, this proposed development is totally out of place in Mission Bay.

What are the reasons for your submission? I do not want see the unique character of Mission Bay destroyed by an over-size and inappropriate development that actually reduces retail and hospitality space in the area while at the same time adding 100 apartments we do not need on that part of the foreshore. Why should we allow the amenity value of hundreds of locals and thousands of visitors be destroyed by the avaricious intentions of a selfish developer.

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:

2 724 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 3:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2538] 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: Karen Ann Del

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021922650

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 55 Coates Ave 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

What are the reasons for your submission? Believe that going over the Unitary Plan height will be detrimental to the aesthetics of Mission Bay. It will not be in keeping with the character of Mission Bay or indeed the whole of the waterfront area. The aspect looking back from the beach which has been such a wonderful draw for people all over Auckland will now have a large over height building sticking up as an eye sore in my opinion. We surely do not want to end up looking like the Gold Coast. I do

1 725 believe the area on that corner is ready for redevelopment but strongly disagree with the height going in. There is no advantage except to the stakeholders to make more profit.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Bringing the height back to four levels which is much more in keeping with the character of Mission Bay even though this will be higher than anything else around 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: Yes

Supporting information:

2 726 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 4:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2539] 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: Wendy Laraman

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272706357

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 133365, Eastridge, Auckland Mission Bay 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 totally oppose the dominating skyline structure which goes against the Unitary Plan brought forward. It is ugly, and the only people benefiting from this structure will be the developers. It will do nothing to enhance the small village atmosphere so many mission bay residents and visitors have long enjoyed. I have for the last 20 years been a regular visitor to the cinema and restaurants. It is so easy for me to visit the cinema, but once this has gone I will then have to drive to Newmarket or bus into the city, cost wise more expensive. Lunch during the day has been perfect for me in the Mission Bay Area. I am an elderly pensioner so am very aware of what works. Have you been down to Mission Bay on a sunny afternoon it’s absolutely buzzing with people enjoying this ironic space. Dogs, babies, mums and dads, kids on scooters, so many different cultures, this will all disappear, and the sad thing is they may find 1 727 somewhere else to enjoy their leisure time and Mission Bay will die due to the greed of a few developers. This submission is for the proposed development on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patterson Avenue

What are the reasons for your submission? The domination of this skyline structure. It’s ugly and something that is not needed in the mission bay vicinity. The 100 car parks quoted, I can guarantee visitors will end up being charged for the pleasure of parking their cars there. Body corporate fees for the new apartment owners I know will be exorbitant, the type of people who will love there won’t care about the little man in the street who has for years been visiting the beach area with their family and friends.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the council to reject this application and visit it further with the residents to see what they would like. One gentleman I spoke to said it looked untidy, that’s because no money had been spent to update the facade outside. This could be done easily with limited disruption to shop owners and public visitors. There are shops between the theatre and Barfoots who have only recently started trading, I know they would be open to this idea. The outside of the movie theatre needs a new coat of paint as does De Fontaine, amazing how they will look with that kind of renovation. Even a false facade along the front would work wonders. If we lose out on our protest, the council MUST limit this upgrade to two apartment only no more. Which I Know developers won’t agree to because there won’t be enough money is the whole process for them.. it has been brought to my attention that the same developers have bought the property over the road from the proposed plan. This whole thing will end up being a nightmare. We had the footpath tiled along the restaurant strip a couple of years ago, that was a huge inconvenience imagine a rebuild along there. Perhaps we need a protest that happened on Bastion Point many years ago, accolades to the maoris for their belief in themselves that they could do 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:

2 728 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 4:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2540] 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: Eric Simpson

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211474300

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: G3 217 Kupe 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 bulk of the proposed development .

What are the reasons for your submission? I feel this is totally out of character for the area and will do little to serve the community . We spent so long sorting out the Unitary Plan and yet one of the first proposed developments totally ignores the rules. Why do we have a unitary plan ?

1 729 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the council to reject this proposal outright.

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:

2 730 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 4:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2541] 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 Kurz

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02108884498

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 17 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 object to the application in its entirety

What are the reasons for your submission? We find the application as it stands unacceptable. The proposed buildings do not show any benefit to our community or the unique Mission Bay lifestyle that all of Auckland as well as our tourists have enjoyed over the years. The buildings are too tall and do not fit the environment. Our beautiful green areas would be overshadowed by this excess of height and bulk. The restaurant and shopping facilities have decreased in square footage while the developer is

1 731 looking to benefit from the sale of a large number apartments. We also believe that the carparks allowed for this project are insufficient. Mission Bay during the summer period and of late during the rest of the year has become very popular and busy and car parking is a premium. Tourism has dramatically increased in numbers which has added to car parking problems.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We would like the design revisited to satisfy all points outlined as above. We have lived in Mission Bay for 32years and have brought up our children and now our grandchildren and love what Mission Bay has offered over the years. We look forward to improvements with new buildings but wish to maintain the lovely feel Mission Bay has.

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:

2 732 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 4:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2542] 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: Karen O'Connell

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021655572

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2 Karori Cres 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.Height - well above Unitary Plan allowable height. 2.Loss of Natural Character - this development will dominate the area

What are the reasons for your submission? 1.The UP Height levels should be adhered to, unless there are exceptional reasons. After reading the Applicant’s documents, I do not see any exceptional reasons. 2 If the extra height is accepted here, then it will set a precedent for Tamaki Drive and Mission Bay. Once allowed, it will become the 'new allowable height'. The same developer owns

1 733 land on the other side of Patterson Ave. I am concerned this is step 1 of many. 3.A smaller development ie not higher than allowable height would be acceptable, as it would complement the Natural character of foreshore and reserve, not dominate it.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1. Decline the application as it is. 2. Do not allow this development to create a height precedent for future developments in the area. 3. Encourage this developer to try again within allowed 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:

2 734 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 4:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2544] 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 Bennet

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021866725

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 35a Allum Street 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: Unitary plan exemption Proposed building design and specification Local environmental impact of building on Mission Bay

What are the reasons for your submission? 1.) Opposition to a plan exceeding the conditions of the Unitary Plan. The whole purpose of having a Unitary Plan is to provide some sort of balance between the many stakeholders involved in developing and growing of our city. Finding that balance during the Unitary Planning process has been challenging, and we, as local residents felt

1 735 strongly that the balance of the UP in Mission Bay- Kohimara was tipped in favour of "growth" rather than what we aspired to as a local community. Not withstanding this, the Unitary Plan is what it is, meaning that one of its essential roles must now be to afford us as a local community some sort of protection from developments that are not within the conditions of the Unitary Plan. It feels like an insult to the whole Unitary Plan consultation process that an application such as this can even be considered, when it so grossly exceeds the Unitary Plan principles and intent on so many levels. The Unitary Plan is there for a reason, and it is not reasonable that we as a local community have to be remain vigilant and actively engaged in consent applications just to ensure our basic rights are considered and protected, when the role of the Unitary Plan is to do this. 2. Proposed Building Design & Specification: I object to the proposed design and specification. Not only in the context of it exceeding the provisions of the Unitary Plan (height), but that the design itself, on such a key site, will detract from, rather than contribute to the amenity value or character of Mission Bay. It appears the development will add nothing to the restaurant precinct, providing less overall hospitality space in total, as well as potentially not replacing the Cinema complex. Mission Bay is NOT just about the residents, and has always been a popular dining and recreational destination for all of Auckland and visitors to Auckland. It seems wrong that this is not addressed in this proposal. If this developments only real contribution is going to be "residential space", then the only real beneficiaries are going to be the few dozen residents who get to enjoy those top floors. And everyone else - future generations, the hundreds of residents in the community and the thousands of visitors to Mission Bay every week - will be the losers, as this building will dominate the site, the Bay, Tamaki Drive and Selwyn Park. I am also very concerned that the developer is seeing this development as a "gateway" to developing future buildings of this bulk and design in Mission Bay...... and so will start the loss of critical recreational and amenity resource for a much wider community of interest. 3. Impact of the Build on the Mission Bay Environment Mission Bay has an amenity value that is valued by a much wider community than just immediate residents, and in its own way makes a signification contribution to what makes Auckland Auckland, and New Zealand, New Zealand. The very fact it is NOT over developed and dominated by buildings and construction - is what makes it so special and accessible to so many people who work, live, play and visit the area. It serves as a destination and to lose that sense of openness and amenity value is too great a sacrifice to make in the name of "development". If our city continues to grow at such a rate - these open, recreation orientated parks and beaches will become even more essential. Mission Bay does not need, and should never be allowed "high rise" apartments, and it does not need the visual impact of such a large "concrete building" detracting from its heritage and parks.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the application in its entirety. If this site is to be developed (and I have no issue that it does), then this developer should be challenged to use their skills to develop something that is an asset to Mission Bay and that is far- sighted and will be a legacy to all of Auckland, now and in 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:

2 736 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 4:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2546] 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: Harley Ogier

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021494249

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 47b 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 of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? I believe the proposed development would irreversibly damage the character of Mission Bay, and greatly diminish its amenity value as a beachside escape for locals and visitors alike. Mission Bay offers a “classic Kiwi beach experience” close to the heart of Auckland. It’s a place where visitors can enjoy the natural beauty of the city’s east coast, far from the high-rise towers of the CBD and other high-intensity developments. The bars, restaurants, and

1 737 cinema that currently occupy the site of the proposed development complement this natural beauty. They don’t achieve this through any grand architectural gestures: they do this by leaving the skyline uncluttered and allowing the surrounding natural features to dominate the area. The proposed development would drastically alter the visual environment of Mission Bay, splitting the presently unbroken skyline and introducing an awkward division between the beachfront and surrounding area. This development will visually dominate Mission Bay through a structure that is completely inappropriate in its height and bulk. The bay will simply become another part of the central city in its look and feel. An understated, laid-back feel is what gives Mission Bay its appeal to many locals, and brings in regular visitors from around the Auckland Region. Mission Bay offers a place for people to escape the pressures of the city, and enjoy classic New Zealand beachside hospitality without the pressures of urban intensification. As we grow Auckland’s population and increase the density of housing across the region, the ability to escape to places such Mission Bay becomes ever more important. Mission Bay’s classic Kiwi image and hospitality is not just something we enjoy as Aucklanders, or New Zealanders, but part of the image we sell to international tourists. While I believe that ultimately we should do whatever is best for Auckland, we have to consider that damaging or destroying the character of Mission Bay may have a substantial effect on local tourism. Beyond its visual impact, the proposed development appears to significantly reduce the floor space available for hospitality and retail, in favour of providing apartments that will inevitably be far beyond the economic reach of most Aucklanders. Regardless of whether the proposed beachfront apartments will do anything to address Auckland’s desperate need for affordable housing—and I struggle to see how they could—the proposed apartments come at the cost of services vital to the community and its many visitors. I am not against the idea of adding residences to Mission Bay, but it is ludicrous to increase the area’s population by a hundred apartments while reducing the services available to support the existing population. I believe that if this development were to go ahead, I would no longer be able to enjoy the services that make the area great, such as the local cinema (which I understand will only be retained if “economically viable”), and a reduced set of bars and restaurants that will struggle to meet increased demand. Finally, if this major exception to the Unitary Plan were to be approved, I fear for the long-term future of Mission Bay. The impacts I’ve mentioned would only be worsened if the entire beachfront strip were turned into eight-storey or higher apartment blocks, akin to Surfer’s Paradise. If the area were to become an enclave of high-density, high-cost accommodation it would completely destroy the value of Mission Bay as a beachfront escape accessible to all Aucklanders.

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:

2 738 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 4:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2547] 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: Jacqueline Whalley

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 578 3606

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 47B 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 of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? I am not opposed to development per se but I am opposed to any development that exceeds the guidelines in the unitary plan. A lot of expertise and money has gone into the development of the unitary plan in order to ensure the future of Auckland so please do not make that effort a waste of time. It is important that we consider the long term future of Auckland and ensure that it maintains its unique New Zealand character. With higher density housing we

1 739 need to ensure that we do not compromise the spaces that exist for people to escape from the city. These spaces are important for the mental health and wellbeing of the greater Auckland population. I am opposed to this particular development because the height and bulk of the proposed development will visually dominate the beach and park detracting from the natural beauty of the area. It will overwhelm the historic art deco apartments adjacent to the site and be visible from bastion point a place of historic importance. I believe that the current commercial area exists to support people using the beach and park not to destroy the appeal of the beach and its surrounds for the people. We need to consider the needs of the community which this development does not. By community I mean not only those who live in and around Mission Bay but also the visitors to Mission Bay both local and international. I have friends who live in the city and every week come out to Mission Bay on the bus to get a break from the city madness. I also have friends from overseas with young families who choose to stay in the area when they visit Auckland. They enjoy walking along the beach, having a coffee, and watching a movie at the cinema. They all enjoy the sense of community and the village feel of Mission Bay. These are the things that I also enjoy about the area. The proposed development will take away from these things. Mission Bay is a natural amphitheatre and the place for apartment developments is at the top of the amphitheatre not at its focal heart of the beach and park. This development will significantly detract from the amenity value of mission bay and in the long run could adversely affect tourism. We don’t want to lose our unique identity and in losing our identity lose tourism dollars. The current development benefits a very few privileged individuals at the expense of everyone else. There are places for developments with the height and bulk of that proposed but the place is not alongside a park and beach in an area that maintains a culture and environment that is uniquely New Zealand. In fact many apartment blocks are being built along Kepa Road in a way that does not detract from the beach and the suburb and these blocks sit naturally at the top of the amphitheatre. In Mission Bay and its surrounds under the unitary plan infill houses and apartment blocks will at least triple the population of the area. But the development proposed lessens the area devoted to amenities for the community and visitors in an area that needs more facilities to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population. Recently all the local area buses were shifted to run down Tamaki Drive to the city – many of us in the Eastern Bays rely on these buses to travel to work. There is a bus that services Kepa road but this too far to walk for many locals. As a person who uses the bus every day to get to work in the city I am concerned about the impact of such a large development on my ability to get to my place of work. I am concerned about the long term impact of increased housing along the waterfront on the density of traffic along Tamaki drive and the surrounding streets. There is no room for expansion of Tamaki Drive to improve the congestion. When intensifying housing developments it is important to ensure that the infrastructure can cope with the increased population. It is my belief that if this development is allowed to go ahead it will set a precedence for exceedance of the unitary plan height for buildings in the area and place catastrophic pressure on the infrastructure of the area. This development is placed in an area that floods. The proposed development includes 2 basement levels including retail below sea level. The ratepayers of Auckland will probably end up footing the bills for flooding and for infrastructure upgrades required in the future if we allow a precedence to be set for developments that exceed the rules of the unitary plan and as a result place strain on already stressed resources and infrastructure.

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:

2 740 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 4:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2548] 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 Olsen

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 1828553

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 20 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 of buildings

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like to see Missison Bay upgraded and I agree with the proposed development but I think the proposed height of this application is too high. I think the current height regulations of the unitary plan should be adhered to.

1 741 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:

2 742 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 5:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2549] 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 de Lautour

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +6421933770

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 46 Garnet Rd Auckland Auckland 1022

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 complex The number of car parking spaces

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Limit the height to the height specified in the Unitary Plan. Developer needs to provide more parking, including a

1 743 substantial amount of free parking for the public, otherwise there will be traffic congestion with people driving around trying to find 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 744 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 5:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2551] 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: Margaret Armstrong Baker

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5284814

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: P.O.Box 55-029 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 proposed development would change the whole nature of Mission Bay from a relaxing beach/park area close to the city to a mish/mash of unco-ordinated buildings dominating the area and detracting from the thing that makes Mission Bay such a desirable place to visit - get any bus from the city and note the number of tourists wanting to go to Mission Bay. It will also reduce the shopping amenities. When I moved to Mission Bay 60 years ago we had a

1 745 butcher, grocer, stationer, hardware shop, hairdresser, cake shop, post office, banks petrol station, and these have nearly all been replaced by food outlets - are they to be reduced further? At the same time, the residents' bus access has been reduced and so has the parking, while the developer wants to increase the number of residents using the services. The fact that there is a caveat on the height of the adjoining building, makes the whole proposal more incongruous

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like Council to stick to the Unitary plan and turn down this proposal 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:

2 746 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 5:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2552] 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: SHARMIAN FIRTH

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09-5213121

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 34 Ngake 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: 1. Height of proposed buildings - flouting unitary plan rules. 2. Design in no way harmonious with Mission Bay character. 3. Community (local and Auckland City) needs by way of amenities are subsumed to private developer profit. 3.Mission Bay, as are all the bays, parks and beaches, is an Auckland City asset and should be developed with responsible attention to the needs of bays residents, tourists and inner-city leisure space seekers. 4.The design is grossly beyond the restrictions of the Unitary Plan - a business zone that should provide amenities becomes a series of towering apartments.

1 747 What are the reasons for your submission? Huge effort was spent on the Unitary Plan for this city and allowing this development would be an egregious abandonment of the agreed rules for a narrow commercial gain. It would also set a precedent that would be very hard to fight in future similar cases. The public should not have to fight (by submissions and financially) to keep development within the Unitary Plan rules. All the additional arguments here are secondary to this point. Community amenity space will be reduced in this development, with even the cinemas at risk. This design ignores proportional/visual as well as leisure amenity needs for a large community and growing city. The character of this special leisure area that is enjoyed by so many will be compromised by the present planned development - it is entirely inappropriate in its scale.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like Council to reject this proposal completely and only allow plans to be considered that are in accordance with the Unitary Plan height restrictions and which take nothing away from community amenities in an area so loved and used by the city's residents and visitors. Any plan of this scale in a coastal area needs also to require that tidal invasion or permanent sea-level rise be taken into account so that ratepayers are not called upon to cover future sealevel rise issues.

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:

2 748 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 5:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2553] 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: Prudence Gay and Christoher Ross McConnell

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272471416 09 5210268

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3 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: We object to the whole of the submission due to the height and size of the proposed development, the lack of community consideration especially its location and diminshing of facilities with respect to the beach and foreshore, and the loss of character of the Tamaki Drive environment in general.

What are the reasons for your submission? We are concerned that the height allowance stipulated in the unitary plan is not being adhered to. We are at a loss to understand why the Auckland Council, who have spent a considerable amount of time working on and developing the

1 749 plan, have permitted a proposed development of this type to even be allowed to be considered. The size is far to big considering the surrounding neighbourhood and buildings. We feel it would dominate in a negative way, and adversely affect, the beautiful foreshore, beach and buildings, especially the blocks of apartments on the east end of the beach. We have lived in the eastern bays for about 40 years and, along with other Aucklanders and visitors to Auckland, appreciate the pretty surroundings, pohutakawa trees, the beach, cafes and movie theatre. The diminishing of community facilities is also a concern. In conclusion, for the reasons stated,we feel the current proposal would be an oversized and ugly intrusion to such a special community and neighbourhood, and would not improve the area or support the community in any way. We sincerely hope the council will consider this submission.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We would like the Auckland Council to decline the application in full as we do not consider any aspects are salvageable.

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:

2 750 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 5:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2556] 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: Rowan Mark Carroll

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 027 609 8711

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 40 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: I object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? I was fortunate to be born and grow up in Mission Bay many years ago. The area of the proposed development and surrounding area were my "back yard" where I swam, walked, biked, sailed, shopped and spent many happy hours. I am very concerned to see the proposed development, with the envisaged height and bulk, potentially destroying the whole area. I have not objection to modernisation of the area, but only in a sympathetic way which adds to the area's

1 751 ambience. The proposed height of the development is 28m, which is, at least 10m higher than the allowable height under the Unitary Plan. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify this dispensation. It is merely an example of rampant profiteering at the expense of community residents and visitors alike. The height and bulk of this proposed development is totally out of character with its surroundings, dominating, in an ugly and oppressive, way the whole area. This is bad urban design. Mission Bay is an amphitheatre, essentially, and the proposed development would be like putting a giant ugly boulder on a stage for no good reason, with Rangitoto and the Waitemata harbour as a backdrop. The natural character of the area would be destroyed. One of the great aspects of Mission Bay, and Auckland generally, is the sense of light and space. The proposed development would destroy this. This proposal is about using the extra height applied for to build expensive apartments above the allowed height to house a privileged few at the expense of the environment of many. It adds little, if anything, in the way of community facilities and benefits. If the additional building height were to be allowed, this would set a dangerous precedent for other over- height developments both locally and in other areas of Auckland. Given the time and effort involved in developing the Unitary Plan, surely it wasn't envisaged that the plan would be observed in its breach, for no community benefit or exceptional reason. The developer also owns the site on the other side of Patterson Avenue. He claims that he is building a gateway to Mission Bay. A gateway usually has two pillars, so it is most likely that he will want to develop a similar height development on this site as well. It would detract even more from the character of the area. Traffic and parking around Mission Bay and the waterfront generally are under severe pressure already. This development would not help, with extra traffic and parking needs not fully catered for. The design of the development bears little relationship to its surrounding buildings. There is no relationship to the current art deco facade, which would be lost. With higher buildings than currently exist, wind would become an issue in the streets and surrounding areas. Mission Bay is a coastal area and subject to high winds from the North East especially, on occasions. I understand that there has ben no wind modelling done, which is not comforting. Ignoring this aspect will not it go away. The area in question is prone to flooding, as is much of the waterfront. It is within the Council's Coastal Inundation zone. Two basement levels of retail are contemplated, putting them below sea level. This seems not only dangerous, but flood mitigation in this area with the prospect of rising sea levels and global warming would be an ever increasing challenge. It concerns me that this cost could eventually get foisted on ratepayers. It also appears to make no sense generally. In summary, this proposal has no benefits for the community and is merely an exercise in blatant profiteering by the developers at the expense of the rest of the community.

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:

2 752 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 5:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2558] 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 John Strevens

Organisation name: Strevens Services Ltd

Contact phone number: 09 5200505

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 43 Arney Rd 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: Bulk and height

What are the reasons for your submission? 1. The unitary plan has only recently been heard and decided. this application is far in excess of some aspects of the plan for this site, particularly the height. No application so contrary to a recently decided plan for the district should be considered 2. the design is pedestrian and uninspired and therefore provides no reason to go beyond the scheme 3. It is out of scale with the current vehicular access facilities along Tamaki Drive or down Patteson Ave 4. 3.

1 753 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? 1. Tell them to read the plan and start again

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:

2 754 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 5:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2560] 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: Barry and Rosemary Wallace

Organisation name: Strand Management Ltd

Contact phone number: 0272441529

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 58 Allum St 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: We object to the entire Application.

What are the reasons for your submission? We have lived in the Eastern Bays for 35 years. We walk, drive and cycle through Mission Bay and we enjoy the existing amenities, particularly the cinema, the restaurants / cafes and, in particular, the village feel of the Bay and its foreshore of trees and grass. In our view there is ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY to get the redevelopment of the business / commercial area right. If it is not done right, then the whole community is stuck with the result forever. We

1 755 do not believe the Application should be granted for the following main reasons: 1. The Unitary Plan: The Unitary Plan took a number of years to put together and was only finalised after a huge amount of public consultation. We believe the Plan stretched the boundaries in Mission Bay anyway and was generous in its application to sites such as those owned by the Applicant. The Application seeks to ignore the Unitary Plan and erect buildings totally contrary to the Plan rules. What is the point of having a Unitary Plan if it can be ignored? 2. Precedence: We are very concerned that, if this Application is approved, then Council will find it very difficult to reject any future similar applications. We are particularly concerned at any future development on the commercial sites on the opposite corner of Patterson Ave and on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Atkin Avenue at the Western end of Mission Bay. Presumably the whole of the Bay, except those properties with caveats on the title, could end up being one continuous blot on the landscape. Any precedent could also presumably be applied to waterfront sites in Kohimarama and St Heliers, particularly in the commercial areas. 3. Height and visual impact: The Application proposes a height of 28 metres compared to a height of 16 metres of usable space allowed under the Unitary Plan. THIS IS 75% ABOVE THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT. We cannot think of any reason why additional height should be allowed. A height of 16 metres in itself is very significant and gives plenty of scope for architectural and engineering design. The height and bulk of the proposed development will result in a blot on the landscape of Mission Bay, visible and dominant from virtually any point within the Eastern, Western and Southern boundaries of the Bay and from the Waitemata harbour. Mission Bay is not in a city centre such as Fanshawe St or Quay St, for example, where buildings such as those proposed are more in fitting with their surroundings. Mission Bay is primarily residential and comprised of single or double storey houses. A number of the sites adjacent to the Applicant's sites have limitations on height attached to their titles. A series of tall buildings would not be in keeping with its surroundings. The dominant features of the Bay now are trees and foreshore. The proposed development is so large that it would overwhelm those existing features. 4. Loss of Character Mission Bay is not the Gold Coast of Australia and we believe it should not end up being developed in the way the Gold Coast has. Approval of the Application would cause development in the Bay to go down this path. Mission Bay is a place for families, fun and recreation. There is a village feel to it, on the weekends in particular, and the reserve areas are well used. The existing retail has taken a number of years to find its right mix but this now seems to be ok. We fear that this will all be lost if the development proceeds as proposed. The development will reduce the area allocated to retail space and we suspect that the retail mix will change significantly to modern / trendy (expensive) and that ordinary families who now use the Bay will be disadvantaged and go elsewhere. We don't know what the proposed building design will do to the atmosphere of the Bay but suspect it will be negative. Tall buildings create wind tunnels and large shadows. We suspect the Bay will overall become windier and colder (or feel colder and darker as a result of shading). 5. Traffic and parking: Mission Bay already suffers from a lack of parking availability and traffic delays. We understand that the Applicant proposes around 100 apartments in the development. This must increase traffic flows and the demand for carparks in the immediate area. (visitors, 2 car households etc). While we understand that there is provision for additional public carparks in the proposed development, our experience is that these generally end up as high cost paid parking or as reserved spaces for anyone who wants to pay for them. Marau Rd is not capable of taking any more traffic or car parking. The development would lead to a large increase in usage of this road. 6. Rising sea levels. It is a scientific fact that sea levels are rising. The only argument is by how fast. Flooding occurs several times a year already along the Auckland waterfront. The proposed development must be in a zone at high risk of rising sea levels over the next century. The proposed development has two basement levels providing for carparking and some retail space. These would presumably be under existing sea levels. Who pays if the buildings flood after they are built? Insurance companies are already starting to refuse cover for flooding of some properties along the waterfront. We are worried that the Council may be held liable in the future in the same way that leaky building liability has been imposed on them. A smaller development than that proposed may only require one basement level (fewer carparks for example.)

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? We would like the Council to reject the Application in its entirety. In particular we would not like to see Council bend to the will of the Applicant by compromising on things such as height / visual impact 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 756 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2561] 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: Teresa Mary Davies

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 830955

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 25 262 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 the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? The development of these buildings are far far too high. They will dominate Mission Bay and we will end up with a Waikiki look. It will destroy the natural character of the old Mission Bay and its history. Who wants great ugly high-rise buildings - only the greed of the developers who couldn't give a damn about the look of one of Aucklands beautiful

1 757 bays and beach! By all means give MB a good facelift but please not to this extent! Also the traffic is bad enough now particularly in summer - can you imagine it!

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:

2 758 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2562] 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: Margaret Neill

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021253475

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 11 Dudley Rd. Mission Bay Auckland 2014

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? It will completely destroy the village ambiance of Mission Bay Where people come from far and wide to enjoy the iconic beach ,park and fountain, it is a visual monstrosity, which will block the view from Patterson Ave and Bastion Pt. It is of no value to the Mission Bay Kohi Community, less retail and less restaurants an addition of an extra 30 car spaces is of minimal gain considering 100 apartments are proposed, and there is no guarantee that the picture

1 759 theatre will be rebuilt. I actively vote for Auckland City Councils members and feel very strongly that this application should be denied.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To please deny 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? Yes

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

Supporting information:

2 760 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2563] 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: Virginia Reeves

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211508347

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: 75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 & 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, & 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay.. I object to the entire proposition

What are the reasons for your submission? Way too high - over the Unitary plan height allowance - and way too bulky and the visual aspect is completely unlike anything in Mission Bay which is a seaside settlement with history of the Missionaries, the airflights and is a

1 761 residential with some Art Deco points which are being demolished. Not to mention the wind and traffic aspect. If you let this project go through what will all other developments try to get away with

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:

2 762 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2564] 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 Mitchell

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021348420

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 19 Holgate 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? This development exceeds the height limit allowed under the Unitary Plan and there is absolutely no reason why this should be allowed in Mission Bay. The apartments that will be built in the higher levels will be expensive and benefit the developer so the argument that we need more housing for first time house buyers cannot be employed. This is a residential area where large buildings will not fit in and will destroy the natural character of the beach and reserve.

1 763 Mission Bay is not just a resource for local residents - families come from all over Auckland to a safe beach for children and overseas tourists also visit frequently. This development as it is planned now will not benefit anyone (except the developer), rather it will dominate the skyline and detract from the charm of the bay. As I understand it there is less area for retail and hospitality missing an opportunity to allow for higher end restaurants as well as continuing the fast food outlets that are so popular now.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Decline the application in full. Make it clear that the height restriction under the Unitary Plan cannot be exceeded. Request a development that is more in keeping with the natural character of the beach and reserve.

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:

2 764 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2565] 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 Moore

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 318 769

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 14c Edmund 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 oppose the development on 2 grounds: it exceeds the height of 4 storeys under the unitary plan causing loss of vie to neighbouring properties And it’s architecture is not appropriate- it looks like something from the Gold Coast, not Art Deco such as at present

What are the reasons for your submission? As a long term resident of the area including 20 years at Mission Bay I don’t want to see another eye sore

1 765 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The height should be limited to 2 storeys in keeping with the area,to respect the neighbours, and not to provide shadowing of the beach area. The retail areas, pretty average at present, need to be award winning like Britomart or Ponsonby Central

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:

2 766 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2566] 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: Gerald Avon Davies

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 327257

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 25 262 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 the whole of the Application

What are the reasons for your submission? Many reasons, Height, Ugliness, Visual from all aspects - dominance particularly for the character of Mission Bay and surrounding areas. The traffic is bad enough now, and the parking - can you imagine the chaos - wonderful for the Parking Wardens - great revenue for the Council! The Design - can't see any connection to the Art Deco look. Who

1 767 wants to look at people sitting on their balconies everywhere - we will lose that lovely environment of good ole Mission Bay - its character gone!

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:

2 768 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2567] 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: Deborah Wallis

Organisation name: Mrs

Contact phone number: 0275215006

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 112 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: I object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? Down right ugliness!, totally takes on and not in line with the unitary plan, Height, dominance/visual impact to existing structure, Setting a precedent, loss of existing facilities, no real commitment to cinema, wind tunnel problems, traffic,

1 769 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Stick to the plan! Don't accept this in any way, this is way outside what is acceptable. it was a big jump for us all to acceptthe new plan, but we understand it is necessary, but don't waste all that time and effort from well qualified people in a, pretty well thought out plan and accept this rubbish. Auckland is a beautiful city and we don't deserve this sort of ugliness. Especially as our council wants us to be a beautiful destination city, to be that we need more than just council paid for ammenities and building and parks to be great, we need all developments to be part of this vision. I recently went to Christchurch and was amazed at what they have achieved. All the new buildings are good to look at - not concrete monstrousites. They look good and they in turn add a vibrancy to the city, to add to, not detract from, the council efforts in parks and funky little corner parks and attractions. Say no to this plan in sooo many ways.

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:

2 770 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2568] 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 Jane Furley

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274359355

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 1/26 Patteson Avenue 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? LOSS OF CHARACTER: - Mission Bay is a beach-side community, NOT a "Town Centre", nor do I want it to be a Town Centre. - People live here, and visitors come here, to get away from big buildings and city life and to enjoy the relaxed atmosphere of the beach and foreshore. - It does not need a "Gateway" as the bay is extremely popular as it is, and a well known iconic location for visitors. - The proposed design does not depict a beach side community which

1 771 it currently is and would destroy the natural character of the beach, pohutukawa, Stone House, fountain and reserve. - I do not want Mission Bay to end up like the Gold Coast, Miami or similar highly developed, high rise beach areas. - The proposed design of the 7 buildings DOES NOT provide "a high level of visual interest" - it would complete dominate the area and is not an attractive design (or Art Deco), and is totally inappropriate for the area. - The current facades of De Fontein/Movenpick and the Berkeley Theatre have character, which the proposed design does not have. - The proposed buildings scale and intensity are NOT SUITABLE for this iconic location and do not convey a long lasting "classic" design. - Currently the Berkeley Theatre is a thriving community theatre and very well patronised. The building itself was built in 1937 and has character with the old brick exterior which could be enhanced, along with the Crane like structure near the rear of the building, which is probably of some historic value. HEIGHT & IMPACT VISUALLY: - The application makes a joke of the recently completed Unitary Plan with the developers wanting to build at least 10m over the allowable 16m, plus 2m for roof. - I understand that all proposed buildings exceed the Unitary Plan rules except one. - What is the point of having the Unitary plan if it is to be ignored. - Allowing additional height = more apartments & more profit for the developers - NOT COMMUNITY amenities. - If the proposed height was allowed this would set a precedent for the eastern bays and it would lose it's character completely. - The impact of the height of the buildings proposed would over power and dominate the area and be completely out of proportion to the surrounding buildings in the area. - The focal point of Mission Bay is the Reserve, The Stone House, Fountain and the beach and I certainly don't want a collection of buildings from 4-8 storeys dominating the landscape. - The development would destroy Mission Bay's iconic and unique character. - I am not against building improvements for Mission Bay, but only those that will retain it's character and uniqueness as a beach side community and which will include and enhance the historical nature of the area and reveal and retain further undiscovered historic aspects of Mission Bay. COMMUNITY AMENITIES: - I understand that in fact the development would reduce the square meterage by about a third for hospitality and retail facilities for locals and visitors. - The developers propose a 4 theatre Movie complex (if financially viable) BUT we have one providing 4 theatres already. - I do not believe that the community has been consulted in any way and I find it hard to believe that the developers have "received hundreds of messages of support for the change". TRAFFIC & PARKING: - The proposed design does not provide adequate parking facilities for the addition of 100 apartments. It is unrealistic to assume that each apartment would only require 1 carpark each and then there would be visitors requiring car parks as well. - Currently Marau Street is one lane only with cars parked on both side, along with other local streets in the area packed with cars in the weekends, and when spring/summer arrives this leads to insufficient parking and therefore cars park, sometimes two abreast, on the grass verges. - In an emergency this could be a potentially disastrous situation for emergency services. PROPOSED DESIGN: - The design does not take in the character of Mission Bay and is dated before it is even built. - It is not Art Deco in design if that is what the architects were trying to achieve. - The gaps between the buildings will surely create wind tunnels. - The public plaza on the first level does not appear to have any visual connection with the reserve or beach. I imagine it is there to enhance the outlook from the apartments and not designed for the locals or visitors benefit. - Why would there be 2 basement levels in a flood prone zone?? - I do not believe this development was designed with the community as a priority, but predominantly for the profits of the developers in being able to sell 100 apartments. - As summer approaches the waterfront along Tamaki Drive is totally congested with cars parked and driving or crawling around the bays. - I do not believe that the buildings on Marau Crescent have a "high level of integration" or "reinforce the residential character" as proposed by the developers. I do not see any relationship between their design and the local buildings in that street. - The photos shown by the developers of the concept are completely deceptive and not realistic in terms of the impact the bulk & height of the 4-8 storey buildings will have from all view points of the surrounding area. - If this was allowed to proceed, the developers could do the same on the opposite corner of Patteson Avenue &Tamaki Drive.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like 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:

2 772 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:31 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2569] 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: Maurice Addy

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0272379099

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 2/20 Patterson Ave Mission Bay Auckland 2012

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Traffic increase Size of development in relation to the existing buildings Space could better used for more eating facilities. Retain the Arr Deco style. Something that compliments the ART DECO style of the era . Noise increase from traffic and people . How child friendly will this be?

What are the reasons for your submission? I also own a residential home at number 20 Patterson Ave. Objection to the timeframes for this development being 2 years , with its associated congestion, mess , noise etc No one will want to visit or have a construction site to stumble

1 773 through to the park and beach . Lose of sunshine , and the feeling of being close to the precious waterfront will be depleted , due to the tremendous size and overpowering height of this project . Our inner city beach is precious and special Size and quaintness will be compromised with the existing application.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the current application in total Redevelop with retail and food eateries No apartments ! Retain a movie theatre. Preferably the existing one .

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:

2 774 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2570] 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: Jamie Simmonds

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0226050825

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 15 Balmoral Road Epsom Auckland 1023

Submission details

This submission: supports the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: I’ll be submitting primarily on the height of the buildings in this proposal and how they would impact the environment they’d be built in. I’ll also be submitting on the submissions proposed ratio of businesses and housing.

What are the reasons for your submission? I'm submitting to support this application, and debunk some of the myths objections to it are built on. The most common objection you will see to this project is the way it affects the views in Mission Bay. Various arguments will be made about how that impacts the environment, in an attempt to keep view concerns relevant to the submission

1 775 process, but at their core the view will be where they draw umbrage. When critiquing them, you need to look past the emotion, and ask how what the real impact is. How much will views be reduced, and how much will their focus change? Mission Bay is a mixed urban-natural environment, a mix that makes up the core part of its character. And it’s fair to say its view contributes significantly to the natural half of that equation. Numerous trees, the ocean, the skyline and Rangitoto are all natural elements whose immensity lets them counter the many urban elements nearby, such as the road, houses, shops, and sound of cars. Their shear scope is what keeps Mission Bay’s current urban natural balance — it does not matter how many urban elements are nearby, as long as the huge natural elements are fully in view, the urban can never hope to overwhelm them. Put another way, good luck building something that feels as large as Rangitoto in full view. That means when considering how the proposed development will affects Mission Bay’s environment, your main question should be whether it enhances or detracts from the scope of the natural elements. My belief is that, barring a few exceptions, it does neither. Standing from the beach, this project, despite its size, will not inhibit the view of the ocean, Rangitoto, or the skyline. In fact its buildings will become invisible by turning around and looking at the ocean. Even looking away from the water, towards the suburb, the buildings mostly block the view of houses — which are hardly a strong natural element. In fact, that is a consistent theme throughout photos showing how this development will change Mission Bay. What they tend to show is a building that is very visible, but isn’t obscuring anything worthwhile. Houses, sections, and the odd part of road, all things that don’t make Mission Bay what it is. The most important elements are left almost entirely in view, with perhaps a small amount of skyline obscured depending on where the photo was taken. You’ll likely see many of these photos during this process. During each one you should look at it and ask, what is being lost? How much is being blocked that isn’t simply another building? The other argument you may see made is that the buildings draw the eye too much. Many photos I’ve seen make this point by taking a true to life photo, then overlaying a crude recreation of this developments buildings using one or two colours. This creates a visual effect that makes the buildings seem more imposing than they would be once constructed: They appear lit in a different direction from everything else in the photo, far more uniform in colour, and are more obviously two dimensional. In real life, the buildings would not suffer from these effects. For a more honest critique of how much these buildings would draw the eye, compare them to Rangitoto. Rangitoto is Mission Bay’s most dominating visual element, due to its size and being frequently silhouetted, and anything that wants to claim that title from it would need to be even more imposing. The buildings being proposed are tall, but they are nowhere near that immense. Another common objection to this project is likely to be the reduction in shop space. Estimates vary, but the Kohimarama residents association believes there will be around 1000m less business space. I can’t deny less shop and restaurant space is a blow to the general atmosphere of Mission Bay. Being able to go from the beach to a restaurant is part of what makes it enjoyable. But getting rid of those shops entirely would be a lot worse. And without change, that’s the direction Mission Bay’s main shops are heading — closing down entirely, or shrinking to a level well beyond what this project is proposing. Driving down Mission Bay’s main street reveals a number its shops and restaurants are closing down. I can’t say why definitively, but the most probable reason is a simple lack of customers. And that isn’t particularly surprising. Mission Bay’s restaurants, in particular, have not evolved with the city’s dining trends. They tend to emphasize light and space, which may be what a lot of Mission Bay residents enjoy, but aren’t currently in trend. Smaller spaces, a more intimate atmosphere and niche character, have become popular throughout Auckland [see flight 605 for one example]. Locations like Mission Bay rely heavily on customers from outside the immediate community, and if they want to thrive, they need to provide more than just what the locals enjoy. This development will let that happen. There will be less shop and restaurant space, but that space will be more sustainable, and much more desirable. A large amount of people living above them will probably help hugely as well — providing the businesses below them a lifeline during quiet seasons.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like to see the council support the bulk of this project. Heights should only be reduced where it can be categorically proven the view of significant natural elements of Mission Bay will be blocked, and from several different locations. That means only reducing the buildings height if someone can't move a reasonable distance to enjoy an unimpaired view again. Where this does occur, the buildings height should only be reduced to the point where it no longer occurs.

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:

2 776 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 7:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2571] 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: Andrea Geary

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021773036

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 83A Kurahaupo 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 proposed development is completely at odds with what is the essence of unique Mission Bay. The scale of the development will result in an hugely dominant building that is out of scale with the rest of the suburb and will be an eyesore. The beachfront with the trees and fountain and the scale of the CURRENT buildings is a place that is humans can relate to. I.e. the buildings are not too high. The proposed building will create a barrier between the

1 777 beach and the suburb beyond with the risk that if the extreme height is accepted this will lead to a precedent in the suburb and beyond. Leading to a wall of concrete along the beachside. This is not what New Zealanders want for our precious coastline. With people in Auckland increasingly living in buildings where they have no outdoor space, the beachfront is very important to go and relax in - in this case Mission Bay. People love places that are unique in a world where there is a sameness increasingly everywhere - concrete malls with no character that shut off humans from the outside world. Depressing uninspiring architecture that adds nothing to the community. In this case the amount of retail space is less than current and the development is very ugly and looks like something from the 1980's. Auckland abounds with unsympathetic tall buildings with small apartments that benefit the developer and no one else. The scale of this development looks to benefit the developer and a handful of people who can afford the high rise apartments. Auckland doesn't need more expensive apartments it needs accommodation for those entering the housing market. Locals and tourists come to Mission Bay and enjoy the foreshore with the magnificent view of Rangitoto. People want to escape the city and the concrete jungle and wind tunnels and enjoy nature and amenities that are human in scale. Why have a Unitary plan with rules if Developers go beyond the 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? Yes

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

Supporting information:

2 778 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 7:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2572] 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 Faigan

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 09 5249990

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 41 Awarua Crescent 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? I own a property in Marau Crescent and this project will completely block all light coming into my apartment This series of apartments will completely dishonour the natural character of Mission Bay .

1 779 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I wish 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:

2 780 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 7:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2573] 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: Janet Vanderwee

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0211702952

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: all aspects as the development should not go ahead.

What are the reasons for your submission? The buildings are far too big for the waterfront and they would dominate Mission Bay. The proposed height is well above the unitary plan which has only just been introduced to stop this sort of development going ahead. The character of Mission Bay would be changed completely in a bad way, it is a seaside suburb and we don't want a "Gold

1 781 Coast' look here. Hospitality would be reduced when the whole of Auckland is growing and we need more restaurants and aesthetic areas for dining on the pavement.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The council should 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:

2 782 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 7:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2574] 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: Ellen Giles

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: +6495286247

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 55 Whytehead 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: developer is breaching the height limits for the zone

What are the reasons for your submission? l have strong concerns over the proposal, particularly regarding the massive height and bulk of the buildings. I want the council to ensure that Auckland develops in a coherent and attractive way.

1 783 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the council to ensure that the rules for development, especially with respect to height and visual bulk of buildings are adhered to. Any development should enhance public facilities for the community not leave us with fewer.

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:

2 784 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 7:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2575] 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: Wendy Norman

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 467 567

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/37 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? The council has spent considerable time and money preparing the Unitary Plan for Auckland. The Mission Bay area has been approved for building up to a height of 16metres for a flat roof building which this application is for. This application is for buildings in the centre of the bay which is a focal point for the amphitheatre of the whole of the bay from Eastridge to the sea. The Unitary plan specified that the look and character of this area is preserved. This

1 785 building will totally dominate the area. There is already a problem with car parking in Mission Bay and it is to be expected that many apartment owners will have more than two cars and their visitors will totally overload the area. The total floor area of 12,200 square metres for 100 apartments means that many of the apartments will be no more than slum like rabbit warrens whilst a few will be a reasonable size which is appalling for any area let alone for this area. This building complex is almost double the Unitary Plan allowable size, which is disgraceful to be even suggested. There is also very little area between the buildings which will affect sun and cause a wind tunnel in what has been a very successful tourism area in a lovely sunny quiet beach suburb. This building complex will totally alter the whole beach /shop line which is currently so attractive to visitors in a sleepy quiet dining area. This building complex offers the community fewer services than currently available whilst adding many more people. This complex is adding nothing to Mission Bay or the eastern beach suburbs of Kohimarama and St Heliers. A developer has chosen to override the Unitary Plan to try to line his own pockets rather than have any interest in improving the area. I assume that he is not interested in living in the area that he intends to spoil for many years to come and as soon as he has made his money he will try to do the same on the other corner opposite his appalling development, thereby spoiling the atmosphere of not only Mission Bay but Kohimara and St Heliers. Mission Bay is the first bay visitors come to from the city and imagine their shock to come around the corner and see such a huge high and bulky building in front of them dominating the whole bay instead of having a lovely view back up the amphitheatre to Eastridge. The adjacent buildings to this appalling complex are restricted to their current height and character and this complex should have the same restrictions to preserve the character of Mission Bay. There is nothing that this development is offering except fewer community services and a blot on the landscape in the middle of what can only be described currently as a thriving community centre where many people come to enjoy a walk on the beach, play in the park and quiet meal in a lovely relaxing area. This Application for a huge bulky building must not be allowed to proceed as it will spoil the whole atmosphere that visitors come to Mission Bay, Kohimarama and St Heliers to enjoy.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the Council to reject this whole proposal as being totally out of character for the area. It is too bulky and too high. There are no additional services provided for the area. It is not making any improvements and will cause issues with sun, wind and parking. It is more likely to destroy Mission Bay than it is to 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 786 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 8:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2577] 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 Whiteacre

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0274420089

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: Very concerned re the height implications & also the overall design of the project is not Art Deco at all therefore totally out of character with the existing Architecture. Also concerned re extra traffic on Marau Rd which is already down to one lane - especially on weekends. The potential loss of the Movie theatre - if it I’d femmes ‘unprofitable ‘ by the developers.

What are the reasons for your submission? See above

1 787 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Development height needs to be substantially lowered to be more in keeping with scale of Mission Bay & impact on visual aesthetics of this iconic beach suburb

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:

2 788 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 8:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2578] 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: Marina Sunde

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 490 570

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 3/ 289 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: Reduce the proposed height of the new buildings Reduce amount of apartments. DO NOT reduce amount of retail Keep movie theatre.

What are the reasons for your submission? The visuals of proposed development are not complementary to Mission Bay. It will always look like a monstrosity and remind me of Australia's Gold Coast. I would like more or the same amount of retail space instead of less. Driving

1 789 along Tamaki Drive and entering the proposed new development is NOT an Improvement, it is visually unappealing and leaves me feeling cold.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Yes, Mission Bay needs a facelift but Three stories only is plenty, any more... we lose the community feel and turn Mission Bay into a tacky business district that no one looks forward to visiting. NO McDonalds please.

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:

2 790 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 9:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2580] 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 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: Relating to the height of the proposed development.

What are the reasons for your submission? The planned height of the development is far to tall & way over height for the sea side village. Also it is setting a precedent for further & future development in Mission Bay, especially along Tamaki Drive.

1 791 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? To consider a much lower in height development. To consider the visual impact on Mission Bay, how ugly it will look. Also the insufficient public parking around the development if has 100 apartments. We are residents of Tamaki Drive, currently in the weekends the traffic flow here is a disaster, the council need to plan ahead to cater for the influx of more residents.

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:

2 792 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 9:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2581] 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: Jolene Harrison

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102878247

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 60 Divich Ave Te Atatu South Auckland 0610

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 development.

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? That the developer is definitely not granted to build higher than what they’ve already received consent for.

1 793 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:

2 794 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 9:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2583] 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 Eva Collins

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021 226 1527

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: PO Box 133190 Mission Bay Auckland 1146

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 of the proposed development is in excess of the unitary plan maximum, and sets an unacceptable precedent for other developments throughout Auckland if it were permitted. 2. The proposed design of the development (a) does not reflect best design practice that would respect and reflect the history of Mission Bay, (b) does not reflect the unique character of the Eastern Bays area, (c) does not enhance the visual appeal of Mission Bay, and (d)

1 795 What are the reasons for your submission? The reason for my submission is to oppose the application in its current form. It is very important that the character of the Eastern Bays area is retained whilst development is encouraged in a way that respects, rather than seeks to exceed, the Unitary Plan guidelines.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? I would like the council to: 1. rejects the applicant's current development design because (a) the proposed height of the highest structure exceeds the unitary plan requirements and is inappropriate for Mission Bay, and (b) the proposed design is ugly and not respectful of Mission Bay's history or character. 2. encourages the development and upgrading of Mission Bay, but ensure it is done in a way that achieves community support and would win international awards for its design best practice.

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:

2 796 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 9:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2584] 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 Nementzik

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 095850016

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 6 Sylvia 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: I object to the whole of the application

What are the reasons for your submission? Height- The height of the proposed development is considerably over the allowable height under the Unitary plan. The very tall and bulky proposed buildings are markedly out of proportion to other buildings in the suburb. Although some increase in height in this suburb is inevitable, the proposed buildings will cause problems for adjacent properties by blocking views and light and will be visually very unappealing and dominating both close up and from a distance.

1 797 Mission Bay currently has a very pleasant seaside suburb and recreational park feel that is treasured by Aucklanders who live in the suburb and by people who enjoy visiting it. The current environment will be destroyed by a building this high right in the centre of the suburb. It will also cause a huge impact on the local community as its bulk will be visible and will stand out from a distance as well as close up. Outlook, views and harmony with the environment are important to people's quality of life and this proposed development does not respect this. 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 the Unitary Plan was set for a reason. In the documents provided by the developers there are no valid exceptional circumstances stated to allow deviation from the Unitary Plan. Design- Mission Bay waterfront has Art Deco design that is part of the heritage of the suburb and is much appreciated. The proposed building does not reflect Art Deco design. The rounded corners of the design are not at all in keeping with Art Deco and the use of colour is not in keeping either. The colours are really more fitting for a preschool centre than a quality building and it would be better to have no colour than what is proposed. If the architects and designers have to move away from the historical Art Deco of the suburb there are many good examples of modern architecture from overseas and in NZ that are designed to fit sensitively with the environment. Spaces for retail and public: The development reduces the spaces available for retail and for hospitality while putting more strain on traffic and parking which are already current issues. Mission Bay history and heritage is of a seaside village with pleasant retail, cafe and restaurants that are well-patronized. Reducing this is out of keeping with the needs and character of 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? Yes

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

Supporting information:

2 798 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 9:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2585] 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 Malaghan

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021-962-721

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: apartment 3 / 29 Tamaki Drive , Mission Bay 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 is always going to be contentious. . But the submitted plan pushes the limits too far.

What are the reasons for your submission? The plan does not add value to the asset that is Mission Bay. The area needs development but with more awareness of the wonderful natural features that could be enhanced with good design.

1 799 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? maintain the current square footage of entertainment and food facilities. Reduce the domination of apartment living. Add style and design to enhance the 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 800 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 10:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2586] 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 McKay

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212141124

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 4/14 Regent St Papatoetoe Auckland 2025

Submission details

This submission: opposes the application in whole or in part

Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on: Council should act according to the wishes of residents in the zone.

What are the reasons for your submission? An affection for old builings and their history. It is important to preserve the character of our city.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Cancel the project.

1 801 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:

2 802 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 10:01 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2587] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Mission Bay Development submission - A Amadio.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: Augusta Amadio

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02102522733

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 34A 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: See attached

What are the reasons for your submission? See attached

1 803 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject the submission in it's 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: Mission Bay Development submission - A Amadio.docx

2 804 Submission from Augusta Amadio of 34A Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay, 1071

Re: Mission Bay Development (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)

Reasons for the submission:

Visual impact & height of the development:

• Some of the proposed buildings are significantly taller than the allowable height under the Unitary plan (up to 28m compared to the Unitary Plan limit of 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form). • The rules should only be waived under exceptional circumstances where the extra height of buildings will have a minor impact on the community – this development most certainly does not meet that criteria. There is nothing beautiful or outstanding about it. • The sheer height and bulkiness of the proposed development will dominate the visual horizon of Mission Bay from all vantage points. • The architecture of the building is downright ugly! • The layout of the suburb around central Mission Bay is in the form of a half amphitheatre. When you walk around the high ridges surrounding the central beach area (i.e. from Bastion Point, the top of Patteson Ave, Selwyn Ave etc) you are looking down into the amphitheatre, which draws your vision to the beach itself, Selwyn Reserve, the huge trees lining the reserve and Rangitoto Island in the distance – this is an outstanding stage! This horrible development will destroy that stage - its sheer size and bulkiness will become the focal point and dominate. • When I go swimming and look back towards the road, I see grass and trees and low level buildings. With this monstrosity of a development, I will see bulky ugly buildings. This undermines the natural beauty of the foreshore and the character of the entire suburb. • The development site is immediately adjacent to residential areas, including single house zones and an historical character overlay. All buildings immediately to the east of the development are limited to 8m height. The buildings currently opposite the proposed development site on Patteson Ave are also low level. The proposed 20m-28m buildings will really stand out and dominate the surrounding area.

Loss of natural character and amenity value:

• People come to Mission Bay to escape the densely populated urban Auckland environment and relax in pleasant, natural surroundings on the beach and foreshore. • Under the Unitary Plan, which allows for the intensification of dwellings in the Auckland region, natural landscapes and stunning foreshores will become more and more valuable for the enjoyment, health and well-being of residents and visitors alike. If Auckland is to become a city that people want to live in, then we need to strike a balance between intensification of urbanisation and preserving what little is left of our beautiful natural spaces and beaches. These spaces, in my opinion, are far more valuable than high rise, ugly bulky buildings. • This development will destroy the natural character of Mission Bay, and will dominate the pohutukawa and Norfolk pines skyline to become the dominant visual feature of the foreshore.

Loss of community facilities:

• Under the Unitary Plan, it is expected that the resident population of Mission Bay will grow. To support this growth, the central Mission Bay zone would be expected to provide local facilities to support that growth. • Tourism is also expected to continue to grow, and Mission Bay is arguably the most popular beach destination in Auckland. I have personally witnessed a significant increase in tourists

805 come to the beach since I moved into the area in 2008. The central zone should also be able to support the demand for facilities for tourists. • Mission Bay also hosts a number of extremely popular public events, such as craft fairs, Round the Bays, triathlon events etc. It may well be that the number of such events could increase over the years, and such events need to be supported by facilities, including car parks etc. • The proposed development actually reduces the floor area earmarked 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. And the 100 residential apartments may well impact the available public parking in the vicinity if the development does not provide adequate parking for its residents and their visitors.

Setting a precedent for the other side of Patteson Ave:

• If Council allows this development to exceed the Unitary Plan height limits, it will most likely set the precedent for excessive height limits for the rest of Mission Bay, foreshore and Tamaki Drive. • This precedent will create a visually unpleasant over-height wall of concrete between the beach and the community. • I would have imagined that the vision of the Unitary Plan was to maintain the beauty of our stunning coastline around Auckland City. Mission Bay is one of those stunning coastlines that draws tens of thousands of local residents, greater Auckland residents and tourists every year. • The reason people love Mission Bay is because it is so beautiful. A precedent that allows ugly, bulky, over-height buildings may over time change Mission Bay and Tamaki Drive to become a mini “Gold Coast” – which is downright ugly. The only thing beautiful about the Gold Coast is the white stretch of sandy beach and the sea! • The same developer owns the site across Patterson Ave. The developer proposes building a “gateway” to Mission Bay. This should be of deep concern, as it could very likely be that the developer will propose a similar monstrosity on that site as well, sometime in the future. So we could end up with 2 bulky ugly concrete monstrosities on both corners of Patterson Ave, flanking a large portion of the total length of Selwyn Reserve. • It is highly likely that if Council allows a precedent to exceed the stipulated building height in this case, then the next proposed development/s for the area could well exceed even the height of this development. Where will the limits be??

Integrity of the Unitary Plan:

• It goes without saying that if the integrity of the Unitary Plan is challenged in this case, then what is the point of having any plan or rules? • As stated above, the rules of the Plan should be strictly applied unless there are exceptional reasons – in this proposed development, there are NO exceptional reasons.

Traffic and parking implications:

• Tamaki Drive is already choked at peak hours and there are only 2 roads to get people to the city – Tamaki Drive and Kepa Road. How will Council address the increase in congestion that will result from the increased number of residents that this development proposes? • Parking is already a major issue around Mission Bay central. There is currently limited carparks in the central Mission Bay area. The proposed development will have 100 apartments, and if we assume that some residents will have more than 1 vehicle and will have visitors who also have vehicles, plus there will be people attending the cinema and using other amenities, then there may well be a shortfall of adequate parking provided by the development itself. Which means that other public carparks may be taken up, resulting in an even greater shortfall of public carparks in the area.

806 • I live at Nihill Crescent, and on beautiful days, during events and generally during summer holiday etc, my entire street is full of parked cars – this is the extent to which parking in the area is already insufficient and impacting local residents. This is likely to be exacerbated with the proposed development. • Marau Crescent is currently choked by parked cars on both sides leaving only room for single lane traffic, causing frustration for residents in the street.

Design of the development:

• The design of the proposed development is downright ugly! Square columns of cement with no character or taste. • The existing façade on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Ave is iconic to Mission Bay. There is no connection between the design and Mission Bay's character or history. • The rounded rectangles and circular windows of the proposed development have nothing to do with art deco and are a token gesture to try and make an essentially ugly building just slightly less ugly…

Wind impact:

• As a general rule, high buildings create strong wind funnelling between the buildings and the adjacent streets. • The wind report indicates that no modelling has been undertaken by the developer, but suggests that winds will likely increase. This is rather vague… • 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 section of Tamaki Drive has flooded many times in the past and is sure to flood again in the future. In fact, if we accept that global warming will raise sea levels, then flooding in this area is a given. • The proposed development is within the Council's Coastal Inundation zone and yet the plans include 2 basement levels plus 425m2 of retail space below sea level, which seems high risk. • Council should ensure that any development on this site and along Tamaki Drive takes into account potential flooding, and that ratepayers will not be made to pay for any measures to protect such developments from flooding.

807 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 10:46 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2588] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: Mission Bay Development submission - A Reeves.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: Andrew Edward Reeves

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 021821872

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 34A 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: see attachment

What are the reasons for your submission? see attachment

1 808 What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Reject 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: Mission Bay Development submission - A Reeves.docx

2 809 Submission from Andrew Reeves of 34A Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay, 1071

Re: Mission Bay Development (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)

Reasons for the submission:

Visual impact & height of the development:

• Some of the proposed buildings are significantly taller than the allowable height under the Unitary plan (up to 28m compared to the Unitary Plan limit of 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form). • The rules should only be waived under exceptional circumstances where the extra height of buildings will have a minor impact on the community – this development most certainly does not meet that criteria. There is no unique character or expression that this development represents. • The sheer height and bulkiness of the proposed development will dominate the visual horizon of Mission Bay from all vantage points. • The architecture of the development targets an intermediary between modern and “art deco” – certainly not anything that is outstanding or classical. • The layout of the suburb around central Mission Bay is in the form of a half amphitheatre. When you walk around the high ridges surrounding the central beach area (i.e. from Bastion Point, the top of Patterson Ave, Selwyn Ave) you are looking down into the base of the amphitheatre, which draws your vision to the beach itself, Selwyn Reserve, the huge trees lining the reserve and Rangitoto Island in the distance – this is an outstanding stage! This oversized development will destroy that stage - its sheer size and bulkiness will become the focal point and will dominate the area completely. • From the beach you look back into trees and integrated rise of the hills behind, and the low level buildings are obscured by the treeline. This massive development will provide a barrier to the rising hills behind. This will destroy the natural beauty of the foreshore and the character of the entire suburb. • The development site is immediately adjacent to residential areas, including single house zones and an historical character overlay. All buildings immediately to the east of the development are limited to 8m height. The buildings currently opposite the proposed development site on Patterson Ave are also low level. The proposed 20m-28m buildings will really stand out and dominate the surrounding area.

Loss of natural character and amenity value:

• People come to Mission Bay to escape the densely populated urban Auckland environment and relax in pleasant, natural surroundings on the beach and foreshore. • Under the Unitary Plan, which allows for the intensification of dwellings in the Auckland region, natural landscapes and stunning foreshores will become more and more valuable for the enjoyment, health and well-being of residents and visitors alike. Medium density housing should not be tolerated along the foreshore – specially that which deviates from the unitary plan. We need to presere what little is left of our beautiful natural spaces and beaches. These spaces are few and far between, so should be kept within the bounds of the council rules – not arbitrarily destroyed at the first opportunity. • This development will forever change natural character of Mission Bay, and will dominate the Pohutukawa and Norfolk pine skyline to become the dominant visual feature of the foreshore.

Loss of community facilities:

810 facilities or reasons for people to be drawn to the area. Only additional “housing”. Mission Bay should not become an apartment dominated landscape, at the detriment of reasons for visitors to be there. • Tourism is expected to continue to grow, and Mission Bay is arguably the most popular beach destination in the Auckland region. There has been a significant increase in tourists coming to the beach in the last decade – from all nations. Mission Bay should be able to support the demand for facilities for tourists, not residents., as the decrease in retail space will directly affect tourists, not locals. • Mission Bay also hosts a number of extremely popular public events, such as craft fairs, Round the Bays, triathlon events etc. It may well be that the number of such events could increase over the years, and such events need to be supported by facilities, including car parks etc. • The proposed development actually reduces the floor area earmarked 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. And the 100 residential apartments may well impact the available public parking in the vicinity if the development does not provide adequate parking for its residents and their visitors.

Setting a precedent for the other side of Patterson Ave:

• If Council allows this development to exceed the Unitary Plan height limits, it will most likely set the precedent for excessive height limits for the rest of Mission Bay, foreshore and Tamaki Drive – this is simply not viable. • This precedent will create a visually unpleasant over-height wall of concrete between the beach and the community, and with fewer facilities and poorly conceived parking solutions, it will just serve as a detriment to retail revenues and growth. • The Unitary Plan should maintain the beauty of our stunning coastline around Auckland City. Mission Bay is one of those stunning coastlines that draws tens of thousands of local residents and greater Auckland residents each year. The tens of thousands of international tourists view Mission Bay as a prime destination – this development will add no additional incentive or reward. • The reason people love Mission Bay is because it is so beautiful and such a departure from the concrete jungle a mere few kilometres away. A unitary override that allows ugly, bulky, over-height buildings will change Mission Bay and Tamaki Drive to become a mini “Gold Coast” – which will significantly devalue the area. The only thing beautiful about the Gold Coast is the white stretch of sandy beach and the sea – and there are fewer people visiting! • The same developer owns the site across Patterson Ave. The developer proposes building a “gateway” to Mission Bay. This should be of deep concern, as it could very likely be that the developer will propose a similar monstrosity on that site as well, sometime in the future. So we could end up with 2 bulky ugly concrete monstrosities on both corners of Patterson Ave, flanking a large portion of the total length of Selwyn Reserve. • It is highly likely that if Council allows a precedent to exceed the stipulated building height in this case, then the next proposed development/s for the area could well exceed even the height of this development. Where will the limits be??

Integrity of the Unitary Plan:

Traffic and parking implications:

811 • Tamaki Drive is already choked at peak hours and there are only 2 roads to get people to the city – Tamaki Drive and Kepa Road. How will Council address the increase in congestion that will result from the increased number of residents that this development proposes? • Parking is already a major issue around Mission Bay central. There is currently limited carparks in the central Mission Bay area. The proposed development will have 100 apartments, and if we assume that some residents will have more than 1 vehicle and will have visitors who also have vehicles, plus there will be people attending the cinema and using other amenities, then there may well be a shortfall of adequate parking provided by the development itself. Which means that other public carparks may be taken up, resulting in an even greater shortfall of public carparks in the area. • I live at Nihill Crescent, and on beautiful days, during events and generally during summer holiday etc, my entire street is full of parked cars – this is the extent to which parking in the area is already insufficient and impacting local residents. This is likely to be exacerbated with the proposed development. • Marau Crescent is currently choked by parked cars on both sides leaving only room for single lane traffic, causing frustration for residents in the street.

Design of the development:

• The design of the proposed development is certainly not “awe inspiring” and it lacks any character at all! • The existing façade on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patterson Ave is iconic to Mission Bay. There is no connection between the design and Mission Bay's character or history. • The rounded rectangles and circular windows of the proposed development have nothing to do with art deco and are a token gesture to try and make an essentially ugly building just slightly less ugly…

Wind impact:

Potential for flooding:

812 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2018 11:16 p.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2594] 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: Emma Instone

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 02108301954

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 68 Bay 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: Height

What are the reasons for your submission? This should be thrown out immediately. I accept change , but the developers are laughing in all our faces , but submitting any plans above the height limit. Please throw out immediately and ask they return only when they submit within the rules . This should be true for all over Auckland, by nig nipping this in the Bud you are just making it harder for yourselves , as developers all over Auckland will just push and push you guys. You are there to represent us the

1 813 people if Auckland , please do not be pushed around the bullies. Stand firm and make this a beautiful city , not just a get quick money making scheme fOr developers .

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Throw out this and any plans that do not stick to the rules. Don’t be pushed around by the bullies with all their expensive, way to HIGH plans. Let them know they will be wasteing their money everytime they submit designs outside the plans .

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:

2 814 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 12:16 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2597] Submission received on notified resource consent

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

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 Richard Morton

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0273798797

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 20 Ashby Ave 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: All aspects

What are the reasons for your submission? I believe the proposed building will greatly degrade the public amenity of the Mission Bay region. A location that is of great value to no only the people of the surrounding suburbs. Large numbers of visitors from greater Auckland, as

1 815 well as further afield; nationally and internationally, visit Mission Bay daily. The attraction for these people is the shore based Selwyn Reserve and the local eateries. These amenities are in no way going to be enhanced by the proposed development. In fact the amenities will be degraded. I believe that the proposed development will result in a reduction in the available space restaurants and bars. The excessive height of the building will tower above the Pohutakawa and Norfolk pines trees, which will alter the natural outlook visitors have from Mission Bay beach and the Selwyn reserve. Families and groups from diverse cultures flock to the above said area. This public amenity will be at risk of being degraded due to an overly high residential development being constructed. There is no benefit at all to most of the visitors as there is less space being allowed for eateries and public amenities I am also concerned about the appearance of the development The pictures rendered by the developer show a design of poor standard. The recently completed pavilion adjacent to the Mission house shows due respect to it neighbouring building whereas the new development does not enhance any of its neighbouring building or environmental features. The Garden Court flats, which are on the same block, have a high heritage protection order. The proposed building has been designed without any reference or regard to these neighbouring buildings. The height and bulk of this proposed development far exceeds the provisions ratified in the recently completed unitary plan. A document that was years in its consultation and production, with the purpose of accommodating the demands of a growing city. Public spaces and community amenities are paramount in a growing city and are highlighted in the unity plan. The value of a seaside suburb with hustling dining and entertainment areas is central to the focus and objectives of the unitary plan. The proposed development shows no regard to the greater community's benefit. The will be no enhancement above the currently available community amenities. There will be less space available for retail, restaurants and theatres. While the proposed development allows for a significant increase in residential space, I believe this will not go far to lessen the shortage of housing within the region. The confines of the Unitary plan has allowed plenty of scope for developers to increase residential density across the region. I do not think the guidance provided by the unitary plan needs to be so blatantly exceeded. There is plenty of scope to increase residential density even by working within the rules of the Unitary plan. The local environs of Mission Bay have very significant cultural value which is longstanding and well established history. Events of huge NZ historical significance have occurred within close proximity to this sight. The Mission house, which is close to 160 yrs old, is probably our city's most significant historical Building. Site of the Melanesia mission-house, The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi signing (The Kohimarama Conference).From the World War One Walsh brothers flying school, then as the birthplace of Air New Zealand. The proposed development in no way enhances or protects this national treasure.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? reject the proposed development 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:

2 816 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 12:16 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2598] 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: David George Whalley

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212016559

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 7 Pukenamu Road Rainbow Point Taupo 3330

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? As an Auckland ratepayer for over thirty years I contributed to the cost of the very thorough processes that led to the development of the Unitary Plan, a plan that had broad community input and support and that is intended a a blueprint for the development of Auckland. The application being made is for a flagrant breach of the height limits set, would result in buildings that would dominate Mission Bay and detract from its natural beauty. There is absolutely no justification for allowing such a monstrosity to be erected. Moreover it would set precedents for other applications for developments along Tamaki Drive including the rest of the Mission Bay waterfront, Kohi and St Heliers and would 1 817 weaken any attempt by Council to decline applications for noncomplying developments throughout Auckland. What is the point of having a Unitary Plan if we are just going to ignore it? Apart from the effect of the excessive height I have concerns regarding the proposals for basement developments. Only a few years ago I had to wade along the centre of the road from Kohi to Mission Bay through knee deep sea water. Since we know that sea levels are rising I hope that the Council will ensure that it will not become financially liable for defensive work or repairs resulting from flooding by seawater.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? The application must be declined in full. The applicant company should be left in no doubt that the development of the site must be in keeping with the unitary plan and that any future problems of inundation by seawater is not something that the Council will be financially responsible 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? No

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

Supporting information:

2 818 Quentin Budd

From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 1:31 AM To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2600] 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 Wardle

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0275612747

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 74 Melanesia 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: Height of Buildings Discretionary Approvals Process and criteria to be considered Environmental and aesthetic considerations

What are the reasons for your submission?

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? No relaxation of height and density constraints Prepare independent expert urban design report on proposals and give effect to recommendations Have Council prepare a specific urban development plan throughout the seafront of

1 819 Tamaki Drive and determine contextual implications of the proposals. Consider implications of precedent of discretionary and non discretionary approvals of this proposal on other seafront development proposals. Consider implications on water, wastewater, stormwater, transport services delivery and impacts on local residents Consider impacts on pedestrians Consider impacts on amenity value of facilities 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:

2 820 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 8:01 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2610] 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: Teresa Mary Porter

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 0212968509

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 27A Rangitoto Ave 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 height and bulk of the proposed development, and the aesthetic design

What are the reasons for your submission? The height and bulk of the development is significant, and will dominate the landscape for a considerable number of years. I have considered the impact from both the beach and the surrounding hills, and the height should be restricted

1 821 to that allowed under the unitary plan. The area does need some development but not to this extent, and the character of the suburb does not need to change so quickly. The design should by sympathetic to the Art Deco feel of the park, and the neighboring apartment block.

What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make? Deny development over the height currently permissible 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:

2 822 From: NotifiedResourceConsentSubmissionOnlineForm@donotreply.aucklandcouncil.gov t.nz Sent: Monday, 8 October 2018 8:01 a.m. To: Central RC Submissions Cc: [email protected] & Subject: [ID:2611] Submission received on notified resource consent Attachments: There is zero justification for ignoring the unitary plan height restrictions.docx

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: Erika Whittome

Organisation name:

Contact phone number: 3600139

Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: 105 Kupe 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: 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 1 823 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 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? Deny this application 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: There is zero justification for ignoring the unitary plan height restrictions.docx

2 824 Building Height Amenities Transport Heritage of architecture Heritage values Eco Values

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 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.

825 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.

826