How to make a submission – Mission Bay development
As I am sure you all know by now, submissions on the Mission Bay 8 storey development are due in by Wednesday 10 October.
We are strongly 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.
If you also oppose this proposal, please make a submission to the Council. We offer some advice on how you can do that below. Note that this is only guidance; you can obviously enter whatever you want, and you may well have different priorities to us.
1. Click on this link to open the Council submission form.
2. Follow the instructions until you get to 'Your Submission Details Step 3 of 3'.
At that point the following may help you understand what goes where and the sort of points you might want to make.
– In the box labelled ‘Specify the aspects of the application you are submitting on’, enter
- I object to the whole of the Application
– In the box labelled ‘What are the reasons for your submission?’
We have listed a selection of concerns that have been raised. You may wish to use this list as a check to see what issues you are most concerned about, and how you might express those concerns. Please use your own words. There is no need to enter all the points, just those that concern you the most. If you prefer, at the bottom of this page there is the facility to upload a document rather than typing your points into the boxes.
- The allowable height under the Unitary plan is 16m with a 2m allowance for roof form.
- This development is up to 28m.
- This is way over the allowable height.
- Rules should only be waived where there are exceptional circumstances that mean extra height won’t cause more than a minor impact on the community.
- This building is way too tall and bulky for Mission Bay.
- The development dominates its surroundings. This dominance undermines the character of the Mission Bay foreshore and the entire suburb.
- Mission Bay is an amphitheatre, with the beach, Selwyn Reserve and the pohutukawa as the stage, and the sea, Bean Rock and Rangitoto as the backdrop. An amphitheatre does not need a tall building to act as a focal point; the foreshore already serves this function.
- Inserting a tall building in front of the ‘stage’ undermines the natural character of the entire suburb
- The site is immediately adjacent to residential areas, including single house zone and an historical character overlay. All buildings to the east of the development are limited to 8m, so that 20m-28m buildings will really stand out and dominate the surrounding area even more.
Loss of natural character and amenity value
- People come to Mission Bay to escape the urban environment and relax in pleasant natural surroundings on the beach and foreshore.
- This development will destroy that natural character by intruding into the outlook from everywhere on the beach and reserve.
- It will dominate the pohutukawa and even the Norfolk pine to become the dominant visual feature of the foreshore.
Loss of community facilities
- Mission Bay is expected to grow. The Local Centre zone is expected to provide local facilities to support that growth.
- This development reduces the floor area for hospitality and retail by a substantial amount, undermining the intent of the zone and reducing the level of facilities to local residents and visitors.
Setting a precedent
- If the arguments for extra height are accepted here, then it will set a precedent for those same arguments being used successfully all the way along Tamaki Drive and Mission Bay, ultimately creating an over-height wall between the beach and the community.
- Surely this was not what the Unitary Plan envisioned.
- The same developer owns the site across Patteson Ave. He claims he is building a gateway to Mission Bay. Gates have 2 posts, so he could propose another 8 storey building on that site.
Integrity of the Unitary Plan
- What is the point of having a Unitary Plan if we are just going to ignore the rules?
- The rules should be applied unless there are exceptional reasons. After reading the Applicant’s documents, I can’t see any exceptional reasons at all.
- Everywhere in Mission Bay, the eye is drawn to the foreshore strip. This contains the beach, the reserve, the fountain, the Melanesian Mission historic buildings, and the row of pohutukawa.
- If this development goes ahead, the eye will be drawn to this set of buildings.
- This will replace the current natural character focus with a new urban focus, destroying Mission Bay’s unique character.
- The commercial area exists to support people using the foreshore, not to destroy the appeal of the foreshore
- Marau Cres is already choked. With parking on both sides, there is only room for single lane traffic, leading to frequent delays and arguments
- No connections between the design and Mission Bay’s character or history
- The rounded rectangles and circular windows have nothing to do with art deco, but date back to the 1980’s
- The existing façade on the corner of Tamaki Drive and Patteson Ave is iconic to Mission Bay
- High buildings always result in higher winds.
- The wind report indicates no modelling has been undertaken but suggests winds will increase based on experience. I find little comfort in that.
- The public plaza area on Level 1 is likely to be subject to severe winds funnelling through the narrow openings between buildings, making the plaza a very unpleasant place in the wind.
Potential for flooding
- This area has flooded in the past and will again in the future
- Totally within the Council’s Coastal Inundation zone and yet has 2 basement levels plus 425m2 of retail below sea level
- Worried that cost to protect from flooding will eventually fall on ratepayers
– In the box labelled ‘What decisions and amendments would you like the council to make?’, enter
- Decline the application in full
– Where it asks whether you want to attend a hearing, if you are unsure, answer 'Yes'.
This will retain flexibility for later. You can always decline later if you don't want to.
– Where it asks whether you would consider a joint case with others, answer 'Yes'
Again, this retains flexibility later.
3. Click 'Finish' and you are done