Item 16 tabled documents:
FEEDBACK FROM THE ŌRĀKEI LOCAL
BOARD
ON A RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION
FOR A RETIREMENT VILLAGE AT 188-226 ST JOHNS RD AND 55 & 57 RIPON CRESCENT,
ST JOHNS, AUCKLAND.
Introduction:
Board responsibilities and operation
1. Although this application is being processed under the
Resource Management Act 1991, the Ōrākei Local Board notes that under
the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA), the Governing
Body before making a decision described in section 15(2)(c). must…
“consider any views and preferences
expressed by a local board, if the decision affects or may affect the
responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of
communities within its local board area”.
2.
Under section10 LGACA, the role of local boards, is set out as follows:
“A local board must be
established for each local board area for the purposes of—
(a) enabling democratic decision making by, and on behalf of,
communities within the local board area; and
(b) better enabling the purpose of local government to be
given effect to within the local board area.”
3. The
Purpose of local government under s 10(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 is
to
“(a) to enable democratic local
decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
(b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for
good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of
regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and
businesses.”
4. Should the matter
proceed to a hearing by commissioners, the Board requests the right to speak at
the hearing on the points below:
General
Comments about Large Scale Development Applications
5. Local
Boards across the region are facing challenges with ensuring developers comply
with the new generous provisions of the Unitary Plan. Some will naturally test
the Unitary Plan interpretations to give them the best commercial outcome.
The Unitary Plan sets out clear zoning and height regulations under section H4
(Mixed Housing Suburban) and H5 (Mixed Housing Urban). The challenge for commissioners,
if appointed, and the Council is when infringements are allowed, for example,
to exceed the stated regulated heights, a precedent is set for other developers
to then use to justify their future projects and proposals to this level, and thereby
further endorse the "contraventions".
6. The Ōrākei
Local Board advocates strongly for the integrity of the Unitary Plan to remain
and for the Council to ensure that serious infractions will not be permitted/approved.
What is decided and approved now in terms of zoning, height, height in relation
to boundary, and other aspects of the Plan will determine what can be accepted
in future.
7. Overall,
the Board is not opposed to new developments provided they fully comply with
all standards in the Unitary Plan. But the Board is opposed to infringement of
the Plan.
The Unitary Plan enables far more generous development opportunity
than the previous district plan. And therefore, the way applicants respond to
the Plan and the way planners assess infringements of it must also change.
8. Following on-going concern within the community, the
Ōrākei Local Board has advocated very strongly for the
Council’s planning department to process applications in a way to ensure
the development provisions set out in the Unitary Plan are treated as intended,
and not treated as flexible provisions or guidelines which can be exceeded.
9. In this
regard, the Ōrākei Local Board has requested greater evidential
standards, particularly for any high-rise developments in residential areas. In
December 2017 it resolved:
a)
That the Director of Regulatory Services
be requested to ensure that planning officers processing planning consents irrespective of size and type of application, exercise their statutory powers to check
all evidentiary information provided by applicants for planning consents,
including requesting any further information such as a theodolite report to ensure the
following information is provided:
1) Clear spot levels at crucial points around the
relevant section i.e. on the boundary adjacent to the proposed building’s
edge, and around the proposed building’s footprint.
2) Overall spot levels to give an accurate measure for
any cut and fill that may take place.
3) Existing boundary lines in relation to existing
fencing structures.
4) All existing structures and their floor levels and
ridge line levels.
5) Clear measures from the boundary line to the proposed buildings on all
sides and at the crucial points.
b) That
a copy of resolution a) be circulated to all local boards.
OR/2017/244
Concerns
about this Application
10. The proposed development, principally fronting St Johns Road, with
alternative access from Ripon Crescent, includes basement car parking,
landscaping, and six buildings ranging from 2 to 7 storeys tall. The
residential units are a combination of care-based and independent apartments.
The development includes communal indoor and outdoor amenities, and 293 car
parking spaces.
11. Resource consent is required for several aspects of the
proposal, including exceeding Unitary Plan height limits, setback requirements,
removal of trees and part of a Significant Ecological Area.
Impact on Amenity and Ecological Values
St Johns Bush and SEA
12. The Ōrākei Local Board area is one of the most
central and coastal-boarded areas located on the Auckland isthmus with a number
of dominant ridgelines and arterial routes of which St Johns Road is one. The area
also retains some of the last large, intact bush reserves in central Auckland
– such as Kepa Bush and St Johns Bush.
13. The Urban Design Assessment report states at page 7:
“This part of the site is contained in an
irregularly sided ‘bulge’ that pushes into a wider area of
established bush and forms the boundary between St Johns College and St Johns
Bush reserve. Trees in the reserve vary in height. Mature specimens are
commonly 15m or taller (a Significant Ecological Area has been identified
within the Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part in this part of the
site).”
14. The Significant Ecological Area (SEA) is clearly important
enough for it to have been established by Auckland City Council and very
recently confirmed in the Unitary Plan, including over part of the
applicant’s site. As part of the "bulge" is within the SEA, the
Boards’ view is that it should not be built on at all.
15. St Johns Bush lies on the north side of the
centuries old Maori track that once linked the settlements between the Queen
Street valley and the Tamaki River. The streams within the Bush flow down
to a tidal inlet known today as Pourewa Creek, or originally Te Pourewa. When
Bishop George Augustus Selwyn and his wife Sarah took over the St Johns College
site it was mainly a wilderness of scrub, fern and secondary growth. At an
early stage they set aside a steep-sided valley that they called the Glen which
had a remnant of native bush and set about regenerating the Glen by planting
fresh species and encouraging the spread of ponga and tree ferns. Nearly 2,000
ngaio trees were planted for windbreaks and as a shelter belt. The
Selwyns were helped by Henry William Appleyard (1813-1846), architect and
landscape designer who worked with Mrs Selwyn in designing the bush layout.
16. The bush was maintained until well into the
twentieth century. Large oaks were planted. In December 2002, after campaigning
by local residents led by The Friends of St Johns Bush and the former Eastern
Bays Community Board, the Auckland City Council bought from the St Johns Trust
the central three hectares and later two lots on the periphery to form the 5ha St
Johns Bush.
17. The reserve is an important ecological
sanctuary with mature and regenerating groves of native trees, forming a vital
part of the extensive network of public reserves across the City. It has 160
identified different species of plants, including grasses, shrubs and trees. It
is a valuable habitat and corridor for fish and birds.
18. The Board considers that the effect of the proposed
development on the applicant’s site and on St Johns Bush will be more
than minor. In this regard, ecological expert Dr Ruud Kleinpaste has stated:
"That particular field
[i.e. the applicant site] is the source for the stream which goes through the
bush; its quality has always been pretty good: there were koura and whitebait
spawning sites (Banded kokopu). There will be no doubt that building activity
and future hard surfaces will totally put an end to that stream’s
quality. It is one of the few urban places in AKL [sic] where banded kokopu
breeds.”
19. Over
the years the Board has invested considerably in supporting community groups to
continue and extend ecological restoration programmes in St Johns Bush as well
as Kepa Bush (on the other side of the Pourewa Valley catchment). The
well-being of our community, our ecology and amenity may not be best-served by
the development proposals of the applicant, especially where it affects the
bush areas and water catchment.
20. The Bioresearches –
Ecological Assessment report dated October 2017 states at page 1:
“The ecological assessment of
the effects of the project has been refined following a decision by Summerset
to substantially alter the management of stormwater such that stormwater
will now be directed to an existing connection at Rutherford Terrace. Stormwater
effects on the adjacent St Johns Bush will now be less than minor due to peak
flow attenuation structures being constructed on the Summerset site which will
ensure that even during a 100-year average recurrence interval (ARI) storm
event the increase in stormwater flows to the reserve will be negligible (see
S92 Response from Riley Consultants).”
21. Given the delicate ecosystems
in St Johns Bush, the Board asks for clarity about how much, if any, stormwater
flows through to the St Johns Bush vicinity and why it is being considered
negligible and therefore to have a less than minor effect from the proposed
development.
22. It needs to be demonstrated that the health
of the bush which has evolved in response to the current/seasonal low and high
water stormwater flows will not be detrimentally affected by the change in
stormwater management through this area as proposed by the application.
Diverting stormwater to Rutherford Terrace should seek to maintain current
flows towards St Johns Bush and only divert the added stormwater volumes which
need to be managed as a result of this change in land use (roof tops, hard
surfacing etc).
23. Mitigation of the effects to St Johns Bush
caused by changes to stormwater flows could be created to establish a buffer
zone between the proposed development and St Johns Bush. A series of ponds with
rocks designed to hold stormwater runoff during heavy weather events, would
then release water to the bush in a measured way. The site at 63 Ripon
Crescent has been purchased by the developer. This site could well become
a community asset of man-made ponds, lined with rocks to feed into the
bush. This would create a buffer zone to help manage stormwater flows
from the proposed Summerset Development to St Johns Bush and Pourewa Valley
Vegetation Management of the Applicant Site
24. The Board notes that the Greenscene reports
focuses on trees and not other subcanopy vegetation such as shrubs and herbs
that make up this important remnant. The Bioresearchers Group report provides
an assessment of the ecological value of the bush remnant both inside and
outside the SEA. The application seeks to remove 280sq.m of the remnant from
within the SEA.
25. The Ōrākei Local Board is
strongly opposed to the removal of any native vegetation from the SEA, and even
believes that the SEA should be extended to cover Area 2 identified in Figure 2
of the Bioresearchers Group report as: Mature native trees and understorey.
Further, the Board does not support the removal
of mature native and exotic trees, such as the oaks, from the site and any
design of and construction of the site should work around trees.
Height,
height in relation to boundary, set back and shading
26. The
Board is most concerned about significant height infringements in the
application and the negative affect of these on community well-being. The
community has reason to expect a built environment of no more than three
stories in this MHU Zone area.
Objective 2
of the MHU zone states:
“Development
is in keeping with the neighbourhood’s planned urban built character of predominantly
three-storey buildings, in a variety of forms and surrounded by open
space”.
27. The Board has sourced and includes
this summary table from an immediate neighbour
of the subject site which clearly demonstrates the level of infringements being
sought:
|
|
Proposed
Height
|
Infringement
|
Number
of storeys
|
|
Building
A
|
14.7m
|
3.73m
Infringes over entire
footprint
|
3 storeys
|
|
Building
B
|
15m
|
4.15m
Infringes over entire
footprint
|
3 (4 storeys)
This building approaches
4-storeys in real height due to a retained parking podium facing the western
boundary
|
|
Building
C
|
13m
|
2.82m
|
3-4 storeys
|
|
Building
D
|
19.8m
|
8.8m
Infringes over entire
footprint
|
5 storeys
|
|
Building
E
|
22.65m
|
11.65m
Infringes over entire
footprint
|
6 storeys
|
|
Building
F
|
24.15m
|
13.15m
Infringes over entire
footprint
|
7 storeys (this is
actually up to 8-storeys in height)
|
|
Building
G
(Suburban
zone)
|
11.45m
|
3.4m
Infringes 8m building
height under Mixed Housing Suburban Zone
|
2-3 storeys
|
28. It is
clear that five of the seven buildings, B, C, D, E and F, will exceed 3
storeys. This will have a significant adverse effect on the social,
environmental, economic and amenity values of the local community.
29. The
Board notes some extracts from the Urban Design Assessment report which highlight adverse effects from
height, height in relation to boundary, shading, sub-optimal set back of
buildings and so on below:
Pages 15-16
“Building A is proposed to contravene the maximum
building height and height in relation to boundary rules applying to the Mixed
Housing Suburban Zoned Summerset St Johns Village properties west of the site
(relating to a proposed roof projection). The height contravention relates to
non-habitable roof space. The height contravention is proposed to be almost 4m
in places.
Building B is proposed to contravene the maximum building
height and height in relation to boundary rules applying to the Mixed Housing
Suburban1 zoned properties west of the site (relating to the
roof form and part of a balcony). It is noted that this building
approaches 4-storeys in real height due to a retained parking podium
facing the western boundary. The height contravention is proposed to be
slightly more than 4m in places.
Building C is proposed to contravene the maximum building
height and height in relation to boundary rules applying to the Mixed Housing
Suburban zones properties west and north of the site (relating almost
entirely to non-habitable roof forms). This building is 4-storeys in
total height in places, however this has been achieved by way of
excavation below the natural ground level. The height contravention is
proposed to be almost 2m in places.
Building D is proposed to contravene the maximum building
height and height in relation to boundary rules applying to the Mixed Housing
Suburban zoned school site to the east. The height contravention is
proposed to be almost 9m in places.
Building E is proposed to contravene the maximum building
height and height in relation to boundary rules applying to the Mixed Housing
Suburban zoned school site to the east (the HiRB rule does not apply to
the adjacent reserve due to rule H5.6.5.2.). The height contravention is
proposed to be slightly more than 11.5m in places.
Building F is proposed to contravene the maximum building
height and height in relation to boundary rules applying to the Mixed Housing
Suburban zoned properties to the north (the HiRB rule does not apply to the
adjacent reserve due to rule H5.6.5.2.). The height contravention is proposed
to be slightly more than 13min places.
Building G is proposed to contravene the maximum building
height and height in relation to boundary rules applying to the Mixed Housing
Suburban zoned properties to the west. The height contravention is
proposed to be almost 2.5m in places.
A number of contraventions to the AUP: OP outlook requirements and
outdoor living space requirements are also proposed. “
30. The Board is particularly concerned about Mr Munro’s
commentary below for buildings D and G which will have a greater impact on the
public realm due to their proposed heights and proximity to St Johns Road (a
busy arterial road but with low height residential buildings and to Ripon
Crescent (a generally quiet, one storeyed, residential neighbourhood).
31. Mr Munro comments on these two buildings are as follows:
“However, it is noted that the decision to promote the
height sought for Building D at St Johns Road and Building F towards Ripon
Crescent, does result in a juxtaposition requiring more detailed analysis,
including in terms of the MHU policy framework that emphasizes
“predominantly three storeys”. And,
“It would have been preferable for building “G”
to be more convincingly expressed as a 2-storey building, at least at
the street frontage, and although much smaller than the other buildings
proposed, it would still be larger than any existing building along Ripon
Crescent. However, given that only the narrow end of a single building is
proposed at this interface with the majority of the development set well back
and away from this frontage, I do not consider that any adverse effects on
“planned suburban character” or the existing streetscape character
would be more than minor.”
32. The Board agrees with this analysis, but not with his
conclusion that “any adverse effects on “planned suburban
character” or the existing streetscape character would be more than minor.”
Further criticism of Building D is made by Mr Munro on Pages22,
23, 24. From this assessment by a prominent Urban Designer, the Board concludes
that Building D is the most problematic in the application, due to its height,
bulk, its visual dominance over the public realm and its overall design which
is completely incompatible with its location and setting.
Page 20 – northern boundary
“Due to separation distance and that most
properties north of the site have their own principal outlook spaces
orientated to the north, I do not consider that any other party north of the
subject site is likely to be adversely affected by Building F (although
it will be clearly visible to many).
The building will not comply with height in relation to boundary
and maximum height controls, nor the outlook space requirements relative to 53
Ripon Crescent.”
33. The Ōrākei local Board does not agree with these
comments and believes that the properties to the north of the site will be
adversely affected and it should not be assumed or implied that residents will
spend more time in the yards to the north of their dwellings. Some properties
have gardens and courtyards; one even has a swimming pool on the
south side of their dwellings and so residents do, and will continue to, make
full use and have enjoyment of their whole property.
34. Further the elevation from Ripon Crescent shows a dramatic
change to the neighbourhood’s built character and amenity, as viewed from
the public realm of the street, due to the infringements of the height in
relation to boundary and height controls.
“However, if the access was a primary
access for goods and service deliveries, staff access and visitor entry
serving the whole development, then this could create an inappropriate change
in Ripon Crescent's quiet residential qualities. For this reason, it is
recommended that management techniques be incorporated that do not publicise or
advertise the Ripon Crescent access
... although overall, I preferred a uniform 12m setback to
minimise, overall, the likelihood of nuisance effects on neighbours.”
35. The
Board strongly objects to Ripon Crescent being the primary access for the
reason given that increasing vehicle movements would create a significant and
inappropriate intrusion to this residential street which would have more than
minor effects on the well-being of residents and their continued enjoyment the
amenity of the area.
36. The
Board is concerned that "management techniques be incorporated that do not
publicise or advertise the Ripon Crescent access" although this access is
being promoted.
“The third storey (and partial fourth at the point of the
site’s bench) warrant further scrutiny. I consider that the setback is
sufficient to manage any visual privacy or acoustic amenity effects on
neighbours, however the design of the roof form is perhaps unnecessarily
assertive, especially in the context of the falling landform, where the
slope makes the subject site and proposed buildings seem even taller than they
are to neighbours. I would prefer that the gable roof forms facing external
boundaries be modified so as to introduce hipped ends.”
“Buildings D and F are the most problematic,
even taking into account the setbacks and design treatments proposed. I
consider that Building D is intentionally prominent so as to achieve a
sense of address to St Johns Road and an intentionally urban character.”
Page 23
However, the scale of Building D will result in adverse effects
on the street. While it will effectively signpost the development, add
interest to the site and enhance passive surveillance, it will also add
shadowing and building dominance effects that would in my view be minor (the
existing tree screen, proposed landscaping, façade articulation and
quality, and boundary setback are together sufficient to limit adverse effects
at that magnitude).
37. The
Board seeks elaboration on what the adverse effects are in the statement:
"limit adverse effects of that magnitude".
Page 24
I do not consider that the eastern elevation of buildings D, E and
F is sufficiently successful in terms of views from further afield than St Johns
College. Although it is unlikely that viewers would be able to see the full
length or height of the buildings, their expression as three connected
buildings, rather than one long building, is not convincing. In my
opinion, the singular mass that would be seen (particularly the upper levels of
the buildings being composed of a similar material and colour) is excessive
and inappropriate.
38. The Board agrees with these Urban Design comments.
Impact of
Traffic on Meadowbank and the Wider Community:
39. Traffic
along the local arterial routes of St Johns Road and Kohimarama Road is
increasing and capacity is being stretched; management of these roads continues
to be a challenge. Building a 344-unit complex with an integrated 24/7 business
activity and staff and servicing requirements in this largely residential area
will more likely create significant additional traffic movements in this area,
and place further demands on the already congested St Johns Road artery. The
Board’s view is that considerable increases in traffic movements will adversely
impact the surrounding residential neighbourhoods in Meadowbank, such as on Ripon
Crescent, Rutherford Terrace and Ipswich Place.
40. The
Board in particular notes the Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd report 26
October 2017, and is concerned about the following:
“Council’s
Traffic Engineer has assessed the application.
Key issues
which have been raised are as follows:
1.
No reference has been made to consultation with Auckland
Transport. Please outline any consultation undertaken, in particular:
·
The road marking changes on St Johns Road which will require the
approval of Auckland Transport and will be subject to the resolution process
·
The provision of a flush median on St Johns Road to assist with
the right turn movements to and from the site which would require the approval
of Auckland Transport.”
And,
“The
details of the construction stages have not yet been determined, and this is a
matter that will be fully dealt with through the normal Construction
Traffic Management Plan, which should be a condition of resource consent.”
41. The Board is concerned about
effects over a long period during the construction of the development which
will have a significant impact on local residents and on traffic flows.
Analysis of and consultation with Auckland Transport must be compulsory and a
traffic management plan, as recommended by the traffic planning consultant, is
essential.
The Board
concurs that a Construction Traffic Management Plan is required and should
be a condition of any consent.
“St
Johns Road is a busy arterial with approx. 18,000vpd (in 2015) and shows
significant growth i.e. 5% per annum over the last 3 years. Also,
there are numerous other developments further east (like Auckland
University East Tamaki Campus, intensification of Glen Innes area etc) which
will contribute to significant traffic and public transport growth in
the coming year.”
“As
expected, the results show that delays would increase as a result of adding
village traffic to the right turn exit from Ipswich Place,
but that movement would still operate within capacity.”
42. The phrase "within
capacity" needs to be defined. The analysis of the integrated Truman
Street and Ipswich Place intersections needs more detail. Issues such as
bottlenecks, wait times, flow of heavy vehicles and traffic, impact on public
transport routes need to be very carefully considered in the analysis.
43. The Board understands further
discussions with traffic engineers have taken place and there is a proposal to
make access in and out of the St Johns Road entrance “left turn
only.” The Board has mixed views on this and suggests that a roundabout
could also manage this traffic circulation.
44. The Board is currently advocating
to Auckland Transport and the Governing Body for budget in the Long Term Plan
for a walking and cycling link from Gowing Drive to the Glen Innes to Tamaki
Drive shared pathway. One of the key considerations and drivers for this
initiative was that it would remove vehicles and requisite trips off St Johns
and Kohimarama arterial roads and create an access way for shared path users
and for St Thomas’s School and Selwyn College students. The latter could
save up to 600 vehicle trips on the St Johns Road and Kohimarama Road arterial
roads. This development proposal potentially compromises these benefits for our
community. We now face the challenge of approximate 2.6 vehicles per day
– per unit to utilise the St Johns Road arterial route. This could result
in additional 780 vehicles on the road – 2.6 x 300 units
(conservatively).
Planning Objectives
and Cumulative effects of the Multiple Infringements:
45. Considerable
value is placed by the local community on mitigating adverse effects from
activities such as height, stormwater management and intensification, and the cumulative
effects from resource management 'creep' of infringing developments. The
Board’s view is that if infringements are allowed above the stated
regulated heights a precedent is set for other developers to advocate and
justify their future projects and proposals to this level.
46. As
already stated, the Unitary Plan sets out clear zoning and height regulations
under section H4 (Mixed Housing Suburban) and H5 (Mixed Housing Urban). The
Ōrākei Local Board advocates strongly for developments to comply with
those standards in order to retain cumulative integrity of development under
the Unitary Plan.
47. The
Board has successfully advocated for a precautionary approach regarding other nearby
high-rise developments. For example in 2017, Commissioners agreed with the
Board’s views regarding the proposed Todd Property development of an
apartment complex in Stonefields which would have exceeded the Unitary
Plan’s height limits and have a negative impact on the surrounding area
and the Stonefields Heritage Trail. The Commissioners rejected the application
to exceed height limits along the southern perimeter of Stonefields.
48. The
Ōrākei Local Board’s view is that this development must be
considered with the cumulative development activity in the overall area and the
consequent impact on our communities. This means our communities are receiving
significant change to their built environment. There are a number of
major developments, proposed and underway, in the Ōrākei Local
Board’s area. These include:
o
Housing NZ and SHA developments in Meadowbank
o
Ōrākei Point – Ōrākei Village
o
Kepa Road apartments
o
Caughey Preston – Upland Road
o
Corran School – Remuera Road
o
Pukerangi Crescent – Ellerslie
o
Waimarie Street - St Heliers (another proposed retirement village
proposed).
Conclusion
49. Given
the number of and significant infringements proposed with this development, the
Ōrākei Local Board does not support the proposed development as
submitted for the reasons set out in this paper. However, the Board would not
necessarily be opposed if the development fully complies with all the standards
in the Unitary Plan.
50. What the Ōrākei Local Board seeks:
1.
To decline the application in its entirety
2.
If the recommendation is to approve the application, the following
should be required:
a.
that no development occur within 10m of the SEA, and no native
vegetation be removed from within the SEA,
b.
That the forest ecosystem within St Johns Bush and the SEA remain
in good health by ensuring that changes to the current stormwater management
system that flows through into the St Johns Bush and waterway and from there
into the Pourewa Valley catchment do not result in any reduction of flows
through these areas,
c.
That substantial trees, such as the oaks and karaka trees, are
retained on the applicant property,
d.
That Buildings D and G are substantially lowered and reduced in
bulk to be more in keeping with the residential character of neighbourhoods in
St Johns Road and Ripon Crescent,
e.
Recessive colours and glazing be incorporated to minimise negative
visual impact of the buildings, and
f.
The applicant should work with Auckland Transport to provide a
full technical analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposal, in particular,
of turning in and out of the site, including consideration of a roundabout.
51. This submission was endorsed by the Ōrākei
Local Board at its meeting held on 15 February 2018.
C. R. J. Davis
Chairman
Ōrākei Local Board.
FEEDBACK FROM THE ŌRĀKEI LOCAL BOARD ON THE
AUCKLAND COUNCIL PROPOSAL TO SCHEDULE SPOONER COTTAGE (THE ANCHORAGE), 347 TĀMAKI
DRIVE, ST HELIERS, UNDER PLAN CHANGE 7 TO THE UNITARY PLAN
(1)
In 1894, Captain Charles Spooner
bought land on which the cottage sits and between 1894 and 1898
he constructed this cottage on the then foreshore as a holiday home.
Following various property transactions following Spooner's death in 1907, and
around 1929 the then owner erected a small garage/service station in front of the
cottage, which somewhat coincided with the construction of Tāmaki Drive.
In the early 1950s the garage was replaced with a two-storey building, and the
Spooner Cottage was converted to two flats. When the garage operation closed
and that building started to have different uses, no recognition was given
to the heritage value of Spooner Cottage; it being merely referred to on
developers' plans as simply two flats. The former Eastern Bays Community
Board at that time sought Council protection for the Cottage, and only
succeeded in having a protective bollard put in to protect the corner of the
Cottage from vehicles using the narrow driveway to access the rear
carparking area on the site.
(2)
It is noticeable that little has been
done to protect and restore the Cottage over the years. Although it has little
visibility from Tāmaki Drive, it can be seen looking down from
Auckland Road. The cottage nonetheless has a rarity value within its
local context. It is timely that one of the few remaining buildings with
considerable historic heritage significance in the eastern suburbs and
particularly in St Heliers, is protected.
(3)
Accordingly, the Ōrākei Local
Board supports Plan Change 7 to include the Spooner Cottage (formerly The
Anchorage) with a Category B classification in the Auckland Council's
Unitary Plan.
(4)
This feedback was endorsed by the
Ōrākei Local Board at its meeting held on 15 February 2018.
C.R.J. Davis
Chairman
Ōrākei Local Board
Item 22 tabled
document:
