An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expert consenting panel has today declined Box Property Investments Limited’s application for resource consent to build and subdivide 70 dwellings at a site on Sandspit Road and Reydon Place in Cockle Bay.
The project, named Quarterdeck, had attracted opposition from various members of the local community including the Cockle Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association (CBRRA) and Christopher Luxon, who when he publicly spoke out against the plan in mid-2020 was the National Party’s Botany candidate.
“Developments like this place major pressure on roading, traffic and parking, but they also place immense pressure on supporting infrastructure like the three waters – drinking water, storm water, and wastewater, Luxon said.
“These systems were often designed many years ago and, with infill housing, are already at breaking point and are simply not able to take on the extra load that a large development with many more residents and bathrooms creates.”
CBRRA chairperson Laurie Slee previously told the Times: “We are very concerned about the environmental impacts.
“The site is contaminated with asbestos and petroleum products.
“There’s a whole series of environmental issues, which were touched on by Forest and Bird in their submission.
“We’re very concerned with school safety and the traffic.”
The decision of the EPA panel states the proposed development consists of three four-storey apartment buildings up to 13.8m high containing 58 residential units and 12 two-storey terraced houses up to 7.5m high in two blocks.
“It includes associated parking and access including 13 open air communal car parks for the terraced houses and 102 basement car parks for the apartments, and communal recreation areas.
“The site is located near to recreational reserves, shops, and schools and other services and facilities near-by.”
Under “positive effects (Housing choice; economic/employment benefits)” in the decision document, it states: “The project would provide for additional housing capacity and choice of housing type at Cockle Bay.
“It would remediate a presently unsightly site at 30 and 40 Sandspit Road and the landscaping, both on site and on the street frontages, would improve the amenity for both residents and the wider community.
“It would provide significant employment during the construction period.”
The panel considered the scale and intensity of the project to be a key factor requiring consideration in the case.
The document canvases issues including stormwater, the character of nearby housing, and privacy and sun access for neighbours, among others.
“The project will significantly impact the existing experience (character) for residents opposite to the site to the west of Sandspit Road, including Howick College and to Cockle Bay School to the north, such that the character of their environment will change.”
It ends by stating the panel concluded the project doesn’t meet the sustainable management purpose in the Covid-19 Recovery [Fast Track Consenting] Act 2020, “particularly given the scale and dominance of the apartment buildings in its SHZ (residential single house zone) context and suburban location”
“Accordingly, consent is declined.”
Following the release of the decision, Slee says: “At this stage CBRRA would simply say that they are really pleased on behalf of all the local residents that the application has been declined, and that, leaving aside all the arguments about wastewater, sewage, traffic and other things, the character of the area will not be destroyed by an inappropriately located development.”
Howick Local Board chairperson Damian Light says it’s been a “long, complex process and we’re pleased to see a positive outcome, particularly for locals who have strongly opposed the proposal”.
“It appears the expert consenting panel agreed with our comments that this level of development was not appropriate within the single house zone.
“This is consistent with our advocacy for adequate infrastructure to be in place before any housing intensification is approved.
“The Howick Local Board recognises the need for housing, especially more affordable housing, but this should not be at the cost of overloading systems that are already struggling to cope.”
