AMP's tower proposal on the Auckland waterfront was tailored to meet special planning rules for the harbour edge, the High Court at Auckland heard yesterday.
Lawyers for the property company cited expert affidavits arguing that the 140m tower was sensitive to its surroundings and would benefit the waterfront area.
Property developer Andrew Krukziener is challenging the Auckland City Council's decision in May last year to spare the development from public submissions.
Mr Krukziener is part-owner of the No 1 Queen St complex, across the road from AMP's site on the corner of Quay St and Lower Albert St.
For AMP, Derek Nolan said that in sparing notification, the council decided that No 1 Queen St was not an affected party and its written approval was not required.
Mr Krukziener argued that the tower would have a significant dominating effect on the waterfront area, Mr Nolan said. But the proposal was deliberately designed to meet a special height plane rule introduced by the council for the area.
The tower was triangular in cross-section to preserve views from AMP's Quay Tower building, behind the site, and it covered only a third of the site.
Landscape architect Rachel de Lambert said in an affidavit that the proposal was more desirable and had less visual bulk than a potential development which complied fully with the planning rules.
Mr Nolan cited further expert evidence in arguing that tall buildings need not, in themselves, have a significant impact on the harbour edge.
The council had a number of reasons for considering that any incremental effects on Mr Krukziener's building were minimal and that requiring approval from No 1 Queen St was unreasonable.
Mary Peters, for AMP, said the consequences of quashing the resource consent subsequently granted for the development would far outweigh any impact on No 1 Queen St. Work was advanced on the site and tenancies had been agreed.
Mark Cooper, QC, in reply for Mr Krukziener, said the council should have acted on a legal letter from No 1 Queen Ltd, received after its decision, outlining concerns about the proposal.
Justice Sir David Tompkins reserved his decision when the three-day hearing ended yesterday.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.