Impact of tower left to AMP's discretion

By GEOFF CUMMING

Auckland City councillors had only AMP's word to go on when they accepted that its new waterfront skyscraper would have no impact on a neighbour.

In May last year, a council subcommittee decided that AMP's proposed tower on the corner of Quay St and Albert St would have little or no environmental effects on No 1 Queen St, owned by Krukziener Properties, on the next block.

Krukziener knew nothing about the planning fixtures subcommittee's meeting and was not there to counter AMP's arguments about No 1 Queen St (the former Air New Zealand building, now named HSBC).

Instead, the subcommittee had AMP's version of Krukziener's concerns and a legal opinion which AMP supplied.

They argued that any adverse effects on No 1 Queen St were de minimus (minimal).

Krukziener property manager Daniel Henderson says AMP documents understated his company's concerns, which included dust, vibration and smell during construction as well as the building's aesthetics.

His company is now challenging the resource consent process in the High Court.

Council planning manager John Duthie says the meeting was not a hearing and the council was not obliged to invite outside parties.

But the issue was critical to the subcommittee's decision not to notify the proposed 34-level tower, which did not comply with council planning rules, for public comment.

One of the few ways a non-complying proposal can escape notification under the Resource Management Act is if the applicants obtain the written approval of all affected parties identified by the council.

The subcommittee made AMP obtain written consents from just two neighbours - Westfield Group, owner of the Downtown shopping centre, and CDL Holdings, operator of the Copthorne Hotel.

It also rejected the advice of council senior planner John Stoupe that the council could not determine, to the requirements of the act, other parties which might be adversely affected.

The subcommittee's acceptance of the AMP-supplied legal advice is reflected in the wording of one of its resolutions: "... the effect on any other party (if any) is de minimus and it would be unreasonable for the council to require their consents."

The legal opinion from top planning lawyer Derek Nolan of Russell McVeagh was dated May 25 - a day before the subcommittee met.

Ironically, lawyers for Krukziener wrote to the council outlining their concerns the day after the decision.

Mr Henderson says: "Had we known there was a looming deadline, we would have responded to the council in time."

0900 iTouch voteline question:

Should the public have a say on the AMP tower?

Ring 0900 700 57, then 1=YES or 2=NO.

Calls cost 99c per minute plus GST.