Space invaders | Auckland News | Local News in Auckland

Pakuranga residents feel developers aren't talking their language. Hayley Hannan investigates

Wire fences ring an empty service station opposite the mall on Pakuranga Rd. The concrete paving is cracked, weeds push through the rubble. In front of the fence, a glossy sign promises a new development.

The 4600sq m site is one of contention in the Kentigern Close neighbourhood. Residents have banded together to make sure their opinions are heard.

Dr Elizabeth Bennett says they are unhappy about a combination of issues. "It's primarily about what has been squeezed onto this site. A lot of it is inappropriate for a community like this, but the major [concern] is the total lack of consultation."

The area is classified as a Business 1 (Local Shops) Zone as it borders homes. The Manukau district plan states this zone allows small-scale local businesses that don't significantly affect the neighbourhood - such as a local butcher, bookstore or bakery.

The original drawings of the development sketched out a neat L-shaped proposal of nine businesses on a ground level, including a liquor store and a drive-through Burger King. Nine apartments sit above the shops. The site borders properties on Kentigern Close, Pakuranga Rd and is close to Steeple Rise.

The proposed liquor store was withdrawn after St Kentigern College nearby objected.

The Kentigern Residents Association considers the nine businesses and apartments too intensive for the site, and believes the effects will be too much for nearby residents to bear.

"It will bring in an estimated 1600 vehicle movements a day," says president Lawrence Thoms. "There will have to be quite a lot of change to parking and road traffic lights ... and they only have 68 carparks in total when 89 are needed for the site."

The proposed Burger King is a point of disquiet. Helen - who doesn't want her full name used as she shares a fence with the property - is concerned about the amount of noise, rubbish, smells and activities it will generate.

"We know something has to go in and we expect that. But we don't want lights coming on all night. We may not get a lot of sleep."

Unhappy with the council assessment, the association hired Blakey Scott Planning to carry out an independent survey of the area. The consultants' reported aspects, such as overheight sections of the apartment buildings, do not comply with the district plan and the drive-through lane is not  far enough from the boundary.

Eastpark Developments, the company behind the proposal, stands by the design and process.

"The development there is completely in compliance in terms of location and height," says David Macpherson, the town planner hired by Eastpark. "It's not an over-development. We could actually cover 80 per cent of the site with buildings but we are only going to cover 35."

He accepts parts of buildings are over-height, but says variations are allowed. He claims the apartments comply; offset by landscaping.

As for who will be affected and what constitutes a minor effect, Mr Macpherson says the law is open to interpretation. "It sort of becomes quite subjective. The rules provide for you to seek some variation."

Mr Macpherson says Eastpark is not open to further negotiations as it has carried out the necessary consultations with the three neighbours the council identified as affected parties.

After three meetings, those three parties have signed consent for the development. Francesca Choi, owner of Pakuranga Motor Lodge, told The Aucklander she was involved with the negotiations and has no problem with the development.

At this stage, the council is preparing to sign its approval. However, the team leader of resource consent, John Kennedy, says he's keeping an open mind about the neighbours' concerns.

Although he's considering opening up the notification process for public input, he'd rather not do that.

Dr Bennett remains frustrated and agitated.

"There seems to be a lot of arbitrary decision-making. It's outrageous, really, when you think about it. We are just waiting for public consultation. They need fairness."

Express order

May: Eastpark lodges a planning application with Manukau City Council

May-July: The council identifies three neighbours most affected by the non-compliant parts of the plan. Eastpark Development negotiates with the parties

July 14: An adjacent neighbour, Helen, attends a meeting on the road with Eastpark and the affected parties

July 20: She hosts a meeting in her home for the residents of Kentigern Close. The Kentigern Residents Association is formed, copies of the development plans are passed out

July 28: The residents contact Bell Gully lawyer David McGregor

August 5:  Notified the Eastpark approval is going through without further consultation, the association  commissions an independent report, carried out that day. The association submits the report to the council and is told the application will be put on hold

August 9: The residents' association attends Pakuranga Community Board meeting.

St Kentigern College also expresses concern about a proposed liquor store close to the school. The board agrees to recommend to the council that public consultation is needed

August 10: Council planners meet Eastpark, seeking additional information. Eastpark notifies council the liquor outlet has pulled out.