Resource Consent Hearing - 114 Adelaide Road - Part 1_default

Everyone can hear me? Thumbs up. Good. Thank you. So good morning.

0:08

Welcome to this hearing, on the application by IPG Corporation for the demolition of the listed heritage building, Tramway Hotel at 114 Adelaide Road, and secondly, the partial demolition of the Tramway Hotel and additions alterations to that building. So if you're hearing about that, you're in the right room. And I'm going to say upfront, I hope the technology works well. We believe it will. So we look forward to your assistance in that respect.

0:37

Alastair Abeon's my name, and I'll be chairing the panel. My background is resource management and planning. Sitting with me here in Wellington is Ray Callahan. I'm a civil engineer and have been a certified commissioner for some years and sat on civil hearings. So pleased to assist with this application.

1:02

And sitting in Auckland? Helen Atkins. So I am an environmental and local government lawyer. Like the other two, I have set on quite a few hearings, including with the with the two gentlemen in Wellington. So we've worked together before, which makes this remote experience a little bit easier to manage.

1:25

So as you'll understand, we've been appointed by the city council as the hearing panel to hear and determine both applications. In terms of the wider introductions, I'm just going to ask, given we're online and we can see you all there, is could you introduce yourself when you present rather than going around the room down? So thank you. We will remain on camera throughout. The hearing panel will be on camera throughout.

1:54

But, again, we're asking, particularly in terms of voice, that you only be on voice when you are presenting. Now if there are any problems, I think in minute number two, Crystal Lane, who's sitting with us here, is available to assist. And if you have a pen, just wanna note her direct dial is 0211934081. We're hoping we won't need to have Crystal's assistance in responding to any problem, but that is a line open to you if you need. The head on schedule was previously circulated, that's the program we're going to follow.

2:43

So in a moment, we'll commence with the applicant. And there are several witnesses that applicants calling. We'll then move to the submitters, following that the council officers and part finding the applicant's right of reply. Of course, the hearing timetable gave an estimated time schedule, and that may or may not be the case, but we're very hopeful that we'll at least get through to completing the submissions today. And if there was any carryover to the second day, which was set aside, it would be for the council officers and the right of reply.

3:21

You'll be aware that we have received all of the information and not only the applications and and all the supporting documents, but all the evidence and all the submissions, and all of that material will be taken as read. So when you are individually addressing the panel, could I just ask that you highlight the key points to want to draw to our attention? If you are tabling, and I suspect there will be some supplementary evidence and or submissions tabled during the process, we require you to provide online by email to Crystal a copy of that by no later than close the business tomorrow. So if there is any additional supplementary evidence or submissions, and and if that's just your handwritten notes, we would want, hopefully, you would agree to sort of put that in a form that we can read and email it through to Crystal by closed business tomorrow. Just before we start, to note that the full proceedings are being recorded, so you're aware of that.

4:30

And can I ask if there are any procedural issues? I'm not anticipating, but I must ask if anyone has any procedural issue. Thank you. And therefore, no questions or points of clarification as to the process we're following? Okay.

4:53

Well, thank you. And as a hearing panel, we are here to listen fully to everything you have to say. This can be really important. These are really important applications. And so we look forward to your assistance in our endeavors to come to ultimately robust decisions on both applications.

5:12

So without further ado, I'm now going to invite the applicant. Mister Pabbi, will you be leading on behalf of the applicant? So you might be on mute at the moment. Good morning. Good morning.

5:35

Yes. We can hear you clearly now. Thank you. Thank you. So my name is Dennis Pabu.

5:41

I'm the owner and applicant for for the Resistance Inc. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to my evidence. I will just give you a brief statement as to my evidence now. Application one is the only viable option in terms of a financially feasible outcome. In respect of application two, based on the conclusions of the two reports that we have from Maltby's and Colliers, the strengthening of the current building is not financially viable nor would it likely comply with the requirement of having a functional building and being compliant with the building act accordingly?

6:39

Based on an addition of a further 1,740 square meters of building area, the financial minimum loss would be some $1,150,000. To be neutral in terms of cost and value, a further 2,581 square meters of building area needs to be developed. Due to having to accommodate setbacks, a total height of 37 meters is required, which is some 11 meters more than the proposed within the application two. Application two is based on a height of just 26 meters, which is eight meters higher than 18 meters being the current allowable height, I believe. Application two is about developing a serviced hotel apartment hotel of some 45 rooms that can be used as long term rentals and as short term accommodation.

7:47

The target market being families of patients at the hospital. The feasibility analyst analyst that is based on the highest and best possible outcome, that being apartments rather than a serviced hotel or any other alternative use. Since preparing the feasibility and unless construction costs has significantly increased as well as some increase in the value of real estate. So best case, the position is now worse than the feasibility analysis that I originally provided. As per my evidence, it would take a special developer to consider taking this project on with the significant dynamics of risk involved in trying to carry out the proposal within application two, particularly in the current economic environment where typical bank funding is absolutely not available and the consenting process is so complex.

8:58

Basement car park car parking has been modeled for 10 to 20 car parks depending on what type of robotic system can be installed. For a service hotel to be operationally viable, car parking and ready access is an absolute must. At any time of the day at 114 Adelaide Road, absolutely no parking is freely available. And so without access, hotel guests cannot arrive safely either by car or taxi without a designated pickup and drop off protected zone. With Indian hotel guests being families of patients of the hospital and whom would be driving from places like Kepodee, Levene, Otaki, Mastodon, and the like, it would be absolutely important that some car parking is available for them.

10:00

If it's okay, I'd just like to to just take a couple of more minutes to make some more points just from my own perspective. The the reason the company that owns the building is called Lucky Mile Limited is because that is the name of my grandmother. I was born in Newtown Hospital, and I grew up in Newtown. My great grandparents arrived in Newtown on Adelaide Road in the twenties. The main purpose of purchasing this building was because I wanted to create a live memory for my grandmother and to create a live museum for old Newtown.

10:46

Throughout the building, my intention is to put up images, furniture, even park one of the old vehicles that I had memories of within the building. The cafe would be set up as if it was back in time, having heritage aspects all over the the cafe area. The facades promoted that concept. My family and support team are so angry at me for wasting so much time and money over this building, and they're constantly pressurizing me to give up and hand the building over to the council. I'm I am coming to an end to my career, so it's so important to me to be focusing on doing good work.

11:34

Hence, the reason I'm being so stubborn to try and succeed with this building. My goal is, as I've said, to create this living memory and also to create a museum type style complex for old new town. And in addition to that, I wanted to dedicate this facility to the Wellington Hospital. And it is my intention to have a bunch of these rooms available at either a low cost or almost free to those families that need some sort of financial aid. The biggest obstacle that I see in getting resource consent from getting resource consent, if I was lucky to get a resource consent, is the long complicated process in getting all the required billing consents and all the consultancy that I require to actually carry out the project.

12:31

It wouldn't be unfeasible to think that it would take a further sixteen months for if if I was lucky to get a resource consent, say, within a week or two weeks, I measure it would take a further sixteen months before I could actually start work. The issue with this is that in sixteen months' time, the actual construction cost is gonna be significantly more. Construction currently is so complicated. Things like insulation, seismic design, waterproofing, facade design is getting so complicated, so difficult to do that it's near impossible to get the designs and everything done in any time short. It will take all of sixteen months to get PS ones, PS twos, and all engineers and the like agreeing to a mythology of getting all of these things done.

13:38

This is my current experience. I have been working on a project currently, and it's taken me near four years to to just get to a building consent stage. For these reasons, it's probably a fact that I'm probably one of the only crazy crazy developer that would even consider doing this sort of project. I'm happy to take any questions. I'm done with my brief evidence.

14:15

Well, thank you. And, firstly, I'm sure on behalf of the hearing panel, I can confirm that we understand the challenges that the construction industry is facing at the present time and will likely continue to face for some time yet. So we acknowledge that. But, look, I'd like to come back to your statement of evidence, and what I'll do is I'll refer to specific paragraphs where I have a question. So if you've got your statement handy.

14:43

Yes. And I'm going to start, excuse me, the paragraph 2.6 on page two where you say, are the scope of evidence in this case, my evidence is focusing on the economic viability of the second application made to council. You touched at the beginning of this presentation just now on the issue of economic viability. But then at paragraph 4.3, you make the comment total demolition, which is covered in the first application, is the most sensible, and I emphasize, and you again said in your introduction, sensible solution. Why do you say sensible?

15:32

What do you mean by that? What I mean by that is if if if it wasn't for my stubbornness, anybody that's an accountant type person would make the decision that the risk is too high, and the only safe passage is to start from zero base, which means demolish the building and and start again. What what we're trying to do here with the second application, and let me make it very clear, even though we are looking to lose money on the second application, I'm still very keen to take on the second application. But but the risk is very high. That's the point that I'm making.

16:21

Well, thanks for that last point because I certainly gonna come to that because I now go to paragraph 4.4. And I think you've answered the question, but I'm just going to highlight it again. When you talk about the negative in financial terms, and it will take a special owner, I think what you're saying is for the reasons you've outlined. You're that special owner. Yes.

16:46

Yes. Because it's not just a financial interest here. Have something else. The reason some people have asked me, why did you buy in 2,016 a derelict building that had the the red sticker on it? And the reason was that I assumed that I would be able to convince council to allow me to fix and repair the building and and create a living memory.

17:06

I thought that was a sensible outcome, but I got that wrong. I'm certainly going to explore that with you. At the point of purchase, you just now mentioned you were aware that it was an earthquake prone building. Were during your due diligence, did you understand it also had a heritage listing? I'm not yes.

17:27

Yes. So I had some correspondence. We had a meeting before I actually purchased the building with council, and I think it was Campbell was the person's name in the council. We have a letter from him, and he wrote us a letter to say that only the facades were listed and the interior was not listed. So that was the basis that we purchased the building of that letter, which we have.

17:51

And the idea was to then create a what we did in 02/2017, a design that maintained the facades and and put more building area on top. Following on about the economic viability, at your paragraph 5.4, and this is going to the issue of the GFA required to support economic development. Indeed, this morning, you mentioned two figures. One was one seven four o, and the other was two five eight one. So the one seven four o, is that your understanding that application two, if that building was to proceed, that provides you with 1,740 square meters of GFA.

18:39

No. That that that that provides us 1,700 of GFA, that's proposal two. Yes. 1,740. But based on my analysis, which is in the body of my evidence, that actually still makes a loss of $11,150,000.00 based on the numbers of that day.

18:59

I'm saying that today that those numbers will be significantly worse. Construction cost has moved since then to 30 to 40% more, and it's not stopping. So you're telling us, therefore, if the proposal before us can only achieve 1,740 square meters GFA, that's not an economically viable proposition from your point of view? It's it's not, but it's one that I'm prepared to accept. Being prepared to accept, if consent was granted, you would proceed to implement that consent?

19:35

Yes. Yes. Obviously, I would like to break even, and to break even is the the is 2,500, but I think that's a step too far because that means I need to go higher. But, certainly, the the height would be less than the the 42 meters height that's coming in terms of the new district plan regulations. Mister Cover, the reason I've been asking these questions is because I found the evidence and not only your own evidence, but the evidence of some of your key advisers, including mister Leary, was quite equivocal.

20:17

And I thought, for example, when I see statements like to consider it as an option or to test the options, that's sort of not exactly an unequivocal statement that you're gonna proceed with the development of consents granted. And I felt that some of those statements were, therefore, a little evasive in terms of exactly your intentions. That's why I wanted to hear clearly here today about your intentions if consent was granted. So let me help you make that very clear. I I have been working on this since 02/2015, and as I've said, I'm pretty stubborn.

20:52

If consent is given, I will do it. I will do it almost immediately. Well, thank you for that clarification. I'm just going to go to paragraph 7.7. And here, we're moving to a different matter.

21:12

And you say you find it odd that there's no reference to the spatial plan or the draft district plan. I'm sure we'll hear from mister Leary on this, but, you know, the point is that at this point in time, they're not statutory documents. I think you would understand that. And so what regard can be had to them is if any regard can be had, that's pretty limited even though I agree and understand many people can't quite understand why we can't have regard to those documents as charting the future for Wellington in terms of new development. Yeah.

21:48

From from my point of view, that that that's my personal feeling that if we knew something something was going to change or something's gonna be better, we should be following that course of action rather than looking in reverse and looking at what was satisfactory in the past. Yeah. And I can understand that, absolutely understand why you would put forward that view. It's could I could I add to Please. Yeah.

22:13

So, I mean, we've got another site around the corner and and which is not heritage. And currently, we've got a resource consent granted for 21 18 meters. Sorry. 18 meters. So I'm sitting here questioning myself, should we actually start that project, or should we just wait until this district plan comes into play and then go to the 42 meters?

22:40

You might be waiting a few years, though, frankly. What's the address of that site? 60 Kent Terrace on it's just around the corner. Oh, King Terrace is sort of yeah. Around the corner.

22:53

Yep. There's one in Tiny and I wouldn't see it as just around the corner, frankly. Clearly, you have adopted the advice of mister David Pearson, your heritage conservation architect adviser. Yes. So the design and we'll probably come to this further in discussion with other witnesses, including council advisers.

23:21

But I understand that you're, how would I put it, comfortable with the design before us because you do mention and I'm sure it's paragraph seven thirteen, I think, where you talk about practical functioning. And I suspect this was your concern that there might be some changes that might come forward as part of this process. What do you regard as key issues to be in focus when you talk about practical functioning? Is it about the vehicle access? Is it about the street level access aside from the access where the vehicles are entering?

24:01

What what did you mean by that? So so to to function as a serviced hotel apartment hotel, it's it's not a hotel as such. It's a serviced apartment hotel, so there's a big difference there. As you would know, Adelaide Road is absolutely busy. There's just no car parking.

24:23

There's lots of yellow lines there. And for for a hotel particularly a facility focused on helping the the Wellington Hospital, you need a safe pickup and drop off location, and there's absolutely zero parking there at any time of the day. I've experienced it every time I've gone there, I've not been able to get a car park outside the building. And so that is important. Having some car parking, whilst not enough, is better than having a situation where we've got no car parking.

24:57

And that too, we we're not sure whether we're gonna get to 20. It could only be 10. It depends on what system we can actually get in there. We're assuming we'll get to 20, but it may be a number less than that. In terms of answering your question, in in terms of service hotel apartment business models, you could have 20 rooms.

25:18

You could have 30 rooms. You could have 45 rooms. You could have a hundred rooms. The the number that makes sense for a service hotel to work viably is actually 45. All Quest hotels, for argument's sake, I've had experience with, have a table where they they specify 45 rooms as being the optimal.

25:42

If you had 50 rooms, for argument's sake, it can mean the difference between being profitable and not profitable because more staff are required. If you're having 30 rooms, then it's financially unviable because you still have to have your fixed costs. So 45 rooms seems to be between forty five and fifty rooms seems to be the the right number to work. As I said, you could have a lot more, then you'd have to have more staff. So the from my numbers, 60 is the next number, and a hundred is the next number of financial feasibility.

26:20

Thank you. I'm just going to check with my colleagues. Ray? Yes. Thank you.

26:26

That's very helpful. Just so just coming on that last point, the proposal with the additional 1,740 square meters plus the usable GFA and level one and and some degree the functions of of ground level, that that would achieve your 45 room target. Is that correct? Yes. It does.

26:54

K. Okay. Yes? Now can can I just draw your attention to the paragraphs 5.6, five point seven, which are dealing with costs and with and with your spreadsheet that's attached to your evidence. So I'm I'm slightly confused on the logic of the dollars, and and I just wanna get this clear in my mind.

27:26

So it's we all create spreadsheets, and and a sheet that we create, we fully understand, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone else follows the logic quite as clearly, and and I've just gotten a little confused on your sheet. I just wanna test it. Just wanna test a couple of numbers with you just so that I've got it right. So just just dealing first with the construction cost, and I fully accept your comment about these numbers are now higher. But in your spreadsheet, you you started with a base cost of a net GFA of 3,800 per square meter, and then at $4.71 and came to a cost of $4.02 $4.02 $7.01.

28:11

And then adding fees and and and funding costs, etcetera. You you arrived at a at a cost per square meter of $5.05 $5.03. So so what I've done yeah. Just with that council contributions, council fees, legal costs, any developer margin, I've noted those costs there, but I've put zero in those. Yes.

28:35

Sorry. I I noted that, and and I take specific note of of no developer margin in there. And and Yeah. Realistically, probably, an assessment like this should probably include council contributions and fees. But putting it to one side, and and then against that cost, you've got what I would call the income, the the asset from having spent that money, which is assessed here at $6,956 per square meter.

29:15

And that is based am I reading it right? That that that's if it was on an an average apartment size. Yes. Yes. Yes.

29:26

Okay. But I'm Oh, sorry. I'll just note that, also, in my evidence, accept that that number has increased as well Yes. Along cost. Right.

29:37

And I I under I I accept that. And and and when I looked at the number of floors being proposed in the proposal, it it appeared to me that that the seven floors that that that building might generate something in the order of about 26 apartments. Is is that about right? Sorry. The application that we've got now has got 45 rooms in total.

30:08

Yeah. That that's hotel rooms, though, isn't it? Or or or could they be presumably, they're smaller, though, than than, say, you know, 40 to 50 square meter apartments. Oh, okay. So no.

30:20

No. No. They're all all designed as either studios studios, one bedrooms, and two bedrooms. So they're all designed with kitchens. They're all apartments.

30:29

They're not not Ah, okay. So so they could effectively be apartments. So They are. We've developed the last apartments, you know, some bedrooms. I don't have the square meters, but some might be 40 square meters, but but some might be sixty, seventy square meters.

30:49

Okay. I sorry. Yeah. I get you. I I I understand.

30:53

So the idea is somebody living at the hospital sorry. A patient in the hospital, it could be there for six months. So you wanna be able to do your cooking. You wanna be able to do your laundry. So that's what these are set up as.

31:07

And just like we've been through this COVID situation, this is a protection for us in that if the hotel industry was to collapse as it is at the moment, then the plan b is that these rooms can be rented out. Right. Okay. And so when I look at the income, and I'll I'll I'll test this with with witnesses, but just from your experience, because you're building apartments and other things around the place, I I doing just a couple of numbers, and I felt that that $6,009.56 seemed low to me given given that an apartment of this size and scale in Wellington, you know, I don't know what its market value would be, but if it was in the order of 500,000, and I accept that's probably GST included, that would result in a higher in a higher square meter rate. If it was 45 odd square meters, something in the order of about $9,000.

32:07

So and you've acknowledged that this number is low in the current market. So would is it conceivable to you that it might be more like in that range of around 9,000 per square meter? Is that what Does that feel Yep. Yes. Shorter than that order?

32:27

No. You're absolutely right. But by the time you take GST out of that and and and and then you make some other calculations, there's a hotel room. The the smaller ones, this is about right. The bigger ones, it it would average out over the scale of different sizes.

32:45

But it's the confusing bit is the GST. The GST is quite a bit. Yes. No. I I I appreciate that.

32:51

And and, of course, these numbers don't include your original investment in the land value, which I saw had GB of something in the order of 1,600,000.0 or that order. Yes. I've written them off at zero. Yes. You've already you've already taken a hit with with that, haven't you?

33:07

Yes. Right. Okay. And and and and and, I I the way I looked at it was, well, if you if you ignored your column regarding lease the lost table a, the $3,590,000, and just said, well, what would it cost to build x million? What would it return?

33:32

Y million? I I I came to the conclusion it was still a loss. So I didn't understand what why you had introduced the 3590 3590000.00 into into your equation. You you chose to go in that route in your logic rather than just, well, it cost so much million to 70,000,000 to build, and that's only worth x y million. So, hence, the loss is is is z.

34:01

Have you done that number on the back of the envelope? Yes. Yes. I I tested I I went through the malt Maltby's report, and and then I had asked our engineer and a few other people about testing some of those costs. And at the end of the day, at that time, I think we have to accept what Molokrase had put there as cost because there's a it's not like building from a clear site.

34:33

This is gonna be a lot more difficult and a lot more challenging to try and keep those facades in place. A lot of double cost, triple cost, and doing the same same work to to to get it to a position where we can start adding levels. Yes. And so with those costs, that 5,553, and accepting that that will be higher because of increased costs recently. But does that really reflect the the the cost score dealing with the facade and the cost for creating the below ground car park?

35:12

No. No. This this this cost is for the level the new levels. It's not it's not dealing with the the the original two levels. I've I've used the consultant Maltese costs for the first two levels.

35:28

Alright. But that whilst that might be correct to some degree, it probably doesn't include the cost of developing the car park below, does it? No. No. So the costs are probably higher again.

35:46

Yes. Yes. This is the risk that I'm talking about. Yes. And let me I know this is not right to say, but I I can't help myself.

35:54

I have to say it. I I saw firsthand a heritage building in Victoria Street in Auckland where the owners of that property had a heritage building, and they were trying to protect the facade. And and the contractor at the time was working away trying to do similar things that we're doing here, and then cracks appeared into the into the facade. And open council, within twenty four hours, put the instruction that the building needs to be demolished immediately. And and in fact, the council went and demolished the building themselves, and the owners were just sitting there on the side protesting on what was happening.

36:33

But the total cost and experience of that was it it took it to a huge loss. The owners had to to sell the building, sell the land, and and get out of the whole thing and took an enormous hit. And this is the risk that I'm worried about. You know, I may win with a resource consent. Who knows?

36:52

But then trying to do this is going to be another level of exercise, and it will be certainly a lot more costly than these costs because we're going to have to get all sorts of consultancy on how to make sure that we don't damage the facade. Great. Okay. And then one last question with respect to costs. There is you're clear in your mind that that for the scale of building that you're seeking from this proposal, it is undoubtedly going to result in a loss to you, financial loss to you.

37:31

Yes. Yes. I'm budgeting for one point three to one point six million dollars worth of loss, and and and and that too is because I will do a lot of the work myself. Right. Yes.

37:49

And and that number excludes the the initial investment or the land value? No. I've written that off at zero. And all the holding cost to date, I've spent more than 300,000 just trying to get this far. Yes.

38:02

And, also, that loss, is that loss on the assumption that there are no council fees and and and council contributions? Well, then then I've made that point, haven't I, that if those come in you know, even the developer's margin, no developer is gonna do it for free. And if you look now if you look on in my spreadsheet, the percentage margin at the end based on my square meter profit is only 20%. So that that that whilst you might question my revenue, the end result is that it's I'm only declaring a 20% margin without any developer margin or without any of these fees. You start putting those figures in, and then and then if you put the land value, most developers will in every commercial project, you have to put the cost of the land in.

38:55

I put it in at zero. Yes. No. That's fine. I I just thank you for that.

39:02

I just wanted to be quite clear in my mind that I understood these numbers. And and I'm trying to Sorry. Yes. Carry on. I've tried to make this as doable as possible.

39:18

I've tried to make it as least looking as I can. If I was looking at it from the other perspective to make it as horrible as I could make it, then I can certainly add some more lines. Yes. No. No.

39:28

I I I understand that. And and now I I have a clearer understanding because of your linkage back to Newtown, some of your drivers behind this, which I couldn't quite put my finger on before, so that is helpful. Yep. Mister chairman, yeah, that's that's the only inquiries I had. Thank you.

39:50

Thank you. Ellen? I just thank you, mister chair. Mister Pablo, I just sort of have one question of you. It it relates back to the questions and answers with the chair.

40:06

So if we were to grant both proposals consent, I understand your driver for proposal two. I understand why it is that you have pushed it forward. But realistically, if we were to grant both of the consents, which one would you do? Would you still go down proposal two, or would you look to do something different or something the same but with a new building, basically? I'd I'd like to continue on proposal two, but I'd like to negotiate if I can to try and reduce my loss by trying to get more height.

40:51

But I'll I'll stick to doing proposal two at the very least. Okay. No. No. Thank you.

40:57

It it it's just helpful to understand the So here's here's the thing, that if you grant both resource consents, then maybe I'm in a better position to negotiate for one or two more levels in the interest of keeping the facade. Yep. No. I understand. Thank you.

41:18

Thank you, mister Chair. Thank you. And so I wanna say thank you for your openness and frankness in terms of identifying the challenge you have and the risks you're prepared to take on. Our role, of course, as a hearing panel is to make a decision on applications, but to hear what underpins the application from your point of view has been really helpful, and we're certainly very grateful for that frankness. Thank you.

41:49

We're now going to go to Mr. I can see you there. Good morning, Mr. Hawsley. Good morning.

41:55

And I think my colleague, mister Khanhab, is going to commit questions. Yes. So so you've you've heard the discussion that we've just been exploring on these costs and and values. And do you have a view I I I just made the the the the comment earlier about apartments and and those sorts of values of 9,000 rough order of magnitude per square meter of a a value. Does that number do you have do you have a view on that number?

42:37

Does resonate with you, or am I just no. It's it's it's wrong? What what is your view on that? My experience is that that would be conservative in the market today. I I would expect I would expect the rate per square meter.

42:55

The gross realization would be higher than $9,000. That's good. Could you give an indication of what it might be in Europe? Well, I, you know, I have not viewed the developed plans or the specification. My my experience is broadly across Tiara acting for multiple developers.

43:25

On it, and it does depend on the size. You know, 40 square meters is quite a lot different to 80 or 90 square meters. But at the moment, gross realizations, rate per square meter are $11,000. And as you get closer to the waterfront, you know, down on the area close to Courtney Place, we've just been involved in a development there that's currently selling, and they're achieving rates per square meter closer to $14,000 a square meter. As you go sort of further back deeper into Newtown, that rate, you know, falls away.

44:11

Right. And would there be a is there any notable difference in those values in this in the concept here? They these are effectively apartments that will be sort of managed as a hotel. Does that have any influence on on on the value of the building with respect to this? Because one could be converted to either or, couldn't it, essentially?

44:46

Well, the the concept of value and the development of value, you you would go go down quite different routes. You know, if you were valuing a hotel, let's say I mean, it's an economic driver, just establishing what the potential sort of free ongoing concern EBITDA is. And I haven't done anything like that on this particular project, and so it's really establishing its potential income stream and what the required yield is. Whereas if it was an apartment block, you would be endeavoring to establish what the apartments could gross on a sell down unit by unit basis. It gives you the gross realization, then you sort of work backwards to a residual figure by, you know, deducting legal fees, developers profit and risk, direct and indirect costs, etcetera.

45:50

Right. Point, commissioners. Yes. Sorry. I disappeared there for a little while during the introduction, so I just managed to get myself back into the hearing.

46:01

I missed the initial part. But just to be to clarify, was engaged initially to do analysis and do his evidence basically on the the strengthening of the building as is and the value of that when the work's completed and it's been strengthened. We haven't actually got Mike to look at the value of the the of the modified building. That is sort of Dennis' area. So Mike's been helpful in answering those questions, but I just needed to raise the technicality that we haven't actually engaged him to do that valuation because it was initially on the to a certain extent, that was considered to be developers developers risk if he chooses to do the development.

46:54

The first part was the test of reasonable options and to demonstrate to in the application that keeping the building as is was not a reasonable option. Yep. Thank you for that. Yes. I I did.

47:10

I went looking for Mike's information on Conceipt two and and noted that it it it hadn't hadn't been engaged to address that. I was I was really just calling upon his expertise while while we've got him here sitting with a Consent One hat on. So that that's helpful, Mike. Thank you for those comments. And then with respect to Consent One, you know, I went through your numbers game.

47:40

I appreciate some of those numbers have moved with with recent inflation and values. But in your opinion, where where you had estimated the the value the completed value of the building at a at a could be in that order around 6 and a half million or one for the demolition and rebuild or sorry, strengthening strengthening and rebuild. Sorry. Was in today's market, things having moved, would that number have moved to pre shipment? I I only Sorry.

48:17

Sorry. Sorry. Not the 6 and a half. With respect to you, it's the 3,000,000. You had an initial value of 2 and a half million, 2 and 5 million, that order.

48:27

Yes. And and and then your more recent estimate was about over three? Correct. And and then is that still moving up? Is that three or or still a bit of a moving target upwards?

48:42

Well well, three is current. Three is only, you know, a matter of days old. Right. Okay. Yep.

48:50

Yep. And and and and in terms of pluses and minuses, you know, degree of error not error, but up up and about. Would you say that that is a in your latest estimate of that, around that 3,000,000, is that plus or minus x, plus or minus what? Is that plus or minus 10, plus or minus 15, plus or minus 20? What what give us a feel for sensitivity of that number.

49:22

Well, I think the, you know, the the numbers at or about the right number. But, you know, the the courts would have have typically given the value as a plus or minus margin of 10%. Okay. Yep. That's all.

49:46

Thank you. Okay. Helen? No. There's nothing from me.

49:51

Thank you. That was very clear, Mr. Horsey. No. Thank you, mister Horsey.

49:57

And just referring to miss O'Leary's comment, we acknowledge your expertise. And just as mister said, we took the opportunity to explore these matters with you. And, of course, you're entitled to say, no. I haven't gone there, but grateful for the input that you could have now. Thank you.

50:17

Thank you, gentlemen, and commissioners. And, mister Pavu, as a panel, we're quite happy if you want to as we release your witnesses, they may have other commitments, other duties. So that's in your hands, though. I I think it would be helpful to like he's a busy person. He needs to go.

50:38

We understand. Thank you. Thank you. We're now going to go to mister Black. Just bear with us.

51:01

Commissioner Callan's going to Callan's going to initiate the discussion, so he's just calling up the evidence. He's online, not like the hard copy man. Right. He's Just got hearing statement he'd just like to read out or summarize his evidence to start with. Yeah.

51:20

I thought just one thing is that we should just so I'm hearing. So apologize. So I assume that my my submission in the report should be read. Right. The key points to make it is that this building is earthquake prone.

51:42

In my opinion, most likely, it's been 20%. The issue is being very heavy and reinforcement for facade. The lack of a a roof in the floor diagram or adequate roof in floor diagram. The connections to the URA rules, there is no significant lateral load resisting system in the abdominal direction to the walls. So that is we've got the weight of the walls.

52:09

We're trying to hold them back to the building, and the structure behind it is not strong enough for that. There's also the issue of the out of playing capacity of the URM wall and its its ability to stand and also the in playing capacity of the wall to act as a pricing element. I'd also note that the building is in poor condition in terms of the timber structure within the building. So, therefore, the building would be sort of post being less than a 3% poses a life safety risk. Obviously, with no one in the building, it's more of a risk to moves to the public on in Lake Road and on the full path outside the building.

52:51

Some of the issues with this building, it's sort of the opposite of what we have with a modern building where you'd have reasonably robust and heavy structure within the building, like, you're thinking concrete floors and and the strong lateral light resistance system. Whereas with this building, we have a very heavy URI walls on the outside of the building, but structure behind is, like, what and not that significant. To actually strengthen the building like this is very challenging. You need to work with the existing structure while also maintaining stability to the URM side. And given the sort of the scale we're behind that would need to remove a lot of the existing structure that should get them get access to build things like all foundations to be able to enter your lateral level system system too, also to connect the full diagrams.

53:47

So one one reason I'll note that is there's a there's a system of retaining part of the full structure behind the facade. That's gonna be very challenging when we're actually trying to connect to the facade. So it's it's it's kind of not really a practical thing to do. I'm just picking up one of the comments Julia. It would be from a structural point of view, a lot easier and safer to demolish and rebuild the building.

54:17

Safe to members of the public, safe to the contractors there. Construction wise, we're seeing a very large cost to income escalation on a number of projects. A lot of it's due to supply. Also, just how busy contractors are and also realization that strengthening buildings like this one are very challenging. And I draw my experience working with project in the Eatmore Street.

54:45

During the course of the project, the cost on that one went up quite a bit. A lot of it was to do as you start to carry out the work, you start to uncover things, and things are not as a shame. It's just a new this type of building. The one point I'll just make with that is the contingency that was mentioned before of team percent for ERA building. I think it's quite optimistic in my opinion, but it's just my opinion on what I'm gonna see about.

55:16

And we'll make the comment, like, with ERA buildings, when you go through a strengthening of them, you're really going on a journey, and mister Parvoo has been on this journey. It can go on for a number of years, and there are a lot of challenges with it. And there's also what we're finding out that this new knowledge of things that come out, and all of that is actually not that helpful. Like, for example, we have the it's a little while it's going to increase, meaning that the size of demands that we need to design in structure to strengthen the building for are going to increase. There'll be also, like I alluded to before, when you start to carry out the works, you'll find things are not as as assumed.

56:01

Things will be out of alignment. You'll find out that the ground conditions are not quite as good as you hope. It'll be all sorts of issues. So it's in a it's sweeping the building with very, very common. This is the the main points I've made.

56:17

Alright. Thank you for that. The the existing building, that's timber floor taken on the ground floor? Yes. And and so to strengthen if we're just just dealing with conceived one first, so so dealing with the strengthening option, could could it be strengthened in mean, you'd have to get access in for all the piling and understand all that stuff.

56:44

But then if you're rebuilding the floor that's all being disturbed, would you rebuild it as timber, or would you need to be building it as concrete to enable your strengthening concept to do its job? It's more of the First Floor and the roof level, the the diaphragm issue at the Ground Floor. You could you could construct it back as timber or as concrete, but you would be removing a significant portion of that to do the works. It might be better to concrete from a just to to get a bit of more of a structure. We when we did work on the back feature, they there was a desire to rebuild the back concrete, but what triggered that was actually a pair of fire during construction, but it ended up being a copy of the result because a lot of results were if you're trying to reinstate what's the image, generally, very important mission, so you you wanna put put new structure in there and whether that's concrete or timber at the ground Floor there, I'm thinking it will be already.

57:52

If you were doing it as timber, I assume you would need a more thorough piling solution to transfer those loads into the ground rather than transferring them into a concrete slab. So I'm not quite sure what so if you're doing a conference, they're talking about an on grade slab. It's not so much the it's not so much the way it is itself that's gonna need the following. It's the actual structure for the load points from what's above that needs to to have the following support. So you could probably do, a traditional just for the weight of the floor itself and, like, the traditional timber poll solution.

58:37

But when you're taking the weight of floor above, have we have been spitting on the post, so you'll have heaping low points. That's where you'd be looking to hit all foundations. But the more important reason to have a cloud foundation would be where you've got the electrical load resisting structure where you're concentrating the forces that are trying to hold on to that wall. It's pulling out from the building. You're trying to anchor it down into the ground.

59:00

So that's yeah. You'd be looking at having piles and Right. You know, based on the GT request, I think, you got significantly. And and with respect to that pilot, to to achieve that lockdown and hold down, what broadly, in your view, what what sort of proportion of the ground floor structure might need to be disturbed to to to be able to get, in other words, removed, temporarily removed, to get drilling rigs and and construction equipment? Are are we saying half the ground floor or three quarters of the ground and and I've said there's probably some impact on the on the First Floor as well.

59:45

But but what what proportion are are we talking about here, do you think? Look. I haven't worked that out, but I would say 50%. It's one of those things. When you start talking about it, you go and look at yourself, yeah, they just drive through here, they just do the works in the size of that area.

60:02

But the reality is never like that. When you're trying to get rigs in, trying to get access to actually physically do the works, you need a reasonable space. And, yeah, I would say 50% feels like the the right number. Right. And the existing facade or the existing perimeter walls, they're on a concrete strip foundation, I assume?

60:29

Yes. And and would they have been piled, or would they need to be piled and supported on new piles as well? It would be desirable to do that. There's no that there's a lot of perfection risk at the site. If you're building a structure behind it, say, for a new build or even for a strengthening structure, you can look to anchor to connect them to that wall, anchor effect to those new foundations, but that would be a desirable thing to do.

60:56

Right. And look and looking at the photographs of the interior of the building, looks some some of it, you know, it it looks fairly dilapidated, and and you've made a comment in in the reports that there has been some timber deterioration. So the floor and joists and and walls, a proportion of that would need to be replaced. This is, again, consent one, the strengthening rebuild. A proportion of those materials would need to be replaced due to their current state of deterioration in your view?

61:39

And and if so, have you got a feel for what proportion? Is is that 10% or 25%? Just very you know, your your judgment on this. Definitely, we'll need to there'll be a lot of stuff that needs to get replaced. You'd need to start opening up things and doing a a quite a detailed survey of it.

62:02

You do that as the works progress. I don't have a feel for a percentage. What so I don't I'm with that exact percentage. If you're asking me to chuck a number out there, I would say maybe a third because it's never a case that you just you can't just replace the link of that to put timber. That is a big you need to make sure it's for the whole span that timber member.

62:26

So, you know, I I can't give an exact number. I haven't carried out a detailed survey of that to the extent that, you know, because that because you need to actually remove and open up a lot of things to get a feel for that. Okay. And and then the work you've done, you know, I I I I interpret the work you've done as, you know, it's a concept solution. This is a strengthening option.

62:54

It it's a concept that you're experienced with and familiar with, and you may well have even used it on other buildings. But we often hear that there's various ways to skin a cat when it comes to strengthening. The concept you've adopted, is that what you consider to be the likely solution that would achieve the building outcome results, you know, the % standard, etcetera? Or is there another concept that would be totally different and potentially much cheaper? Or, you know I I would say that this is the most cost effective solution.

63:39

You could describe it as a little bit agricultural and that we're using steel structure with basically going around pragmatically and targeting the areas. If you work through a project where you're trying to, I guess, get a result that's a lot more aesthetic and it's more hidden, you can use sort of more sophisticated systems like, you know, carbon fiber applied to the URM. But those things are actually a lot more expensive. So there there are other options, but they'll be more costly. Options, but they'll be more costly.

64:17

Right. So this could be described as at the lower end of the cost spectrum compared to other concepts or solutions? Yes. And they will also but you still also need to address the main issues like the other planes that the length of a that will load existing system and the other plane directions to the walls. The strength of the floor diagram is not sophisticated system that you can do to to replicate that.

64:45

You need to actually put in a structure that's either like a a steel cross brace frame or you can put in a a quire with the floor but you do need to put structure in there to do that job. Yeah. And and and lastly, with respect to consent one, you would have if that preceded the strengthening and and rebuild option, you would have confidence that your concept would achieve the outcomes expected? The concept ongoing. So you told me about the demolition.

65:29

No. First, I've just this question's relating to that strengthening and rebuild. You know, application one. No two. It's application two.

65:39

Alright. Sorry. Application two. Strengthening and and and rebuild just to rebuild. This is, you know, being costed at about 6,000,000, etcetera.

65:52

That that's in your view, that concept is about the right concept if that proposal was progressed. Yep. And and with respect to the application where just the facades are are retained and the new building is built behind the facade, the degree of complexity, I'm talking in a structural sense, to to achieve retention of the facade, securing it to the new building as the proposal's got up, not at the other setbacks at the but at the proposal. You've you've evaluated that. You've made a comment in your evidence that greater setbacks would make that more complex.

66:46

But with respect to the current design and proposal for the new building and the attachment of facades to that building, where does that sit in your mind in terms of complexity in a structural sense? Is that reasonably doable? It is doable. There's still a weak complexity about it because you need to maintain stability to the facade while you build that structure behind. But you do have the advantage that you can incorporate the structure behind what what you're doing for that because of being a tower, it will need some significant foundations that will that we piled.

67:26

So you can look at how what the structure you're putting behind and how you can use that provide temporary support as you build a new structure. You might be able to use it both for the temporary support and also for the long term the long term solution to holding on to that facade. So there are some benefits in building behind it that you do get a I guess not a dead cost. You're not building something that has to get removed later part of that new tower structure. And is there a risk as it was commented before a site in Auckland where during construction cracks appeared and and the project had to be abandoned from that perspective and the building demolished?

68:12

Is there a risk when you're doing this facade work that you do strike unintended or unexpected situations, and and you're doing that with having damage to the facade occurring? Well, it's it's a well, if you're playing it carefully, it it's I mean, there's always risk with construction of existing buildings, but I think that risk can be managed. I'm not familiar with the job that's that's being referred to, so I can't talk to that one. But provided you carefully plan the works, you make sure that you're always maintaining stability to the structure while those works progress, you know, you can minimize that risk. Okay.

68:58

Like, with the project we did in the Inmont Street, the the contract that during the works, they made sure that the the facade was always tied back at at a certain number of points to make sure that that there was you know, there's always stability to it, and design it for a temporary construction case. So you design it for an earthquake, which might occur, I think, from memory, it's once every 100. You're making sure that for that short period, what you're you're doing, what you're doing that works, that you're maintaining the level of stability to put the site. Thank you. And one last point.

69:37

It's been suggested by by one of the council officers that the setback of that new building from the facade should be greater. And you've made a comment that to do so creates creates greater risks and and complexity in tying the facade to the new building. Could you just explain that a little? So is that a significant increase in complexity and cost, or is that more in the category or it's a bit more of a pain? Where does that sit with you?

70:13

It's well, it's a number of things. One, the structure that you need starts to become more significant. I mean, it's like it's like holding something close to yourself or having to hold and support something out further out. Once you get that that greater lever on that greater sort of distance from you, it gets harder to get that connection. So partly what we're gonna be doing is transferring loads back to the structure behind.

70:34

So then the in plain structure that we need to do that starts to become more significant because of the the distance that's needing to sort of reach out and hold on to the the facade. Right. And at the moment, I think the building is in the order of three meters setback, And and and the the the the heritage specialist was suggesting a one room depth, which might be more on the order of, say, four meters or four and a half or something. Does that difference between three and four and a half or something, does that does that double the the complexity, or is that, you know, a lot a lot worse? Yeah.

71:19

Well, it's like a lot of functions are actually a a function of the distance squared. So, you know, you you you know, the difference between three meters squared and four and a half squared is more than you know, starts to double, starts to increase pretty quickly. So use it as. Okay. And that's all I'm searching.

71:40

Helen? No. No. I don't have any questions. Thank you very much.

71:46

Very clear. Thanks for your questions. Mister O'Callaghan? I just want to firstly apologize for my intervention. My colleague was talking about application one and two.

71:58

To be clear, application one is to demolish the existing listed building. There is no application before us to strengthen the existing building in situ as it stands today. Yes. Sorry. Yes.

72:13

That's right. And so application two is for the additions alterations to the building, which includes retaining the facades and then constructing the new building, etcetera. So just wanna be clear, we're talking about the same thing, application one, application two. And, look, I just have one final question. It's really just a wrap up from my point of view is we've heard this morning, mister Pabu, is a pretty determined gentleman.

72:40

So if resource consent was granted to application two, mister Pabu came to you, mister Black, and says, now can you please, as part of the building consent process, design a structural methodology to lead to a successful outcome? What I hear you saying, yes. It can be done. Putting aside costs, the challenges are there, but it can be done from a structural engineering point of view. Yes.

73:06

That's correct. Thank you. Look. We're slightly ahead of schedule, but I think we'll take the adjournment now, say, for fifteen minutes and reconnect at 10:30. Ten thirty, we connect.

73:22

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Well, welcome back.

87:58

And we're now going to call or hear from the shares of Anova. Thank you. Sharshanova. Sharshanova? I apologize.

88:11

No. That's alright. So that's Sharshanova. Correct? Yes.

88:16

It's Chinara. Chinara is her first name. Thank you. Chinara is her first name. Yeah.

88:21

Welcome. Just before we start, Ivan, just to make clarification with respect to, I'm gonna say, Shinar's evidence. The art architectural design that was done for this application was Shinar is an in house architect at IPG. The actual designing architect has left the firm, so Chanara has been forwarding now. Effectively, her evidence now is going to be just not really going to be dealing with the design decisions that was made during this process because she wasn't involved in.

89:05

The to be answered by mister Pearson because he was involved in that design process. I thought the value that Shneur might have as as being architect is in respect to her analysis of billing as an exam, potentially conditions that you might impose in terms of urban design changes or or the practicality of conditions. Well, thank you. And that I can just foreshadow that was certainly gonna be one of our questions as to whether your witnesses have had the chance to mister Pabu, your witnesses have had the chance to consider the recommended draft consent conditions and whether they have any view on that. And so particularly in terms of our picture and design, the town's great design, the draft conditions.

89:59

So any feedback on that will be certainly welcomed by the panel. Thank you. Commissioner O'Callaghan. Yes. Morning.

90:09

Just a couple of clarifications for me. I'm just trying to understand the floor areas, and it may be just by definition that I'm not quite getting it. If we look at the plans, on your sheet a one zero three, We we have showing the levels, levels two to six. And and and when I look at that footprint for those levels, it's sort of you've got a grid system there at four and a half meters, and and you've got it's a grid of basically four by four. Four and a half meters times four is 18 meters, and so you got 18 meters by 18 meters plus another six or eight square meters on that little glass tower on the southeast corner.

91:21

And and and by my reckoning, that that is, you know, something in the order of about 330 odd square meters, three thirty five square meters, something in that order, roughly. And and that's about 1,675 square meters at five floors. And then another floor above that, which is about 15 and a half by 15 and a half shown on the next sheet, giving a total of around 1,900 square meters. And and plus there's a little bit of gain on Level 2. So I I'm just trying to reconcile the net in calculation, and correct me if my calculation is wrong, by all means.

92:05

With the 1,740 square meters additional floor area that mister Tabu has has said that the proposal is delivering, the two numbers don't match up, and I'm just trying to understand the difference. Can you help me with this? Can I just jump in there just to table it? If you go to my spreadsheet in the bottom table, I think I can help you there. Yep.

92:30

So if you if you're table c, if you if you're there. So the the little glass box on level one will give you a 14 extra GFA by taking the box there. Then if you climb onto levels two and six, you get a total of fourteen ten. So what's that? So that's two, three, four, five, six, seven, five.

92:56

So five levels, fourteen ten divided by five. So getting a total of 282 square meters per floor based on that. Hopefully, that that reconciles to what you're saying now. And and and just correct me. So is that 200 and and and, say, per floor, does that figure exclude the lift well and stairwell and and and the hallway area?

93:26

No. That's gross. That that doesn't gel when I look at the plans, and I see it's a box of about 18 by 18, which is 334 324 square meters. You you you're removing the setbacks, course, aren't you? I I am.

93:50

If you if you look at sheet one zero three Yeah. And I see the, you know, the the the the the new build is is between grids b and f. That's four grids, and it's between one and five, which is four grids. And four times four and a half is is 18 meters. So it's 18 meters by 18 meters plus a a little bit sitting in the thing, and 18 times 18 is is 324.

94:29

That that's and when I multiply that by five, it's a 1,620, which is a couple hundred more than your fourteen ten on your spreadsheet. And and so I was thinking, well, is that because of It must be. It sorry. That must be then the spire stairs in the lift in the corridors might be taken out of that. Okay.

94:54

Right. So so when if we talk of and then excuse my ignorance on this. If I use the term gross floor area or, you know, what whatever is the right term for total footprint, then that is probably more in the 1,675 floors times three thirty five and and and and plus your top floor, the top level, another three forty is about 1,900 odd square meters. It's not critical. I just wanna make sure I understand correctly.

95:36

That that total area is probably more on the 1,900 square meters thereabouts, And the seventeen forty is is probably excluding lift and and stairwell, etcetera. Yeah. It it it I think you're right on that. Yes. Yes.

95:53

Okay. No. That that's fine. That was that was the only really point of clarification I wanted. Thank you.

96:00

Okay. Just check on there. Dennis, we've got a chop out on the I think it's the southern end of the building where you've got a light well in there. Oh, yes. Yes.

96:10

Yes. That too. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yes.

96:13

I see that. Oh, is that what that is? I wondered about that. Yeah. Okay.

96:19

Yeah. Thank you for that, mister Leary. Oh, and I'm sorry. I had one other question for the architect. Now the the the underground car park, and I fully accept that there is some uncertainty about the extended car park that can be developed, taking into account a number of technical matters and the the way in which the car park might operate.

96:48

Is it what what do you what area of this basement do you think might be able to be developed as as car park? And and either of you can answer that that question if you have an answer. I mean, it might be that you just simply haven't worked the detail out yet. Alright. So that this is the opportunity of square meters that we can use, but then we could get into trouble with the columns coming down from the top go the piles coming down, the shear walls coming down, shear walls for the lift core, stairwells coming down.

97:34

So it could be more material. Probably half of this area that we're showing can be usable, And then maneuvering is another thing. So it really depends on what robotic system we can employ to use this space. It won't be a situation of people driving going into a lift and then driving the car around and bringing it out. It's just too small.

98:01

So it'll be a puzzle type situation that we'll have to do. But there will be, as Ignatius said, there'll be have to have shear walls and columns and piles coming all the way down, and they could be sprinkled all over the place. Right. And and so that really is an issue for detailed design, isn't it? Yes.

98:20

It is. Yeah. And that's why I talk about 10 to 20. We just don't know at this stage. Okay.

98:30

That's fine. Thank you. Helen? No. I don't have any questions.

98:37

Thank you. I I do have questions of Mr. Pearson, but I'll save it for him. Thank you. Shana, can I ask you to turn to page eight of your statement?

98:57

Yes. In terms of Thank you. It's just when I went through your evidence, I highlighted three paragraphs, 4.9, four point 10, four point 14. So 4.9, that's fine. Understand that.

99:13

I'm just wondering now, in light of Mr. Pabu's evidence earlier this morning, whether 4.1 should be frunk out, if I could put it that way. Because you say the final building design is not actually preferred by IPG. Our preference is total light by glass structure with greater floor area, etcetera. Do you stand by that statement, or in light of mister Pabu's evidence, do you think it requires amendment?

99:44

Yeah. Yes. My preference would be for the glass, and it's probably would be scored by miss Stevens because she was calling for more transparent facade. But, of course, I would have to take into consideration all the work Dave Pearson was done for this building. And due to his experience, I think he will knew better what to propose for this building.

100:21

But, yes, I still stand by the glass facade. Thank you. And we've had the discussion this morning again, principally with mister Prado, about your statement four fourteen, retention of facade is conditional on obtaining sufficient GFA. But I understand the evidence this morning is that the retention of the facade as part of application two could proceed notwithstanding the level of GFA that it does achieve, which is lower than what with regard to be economically viable. Is that your understanding?

101:05

Sorry. Could you just repeat your question? That's paragraph four fourteen. Yeah. Just looking for that.

101:12

In light of Mr. Pabu's evidence this morning. Four fourteen. Last four minutes. Eight.

101:20

We say the retention of the facade is conditional on obtaining sufficient PFA to make it economically viable. The evidence from Mr. Pablo is that he will proceed if consent was granted with application to contain the facades even though it is not, quote, unquote, economically viable. It's just whether your statement stands as one that you understand to be your position. You you sure it's four fourteen?

101:53

We Janella doesn't have a four fourteen on her documents here. Well, I've got it in front of me on page eight. It's just two pages in from the back. The back page is page nine, and inside back page is page eight. Okay.

102:16

Mhmm. My my copy, for some reason, has come through because I'm doing this electronically in a funny order. So I have found that paragraph on page 33, weirdly, of because I think in my document, there's the various attachments of being then dispersed throughout. So that helps. Yeah.

102:41

Helen. No. We did find that. Yes. Retention of the facade is conditional on obtaining sufficient GFA to make it economically viable.

102:51

Yes. That that would be the fair comment. Okay. But the economic environment might still be a loss. Yeah.

103:00

I mean, I'm I'm just really referring back to mister Pavri's evidence. And we hear is that he would proceed even though there'll be an economic loss. I'm just wondering whether you understood that and, therefore, whether you feel you can still say it will be conditional on getting the GFA, which won't be the outcome if this consent application was approved. But I don't think we need to take it through this. But what I do want to just raise with you, and firstly, to say to everyone that during the hearing process, we often have to discuss potential consent conditions, and that is no way to indicate any predetermination on the part of the hearing panel.

103:50

It's our opportunity to explore with all the parties, applicants, witnesses, and submitters, the comments on any of the consent conditions that are being put in front of us. So with that sort of statement, if we could look at the recommended draft consent conditions that circulated a week ago, and in respect of the second application under the heading townscape and design and, unfortunately, they're not page numbers, so I can't even help there. But it's condition seven under the heading townscape slash design. Can I just make Do have that? No.

104:37

We don't seem to have that yet. On on that 04/2014, I can I just strike that? Yes. You can. So I like, the retention of the facade is in like, it's it's a must in my view.

105:03

So We certainly can, if that is your request, to strike that statement at 04:14. Back, please. Yes, please. So now can I just clarify that all the parties have received a copy of the draft consent conditions that were put forward by the council last Friday Friday week? Mister Leary, can you confirm that's the case?

105:38

Yes. The the conditions have been sent out to to certainly to all all the team. Yep. I have got comment in my statement to the hearing. I'm sure that's going to be the case, but we want to hear from your experts as to their view, and particularly in terms of townscaping design, we'd like to hear firstly from Chunara and in due course from mister Pearson to see if we can turn to townscaping design condition seven.

106:12

Have we got that in front of us? Just just give a a minute. We'll we'll find it. Yep. Thank you.

106:18

I can email. Can I just check with you, chair? I don't have I have the conditions, but the townscapes and design conditions, I only have conditions five and six. So I don't have a condition seven. The condition seven comes under monitoring and review.

106:38

Monday. Have I am I have I got the wrong version, or has everyone else got the same issue? Monday. Not sure what's going on here, but I just printed off a hard copy as I've circulated by council, and the conditions run through to condition 26. Yeah.

106:59

Monday. And then after that monitoring and reviewing condition 27. So Yeah. Condition seven is at approximately because the pages are not numbered. These are the draft conditions on the new building, four nine zero seven one seven, on page three under the heading town state design.

107:23

We're just trying to find it. Yeah. Oh, beg your pardon. I yes. I see what it is.

107:29

Beg beg your pardon. So what I think it is just to help the team is if you start page three is the draft conditions for the new building. And sorry. There's two there's two sets of conditions, but they're all in one document. That's correct.

107:48

So if you scroll down to page three of that of that document, you'll find the new building conditions. And then keep going, and you should find condition seven. Thank you. That's correct. Apologies for that.

108:04

It's just I thought it might be easier for I'm working electronically because not allowed anywhere near a printer at the moment or anywhere near or anywhere near anything, really. That's And as I'm not able to pass a hard copy at the moment, I've just emailed you, Dennis, the revised copy of another version of those draft conditions. Okay. Let me just get that up then. I'll hand it to Janara.

108:34

K. Dennis, is it this Okay. So which condition are you referring to, and I can help Janara? It's condition seven under the heading Townscape Design. I don't know if you can say that one.

109:16

Townscape it. That was condition five here. And seven. No. It's under seven, we have monitoring and review.

109:25

We only have six. We'll need this one. You need to keep going down. There's two there's two sets of conditions. The first three pages or two pages are conditions.

109:39

Yep. Got it. Yep. But keep scroll keep scrolling down. I I found it, Helen.

109:45

Okay. Great. Yep. Thank you. So first, can I clarify?

109:52

Because Mr. Leary has just emailed to you a set of those conditions. Are those conditions in front of you now showing any track changes? Because what I want to establish is your expert opinion on the conditions as first circulated by counsel? So condition I?

110:30

Yes. So we will be yes. We would like to alter the exterior entrance to the hotel. That would be acceptable to you as a consent condition. Yes.

110:46

Yep. But could I just could I just because Shneur won't be aware that there would be two entrances. The one on the corner of the facade that currently is a window, but previously was a door. And so we'd reinstate the door. But that's that's the the walking or the customers coming to the venue and the ground level is can be one entrance, and the other entrance is through the lobby side as the with the vehicle entrance.

111:24

So it'll be multiple entrances. Yeah. Understand that. So the second condition a two says the Ground Floor design is able to provide compliant accessible entry. The urban design team's preference is a exterior entry basis Grumman Street.

111:46

That, from what I've just said, I understand would not be one supported by the applicant. Sonara, I'm asking for your expert view on this. It it just because you appreciate that all the designs has been done prior, my training ITG team. And all these conditions, would like to discuss further with mister Pearson. Okay.

112:19

Well, that's fair. We may have to give you time during the hearing process for you to have that discussion with mister Pearson because I can appreciate the working relationship is important in terms of your design and his input to that. So at this point, is there any other comment you wish to make about the conditions, or would you rather have the chance maybe over the lunch or German to discuss with Mr. Pearson? Yes.

112:48

So I would rather discuss it with Mr. Pearson first before I make my comments. Thank you. So that's it for the present, and we'll just have to think how we bring back yourself. Because mister Pearson will be coming up before the lunch adjournment.

113:10

We may be asking him the same questions in terms of the draft consent conditions, but it may be at the conclusion just a second out loud now. At the conclusion of mister Leary's presentation, we might have some discussion discussion involving you all in terms of the consent conditions. So we could hold it over to that point perhaps. That would be acceptable to us. Yeah.

113:37

Yeah. I think that would be a more efficient way to move forward. Great. Okay. So thank you, Shonoda, very much, and we'll now hear from mister Jamison.

113:51

Just leave an email to me too, please. Right. I'll it's okay, mister chairman. I'll start with mister Jamison. Mister Jamison, in paragraph 3.5, you made the comment that you've also been advised that once City Council draft district plan proposes to increase the height of buildings in this area of up to 43.5 metres, There are potential development sites to the South Side, which are likely to affect the future wind environment.

114:39

So to what extent, if there were other buildings created in the vicinity of this building that were higher than existing, to what extent would that influence your assessment of wind? Would that reduce the the wind effects of this building significantly or marginally? Actually, it could reduce them significantly. Typically, the first buildings into an area that are similarly taller than the surrounding buildings have the most impact and is I was more developed with more buildings that are built up to that similar height. I tend to provide more shelter for each other.

115:24

In this situation, the building. It's like in Christian, it's likely to become more sheltered protected from the south. If so, from the north because of the street damages. Right. And and the the criteria or your assessment where where you have predicted that and given that there haven't been wind tunnel testing, but your predictions are that that there might this building might result in in the wind speeds exceeding the district plan threshold of 20 meters per second to some extent.

116:09

Where does this 20 meters per second number sit? Like, is there a New Zealand standard or Australian standard for wind speeds? Or you know, what's the background to this 20 meters per second? Is that an absolute or not to be exceeded, or is this a this is a best practice, preferably not exceeded, but is exceeded occasionally? I'm trying to understand the the threshold of this 20 meter per second number.

116:41

Each each city that has wind requirements in the district plan or local ordinances, they see their own for short sight fee. For example, Auckland sets a value of 25 meters per second, whereas Wellington sets a value of 20. And team here was given some respects given Wellington's wouldn't be reputation was that that was an aspirational value. We've done testing it in terms of full scale measurements. You'll find many locations in and around Wellington with those levels are already equal or exceeded.

117:28

The value of 20 meters per second is what we turn the the last effectively putting it in layman's terms. Conditions that you might expect to occur in the worst storm in an typical year. Right. Sorry? One second.

117:50

I'm just recording that. Thank you. So sort of an annual storm. Approximately, yes. That that's that's Yeah.

118:00

And and then and and in the table within your report, I think it is, the the you've got a table on there that that has describes very high up to 27 or over 27 meters per second as as being very high. And and so I I I take it from your report and and your work that this building, as it currently stands in this environment, could be experiencing somewhere between a bit over 22 or three meters per second, potentially over the 20, but not reaching the very high. You've you've you've stated here as being in the high category. Is that correct? That's correct.

118:53

I mean, given given the by experience with wind tunnel studies and also including experience in wind tunnel testing in the LA Road, I would expect the the wind speeds to be towards the lower side of that 20 meter per second. So not reaching this certainly not reaching that 27 level. Right. In the lower end. And and you've read the review by mister Don?

119:25

And he's he's anticipated or considered that the winds might be a little higher in a couple of areas than your prediction. Do do you have a comment on on his review? That would tell us, I think it's it's obviously difficult to say with any certainty. However, the this building didn't really narrow in plan form than the building that we have previously tested in Adelaide Road, mister Dom has relied on in his review. The and that's one of the reasons why I want him to somewhat disagree with his level of change.

120:18

Okay. And and with respect to wind tunnel testing, is that used in every situation of a of a of a tool building assessment, or is it like is it common industry practice to wind tunnel test each of these proposals, or or is it only used in some situations? The district plan in Wellington requires any building in in sitting in a simple area over a certain height requires a wind report, and that wind report can either include wind assessment or wind tunnel study. Certainly, for the larger cooler buildings, a wind tunnel study is done as a matter of course. All of it is generally or sometimes used.

121:17

Whether or not a wind tunnel case for assessment is done is not a decision that we take ourselves. We leave that to the council, the client, and the council wind adviser. Right. Okay. I understand.

121:35

Yep. That's all I had to say. Thank you. Helen, any follow-up? No.

121:46

No follow-up. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Neither from me.

121:50

Thank you, mister Jamison. We'll move to mister Pearson. Welcome, mister Pearson. Is everyone speaking? Yep.

122:02

Yep. So good morning. I've I've got a summary statement of evidence in front of me, which I'd like to read out if I can. Absolutely. Thank you.

122:13

My my involvement in the project started sorry, included the preparation of a preliminary design, which involved the retention of the two street facades and the construction of a new building behind the facades. So I haven't been involved in the planning of the building at all, I just like to make that point. But I have prepared a heritage assessment of the building and a heritage impact assessment basically assess the impact of the proposed work on the building's heritage values. So in my evidence, in preparing my evidence, I have read the submissions and the officer report and the appendices. I've also since read the evidence prepared by Laura Calloway from Heritage New Zealand's Porhiru Tower.

122:57

As you know, the former Tremway Hotel has two road entrances. I'm trying not to repeat myself, trying not to repeat my original statement of evidence, hopefully I'm not going on too long. So the two facades facing Adelaide Road and Drummond Street, which were designed in an ornate Italian classical style, which included ornate plaster window surrounds, pediments, finials, string courses, and cornices. Other than the removal of the original decorative parapet, which occurred following an earthquake, the facades have remained virtually intact. By comparison, the rear faces of the building were always plain with no architectural value.

123:37

Over time, they have been extensively modified. Internally, the building has also been modified with each successive owner making changes to the point where there is virtually no original fabric remaining. As you know, the interior is in poor condition, and I've included some photographs of the interior in my original statement of evidence. The building as we know of is on the list of heritage buildings in Wellington, but but not listed by the trust. So the proposal, the two street facades will be retained, which will ensure the preservation of the view currently seen from Adelaide Road.

124:17

The remainder of the building will be demolished, however, the two street facades will be fully repaired and structurally upgraded to resist future seismic events. The parapet will be restored and a condition requiring the final form of the parapet to be determined through discussions with heritage planners council would be acceptable. Just as an aside, the original parapet was some 2.4 meters high. So, obviously, a door is two meters high, so another 400 on top of that. So it was a very high parapet.

124:46

So, you know, it could could be problems in trying to restore that parapet back to its original height. Beyond the two street facades and set back from and by a distance of three meters, a new building will be constructed, rising to a height of six meters. Considerable thought has been given to the form of this building, or to the form of the building, including having an all glazed facade. The option I proposed was arrived at after an analysis of the existing facades, which read as a relatively solid structure with openings formed for doors and windows. Consequently, the the proposed building is also relatively solid and then punctuated by openings, and the portions of those have been designed to reflect the windows in the hotel.

125:35

So the new structure has been kept deliberately simple with no attempt being made to replicate the original facades. The walls are composed of concrete, coloured to reflect the colours of the hotel bricks. They were semi designed without mouldings or details which might cause attraction to be drawn away from the original facades. And if if you just just imagine the the drawing on the front of the drawing on the front of the set of drawings showing that a proposed building, if you start to add, you know, cornices and bands and all the rest of it, if you start to add detail to that building, and and in my view, that would that would draw your attention away from the from the old from the from the facades below. So one one of the primary aims of the proposal is ensure the most significant parts of the Tramway Hotel, being that the street facades, are restored to their original form as near as practicable and preserved for the future, which would obviously not occur if the whole building were to be demolished.

126:39

And look. I've set the desirability of retaining heritage buildings in their entirety wherever possible rather than just the street facades. Nevertheless, there have been many instances throughout New Zealand where it has not been possible to retain anything other than the facades, and I suggest that this is one of those situations. In my view, it's better to retain part of the building than than demolish the whole building, which is the other option. I've worked on a number of projects, probably about half a dozen, where we have kept the facades.

127:10

The building in in Auckland that was mentioned earlier on that that got demolished after cracks appeared in the building is really an anomaly. All the buildings I've worked on, the facades have been retained quite successfully. So, yeah, there's no reason why the facade should not be there's there's no in my opinion, there should not be any risk of those facades cracking or or else leading to the demolition. I also accept the rear elevations of a building can have heritage value. In this case, as I've shown, the rear elevations lack the architectural style of the more visible elevations and a purely utilitarian in the form.

127:53

They have been extensively modified over time, which in my opinion leaves them with little heritage value. And again, in my original statement of evidence, I had a couple of photographs of the rear of the building, and you'll see from there, they are very plain. You know, there's there's there's there's no detail on anything like that. And, again, some of the interiors have been altered over time to the point where they have little value. It's noted the interiors are not protected on the district plan.

128:21

Furthermore, the retaining facades are structurally upgraded. They will need to be underpinned with new piled foundations. And we've talked about drilling rigs behind the facades before, so to get a drilling rig on there, you would have to demolish the well, at least sort of three meters back from the facades, and then there should be nothing holding up the floors after that. So really, practically, I can't see a way that you could retain any of the interiors if you want to strengthen the facades by underpinning them. So the proposal will obviously have an impact on the heritage values of the hotel.

129:03

Firstly, by the loss of the original fabric, the roof, and what remains of the interior. Secondly, the new structure will alter the perception of this hotel, although it will be set back from facades to reduce its impact. So in my opinion, although the facade of the project will impact on the heritage of the hotel, there'll also be positive effects. And obviously these include the fact that the facades will be restored and repaired and structurally upgraded. It's a well known fact that without a viable use heritage buildings deteriorate at an accelerated pace, and that is obviously the situation with the building that we're talking about today.

129:45

The proposal will enable the building in its new form to continue to be used for the purpose for which it was first constructed, that is providing a venue for hospitality, accommodation and other functions. The new hotel with its restored facades will also have the effect of contributing to the revitalization of this area of Wellington. I read the officers s 42 a report prepared by Peter Daly. And note that while he recommends the resource consent be refused, he acknowledges that the proposed development incorporates a number of positive outcomes, notably the redevelopment of the derelict site and the seismic upgrade of an earthquake prone building. I'm encouraged by the fact that he also considers that any adverse effects are potentially solvable.

130:39

I've read the report by Chesa Stephens, consultant here to adviser to Wellington City. She appears to acknowledge also that a town in some form could be considered on the site, but is of opinion that the town as designed is visually uninteresting and suggests a design which has greater transparency such as glass box. However, her report misses the whole point of the exercise where a conscious decision was made to produce a building that was relatively solid with openings cut into it to reflect the existing building, and also that it should be a simple building without ornamentation so as not to draw attention away from historic facades. So it was really an attempt to produce something different, you know, something that wasn't a glass box. I've also read the evidence of Laura Calloway from Heritage New Zealand.

131:37

I accept there's no conservation plan in place, and due to restrictions imposed as a result of the COVID pandemic, I've been unable to visit the site. It also precluded me from undertaking a heritage inventory of the building, although the interior has been well photographed and I've had access to those photos. My opinion of the value of the interior and the exterior elevations has not changed. But there is a heritage assessment prepared by Ian Bowman who is a notable heritage architect in New Zealand, and I've considered the findings of his report and following my opinion regarding the relative value of parts of the building. In his assessment, Mr Bowman rates the building as having moderate architectural values and low landmark status.

132:24

He also assesses the building as having low integrity on the Ground Floor, that's internally, and moderate integrity on the upper floor. So Ms. Killerway acknowledges the need to structurally strengthen the building, and I have already outlined the implications that would have. As an appendix to her evidence, she includes a publication by HNZPT entitled heritage redesigned adapting historic places. The publication includes a number of buildings that have been adapted for our new use.

132:58

These include the Armisen Wall Store and the brick buildings of Litchfield Lane in Christchurch. Unfortunately, those buildings have all now been demolished following the Canterbury earthquakes, and that has emphasised the need to structurally upgrade heritage buildings. In her evidence, miss Calloway discusses the impacts of retaining only the facades. In my original statement of significance, I acknowledge the desirability of of retaining heritage buildings in their entirety. However, in some instances, this is not practical or even possible, and I suggest that this is one of those instances.

133:33

So just in conclusion, the applicant is required to either monitor the building or to retain and structurally upgrade it or the facades. The second option is essentially about giving what remains of the hotel the best chances of survival. It clearly is the better of the two options, and that the strict facades will be retained and strengthened they do survive for the future. Yeah. And and in my opinion, it is better to, yeah, to retain part of a heritage building than than lose the whole lot.

134:05

So due to the considerable and lightening cost, and we've talked about this today, of remediating the facades as well as underpinning and strengthening them and reinstating the parapet, a new building is proposed to be erected behind, and that has to happen for the project to be reasonably financially viable. We've carefully designed a new building that can provide a dynamic addition to a heritage building where the two structures interact with one another to provide an exciting combination of old and new together, and this has been the aim of the project, designed with a proposed new building reflecting the facades of the old building. In a way anybody can design a glass box is not very difficult. As I've said before, this is really an attempt to, you know, to design a building that is is different from a glass box, which is probably the the sort of norm these days. So that is the new building is in a simplified form so that it does not detract or draw attention away from the facades.

135:02

This way, the two facades will remain the primary point of interest. The height of the proposed building appears to be the main obstacle to acceptance of the scheme. However, I note that council's heritage advisor, Ms Stevens, considers that a tower above the building may be acceptable if some changes can be made. In Ms Callaway's evidence, she also makes reference to a multi storey building suggesting that she also accepts this as a possible solution. So finally, the intention of application tour is to ensure that the essence of the hotel is retained and restored, and there's obviously different ways of achieving that goal, but the project must be financially reasonably viable.

135:48

Relying on the evidence of others, the current proposal would appear to be a realistic and achievable way of ensuring that the essence of the hotel of the building remains, while also ensuring a reasonably financially viable outcome, which must be the aim of every building owner. If consent is refused, in my opinion, the future of the hotel will continue to remain uncertain with the prospect of future demolition being potentially unavoidable. So thank you for allowing me to to go through that that statement. Thank you. And as I mentioned at the beginning, be grateful if you could, in due course, email that through to council via Crystal Lane.

136:26

Absolutely. Yeah. We can do that. Thank you. Hello.

136:32

Thank you. It is still morning. Good morning. Good morning. Look.

136:37

Thank you for that statement. I found it really helpful. I'm just I'm just opening up your statement of evidence if you're wondering what it is that I'm looking at. I just wanted to some of the stuff you've actually covered, but I just wanted to take you through it just so that we have a sort of crystal clear in our own minds. Just in terms of the internal nature of the building, and you've attached a couple of photos in your statement of evidence, and you referred to it in your summary just now.

137:11

I take it that as as far as you you can tell based on mister Bowman's report and the photographs that there isn't anything of any heritage value that's left internally within the building. Is that did I understand your evidence correctly? Yep. That's correct. Typically, the Ground Floor.

137:33

Like, the the Ground Floor has been obviously altered many times. We we do have copies of the original floor plans. Yeah. Yeah. So it has been altered many times, so kind of there's just rubble inside the wood and white, I understand.

137:46

On the Upper Floor, I think it's a little more original. Although according to mister Bowman's report, some of the walls have been removed. There's there's virtually nothing else left. There might be a few a few architraves and things like that at some places in the building and maybe one or two doors. But this as I understand it, and I say I haven't been there for various reasons, as I understand it, that that is the the state of the of the interior of the building.

138:12

No. Thank you. That that's the way your evidence and your summary, Rita, I just wanted to be absolutely clear because there is some indication and some of the other expert reports that there may be some value in keeping some of the internal parts of the building, so I can explore that with them. Now just in terms of just going down. So so just move just just to continue on that theme.

138:44

Again, looking at photographs that you've included in section four of your evidence, which is supporting the statement you make about other the fact that there isn't any heritage value either in terms of the rear of the building or in terms of the roof. And also, I think you made the point just now that in any event, in order to protect the facades and do the structural work, there's gonna have to be some significant demolition to be able to get the work done. Did I understand that correctly? Yep. That that is correct.

139:24

Like, I've worked on other buildings like this before. There's a building in Auckland called the Jean Batten Building and where we find the facades. That those the Jean Batten building was eight stories high, so there was some very significant planning. It hadn't had to happen to that, obviously, to hold up those eight stories and about four levels of basement below. And, you know, the interiors and that that job, they they just had had to go because we couldn't get those big pine rigs in.

139:48

This this building is not not eight stories, it's two stories, but it's the same principle. You know, these these rigs, you know, I'm not sure exactly how high they are, but but certainly, they'd be they would be higher than just just one level, just I. E. The Ground Floor. And you'd you'd have to remove the ground floor, which is likely to be to be timber, I would say, because that's well, I think that's what the drawing show anyway, a timber floor.

140:13

So to get a pine rig in again, you you'd have to remove that floor and and and the corresponding area of the upper floor as well. Maybe even the roof just to get the rig. I'm I'm not totally sure, but but but, yes, you would need to remove a substantial area of the interior just to get those those pine rigs in. Yeah. Understand.

140:33

And in doing so, it it demolishes what what's there. Look. Just in terms of the height issue, and I'll I'll take you to the proposed conditions of consent shortly. Just as a matter of principle, you've noted, I think, going back to evidence that, you know, there is often an issue 4.6 is where you've referenced, you know, this conflict, I suppose. My my word, not yours, between height and heritage.

141:08

But but is it is it your view that it's inherently undesirable to put a tall building behind a heritage facade, or or is it a bit more nuanced than that? Yeah. It's inevitable really. You know, like, with with the pressures on on on property values and all the rest of it, it's inevitable that it will happen. So what you really, what you have to do is kinda minimize that impact, and we have tried to do that, obviously, by setting the building back, then the top level being set back again.

141:39

So, you know, we've we've tried to do whatever we can to minimize the impact of of those extra floors. In in my opinion, if it's six stories or 26 stories, in my opinion, that actually doesn't make a huge amount of difference, really. Current project in Orkham has two two facades retained, and it's gonna be something like a 40 story building and behind those. So, yeah, in a in a way, in my opinion, it actually doesn't really matter if that you know, look. At the moment, it's six stories high.

142:07

If it was to go to 10 stories high, I don't think that would make make much difference. Yeah. Look. We we always like to retain heritage buildings in their entirety. I acknowledge that.

142:18

I've been working at the arts center in Christchurch where where we're doing that. But in this particular case, I don't think there's I don't think you can do that. I think it's inevitable you've gotta have a town there to to support the, you know, to to support facades both financially and physically. So, yeah, it's it's it's kind of inevitable given the the property values and all the rest of it, I think. Hopefully, I hope that answers your question.

142:41

No. No. It does. And I suppose looking at it from an urban design perspective, which is where your other hat, is that from a a streetscape perspective, I guess, height, Would you say height is perhaps less relevant? Because in terms of what a viewer sees, except from a long view, you're not really you're not really reading a building that way.

143:05

Is that have I got it? I understood it quickly. But I should just make a point. I'm not a moving planner. I'm an architect.

143:12

So, know You've already said that. Yep. Yeah. But nevertheless, I mean, people, when they're walking on the footpath, well, inevitably, they're looking at the ground to to you know, so they don't fall over something. I'd yeah.

143:23

Look. I I don't think it actually matters. A distance, obviously, the height of the building does become more evident, obviously. But as you get up close to the building, you you tend to concentrate on the lower floors, which in this case would be the heritage facades. Yeah.

143:38

When you ride up close to it, the big building is there behind it, but but you're not so really aware of it, though. I think your attention, particularly with a plain building behind, your attention really is gonna be concentrated on those facades. Thank you for that. Now I'm just looking down to see what other questions I had. Now oh, you're just in terms you talked about the setback in your summary, and you've mentioned that in your evidence as well.

144:14

This might be a good time to perhaps have a look at the proposed conditions that, the chair actually discussed with the IPG architect. Did you it'd just be useful to get your thoughts on on those conditions. I'm just gonna switch to them now. Do you now do you have them in front of you? You probably you prob do you?

144:41

Or you've got a copy sent, I think, if you haven't got them? Yeah. I I got a copy about quite an hour ago. So Okay. No.

144:49

That no. That's fine. And, look, as noted earlier, the plan would be to provide a much more considered opportunity for the applicant to respond and other submitters as well if that's what's required. But did you have any initial thoughts on the the workability or the desirability of of some of those conditions regarding some of the additional design, if you like, measures that the officers and and the experts from the council has recommended? Yeah.

145:27

Look. I I have speed read them read them through, I have to say. So a lot of them are pretty standard conditions for a project of this nature, and and I'm very familiar with with a lot of these sort of conditions. Specifically, you mentioned about design of the building. Is there any particular area you want to draw my attention to?

145:47

Sorry. Just bear with me while I grab them. I had them open, and then I must have closed them again. Right. So I think the chair was exploring some of the suggested conditions and condition seven, which talk about some alterations, if you like, some additional details that the council team were recommending.

146:16

Yes. Noting, of course, that, you know, the evidence of the council team is is that the consent shouldn't be granted, but bear with because we do need to take you through these. Mhmm. Are there any anything in there? I know you you'll need to talk to your client, but is there anything in there that sort of jumps out at you as being particularly troublesome in terms of your the points you've made in your evidence?

146:41

Not hugely so, but but, I mean, there's there's one or two situations where I think it is is a little bit too descriptive. Yeah. But I think, yeah, I think we can explore different different options. Yeah. Look.

146:55

Well, the first comment is really about the about the the original door on the corner. The original plans actually don't show a door in that location, but there's also a plan that does shut. And I think maybe it was a bit of a last minute decision to put that door in. So yeah. So but, I mean, where that door goes on and on that, we can we can discuss that.

147:17

What else is the yeah. The exterior of the facade is altered to provide more three-dimensional relief for creation and depth of window placement and interest in the finish of window reveals. Yes. Possibly. As I've said before, I don't wanna put I didn't wanna put too much detail onto that building for the very reason.

147:35

In in my original statement, there's some examples of some new buildings that I included, which are, you know, quite simple buildings, just built on brick in my original statement. So look at it. It's it is I'm not saying not ruling it out. I'm not saying no. Definitely not.

147:50

I'm I'm saying, yes. Maybe we could explore that a bit more. It might be possible to be to provide some relief with without, you know, without drawing your attention away too much from the facades. And I think if I understood mister Black's evidence correctly, he's obviously gonna have to be involved in this discussion because changing some of the setback issues may have some, you know, engineering consequences, which he discussed with mister earlier. So I understand that, you know, it's a work in progress rather than a final landing place.

148:32

Yep. Now I'm just checking through to see so I guess in your evidence, and it's just I'm not gonna ask you specifically about about about it, but it's at at the conclusion at eight point eight. Is it your reading of the evidence from the council and and and perhaps here to New Zealand that height the height of the proposed building is is the main obstacle. Is that still your your thoughts? I mean, you've now seen the proposed conditions and and had a bit more time to reflect.

149:16

Does that we'll explore it with him, but is that your kind of summing up of where we've landed or where they've landed? Yeah. Well, yeah, I think there are two the two issues. Obviously, the height and the design of the building. So probably those those two both, you know, would be good to to explore the council's comments a bit more on that one.

149:38

But but, yeah, also, obviously, I think the height is, yeah, is is is the issue or certainly one of the issues, one of the important issues. And I think I just to conclude, I think I understand clearly understand your evidence in relation to height because you answered a question from me recently about that. And I understand your evidence is very clear in relation to the design. It's deliberate. It's being done deliberately in order to not detract from the facade or the heritage values on the facade.

150:13

That that's correct. I've understood that correctly? Yes. You have. Yes.

150:17

Yep. Okay. Thank you, chair. I'll just well, I'll leave it to you, and I'll just check that I haven't missed any Thank you. Sorry.

150:27

Great. The the one question I was I was talking to some of other evidence. In the new parapet, the council expert was seeking that the parapet construction be in more the original form and materials, etcetera, rather than the indicative materials and construction meeting proposed. So when you're dealing with rebuilding at Parapat to some extent for a project like this where you're trying to achieve a degree of heritage retention, How important is it to is it is it normal industry practice, and is it important to stick to the original materials as much as possible and work methods and construction techniques, etcetera? Or because it's up high and maybe not as easy to get close to and hence detect, is it common practice to use more modern materials, concrete and construction techniques, etcetera?

151:36

Is this a is this a a big issue, or is this just one of those minor or not so great big not so big details? Yeah. Look. I mean, the original parapet would have been brick, unreinforced brick masonry with a plaster finish. And as I said before, it was 2.4 meters high, which is, you know, the the interior stud height of of a standard house, 2.4 meters.

152:01

So, yeah, it was a very significant parapet, which is obviously why they took it down because of the risk that they're trying to that pose. So if you're going to if you're gonna rebuild in brick, mister Blake would probably have heart failure trying to hold it up. But yeah. Look. I I could quite imagine it being built in in a lightweight concrete.

152:24

And and and to me, you know, the I don't I don't think it matters that you don't build it in brick because if the power plant was restored from ground level, you actually wouldn't know the the difference, and and it's just just simply impractical to to build it in brick. So, yeah, look, I I'd be more than happy with a with a lightweight concrete replica if you like. Okay. Thank you. And and one final question.

152:51

I I we've heard lots of discussion this morning on costs and and build costs. But as an experienced architect, do you and we were the assessment of costs and viability and and and that on this was dealing with costs. Mister Pavaroo's spreadsheet was dealing with a cost of around 5 and a half thousand dollars a square meter plus allowance for reasons increases, which will certainly be in that 25, 30 percent above. Do you have a feeling for multi storey building, a building of this proposal, very crude order of dollars per square meter to build, putting the demon putting the supporting the facade to one side, just if this was just a normal build new building of whatever it is, eight stories on the site, do you do you have a feel for dollars per square meter? Yeah.

153:52

Look. I I actually don't. And I I haven't sort of studied all all the numbers in detail because other people know you know, other people are experts in that area and and I'm not. So look. I I actually rather rather not because I've like, I I just I get every building that's different.

154:07

So yeah. Look. I probably just I don't think we're good if if that's okay. No. No.

154:13

Well, perfectly okay. I I was just just closing. That's fine. No. That's all set.

154:18

Thank you. Thanks, mister Pearson. Just a couple of points from me. Firstly, you made the observation about the existing west and south elevations. Pretty plain, aren't they, of the existing building?

154:33

Yeah. Look. Absolutely. And and there are two photos in my original statement that that show it. And, I mean, compared compared to street facades, well, there is no comparison, basically.

154:43

They're just plain ordinary facades, utilitarian in their design. They've been altered. They've got aluminum windows. And look. The backs of buildings, they can be really interesting.

154:54

You know, sometimes, I we're going on a train trip through through some of the historic towns, and the backs of the buildings facing the railway track can be actually really fascinating, really interesting. But but this is not one of those situations really. It's, you know, it's just it's a building. It's just built to keep the weather out or whatever, but but not much else. So moving forward to the new replacement building if consent's granted, and putting aside the fact there'll be possibly an LED side on the southern elevation, The south and west elevations are more than plain, aren't they?

155:25

There there's there's no relief elevation or articulation at all. Would you believe that those two elevations should have a degree of some sort of relief or articulation? Possibly. I guess on the it is the south side, I think. Right.

155:43

Yeah. Adelaide Road runs north south. Is it I'm right on that? Yes. Yes.

155:47

Yep. Yep. So on the south side, there could always be a building built right next to it over similar heights. Yeah. Look.

155:54

So for that for that reason yeah. It's probably not not a point not a lot of point really in putting too much relief on the other other elevations, You do accept that another building might be built up against it. On the west elevation, and bear in mind there's a residential complex adjacent to it moving west, and then the residential looks from a west orientation to east, and would see the rear elevation of the new building. Do you think that elevation could, you know, sort of improve with some degree of visual interest or articulation, or should it just be plain as proposed? Yeah.

156:32

Look. I didn't spend too much time on those elevations. I have to be honest. That was IPG, they they did they they they really they really designed the building, and I was really brought on board to to see whether there's a way that that we can make the new addition relate more to the facade. So that was really that was really where I was concentrating on.

156:53

Look. I I'm not gonna say no. You couldn't do anything with the rest west elevation because you probably could. No no doubt you could. But what sort of firm form that might take, I'm not sure.

157:04

No. I I I understand, and I appreciate your position. The next question, a bit nervous about asking it, to be frank. I'm going to. As a heritage conservation architect, where do you stand in terms of what I think it's somewhat pejoratively said to be, quote, unquote, facadeism?

157:27

Where where do I stand on that? Yeah. I mean, is there appropriate times when facades alone and I think I know what the answer is, but I wanna hear you say it because I appreciate, and and you referred to Laura Calloway's evidence. Although the term is not used in the submissions from Carriage New Zealand, it certainly frequently appears on the evidence of miss Calloway. And I just sort of, you know, wondered.

157:53

And you talked about some examples where you've been involved where facades and I understood facades only have been retained, but I suspect they were all good examples rather than wanting some examples. But, I mean, is facadism off the shelf altogether? In terms of off the off the shelf as a here in the dark? Not being appropriate. Look.

158:16

It's it's it's not the it's not the best option for a heritage building, but you see, but like I've said in in my evidence, there are situations in which you can't really avoid it. And, look, I I really, you know, really firmly believe that it is better to sort of keep, you know, the keep some of the building rather than demolishing the whole thing. And in this particular case, I'd be very low to see those two street elevations go because I I think they are really important part of Wellington, an important part of Adelaide Road on a prominent corner. So, yeah, I think it it would be a real loss if those facades weren't weren't retained. Yeah.

158:55

So it's it's it's it's not best practice if you like, but but there are situations where it kinda has to happen. Think this this is one of those situations. Thank you. Any final questions from other panel members at all? One one one last question, and it may have been covered, but I just wanted to clarify.

159:18

The the current building setback from the facade is about three meters, and the floor is two to seven. And council officer has sought a greater setback for architectural reasons, and, you know, she's explained the reasons for that. Are you comfortable with the current design setback of around that three meters? Do you think that that's a balance of achieving, you know, an appropriate structure that doesn't overpower the facade? Yeah.

159:58

Look. I am comfortable with it. Obviously, a a greatest setback might be beneficial, but to to make up for that loss of floor area, you'd have to go up maybe another couple of floors, and and and I'd be happy with I'd be uncomfortable with that as well. There's there's been examples around where the building above the Heritage Building has actually been brought right out to the facade. And, you know, and that those situations, you really do feel like the new building is sort of you know, it's crouching over the old building.

160:28

It's it's very intrusive. This this one, you know, setting it back three meters, I guess I am comfortable with that. Thank you. No. No, chair.

160:41

I don't have anything arising. I've checked my notes. There's nothing further for mister Pearson, but thank you very much for your very upfront and and clear answers. Thank you. And as we have foreshadowed, mister Pearson, I'm not sure if you were intending to leave now, but I believe, you know, once we've heard from mister Leary, there might be some discussion around the draft consent conditions.

161:08

So you'll be available to be involved in that discussion? Yes. I'm happy to do that. Thank you. Mister Leary.

161:17

Okay. I have got a brief hearing statement as well that I'd just like to start with. Yes. So this is an unusual, though not unprecedented circumstance where we're dealing with two applications concurrently. In that respect, my evidence should see out the options that are available to commissions, and that's these are to decline both consents, to approve the demolition, or to approve partial demolition and conditions.

161:50

And as I was preparing my myself for the hearing, I realized that I'd left out one important one of those, and that was to approve both conditions, both applications separately. And it was quite interesting that that was a point that was raised by commissioner Akins this morning in in her questions. The the certainly, the way that my evidence is free is is is based on my experience dealing with heritage buildings, and that is that we've got to explore all options in these particular cases. So I didn't think that there was a likelihood of both being approved, but as I've worked through the process, I actually think perhaps there might be. In respect to this application, the officer's assessment and submission, there would appear to be no disagreements about the relevant rules to apply the activity classifications, so we don't need to spend a lot of time on that.

162:49

In summary, the full demolition is a discretionary restricted activity. Oddly enough, the partial demolition and new building is a noncompliant activity, but it's noncompliant in respect to the scenes of height. So so and this is an unusual resource consent application. Well, that's a lot of these heritage buildings that you deal with are unusual because the applicant's been working towards strengthening solution for many years, and we've now got the issue of council's resilience team adding another dynamic to this process by going through the formal process of seeking notices under the building act to take possession of the building. So it's created an urgency that I've not really experienced often.

163:49

And in this particular case, it really does stress that there is a no do nothing option. The do nothing option does not exist for the applicant here. We can't sit back and and say, oh, we'll wait till wait wait till sometime in the future, something might come out of the woodwork that would enable us to preserve this billing or otherwise. An action must be taken now. Now there was a question asked earlier by I think it was commissioner Aiven or chairman Aiven, as to what testing the options meant in respect I think that might have been something that came out of my evidence.

164:34

And what I meant by that was not necessarily that the options were being tested by as to which off option is preferred, but what I meant by that is that during the the I think mister Black referred to when you do these buildings, it's a journey. The journey that the applicant has been on here has been quite long. There was 02/2016 purchased the building, and then there were several years trying to consult with council officers to get a proposal supported by officers. I was involved in the consultation process on several of the options, and it was obvious and I've said it out in my ears that the council officers were not supporting the proposal that's before council now, but the evidence suggested that something like this had to be able to be approved to make it possible to preserve parts of the facade. So, ultimately, to be able to determine whether you could construct the taller building behind that required this process of going through the hearing to see if you could gain consent.

165:56

If you couldn't gain consent to that taller building, then demolition was an appropriate solution because the applicant must strengthen this building. And if it's not practical to do so, then demolition might be the only option. So that's what I meant in terms of testing the options available to the applicant. So in the resource consent process, we generally work through the relevant matters in section one zero four. We consider the proposal against the relevant planning documents and then apply part two if indeed it's relevant and we're aware of the case law in terms of when part two assessment is required to be be undertaken.

166:42

And resource consent, the commissioners that define you cannot go through the planning process without considering the outcomes that will result from your decision. Inheritance outcomes are important consideration as we matter, but they are not the only consideration. Case law, and I refer obviously here to the Harklot's decision, clearly confirmed that health and safety is a relevant matter to consider. However, all the statutes, higher order planning documents, district plans, resource consents in the world are not going to strengthen the building. It is not economically viable to do so.

167:24

The applicant has provided uncontested evidence that the building is not economically viable to strengthen as is by without extending the bill without extending the building to increase the floor area applied. Now I'll pause here again from my prepared statement to answer a question that was raised previously, which I think sort of been addressed, and that's economically viable. Now economically viable has several meanings depending on the context. Obviously, the applicant in this case has expressed the fact that the building is likely to cause a loss, but that is viable to this owner. So the viable is not necessarily making a profit, but that can be afforded by the applicant.

168:17

That's what we have referred to in our evidence and our evidence statements as to what can be achieved or not. What is clear can't be achieved is that the building can't be strengthened as is because the hole or the loss that would be experienced by the applicant is too large to be absorbed. The applicant has provided uncondestined evidence of the strengthening just read that. I reiterate that the section forty two officer has not considered economically viable in any point in their reports. There's been no discussion at all as to the evidence that we've provided in terms of the multi's report, the valuation, and the strengthening reports in the original application.

169:11

In other cases, the commissioners could decide to decline a consent and wait for something to happen that might be a better result. Both these consents are both declined, then the uncertainty remains, and WCC resilience team will have to go through this same exercise that we're doing now because they won't be able to do their work without getting a resource consent. I am absolutely % confident with that fact. And based on the information available, my view would be that the option to counsel would only be demolition. It could not reasonably undertake the strengthening work given the costs and the ability to recover those costs.

169:57

So it is fair to say that the evidence of all the heritage experts that the best heritage outcome is strengthening of the building in its current form. And as pointed out by mister Black, even this option is going to have significant adverse effects on the heritage value of the building. But also reiterate that the internal parts of the building are not protected under the heritage rules unless those internal elements are specifically listed, and in this case, they are not. The preferred heritage option, I. E, present the preservation of the building as is is just not going to happen.

170:35

The second best option from a heritage perspective is the preservation of the facade and the extension of the building as proposed. If the Commissioners are of the view that the proposal of this nature has unacceptable effects on heritage and urban design and that condition cannot be imposed which addresses the outstanding urban design heritage issues, then in my view, the consent to demolish the building should be approved, but only on those conditions. Now I turn briefly to the statutory framework. I have discussed the statutory framework my evidence, so I don't want to repeat all that. The current district plan, I did make a point that the district plan provisions have not yet responded to parts of the regional policy statement.

171:22

There are various views of the district plan predate the current regional policy statement. District plan certainly has not responded to the national policy statement of urban development, which is only recent, and certainly has not been adapted to deal with the national planning standards, which are, again, relatively recent. So given these important planning framework changes, it is appropriate to undertake a part two analysis in in in this particular consent process to deal with the changes to the the, effectively, the statutory regime of higher order documents that have been introduced recently prior after the introduction of the current district planning provisions. And I do I haven't written this here, but I am going to actually just make one sort of statement just to explain. I I believe there's been a significant change in and and there's certainly probably and I did write this in Everspace.

172:28

Probably the biggest change in the planning regime in my career. I came came on the scene just after the into into New Zealand, just after the introduction of the RMA, but we didn't have any district plans made out of that document. So I did work previously under the Town and Country Planning Act and the transition revisions of the Town and Country Planning Act and the RMA. But I think that the changes that we've got now go far beyond those previous changes that might have occurred in my career. The national policy statement on urban development is an extraordinary document.

173:08

The recent changes to the the development of the city if the if the government is introducing how they're going to play out, I'm unsure. And the directive nature of the national policy stat statement on urban development and the way it directs us to have certain outcomes is certainly unprecedented. There was always an option that we should consider certain things, but it directs us directs us to have certain outcomes. Like, for example, to allow for six stories or more. It doesn't say you've got the option to consider six stories or more.

173:42

It says you must. Of course, there are out clauses in terms of where there's identified character areas or even heritage in in place, and I recognize that's a a circumstance that is implied here. But it certainly is far more directive than any other document. And, of course, when we originally introduced the RMA, we had no national policy statements at all. So I don't think it's appropriate when we're talking about weightings of the various documents and statutory documents that we can use the old simple seesaw analogy that we've used in the past about band preparation.

174:17

I think there is a difference here because of the presence of these documents that makes that waiting analysis more complex. So I'll turn now to the conditions and make some comments on those particular conditions. In terms of the demolition conditions, those are relatively standard and would be acceptable. The only interesting thing that I see here at at four, there's no requirement that the the heritage interpretation work program be prepared, and then it says in point c, be easily locatable and accessible by the public public, both physically on-site and online. Now I think that creates several difficulties in that if this is a demolition, then there's basically a grass field on-site.

175:34

So I don't think that they would necessarily be there might be the ability to put up boards and and so on about the the history of the site. I understand that. But online, how long is it online? How long for? And what format is it on IPG's website?

175:53

It's an interesting question, and it raised more questions in my mind as to solutions. And I think that you would need to be more careful in if you put if you were inclined to put that condition in place. In respect to the draft conditions for the new building, There were some questions about I I thought the wording of condition three was acceptable because this was about the storage of building materials. There's not much likelihood in this particular instance that much of the material of this building will be reusable given it's an unreinforced masonry building. We're talking about bricks.

176:46

They may be able to be accommodating to a into a new design, but there's not much inside that could be used given its its condition. But the condition actually refers to wherever possible. So I felt that was as long as that's kept in, that was that was a reasonable condition to be imposed. Condition seven. There's a couple of things here that immediately was brought to my attention or got to my attention.

177:26

In terms of bullet point number two, the design the Ground Floor design is able to be to provide compliant, accessible entry. Now what I take that particular provision to mean is that we talked about disabled access being accessible entry. I looked at the the currently, there are proposed to be three accesses that could be deemed to be on Drummond Street. All of those currently have stairs that step up into the site. So that may be an issue because if and I know, in fact, if you can't extend ramps out into the public street, Neil Johnson has a heart attack if you those those sort of things.

178:20

So that would need to be softened at least to to explore access access where possible because there may be unintended consequences on the heritage and usability in four areas of that building in terms of ramps and how you might get into the building. And as well, the widths of those entries may not comply with the current standards. So if accessible access is provided via the Adelaide Road entry, that may be acceptable. Now there was a lot of discussion in in bullet point four, and, of course, I'll provide detailed commentary on the all these as part of the right of reply, which is typically understood. I did want to before I did a wrote this up, I did want to listen to submission submitters and also the officers in some terms of their viewpoints on some of these matters we've raised.

179:24

Now in fact, in the application, I recognized fairly early on that some relief would probably likely to be required in the northeastern corner of that building on on that facade, and some was provided in the section nine two analysis in the section 92 responses in terms of how we could deal with that facade on that that site. Again, I note that that's the district we're talking about the draft district plan here at the moment. That particular site is currently in centers, but it will move into the central area. No buildings on that side of the site, to the east of it, along Drummond Street, are relatively new buildings. So as opposed to the properties to the south, which are all relatively old undeveloped, I think the likelihood of development occurring to yeast is less likely.

180:28

This is speculative course, but less likely. So, therefore, I think it'd be more than appropriate for conditions to be imposed to require some relief on there, but that might be as simple as as simple as express joints or various uses of color to break up that facade, which is certainly something that's been done in the past, and I would expect the condition to reflect that in some way. The the use of windows and so on is unlikely to be able to be done there just simply because of the fire ones. Yeah. Setbacks from those boundaries.

181:13

I did it is a mister Pablo probably kicked me, but I thought that the that the urban design conditions probably could be could be expressed out a little bit, Pete, to be more detailed about because I know that the urban design recommendation said that, yes, we could could come to a solution on a lot a lot of the design elements. I think that the the conditions proposed probably don't flash out the actual outcomes that the urban designers were after here. So I would think that miss Duffel could probably provide some specific comments as to what outcomes that she's after and that we can then talk about what those specific elements are as opposed to just the issue of the eastern facade northeastern facade. The traffic conditions were reasonably were also acceptable, and the billboard conditions were fairly standard based on my recent experience. And in fact, these particular conditions reflect an approval I've just received literally in the last couple of weeks only consistent with a recent decision.

182:31

So I I I find them acceptable. The rest of the conditions in respect to the construction standards, the installation, and the acoustic ventilation are, again, standard. The construction noise and the construction monitoring, again, standard conditions which I'm used to and familiar with on breakage of this nature. So I have no concerns in respect to that. So we really was only minor comments in terms of that condition seven and the flexibility around that.

183:07

Conditions. Well, as you say, and it will be helpful to us in your right of reply if you're gonna be tabling the draft consent conditions with your request to track changes that