The concept of a central cinema was timely, as local businesses began to struggle under the weight of a growing recession. But the vision of South Pacific Star Cinemas Investments Ltd to build an amenity in Pukekohe that would draw in large numbers of people, who would then enjoy what the town centre has to offer, turned into a long battle. It would exact a huge toll, both financially and emotionally for all concerned and reveal a negatively charged legislative system that effectively stops New Zealanders with vision in their tracks. Brent calls it “the Tall Poppy syndrome in full flight.” A system where a minority can strangle forward-thinking projects to benefit the majority. It’s taken four years – two years since the resource consent was granted by Franklin District Council - to win the final go-ahead from the Environment Court for the three cinema theatre complex. But there is a final hurdle, to gain the right to open on Sundays to make the project financially viable. This was not specified on the original application and approval is now being sought. Public submissions are now open with Franklin District Council and supporting submissions are vital if the project is to proceed.
“Quite honestly, if I had seen how many obstacles there would be in the early planning stages, I may not have gone ahead,” says Brent. “But I am passionate about Pukekohe and held onto the original aim to keep the integrity of the central business area. I have lived in Franklin for nearly 20 years and am proud to be part of it. I didn’t plan a cinema for short-term gain. I did it for the long term benefit of the district and a lot of time and money was spent to make sure it was just right.
“I wanted a development that would help the town to grow. When there is a picture theatre in town, people can make a day out or an evening of it. They can leave their cars in CBD car parking or the cinema carpark and walk freely between the cinema and cafés, bars and restaurants. It’s a great boost to local business. People ask why the cinema wasn’t planned for Manukau Road, where it would have been welcomed by the businesses there and there would have been no objections. That would have been another nail in the coffin for the town centre. We looked at the total welfare and benefit to the town when we selected the site. Thriving businesses means employment; firms going out of business means job losses. People want to live in Franklin, but employment here is limited and many have a long and stressful commute to work in the city every day. The more jobs available here, the better for everyone.”
South Pacific Star Cinemas Investments bought the land next to KFC in 2006, applied for resource consent and published public notifications. Brent talked to the neighbours of the Edinburgh Street site right at the start, so that everyone knew what was planned.
Half of the cinema site is zoned commercial and the other half (prior to resource consent) was zoned residential, but is zoned for business in the council’s Growth Strategy Plan for 2021. It’s on the plan to expand the CBD out along Edinburgh Street. The CBD is already expanding, with new businesses pushing to the boundaries of the present business zoning.
Objections from the neighbours held up the normally three month resource process for two years. Because there were objections, the developers had to embark on the lengthy process of compliance. As Brent looked into the local by-laws, he struck the first of a raft of poor legislation, involving parking.
“The complex was planned as two storeys, with parking at an underused council carpark behind KFC. We proposed to make a monetary contribution to the council for its use. That was a solution that would accommodate council’s regulatory system and allow people to interface with businesses in the town centre – this is good urban design. The majority of the carpark is business zoned, with a small part in residential. We struck a rule that said, if the theatre was within the CBD, one carpark was required for every six patrons, if it was outside it was one carpark for every four. There’s no logic to support this. FDC requested that the original theatre design be changed, from two storeys to three, to accommodate a carpark on the ground floor. We said ‘fine,’ but that it would increase objections from the neighbours. We co-operated all the way.
“There was an attitude by the then town planner not to support the application from the beginning. So roadblocks came up, one at a time. We were never given a total list up-front of what would be required. So, as the problems came up, we kept working through them. The neighbours had agreed at an Independent Commission in 2008 to a range of amendments to the proposal, which included reducing the building height back to the original two storeys. We met all requests from the council. We worked with them and brought in consultants to investigate all objections, including measuring the difference the complex would make to traffic volume, preparing a noise report and a lighting report. We showed that there would be no noise coming from the cinemas. In short, we satisfied all the points raised in objection, including the car parking. This will be monitored and actually improves the security for the neighbourhood. Then we were asked to take on board an urban design consultant, so we did that too. Despite the independent commissioner finding in our favour, the ‘Citizens for Responsible Development’ was formed and lodged an appeal. This went to the Environment Court.
“Urban design is being adopted in the big cities in New Zealand to bring legislation in line with the concept that towns and cities are about people, not cars. Town planning follows the old legislation, put into place around vehicular movement. This is the case with Franklin District Council. Our proposal is good urban planning and follows exactly the aim to place the cinema where people can easily access the town centre on foot. The Environment Court found in our favour.
 | Anonymous |
| Tuesday, August 10, 2010 |
This is a very one sided article.
The residents of this Edinburgh, Hall and Albert Street area have spent much time and expense trying to convince the Cinema Developers and the Franklin District Council that this was not the ideal site for a cinema.
There is already considerable congestion in this area.
Like many other residents of Pukekohe we would like to attend a Cinema in the Central Business District. Manukau Road was never our suggestion.
We were sure with a little negotiation that a more suitable site could have been found near The Centre, Library and the Town Hall. This would have made for a wonderful entertainment hub for the town. The existing car parks and projected new ones would have been adequate for all these facilities. One such site was owned by the developer and now has a liquor outlet on it. If in this area it would have also been closer to the Railway station for out of town visitors.
In this Central Business area this high density activity would not have been situated just over the fence from the homes of a considerable number of elderly residents and young families.
There would have been no opposition to a site within or right on the Ring Road where there were no houses.
The Developers chose to use a low valued residential site to save costs rather than one correctly zoned for the planned use.
The residents would like you to think how you would feel if this large complex was in your residential area and support us with your submission before Thursday 12 August.
| Brent Greig |
| Wednesday, August 11, 2010 |
Dear Anonymous, In response to your first point on traffic congestion in the area, FDC engineers have already upgraded the roundabout and designed this area to accommodate an increase in traffic resulting from an increase in population over the next 20 years. As stated by the Environment Court, the cinema traffic effect has been deemed to be "minor". Your second point regards the location of the cinema at the site in Edinburgh Street. This decision was governed by two considerations. Firstly, we wanted to have the closest proximity to the CBD so patrons could be in easy walking distance to the many cafes, restaurants and shops in this area, thereby reducing the need for carparking on site. This is called good urban design. Our second consideration was the requirement by the FDC to a stated view of one carpark for six patrons within the CBD, and a 50% increase to one carpark in four patrons outside the CBD. If the cost of land was our main focus, clearly we would have bought in the CBD, thus reducing our costs due to the reduction in required carparks. My partners spent a lot of time before my involvement trying to secure a suitable site within the CBD but each time the obstacle of sufficient carparks came up. I did explore the possibility of building the cinema on the other site you refer to but again, it did not have sufficient carparking (one to four) as it is not in the CBD. The reality of a project like this is that the land purchase is a lesser consideration in relation to the total expense.
| annonymous |
| Wednesday, August 11, 2010 |
Many points in the article in E Local are incorrect and they should retract some and correct others in the next publication. It is important that, in order to maintain the credibility of E Local, the facts in an article written by E Local staff are correct. (i)The article says that (prior to resource consent) one site was zoned residential. It is still zoned residential, the zoning hasn't changed. (ii)The land is not zoned for business for 2021 and will need to go through the planning process before the zoning is changed. (iii) There is ample land for development within the CBD, new businesses are not pushing to the boundaries.(iv) the objecting neighbours did not hold up the process for two years. (v)The developer lodged an appeal to the Environment Court to have the hours amended. They had the right to do this as has any citizen involved in the process. The Editor's comments are very one sided as is his comments that it costs the developer thousands of dollars and the objectors the cost of a stamp. This I am sure is far from correct. This is a residential area (Hall Street/Edinburgh Street) and should be treated as such. Neither home occupations nor home enterprises belong in this residential area.
EDITOR’S COMMENT: Thank you for your blog. This story is quoted from Cinema Developer Brent Greig – this is his story, not a report on the process. This is the first time he has had the opportunity to publicly speak out. Residents during this process have had a huge amount of publicity. As you have put it “As a citizen has rights through the process” it is Mr Greig’s right to comment just as it is yours, therefore the story is not one sided as it is not a debate or a court hearing. The information contained herein does not require retraction. elocal remains a top, credible, interesting and well read publication. Council information was verified prior to publication.
(i) elocal did not state that the zoning has changed. One of the two sites is zoned residential, the other commercial.
(ii) elocal quoted the Council Growth Strategy Plan 2021 and did not state otherwise.
(iii) There are several developments that have ‘pushed’ outside the CBD encroaching on the residential area over the last two years in this exact area.
(iv) Brent Greig clearly stated a two year period. No doubt he has information that you as a non integral partner do not.
(v) Your right as a citizen is and has not been challenged rather it has been heard, the process has not been one sided.
My comments are an opinion, this is my right as an editor. I clearly stated: ”the cost of a stamp to lodge an objection” I did not comment on the objectors’ costs to participate in the process. I invite you to comment on this. Further it is interesting that you did not comment on the ‘Tall Poppy’ psychosis or the rights of the majority suppressed by the minority. I urge you to direct your energy into far-reaching issues like the impending seabed and foreshore legislation. This stands to put every New Zealander’s birthright into ‘user pays’ and could infringe citizenship and constitutional rights. Last, regarding your comment on home business occupation, this is not up to you. The council has bylaws that provide for home business. I suggest you direct your comment to them not to elocal or Brent Grieg.