District plan - Isthmus section

Click here to view the Plan Changes and Modifications Index

Summary of Submissions: Plan Modification 8 - Private Plan Change.

Westfield St Lukes

Sub No.	Name	Decision Requested
1/1	Robert Jones	Oppose because of traffic effects and because it will devalue properties. Decline the plan modification.
2/1	Colin Lucas	Oppose because of traffic and parking, stormwater run-off into Meola Creek, change of character for Aroha street and the effect on other town centres. Decline the plan modification.
3/1	Lynette Schultze	Objects to the plan change because of traffic, rubbish, on-street carparking, shopping trolleys left on the street, increased pollution and vandalism.
4/1	David Kaufmann	Oppose the plan modification due to its height, increased traffic, the plan change does not state what proportion of retail space needs to be accessible from the streets and lack of pedestrian access across St Lukes Road. Therefore, reduce height to 25m, increase retail to the proportion of retail space using public transport, state what percentage of retail space is accessible from the surrounding streets, provide a pedestrian tunnel or bridge across St Lukes Road.
5/1	Paul and Alison Curd	Oppose as current mall has a good mix of activities. , litter, traffic effects and the impact on the Mt Albert town centre. Decline
6/1	Ian Hilton Dally	Oppose as there is no need for further retail activities, traffic impacts. Decline.
7/1	David Newman	Oppose due to traffic and carparking effects, the proposed height and noise pollution. Decline.
8/1	Shona Mary McClinchy	Oppose due to the intrusion on residential land and noise issues. Decline.
9/1	Mary J Subritzky	Support � the current mall needs expanding.
10/1	Stephen and Kimberley Atkinson	The plan modification should be declined until further traffic management has been completed. Further traffic analysis is required and this should also include full consultation with local residents.
11/1	Stephen and Kimberley Atkinson	Decline or amend it so that any activity providing parking should be a restricted controlled activity.
11/2	Stephen and Kimberley Atkinson	All resource consents applied for under section D1 should be fully publicly notified.
11/3	Stephen and Kimberley Atkinson	The wording of section D1(a)(i) should be changed to "Eliminates the effects of spillover of parking onto neighbouring streets"
12/1	Mary Catherine Burgess	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
13/1	Nikki Bodde	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
14/1	William Griffiths
15/1	Anne Griffiths
16/1	Craig Stuhlmann
17/1	Andre Bodde
18/1	Ross Galloway
19/1	Sheree Davie-Myer
20/1	Dan Popely
21/1	Melissa Popely
22/1	Christine Whitmore	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
23/1	Lee Warn	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification. Notes that there needs to be consideration for parking and neighbourhood parking concerns. Roading concerns for the increased traffic flow.
24/1	Lynn Davey	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
25/1	Marjorie Panali
26/1	Daniel Harborne
27/1	Paul Leon Brabet	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Approve the plan modification. Additional parking and a less blatantly commercial atmosphere is a must.
28/1	Colleen Foster	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Approve the plan modification. But need more shops that cater for ordinary needs.
29/1	Samantha Yee Yee Foo	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Approve the plan modification. But need more security.
30/1	Harrison Nichols	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access, a mainstreet environment and wider variety.
31/1	Shireen Abrahams	Opposes the fact that the library needs to relocate. Consider the possibility of housing the library within the Westfield centre.
32/1	Barbara Ann Williams	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Subject to improved traffic/transport flows proposal is supported. There must be a transport hub and if possible a connection to the train station at Morningside.
33/1	Scott Sealey	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
34/1	Nigel Horrocks
35/1	Satyan Mehra
36/1	Monita Kumar
37/1	Vincent R. Hanan
38/1	Clive Davey
39/1	Mitesu Natu
40/1	Luke Neilson
41/1	Samuel van de Kerk
42/1	Udey Singh
43/1	Gary Innes Williams	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; Approve the plan modification.
44/1	John Shepherd	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Leave the library alone.
45/1	Sophie Hopes	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
46/1	Joshua Nicholson
47/1	Pravita Kumar
48/1	Miki Walters
49/1	ShaPing Cai
50/1	Wen Qiang Zhang
51/1	Hui Han
52/1	Christina Houston
53/1	Will Edwards
54/1	Dr Suchi Mouly
55/1	Kajiv Babbar	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification. Understands that Mall management will be taking adequate steps to improve traffic management,not to block sunshine and to address congestion.
56/1	Yan Qian	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
57/1	Nickolai Vella
58/1	Robin Nikora
59/1	Michael Bull
60/1	Marie Chantal Perret-Gentil	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking and improved pedestrian access. Approve the plan modification.
61/1	Shaun Tijore	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification. The neighbourhood properties and people living there should be consulted and their concerns should be taken into account.
62/1	Tila Brooking	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking and improved pedestrian access. Makes note of scooter parking and improvement of parking for the disabled.
63/1	Danny Scalafan	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
64/1	Sarah Parker
65/1	Fred Ahomiro
66/1	Morris Skelton
67/1	Jonathan Clist
68/1	Watt Blaikie	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification. Makes specific note of parking for the disabled.
69/1	William Burr	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
70/1	Angela McGill Smith	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
71/1	Peter Steven Vulinovich	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
72/1	Ray Knowles	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; and improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, wider variety of shops and services Approve the plan modification.
73/1	Kent Batley	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services Approve the plan modification.
74/1	Patrick Anthony	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
75/1	K. K. Kahn
76/1	Shaleen Shah	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Provided the land intended for the above uses in not currently in use i.e. for residences. Approve the plan modification.
77/1	Peachy Powell	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
78/1	I.C.M. Swarnadhipathi
~~79/1~~	~~Garry R Black~~ withdrawn
80/1	James A Clarkson
81/1	Carol Ann Macintyre	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Would like the phasing on the lights on St Lukes Road changed so I can walk from the Mall to the Megacentre in one set of pedestrian lights instead of waiting halfway for the next cycle. Approve the plan modification.
82/1	Warren S Brierly	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Approve the plan modification.
83/1	Dean Hamilton	Opposed to the size of development, poor road & rail access, unsafe environment, too big an impact on the local community. No change to the district plan.
84/1	Mr R.L. Robbins	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Approve the plan modification. However, need a free bus to rail stations and other town centres.
85/1	Salvador Cornelio	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Approve the plan modification. Traffic engineering to cope with additional cars expected.
86/1	William McCahn	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Approve the plan modification. Reduce floor rent to attract more useful retailers.
87/1	David Burkhill	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
88/1	Kevin Kevil
89/1	Glynis Kevey	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety.
91/1	Anthony Ross	Supports the plan modification because of the mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
92/1	George Youssef	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Approve the plan modification. Need another supermarket, outdoor eating and designer stores.
93/1	Theron Martin, Talmage Martin, Kare Martin	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
94/1	Karen M Keutenius	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification. Keep bus stops where they are.
95/1	Isha Lan Ying Parker	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
96/1	Rick Friesen
97/1	Catherine Tu
98/1	Tim Moseti
99/1	John Dawson
100/1	Vera Dantes
101/1	Michael Dantes
102/1	Mary Burgess	Opposes the modification because of dominance, unsuitable further uses that will detract from the residential character, traffic issues, degradation of waterways, air pollution, loss of trees, the private plan change gives a blank envelope for development and because it doesn't promote existing local shopping centres.
103/1	Rakhi Veema	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
104/1	Abu Choudaury
105/1	Tiffany M Ackroyd
106/1	Jeannie Moore
107/1	Ankit Kundu
108/1	Tamaka Rozova
109/1	Jared Walton
110/1	Percia Lee
111/1	John Staiger
112/1	Ferdinand Gosche	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. More staff parking Approve the plan modification.
113/1	Valentino Stewart	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
114/1	Danxia Ma
115/1	Younus Ali Khan
116/1	Andrew Young
117/1	Tusipepa Tuigamala
118/1	Robert McDonald
119/1	Leon Curtis
120/1	Calvin Soo
121/1	Matthew J Rouse
122/1	Yukie Guo	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. More staff parking and at least two per shops. Approve the plan modification
123/1	Caleb Smile	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
124/1	Adeel Mobin
125/1	Krystal Stevens
126/1	Mary Vivian
127/1	Patsy Laird
128/1	Samuel Mills
129/1	P. Murray	Oppose the plan modification. The site has been outgrown, there are traffic impacts and little good public transport.
130/1	Jennifer Khiu	Support the plan modification because of additional parking and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification. Needs more staff carparking
131/1	Gina Roberts	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
132/1	Gerlinde Stradwick	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
133/1	Ellamein Emery	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses in addition to retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Needs more parking for mothers with prams. Approve the plan modification.
134/1	Edwin W. K. Ng	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses in addition to retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
135/1	Fale F.	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses in addition to retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
136/1	Sunan McEvoy-Roberts	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses in addition to retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. More carparking spaces for mothers with prams. Approve the plan modification.
137/1	D.Tarasova	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses in addition to retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
138/1	Kevin Bishop	Does not support the plan change.
139/1	John Walsh	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification
140/1	Imo Levi
141/1	Anne Ridgway	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification
142/1	Sharron Ward	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Makes specific mention of requirement for further disabled parking and scooter parking. Approve the plan modification
143/1	Rochelle Barnes	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses in addition to retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Needs more community services, Plunket, CABb. Approve the plan modification.
144/1	Sonia K Stiles	Support the plan modification because of improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Needs more child friendly services. Approve the plan modification.
145/1	Anthony Juricevich	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
146/1	Lyn Walker	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; Approve the plan modification.
147/1	Anita Kirkness	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
148/1	Tracey Goold
149/1	Ann Marie Salkowski
150/1	Owen McSwiney
151/1	Renee Young
152/1	Reece Beardsall
153/1	Julie Douglas	Does not support, mentions traffic congestion.
154/1	Wendy Jean Nicholson	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; The development should take into account and complement the already planned development for the area e.g. Eden Park, widening of Sandringham Road, Morningside development, motorway south connection of Sandringham Road. Need good traffic flow. Consideration of 'how big is best'. Approve the plan modification.
155/1	Gail Gillespie	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
156/1	Mark Gwias
~~157/1~~	~~Jonathan Douglas~~ withdrawn	Opposes plan modification. Mentions traffic congestion. Better to expand Sylvia Park with the access this centre has. Decline
158/1	Charlotte Antonievich	Opposes plan modification due to traffic effects and impacts on surrounding town centres. Decline
159/1	Sunnie Ko	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
160/1	Bharat Parshotam
161/1	Michael and Blossoms Cruz
162/1	David J McMahon	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Mentions job creation. Approve the plan modification.
163/1	Anthony Ross	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
164/1	Stephen Newton	Opposes the plan modification. Traffic issues, decline unless Westfield improves the local roads.
165/1	Chris Kirkness	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
166/1	Roger G James	Oppose, but seek amendments as an alternative to its decline. If Westfield St Lukes made an effort to communicate and work with the local residents to insure future developments have minimal adverse impact on the local environment, an agreement to proceed with development can be achieved through a resource consent. Totally oppose a road accessing Aroha Avenue. It is surely more practical to have a road linking Exeter Road and Cornwallis Street. Decline the application.
167/1	Christopher David Knight	Accept with amendments. Re-consider the Exeter Road extension in terms of its link with Aroha Avenue and in respect of vehicular use. Clarify service vehicle access at the Aroha Avenue end of the proposed road. Clarify how through traffic will be discouraged to enable a pedestrian oriented environment. Further details/clarification sought in relation to range of issues in TIA. Reduction in amenity values due to traffic and parking issues. Bulk and location in north-eastern corner, and associated effects on privacy, and sunlight access for neighbours.
167/2	Christopher David Knight	Construction of the Exeter Road extension should be a fully discretionary activity in the Concept Plan and Aroha Avenue residents should be directly notified for consultation.
167/3	Christopher David Knight	Clarify "transitional mixed uses" and provide greater certainty for the types of uses at the sensitive residential interface in the north-eastern corner of the site.
167/4	Christopher David Knight	Provide detailed information regarding the proposed developer contributions towards public transport.
168/1	Rose Halpin	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
169/1	Jayesh C. Patel
170/1	John Halpin
171/1	Thomas Johnson
172/1	Mark Cooper
173/1	Kevin G Hilliam
174/1	Bhanu Soudei
175/1	Andrew Young
176/1	Ruth Helen Laanbroek
177/1	Helen Coyte	Oppose the plan modification
178/1	Steven Coyte	Oppose the plan modification. Comments on pedestrians crossing and safety.
179/1	Andrey Peng	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
180/1	Britta W E Price
181/1	Lynn Eising	Decline the plan modification. Any expansion should not impinge on the surrounding houses. Any expansion would greatly affected residential homes. Notes traffic, lights and noise.
182/1	Rolo Byrne	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
183/1	William O'Donnell	Opposes the proposal.
184/1	Anna Pulante	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
185/1	Brian Laing
186/1	Irene Tsui
187/1	Geoffrey Ma
188/1	Steve Simpson
189/1	Jillian Gubb
190/1	Elaine Gutry
191/1	Damian Bennett
192/1	Sathash Chandarsekhar
193/1	Garry Richard Black
194/1	Daphne Coverdale
195/1	Jill Causer
196/1	Chee Kit Wong
197/1	Brett Lahood	Does not support the proposed plan modification. Comments that there too many retail stores as it is.
198/1	Raschin Rafel	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
199/1	Sanjit Dutta
200/1	Matthew Green
201/1	Richard J Aldiss	Opposed due to size, traffic, and height. Decline the plan change.
202/1	Richard J Aldiss	Oppose, with specific mention of the traffic effects associated with the extension of Exeter Rd through to Aroha Ave.
203/1	Kay Panther Knight	Accept with amendments. Re-consider the Exeter Road extension in terms of its link with Aroha Avenue and in respect of vehicular use. Clarify service vehicle access at the Aroha Avenue end of the proposed road. Clarify how through traffic will be discouraged to enable a pedestrian oriented environment. Further details/clarification sought in relation to range of issues in TIA. Reduction in amenity values due to traffic and parking issues. Bulk and location in north-eastern corner, and associated effects on privacy, and sunlight access for neighbours.
203/2	Kay Panther Knight	Construction of the Exeter Road extension should be a fully discretionary activity in the Concept Plan and Aroha Avenue residents should be directly notified for consultation.
203/3	Kay Panther Knight	Clarify "transitional mixed uses" and provide greater certainty for the types of uses at the sensitive residential interface in the north-eastern corner of the site.
203/4	Kay Panther Knight	Provide detailed information regarding the proposed developer contributions towards public transport.
204/1	Nicholas A Eagles	Oppose due to traffic and the impact of the height on the residential character and openness. Decline the plan modification.
205/1	Donna Outram and Shannon Outram	Oppose the plan modification due to traffic, safety, lack of pedestrian access, lack of information on spillover parking and noise and glare for Aroha Ave residents.
206/1	Hard Rock Limited	Supports due to improvements to local community and landowners amenity and potential benefit to land values. Accept the proposal.
207/1	Mandy Lusk and Eugene Gibson	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
208/1	Vivienne Cheeseman	Oppose due to traffic effects. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
209/1	Amos Trust	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
210/1	Caroline Alsweiler	Oppose due to traffic, excessive height, community and public safety, health effects, pedestrian and cycle safety, impact on open space, noise and loss of residential character. Decline the plan change and retain the existing zoning.
211/1	Shubh Holdings Limited	Oppose due to traffic, change in character, noise, construction effects, safety issues, nuisance and litter and impact on public services. Decline the plan modification.
212/1	Kosil Latij	Support due to more uses in addition to retail, and a wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
213/1	Daniel Humphreys	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
214/1	Madhur Kumar
215/1	V Kumar
216/1	Alec Fonoti	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
217/1	Shahid Khali	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
218/1	John Pavich	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
219/1	Jenine Vineula
220/1	Peter Makapa	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. More fruit trees in carparking areas. Approve the plan modification.
221/1	Hiko Deddefo	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
222/1	Catherine Marriot	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
223/1	Emma Grant
224/1	Adam Sturgess
225/1	Colin Waite
226/1	Martin Hall
227/1	Kelly Kirwan	Oppose due to traffic. Do not approve the plan modification.
228/1	Eddie Millington	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses in addition to retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. But need to limit disruption to existing shops. Approve the plan modification.
229/1	Cathy Holland
230/1	Nicola De Joux
231/1	Mori Hohepa Robertson	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Needs free transport.
232/1	Samuel Owens	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services.
233/1	Marilyn Johnson	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses, a mainstreet environment and wider variety. Needs more staff parking. Approve the plan modification.
234/1	Robin Rean	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
235/1	Kara Dee Taylor
236/1	Lewis G Campbell
237/1	Julia A Davis
238/1	Irene Kiddle
239/1	Matt Ruys
240/1	Chris Connor
241/1	Roger Great
242/1	Florence Hong
243/1	Colin MacFadyen
244/1	Sara Berstone	Don't need more shops and cars, just improve pedestrian access.
245/1	Joseph Fish	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
246/1	Wayne Shea
247/1	Ethan Shea
248/1	Olivia Shea
249/1	Jan McPherson
250/1	Wendy L McPherson
251/1	Karen Lee McPherson
252/1	Robert Naylor McPherson
253/1	David Eyton McPherson
254/1	Andrew David McPherson
255/1	Fiona Harray
256/1	Sarah McPherson
257/1	Dennis Lynn
258/1	Joy Dale	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
259/1	Shane W Rua	Approve the plan modification. Against the Westfield Mall expanding any more.
260/1	James Walshe	Approve the plan modification. Does not support the plan.
261/1	Brett ~~Corbett~~ Corlett	~~Approve the plan modification~~. Do not support expanding the mall
262/1	Lynn O'Conner	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
263/1	Hemi Solomona
264/1	Andrew Peter Olsen
265/1	Elliot Olsen
266/1	Shelley Kendrick	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses in addition to retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Needs more play area within the mall. Approve the plan modification.
267/1	Otto Zhou	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
268/1	Tamzin Nelson
269/1	Janet McKibbin
270/1	Daniel Vineula
271/1	Anita Gatley
272/1	Joanne Alexander
273/1	Donald M Bracey
274/1	Smickxs
275/1	Glenn M Barrett
276/1	Sarah Kay Board
277/1	P.F. Morgan
278/1	Ross Withers
279/1	Vidya Rajadurai
280/1	Kathryn Adams
281/1	Trina Ranei	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Supports, but not 100% Approve the plan modification.
282/1	Peter Albert Watchmann	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
283/1	Alan J Thomson	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses other than retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Needs more landscaping to hide the concrete. Approve the plan modification.
284/1	Jennifer Raewyn Lord	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification
285/1	Sharron Margaret Smith
286/1	Melissa Nicholson	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Need more staff parking, citing benefits for personal safety. Approve the plan modification
287/1	Mariegrace Hng	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
288/1	Larissa Rooney
289/1	Eden Coulter
290/1	William Ulugia
291/1	Mike Prior
292/1	Nga Ngatokorua
293/1	Christine Ling	Supports the plan modification because of: a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
294/1	Kiran Durlabh	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
295/1	Kylie Bourke
296/1	Joanna Culpan - Hamman
297/1	Carlos Da Silva Ammandarr
298/1	Geoffrey Wheeler
299/1	Azerrat James
300/1	Kate McGovern	Support the plan modification because of additional parking, improved pedestrian access, improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, more uses other than retail, a mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Support is subject to adequate traffic 'arrangements' being made. Approve the plan modification.
301/1	Sue Churchill	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
302/1	Oliver Zhang
303/1	Alexandra Manion
304/1	Natalie Dormer	Do not support this. If you feel the need to expand St Lukes why not build up? Then requests council approve the plan modification.
305/1	Leonie Bailey	Supports the plan modification because of additional parking. Approve the plan modification.
306/1	Li Xia	Supports because of the mainstreet environment and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
307/1	Jim Li	Supports because of additional parking and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
308/1	Shannon Matou Rehana Ruka	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
309/1	Mannu Kaila
310/1	Bhairyi Sharma
311/1	Robyn Field
312/1	Isaac Owen
313/1	Dolma Chuan
314/1	Stephen Maunsell	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification as long as they don't take over the street access as in Albany eg 'Gull no right turn going east'
315/1	Chan Phommahaxay	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
316/1	Kelly Broad
317/1	Robert B McKibbin
318/1	Alfred Tattersall
319/1	Lorette Granich
320/1	Natasha Pearce	Decline or accept with amendments:- That residential streets adjacent to, but not directly feeding, St Lukes will require traffic calming measures to discourage traffic from using routes to avoid traffic lights. In particular, streets requiring traffic calming measures are : Parrish/St Albans Roads Gribblehurst Park Road.
321/1	Pam Mayes and Tony Mayes	Oppose due to traffic, environmental, and health effects. Decline
322/1	John Paul	Oppose due to traffic access, parking, congestion and pedestrian safety. Decline.
323/1	Andrew George Blackler	Oppose. Raised issues on public safety, traffic volumes, loss of street character, inconsistency with public transport initiatives and notification. Requests the mall address public transport issues. Decline the application.
324/1	Annette Woodhead	Oppose due to effects on the street, tree shading, parking and size. Decline the application.
325/1	Graeme Johansen	Generally oppose, but seek amendments in the alternative to decline. Would appreciate it if the Council would carefully consider the car-parking requirements of the new development in more detail relating to the proposed activities.
326/1	Dr Brett Oglivie	Oppose due to traffic, impacts on other town centres and loss of residential character and amenity. Decline the application.
327/1	Rhys Walker	Oppose due to traffic, loading and parking effects, loss of amenity values, noise, vibration, pollution and danger to pedestrians. Decline.
328/1	Rhys Walker	Oppose due to dominance associated with building having an adverse effect on the surrounding community and in particular, the residents of Aroha Avenue should be protected by the Council from seeing their quiet residential Street from being usurped by Westfield to service such an enormous and unwarranted developments. Decline.
329/1	Rhys Walker	Decline because development on a sale and in the manner proposed is not permitted under the district plan and nor should it be under any circumstances.
330/1	Carl W. Smith	Oppose the plan change because of loss of residential character, safety and security, traffic, wastewater and stormwater issues and because it's contrary to the RMA. Decline.
331/1	Trevor W Smith	Oppose the plan change because of loss of residential character, traffic, wastewater and stormwater issues and because it's contrary to the RMA. Decline.
332/1	Rowena Gay Smith
333/1	Daniel Smith	Oppose the plan change because of loss of residential character, safety and security, traffic, wastewater and stormwater issues and because it's contrary to the RMA. Decline.
334/1	Hamish Thompson	Opposes the plan change because it is contrary to ACC & ARC strategies and plans and the RMA. Also raised issues and concerns of accessibility, traffic, parking, Gribblehurst Park, dominance, loss of residential character, the Aroha Ave extension, environmental effects, crime and anti-social behaviour, shading and amenity. Decline.
335/1	Vivienne Heslop
336/1	Michael E R Panther	Support with amendments. Re-consider the Exeter Road extension in terms of its link with Aroha Avenue and in respect of vehicular use. Clarify service vehicle access at the Aroha Avenue end of the proposed road. Approve with amendments
336/2	Michael E R Panther	Construction of the Exeter Road extension should be a fully discretionary activity in the Concept Plan and Aroha Avenue residents should be directly notified for consultation.
336/3	Michael E R Panther	Construct traffic calming through Aroha Ave and adjacent residential streets.
336/4	Michael E R Panther	Clarify "transitional mixed uses" and provide greater certainty for the types of uses at the sensitive residential interface in the north-eastern corner of the site.
336/5	Michael E R Panther	Provide detailed information regarding the proposed developer contributions towards public transport.
337/1	Linda A Panther	Accept with amendments. Re-consider the Exeter Road extension in terms of its link with Aroha Avenue and in respect of vehicular use. Clarify service vehicle access at the Aroha Avenue end of the proposed road.
337/2	Linda A Panther	Construction of the Exeter Road extension should be a fully discretionary activity in the Concept Plan and Aroha Avenue residents should be directly notified for consultation.
337/3	Linda A Panther	Construct traffic calming through Aroha Ave and adjacent residential streets.
337/4	Linda A Panther	Clarify "transitional mixed uses" and provide greater certainty for the types of uses at the sensitive residential interface in the north-eastern corner of the site.
337/5	Linda A Panther	Provide detailed information regarding the proposed developer contributions towards public transport.
337/6	Linda A Panther	The relationship of the carpark and the proposed buffer zone needs to be carefully considered
337/7	Linda A Panther	The rooftop carpark results in amenity issues.
337/8	Linda A Panther	It's not clear how a residential activity works within the concept plan.
337/9	Linda A Panther	The proposed bulk is out of character with residential uses in Aroha Ave.
338/1	St Lukes Garden Apartments Body Corporate	Oppose. The Body Corporate submits the following: That the plan change will not promote sustainable management and does not satisfy relevant statutory requirements; It will compromise people and communities abilities to provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing; It has an inadequate section 32 report; It does not give effect to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and background technical reports do not adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects. Decline. In the alternative modify the application to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects and address the matters raised in the submission.
338/2	St Lukes Garden Apartments Body Corp	More specifically, plan modification 8 is opposed because of traffic effects and noise and adverse air quality effects.
338/3	St Lukes Garden Apartments Body Corp	The scale of development will exacerbate and compound existing parking problems.
338/4	St Lukes Garden Apartments Body Corp	Urban design issues haven't being adequately addressed. Significantly increased heights on the corner of St Lukes Road and Morningside Road have the potential to visually dominate the St Lukes Gardens Apartments as only a minimal setback has been provided. The increased height that Plan Change 8 would allow has the potential to shade the St Lukes Gardens Apartments and reduce the amenity values and the wellbeing of residents. The proposed height on St Lukes Rd and Morningside Dr will visually dominate St Lukes Garden apartments and reduce amenity values.
338/5	St Lukes Garden Apartments Body Corp	The assessment of social and economic impacts is inadequate. Town centres enjoy more vitality and diversity that is associated with multiple ownership.
338/6	St Lukes Garden Apartments Body Corp	Lacks sufficient natural and public amenities, including infrastructure, to sustain such a substantial increase in predominantly retailing activities.
338/7	St Lukes Garden Apartments Body Corp	Inappropriate for the relatively low density wider St Lukes area, and the more that the Westfield Mall is developed the more that the amenity values of existing residents will be eroded.
339/1	AMP Capital Investments	Oppose. The reasons for opposition are as follows: It is inconsistent with the purposes of the RMA, It would fail to give effect to regional planning policies and rules, It fails to meet the Eldamos tests. That the proposed plan modification be rejected in its entirety. Without derogating from this:
339/2	AMP Capital Investments	It is excessive in scale with regard to the existing scale and development potential of identified sub-regional centres.
339/3	AMP Capital Investments	It is excessive in scale for the neighbourhood in which it is located and as such the amenity of the surrounding areas would be degraded.
339/4	AMP Capital Investments	The development controls at the residential/business 8 zone interface would not provide appropriate transition in terms of visual amenity, privacy, noise or safety.
339/5	AMP Capital Investments	The existing shopping centre is already an over-development in the context that it is located in. The proposed traffic enhancements are inadequate and various roading proposals are not within the scope of the plan change nor within the ability of the applicant to provide.
339/5	AMP Capital Investments	The section 32 analysis in inaccurate because the retail analysis wrongly infers the shortage of retail provision is the result of a shortage of zoned opportunity.
340/1	St Lukes Garden Apartments Progressive Society Inc	Oppose. The Society submits the following: That the plan change will not promote sustainable management and does not satisfy relevant statutory requirements; It will compromise people and communities abilities to provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing; It has an inadequate section 32 report; It does not give effect to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and background technical reports do not adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects. Decline. In the alternative modify the application to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects and address the matters raised in the submission.
340/2	St Lukes Garden Apartments Progressive Society	More specifically, plan modification 8 is opposed because of traffic effects and noise and adverse air quality effects.
340/3	St Lukes Garden Apartments Progressive Society	The scale of development will exacerbate and compound existing parking problems.
340/4	St Lukes Garden Apartments Progressive Society	Urban design issues haven't being adequately addressed. Significantly increased heights on the corner of St Lukes Road and Morningside Road have the potential to visually dominate the St Lukes Gardens Apartments as only a minimal setback has been provided. The increased height that Plan Change 8 would allow has the potential to shade the St Lukes Gardens Apartments and reduce the amenity values and the wellbeing of residents. The proposed height on St Lukes Rd and Morningside Dr will visually dominate St Lukes Garden apartments and reduce amenity values.
340/5	St Lukes Garden Apartments Progressive Society	The assessment of social and economic impacts is inadequate. Town centres enjoy more vitality and diversity that is associated with multiple ownership.
340/6	St Lukes Garden Apartments Progressive Society	Lacks sufficient natural and public amenities, including infrastructure, to sustain such a substantial increase in predominantly retailing activities.
340/7	St Lukes Garden Apartments Progressive Society	Inappropriate for the relatively low density wider St Lukes area, and the more that the Westfield Mall is developed the more that the amenity values of existing residents will be eroded.
341/1	Jill Jessup	Opposes the plan modification because of dominance and associated visual, shading, light and noise impacts; use of land for offices and retail is unsuitable because of effects on residential character; the changes will worsen existing traffic problems; it will degrade waterways, create air pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change process means a blank envelope for development and it doesn't promote and develop existing local shopping centres. Decline the plan modification.
342/1	Mildred Van Bolderen	Oppose. St Lukes/Westfield should protect neighbours from increase in traffic noise. Accept with amendments.
343/1	Auckland Regional Council	The Auckland Regional Council (ARC) considers that this major redevelopment of the Wesffield St Lukes shopping centre should be within a council-led structure plan process which integrates the centre within its surrounding area. ACC should refuse the plan change and undertake a structure plan in conjunction with Westfield and the community. Should ACC determine to approve PC 8 that the various relief sought in this submission be incorporated into the plan change together with any consequential amendments that satisfactorily addresses the matters outlined:
343/2	Auckland Regional Council	Review (and amend as appropriate) the Interface Controls and Concept Plan E06-05(2) in PC 8 to extend the active edges and verandah controls to include the full extent of St Lukes Road as appropriate.
343/3	Auckland Regional Council	Review the provision in PC 8 (and amend as appropriate) to provide planning mechanisms which actively ensures a mix of activities including residential, office and community facilities and in appropriate locations
343/4	Auckland Regional Council	Amend Section B7 of PC 8 to replace the reference to 'minimum' parking spaces with 'maximum' parking spaces.
343/5	Auckland Regional Council	Prior to the ACC making a decision on PC 8, preliminary designs are required to determine the adequacy of the proposed stormwater treatment and retention system
344/1	Leslie P Den Harder	Decline the application;
344/2	Leslie P Den Harder	Or require Westfield to relocate the main entrance to St Lukes Road, or Cornwallis Ave and decline the Exeter extension.
344/3	Leslie P Den Harder	Or restrict any activities planned for Exeter Road/Morningside Drive corner to daytime business hours only.
344/4	Leslie P Den Harder	Or make the existing setbacks and more extensive landscaping mandatory in the new site development controls.
345/1	Catherine Meredith Wright	Decline the application;
345/2	Catherine Meredith Wright	Or require Westfield to relocate the main entrance to St Lukes Road, or Cornwallis Ave and decline the Exeter extension.
345/3	Catherine Meredith Wright	Or restrict any activities planned for Exeter Road/Morningside Drive corner to daytime business hours only.
345/4	Catherine Meredith Wright	Or make the existing setbacks and more extensive landscaping mandatory in the new site development controls.
346/1	Daniel J Wright	Decline the application;
346/2	Daniel J Wright	Or require Westfield to relocate the main entrance to St Lukes Road, or Cornwallis Ave and decline the Exeter extension.
346/3	Daniel J Wright	Or restrict any activities planned for Exeter Road/Morningside Drive corner to daytime business hours only.
346/4	Daniel J Wright	Or make the existing setbacks and more extensive landscaping mandatory in the new site development controls.
347/1	Eden Albert Community Board	Oppose due to concerns about rezoning existing residential land to the north of the subject site when existing business land exists to the south. Also, the proposed through road is not an appropriate application of the connectivity principle; traffic effects, height, bulk, shading, visual privacy and light spill; the effects on Meola creek; increased air pollution from traffic; and the potential impact on other town centres within the surrounding area. Decline the application.
348/1	Helen H Mawn	Oppose the plan modification due to the scale and proportion of the proposal; traffic congestion, noise; the travel demand management plan is unlikely to mitigate adverse effects; its inconsistent with CPTED guidelines and will compromise personal safety.
349/1	Greg S Woo	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
350/1	Mrs M R Mason	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
351/1	Joshua Arbury	Generally opposes the plan change because of the proposed height; the traffic effects on Aroha Ave; it doesn't do enough to encourage public transport and more parking will encourage further congestion. Some aspects are supported such as the changes will provide greater interaction with surrounding streets, the town centre approach to urban design and the improvements to the public transport network. Decisions requested:
351/2	Joshua Arbury	Reduce the height limit for Height Area 2 from 40m to 25m and that the height limit for Height Area 3 from 30m to 25m.
351/3	Joshua Arbury	That the "Proposed Exeter Road Extension" shown in E06-05(i) Concept Plan be constructed as a pedestrian only link to ensure that the urban design benefits of this link are maintained while also ensuring that the adverse traffic effects on Aroha Ave are avoided. Suggests modifications to section B5.
351/4	Joshua Arbury	Stage development of the gross floor area, as outlined in the submission.
351/5	Joshua Arbury	Require a shuttle bus between the shopping centre and Morningside Train Station; restrict the provision of parking on the site and increase the frequency and reliability of bus services.
351/6	Joshua Arbury	Modify section B7 of the plan modification so that parking is limited.
352/1	Tonya Booker	Oppose. Request that the proposed re-zoning be declined as it would enable the demise of a quite residential street and due to concerns about residential character, dominance, noise, environmental impact and traffic.
353/1	Benjamin P Curnow	Oppose. Urgently request that this proposed re-zoning from residential to commercial use be declined due to concerns about residential character, dominance, noise, environmental impact and traffic.
353/2	Benjamin P Curnow	Asks that such a radical amendment is not 'rushed through' by Council, without fully considering all of the issues raised and hearing the concerns of local residents.
354/1	Sarah Holmes	Oppose due to height; visual, traffic and noise effects; lack of parking for public and Westfield staff and concerns about its size in a residential area. Decline.
355/1(duplicate of 340)	Peter Nicolson	Supports the submissions from the St Lukes Apartments Progressive Society Inc
356/1	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	Adopt the proposed plan change subject to the following relief: Remove the St Lukes Road vehicle access, opposite Wagener Place from the E06-05(1) Concept Plan in the proposed PPC document to align with the outcomes suggested in the ITA.
356/2	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	Address and respond to ARTA's concerns in regard to the modelling outlined in paragraph 3.
356/3	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	Address and respond to ARTA's concerns in regard to the staging outlined in paragraph 4.
356/4	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	That a Safety Impact Assessment (SIA) be undertaken as part of the ITA to identify the opportunities and constraints that could be addressed through the proposed PPC to address these safety issues.
356/5	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	WNZ investigate the opportunity to incorporate a centralised bus station from where all buses would arrive and depart from the expanded site, in conjunction with ARTA to be required as part of the PPC.
356/6	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	Insert: 3.6 Additional Criteria for Passenger Transport Infrastructure Associated with the Site: the inclusion of real-time passenger transport information inside the shopping centre for both rail and bus services. attractive pedestrian routes with good wayfinding to passenger transport station/shops c) adequate and comfortable waiting facilities with real time information at the actual bus stops servicing the site - refer to ARTA Bus Stop infrastructure Design Guidelines
356/7	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	Insert reference to ARTA's Guidance Note for Cycle Parking Facilities 2007 for the appropriate location and type of facilities that should be provided for the development in relation to Part Dl Restricted Controlled Activities (b) (vi) Bicycle parking in a convenient location.
356/8	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	Cycle facilities' should be required along St Lukes Road adjacent to the WNZ site to improve cycle safely and accessibility by this mode of transport as outlined on the Regional Cycle Map.
356/9	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	That consideration be given to the provision of more direct connections across St Lukes Road, both to the east and west of the intersection, with the distances and safety requirement as key considerations to crossing the road and with an entrance to the retail area convenient to the road crossings. ARTA has proposed an option in the attached sketch (Appendix 8).
356/10	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	Insert under Part D1 Restricted Controlled Activities (d) The development of 8 Parking Management Strategy to minimise parking on residential storm end to ensure efficient management of parking space.
356/11	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	Insert a parking ratio for Office Development of 1:40m2 relative to the current District Plan requirements for office development.
356/12	Auckland Regional Transport Authority	Insert reference to Section 6.4 Travel Demand Management of the ITA in the PPC ,' Part D1Restricted Controlled Activities (c) The sufficiency of Travel Demand Management Plan which details measures that will be undertaken to encourage the use of public transport and other modes of transport as alternatives to the use of the private motor vehicle'
357/1	Sandringham Kindergarten/ Auckland Kindergarten Association	Decline the application due to traffic noise and pollution near to the Kindergarden and the safety effects
357/2	Sandringham Kindergarten/ Auckland Kindergarten Association	Should the council grant the application request that the land zoned residential 6a remain as residential 6a
357/3	Sandringham Kindergarten/ Auckland Kindergarten Association	Remove part E of the plan change for area B and classify development, other than residential, as a discretionary activity.
358/1	John Boscawen	Accept with amendments to address the submitter's concerns about Traffic flows along Aroha Avenue
358/2	John Boscawen	The height of the development on Aroha Avenue
358/3	John Boscawen	Commercial premises fronting on Aroha Avenue
359/1	Will McKenzie	Opposes due to loss of amenity on residential streets; traffic effects; safety concerns; on-street parking demand; glare, lighting; contrary to principles of the RMA and an enormous building envelope. Decline.
360/1	Dr Peter B. Boys	Oppose. Raises issues regarding the height, noise and parking issues. Decline the proposed plan modification in its entirety.
361/1	Peter W. Nightingale	Opposes due to loss of residential character, traffic, effects on open spaces, wellbeing, safety and security, environmental issues and effects on education institutions. Seek a decline from the Auckland City Council due to the detrimental effects it would have on the wellbeing of individuals and neighbourhoods, including light, traffic and potential educational and environmental impact.
362/1	The Eden/Albert Ratepayers Residents Association	Opposes due to environmental, social, traffic effects and effects on property values, crime and noise. Decline due to traffic effects.
363/1 part 2 part 3	St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Incorporated	Decline the private plan change request due to effects on Gribblehurst park, Meola creek and the Waitemata harbour, particularly in relation to stormwater and wastewater. The submitter opposes a reduction in the current level of landscaping; opposes the proposed building heights; the provisions relating to signage; raises concerns about transport, public health and the impact on water quality; requests detail on the plans for the library and questions the timing. If the Council chooses to grant the request we ask that the plan change is amended in the manner specified below.
363/2 part 2 part 3	St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Incorporated	We do not agree with the approach taken in the plan change (Restricted Discretionary Activities D3. New Buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings 3.1 General Criteria for Building Design) to restrict the matters that any new buildings are assessed against to matters only related to design and appearance as proposed in the plan change. We believe that any new building should also be assessed in relation to the ability of the infrastructure in the area to cope with the additional load placed on it by the building, any parking and building occupiers at peak periods of use and in times when the local infrastructure is at capacity.
363/3 part 2 part 3	St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Incorporated	We believe that a development of this scale should be more self sufficient. More effort should be made to be more sustainable and that approaches developed to reduce flows, retain and harvest storm water using LID, and to more sustainably deal with the consumption of water and emission of wastewater before it leaves the site.
363/4 part 2 part 3	St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Incorporated	We support the provision of high density residential development but onlv if the whole development is required to be more sustainable, and the infrastructure (Storm water and waste water) in the local area has been upgraded. However that capacity will be 'finite' and Westfield will be competing with other activities to take up that capacity - we believe each new development and any increase in floor area should be assessed even if the zoning is changed. We believe Wesffield is constantly looking at ways to increase numbers (shoppers and other users) and this will mean that their 'allocation' of infrastructure capacity needs to be able to be adjusted in step with the uptake by others in the area.
363/5 part 2 part 3	St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Incorporated	We are concerned that the existing northern carpark constructed in 2003 appears to have inadequate stormwater disposal capacity as of now. This means the existing development does not meet council standards ie. it is producing excess runoff and we would not like this situation to continue, or any new parking areas to also create similar runoff. We are alarmed with the prospect of any excess storm water from the site being directed on to adjacent road reserves and then being able to continue along the natural course downstream of the shopping centre [i.e. into Meola Creek at Lyon Ave]. We believe that on site storm water management techniques should be required. These techniques should be such that they have aesthetic and amenity value for shoppers and residents, and that they improve the environment.
363/6 part 2 part 3	St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Incorporated	In relation to C2. Financial Contributions1 Development Contributions we are opposed to any confidential discussions as normally occurs in relation to a Private Development Agreement. We believe that the contribution from Westfield to the cost of off-site works should be part of the public realm and if the zoning is approved the quantum of the financial contributions and1 development contributions should be specified in the plan change and therefore subject to appeal or alternately reflect without change the relevant contribution requirements of the Council's Development Contribution policy that applies at the time of the development. If the council decides to specify the contributions levels in the concept plan (which is our preference) then we believe the contributions should be in relation to: Enhancement of Gribblehurst Park Enhancement of Meola Creek Upgrade of the Watercare Interceptor; and that there should be a cap on further development until this upgrade occurs A requirement that a bus transfer station will be built as per Sylvia Park model with a cap on development until this facility is built.
363/7 part 2 part 3	St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Incorporated	Recommend a condition be applied regarding selection and treatment of all roofing and drainage materials, so that roofing materials do not result in pollutants being added into stormwater.
363/8 part 2 part 3	St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Incorporated	Recommend that Westfield St Lukes be required to demonstrate incorporation of low impact design principles in their designs, and recommend that they work with ARC and appropriate local authorities to achieve this.
363/9 part 2 part 3	St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Incorporated	B2. Maximum Height. Development should be kept to the height currently in the district plan for the site
364/1	Mikaere Curtis	Opposes the plan modification due to traffic effects on Aroha Ave and the effects on the character of a residential street. Decline the plan modification.
365/1	Hugh L Broad	Generally oppose, but seeks amendments as an alternative to decline. Seek amendments as an alternative. Substantial public transport is put in place to support the current proposal. The mall operator must be compelled to ameliorate the negative impact to surrounding streets. Pedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures are a minimum. A shuttle connecting Morningside railway station to the mall should be considered. The mall operator must be compelled to ameliorate the negative impact to surrounding streets. Pedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures are a minimum. A shuttle connecting Morningside railway station to the mall should be considered. Any measures to make the centre more pedestrian friendly can only be welcome. Decline the plan modification.
366/1	NZ Transport Agency	The NZTA's submission is in opposition to PM 8. � The NZTA considers the integrated traffic assessment submitted as part of PM 8 is inadequate, and considers the council should request further information. � That the identified future improvements to passenger transport services in the vicinity of Westfield St Lukes are not sufficient to facilitate changes in travel behaviour, and raises issues about travel demand management. � The Council should be satisfied that it has given adequate consideration to regional policy when making a recommendation on PM 8. � The NZTA is concerned that the plan change is providing for the establishment of a high density centre/town centre and this may not be in accordance plan change 6 to the Regional Policy Statement, which does not identify St Lukes as high density centre or corridor. The NZTA seeks that the application be deferred or declined unless further information is provided to address the issues raised or appropriate provisions are agreed between all relevant parties to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects on the State highway and surrounding road network. Alternatively, if the matters outlined are not addressed, and should the Council decide subsequently to recommend approving the plan change, the NZTA request that appropriate changes addressing all of the concerns raised above are recommended by the Council Officers to ensure transport/traffic effects are no more than minor. Such provisions could include but not be limited to the following:
366/2	NZ Transport Agency	Reduction in Future On-Site Carparking. To assist in the delivery of effective travel demand management, a car parking provision (rule) is recommended for the proposed additional retail uses, in recognition of the regional car parking strategy. The car parking provision should require that all staff carparking is on-site (based on the existing staff carparking requirements determined from the surveys identified in the ITA submitted to Council). As the proposed development occurs, the requirements for on-site staff carparking should continue to be monitored. With the implementation of an effective travel demand management plan, it would be anticipated that there would be a mode shift for staff, away from private vehicle use to other transport modes. This would enable the on-site staff carparking requirements for the proposed plan change to be reduced. It is further recommended that a staged approach to the carparking requirements for the proposed additional retail development is included within the concept plan. The NZTA considers that 1 space per 22 sqm of GFA will not facilitate mode shift away from private vehicles, therefore it is recommended he Council considers more stringent controls.
366/3	NZ Transport Agency	Monitoring and Staging Provisions. It is considered that the proposed Concept Plan should include a monitoring provision which gives the Council the opportunity to determine other potential off-site works (if required) to mitigate any wider traffic effects of the proposed Plan Change. A staging provision which limits development may also be appropriate if further traffic modelling identifies adverse effects on the transport system.
366/4	NZ Transport Agency	Such further or other relief, including consequential amendments, considered appropriate to address NZTA's concerns raised in this submission.
367/1	Mark Layfield	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
368/1	Ofa Lovo
369/1	Lisiate Lovo
370/1	Xavier Tuigamala
371/1	Loreta Salima
372/1	Allan Jacques Lockie
373/1	Aditya Aggaswal
374/1	Mr Homayoun Reza
375/1	Satyan Mehra
376/1	Kamla Dhawa
377/1	The Pegasus Trust	The Trust supports the plan modification, but raises issues about the increased traffic and kerb side parking along Morningside Drive and seeks that development is required to be designed to provide necessary improvement to Morningside Drive and associated intersections to accommodate increased traffic without detriment to adjoining properties. The Trust seeks that the plan modification is approved subject to the following relief:
377/2	The Pegasus Trust	Impose a building line (or similar) on the Centre property sufficient to enable widening of Morningside Drive to accommodate at least two traffic lanes in each direction, between St Lukes Road and Exeter Road, a central flush median footpaths on both sides and kerb side parking on the northern side of the road;
377/3	The Pegasus Trust	Such set-backs at the corners of Morningside Drive and St Lukes Road and the comer of Morningside Drive and Exeter Road to provide for intersection improvements;
377/4	The Pegasus Trust	It be a requirement under the Plan Change that all necessary improvements to Morningside Drive and associated intersections to accommodate traffic generated by the whole of the centre development be carried out at the cost of the centre owners;
377/5	The Pegasus Trust	Such consequential or other changes the Council considers appropriate to give effect to this submission.
378/1	Mt Albert Primary School	Accept the plan modification with amendments. Westfield St Lukes could consider installing a Safe School Zone programme, as has been implemented in the vicinity of other primary schools, either through a sponsorship or partnership relationship.
379/1	Lara Burkhardt	The proposed plan change is conditionally supported subject to provisions to mitigate potential adverse traffic, parking, access and amenity effects on the northern side of Morningside Drive. That the Proposed Plan Change be amended to address the concerns raised which ensures that:
379/2	Lara Burkhardt	The activities associated with Westfield St Lukes strictly adhere to the noise standards set out in the District Plan.
379/3	Lara Burkhardt	There are no limitations on access to and from the properties located on the northern side of Morningside Drive opposite the subject site.
379/4	Lara Burkhardt	Kerbside parking is maintained along the northern side of Morningside Drive opposite the subject site.
379/5	Lara Burkhardt	Onsite and offsite traffic effects associated with the expansion of the Westfield St Lukes centre are appropriately managed so as to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on the surrounding road network particularly along Morningside Drive and at the St Lukes Road and Exeter Road corners including: to impose a building line (or similar) on the subject site sufficient to enable widening of Morningside Drive to accommodate at least two traffic lanes in each direction, between Westfield St Lukes Road and Exeter Road, a central flush median, footpaths on both sides and kerb side parking on the northern side of the road; and such set-backs at the corners of Morningside Drive and St Lukes Road and the corner of Morningside Drive and Exeter Road to provide for intersection improvements
379/6	Lara Burkhardt	It be a requirement under the Proposed Plan Change that all necessary improvements to Morningside Drive and associated intersections to accommodate traffic generated by the whole of the centre development be carried out at the cost of the centre owners.
379/7	Lara Burkhardt	Any similar amendments to like effect or consequential changes that stem from the amendments. In the event that the concerns raised are not adequately addressed that the Proposed Plan Change be declined.
380/1	Connie Phillips	Supports the plan modification because of: additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to the immediate neighbourhood, further uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; and wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
381/1	Westfield New Zealand	Amend the proposed plan modification by replacing the notified version of Concept Plan Diagram E06-05(1) with the version attached to this submission (labelled Revision 1).
382/1	Noeline Tchanlo	Oppose the proposed plan modification in its entirety because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
383/1	Wai Leon Tchanlo
384/1	Pierre Leou
385/1	Leon Justin
386/1	Marie Justin
387/1	Joseph Koan
388/1	Liline Koan
389/1	Glennis Hayes
390/1	Kerri E Wickes
391/1	Malcolm MacGilvray
392/1	Craig Michael Cooney	Opposes due to dominance and additional access and rezoning. Decline the application.
393/1	Malcolm Bianchi	Oppose the proposed plan modification in its entirety because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
394/1	Maureen Vera Isbell
395/1	Holly Anne Cox	Opposes due to dominance, additional access and rezoning, environmental effects and effects on other local shopping centres. Decline the application.
396/1	Michael MacDonald	Opposes due to dominance, additional access and rezoning, private plan change resulting in a blank envelope for development and effects on other local shopping centres. Decline the application.
397/1	Karen Davies	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
398/1	Euan Robertson Saunders
399/1	Steven F Scher
400/1	Shem Shi
401/1	Meleseke Nightingale
402/1	James Dale
403/1	Georgia Falooz
404/1	Dennis Barrett
405/1	Eunice M Taylor
406/1	Rebecca Nightingale
407/1	Elizabeth Tuimavave
408/1	John Jessie Tuimavave
409/1	Rob Holloway
410/1	Rhonda Holloway
411/1	Tracy Anva Jenkinson
412/1	Luatapu Nightingale
413/1	Jahran Tarana
414/1	Harilal Amgoth
415/1	Visesio A Yek
416/1	Malcolm G T Bagnall
417/1	Ioaue Nightingale
418/1	Salesi Inoke
419/1	Jing Lu
420/1	Asho Karine Gevorgyam
421/1	Betty May Stanaway
422/1	Marcus P Ballantyne
423/1	Kate Murdoch
424/1	Nicole F Cope	Opposes due to the impact of further uses on residential character, additional access and rezoning issues and the private plan change resulting in a blank envelope for future development with minimal community involvement. Decline the application.
425/1	Barry W Smith	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
426/1	Richard B Nightingale
427/1	Catherina Chen
428/1	David R Llewell	Opposes due to dominance, environmental effects, the private plan change resulting in a blank envelope for future development with minimal community involvement, and effects on other local shopping centres. Decline the application.
429/1	Amy Tapueluelu	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
430/1	Roger Mortimer
431/1	Rebekah Cheeseman
432/1	Juanita Stulich
433/1	Maxwell F Hall	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; Decline the plan modification.
434/1	Guy Gibson	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
435/1	Dave Dowden	Opposes due to dominance issues. Decline the plan modification.
436/1	Philip Rolle	Opposes it due to dominance, further uses, additional access and rezoning and the private plan change process resulting in a blank envelope for future development. Decline the plan change.
437/1	Pena O Te'evale	Opposes due to dominance, further uses and additional access and rezoning. Decline the plan change.
438/1	Jennifer R Heslop	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
439/1	Murray J Heslop
440/1	Michelle Arden
441/1	Caroline A Simpson	Opposes due to dominance, further uses, the private plan change resulting in blank envelope for future development, and the effects on other town centres. Decline the plan change.
442/1	Jane Puddephatt	Opposes due to dominance, additional access and rezoning, environmental effects and the effects on other town centres. Decline the plan change.
443/1	Paul Scott-James	Opposes due to dominance, additional access and rezoning, environmental effects and the effects on other town centres. Decline the plan change.
444/1	Gemma Hogan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
445/1	James Hogan
446/1	Lucas Hogan
447/1	Soraya Hogan
448/1	Phil Tiosufu
449/1	Andy Silva
450/1	Penelope J Robinson
451/1	Liam O'Reilly
452/1	Carol Soundy
453/1	R James Leach
454/1	Elizabeth G Leach
455/1	Tamara G M Farquharson
456/1	Linda Seve
457/1	Linda J M Waters
458/1	Angela Travers
459/1	Barbara Ames
460/1	Susan Elizabeth Hirst
461/1	Gordon W Ikin
462/1	Alia De Jaltasymas
463/1	Samantha Carey
464/1	Margot J Carey
465/1	Ian McKinnon
466/1	Christopher Haines	Opposes due to dominance, further uses, additional access and rezoning and environmental effects. Decline the plan change.
467/1	John Bakker	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification. Need more green spaces and parks.
468/1	Petra Gray	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
469/1	Thomas B Coley	Opposes the plan change because of traffic, height, safety and wellbeing issues. That the Council decline the proposed plan modification in its entirety.
470/1	Ruth O Coley	Opposes the plan change due to loss of residential character, size, impact on local shops and restaurants and traffic volumes. That the Council decline the proposed plan modification.
471/1	Barry R Coley	Opposes the plan modification due to loss of residential character, excessive height, traffic and impacts on surrounding shopping centres. That the Council decline the proposed plan modification in its entirety and limits the size of the Mall at its present footprint.
472/1	S.Elaine Gallagher-Dekker	Opposes due to interface E control affected Aroha Ave; the impacts of the link road, lighting, height, security, the impact on local centres and stormwater. Therefore, decline with no link road and no rezoning of residential land in Aroha Avenue.
473/1	Colette Sherley	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
474/1	Sam Jones
475/1	Fleur Cooper	Opposes due to dominance, environmental effects, the private plan change process and effects on other centres. Decline the plan change.
476/1	Dale Flett	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
477/1	Sara Kilonback
478/1	Krishana Gordhan
479/1	Kylie Renee Green	Opposes due to dominance, traffic effects, environmental effects and effects on other centres. Decline the plan change.
480/1	Kylie Harris	Opposes due to dominance and environmental effects. Decline the plan modification.
481/1	Glenys V Prehn	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
482/1	Matthew Westbrook
483/1	Lisa Thornley
484/1	Hun Koy Kung
485/1	Bruce A Gulloy
486/1	Marjet Pot
487/1	Paul and Margaret Clapham
488/1	Catherine Love	Opposes due to concerns with the private plan change process. Decline the plan modification.
489/1	Oliver Faldo	Opposes due to dominance, further uses, traffic issues, environmental effects and the private plan change process. Decline the plan modification.
490/1	James Corden	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
491/1	Tracy Edmonds	Support the plan modification because of the following: the additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to and from the immediate neighbourhood; more uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
492/1	Yvonne E A Boyd	Oppose the proposed plan modification in its entirety because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification.
493/1	Pierre Jarry	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of dominance, further uses and traffic issues. Decline the plan modification.
494/1	Caroline Gibson	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of dominance, traffic effects, and environmental effects. Decline the plan modification.
495/1	John Gibson	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of dominance, traffic effects and the private plan change process. Decline the plan modification.
496/1	William B Clark	Decline the entire proposed plan change: request the City Council ensure that these plans are not rushed through.
496/2	William B Clark	because it would give priority to commercial enterprises above the welfare of residents and the community.
496/3	William B Clark	because of the detrimental effect it would have on the well being of all concerned parties, including light, traffic safety and negative environmental impacts. I want the outstanding amenity that is the surrounding area to be preserved and enhanced.
497/1	Jess Cooper	Support the plan modification because of the following: the additional parking; improved pedestrian access; improved access to and from the immediate neighbourhood; more uses in addition to retail; a mainstreet environment; wider variety of shops and services. Approve the plan modification.
498/1	Glen Paul Tomes
499/1	Urmila Gounder
500/1	Blake Henderson
501/1	Cassandra Woodhouse
502/1	Mark F Hull
503/1	Anita Levering	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
504/1	Stephen Rod
505/1	Melanie Langlotz
506/1	Mary Teihaota-ko	Opposes the plan modification due to dominance, environmental effects, the private plan change process, traffic effects and the impact on the community. Decline the plan change.
507/1	Barbara J Cloonan	Opposes the plan modification due to dominance, further uses, traffic and environmental effects. Decline the plan change.
508/1	Jacquie Jarry	Opposes the plan modification due to dominance, further uses and traffic effects. Decline the plan change.
509/1	Nicky Taggart	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
510/1	Richard Taggart	Opposes the plan change due to dominance, traffic effects, the private plan change process and effects on other town centres. Decline the plan change.
511/1	Ross A Johnson	Opposes the plan change due to issues about residential character, community and public safety; dominance; impacts on other centres; traffic; health; connectivity; excessive height, shading, lighting, noise, loss of character of a heritage zone. Decline the plan change and recommend that the zoning should remain the way it is at present.
512/1	Michael B Taggart	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
513/1	Daniel A Taggart
514/1	Richard Crayton	Opposes the plan change because of dominance issues. Decline the plan change.
515/1	Fiona Webb	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
516/1	Sallyanne Louisson
517/1	Carole M McIntosh	Oppose due to issues with traffic, loss of residential character, noise & visual pollution and dominance. Decline the plan change.
518/1	Katrina M S Essex	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
519/1	Rebecca Little
520/1	Matthew Sutherland	Oppose due to dominance and environmental effects. Decline the plan change.
521/1	Daniel Taylor	Oppose due to dominance and environmental effects. Decline the plan change.
522/1	Glenn Dawick	Oppose due to dominance, traffic issues and effects n other town centres. Decline the plan change.
523/1	Kyla Bendall	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
524/1	Suzie Neilson	Oppose due to excessive shading. Decline the plan change.
525/1	Anne Muir	Opposed due to concerns regarding shading, traffic, noise and air pollution, construction period. Decline. Residential should remain residential. Westfield should not be granted this building envelope.
526/1	Ahron Rimmer	Opposed due to shading and tree issues. Decline. Please don't let them make this mall.
527/1	Samara R Rimmer	Oppose due to noise, safety and shading concerns. Decline so they cant cut down old trees.
528/1	Anita Levering	Oppose due to loss of residential character, impacts on local amenities, environmental effects, traffic, health, safety, open space, height, shading/lighting, noise and crime. Decline the plan change.
529/1	Rosana Armstrong	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
530/1	Nick Edwards	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
531/1	Mr Ranchhod	Oppose the plan modification due to traffic and access issues. Decline the plan change.
532/1	Mary W Kayes	Decline the plan change. Raised issues regarding residential character, traffic, pollution, height and size, the impact on local shopping centres.
533/1	Leanne Kane	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
534/1	Elissa Bailey	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
535/1	Brad Bailey	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
536/1	Gloria M Bailey
537/1	Pamela R Bailey
538/1	Felix D Devine	Oppose due to safety issues. Decline.
539/1	Henny Baas	Opposes the plan changes due to the change from residential to commercial, the Exeter Road extension, traffic, parking concerns. Decline.
540/1	Sarah Devine	Opposes due to effects on the residential character of Aroha Ave, traffic issues, the visual dominance and loss of housing, the impact on local businesses. Decline.
541/1	Theo D Devine	Oppose due to increased traffic and safety issues, changes to the character a residential street, loss of trees. Decline
542/1	John Dwyer	Oppose due to dominance, effects on heritage character, increased traffic flow. Decline the proposal in full.
543/1	Verna Cook-Jackson	Decline. The proposed Westfield development should not be contemplated in such a mid-city-residential area.
543/2	Verna Cook-Jackson	The enormous size and height of the proposal will create dominance and shading.
543/3	Verna Cook-Jackson	Effects on the area's history and character.
543/4	Verna Cook-Jackson	Crime.
544/1	Cuchullain Gallagher	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
545/1	James J Gallagher
546/1	Samuel R Coley	Oppose because St Lukes is big enough, traffic and parking problems, dangerous precedent, its out of character with the area and crime issues. Decline the plan change.
547/1	Barbara McArdle	Urge the Council to decline this proposed plan modification on the grounds of the detrimental effects it would have on: surrounding residential streets;
547/2	Barbara McArdle	the public open spaces (Warren Freer Park and Gribblehurst park);
547/3	Barbara McArdle	the surrounding road network;
547/4	Barbara McArdle	nearby shops and other amenities (at Morningside, Sandringham and Balmoral);
547/5	Barbara McArdle	the natural environment with the destruction of trees;
547/6	Barbara McArdle	the huge increase in stormwater run-off into the Meola Creek catchment.
548/1	Sean McArdle	Opposes due to noise and air pollution, the effects on local shops and the effects on Aroha Ave. Decline
549/1	Angela Lauese and Darren Lauese	Oppose due to the massive impact on the local area, and prevent Westfield adding their driveways into the local streets such as Aroha Ave. The scale of development, carparking and additional road is inappropriate. Decline.
550/1	Ma Feng Ting	Oppose because of its size, scale and height. Decline
551/1	Jiang Gui Rong	Oppose because there is too many heavy vehicles. Decline
552/1	Li Xiang	Oppose because of traffic and noise problems, its size and loss of sunshine. Decline
553/1	Li Mo Heng	Oppose because of the size, scale, height, dominance effects, loss of sunshine and noise. Decline.
554/1	Julie E Collard	Oppose due to effects on the residential nature of Aroha St, dominance, loss of views, traffic and shading. Decline the proposed plan modification because it would destroy the character of the street.
555/1	Judith M Johnson	Decline on the basis that the Council, if it supports the proposal, would reduce the right of individuals and neighbourhoods in favour of commercial endeavour.
556/1	Deidre Cuttance	Oppose due to effects on Aroha Ave and the Morningside/Sandringham community. Urge the Council to decline this amendment to our current zoning, as it will not provide any enhancement to our area.
557/1	Mark R J Johnson	Oppose due to effect on neighbourhood characteristics. Decline the proposed plan change in its entirety.
558/1	John Barlev	Opposes the proposal due to effects on the residential character of Aroha St; the increase in traffic density on Aroha Ave, potential for drive through facilities; lack of public input through the proposed activity statuses; the parking requirements; tree protection; the Exeter Road extension and the effects they will have on Aroha St. As St Lukes is the largest centre in the western isthmus need to draw people away from it rather than to it; raises issues regarding the noise assessment; the landscape assessment and the peer review of the landscape assessment. Decline the plan modification in its entirety. The plan change is an unacceptable attempt to dominate the landscape without having to engage the local community.
558/2	John Barlev	Concerns about the large number of existing nuisances, such as noise, lights, litter, residential street parking by staff. These will be exacerbated by further development.
559/1	Craig E Tunnicliffe	Decline the plan change. The balance between shopping and the needs of the community are at risk from any further development at Westfield St Lukes. Please decline their request [so as] to protect the communities ecosystem.
560/1	John R McArthur	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
561/1	Judith A McArthur
562/1	Joseph Peter Cavanagh
563/1	Helen Barlev	Opposes the proposal due to effects on the residential character of Aroha St; the increase in traffic density on Aroha Ave, potential for drive through facilities; lack of public input through the proposed activity statuses; the parking requirements; tree protection; the Exeter Road extension and the effects they will have on Aroha St. As St Lukes is the largest centre in the western isthmus need to draw people away from it rather than to it; raises issues regarding the noise assessment; the landscape assessment and the peer review of the landscape assessment. Decline the plan modification in its entirety. The plan change is an unacceptable attempt to dominate the landscape without having to engage the local community.
563/2	Helen Barlev	Concerns about the large number of existing nuisances, such as noise, lights, litter, residential street parking by staff. These will be exacerbated by further development.
564/1	Fritz Drissner	Oppose the plan change due to effects on our friendly neighbourhood and environment; traffic, noise, pollution, litter loss of neighbourhood and community values; the effects of the Exeter Road extension. Decline the proposal in its entirety.
565/1	Gary Donovan and Elizabeth Donovan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
566/1	Kate Kroos
567/1	Lyall Paratene
568/1	R Schnitzler
569/1	Christine Harford	Oppose the plan change due to dominance effects. Decline the proposal in its entirety.
570/1	Louise M Hale	Oppose the plan change due to dominance effects. Decline the proposal in its entirety.
571/1	Kristine Harold	Oppose the plan change due to dominance effects. Decline the proposal in its entirety.
572/1	Kim Shelmerdine	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
573/1	Donna Scott
574/1	Katarine Keeman	Oppose the plan change due to dominance effects, further uses and environmental effects. Decline the proposal in its entirety.
575/1	Danny Farnham	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
576/1	Tony Jackson
577/1	Claire E McMeekin
578/1	Rebecca Blamires
579/1	Alison Gardiner
580/1	Geoff Wyeth
581/1	Rebecca Swaney
582/1	Marian Kane
583/1	Virginia Buckland
584/1	David B Gibson	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety. Respect for the Heritage nature of the suburb. The Edwardian architecture of the suburb should be properly respected by proposed developments.
585/1	Henry Plane	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
586/1	Eric R Jack	I request the council decline the proposed plan modification in its entirety. I am not opposed to change and improvements, but NOT without visibility and control. If this proposal is approved there will be little control with Westfield being able to do what they want if the land is rezoned.
587/1	Judith M Cowie	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
588/1	Oliver Jack	Decline. Not opposed to change � Westfield can grow under more controlled conditions. Don't destroy residential houses when Westfield has industrial land across the road.
589/1	Thomas Wolf	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
590/1	Mike Nieuwoudt	Opposed due to dominance, further uses, traffic environmental effects. Decline the plan modification.
591/1	Gavin Jack	Opposed due to dominance and the private plan change process. Decline the plan modification.
592/1	Silvana Vazquez	Opposed due to environmental effects and the effects on other town centres. Decline the plan modification.
593/1	Naomi Chiku	Opposed due to environmental effects. Decline the plan modification.
594/1	Salen Kumar	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
595/1	K Koulechuer
596/1	Julie A Child
597/1	Victor Rosendale
598/1	Terrance C Pullen
599/1	Glen Muir	Opposed due to dominance, further uses, traffic and the private plan change process. Decline the plan modification.
600/1	Sally Vince	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
601/1	Isabel Cribb
602/1	Muriel Elia
603/1	Thomas William Bergin
604/1	Fiona C A Sykes	Opposes due to traffic effects and effects on other town centres. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
605/1	Sean Carey	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
606/1	James Casey	Decline
607/1	Paula Kilcolm	Decline
608/1	Cameron Neilson	Oppose due traffic, height and safety. Decline
609/1	Ben C Johnson	Oppose due to changes on Kenneth Ave and the surrounding Morningside and Sandringham community. I respectfully ask Council to decline the plan change. I recommend that the zoning should remain the way it is at present.
610/1	The St Lukes Community Association (Inc)	Oppose. The St Lukes Community association (Inc) seek for council to decline the plan modification its entirety for the following reasons: Traffic The increase in traffic that will be generated as a result of the proposed development poses significant risk to the people who live in the area, particularly those who choose to walk and cycle.
610/2	The St Lukes Community Association (Inc)	Environmental effects There are a number of significant environmental effects from the proposed development.
610/3	The St Lukes Community Association (Inc)	Loss of residential character Any zone change on the street, such as that proposed in the PPC, would have a significant negative impact on the residential character of the street. A business zone on the street is incompatible with the current residential land use.
610/4	The St Lukes Community Association (Inc)	Exeter Road extension We unconditionally oppose any new street connecting with Aroha Avenue. The effects on the local community would be significant and cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
610/5	The St Lukes Community Association (Inc)	Dominance The size, scope and height of the proposed development are inappropriate in a residential area, as it will have negative visual, shading, light, noise and privacy impacts.
610/6	The St Lukes Community Association (Inc)	Shading The proposed maximum heights will contribute to significant negative impacts on residences from shading.
610/7	The St Lukes Community Association (Inc)	Crime and anti-social behaviour Residents are concerned that any further development will increase these levels of crime. With the likely inclusion of bars and restaurants in the proposed development, residents are particularly concerned about noise generated from these activities.
610/8	The St Lukes Community Association (Inc)	Open space The character and safety of Gribblehurst Park are compromised by further development because of increased levels of traffic and the negative impacts from noise and air emissions.
610/9	The St Lukes Community Association (Inc)	Local retailers Residents access and use the range of local retailers around them. They value the vibrancy and human scale of these local centres and are concerned that this will be compromised by such a large scale retail development in this area.
610/10	The St Lukes Community Association (Inc)	Amenity The proposed development will compromise the amenity in the area. The current Westfield St Lukes site is a seven day a week operation. Operating hours range from 6.00am to late evenings. Residents already put up with the effects of the existing mall and the PPC will exacerbate these effects.
611/1	Geraldine K Saunders	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
612/1	Mark J Scott	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects, road congestion and carparking; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Potential for road widening thereby eroding residential character Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
613/1	Ian G Pallas	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety. The balance of probability is that this plan modification will benefit Westfield substantially more than the local community. Westfield would not be pursuing this plan change unless it also believed this to be true. I do not see the need to change the District Plan to benefit a private company, and I oppose the change for this and the above reasons.
614/1	Bruce K Baker	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
615/1	Theresa Chow Wah Liew
616/1	James Fleming and Marnie Pitcher
617/1	James Fleming and Marnie Pitcher
618/1	Diana Puketapu
619/1	Preston and Heather Bardell	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects, road congestion and carparking; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
620/1	Elizabeth Mary Lucas	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
621/1	Elizabeth Overton
622/1	Graeme H Overton
623/1	Jacqueline A Mortimer-Hughes
624/1	Francis Joseph Mortimer
625/1	Florence Elizabeth Parker
626/1	Mary Brien
627/1	Margaret P Goddard
628/1	Stephen John Buckland
629/1	Jan Maree Hurley
630/1	Robyn A Fitzgerald
631/1	Michael John Field	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects, road congestion and carparking; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
632/1	Malcolm Hayward and Maria Hayward	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
633/1	Greg S Woo	Oppose due to traffic and safety reasons. Decline
634/1	Sandra Louise Eriksen	Oppose due to traffic, the existing development is too large and it will destroy the character of the historic area. Decline, we do not need another Soho square in our neighbourhood.
635/1	Anthony T Bus	Oppose because of lack of community input, traffic and associated effects, it's out of character in a residential area. Decline the proposed plan modification in its entirety.
636/1	Katey Bradley	Oppose due to litter, traffic, lack of pedestrian crossing. Decline
637/1	Steve Garden	Oppose because of the impact on the community, the environment, ones sense of belonging. Decline
638/1	Viky Garden	Oppose due issues with current buildings and the effects on Sandringham village. Decline
639/1	Adam T R Craigie	Oppose due to loss of residential character, the effects on the socio-ecological environment, loss of sunlight, traffic, noise, safety. I oppose the plan in its entirety. The effects of it would be far reaching and so I ask the Council to decline it due to the detrimental effect it would have on the health of the people in our community.
640/1	Simon H Powell	Oppose due to issues with the existing mall that would compound if it went ahead. If it went ahead it would turn the area into noisy, polluted and unreasonably commercially dominated area of Auckland. Decline because the RMA includes protecting and enhancing amenity values, changes should be planned and managed so that activity patterns that provide for social, economic and cultural wellbeing and the health and safety of the community are reinforced. Plan modification does not meet this expectation.
641/1	Andrew N McCully	Oppose due to effects on residential character, traffic, parking, noise and pollution. The Council should decline Westfield's application to expand the mall.
642/1	Sean Barratt	Oppose due to loss of houses. Decline.
643/1	Louisa Jones	Oppose due to loss of houses. Decline.
644/1	Ford Nicholas Jones	Decline.
645/1	Lubin MacFehin	Oppose due to effects on Aroha Ave. Decline.
646/1	Paul Thomas Barclay	Oppose due to traffic, safety and property values. Decline.
647/1	Gayle M Barclay	Oppose due to traffic, pollution and effects on the character. Decline.
648/1	Zack Zhao	Oppose due to safety issues. Decline.
649/1	Zinzan Zhao	Oppose due to noise. Decline
650/1	Zhuo Lian He	Oppose due to traffic and parking. Decline.
651/1	Helen Eaglestone and Richard Eaglestone	Oppose due to shading, traffic effects, noise, excessive height. Decline.
652/1	Juanita Maree Taylor	The Council to decline the proposed plan change in its entirety as it will have detrimental effects on the traffic;
652/2	Juanita Maree Taylor	Lighting
652/3	Juanita Maree Taylor	Safety
652/4	Juanita Maree Taylor	Environmental effects
652/5	Juanita Maree Taylor	Lack of residential character.
653/1	Vaughn Scott Taylor	Oppose due to the loss of residential character, the impact on communities and centres, traffic and carparking issues, trees and lighting. Decline the plan change in its entirety. I recommend that the zoning should remain the way it is at present and the extension of the road from Exeter Road through to Aroha Avenue be rejected.
654/1	John Taylor and Heather Taylor	Decline. Big is not always better. The council needs to consider the impact on the community and grass roots of the isthmus and not be influenced by large corporates.
655/1	Anne Harwood	Oppose due to public safety, traffic, loss of character, effects on open spaces, wellbeing, safety and security. Decline the plan change in its entirety.
656/1	Adele McIntosh	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
657/1	Eileen A Thorne	I ask this plan modification to be declined as the amount of traffic which is currently flowing along Balmoral Road is at near capacity during the a.m and p.m periods. The plan modification can only exacerbate the problem and make it even more difficult for residents to move around our suburb. Decline the application
658/1	Eileen A Thorne	Oppose. Raises issues regarding loss of residential character, dominance, the height and size.
659/1	Matthew D E Ludbrook	Oppose the additional access and rezoning and lack of input for community through the plan change process. Decline the proposed plan modification in its entirety.
660/1	Lynda King	Oppose due to traffic. Decline
661/1	Hikari Ludbrook	Oppose. Please keep this area residential. The impact of making more areas available for commercial development will lead to: loss of community
661/2	Hikari Ludbrook	increase in vandalism
661/3	Hikari Ludbrook	increase in noise pollution + air pollution
661/4	Hikari Ludbrook	the destruction of some beautiful old houses
661/5	Hikari Ludbrook	issues with safety for children being able to play or cross the street
661/6	Hikari Ludbrook	visual impact of commercial buildings are not nice to look at. Decline.
662/1	Les Pritchard	Oppose due to traffic, new access from Aroha Ave, increased staff parking, provide residents with landscaped parking bays Aroha Ave, lights and pedestrian crossing Sandringham/Aroha Ave. Decline.
663/1	Bruce W M Fisher	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety. Also raised issues regarding litter.
664/1	Alexandra M Van Eden	Oppose due to loss of character, scale, crime, traffic, parking, fumes and stress. Decline in its entirety.
665/1	Dean Burt	Oppose due to street parking, safety, privacy. Decline
666/1	Tim Wilson and Verity M E Humberstone	Oppose. We seek the council to decline the proposal which will allow the linking of Aroha Ave to Exeter Road allowing direct vehicle access from Aroha Ave to the St Lukes Westfield shopping mall.
667/1	Colin R M Greenslade and Lois V Greenslade	Oppose due to excessive height, environment effects, traffic, shading and lighting, noise, loss of residential character, health, dominance, safety, impact on amenities and centres, impact on open space. Decline.
668/1	Timothy J N Keegan	If a plan is going to impact negatively on its local community it should offer compensation of some sort to them in order to reconcile the detrimental impact it has on them. This plan does not do such things, and it ignores the complaints of residents as well as the issues surrounding the environmental effects of stormwater runoff in an area with no reticulated drainage, which would have to be upgraded with council funds in order to benefit not the public but a private entity. I believe that the public aren't being considered in this matter, but the interests of big business, who ought to be secondary to the population they service. Decline the application.
669/1	Brian C Humberstone	Oppose due to traffic, effects on the areas historic character, inadequate stormwater already, psychological and other stress. Decline.
670/1	Susan Rust	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety as follows:
670/2	Susan Rust	Instead of enlarging Westfield St Lukes, spread the shops/businesses/living quarters/ apartments with the other strip shopping in the area ie. Sandringham, Balmoral, Kingsland, Mt Albert and any other areas that need promoting.
670/3	Susan Rust	The Wagener Place area has added to the congestion so perhaps make some one-way traffic to counter the problem around St Lukes but leave the size of St Lukes as it is now and concentrate on the 'other areas'.
670/4	Susan Rust	Some people don't like 'shopping malls' at all and prefer the 'strip shopping'. This would alleviate the traffic congestion by spreading it out over all the shopping areas.
671/1	Ornthira Khamna	Oppose due to inappropriate intensity and impact on local businesses. Negative impacts on the health and environment and it's not a move towards sustainable development. Decline the application. I respectfully ask the council to decline this on the basis that the council, if it supported this proposal, would reduce the rights of individuals and neighbourhoods in favour of commercial endeavours.
672/1	Shelley Masters	Oppose because of the impact of traffic on Aroha Ave, noise pollution, safety and effects on its residential nature. I urge the council to decline the request due to the detrimental effects that it would have on the well-being of all concerned parties, in terms of light, traffic, safety, security, and potential environmental impact. I want the council to decline this on the basis that the council, if it supported this proposal, would reduce the rights of individuals and neighbourhoods in favour of commercial endeavours.
673/1	Mark Castle	Oppose due to on-street parking, safety, increase in pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Decline the proposed plan modification in its entirety.
674/1	William O'Donnell	Decline
675/1	Andrew D Chalmers	Oppose due to traffic. Decline
676/1	Sarah M Yallop	Oppose due to demolition of houses, traffic and rubbish issues. Decline
677/1	Russell Smith and Jotishra Prasad	Oppose due to loss of residential character, traffic issues, shading and crime. We would like the council to think about the effects this development will have in the long term. The erosion of inner city residential areas will only create a characterless concrete jungle. We urge you to decline this proposal.
678/1	Rachael E.C.L Leach	Oppose due to excessive height, increased traffic, public safety, loss of privacy, loss of residential character, noise shading/lighting and environmental effects. Decline
679/1	Andre V van Niekerk	Oppose due to excessive height, increased traffic, public safety, loss of privacy, loss of residential character, noise shading/lighting and environmental effects. Decline
680/1	John C Palmer	Oppose due to increased traffic and parking problems and height of buildings. Decline
681/1	Heather J Bolton	Oppose due to effects on residential character, traffic, shading and noise. Decline
682/1	Helen Meyer	Oppose due to traffic safety, effects on residential character, litter and pollution. Decline.
683/1	Warren Meyer	Oppose because of traffic safety, effects on residential character, pollution and noise. Decline
684/1	Jane L Powell	Oppose due to amenity effects, noise and effects on Aroha Ave Decline. This 2030 town centre plan from the ACC should be primarily for the benefit of the local residents and community. Wants the street to remain a child centred, family centred, green, quiet(ish) clean air place.
685/1	Nathan J Bevin	Oppose due to traffic, environmental and health ramifications. I want council to decline this on the basis that the council, if it supported this proposal, would reduce the rights of individuals and neighbourhoods in favour of commercial endeavours.
686/1	Graham M Elliott	Oppose due to roading issues and effects on local retail. Decline
687/1	Stella Friedlander	Oppose as its out of character and will destroy the heritage character, traffic and parking issues and noise. Decline the proposed plan in its entirety, due to detrimental effects including traffic, light and safety, with no enhancement or benefits to the area.
688/1	John Devine	Oppose due to effects on the residential neighbourhood, impact on other retail areas, traffic. Decline
689/1	Alice A Wheeler	Oppose due to streetscape and character issues. Decline
690/1	Amy Stone	Oppose due to traffic and safety issues. Decline
691/1	Cathrine Patten	Oppose due to traffic, not in keeping with a heritage area, impact on local retail areas. Decline
692/1	Kay G McCabe	Oppose due to traffic and change in residential character. Decline
693/1	Ravi Dwivedi	Oppose due to traffic, noise, air pollution and health. Decline
694/1	Daniel D Jackman	I definitely request the ACC that they not rush these plans through. I seek the following decision from the council; decline due to the detrimental effects it will have on the well-being of all concerned parties, including light, traffic, safety and environmental impact. The zoning should remain the way it is at present - i.e. full rejection of the proposed plan change.
695/1	Ruth E Van Eden	Oppose due to traffic effects, safety and privacy. Decline the proposed plan change in its entirety.
696/1	Justin Westgate	Oppose due to increase in building height, it's not in keeping with the residential area, inappropriate intensity, traffic, parking, excessive height, environmental issues, safety, privacy. Decline the plan change. I recommend that the zoning should remain the way it is at present.
697/1	Rebekah Walton	Oppose due to traffic, safety and character issues. Decline. Decisions should be made in consultation with the entire community. St Lukes is already a heartless, unattractive mall which incentivises increased motor vehicle use, significantly increases the level of traffic and people in the area and now wants to invade the heart of our community life even more! The council must reject this proposal completely. The plans will impact detrimentally on traffic management, aesthetic values, family values and space.
698/1	Mark Broatch	Oppose due to traffic, character issues and visual pollution. Decline. Decisions should be made in consultation with the entire community. St Lukes is already an ugly, user-unfriendly strip mall. An opportunity for expansion should be rejected outright, and any such plan should have taken into consideration how to improve the commercial offering, traffic management and aesthetic values, rather than the imposition, undemocratically, of an entirely commercial operation by a company that clearly prefers to conduct its operations stealthily and with minimal community buy-in or application of aesthetic or social values.
699/1	Balmoral Community Group	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
700/1	Calvin Bartley
701/1	Joanne Jerschke
702/1	Benjamin Seve
703/1	Adrian Taihia
704/1	Josie Seve
705/1	Melematisa Seve
706/1	Haele Tohitau
707/1	Margaret Lovell
708/1	Alana-Rose Miller
709/1	Kathy Yallop	Oppose due to further uses, environmental effects and effects on other town centres. Decline.
710/1	Rhona Murdoch Sommerville	Oppose due to dominance, traffic and effects on other town centres. Decline.
711/1	Ross McFarlane	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
712/1	Nick Laurent	Oppose due to dominance, and further uses. Decline.
713/1	Katherine Ludbrook	Oppose due to dominance and effects on other town centres. Decline.
714/1	Anna Allot	Oppose due to dominance and effects on other town centres. Decline.
715/1	Jun Mariko Littlewood	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
716/1	Lisa Robertson	Oppose due to dominance effects. Decline.
717/1	Dan Turkington	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
718/1	Tammy Flavell
719/1	Jarred Hogan
720/1	Philippa White
721/1	Rachel Kitayama-Moore	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
722/1	David Ross Allan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
723/1	Cheryl Ware
724/1	Anne Duncan
725/1	Mary J Gillies	Oppose due to further uses, traffic effects, the private plan change process and effects on other town centres. Decline.
726/1	Daniel Marshall Architect Limited	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
727/1	Andy Haines	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
728/1	Mathew John Stuger	Oppose due to dominance and environmental effects. Decline the application.
729/1	Mary Davidson and Tim Davidson	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
730/1	Kogan Niu	Oppose due to traffic and environmental effects. Decline.
731/1	Graham Dekker	Oppose due to effects on the residential character of Aroha Ave, visual impact, traffic and height. Decline.
732/1	Colin Aiken	Opposes due to dominance, environmental effects, the private plan change process and effects on other town centres. Decline.
733/1	Tony Leslie	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
734/1	Rachael Daveil
735/1	Roger Khan
736/1	Tina P Khan
737/1	F Khan
738/1	Priscilla Kennar
739/1	Laurel McCulloch
740/1	Robert Van De Lisdonk
741/1	Malcolm R O'Neil	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
742/1	Luka Minse	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
743/1	Phillip Liu
744/1	Rajeshwar
745/1	Darren R Merrie
746/1	Vicki Merrie
747/1	Daniel John Beetham
748/1 (duplicate of 781)	T Favell
749/1	Alex L Humphreys-Grey
750/1	Glen Trueman
751/1	Bandau Joseph Maher	Opposes due to dominance, further uses, traffic effects and effects on other town centres. Decline.
752/1	Jono Lind	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
753/1	Heath Mannering	Opposes due to further uses, environmental effects and the private plan change process. decline
754/1	Kenneth B Marment	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
755/1	Kylie Hateley	Oppose due to dominance and environmental effects. Decline.
756/1	Charlene Simons	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
757/1	Irene Overton	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
758/1	Noelene Ravlich
759/1	Ben Griffiths
760/1	Charlotte Antonievich
761/1	Rachel Allen
762/1	Tain-Ean Chen	Oppose due to dominance, traffic and environmental effects. Decline.
763/1	David Moynahan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
764/1	Christopher Gordon	Oppose due to dominance, environmental effects and effects on other town centres. Decline.
765/1	Trixie Williams	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
766/1	David Corlett
767/1	Campbell Fraser	Oppose due to dominance, traffic and effects on other town centres. Decline.
768/1	Gareth Edward Jones	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
769/1	Courtney Lowe	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
770/1	Amanda Jane Reid
771/1	Roxanne Vickerman
772/1	Aiken Hanmay	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
773/1	Darrel Boot	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
774/1	Devraj Karkera
775/1	Jenny McArdle	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety..
776/1	Nika Botica	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
777/1	Katherine Sharpe	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
778/1	Matthew Adams	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
779/1	Leeanne McNaught
780/1	Julie J Greet
781/1	David G Abbott
782/1	William J Dart	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
783/1	Diane Maher	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
784/1	Jason Ludbrook	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
785/1	Maree Gillies	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
786/1	Carmel Flanagan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
787/1	Peter J Stephenson	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
788/1	Penelope G Baldwin	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
789/1	Agnes Mokotupu	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
790/1	Koen L Lee	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
791/1	Sue Hurst	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
792/1	Jennifer R McDougall	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: the traffic effects; environmental effects it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
793/1	Glenda Butler	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; environmental effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
794/1	Marion Cowan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
795/1	Ashley Tillman
796/1	Miguel Gallego
797/1	Paul McAuley
798/1	Murray Brian Shearer	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; environmental effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; the effects on other shopping centres. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
799/1	David M Seed	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
800/1	Steven Kerr
801/1	A More
802/1	Rob Cameron
803/1	Mia Carrie
804/1	Anne Wills
805/1	Cheryl Grozev
806/1	Katherine M Marsh
807/1	Simon Atkins	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: the traffic effects; environmental effects Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
808/1	Ahlene McKee	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
809/1	Sue Murray
810/1	Gavin Bell
811/1	Gary Stewart	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance; environmental effects Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
812/1	Robert David Boswell	Oppose due to traffic problems and environmental effects. Decline the application.
813/1	Talalefei Tafunai	Oppose due to environmental effects. Decline the application.
814/1	Mike Loughran	Oppose due to dominance, environmental effects and the effects on other town centres. Decline the application.
815/1	M Faiaz	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
816/1	Cath Oakes	Oppose due to dominance, traffic problems, environmental effect and the effects on other town centres. Decline the application.
817/1	Anne Marie McInally	Oppose due to dominance, further uses, traffic effects and effects on other town centres. Decline the application.
818/1	Cliff Gunning	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
819/1	Winnie Leuilau	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
820/1	Caroline R Oglivie
821/1	Cleone Campbell
822/1	Amos Trust
823/1	Mark Neville Raynes
824/1	Roger Matthews
825/1	Bipin Daya
826/1	Alica M Farman
827/1	Andre J Van Nickerk
828/1	Jonathan McCormack	Oppose due to dominance and environmental effects. Decline the application.
829/1	Oliver McChesney	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.Oppose due to dominance and environmental effects. Decline the application.
830/1	D.M Jackson	Oppose due to dominance and environmental effects. Decline the application.
831/1	Nathan Berghan	Oppose due to dominance and traffic effects. Decline the application.
832/1	Paul Shin	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
833/1	Wayne D Baker
834/1	Susan Jane Guthrie
835/1	Erica Munro
836/1	Virginia Finlayson
837/1	Anne Morrish
838/1	Helen Manikiam
839/1	Georgina Miller
840/1	Sarah Hardy	Oppose due to dominance, further uses and effects on other town centres. Decline the application.
841/1	Cherie Walker	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
842/1	Sean Bonniface
843/1	Sereshni Moodley	Oppose due to traffic, parking, environmental and dominance issues. Decline the proposed plan modification in its entirety, as this plan seeks to subvert the rights of individuals and communities in residentially zoned areas in favour of commercial endeavours. I recommend leaving the zoning as it currently stands.
844/1	Kevin McLellan	Oppose due to effects on the surrounding community. Decline
845/1	Renee Linn	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
846/1	Jackie Andrews
847/1	Sarah Brown
848/1	Kathryn Clarke
849/1	Petrina Jones
850/1	Colin Jones
851/1	Laura Burton	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
852/1	Darron Hubbard	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
853/1	Daniel Patton
854/1	Nick Roud
855/1	Craig Malcolm
856/1	Adrian Coysh
857/1	Jenny Best
858/1	Ronnie Ford
859/1	Nick Salter
860/1	Bridget Daniel
861/1	Kevin O'Shannessey
862/1	Karl Harenburt
863/1	Cindy Poggao
864/1	Joanna Calwell
865/1	Nick Watt
866/1	Craig A McAlpine
867/1	Gordon Lowe
868/1	Simon Neus
869/1	Parajna Moodley
870/1	Rosalie T Akava
871/1	Thomas P Fraser	Oppose due to inappropriate location, traffic, parking, impact on local facilities, character and heritage, urban design, safety, local business and the library. Decline proposed plan modification 8 in its entirety.
872/1	Alison Lovejoy	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
873/1	Rachel Mancini
875/1	M A E Nightingale
876/1	David Creelman	Oppose due to dominance and traffic effects. Decline proposed plan modification 8 in its entirety.
877/1	Murray P Urbahn	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
878/1	Yulan Tang	Opposes due to dominance, traffic problems and environmental effects. Decline the application.
879/1	Emily Watt	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
880/1	Brendan Smith
881/1	Rosalind J Urbahn
882/1	Jennifer Kenny
883/1	Fiona Catherine Angus
884/1	James F Bidwell	Oppose due to dominance, traffic effects and the effects on other town centres. Decline proposed plan modification 8 in its entirety.
885/1	Rosanne Knight	Oppose due to traffic and environmental effects. Decline proposed plan modification 8 in its entirety.
886/1	Michelle Rowell	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
887/1	Kosta Piri	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
888/1	John Schaumkel	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
889/1	Guy Mckee
890/1	Phil Cole
891/1	Catherine Davis
892/1	Yulan Yang and George Guo	No decision requested
893/1	Natasha Wahrilch	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
894/1	Patrick Papalii
895/1	Robin Bins
896/1	Farran Fitzemany	Oppose due to dominance and effects on residential character. Decline the application.
897/1	Grey Pitcher	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
898/1	Clifford J Watt
899/1	Ryan Mears
900/1	Sarah Cobbad
~~901/1~~ withdrawn	~~Carlene Yates~~
902/1	Emma J Koko
903/1	Christian L Bolland
904/1	Rachel Van Den Bend
905/1	Cara Cartwell	Oppose due to effects on residential character, traffic and environmental effects. Decline the application.
906/1	Kelly Reid	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
907/1	Siobhan Porter
908/1	Joyce Yu Nee Bolland
909/1	Andrew Babe
910/1	Brendan Cameron
911/1	Randall Tutton	Oppose due to effects on dominance effects. Decline the application.
912/1	Lakshika Jayalady	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
913/1	Campbell McLean	Oppose due to effects on dominance effects, impacts on residential character and effects on other town centres. Decline the application.
914/1	Andrea Watkinson	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
915/1	Karl Wapp
916/1	Justine Hall	Oppose due to dominance, impact on local amenities, environmental effects, traffic volumes and parking and noise. Decline
916/2	Justine Hall	I respectfully ask council to decline the proposed application on the basis that the rights of individuals and neighbourhoods appear to be reduced in favour of commercial endeavours by supporting this application.
917/1	Susan Hall	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
918/1	Stephen Todd	Oppose due to loss of views, sunlight, impacts on neighbourhood character and traffic congestion. Decline the proposed plan modification in its entirety. I request Auckland City Council to not rush plans through. I urge council to decline this amendment to our current zoning as it will not provide any enhancement to our area.
919/1	John Hally	Oppose due to dominance and environmental effects. Decline the plan change.
920/1	Tony Joyce	Oppose due to dominance and traffic effects. Decline the plan change.
921/1	Carol Lindley	Oppose due to dominance and effect on other town centres. Decline the plan change.
922/1	Jon Bidmead	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
923/1	Carol Aspden
924/1	Govardan Yerni	Oppose due to dominance, effects on residential character, traffic effects and effects on other town centres. Decline the plan change.
925/1	Paul Marra	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
926/1	Brett Hall	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
927/1	Bev Cameron	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
928/1	Alan D Cockburn	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
929/1	Sharnan Pillay
930/1	Liam O N Keegan
931/1	Sinead Dunn
932/1	Maurice C Langdon	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
933/1	Matthew Hickey	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
934/1	Chris Rigby	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
935/1	Rachel Mackintosh
936/1	Margaret McGrath
937/1	Darryl Godfrey	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; effects on residential character traffic effects it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
938/1	Simon D Adams	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
939/1	Richard Jenkins	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
940/1	Susan H Nunweek	Oppose due to traffic, impact neighbourhood businesses, minimum street shopping for the community, environmental effects, erosion of residential area. I request that the council decline the proposed plan modification, and put the interests of the local community ahead of those of big business.
941/1	Rory D Nunweek Keegan	Oppose due to traffic. Decline the alterations to the Westfield St Lukes shopping centre.
942/1	Peter Goddard	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
943/1	Kirsty S Jones	Oppose due to inappropriate location; traffic parking, impact on local facilities, character and heritage issues, urban design, safety and impact on local businesses and the library. Decline the proposed plan modification 8 in its entirety.
944/1	National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd	That the plan change be approved subject to amendments which will appropriately respond to the issues raised in this submission, and consequential, similar or other amendments as required to give effect to the issues raised in this submission.
944/2	National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd	More retail will be necessary to support future growth in the area;
944/3	National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd	The plan change should enable a range of retail activities, and provide for the commercial and operational requirements of such a range of retail (including supermarkets);
944/4	National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd	The development controls should be such that a range of retail activities can practically comply with them. For instance, controls on building location, orientation and design should accommodate the commercial and operational requirements of large format retail;
944/5	National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd	The plan change should enable large retail activities within the overall floor area of the plan change as controlled or restricted discretionary activities;
944/6	National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd	The plan change should enable appropriate external signage as a permitted or controlled activity;
944/7	National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd	The plan change should enable sufficient car parking to meet demand.
945/1	Yao Yuan Zhao	Oppose due to height and effects on the neighbourhood. Decline
946/1	Jian Ge	Oppose due to increase in building height, parking issues, traffic problems and impacts on other retail outlets. Decline
947/1	Michael Sherwood Gowing	Oppose due to safety and health issues and effects on Gribblehurst park. Decline
948/1	Lillian Ann Epston	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
949/1	Deirdre Cochrane	Oppose due to dominance effects and effects on other town centres. Decline.
950/1	Julie McKenzie	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
951/1	Gregory P Jones	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
952/1	Emma I Barraclough
953/1	Lisa Middleberg	Oppose due to environmental effects and effects on other town centres. Decline.
954/1	Warren Grant and Alison Webster	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
955/1	Eli Farnum	Oppose due to dominance. Decline.
956/1	Baden A Power	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
957/1	Lute Sipa
958/1	Emily Peterson
959/1	Stewart Couling
960/1	Gregory Timu
961/1	Anna Timu
962/1	Katherine Howse
963/1	Anthony Howse
964/1	Sue Brenchley
965/1	Diana Ollif
966/1	Richard Eaglestone
967/1	Mavis G Milford
968/1	Hannah B Kaye
969/1	David Epston
970/1	Brendon Austin
971/1	Rosalie Kwan
972/1	K Patel
973/1	S Duffy
974/1	Jack T Barclay	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
975/1	Te Pora Thompson -Evans	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
976/1	Rachael Bailie	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
977/1	Erana Kaye-Berghan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of environmental effects. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
978/1	Alice Chikasha	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
979/1	Virginia H Dale	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
980/1	Minal	Oppose due to environmental effects. Decline.
981/1	Natasha Trilokekar	Oppose due to dominance and environmental effects. Decline.
982/1	Bernadette Peni	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
983/1	Abbas Al-Murrani	Oppose due to environmental effects and private plan change process issues. Decline.
984/1	Deena Seesaengnom	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
985/1	Le Roo Ha
986/1	Shirley Te Hao Apapa
987/1	Stuart Duffen
988/1	Mark Beckerleg	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: the traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
989/1	Chris R Dessa	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
990/1	Yunlis
991/1	Colin Valji
992/1	Charlotte Percival
993/1	Neha Patel
994/1	John Hancock
995/1	Nicholas Harris
996/1	David Elliott
997/1	Jeanie Richards
998/1	Pepe Taulafu
999/1	Carolyn Cox
1000/1	Tony Coutinlo	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1001/1	Michael Cope	Oppose due to dominance effects and effects on other town centres. Decline the plan modification.
1002/1	Ting T Zhang	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1003/1	John and Heather Taylor	Oppose because of height, shading, character issues, traffic, impact on open spaces and small businesses. Decline, as big is not always better. The council needs to consider the impact on the community and grass roots of the Isthmus, and not be influenced by large corporates.
1004/1	Roger Lawton	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1005/1	Antony Ward	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1006/1	Emma Eichbaum	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1007/1	Mary Dennison	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1008/1	Ian Wentworth	Oppose due to dominance, effects on residential character and traffic problems. Decline the application.
1009/1	Andrew Gale	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1010/1	Richard Allen Evans
1011/1	Caroline Phillips
1012/1	Stuart James Lumsden
1013/1	Avidad Fink
1014/1	Sarah Redfern	Oppose due to dominance, effects on residential character and traffic problems. Decline the application.
1015/1	Kelly Fink	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1016/1	Bronwyn Clare Lumsden
1017/1	Angela Jane Burnside	Oppose due to dominance effects. Decline the application.
1018/1	Blair Olliff	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1019/1	Lorraine Mary Lawton
1020/1	Hayley Farnworth	Oppose due to dominance effects. Decline the application.
1021/1	Jay Farnworth	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1022/1	Dean Shaw
1023/1	Nevenka Zukivich
1024/1	Grant M Farnworth
1025/1	Pamela J Donovan
1026/1	Linda Shalley
1027/1	Lester White
1028/1	Simon R Wakel
1029/1	Zenry Lorigan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1030/1	Kenrick L Lorigan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety. I respectfully request the council to seek modification of the plan, in keeping with the area environment, character, roading within the whole area of consideration.
1031/1	Jasyn Nola	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1032/1	Kevin Rundle	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1033/1	Grant R Doull	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1034/1	D M.McKinstry	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1035/1	Debbie Alexander	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1036/1	Gregory D Clarke	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1037/1	Brett Oldfield	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1038/1	Reece Harrison	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1039/1	Ernest C Miller
1040/1	Heather M Taylor
1041/1	Mrs Mee Hup Hogan
1042/1	Mark Browett
1043/1	Kathryn Browett
1044/1	Jaqueline M White	Oppose due to dominance, environmental issues, traffic, shade, visual pollution, health, impact on residential properties, traffic effects on Gribblehurst park, loss of community, impact on local shops, noise and trees. Decline.
1045/1	Gary J Agnew	Oppose due to dominance issues. Decline.
1046/1	Gregory V Whitta	Oppose due to dominance issues. Decline.
1047/1	Ross Duncan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1048/1	Desmond P Brownie
1049/1	Patricia A Lahood	Oppose due to dominance issues. Decline.
1050/1	Robert G Lahood	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1051/1	Josh Powell	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1052/1	Julie Aldridge	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1053/1	Jill Collinson	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1054/1	Mrs Pauline Prosee
1055/1	Barbara Lacey
1056/1	Carroll J Muir	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1057/1	Sarah J McGeorge	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1058/1	Teresa Beatty
1059/1	Georgina L Tinning
1060/1	Peter Hughes
1061/1	Cathy Langley
1062/1	Deborah L Moodie
1063/1	Maureen J Miles
1064/1	Dominik Assig	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1065/1	Craig Martin	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1066/1	Kai B Crow	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1067/1	Maureen Tan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; traffic effects the environmental effects; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1068/1	Stephen D Peters	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1069/1	Anet Kuhla
1070/1	Catherine Bircher	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: traffic effects the private plan change process; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1071/1	Margaret Martin	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1072/1	Peter Fray	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1073/1	Colin J Wigg	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1074/1	Guy Stephens
1075/1	Dennis Halafihi
1076/1	Asher Barrell
1077/1	Gael F Howell	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1078/1	William F Jooperberg	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1079/1	Elisabeth Van Allkemade	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1080/1	Brooke Hall
1081/1	Kriti Dass
1082/1	Sian Dawson
1083/1	Claudia Hubner
1084/1	Andy O'Sullivan	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1085/1	Stephen Taylor	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1086/1	Kirsty McLay	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1087/1	Leslie B McCarroll	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1088/1	Paul Yallop	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1089/1	Irene Elizabeth Whyman	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1090/1	Clarke Millar
1091/1	Anne Morrish
1092/1	Matthew Kyle Green
1093/1	Mike Shephard
1094/1	Roger David Gillman	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1095/1	Ming Wu	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; environmental effects. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1096/1	Cherry Bishop	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1097/1	Tom Morton
1098/1	Joan Hansen
1099/1	Marilyn Johnson	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; environmental effects. it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1100/1	Emily Kodo	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1101/1	Sara Kilonback	Oppose the proposed plan modification because of the following issues: dominance and the negative visual, shading, light, and noise impacts; the use of land for retail and offices will impact on residential character; the traffic effects; environmental effects such as degradation of waterways, increased pollution and loss of trees; the private plan change would be a blank envelope for development and the community would not have input now and in the future; it will detract from important existing local shopping centres, such as Mt Albert, Sandringham and Kingsland. Decline the plan modification in its entirety.
1102/1	Progressive Enterprises Limited	Progressive Enterprises Limited (Progressive) seeks the following decisions from council regarding plan modification 8. Reject the plan modification in its entirety; Amend plan modification 8 such that its addresses Progressive's concerns; and Such further and consequential relief and/or amendments to plan modification 8 as may be necessary to address Progressives concerns. These are:
1102/2	Progressive Enterprises Limited	The lack of prior consultation with Progressive and other owners/operators in the St Lukes shopping centre;
1102/3	Progressive Enterprises Limited	The significant inadequacy of carparking facilities following expansion works;
1102/4	Progressive Enterprises Limited	Any reduction of vehicular or pedestrian access to the shopping centre and the Foodtown supermarket would seriously and adversely affect that existing resource;
1102/5	Progressive Enterprises Limited	Any reduction or restriction in the ability to load and/or unload goods and materials in relation to the operation of the Foodtown supermarket would seriously and adversely affected that existing resource; and
1102/6	Progressive Enterprises Limited	Increased traffic effects resulting from the shopping centre expansion would seriously and adversely affect the accessibility and convenience for shoppers and potentially safe and efficient functioning of the surrounding road network.

The copies of submissions are in Portable Document Files (PDFs) for which you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader.

If you do not already have the free Acrobat Reader software you will need to download it before you can view and print these documents.