The consent hearing to allow Progressive Enterprises to build a Countdown supermarket in Bureta opened with the supermarket chain announcing the remaining three hectares of land on the site is for sale.

Progressive Enterprises development manager Anthony Dainty says among those expressing interest in the 3.174ha balance of the sight is a developer looking at building a bar/restaurant on the site. But any other development of the site will also require resource consent.

The proposed supermarket carpark will be on the Vale Street-Bureta Road corner of the property with the supermarket itself set back against the residential boundary facing the carpark.

There will be retail shops along the Bureta Road side of the 4620m2 supermarket with angle parking.

The liquor store is to be moved to a new building adjacent to the Vale Street entrance to the car park.

Progressive Enterprise solicitor Andrew Braggins says the supermarket is smaller and will have less impact than the previously proposed and consented residential development for the site.

A residential building with a height of 9m is permitted in the park, which is residential zoned. The supermarket is less than 9m except for the plant platform which is 700mm over the limit and is less than 4.5 per cent of the total roof area.

The platform height is well within the 11m set by the Bureta Park Motor Inn schedule site rules that overlay the site. The planned supermarket and parking will occupy about 1.76Ha of the 3.194Ha site.

The supermarket requires a consent because business activities are a non-complying activity in the Suburban Residential Zone.

The consent is sought by way of a limited notification meaning notice of Progressive's intent was served only on 104 owners and occupiers considered directly affected.

The city council received 36 submissions -13 opposed, 21 in support and two neutral.

'I understand several of the submitters are going to be supported by people who lodged submissions on the application , even though they were not identified by the council as affected for the purpose of limited notification,” says Andrew Baggins.

'I remind the committee that the hearing cannot be used as an indirect avenue for such persons to challenge the limited notification decision.”

Because of the public interest 13 other submissions were received from people outside the immediate area. Nine support the application and four are in opposition.

The legal hurdle is that as a non complying activity Progressive must satisfy the committee that the adverse effects on the environment are minor, and that the activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant or proposed city plan.

There is wriggle room from the ‘permitted baseline' where the committee a disregard an adverse effect if the plan already permits an activity with the same effect.