Commissioners hearing arguments for and against the proposed 17-storey hotel and apartment tower adjourned on Friday, after five days dominated by opposition to the project's height and visual impact.
As they prepare for the hearing to resume on August 17, attention will again turn to an argument by Phil Page, the lawyer acting for hotel developer Anthony Tosswill.
It centred on whether the hotel's breach of different district plan rules - some more significant than others - meant the entire project should be considered as one ``non-complying'' proposal.
Alternatively, as Mr Page argued, the various breaches of district plan rules could be ``unbundled'' and assessed individually, based on whether they were ``non-complying'' or ``restricted discretionary''.
That would set a lower bar to clear to obtain consent, meaning less-significant breaches in one area might not scupper the entire project.
It was an argument independent commissioner Stephen Daysh described as ``a central platform'' of Mr Page's case during last week's hearing.
It also has the attention of the Millennium & Copthorne Hotels and Misbeary Holdings Ltd, both of which have property interests in the area and have sent lawyers to the hearing to fight the proposal.
Under the Resource Management Act, hearings panels had wider discretion to grant consent or impose conditions if an activity, like a hotel development, was deemed to be restricted discretionary.
If it was deemed to be non-complying, it faced a tougher test that included being required to demonstrate the adverse effects arising from an activity were either no more than minor or not contrary to district plan rules.
Independent planner Nigel Bryce, in his report to the hearing, concluded only two aspects of the hotel design were non-complying.
The district plan required buildings in the central activity zone to be built to their boundaries, without gaps in between, and to provide a continuous veranda.
The hotel did neither, as it was set back from the street in part to make room for vehicle access around the tower.
The hotel's height was deemed to be only a restricted discretionary activity, despite being nearly 50m higher than the site's 11m limit, he concluded.
Despite that, ``the principal of bundling'' meant the most stringent assessment of any one breach should be applied to the entire hotel proposal, making it ``non-complying'' in all respects, he said.
If the panel of commissioners agreed, it meant Mr Tosswill's team would have to address the impacts arising from the hotel's height, such as shading in the Octagon, as though it was non-complying, rather than restricted discretionary.
Mr Bryce, in his report, said it would be ``artificial'' to unbundle the breaches when they were linked.
The hotel's design covered only 55% of the site and influenced the building's height, and the unbundling approach advocated by Mr Page ``fails to acknowledge the linkage'', Mr Bryce said.
Unbundling might be acceptable for a smaller technical breach, such as non-compliant signage, but otherwise the panel needed to consider the entire proposal ``in the round'', he believed.
Mr Page disagreed, arguing it would have been easy to design a hotel that complied with district plan rules at the expense of urban design outcomes, for example by adding a canopy over the vehicle access.
Those decisions were about urban design, not the hotel's height, which was driven by economics and the need to maximise views for a five-star brand, he said.
If the commissioners believed the building's various breaches were connected, then bundling was an understandable approach, Mr Page said.
But his view was clear: ``Those issues are not connected in any way at all,'' he said.
The commissioners are yet to form a view on the argument, but their decision could shape whether Mr Tosswill gets consent.
