Open thread

re coming council decision:

Considering the decision Yay or Nay is imminent, I thought it would be good to add an open thread for people to discuss this final (?) stage.

As kindly commented by Elizabeth (whom I am very grateful for adding her procedural knowledge here, and Richard for his council insights);

To view the Council agenda and reports (178 pages in total) go to:

Alternatively, pick up a print copy at 2nd floor Reception, Civic Centre, 50 The Octagon – as a courtesy to Council staff, phone 4774000 and ask for 2nd Floor reception, so to request a copy be put aside for your collection.

The NOR for the harbour arterial link is under appeal. A large property owner.

GMP has come in under budget at $163,156,825 (vs $165,400,000), which includes $25.6m for design costs and $7.7m adjustable. This comes from a white paper distributed by DCC this morning

In the report, Jim Harland outlines two options to Council:
(1) Stall now (spending to 31 Dec was $13 mill), or
(2) delay until government responds to funding request.

There’s an issue with CST’s contracts. 382 signed contracts are 5-year and 230 are 10-year, but there is an option to withdraw after 5 years.

To date, CST has $21.4m with $5.54m pending (all 5-year contracts). They need $27.3m, including sponsorships. Will they get the pending contracts signed by Monday?

{Sorry Elizabeth for shamelessly using your comments to create this tread}

No matter what your view on this development, here’s hoping the councillors (DCC and ORC) are well informed and they make the best decision given the weight of evidence and barriers reached by CST.

You all know my thoughts, and Elizabeth is fervently still holding on to her massive concerns, some are not concerned at all, while others have varying degrees of knowledge and care about the subject.

This thread, knock yourselves out, keep it clean and lets stay on topic about the next stage, other issues can be addressed in other posts.


Filed under Architecture, Design, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Inspiration, Media, Name, Other, Politics, Site, Stadiums, STS, Town planning

32 responses to “Open thread

  1. hey this might not be the right post to throw this link in here, but came across this bFm recording from John Ralston Saul talking to Mikey Havoc. JRS is a bit of a fave of mine, one of his big themes is that democratic functions within society are eroded by bureaucratic language and power structures.

    He touches on a number of things pertinent to the stadium debate: citizens not feeling like they have a say, citizens neeeding to participate in urban projects, and the problem with the idea of ‘consulting stakeholders’. Perhaps ironically, he says he was out here on that visit talking to councils.

  2. Alex, open thread works for me, and great link for follow, thanks for this.

  3. Elizabeth

    Something for ratepayers…

    ### ODT Online Feb 05, 2009
    By Mike Lord

    There are countless ways in which councils can inform people of how a new project will affect them financially. For a start, they can itemise expenditure on a draft rates bill and then give ratepayers the option of choosing how much more they are willing to pay. Mike Lord looks at the options. He says: “Let’s get one thing straight. This is not an article debating the merits of building a stadium or the value of a library to a community. These are just a few thoughts from a farmer on how we pay for them.”

    Read more


    Last year, Anne Elliot put some figures together showing the effect of the stadium on rates, had them confirmed by Athol Stephens, DCC’s General Manager Finance and Corporate Support, and posted them to StS’s website, to view ‘My rates: What will the proposed stadium cost me?’, go to:

  4. Richard

    The DCC rating system for residential properties comprises Uniform Annual Charges (UAC) or ‘targeted rates’ as they are sometimes referred to, plus a General Rate.

    The UAC’s essentially cover services directly delivered to properties and are shown separately on the Rates Invoice. Currently they are:
    Water $350, Drainage $331, and Kerbside Recycling $34.60.

    There is also a Community Services UAC of $189.50 levied to fund part of the costs of the Botanic Garden, parks and reserves and waste recovery.

    These are all shown separately on the Rates Invoice.

    The balance for the range of activities we share or have access to as a community, i.e. roads, aquatic facilities, libraries etc, is collected by way of a General Rate levied @ 0.00193900 on Capital Value.

    In days past, this was broken down into various categories, e.g. Libraries, but these were all dropped given the extra work etc they imposed ion setting the individual rates. A breakdown of what the General Rate is spent on was included in the ‘City Talk’ Draft Annual Plan issue distributed to all households in March last year. Libraries are by far the biggest part. The figures shown, of course, are based on the average rate and it is necessary for each household to calculate their own apportionment.

    The Rates Funding Working Party has looked at other options for “better getting this information across” without having to go back to levying a whole host of individual rates. It is hoped that this will be included on individual rate invoices.

    If the stadium goes ahead, the $5 million rate requirement will be funded using the General Rate, levied as a rate in the dollar on the capital value (CV) of each property and differentiated in three categories, residential, non-residential and farmland.

    The practical effect of the differential is that non-residential properties pay more rates than would be expected under a “pure, undifferentiated” CV system, and farmland and residential property owners pay less.

    For example, a residential property with the average capital value of $291,000 would pay around $66 each year towards the stadium. A non-residential property with the same capital value of $291,000 would pay $202 each year.

    It could be less.

    What is often overlooked in the confusion of the debate – and depending on who is talking about it – is that the rate will be levied to make up the $5 million less that the DCC will receive from Dunedin City Holdings and which goes to service and repay the loan to be taken out. That does not change from year-to-year.

    As has been pointed out elsewhere, it could arguably be claimed that this is an ‘offset’ against the $332 each ratepayer is receiving back by way of ‘dividend’ from council’s trading (DCHL), endowment property and Waipori Fund investments!

    It could be!

    I trust this is helpful.

  5. Once again, thanks very much Richard, I learnt something, lets hope others have too.

  6. Anne Elliot

    From the above, it is interesting to note that one could be left with the impression that farmers would pay LESS in ‘stadium rates’, when in fact the opposite is the case. Rather than opting for a targeted ‘stadium rate’, as was at least considered at one point, farmers are being penalised by the Council’s opting for a uniform rating based on capital value to fund the interest and principal o the loan the DCHL will take out if the stadium goes ahead. As farmland almost always has a much higher CV than residential properties in this neck of the woods, we farmers are being heavily stung compared to our city friends, even though our income may well be much less than than that of owners of a residential property.

    Anne Elliot, Middlemarch

  7. Hi Anne, I know we disagree but thanks for stopping by and letting your views be known.

  8. Richard

    Hi Anne

    The Rates Funding Working Party did its best to positively response to submissions made at the last Annual Plan round but found that the option of a targeted rate for the Stadium was not possible for several reasons. They are too detailed to go into here but they were covered at the draft LTCCP meeting last week. If the stadium is built and once ownership of it passes to the new Dunedin Venues Management Limited there is essentially no ‘on-going stadium rate’ to link it to. DVM does, however, reduce the amount required from rates to makeup the shortfall in the dividend council receives from DCHL as already referred to.

    An Economic Development Rate was considered as an alternative as an alternative but, as you have no doubt read in the ODT, ran into problems at the same meeting. Further work is to be done on it over the next sedveral months in preparation for 2010-11.

  9. Richard


    I should have mentioned that the proposed rate and a more detailed explanation is given by Jim Harland, DCC CEO, in his response to the lead letter from Jeff Dickie in the ODT (page 10, 5.2.09) under the heading ‘Stadium’s effect on rates bill questioned’.

  10. Richard

    Another Addendum:

    Anne – I have just been reminded that the “dividends” that flow from DCHL, Endowment Property and Waipori Investments Funds are also apportioned against the General Rate. So – one could say – there is a “quid pro quo” there!

    On the QV valuations: these are ONLY for rating purposes and take into account such things as access to services, distance from city centre and amenities. Or so we are assured.

    Elizabeth – I have also now read Lord’s paper. Some of it I have, of course, responded to based on your posting. Unfortunately, rating is a very blunt instrument and rating system are quite complex. There were something like 90 of the latter when the present city was constituted in November 1989 and goodness knows how many differing levels of rates between the amalgamating authorities! I won’t even go near the inherited debt! All relatively sorted now but nothing has changed in its structure – when you push one side of the rating mix, something pops out on the other. And suddenly there are w whole lot of ‘pops’ to deal with.

    The last advice we had on putting several different options out for rating is that it cannot be done in an Annual Plan. Council can therefore only consult on one at a time.

    So it was with The Dunedin Centre, so it is with the Stadium …..

    Now, I must get into that garden!


  11. Richard

    Whatever our opinions, the piece by ‘Civis’ on page 33 in this morning’s ODT headed WHO ELSE WILL TAKE UP THE BURDEN? is worth reading as a thoughtful contribution to the debate.

    I also noted the letter from Eric Lord of Waverley on the STADIUM SURVEY which appears in the ‘Letters Column’ opposite.

    Now I am off to CAB on JP duties for the rest of the morning so if anyone needs my services, that is where you will find me!

  12. Peter Entwisle

    Civis’s column today compares the proposed stadium with the public library, the botanic garden, the Otago Museum, the public art gallery, the settlers museum, Olveston, the Chinese Garden and the Regent, suggesting ratepayers were opposed to all of those but people now appreciate them.

    This is a better list than some which have been suggested because at least most of these are largely or wholly paid for by the city.

    Civis also makes the good point that citizens should expect to pay for things they don’t use much or at all themselves as part of being members of a community, not just users.

    All of this is fair enough but it leaves open the question of whether the amount of public money going into a project is matched by the amount of public good it’s likely to return.

    The latest report on the stadium – Jim Harland’s dated 3 February and including new Horwath and PricewaterhouseCoopers reports as background for the meeting on Monday the 9th – gives further reasons to think it isn’t.

    Anticipated uses have diminished. Costs have gone up and sources of funding are falling short. The project is now premised on a $15m government “underwrite” – in fact a grant or a suspensory loan – and as the sought-for $20m of non-city funding hasn’t been found to reduce the city’s input from $91.4m to $71m in line with condition 7(e) of last year’s March 17th resolution, the government is being looked to for that as well.

    If the stadium is to be built for $188m and in conformity with last year’s resolution, the government would have to come up with $35m. This doesn’t take account of other funding shortfalls now actual or still potential.

    It is clear there is no big gain in usage from having a roof on a stadium. Location next to the campus is not going to create significant advantages. You would get most of the anticipated gains from a much cheaper upgrade of Carisbrook.

    Civis forgets that the Regent made use of an existing cinema to provide a new venue for live theatre. The art gallery was successfully relocated to a pre-existing building in the Octagon. Both solutions worked out well and were much cheaper than building on a green field site.

    While Awatea Street might give a boost to the north end, it hardly needs it. On the other hand South Dunedin could do with an injection of public money and would be hurt by the removal of stadium facilities.

    It would be better to upgrade Carisbrook and forget about the Awatea Street stadium.

  13. Peter, I almost agree with you, but in the end upgrading Carisbrook is just upgrading a rugby ground.

    Perhaps a solution would be an overriding Dunedin entertainment company like vBase in ChCh. For me (and I know we agree to disagree on this) it’s the total entertainment potential that I find attractive. As it would be run by a company who’s sole purpose will be to fill it with as many acts, games, trade shows etc, for the singular purpose of putting Dunedin on the radar of these things, this is what I like so much about it.

    If the Otago Poly students association objected on the grounds that it would be too much of a temptation for students with alcohol and all, with out wanting to play the stereotype card, surely the same temptation will be for the good folks of South Dunedin?

    But cheers for stopping by again, much appreciated.

  14. Richard

    “It would be better to upgrade Carisbrook and forget about the Awatea Street stadium” – Peter.

    Well, that is what I once thought, long before Awatea Street surfaced!

    Hayden Meikle recent opinion piece in the ODT got me checking the various options (and recommendation) of the original Carisbrook Working Party that reported to Council in 2005 and the options recommended by the CST.

    The extent of Hayden’s preferred redevelopment upgrade of The Brook is, in one of those options, estimated to cost some $60 million to $70 million. This includes the costs of acquiring the property etc.

    This would require debt funding, of course, although $20 million less than that for Awatea, plus the need for a direct annual rate subsidy from the DCC, i.e. the same as the Edgar Centre, Moana Pool, Dunedin Centre/Town Hall etc to make up the projected operating loss.

    There would, however, be no ORC funding, or rate!

    The latter, of course, reflects its limited/main use as a rugby stadium as Paul correctly identifies.

    Whatever, the option is not on the council table and will not be tomorrow so there is no point in debating the pros and cons of that here!

    So this post is just ‘a reminder’ that “we have been there, done that”.


  15. Peter Entwisle

    With respect Richard, the council hasn’t been there and done that. It has given a Carisbrook upgrade the once over lightly while developing the Awatea Street option in depth.

    If council wants to look more carefully at upgrading Carisbrook, fair enough. But Awatea Street is thoroughly explored and still wanting.

  16. Peter Entwisle

    Paul, you are right. Upgrading Carisbrook is only upgrading a rugby ground.

    But the multi-purpose alternative option has been shown to be more expensive than originally anticipated and is still unlikely of realisation – as a multi-purpose facility. Look at pages 115-116 of the new Horwath report and p.128 of the new PriceWaterhouseCoopers report, where it says: “Rugby events are the primary drivers of the Stadium’s revenue”.

    I go back to the beginning of your blog. If this was architecturally amazing I would support it – as a free-standing work of art, and never mind its functionality. But it isn’t that. It’s B-grade building. So if it isn’t functional, why bother spending the money on it?

  17. Richard

    “With respect Richard, the council hasn’t been there and done that. It has given a Carisbrook upgrade the once over lightly while developing the Awatea Street option in depth – Peter.”

    With equal respect, Peter you are WRONG! Absolutely.

    Arising from an approach by the ORFU in 2003, a Carisbrook Working Party was established with membership comprising representatives of the DCC/ORC/Community Trust/ORFU/Sport Otago with an independent businessman to investigate the options for acquiring and upgrading Carisbrook versus “doing nothing” and how this would be funded.

    They consulted widely throughout the region, conducted a comprehsive household survey, and reported regularly to Council with their final recommendations in a report dated December 2004.

    I can accept that exercise was not of interest to you at the time as, of course, Awatea was not even a gleam in someone’s eye.

    But please, don’t tell me that we haven’t been there done that! I have the original papers and reports sitting on my desk right now!

    And I will add this – what I said in my 2004 election statement to all households in Hills:

    “Can you imagine Dunedin without its only major outdoor sporting venue, one that is steeped in sporting and community legend and is one of our city and regional icons? I certainly can’t. Carisbrook has fallen from grace and our vision for its future is “muddied. Suggestions of a new stadium down on the wind-swept harbour basin area are ‘pie-in-the-sky stuff’. The ORFU is now responsible for running professional and amateur codes. The job of running and further developing a major sporting facility has obviously got beyond their ability to cope. The two don’t just mix. The question of who should own and run Carisbrook therefore needs to be resolved quickly. The owner could, for example, be a trust or a company incorporating various sporting and community interests. Once that is done, the city and wider regional community can consider what sort of facility we need to have and how it will be financed. That does not mean that it need be all (or part) rate-funded. It should be a city and regional effort as was the recent redevelopment of the Otago Museum testifies.”

    I appreciate you were not – and I understand, still not a resident and voter in Hills, so would not know of my statement either!

    I attended many cricket (my first love) and rugby matches at Carisbrook for over 50 years. They have given me great memories. Yes – as I have said before, “my heart” is with The ‘Brook but this debate is not about MY past, it is – or should be – about future! Last March, that beckoned!

  18. Richard


    Peter – don’t take my word for it! just go to the front page reports in the ODT of 9.12.04 “Rates bill of $50m for rugby” and that of 14.12.04 (which followed the council meeting the previous day) “$50m plan for ‘Brook gets DCC backing” and its reference to those “determined effoirts” by the councillors that finally sunk it.

    Following the backing given by council, Jim Harland was subjected by those who opposed the recommendation, to the kind of personal attacks now directed at Malcolm Farry albeit at a lower level. There was a sustained attack on the result of a household survey that the WP had undertaken. Sound familiar?

    It seems to escape the anti-rugby types and those who opposed council acquiring ownership of The Brook for various reasons back then – including many of those permeating the current debate, e.g. financial, increased rates etc – and who “sunk” the proposition, that what they achieved back in 2005 led to the Awatea Street proposal!

    The irony of that never escapes me, more so as many of those in the years since have apparently undergone a change of heart and now support the original Carisbrook option!


  19. Richard

    Paul: “Perhaps a solution would be an overriding Dunedin entertainment company like vBase in ChCh.”

    The proposed Dunedin City Venues Ltd – which will assume ownership of several other DCC property assets as well as the stadium (if it goes ahead) will do just that.

    While DCVL will be a council-controlled organisation and part of the group, it will not be part of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd as Calvin Oaten has been claiming in his ‘Opinion’ pieces in the ODT. There is no reason why it should, given the nature of the trading activities that lie within DCHL and which are quite dissimilar to those that DCVL (like V-base) will have responsibility for.

  20. Sorry Richard I didn’t make it clear, I was well aware of DCVL as the company charged with overseeing the running of the stadium.

    The problem I have with updating Carisbrook, unless there is a radical shake-up DCVL will not run Carisbrook, thus status quo (and they would be about the only Band attracted to an open aired venue with no point of difference to every other open aired venue in the country).

    For me it’s simply the fact that it has a roof that makes this so exciting. No other venue in NZ has a roof, which in marketing terms is one heck of a massive marketing leverage. Sure it won’t have cricket, but then University Oval is such a stunning facility, small test matches is now the niche, it’s perfectly placed.

    I seriously think that this development is for the chop unless central govt can be convinced that not just roads in Auckland needs investment. I can still close my eyes and imagine what the whole Logan Park – University Plaza area will look like, and it’s going to be one hell of a shame if it doesn’t go ahead.

    If Peter thinks South Dunedin needs investment, I suggest that a Stadium isn’t any form of meaningful development for that area, well not one that would benefit the people of South Dunedin. New Libraries, community centres, a decent ‘town square’ or park area are all things that South Dunedin needs, not a single use stadium. South Dunedin could be one heck of an exercise of modern town planning, but it would need more than a new set of pavers or to use a phrase ‘lipstick on a pig’. It’s well known that it’s one massive pedestrian area, but possibly one of the least people friendly areas of the city. But this is a topic for the new blog coming soon(?).

  21. Richard

    Hi Paul

    No need for “sorry”. The DCVL concept has not been precisely “knocked into shape” yet but its role is envisaged to include the marketing of all the venues in its portfolio as well as owning the bricks and mortar.

    Yes, the roof on Awatea Street and its location to the Campus do give it what I would call “a unique marketing edge”.

    And yes, again, there is more to the redevelopment of South Dunedin that Carisbrook. Indeed its very release from being our major outdoor sports stadium opens up some exciting possibilities for the wider area, just not a redress of King Edward Street and the odd park but redeveloped residential (including those for senior citizens), and recreational areas. The planning students came up with some interesting ideas last year as has well-known planner, Don Anderson.

    Exciting stuff because it goes beyond mere tinkering with this very historical area once almost entirely known as ‘Caversham” and which was the centre of NZ’s own industrial revolution as Prof. Erik Ollsen has chronicled so well in his hostory of the the place.

    Definitely, one for the new blog! DefinitelY!

  22. Peter Entwisle

    This sounds increasingly like old men champing at the bit.

    I’m well aware Richard that a Carisbrook upgrade was looked at earlier. The alternative has been well explored and now Carisbrook needs to be looked at again. To characterise me and other critics of Awatea Street as anti-rugby is stereotyping and not worthy of discussion. There’s been careful scrutiny of Awatea Street and obviously it doesn’t answer.

    I appreciate you are heavily emotionally invested in the Awatea Street option – and it’s to your credit that you can be. But it’s past time for realising it doesn’t fly, moneywise, socially and aesthetically.

  23. Elizabeth

    Peter: “I appreciate you are heavily emotionally invested in the Awatea Street option – and it’s to your credit that you can be. But it’s past time for realising it doesn’t fly, moneywise, socially and aesthetically.”

    Music to my ears… yours Richard?

  24. Richard

    Peter: “This sounds increasingly like old men champing at the bit”. Really? Why does sour cream have a date on it?

    Peter: “To characterise me and other critics of Awatea Street as anti-rugby is stereotyping”. I have not.

    Peter: “I appreciate you are heavily emotionally invested in the Awatea Street option…” I am not and never have been. My emotional attachment is to The Brook, always has been.

    On this one, three strikes and out , Peter.

  25. Peter Entwisle

    For what it’s worth, and for the record, I was well aware of the earlier proposal to upgrade Carisbrook and never argued that it shouldn’t be done or that city money shouldn’t go into it. It is true some people took that line but I am not one of them.

    It is not the case, as Richard claims, that “that exercise [upgrading Carisbrook] was not of interest to [me] at the time”.

    More to the point, the Awatea Street option has been developed much further than a Carisbrook upgrade. If the council isn’t able to at least consider that option on Monday it has absurdly tied itself up in its own rules.

  26. Richard

    C’mon, Peter: You are running too many threads and getting ’em mixed up. This morning on here you talked of “my emotional investment in Awatea”. Can’t you ever bring yourself to say, “oophs, sorry” instead of fudging and taking another tack.

    I accept your comment that you followed the original debate on Carisbrook back in 2004-05. You do not pop up in the list of those who made comment – for or against. And I have never included you amongst “the anti-rugby types” that sunk that as you claim on another thread!

    Of course, the Awatea Street option has been developed much further than the original proposal to upgrade Carisbrook. That was the result of opting for the preferred recommendation of the CST in March last year.

    Which bring us to tomorrow.

    It may well be that if Awatea gets the ‘thumbs down’, a consequential motion may pave the way for other options.

    Right now, I know of none being proposed. That might change tomorrow. At the moment it it is Awatea that is on the agenda.

    Simple as that.

    Gee, you are hard to talk WITH.

  27. Richard

    Anne: re rating for “the stadium” on farmland. I have just been acquainted with the figures in respect to Farmland Rating and what happens because of the differential.

    The rate on the the average farm with a value of $710,000 would be $145.

  28. Rosemary

    Richard, you remind us of your stand on Carisbrook before the 2004 elections. May I ask you to remind us of your stand on the Awatea St stadium before the 2007 elections? My memory is no doubt not as precise on this matter as yours, but I think that from what I heard you profess, I would have voted for you had I not already had 3 anti-stadium candidates to vote for: Fliss, Chris Staynes & Lee.

  29. Peter Entwisle

    Richard, in the council meeting today you referred to me obliquely, as someone posting in places like this, and in the room at the time, and went on seamlessly to talk of your emotional embrace of Carisbrook, rather than Awatea Street, anti-rugby types, people who had attacked the original working party and Jim Harland in particular, and the original surveys, thus lumping me in with others who acted in ways I never have. It would be better if you were a little more clear about who you are saying did what.

    At an early stage in the debate about Carisbrook – I’m now trying to remember just when – I said in my column that arts people shouldn’t all automatically oppose civic money going into a rugby facility because the principle behind it is the same that sees civic money going into the library, theatres and art galleries. The question is simply how good the particular proposal is in terms of the amount of public benefit for the amount of public money.

    As for your emotional investments I don’t doubt that you are, or have been, emotionally invested in Carisbrook. But your actions in support of Awatea Street, and your words at Council today, show you are also invested in Awatea Street, perhaps now more than you can see.

    You said that when the Awatea Street proposal first came along you doubted it thinking it was too expensive. Indeed, I remember at some stage you said of Awatea Street that “finance has always been this project’s Achilles heel” – I think those were the words. But you have persevered and when others thought it wasn’t worth the candle kept going. That’s where the emotional investment has gone in. It then becomes hard to see that perhaps it’s time to give up.

    I think something similar happened to Malcolm Farry. At one time he was fairly disinterestedly looking at alternatives but at some stage he started to see Awatea Street as highly desirable and if difficult, as a challenge to rise to and he then worked harder for it. At that point he became the advocate of a single option rather than the even-handed investigator. I think he’s admitted as much.

    These are things which can happen to people who get into advocacy roles – especially where there’s much to do. I think that’s what’s happened to you and had thought you might acknowledge it.

    You wonder if I can ever bring myself to say “oophs” sorry and acknowledge a mistake instead of “fudging and taking another tack”.

    Others reading this might well laugh and say something about kettles and pots. I can acknowledge mistakes and am on record as having done so and I don’t just mean once in a life time.

    But it’s around about here that my thoughts about old men champing at the bit come in.

    What is more important is whether Awatea Street is really worth pursuing any further. Obviously you think it is although it’s clear now that another $15m needs to be found from somewhere to cover the gap in the private money and another $20m to get the city’s contribution down from $91.4m to $70m in line with the March 17 resolution (7(e)) last year.

    I think it would have been better to forget about Awatea Street now and turn again to other options. I notice Councillor Collins raised that again, enquiring about a plan B. Malcolm Farry replied that the other options of doing up Carisbrook were still “on the books” but had not been explored so thoroughly because Council had asked the Trust to give its attention to Awatea Street. Others made mention of it too. What a pity plan B is still languishing.

  30. Thanks for stopping by Peter, once again sorry I didn’t get a chance to say hi, I arrived for literally the last 15mins and was desperate to catch up with Elizabeth.

    Well done to all of you for slogging through that session, the last 15mins was arduous enough, let alone a whole day. One thing that struck me instantly though, is how much cross purposes talking (for want of a better term) the councillors did. They were asking each other questions which I assume they should have known answers to. Most interesting insight into council workings. It’s like the time I took one of my classes to Parliament while I was teaching in Wellington, a real eye-opener and than goodness someone wants to do that job.

  31. Actually, with the StS site down, I don’t have a web address for Nicola Holman’s blog site on this. Anyone got it, i’ll add it to the links on the side, can’t believe I didn’t have it there???

    Thanks Elizabeth, they both seem to be out of date, so I’ll leave them here for people to follow

    Here’s hoping from the tapping on the keyboards she’ll be adding her two cents worth on the matter.

  32. Richard

    Well you said it, Peter! Golly me, can’t you take a wee bit of humour? I did not lump you in with anyone!!! You are to much your own person for that!

    There is no “Plan B”.

    Yes, the options to redevelop The Brook sit in the CST’s original report but, as I have previously noted, Awatea Street was the one that council and the other stakeholders chose to run with.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s