Adopting a moderate tone

…TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS, or we’ll send the terriers in.

Dear Dunedin City councillors, anyone?

Regarding the Awatea (St) site, how are the consents going for the proposed building(s)? And what of the road stopping?

From reading council’s website we note the public consultation process required to close a public road – any time soon for this? Or is a Public Works Act seize-and-desist (sic) regime to hit us?

Road Stopping Policy (PDF, 17.5 kb, new window)

Under Legal Requirements the policy says:

“The law recognises that the need to retain road reserve can change and the Local Government Act allows Territorial Authorities to both create new roads and stop all or part of existing roads. The processes laid down in the Act are public processes and include provision for public notification of intentions and input to the result. If objections are received with respect to a stopping proposal the power to make a final decision is removed from the Council and passed to the Environment Court. This reflects the strong protection of the public’s rights.

“There is also provision in the Public Works Act to allow roads to be stopped in conjunction with creation of new roads. This is a non public process and is used where roads are being realigned and the like. It is also used when it is found formed roads are not within the legal road reserve and allows a new road reserve to be created in the correct position in exchange for the old reserve.”

We await formal explanation of the processes and timeline required for the stopping of a road(s) at the Awatea site.

Now then, let’s go directly to the realigning of State Highway 88 to skirt the proposed stadium, as feeds into the proposed harbour arterial (aka Dunedin’s strategic corridor) – we’re talking about the section of new road to run between Frederick St and Ravensbourne Rd.

Where is the funding and construction timeline now at for this?
Is the massively overblown and expensive gyratory still in the plans?

This whole roading project may have to be fully funded by DCC if not of a suitable priority status with the Otago Regional Transport Committee.

We have to ask.
Lots of little process questions coming at us. We’ll drip feed these in the week ahead.

Don’t use the CST PR-diversion method to stall your answers, we don’t need to know the stadium’s opening act is Kenny Rogers ‘fresh’ from Star of the Desert Arena.


The What if? Team


Filed under Architecture, CST, Design, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Politics, Site, Stadiums

11 responses to “Adopting a moderate tone

  1. Elizabeth

    We hear today a reply is on the offing.

  2. Phil

    I saw that the CST had invited themselves to a BOINZ meeting last month to “talk about” the construction project. As the Dunedin branch of the institute is made up entirely of DCC Building Inspectors (with the chief inspector being the branch head), it was a good chance to do some sweet talking to the very people who will be issuing building consents and remind them of deadlines and delay consequences. Wish I could do that with my building consent application for a new garage.

  3. Phil

    Good to hear. It’s always interesting to hear of DBH latest schemes and brainwaves. I’m not convinced it was ethically appropriate to present a project in front of a consenting authority, prior to application. Especially with this amount of controversy. But also probably naive to think that the same project hadn’t already been discussed. It might have been better for BOINZ to invite the presentation once consent had been granted. Just to keep everything above board and avoid any perception of pressure. Another month wouldn’t have hurt. Especially given the history of sneaky approaches being made to people prior to public meetings and so forth. It’s hurt the credibility and I had hoped they had learnt from it.

  4. Elizabeth

    Cr Richard Walls has promptly responded to our post by email today, it reads:


    The change to SH 88 has always related to the Transportation Strategy (Port to Port) agreed in 2007 and decided before the stadium proposal saw “the light of day”.

    The change resulting from the building of the stadium puts it close to the rail tracks, which is better than it going down Parry. I am certain you can hear the Hocken staff cheering!

    The cost of the change to accommodate the stadium is $1.5m approx, of which council’s share is approx. $800,000/$900,000.

    Following the change in funding for highways made by the new government, the Regional Land Transport Committee was required to re-determine its priorities. These will be announced in August.

    It is not a condition of consent for the stadium that the new roading be in place before the stadium opens.

    The gyratory at Frederick was only a concept and final designs for the connection through to Thomas Burns and Wharf Streets are yet to be determined.

    The ‘stopping’ (i.e. closure) of Awatea Street will be either done under the Local Government Act OR the Public Works Act. Council owns the land on both sides of the street and the process only awaits the amalgamation of titles.



    [Elizabeth here]
    Last year, university architect Chris Doudney (recently retired), informally noted to me – in the lead up to the Plan Change 8: Stadium hearings – that because the University of Otago’s Hocken library building has archive storage behind its Parry St frontage potential road noise was unlikely to be an issue for library staff.

    The Parry St option received quite some positive airing in the consultation process for the City’s draft transport strategy; this was before the proposed stadium changed all that. Parry St was considered an economically viable route.

    The proposed “gyratory”, or elevated roading structure (surprisingly, to be constructed of solid earth), at or near the intersection of Anzac Ave and Frederick St, was conceptualised by DCC’s Transportation Planning to allow road access from the city to the harbourside area, clear of the rail corridor; as well as conducting flows of traffic in both directions along the proposed strategic corridor (harbourside arterial) to run beside the railway; in this, Frederick St becomes a feeder route from SH 1.

    The gyratory idea received a grilling at the Plan Change hearings since DCC had applied for a Notice of Requirement to realign the proposed harbour arterial link to Ravensbourne Rd (SH 88), skirting the stadium.

    The structure was described by expert witness to be, potentially, the most expensive and over engineered alternative available…not only this, a ramp(s) of the gyratory would block ‘north’-bound vehicle access along Anzac Ave at about Frederick St, turning the memorial ‘stately tree-lined’ avenue into a mere cul de sac.

    Where DCC Transportation Planning is going with alternative design options at this point is anyone’s guess. If the gyratory was any indication, should DCC’s in-house team be entrusted with any major engineering design. A moot point. Traffic Engineer Tony Penny from Christchurch has a better grip, and the expertise.

  5. Richard

    Point made but … and it is a BIG but … so what? The final decision on ‘what’ i.e. gyratory or whatever, for a state highway does not lie with the DCC.

  6. Richard

    “…..we were all astounded, public, professionals and commissioners alike).

    You overlooked “councillors”!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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