Council meeting @Middlemarch – pity about the closed doors

### Channel 9 Online March 29, 2010 – 7:23pm
Dunedin City Council meets in Middlemarch
The Dunedin City Council met today for a full Council meeting in Middlemarch, after an invitation to do so was extended by the Strath Taieri Community Board. The Council were treated to some good old fashioned country hospitality, before getting down to business, which was mainly held behind closed doors.


### ODT Online Mon, 29 Mar 2010
Carisbrook and harbour discussions not public

By David Loughrey
The future of Carisbrook and its surrounding properties are due to come before the Dunedin City Council today, but whether the public will be any the wiser after the meeting remains something of a mystery, due to privacy provisions. The agenda for the council’s meeting, to be held in Middlemarch, includes four items about which there is bound to strong public interest, but all are up for consideration during the non-public part of the meeting.
Read more


Agenda – Council – 29/03/2010 (PDF, 142.5 kb, new window)

Post by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Economics, Geography, Politics, Project management, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

6 responses to “Council meeting @Middlemarch – pity about the closed doors

  1. Richard


    For the record: No discussion. No decision. Other than approving the minutes of the meeting of Finance and Strategy held on 15 March. I subsequently made public what council had discussed in non-public and that story appeared in the ODT on the 18th. The position is unchanged and a report on possible options for the future use of Carisbrook will come to the next meeting of Finance and Strategy on 26 April.


    Given the legal process going on in accord with the RMA at the direction of the Environment Court and that other parties are involved as appellants, it is/was just not possible for Council to discuss the matter in public. Nor can individual councillors comment. The Mayor will be releasing a statement on Council’s position as soon as possible.

  2. Phil

    Pleased to hear about the movement, at last, on the CCTV system. Hard to believe that something so simply as taken so long. But we’re there now, and that’s great. Did I see that listed under City Property’s planned activities in the Annual Plan last week?

    Lots of grizzles and moans already, I see. Together with the waving of low prosecution figures elsewhere as some reason why the project shouldn’t be implemented. To me, that completely misses the point. The statistic that needs to be waved is the difference, if any, in the amount of illegal activity within the operating region of the cameras. That’s the only figure that actually counts.

    A low prosecution figure could mean that the crime activity has remained the same, and that the system doesn’t work. Or, it could mean that crime has reduced. Who knows ? It’s a meaningless stat. Zero prosecutions could mean zero crime. Anyway, I’m fully in favour of anything that can help deter crime, and this will stop some people.

    • Elizabeth

      Phil – yes, was reading comments at ODT Online… I too welcome the cameras – not sure where they’ll be set up but some central city retailers need a major reprieve from broken windows for starters.

      Here’s the story:

      ### ODT Online Tue, 30 Mar 2010
      Council finds funds for CCTV
      By David Loughrey
      Closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras could be installed in the city centre by Christmas, after the Dunedin City Council voted yesterday to access a fund last used in the 1970s. The decision, at a council meeting in Middlemarch, followed news last week funding for the cameras had fallen short by as much as $52,500, but the last-minute discovery of a fund for comprehensive urban renewal in North Dunedin could fill the gap.
      Read more


      Report – Council – 29/03/2010 (PDF, 91.9 kb, new window)
      CCTV Funding

  3. Phil

    Sheesh, after reading the staff report to Council, and reading the newpaper report again, I have to extend a huge bouquet to the Councillors for giving this the push that those working with the project have been unable to do for years. I have to confess I was rather dismayed with the staff report. It said nothing new from previous reports except that they wanted it noted that they still didn’t have enough money. Good job there was no performance pay there. Well done, Richard et al.

  4. Russell Garbutt

    Interesting comment from Richard after the Middlemarch meeting regarding the ODT report of 18 March on the Carisbrook issue. Richard now confirms that ODT report which stated that the $7m paid by the DCC for the Carisbrook properties is broken down to $1m for the residential properties and the balance of $6m was paid for the actual ground and a piece of vacant land used as a carpark.

    Apparently, a report on what to do with the purchases will be forthcoming in late April which again raises the question of just what information was presented to Council to convince them that they should proceed with the purchase in the first place? The fact that the total price paid was the amount of money needed by the ORFU to clear its debts still appears to be more than a co-incidence.

  5. Richard

    Russell says I confirm the “ODT report which stated that the $7m paid by the DCC for the Carisbrook properties is broken down to $1m for the residential properties and the balance of $6m was paid for the actual ground and a piece of vacant land used as a carpark”.

    There is/was only one price: $7m for all the properties.

    That is the fact of the matter. I am not going to get into an argument about what the ODT says or does not say.

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