Dunedin City district plan review

A report entitled ‘Plan Review and Preparation of Second Generation District Plan’ from the City Development Manager goes to DCC’s Planning and Environment Committee today.

Report Summary:

The Dunedin City District Plan (the Plan) became operative on 3 July 2006. The Planning Policy Team (now part of the City Development Team) have been working on a programme of rolling reviews using section by section Plan evaluations and reviews followed by plan changes to make improvements and deal with any issues identified.

Over the last year and half, City Development have been undertaking an evaluation of most sections of the District Plan to scope the range of “matters” that ideally should be addressed through a plan review and plan change process.

These matters include required responses to changes to the content requirements of plans through amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991, recent National Policy Statements, changes to Regional Plans, the need to improve integration with other Council strategies, alignment with the draft Spatial Plan, provisions in the Plan that internal and external stakeholders feel are not working and major changes in planning ‘best practice’ since the Plan was first written.

The evaluations have recommended that all operative parts of the plan need changes (this excludes Harbourside).

The City Development Team had a workshop with Councillors on 15 March 2010 to discuss the need for a second generation Plan and areas for improvement to be considered in relation to current ‘best practice’.

This report seeks formal approval for the initiation of the plan review and approval to prepare and notify subsequent changes to the Plan to develop a second generation District Plan.

Report – 08/02/2012 (PDF, 100 KB)
Plan Review and Preparation of Second Generation District Plan

[PEC Agenda]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under DCC, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Politics, Project management, Property, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

27 responses to “Dunedin City district plan review

  1. Elizabeth

    {Comment relocated from another thread. Relevance. The District Plan is a community-owned statutory document that governs land use. The owners of the kennel have been trading without the required consent. It’s incumbent on them to know the law of the land. If they were in any doubt they should have consulted the Council or their solicitor or planning consultant. All small businesses going about their feasibility need to check requirements for compliance. Lesson learned. -Eds}

    Hype O’Thermia
    Submitted on 2012/04/20 at 3:09 pm

    Another stupidity http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/205401/kennels-could-go-if-consent-bid-fails. My online post was abridged, removing all quoted material that formed the framework so I am posting it here:

    Not guilty, but mustn’t go unpunished I have been waiting for someone more temperate, less tack-spittingly infuriated, to comment on this, “The barking that prompted the complaint was eventually traced to another property, but the requirement to seek consent remained.”

    Does the council have no conception of the importance of small businesses? “Mrs Reeve said the Samoyeds were her “passion” and the couple’s award-winning kennel was “quite elite”, shipping some pups to breeding kennels overseas and selling others to a waiting list of well-vetted buyers.” Do they have any idea of how passionate people are about pedigree animals? Do they understand how many people travel to choose their animal whether pet or breeding stock, and how many people travel to show their animals? These low-profile businesses go on year in, year out, unlike huge sports matches which we have to subsidise because of how much money they bring to accommodation and catering and how they raise the profile of Dunedin. Breeders are not asking for ratepayer hand-outs, they just want a fair go.

    ” Council senior planner Campbell Thomson said the couple’s breeding operation was “fine”, but the commercial public boarding operation needed consent” and “If it had just been looking after friends’ dogs on the occasional basis then probably we wouldn’t have been concernedabout it.”

    What’s the difference? Is there any, in terms of noise, waste products, traffic or anything else? Or is this another case of “We have to control it, charge and arm and a leg for it or ban it, we cannot let people just get on with showing initiative. Not round these parts we won’t!”

    Small businesses are our lifeblood. Without draconian interference they won’t move away from here let alone offshore. If they go broke they don’t put hundreds out of work. Overseas economies have minimal effect on them. The earnings come not only into NZ but into our region.

    I urge you – wherever you live – to get in and support these people:
    “The council opted for a publicly notified process – allowing anyone to make submissions – because approval from all neighbours was not forthcoming, and it was hard to “draw a ring around who exactly is affected” by barking, he said.” Because no matter how annoying constantly barking dogs are, the fact is that it was not one of Andrew and Denise Reeve’s dogs that was annoying the neighbour who lived about 1km away from their 6ha property in Puddle Alley, out in the countryside where animal noises could reasonably be expected.

    • Elizabeth

      {Comment relocated from another thread. -Eds}

      Submitted on 2012/04/20 at 6:21 pm

      I’m going to side with DCC on this one. Taking out the emotional plea of a couple who are not quite the influence in the dog breeding world that the ODT article might suggest, they are operating a commercial business in a non-commercial zone. And for that, they require Resource Consent. I don’t care how many breed records they claim to have broken, they need consent to operate a dog boarding kennels. I don’t see that as DCC being heavy handed, it’s all clear in the District Plan. No one is trying to stop them from running their business, they just want to make sure that it’s being done legally. At the moment, they are operating illegally. Who do you draw the line with ? Once they get consent, it’s fine. Business as usual. If they get denied consent, then they were clearly wrong in trying to run a business in an area that wasn’t suitable for that business. I can also understand why a boarding kennels would be a publicly notified activity. When you have an effect which travels (in this case, noise), then it’s not possible to identify affected parties to gain their consent. So you have to publicly notify. Ok, the noise complaint that was received didn’t relate to their property, but barking dogs is an effect of their proposed business activity. I had the same issue a few years back with oversized signage on a building which could be viewed from a state highway. Impossible to identify the affected parties, so I needed a publicly notified resource consent.

      This whole Notified vs Non-notified application process is a bit of a mess. In most European countries, all resource consent applications are publicly notified as a matter of course. That way there’s no accusations of preferential treatment, and no-one can say that they should have been told about it. Much simpler and takes the same amount of time.

  2. Hype O'Thermia

    The more I think about it the less point I see in having arbitrarily divided zone demarcations. Dogs barking from a commercial boarding kennel are the same as dogs barking at home in the ‘burbs, one to the right, one to the left, a couple over the road and one over the back fence all without resource consents.
    As for your over-sized sign, Phil – if the “problem” is visual offensiveness why was it OK for Mitre 10 Mega to paint its shop that glaring orange, dominating the views from innumerable people’s homes?
    And how does this work: “Once they get consent, it’s fine. Business as usual. If they get denied consent, then they were clearly wrong in trying to run a business in an area that wasn’t suitable for that business.” If they get consent in Dunedin it may mean they know the right people, pull the right strings, do the right deals. It may or may not mean that their business is suitable for the area, though one may deduce that the area is suitable for their business, otherwise they would not establish it there.

    • Elizabeth

      Potential positive effects, potential adverse effects and mitigation… zoning, that’s what the resource consenting process tangles with. Back to point: the kennel owners were trading illegally, and came to notice via a dog barking. Bad luck. They got caught out. Now DCC is giving the owners and the community the opportunity to consider ‘effects’ in the context of relevant objectives, policy and methods. It’s not about furriness. It could have been about an illicit backyard killing shed exchanging dollars.

      Why should other business kennels meeting the cost of full compliance be disadvantaged by cheats.

  3. Phil

    You may well be right, Hype O’Thermia. Clearly a lot of people have gained Resource Consent in Dunedin based on who they were and who they knew. Can’t ever prove that, but we all know it just the same. Obviously the signage issue you brought up is one such example. That needs to be fixed. It’s not justification for other people to bypass the laws though, in my opinion. We fix what is wrong, not allow for everyone else to be wrong.

    Thinking back to European cases, in Finland every resource consent application is publicly heard by the Environment Court who are based in each province and are made up of central government appointed technical experts. So the risk of Old Boys getting special treatment locally is dramatically reduced. From memory, because each application is publicly notified, and because it’s heard in the Environment Court from the start, there is little opportunity or need to appeal a decision. Making the process cleaner, quicker, and more transparent than what we see in NZ today.

  4. Hype O'Thermia

    I’d much rather see no zoning, coupled with straight-forward rules about what alteration anyone – residential, industrial, commercial – may make or demand of the neighbourhood. Move rural – don’t complain about rural noises and smells. Move inner-city – don’t complain about inner-city ditto (e.g. the apartment-dwellers that forced noise control that led to the demise of Arc Cafe). Is a complaint that a pre-school or kennels will bring more traffic and noise justified? Compare and contrast with a household of teenagers with their own and friends’ cars coming and going, stereos blaring, all hours of the day and night. If the latter is OK because it’s residential why does the zoning category make the former unacceptable? But complaints should, I agree with Phil, be out in the open.
    Restricting notification to immediate neighbours is just plain wrong. I was involved in a situation where, because I was a door away from the must-be-notified neighbours, I only heard about a proposed change in use from a neighbour who was fearful and indignant. I turned up at the meeting, found that the proposed use was only a problem if you’re anti decent people who themselves realise they need non-residential counselling, and pushed successfully for approval for what was proposed with no permission to alter that use in any way in future without further consultation, so that e.g. enthusiastic arsonists and burglars could not become clients forced by the court system to attend therapy when they had no intention of changing.
    It should be about what if any “nuisance” is caused, what if any extra demand is placed on services, by the proposed new use. Look at the crazy, enterprise-killing rating change that put homestays out of business, not because they changed the neighbourhood for the worse but because they were “businesses”. Same houses in most cases, same number of people as would have lived in them in the days of big families.
    Open review process could also prevent “foot in the door” tactics, where someone starts small with consent, then increases the impact with longer hours, noisier equipment, heavier and more frequent traffic etc.
    Back to dogs, for an example. There is a world of difference between 5 typical couch-potato whippets and one bored huntaway who, needing purposeful activity to use his energy, is not suited to a small fenced pen or worse, being tied up most of the daytime. Straightforward rules cannot make fine distinctions.

    {Regarding the dog kennel, the applicant has the responsibility to identify affected parties. The council has gone to public notification as the means to seek wider community input. -Eds}

  5. Elizabeth

    ### ODT Online Thu, 16 Aug 2012
    District plan likely to be released online
    By Debbie Porteous
    Dunedin’s revised district plan is likely to be released online as an “e-plan” with limited hard copies available, following the trend in other centres. The district plan contains guidance and rules about how land can be used and developed and must be reviewed in its entirety every 10 years, in a process that can take several years.

    The council expected to consult on “issues and options” identified around the revised plan – known as the second generation district plan – later this year, and have a draft of the revised plan ready by the end of 2013.

    Read more

    • DCC Media Release (17 Jan 2013)
      Input Sought on Industrial Activities and Zoning
      Where industry should be allowed to operate and the sorts of planning controls that should be placed on it will be up for discussion at a series of Dunedin City Council District Plan workshops in the next few months.
      The workshops are being held as part of the ‘issues and options’ consultation phase of a comprehensive review process that will lead to the development of second generation District Plan. The current plan was first introduced in 1995.
      DCC City Development Manager Dr Anna Johnson says the council is keen to get stakeholder input in relation to the management of industrial activities, as well as other activities within the industrial zone.
      Read more

      ### ODT Online Wed, 24 Apr 2013
      Councillors at odds over representation
      By Chris Morris
      A sedate debate turned heated as Crs Teresa Stevenson and Colin Weatherall traded claims of rural bias and points of order at a Dunedin City Council planning and environment committee meeting yesterday. The stoush came when Cr Stevenson appeared to suggest an advisory group of three councillors – being set up to work on a second generation district plan – contained too many from ”rural” areas. It members are Crs Colin Weatherall, from Brighton, Kate Wilson, from Middlemarch, and Andrew Noone, from Waikouaiti.
      Read more

  6. Saturday’s ODT feature on the second generation district plan strongly indicates all residential historic heritage will either get demolished for three-storey fast-build ‘leaky building’ shoeboxes (minimum design standards) or have a garage or granny flat parked right up to it willynilly (no resource consent needed – forget townscape issues) with loss of significant garden curtilage… pumping the value of properties in the inner city so to make them grossly unaffordable (see Auckland’s ‘non-sprawl nightmares).
    However, this is all predicated on bullshit about urban expansion !!!
    Lest we forget, Dunedin has a more or less static population – growth is not an issue. Comfortable, safe and affordable housing is an issue – so who in the “aging population” can afford lift systems for their new three-storey leaky homes? Once again, City Planning (and oh, developer friends!) allows the developer community to wreck a city by SPECULATION. Yes, let’s rob the poor and give to the freaking RICH. This under Liability Cull’s Mitre 10 handyman watch.

    ### ch9.co.nz August 6, 2013 – 7:10pm
    Plan could change rules on what landowners can build on their own land
    The Dunedin City Council is consulting on a plan that could change the rules on what landowners can build on their own land. Proposed changes to the city’s district plan are in need of community input – with the result potentially affecting every person in the city.


    Dunedin City Council – Media Release
    Changes Ahead for District Plan

    This item was published on 02 Aug 2013.

    What people can do on their land and how it can be developed is under the spotlight.
    In November last year the Dunedin City Council started consulting on issues and options for changes to the Dunedin City District Plan, the plan that controls land use in the city.
    From [3 August], the community will get a glimpse of what those changes might look like as part of Preferred Options consultation on the second generation District Plan (2GP). This consultation, which runs from 5 August until 13 September, will give people the opportunity to help shape policies and rules including zone types and boundaries, and performance standards.
    The suggested changes aim to:
    ● Create a new Strategic Directions section, which will provide clearer guidance on the key issues and outcomes for the city;
    ● Reduce the need for resource consents for minor activities;
    ● Improve the effectiveness of rules in achieving the outcome intended;
    ● Better respond to issues such as hazards and health and safety;
    ● Make the Plan clearer and easier to use.

    Information on the 2GP Preferred Options will be available from tomorrow at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp. This will include information sheets for each of the main zones and activities. Hard copies of these will be available at Dunedin Public Libraries and Customer Services Centres from Monday.

    Some of the key issues the Strategic Directions are responding to include limited population growth, how to best manage urban expansion, and the best way to protect the things residents value and that support our tourism economy.
    Read more


    From the DCC website, get to the detail:

    The Second Generation Plan for Dunedin
    The Dunedin City District Plan controls what people can do on their land and how it can be developed. While there have been some changes and new zones added (e.g. the Stadium, Airport and Harbourside zones), most of the current Plan has not been reviewed since 2006 and a lot of it dates back to the 1990s.
    We are reviewing the Plan as a whole to fix the parts that are not clear or working properly, to recognise the changes to land use and development within Dunedin, to discourage poor development and to align with changes in national policy guidance.
    The review will produce a second generation plan (2GP), which is the second plan prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991. This is a long process with a lot of research and analysis, and input from stakeholders and the community.
    There will be various opportunities during the process to contribute your thoughts and ideas so we can be sure our new District Plan will move Dunedin towards being one of the world’s great small cities.

    Read more via links provided at this page:


    Note: the crap was instigated by Jim Harland, and has flowed on under the direction of one of his skirt-imports to staff ranks. Use of embodied energy is a missing quotient. Bring in the bulldozers. But who can afford to buy or rent NEW. Dunedin, COWBOYVILLE 2.

  7. Peter

    I live in an area designated as medium density. I accept this, IF it is done well in terms of urban design. I would hate to see what has happened in areas – like parts of lower Duncan St and lower Cargill St, which has too many cheap looking, ugly apartments jammed up against each other.
    Will any change to the plan actually enforce better design? Speculators usually don’t care about that kind of thing.
    BTW. What happened to the apartment proposal for Filleul St, closer to London St? Nothing seems to have happened. I remember Nidds advertised the concept drawings and for sales off the plan. Does anyone know?

    • Not sure what’s happening for the Filleul St site, Peter, although the old rundown villa in the same section of street, owned by a local architect, will be demolished (dismantled, or removed?) and replaced by apartments, I understand.

      • The existing villa at 93 Filleul Street is owned by Michael & Rachel Ovens.
        Michael Ovens was the architect profiled in connection with the larger apartment complex proposed for 97 Filleul St (ODT Link) that Peter is referring to. The two-storeyed villa at 95 Filleul St (former restaurant) is owned by Lincoln Darling.


        Argh! SHOEBOXES (Is ‘CitiBase’ Base ?)
        Signature Property is currently marketing 17 self-contained studio apartments for 93 Filleul St. Looks fairly nasty townscape-wise and totally acontextural (heritage buildings to either side):

        93 Filleul St, proposed apartments


        Non-notified decision
        93 Filleul Street Dunedin (LUC-2013-207)
        This consent was an application to/for construct a 3 storey block at 93 Filleul Street Dunedin.
        This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 21 June 2013. (Link)


        Property overview (existing villa):
        Bedroom: 3
        Building type: Residential-Dwelling-pre 1914
        Bathroom: 1
        Building age: 1895
        Land area: 304 m2
        Property ID (QPID): 1408625

        • Mr Lyons doesn’t have a feather in his cap for Station Apartments – if he’s bringing the same cheapness to 93 and 97 Filleul St (which it appears he is) then we have a further contribution to urban blight in the central city. Nasty! Don’t know if the architect of the new flats is still Michael Ovens, who previously owned the old villa at 93 Filleul which under his stewardship was let go into bad repair (while still being rented out).

          ### ODT Online Mon, 18 Nov 2013
          Site cleared for $5m Dunedin apartments
          By Simon Hartley
          Construction of concrete footings and foundations for a $5 million, 17-apartment complex in Filleul St is expected to begin this month. The apartment block, at 93 Filleul, is the first of two projects worth a total $13 million to be undertaken in the street by developer Neil Lyons, with an $8 million 25-unit apartment complex at 97 Filleul scheduled for design next year, to be constructed in 2015.
          Read more

  8. Anon1

    95 Filleul has been listed for sale:
    The proposed design for 93 is very similar to the design for 97 – same architect so not very surprising. I wonder the likelihood that Mr Ovens would purchase 95 and effectvely have one apartment complex from 97 to 93.

    • Thanks for update Anon1. Couldn’t possibly comment on liquidity.

      • Dunedin figures not cited.

        ### ODT Online Thu, 8 Aug 2013
        House prices rise 8.1%
        Property values are now up 7.5 per cent over the previous market peak of late 2007, new figures show. The latest monthly property value index from Quotable Value shows residential property values nationwide increased in July once again. Values increased 8.1 per cent over the past year, with an increase of 3.1 per cent over the past three months.
        QV operations manager Kerry Stewart said although values continued to rise, they were still primarily driven by Auckland and Christchurch. “Most of the rest of the main centres were also increasing but at a much slower rate. Many of the provincial towns had previously started to see some small gains, however values have dropped over the last month.” APNZ
        Read more

        • Here we go, poor poor Dunedin…

          ### ODT Online Fri, 9 Aug 2013
          Dunedin house values fall
          By Simon Hartley
          Dunedin house values have bucked the national trend and declined during the past quarter, while Queenstown values are similar to Auckland. Government agency Quotable Value said that residential values nationally increased 8.1% in July compared with a year ago and were up 3.1% in the past three months. Dunedin City values initially saw some gains earlier this year but had dropped back recently, values having decreased 0.2% over the past three months to $284,516, which was still 3.4% above last year. QV valuer in Dunedin Tim Gibson said the market had seen a slowing in supply of houses, and there were not enough quality listings for buyers.
          Read more



    • Elizabeth

      The council’s hearings committee will consider the proposal next Wednesday.

      ### ODT Online Wed, 20 Jan 2016
      Apartment plan for Filleul St
      By Eileen Goodwin
      A proposal for 25 apartments in central Dunedin has a tick of approval from a Dunedin City Council planner, who says the project will contribute to the city’s vibrancy. […] Tudor House in Filleul St would be demolished to make way for the apartment block, a joint venture between architect Michael Ovens and property developer Neil Lyons, both of Dunedin.
      Read more

      The proposal was notified to four parties, and three submissions were received, all opposed.

      • Elizabeth

        ### dunedintv.co.nz Wed, 20 Jan 2016
        Apartments planned for Filleul St
        An apartment complex is being planned for the central city, and is subject to a resource consent hearing at the Dunedin City Council. The four-storey complex of 25 apartments is set to be developed in Filleul Street. Council planners have recommended that resource consent be granted, subject to extensive conditions. A hearing for the proposal is scheduled for next Wednesday. The one and two-bedroom apartments will surround a central courtyard, and be constructed in two blocks. An existing building will be demolished and the site excavated to allow for development. A version of the application was initially lodged in 2012, but was shelved due to the economic downturn.
        Ch39 + Video

      • Elizabeth

        Hearing for proposed four-storey, 25-apartment block at 97 Filleul St held yesterday.

        ### ODT Online Thu, 28 Jan 2016
        Consent hearing for Filleul St building put off
        By Rhys Chamberlain
        Failure to notify potentially affected building owners of plan changes has forced a consent hearing for new apartments to be adjourned. […] Since the application for resource consent was lodged by Neil Lyons in 2012, the height of the proposed building had changed, which hearings committee chairman Cr Andrew Noone decided had a “degree of uncertainty” about it and deserved renotification to affected parties. This would include informing the owners of adjacent buildings and some of the 13 parties that shared a right-of-way behind the proposed apartment block.
        Read more

        █ ONLY four parties were originally notified [see identification of affected parties carried out by the Council Planner…. and who did not treat the revived application as Non Complying….]

      • Elizabeth

        No submitters favour proposal.

        ### ODT Online Mon, 14 Mar 2016
        Two more oppose apartments
        By Vaughan Elder
        A four-storey 25-room apartment block planned for Dunedin has struck more opposition after developers were forced to resubmit their plans. A hearing to determine whether consent will be granted for the four-storey building is to be held this week after the last one was adjourned because the height of the proposed Filleul St building had changed without affected parties being notified.
        Read more

      • Elizabeth

        Sat, 23 Apr 2016
        ODT: Apartment block given consent
        A consent to build a 35-room apartment block in Central Dunedin has been approved but a neighbour is determined to continue to fight against the planned build. A Dunedin City Council consent hearings committee of Crs Andrew Noone, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley granted a land use consent for 25 apartments to be built at 97 Filleul St.

        97 Filleul St proposed street elevationSketch render

      • Elizabeth

        ### dunedintv.co.nz Tues, 26 Apr 2016
        CBD apartments consented
        A planned new apartment complex in Filleul Street has been granted resource consent by the Dunedin City Council. The development is due to be built at 97 Filleul Street, near Vero House. It’ll comprise 25 one and two bedroom apartments, each ranging in price from about $300,000 to more than half a million. But the co-owner of Vero House is upset about the size of the complex and is reportedly considering whether to appeal the consent decision. He’s worried about the building shading his premises, and other neighbours have also expressed concerns. The apartments are expected to be finished by the middle of next year.
        Ch39 Video

        City Planning have kindly prepared a copy of all documents submitted to the last hearing which I couldn’t attend. Will collect these tomorrow and grab the plans and renders for publication here.

      • Elizabeth

        Tue, 9 Aug 2016
        ODT: Appeal over block of flats
        Two neighbours have brought their fight against a 25-room apartment block proposed for central Dunedin to the Environment Court. This comes after a Dunedin City Council consent hearings committee of Crs Andrew Noone, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley granted a land use consent in May for the apartment block to be built at 97 Filleul St. However, since then, owners of neighbouring Vero House and London Street Specialists at 34 London St, Sergio Salis and Chris Robertson, have appealed the decision to the Environment Court.

  9. Report tabled at the meeting of the Dunedin City Council held yesterday:

    Report – Council – 09/12/2013 (PDF, 255.7 KB)
    Second Generation District Plan Update and Principles for Councillor Involvement

  10. Elizabeth

    Public Notification of second-generation district plan review DELAYED until next year…

    “The delay was due to the need for additional public consultation, as well as staff turnover and council resourcing constraints.”


  11. Elizabeth

    97 Filleul St
    Environment Court judgement expected after January.

    Thu, 29 Dec 2016
    Bid to stop apartment construction dealt blow
    Two neighbours fighting the construction of a four-storey apartment block in central Dunedin have been dealt a late blow. Just days before the Environment Court heard the matter, Judge Jon Jackson excluded the 11th-hour geotechnical evidence regarding the proposed construction at 97 Filleul St, a recently released judgement has revealed. Cont/

    The evidence heard [from geotechnical engineer James Molloy] confirmed his position on the potentially destructive outcome of the earthworks and the “lightness with which the DCC approached it.” –Sergio Salis, appellant

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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