Comment and combined image received today [email].
—
“I confirm that the single frame simulations that Truescape has produced, accurately shows the proposed development on the 41 Wharf Street site.”
Yeah, right.
See images attached.
The lighting tower is the point of comparison. It is 35m tall. In the Truescape simulation [left], it appears to be approximately 50% of the height of the hotel, which would make it 70m. In the reference image [right], it is more accurately depicted as about 1/3rd of the height, which is correct.
[ends]
Sources:
● Evidence of Rachael Stanners -Truescape (PDF, 3.4 MB) Evidence presented to the Hearings Committee● LUC-2012-212 12. Viewpoint booklet by Truescape (PDF, 3.4MB)
This document is a scanned copy of the application for resource consent● Images by Madeleine Lamont (Submission No. 422) reproduced at Proposed hotel, 41 Wharf Street – indicative landscape effects (26.11.12)
● Application information – including post application and briefs of evidence to hearing: http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/current-notifieds/luc-2012-212
******
At ODT Online…
[Excerpts]
On hearing session, Thursday 6 December
ORC counsel Alistair Logan said the hotel’s visual impact was reason enough to reject the consent application, but Betterways director Steve Rodgers had indicated no downsizing would be considered. That made the company’s proposal an “all or nothing” bid and “given that choice, there is only one answer – nothing”, Mr Logan said.
Simon Parker, from the New Zealand Institute of Architects Southern Branch, said the hotel would block views and destroy the character of the area, and Paul Pope, of the Dunedin Amenities Society, said it would dominate the landscape in a way “not seen in Dunedin before”.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/238134/plop-architecture-among-litany-criticisms
The hearing is adjourned but will resume on Monday 17 December for up to three further days of submissions.
******
On hearing session, Wednesday 5 December
The session was dominated by Christchurch barrister John Hardie and two expert witnesses, appearing on behalf of Capri Enterprises Ltd, which own significant tracts of industrial land in Dunedin.
Betterways had to show the hotel would have effects that were no more than minor, or met the policies and objectives of the district plan, and “I don’t think the proposal meets either of the tests”, Mr Hardie said. […] Mr Hardie began by questioning the credibility of evidence given by Dunedin architect Francis Whitaker, who gave a glowing endorsement of the hotel plans on Tuesday. Mr Whitaker was an architect, but spoke about urban design issues, which he was not qualified “in any way, shape or form” to do, Mr Hardie said. Mr Hardie said he was not asking for Mr Whitaker’s evidence to be excluded, but might if the same claims were made in the Environment Court. […] He also took aim at evidence from Phil Page, the solicitor acting for Betterways, saying a suggestion the hotel’s height should be ignored – because it would be built on industrial land without height restrictions – was “utter nonsense”.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/237993/submitters-attack-100m-hotel-plans
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
I’m not sure if the hearings are supposed to be opinions or facts, but it seems that if an “expert” is stating facts and uses diagrams as a representation of a “fact” to a duly constituted hearing, and that expert knows that the diagram is an inaccurate representation, then this expert’s submission should be at least thrown out. I would have thought that there was a case for wilful misrepresentation or more.