Green Island activity centre

Progressive Enterprises is in talks with the Dunedin City Council aimed at turning the Royal Tavern site and surrounding land at Green Island into a major supermarket development.

### ODT Online Mon, 29 Apr 2013
New supermarket plan hailed
By Chris Morris
A planned multimillion-dollar supermarket development in Green Island could bring jobs and investment and trigger wider improvements in the area, a Dunedin city councillor [Colin Weatherall] says. Progressive Enterprises is in talks with the Dunedin City Council aimed at developing a Fresh Choice supermarket on land between Main South Rd and Shand St. The site includes the now-closed Royal Tavern, as well as land next to Green Island Memorial Park and a block of council-owned flats.

A Progressive Enterprises spokeswoman would only say there were no confirmed plans for Green Island, although the company was ”always looking for great sites and Dunedin is no exception”.

The development is yet to be confirmed, but council staff have confirmed ”reasonably serious discussions” began six months ago and are progressing.

The proposed site was zoned ”Local Activity 1”, which allowed for a supermarket as long as conditions – including site coverage and signage – were met. That meant a non-notified consent process – without submissions or a hearing – was most likely, unless special circumstances warranted otherwise.
Read more

Would you trust Dunedin City Council to protect public and private interests via a non-notified consent process ? ………..NO.

A major development should always be PUBLICLY NOTIFIED, otherwise there’s stuff to hide.

‘Red carpet not red tape’ is FULLY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

10 responses to “Green Island activity centre

  1. chirpbird

    I find it strange that a city councillor who may be on a Hearings Committee (and in this case was a past Chair of a Hearings Committee) should express a pro-application opinion before consent has been given. This is comparable to Mayor Cull expressing his support for the proposes hotel/apartment complex while the application was before the DCC as consent authority.
    Are there any established protocols used elsewhere about this, avoiding what looks very much like a conflict of interest?

    • Councillor Weatherall is a council planning commissioner, and continues to chair hearing committees. As far as I know he still meets with City Planning (Resource Management) on a regular basis to ‘guide’ things. —I could be wrong.

      Speight’s redevelopment (Rattray St) went down the same non-notified pathway – the rush to uphold ‘economic development’ stomped all over due diligence in protecting the public interest.

      That’s not to say the Speight’s redevelopment or the proposed supermarket for Green Island are bad and outlandish, but the test and refinement via public submission processes, or indeed appeals, is actually healthy!

      I guess with the Green Island supermarket and ‘prophesised’ street improvements in the LA1 zone, Cr Weatherall has his election platform. If he doesn’t stand we assume his son Scott will try for Council in his stead.

    • I dithered over how I wrote that and have previously explained the difference between a [elected] council planning commissioner and an independent planning commissioner at this site by referral to definitions at the Quality Planning (NZ) website. We’ve also discussed the use of independent planning commissions used in other countries.

      Several observers of DCC independent of this website have been expressing serious concerns about the very clear lack of distinction between governance and management functions at Dunedin City Council.

      Perpetuated by this council and the last. Every councillor has pet projects they are fully part of, it seems.

      Paul Orders needs to sort this out pronto, but we see him tracking around with Cull and the other deadweights.

  2. Hype O'Thermia

    I think “Red carpet not red tape” is excellent – WHEN it means that a correctly approved enterprise goes ahead the DCC should adopt a practice of open-mindedness and helpfulness. Instead of “you can’t do that” how about “What are you trying to achieve? Let’s see if there is a way you can achieve that and still build safely / respect the environment both built & natural?” And try very very hard to avoid expensive delays for permits & inspections, that would help. Being right up to date with methods and materials that do the required job to the required standard instead of saying “You have to use Product This, Method That, end of story, full stop, otherwise we won’t sign it off.” Dunedin desperately needs to change its reputation for being a complete bastard of a place to do anything new.

  3. Anonymous

    Very interesting that the ODT should break this story
    a) while negotiations have not been completed
    b) against the wishes of Moyles

    Why is Robert Clark still allowed to talk to the press unsupervised?

  4. chirpbird

    I agree that the DCC should be helpful to any planning applicant big or small. However, when I use the expression DCC here, I mean the employed DCC staff, as that’s part of their job. I don’t think the elected Councillors should be muscling in on this with press statements because of 1) conflict of interest risks later in their capacity as Planning Commissioners (those who are also city councillors) or even as city councillor colleagues of city councillor Planning Commissioners and 2) because it brings up the governance/management conflict which the DCC has been plagued with for years.
    Elizabeth, you say Cr Weatherall is an elected Planning Commissioner and that is true but he was not elected AS a Planning Commissioner by the voters who elected him to the DCC . I’d be surprised if many of them even knew what a Planning Commissioner is.
    Actually when I think of governance/management conflict, I still fume to think of the nice little scam recently pulled off by Cr Bezett with the aid of the ODT in going to the supposed rescue of supposedly mistreated DCC tenant threatened with evicted for refusing to refrain from feeding ducks. Has nobody heard of the Tenancy Tribunal? Or do people far prefer this hero/villain story manufactured by an electioneering councillor with the clear connivance of the ODT. Anyone who knows how our local government system works (and a newspaper ought to know) understands that an elected rep is not permitted to pull strings or ‘fix’ things by interfering with staff actions. I feel extremely sorry for DCC Housing Officer Graeme Dixon in this debacle, made out to be the big bad wolf and having no chance to defend himself – just treated as ‘collateral’ damage’.
    Once more, SHAME on the ODT!

  5. chirpbird

    Actually, looking again at the post you made at 4.13 pm, Elizabeth, it looks as if there is grounds to say that the DCC is not administering planning applications impartially, or at the very least can not be said to be being seen to be. A pro-development policy seems clearly to inform the processes being used (including media statements which amount to propaganda in favour of everything), even if it cannot be clearly demonstrated that the actual planning decisions are following an improper pro-development policy.
    This is particularly worrying because such a pro-development policy re planning applications cannot possibly be a policy of the elected council (it would be ultra vires for it to be so). So the question has to be asked: Whose policy is it?
    I think this is a fair enough question to ask the elected council collectively. In other words: Is the DCC satisfied that the manner in which they are carrying out their planning responsibilities gives ratepayers complete confidence in the impartiality of all processes used? And if not, how can they improve their processes to achieve that public confidence? And what is the relevance of public statements and media statements made by elected reps or staff members about planning applications still under consideration?
    Should elected reps and staff members even at all be permitted to make media statements about such matters? Or should both press and public be restricted to what information about any application is in the public domain?

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