Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing

Liability Cull is not 100% correct. So what’s new.

The ‘harbourside’ public consultation, including pre-plan change workshops, picked up good support for IMPROVED public access to the waterline (note, via a reinstated Rattray Street rail crossing at grade) and a REVAMPED Steamer Basin.

WE HAVE BEEN ROBBED.
Cull says the harbourside plan change was a mistake. It most surely was not a mistake! The proposed plans for how the plan change would be articulated in the area were the problem. Nearly everyone wanted historic industrial sheds and wharf sheds to remain and be redeveloped sympathetically with respect to heritage values, enhancing the land-water connection. Unfortunately, and fortunately, the Otago Chamber of Commerce with five partners appealed the plan change decision, significantly dashing the intents and purposes of the “vision”. Nonetheless, this shouldn’t stop future redevelopment of the ‘edge’ at the Steamer Basin, for greater community recreational use, with some commercial opportunities built in. We still haven’t got walk-on/walk-off access for the cruising yachts heading to subantarctic waters —embarrassing.

OK DCC’s broke at the moment, but ORC…

Cull – Crash one (PC-7), get bent on inviting the real mistake… the $100m tombstone apartment and hotel complex at 41 Wharf Street, with all inherent costs to Dunedin ratepayers and residents. That’s where Cull stands, nowhere good. Not even close.

Plan Change 7 – Harbourside

### ODT Online Mon, 21 Oct 2013
Harbour project labelled mistake
By Chris Morris
Pursuing a vision of harbourside redevelopment in Dunedin has so far cost the city’s ratepayers more than $2.6 million, it has been confirmed. The revelation, prompted by Otago Daily Times inquiries, has led the Otago Chamber of Commerce to label the Dunedin City Council’s ”grandiose” plan a mistake. It has also prompted Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, who was an early critic of the proposal, to suggest it should never have got off the ground.
Read more

DCC’s habourside costs – $2.6m (via ODT)
• Legal costs – $401,660
• Settlement – $200,000
• Other costs – $315,633
• Capital costs – $1,697,192
• Total – $2,614,485

Capital costs of $1,697,192 comprising:

• 2005-06 – purchase of 20 Thomas Burns St – $497,500
• 2011-12 – purchase of 30 Thomas Burns St – $1,199,692

NZHPT Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area (1)NZHPT Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area

Related Posts and Comments:
3.8.13 SH88 notice of requirement
21.4.13 ‘Yellow Balloon’ —Blue Oyster invitation to (TOWER) Submitters et al
9.4.13 Dunedin: Future service town to Shell? #realitycheck
24.9.12 Stadium Councillors back coastal oil exploration
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel
● 26.10.11 Dunedin Harbourside: DCC “caved”
17.12.10 HARBOURSIDE Announcement
17.4.10 Harbourside: more negotiation to come
16.4.10 DCC Media Release – Harbourside Stage Two
13.4.10 Dunedin – an oil base?
1.4.10 DCC Media Release – Harbourside
27.3.10 Withdraw proposed Harbourside plan change in its entirety!
18.3.10 Otago Chamber of Commerce campaigns for harbourside
18.3.10 Dunedin harbourside for oil base?
10.3.13 Plan Change 7: Harbourside – remove stage two
9.3.10 Plan Change 7: Harbourside
5.3.10 Plan Change 7 – Dunedin Harbourside
26.2.10 Latest on Dunedin’s offshore oil and gas prospects
13.2.09 HOT PRESS – Dunedin Harbourside Zone

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile*, *harbourside*, *hotel*, *balloon*, *shell*, *anadarko* or *SH88* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

ODT: Piece of maritime history moved
Another lost opportunity cut in half — Te Whaka at Birch St Wharf
Image: norsetroll.blogspot.com

Te Whaka, Birch St Wharf [norsetroll.blogspot.com]

11 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, ORC, Otago Polytechnic, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

11 responses to “Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing

  1. Phil

    The fall-out from “Jim’s Legacy” will continue for a while to come in many areas. About 5 or 6 years ago, it was discovered that a number of owners of commercial buildings in the Harbourside area had quietly been converted into rental apartments. Complete with tenants. Despite being granted Building Consent by the DCC (a cockup story for another day with consents granted not including for appropriate noise level insulation in a shared activity zone), they were operating a non-complying activity without the necessary Resource Consent. Once sprung, they applied for retroactive Resource Consent. That’s a surefire winning tactic, as any Dunedin developer will tell you. City Planning never refuses consent for something which has already been built. That’s way too much work. Anyway, during the formal Resource Consent application, the local industry operators lodged a collective objection, citing reverse sensitivity. They were worried that (and rightly so) noise complaints would come in from the new residential properties against their existing industrial properties. The applicant countered that the Harbourside Plan zoning changes would be shortly approved, which would then make residential activity a complying activity with no Resource Consent being required. It was just a question of dates. At this point, Lil Jim stepped into the frame, and told the head of City Planning that the Harbourside redevelopment was the one sure thing that would be happening in the city and, as residential properties would be a vital part of the redevelopment, no Resource Consent would be required to be sought from those current non-complying landlords who would soon become completely legal. The Resource Consent application was tossed, the industrial operators told to go away, and the illegal residential properties were made legal. DCC contracted noise control officers who continue to be ratepayer funded to knock on the doors of the existing industrial buildings every time one of the new residential property residents complains. Thanks for that, Jim.

  2. http://www.dunedintv.co.nz/content/harbourside-development-could-be-back-agenda

    So, now Cull is for harbourside development. All in the space of days. Who is lobbying to pay for this?

  3. So, the ink is hardly dry on the ballot papers and already Cull is itching to get spending again. Harbourside development raises its head again. Let’s have more coffee shops and foodies down there. Why not? After all the Octagon City Centre can’t cope with the demand. The man knows no bounds. Neville Peak and Bunson Peep are a bit of a worry as well on the subject. By the way, did anybody notice in that film clip how busy the Nor’easter was? The trees were fair flailing. Nice to hold on to your hats and balance a muffin and coffee at the same time.

  4. Elizabeth

    Further to ODT’s article Harbour project labelled mistake (21.10.13)

    via DCC responses to LGOIMA requests 2013 (online information):

    Total Harbourside Costs 17 October 2013 LGOIMA (PDF, 48.6 KB)
    Breakdown of all Legal, Settlement, Capital and other costs for the Harbourside Plan Change 2005- 2013

  5. $2.614 million. Easy come easy go. ‘She’ll be right, the ratepayers won’t even notice.’

  6. Elizabeth

    Tue, 2 Aug 2016
    ODT: Harbour proposal revisited
    The battle for Dunedin’s waterfront is to resume as Port Otago calls for the city’s harbourside zone to be expanded. The suggestion – to be considered at this week’s second generation district plan (2GP) hearings – is that the harbourside’s mixed-use rules be extended to cover part of Fryatt St, on the north side of Steamer Basin. That would pave the way for the redevelopment of Port Otago’s empty Fryatt St sheds, Port Otago chief executive Geoff Plunkett said. The suggestion was among three from major players with a stake in the waterfront’s future, which together could dramatically reshape the area.

  7. Hype O'Thermia

    Stakeholders eh. By the pricking of my thumbs … experience tells me something rorty this way comes: “The suggestion was among three from major players with a stake in the waterfront’s future”.

    • Elizabeth

      It was also prompted by my initial submission on the Proposed 2GP recommending re-zoning of a block of land at Fryatt Street and I have since received the support in writing of Heritage New Zealand and Port Otago/Chalmers Properties (via their solicitor Len Andersen), amongst others. I was also concerned about the retention of at least two of the historic wharfsheds nearest the Monarch berth, for adaptive reuse.

      Nothing rorty about any of it from my side or theirs. Historic heritage needs a use.

      • Hype O'Thermia

        Thank goodness! Nearly everywhere there is a distinction between those who have a “stake” in something involving Council, as distinct from all the rest of us mushrooms, it means Old Boys and Our Very Very Good Friends, the ones who retire to Queenstown and Wanaka – and Tarras perhaps?

        • Elizabeth

          Yes. Can’t argue with you there.

          This is an unresolved hangover from the public consultation carried out over a long period for the, dare I say, Harbourside Plan Change of old…. but also consultation with building owners and lessees of the properties incorporated into the Heritage New Zealand (then NZHPT) registration of the Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area.

          NZHPT Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area (1)Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area | List No 7767

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 )

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