NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential

Updated post Wed, 3 Mar 2015 at 2:39 p.m.

LM Building, detail from A Trapeznik, Dunedin's Warehouse Precinct p34 [Hocken Collections]LM Building, detail from A Trapeznik, Dunedin's Warehouse Precinct p68 [Hocken Collections] 1NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, built in stages between 1872 and 1885. Historical building and harbour views (1925) before the addition of the concrete top storey with saw-tooth roof in 1929, the space now proposed for residential use. Details from photographs reproduced in Trapeznik’s book Dunedin’s Warehouse Precinct, pp 34 & 68 [Hocken Collections]

Screenshot (193) 1Screenshot (195)31-33 Wharf Street, proximity to Steamer Basin and Chinese Garden
[Google Streetview 2013]

ODT 29.8.14 (page 12)
ODT 29.8.14 Letter to the editor Wilson p12 (1)

Chinese GardenL&M 1b IMG_6945,jpgChinese GardenL&M 1a IMG_6924Chinese GardenL&M 1a IMG_6933NZ Loan and Mercantile Building with forecourt of Chinese Garden, from Rattray Street. [Elizabeth Kerr]

### ODT Online Fri, 29 Aug 2014
DCC to foot apartments consent bill
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council is footing the bill to process the consent required for the development of the former Loan and Mercantile Building in the harbourside area. But the chairman of the panel deciding whether to grant consent to convert the building to apartments says the historic agreement has no bearing on the decision. The no fee arrangement is the result of a council resolution dated September 2011, in which the council agreed any resource consent required for the development and use of the building at 33 Thomas Burns St should be processed at no cost to the applicant. The resolution was part of a suite of agreements resulting from the mediation process that resolved appeals to Plan Change 7: Dunedin Harbourside.
Read more

Screenshot (183) 1Screenshot (188) 1Building details [Google Streetview 2013] – The NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, originally known as the Otago Wool Stores, was built in 1872 for stock and station agents Driver Stewart and Co. Heritage New Zealand lists the construction professionals as Walter Bell, Robert Arthur Lawson, and Mason & Wales Architects Ltd. According to Trapeznik, William Mason was the architect responsible for the plainer part of the complex in the early 1870s. RA Lawson designed the right-hand corner extension in 1880, with additions in 1883 and 1885.

█ More photos here.

Related Posts and Comments:
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing

█ For more on Dunedin’s Harbourside and Plan Change 7, enter the term *harbourside* in the search box at right.

Screenshot (196)Screenshot (197) 1NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (b. 1872-85), next to the former W. Gregg & Co. coffee factory (b. 1878) and the Wharf Hotel established circa 1880
[Google Streetview 2013]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

● NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co. Ltd Building – mention by Alexander Trapeznik in Dunedin’s Warehouse Precinct at http://www.genrebooks.co.nz/ebooks/DunedinsWarehousePrecinct.pdf (2014) pp66-71

● W. Gregg & Co. coffee factory and store, Fryatt St – mention by blogger David Murray at http://builtindunedin.com/2014/02/17/thomas-bedford-cameron-architect/

● Wharf Hotel – mention by Frank Tod in Pubs Galore: History of Dunedin Hotels 1848-1984 (Dunedin: Historical Publications, 1984) p61

Peter Entwisle recently researched the history and significance of the NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, and presented his findings in evidence to hearing for the application (scanned):
LUC-2014-259 History and Heritage Significance of the NZL&MA Building 19.8.14 (PDF, 2 MB)

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Heritage, Heritage NZ, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, ORFU, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

7 responses to “NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential

  1. Elizabeth

    At ODT Online:

    Just had a look
    Submitted by commoncents on Fri, 29/08/2014 – 7:42pm.

    Just had a look inside and was amazed at how insulated to noise this building was. If completed to plans, it will be an asset to city. Cannot see how this is different to residential buildings on Anzac Ave next to railway.

  2. Elizabeth

    At the end of today’s ODT editorial:

    “It is to be hoped his [Peter Gullen, for the Bell Tea Building] plans go more smoothly than those for Russell Lund’s restoration and apartment conversion of the Loan and Mercantile building. That proposal is complicated by the fact it is in the wharf area and has been opposed by neighbouring industrial businesses. The council hearing into Mr Lund’s consent application resumes this month.”
    Read more

    █ The hearing reconvenes for Russell Lund’s NZ Loan and Mercantile Building on Monday, 22 September at 9:30am. Supporters are warmly invited to attend.

  3. Elizabeth

    █ Another mention at ODT today (sometimes the District Plan is dead wrong, especially following COC’s appeal of Plan Change 7: Dunedin Harbourside that has, in my opinion, quite incorrectly delineated the extents of the Port 2 zone and the new Harbourside zone – see DP Map 49 The NZ Loan and Mercantile Building should be contained in the new Harbourside zone, along with the former Gregg’s coffee factory, the historic Wharf Hotel buildings, the former Cossens and Black Building, now the Customhouse restaurant, and the Cross Wharf/Customhouse Quay).

    “Last month, building owner Russell Lund criticised a council planner’s decision to recommend declining consent for his planned redevelopment of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Building. That proposal, which has attracted more support than opposition, is still being considered, with an adjourned hearing set to resume later this month.”

    See Part of South Dunedin project opposed
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/315271/part-south-dunedin-project-opposed

  4. Elizabeth

    LUC-2014-259

    The hearing for the application for resource consent to redevelop the upper floor of the NZ Loan and Mercantile Building for residential use concluded today.

    In his closing statement this morning, DCC planner Darryl Sycamore said: “Overall, when considering the evidence put forward to the Committee I am not persuaded the key issues can be sufficiently mitigated. Nor do I accept the applicant has demonstrated any desire to genuinely address these matters. Evidence of the submitters further reinforced my concern about adequate provision of parking or how future development will be managed.

    “In my opinion, the surety to industry in a strategic port area must be maintained and the risk of introducing residential activity to the area is simply too high. As such, and taking into account the information provided thus far, I continue to recommend the application be declined.”

    This, as the conclusion of Mr Sycamore’s larger closing, well preceded the applicant’s right of reply in order of submissions by Peter Entwisle (national and regional heritage significance, expert for the applicant), Russell Lund (applicant) and Alastair Logan (counsel for the applicant), with Don Anderson (resource management consultant/planner for the applicant) in support.

    The applicant agrees with Mr Sycamore (for DCC) that the NZ Loan and Mercantile Building is a true exception. The applicant’s right of reply has it, through Mr Logan, that “the building has historic and architectural values of a different order of magnitude than other heritage buildings in the Port 2 and Industrial 1 zones”.

    Further, Mr Logan maintains that “preservation of heritage is an important aspect of sustainable management” – and that “without viable uses, heritage buildings are lost”.

    Given Mr Lund’s submission(s) on the receiving environment, mitigations, existing consented residential accommodation in the Port 2 zone, and rebuttal of opposing submitters’ claims (particularly those of counsel and experts for the Esco foundry; and purportedly five parties including the Otago Chamber of Commerce, through counsel Phil Page), in my opinion, it strongly appears there is genuine intent on the part of the applicant to ensure that the effects of the proposal are no more than minor – that this has been apparent from early on in the application process.

    Further, conditions discussed at hearing offer appropriate mitigation – to ensure compatibility of mixed uses as set out in zoning objectives and policies. Note, the Industrial or Port 2 zones do not exclude residential activity.

    The Hearing Committee decision will be interesting! The commissioners are Andrew Noone (chair), David Benson-Pope and Lee Vandervis.

  5. Elizabeth

    Awaiting Debbie Porteous’s article on the hearing to appear at ODT – she seemed to be taking lots of notes on the day, and may have even learnt something. Her previous article clearly lacked balance and offered no right of reply to the applicant and their experts. Ms Porteous must be proud of own ability for rant, bias and misguided slant.

  6. Elizabeth

    Nothing at ODT again today.

    (At this rate maybe next year, Debbie !! Pull finger. If you don’t know how to follow up with a first rate discursive Heritage news story pass your notes to David Loughrey.)

  7. Elizabeth

    Updated post:

    Peter Entwisle recently researched the history and significance of the NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, and presented his findings in evidence to hearing for the application on 19 August 2014. A scanned copy of his evidence has been added at the foot of the post at the top of this thread.

    At the reconvened hearing on 22 September 2014 Peter added a comparative study to extend his previous argument (which argument the City’s planner took care to acknowledge and accept at hearing) – this evidence is not provided here.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s