Interesting: Donovan Rypkema’s comments about planners’ preoccupation with densification, affecting communities living in older and historic residential neighbourhoods. He suggests sharing the density around but first, development of public transportation nodes requires attention. Dunedin’s draft second generation district plan (2GP) is heading to public notification in September this year.
### radionz.co.nz Fri, 13 Mar 2015
RNZ National – Nine to Noon with Kathryn Ryan How important is heritage preservation in our cities
09:31 Donovan Rypkema is president of Heritage Strategies International, a Washington DC consulting firm. His book, “The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader’s Guide”, is now in its third edition and his firm has had clients including the World Bank, the Inter American Development Bank, the Council of Europe and the United Nations Development Programme. He’s in New Zealand as a guest of the Civic Trust Auckland. Audio | Download: OggMP3 ( 16′ 02″ ) | RNZ Link
█ In 2010, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (now Heritage New Zealand) hosted Rypkema on a three-city tour, including Dunedin. During his visit he met with city leaders and business people; and presented public lectures at the Old BNZ in Princes St and on campus.
****
‘The Dunedin City Council provides advice and support for building owners who want to upgrade and lease their buildings. The Christchurch earthquake acted as a catalyst in Dunedin, forcing important decisions on the future of the older parts of the city.’ –Glen Hazelton, DCC policy planner (heritage)
### idealog.co.nz 04 Mar 2015 Making heritage work: reaping rewards from Dunedin’s classic architecture
By Suzanne Middleton
The Christchurch earthquakes changed the rules around heritage buildings. Dunedin had to decide to bowl or strengthen. The writer talked to some enlightened enthusiasts in the old warehouse district who chose the heritage option – and haven’t regretted it. Read more
Originally published in Idealog #54 (page 40)
Old BNZ Building via Idealog/Suzanne Middleton [click to enlarge]
NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, Customhouse, Wharf Hotel [click to enlarge]
Image by whatifdunedin (lowres) – colour shots when appeal quashed
Note: Lunds were responsible for construction of the Cross Wharf, and reconstruction of the listed HM Custom House as a restaurant, on behalf of the Otago Regional Council.
Received from Lee Vandervis
Fri, 13 Mar 2015 at 9:32 a.m.
█ Message: Your readers may be interested in an example of how extraordinarily difficult it often is for Councillors to get information from staff – especially if that information is about staff.
An important example is highlighted in the following email trail – important because as the original Citifleet whistleblower in 2011, I am still getting flack and having information withheld that could help to get to the bottom of DCC frauds.
Thank you for this sudden response after more than 3 months of nothing.
Further follow up LGOIMA requests are as follows;
Why has this multiple LGOIMA request not been acknowledged or decided upon within the required 21 working days?
When you say that this is “our response” who exactly has been responsible for the decisions in the response?
Are you aware that the last time I went to the ombudsman to hurry up an information request, it took several attempts and 11 months to get an answer?
Looking forward to a response by return.
Cr. Vandervis
——————————
On 11/03/15 4:03 PM, “Grace Ockwell” [DCC] wrote:
Good afternoon Lee,
Thank you for your email of 20 November 2014 and your follow-up email requesting information about the Deloitte Report on Citifleet. Your request has now been forwarded to me to process. It has been considered under the provisions of LGOIMA and the following response is provided. I have repeated your request (or parts thereof) to give context to our response.
a full copy of the original Deloitte Report on Citifleet [including all appendices] as referred to below.
The Police have yet to conclude their investigation of this matter and therefore a copy of the full Deloitte report is still withheld pursuant to section 6(a) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the maintenance of the law and the detection of offences. It is also withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA to protect the privacy of individuals.
As part of the full report from Deloittes I also wish to have, again on grey paper if necessary, the separate Deloitte investigation report and recommendations to CEO Bidrose regarding investigations into the activities of ‘certain DCC employees’. [2.10(b)]
The information provided to the CEO in relation to staff is withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA to protect the privacy of individuals and pursuant to section 7(2)(c) as the information provided is subject to an obligation of confidence.
In addition I wish to see the Deloitte file ‘to support a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office/Police’, and any Citifleet related advice to Council’s legal advisors.
All correspondence between the Council and our legal advisors (including correspondence between Deloitte and our legal advisors on the Citifleet matter) is withheld pursuant to s 7(2)(g) of LGOIMA to protect legal professional privilege. Additionally, some but not all of the material is also withheld pursuant to section 6(a) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the maintenance of the law and the detection of offences.
Finally I wish to have sent to me the electronic copy preserved by Deloitte of information that DCC controls as referred to in 2.10(a) and any associated analysis results.
The Police have not yet concluded their investigation of this matter and therefore the preserved electronic copy of information held by Deloitte which the Council controls is withheld pursuant to section 6(a) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the maintenance of the law and the detection of offences. It is also withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA to protect the privacy of individuals.
As you are aware, as we have withheld information, you have the right pursuant to section 27(3) of LGOIMA to have our decision to withhold information reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely
Grace Ockwell
Governance Support Officer
Dunedin City Council
——————————
From: Lee Vandervis Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:37:03 +1300 To: Sandy Graham [DCC], Sue Bidrose [DCC] Conversation: Further LGOIMA requests Subject: Re: Further LGOIMA requests
Dear Sandy and Sue,
Can you please update me by return on where these LGOIMA requests have progressed to?
Regards,
Cr. Vandervis
——————————
On 24/12/14 10:13 AM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:
Dear Sandy,
Again I request a full copy of the original Deloitte Report on Citifleet [including all appendices] as referred to below.
I can accept that the full report may have to be provided on grey paper.
As part of the full report from Deloittes I also wish to have, again on grey paper if necessary, the separate Deloitte investigation report and recommendations to CEO Bidrose regarding investigations into the activities of ‘certain DCC employees’. [2.10(b)]
In addition I wish to see the Deloitte file ‘to support a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office/Police’, and any Citifleet related advice to Council’s legal advisors.
Finally I wish to have sent to me the electronic copy preserved by Deloittes of information that DCC controls as referred to in 2.10(a) and any associated analysis results.
Ratepayers have paid quarter of a million dollars for the production of this information and I wish to see all of it as a public representative in the public interest.
It is not acceptable to me to have only been provided with the public redacted report along with the public at such a late pre-Christmas stage.
Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
——————————
On 13/10/14 10:32 PM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:
Dear Sandy,
You have not answered the question as to why one elected representative [the Mayor] seeing the entire Deloitte report [and parts of the report appearing in Audit and Risk Subcommittee agendas] is not likely to “prejudice the maintenance of the law including the investigation and detection of offences.” but that this is still an excuse for not showing the entire report to other elected representatives like myself. Especially given the number of comments the Mayor and CEO have been making to the media regarding the subject of the Deloitte Report.
Your claim that the Stadium review is not yet completed and is still in draft form directly contradicts the advice of the quoted Audit and Risk agenda of 7/10/14 which plainly says that the Stadium “external review has been completed”. If the former, since it can’t be both, why can’t I see it anyway? And why have we then been misled in the A&R agenda?
Being “of course entitled to have that decision reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsmen.” is a farcical affront, given the last response from this dysfunctional excuse for a government department took ELEVEN MONTHS to reply to my request to see the faults list for the long completed Town Hall redevelopment, which you also refused.
This systematic stonewalling of this elected representative by DCC staff is unacceptable to me.
![Donovan Rypkema1a [myhsf.org]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/donovan-rypkema1a-myhsf-org.jpg)
### radionz.co.nz Fri, 13 Mar 2015
Old BNZ Building via Idealog/Suzanne Middleton [click to enlarge]
NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, Customhouse, Wharf Hotel [click to enlarge]
What if? Dunedin... 