![View Street from Moray Place [Google Street View - Dec 2007]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/view-street-from-moray-place-google-street-view-dec-2007.jpg)
Google Street View – Dec 2012 [screenshot]
View Street. A heritage street containing historic townhouses (once private family residences, of which only one remains in this use) and apartment buildings. Otago Girls’ High School provides an ‘architectural’ dénouement at the top of street. The church building to Moray Place and View Street has been converted to upmarket apartments.
The infamous 2 View Street (student proof carpet….) is second from right (cream painted facade), a former church hall then backpackers. It was purchased by a Mr Nicolas Beach in 2010. Mr Beach on-sold the property for an artificial profit (don’t ask). From that time it’s been all downhill for other people living on the street —with so little support from city authorities, the property owner (currently, an absentee living in Australia), and the university. It’s called turning a blind eye, passing the buck.
—
![2 View Street Dunedin [qv.co.nz]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2-view-street-dunedin-qv-co-nz.jpg)
Quotable Value NZ [screenshot]
—
WHO OWNS 2 VIEW STREET
From the DCC Rates Book:
Ratepayer name(s): Ross Maxwell Pty Limited
[oh look, that infamous firm] Postal address for this assessment
C/O Edinburgh Realty Limited PO Box 5772 Moray Place Dunedin 9058
NZ Companies Register:
ROSS MAXWELL PTY LIMITED (5447574) Registered
http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/5447574
Showing 1 of 1 directors:
Ross MAXWELL
55 Abbott Street, Wallsend NSW, 2287, Australia
Total Number of Shares: 1
Extensive Shareholding: No
Shareholders in Allocation:
Allocation 1:
1 shares (100.00%)
Ross MAXWELL
55 Abbott Street, Wallsend NSW, 2287, Australia
—
Related Posts and Comments:
11.5.15 Don’t for Chrissakes play down effects of liquor barons #DUD
11.5.15 Aftermath of Sunday TVNZ on ‘Party Central’
● 8.5.15 Sunday TVNZ #Dunedin —10 May TV1 at 7:00 pm
2.4.15 University rolls down, Harlene not the only problem….
28.3.15 University of Otago landscaping
22.3.15 University of Otago: More national and global publicity #HydeStreet
18.2.15 University of Otago: Toga Party 2015 #video
16.2.15 University of Otago can’t beat broadcast news and social media #image
8.5.14 Student Proof Carpet – New Zealand #video
15.2.14 University of Otago: Starter questions for Harlene
█ For more, enter the terms *university*, *harlene*, *alcohol*, *publicity*, *hyde*, *party*, *octagon mud*, *student*, or *blaikie* in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
Oh, here’s another idea for our fearful political masters. Vary residential property rules. The intent would be to prevent Dickensian slum lords building their empires anew in Dunedin. More than 4 renters in a property, cough up commercial rates. Pay commercial profit tax on sale of said slum. Lots of developers are skirting tax and building and creating these monstrosities. These dwellings consume MORE than their fair share of council monies – water, sewerage, noise patrols. Hit em in the wallet.
LOVE IT
Some ordinary old family homes have been “studentized” by dividing rooms irrespective of adequate windows, ventilation, fire egress.
You’re right, pb, old houses (ie not modern McMansions) very seldom had more than 4 bedrooms. More often 3 – parents, girls, and boys (sharing, it wasn’t seen as necessary for every child to have a separate bedroom). For rentals the old living room became bedroom No 4. The 5, 6 and more bedroom properties have been purpose-built for student ranching, either that or they are the kind I mentioned that have been divided with or without permits, for battery farming of students. Commercial, can’t call it anything else.
The tenants of Backpackers at 2 View Street have NO ability to run a controlled super party (‘Ball’) catering to 150 ‘guests’. Again, residents and property owners in the street will suffer disturbance, intimidation and loss of financial returns. That’s all those particular boy-tenants are good for, as are their drunken disorderly feral friends.
The question might be: a no-party (AT ALL) clause in future tenancy agreements at that address – given their proven ability to wreck havoc and cause adverse effects for street residents and city parking.
At what point can the property owner and or property manager of 2 View Street be SUED.
Which liquor company is backing the ‘ball’ – or, which supermarket chain ?
Let’s watch the University of Otago wash its hands of any responsibility, shall we Harlene ??!! (Proctor Simon Thompson is already signed out to retirement, we hear – so no support from him, what’s changed….)
—
### ODT Online Tue, 14 Jul 2015
View St event worries neighbour
By Carla Green
Residents of a notorious Dunedin student party flat have sent a letter to neighbours, saying they are ”having a Ball” on Friday but are ”really keen to minimise any inconvenience to you”. However, the owner of a neighbouring building, John Leng, is sceptical the event in the View St flat will be any different from previous parties.
Read more
Received from View Street resident.
Tue, 14 July 2015 at 2:14 p.m.
The following email has been sampled for publication by What if? Dunedin.
—
From: {View Street resident, name withheld. -Eds}
Subject: Another party at the Backpackers makes news
Date: 14 July 2015 2:11:07 pm NZST
To: Mayor Dave Cull
Cc: Sue Bidrose [DCC Chief Executive], Simon Pickford [General Manager Services and Development], Simon Thompson [Proctor, University of Otago], Mark Miller [General Manager, Edinburgh Realty], Kevin Mechen [DCC Liquor Licensing Co-ordinator/Project Officer], John Sule [DCC Senior Planner], Cr David Benson-Pope [Dunedin City Council]
Please find attached the letter received recently from the tenants of the Backpackers informing us of their intention to hold a Ball of 130 people at No.2 View St. What greater evidence can you have that this property is no ordinary neighbour to contend with living and working beside?
Does this venue comply with fire regulations for this many people?
Are they charging for entry, entertainment, food and liquor, as this would surely constitute a commercial enterprise and require permits?
We know this place hasn’t complied with noise restrictions for years, with noise abatement notices issued and still enforceable.
Is there a door charge to cover potential fine costs, as there has been in the past? The last 5 years of annual University of Otago Code of Conduct punishments issued prove these are water off a duck’s back and completely ineffective.
While the tenants might not necessarily be the perpetrators, visiting people noise (yelling, screaming and whistling) or car doors slamming at all hours don’t seem to constitute disruption as far as anyone sees it and becomes well beyond the control of a couple of security people.
What provision is made for overheating and toilet facilities for this many people? {Sentences deleted. -Eds}
The last time residents were informed of an ‘organised’ event like it at this address was 3 years ago, we felt relieved to be supplied with a cellphone contact for the evening. That invitation-only, triple 21st celebration saw crowds grow beyond the control of those manning the affair. The police and fire brigade were called out, the place evacuated and at least 300 people ended up partying so loud out on the street, that the contact person couldn’t even hear his cellphone! Partying and fighting continued until Police were freed up enough to eventually arrive in force and usher people away at around 3am. The resulting mess was left for the DCC services and permanent residents to clean up the following week. Retaliation and resentment from successive groups of tenants at the Backpackers, has been a constant factor {…} Long term renters have left the area, to be replaced by people attracted to the nightclub and party scene.
While we appreciate this attempt is an improvement on the usual behaviour of just going ahead unannounced anyway with a large scale function and commandeering the street, we fail to see how the organisers can guarantee that we will not have to contend with disruption once these 130+ people have had a drink or two. {…} Some may end up partying out on the roof again, as occurred most recently in February, where one person rather conveniently “fell” directly onto a DCC noise control officer, who was confiscating their sound equipment.
It’s a fact partying around Dunedin has become increasingly defiant in recent years and more so since the Sunday programme. {…}
Police {have been informed} of our concerns. No doubt they’ll be stretching their resources again to cover the situation as best they can. It could well be a test case for how events like it may be run in other areas of this city for parties hosting over a certain number of guests. {…}
● Attachment: Ball at Backpackers, letter (PDF, 493 KB)
[ends]
Elizabeth – if our Mayor had taken the trouble to include streets like View St that immediately adjoin the CBD in the LAP as “alcohol free” this proposed event would not have even got past first base.
Lyndon – Mayor Cull has an awful BLINDSPOT to View Street, and wider, the City Rise.
Unfortunately for Dave, it’s is set to haunt him badly, through MEDIA, for the rest of this year as the Draft 2GP gets pulled apart by the interested Dunedin Public. Expect APPEALS.
Information:
The owner of 2 View Street changed this year. He was unable to select his tenants due to the managing agent having already signed on tenants for 2015.
This year, DCC Environmental Health records show only one complaint received (17 February) for one incident of excessive noise at 2 View Street.
Note: Noise Control can only deal to incidents of “excessive noise” as defined by the Resource Management Act 1991.
█ All complaints of disorder should be immediately reported to NZ Police.
While we’re on the subject of more retrospective corruption at the DCC. Am I just being naive or is there something else to be investigated in our fair city, in that the notorious No2 View St – previously a well managed backpackers (which through its many years operating as such, proved no problem for the neighbourhood), somehow miraculously manages to ‘sneak’ through planning approval in 2010-11 with NO NOTIFICATION necessary to become a notorious 24 bedroom unmanaged student accommodation complex??
Until recent TV coverage bought it to national attention, this virtual ‘nightclub which never closes’ has generated countless complaints in the 5 years since this questionable decision was granted permission to go ahead. Not only did the developer Nick Beach manage to swing the decision as not befitting of a ‘change of use’ ruling, but he also managed to convince the planners this was a ‘TWO UNIT’ deal meaning the rates have been (and continue to be) a ridiculous $4,000 a year compared to Jon Leng’s similarly-sized (but much classier) apartment complex next door – rated at $30,000+.
This disparity is a total travesty. Mr Beach has since sold this development on at a huge profit – all cashed up to go work his special kind of ‘developer magic’ again elsewhere no doubt. What a joke our DCC planning department has been. The cost to the city resources due to the years of disruption from this one development and the damage and disruption to surrounding property owners, their visiting occupants and their businesses, has been incalculable over this period and an appalling injustice. Who made these decisions back then? In light of Cr Vandervis’ allegations, I feel justified in asking was there a backhander involved here too?
I wonder if Mr Beach knew Colin Weatherall, or Dave Cull or whomever at City Planning. Good to track the paperwork on the DCC property file for 2 View St if it’s not already lost or destroyed.