Image: Paterson Pitts Group
Image: Thom Craig Architects
### rnz.co.nz Wed, 10 May 2017 at 6:13 p.m.
RNZ News: New Zealand / Business
Hotel plans prioritise visitors over residents – objectors
By Lydia Anderson – Otago/Southland reporter
Residents above the proposed site for Dunedin’s first five-star hotel say it’s not right their view of the city will be blocked so tourists can have a better one. The 17-storey ‘Electric Thistle’ Moray Place design would sit behind the city’s heritage buildings in the Octagon. More than 200 submissions on the project have been filed – three quarters of them in opposition. The hotel’s height and modern design has some residents worried – at about 64m high it would be significantly taller than the current 11m limit imposed on the chosen site, which is currently a carpark.
….The proposed hotel would feature 210 hotel rooms plus apartments, cafe, a wine club, public hot pools and conference rooms.
….The hotel’s developer [?]* Tony Tosswill, who represented Horizon Hospitality Group, said the hotel was being built high rather than wide out of consideration for the views of people living in the city rise area. To meet international five-star standards the hotel needed views and around 200 rooms, he said.
….Public hearings on the submissions will take place in July.
Read more
● Full application: 143-193 Moray Place – LUC-2017-48 and SUB-2017-26
● View all submissions
****
The applicant is NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5876487
The name of the building developer/financier hasn’t been announced. Asian finance is suspected as being needed but likely not obtained yet; New Zealand’s Australian-owned banks aren’t providing credit on speculative developments at this scale.
Pullman Hotels is fêted as the hotel manager.
█ Spokesman for the (unnamed) developer is Anthony Tosswill of Tekapo, NZ. Mr Tosswill is not the developer, as may have been construed from MSM news items.
****
The following comments from Mr Tosswill were received for publication by What if? Dunedin in late April. Links to the threads where they appear are provided here:
2017/04/24 at 9:37 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
why do you wish to destroy employment in Dunedin, why do you want to prevent creating Jobs and more revenues for the Community and supporting Tourism and local Business?
Why do you wish to keep subsidizing Dunedin venues when they can support themselves with the Services that this Hotel can offer.
Why dont you disclose who you are so People can judge you and your motives. The Jobs that Cadburys will make redundant are you able to give them Jobs or the new Students ending there education.
When was the Last New Hotel Built in Dunedin? Dunedin None Queenstown 6, Queenstown 26,000 Dunedin 126,000.
How about supporting Development, and Jobs or are you one of those that just as you say destroy everything before its starts.
Who am I, I am a spokesman for the Developer
2017/04/24 at 9:46 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
Great Video, it suggests you are supporting Terrorism. Is that amusing blowing up things. It also suggests you want to stop Jobs, supporting local Business. preventing People attending Events and Venues, dislike tourism and dont want a venue that supports Dunedin. I suggest you at least remove the Blowing up of the Developments its in very bad taste.
When reading comments on this site its easy to see why it has so little support.
I am a spokesman for the Developer, who are you?
2017/04/25 at 4:58 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Peter.
I would like to point out that Residents in Londo complained about the about the Shard in London and the London Eye yet, Yet Today we Recognize London for these 2 Buildings as they are also Top Tourists sites as is the Palace. Hindsight is marvelous
Do you recall the complaints when the stadium prior to been Built now its recognized as one of the Top 20 in the World. Dunedin be proud.
One may tell us of Identical Buildings so we can learn from your expertise.
The Design relates to minimizing views from residents behind plus maximizing views of Tourists that want to appreciate Dunedin and its Harbour we believe in our design and concept.
Retrospective opinions are great if you are trying to stop the future progress of Dunedin, if your view point is taken seriously its Dunedin’s loss.
Spokesman for the Developer.
2017/04/25 at 5:28 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
Hi Elizabeth,
you made several comments. Architectural design.
a) Design and the Changes,
In Response, I respectfully point out that does not relate to commercial facts or results, hence for any 5 Star Hotel and in Particular in Dunedin our view is very different but it is for this type of Development whats been Built in All Cities around the World, we are one of the 99% (Not the 1%)
b) We have incorporated a Design that shows off Dunedin, with new Technology that is expected today by 5 Star Guests. Dunedin is the Showcase, the Development is to provide Access to the City not be the City~
You suggest and refer to your time and Resources “What are They”?
It Also appears that you think Asians are also different or at least there Money is, maybe you should complain also about the contribution made by Asians that go to Otago University is their money bad? I like Asian People, I married to one.
Love to know more about whatever Cargo Growth is? Are you a Supporter of Cadbury Factory Closure as well? Is that not a local Resource?
400 Persons Daily Spending Money in New 5 Star Hotel in Dunedin is Growth to Dunedin, please re add up the equation since you have an alleged financial background your sums should add up one cold think,
Good on you Farmer for having an independent view point congratulation is this Elizabeth’s Blog its appears to be!
Spokesman for the Developer
—
Related Posts and Comments:
● 4.5.17 Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building
● 7.4.17 Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls
● 5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
This post is offered in the public interest.
What if? Dunedin... 
Sometimes academics, with the best of intentions, resort to use of style labels and ‘cultural references’ to describe Everyman’s Ugly. Less of the hand wringing please, Mr Dawes – just deal with the Resource Management Act processes and get over it. Thankfully, however, Mr Dawes is a submitter on the application.
Of course Modernist style architecture IS NOT thoroughly discredited – but is a builder special like the Tosswill hotel, actually ‘modernist’ architecture. I will save that discussion for another day.
█ Read all submissions received here.
****
Tue, 23 May 2017
ODT: Modernist architecture a blot on the landscape
By Greg Dawes
OPINION —I have no opinion on whether Dunedin needs a new hotel. Assuming we do, I have no opinion on what kind it should be: a large international-style facility or a smaller, boutique-style establishment, perhaps in one of our historic buildings. Nor do I have an opinion on where it ought to be situated, whether downtown or near the stadium or harbourside. What I do have an opinion about is the design of the proposed hotel in Moray Place, which exhibits some of the worst features of a thoroughly discredited “modernist” style of architecture. Cont/
ODT 23.5.17 (page 6)
ODT 16.5.17 (page 8)
Wed, 28 Jun 2017
ODT: Two from North Island on hotel hearings panel
By Chris Morris
The panel to decide the fate of Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel bid features one familiar face and two from the North Island. Tekapo businessman Anthony Tosswill’s bid to build a 17-storey hotel and apartment tower in Dunedin would be considered over five days, beginning on July 31, it was confirmed yesterday. […] The panel of three would be headed by chairman Andrew Noone, now an Otago regional councillor, acting in his role as an independent commissioner. […] Alongside him will be fellow independent commissioners Stephen Daysh, of Napier, and Gavin Lister, of Auckland. Cont/
I feel a joint appeal coming on….
There’s no appeal in the design of this joint, Elizabeth.
Nope, not at all Gurglars.
Just another leaky building from China with a Kiwi non-hotel designing architect’s name attached…
‘Big Malc’s’ got a submission in supporting it. Suppose it makes sense, it will be pretty much visible from Queenstown where he normally resides.
Click to access SUB-2017-26-and-LUC-2017-48-Submission-Form-Malcolm-Farry_Redacted.pdf
Yes the list of submitters has its curiosities.
For some time we’ve known the address(es) at which Mr Farry resides. The redaction of his contacts is mildly amusing.
Resource Consent Application LUC 2017-48 and SUB 2017-26, 143 – 193 Moray Place, Dunedin (Proposed Hotel)
The hearing will be held on Mon 31 Jul, Tue 1 Aug, Wed 2 Aug, Thu 3 Aug and Fri 4 Aug 2017 in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers (off the Octagon). The hearing will commence at 9.30 am each day.
█ Consultant Planner’s Section 42a Report (PDF, 4.3 MB)
****
Agenda and all documents including submissions at:
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/notified-applications-pending/luc-2017-48-and-sub-2017-26
****
ODT has approached the Tosswill man, spokesperson for the developer (Not! the developer) for comment. Might be able to read that in tomorrow’s paper.
Fri, 7 Jul 2017
ODT: Decline hotel consent: report
By Chris Morris
A planning report is recommending consent for Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel be declined. The report, made public late this afternoon, has cited the hotel’s height, visual dominance of surrounding heritage buildings and shading impact as key reasons to decline consent. The recommendation to the panel of independent commissioners came in a report by independent consultant Nigel Bryce, ahead of the public hearing beginning on July 31. It would only be acceptable if the building was reduced by four storeys, lowering its overall height from 60m to 45.6m, still well above the existing 11m height limit for the site, the report said. Cont/
At Facebook:
See comments.
Why would it be acceptable – “45.6m, still well above the existing 11m height limit for the site”?
Why do people have to take notice of the District Plan. e.g. not allowed to put readable street number signs outside premises in Kaikorai Valley Rd (according to one business I found after a long fast-slow-fast-slow drive as I lurched between visible street numbers) – probably applies to other areas – without getting for a permit from the DCC? Doubtless not a free permit…..
More than 4 times higher than the height limit… how is this insignificant compared with the scary risk of people putting their street number and name of business on their premises so that customers can most easily support Dunedin businesses? But no, the latter was “in the Plan” so if people weren’t happy with it (how many would have guessed such pettiness was included?) they should have objected. OTOH the Plan now exists, people have objected to this scheme that majorly departs from it and instead of the whole project being declined it gets a piss-weak “OK you can only disrespect the City’s rules by a bit over 400%”!
The Dunedin district plan Signage chapter is there for good reasons, as community consultation has supported for years now. Applying for signage permits is not overly taxing in terms of time, process or cost for minor street ‘improvements’.
You intertwine the publicly notified resource consent application for the hotel and apartment building (including the related subdivision application) for the subject site in Moray Place/Filleul St; that is contrary to the operative Dunedin City District Plan and the proposed 2GP (second generation district plan)….
….with a personal shopping journey to a private factory food processing business in Kaikorai Valley Rd that has not availed itself of (larger) street numbering/signage to assist customer locatat ion of the premises on a busy road. The business can choose to sign themselves clearly or not, at their address. This exercise of choice has nothing to do with DCC or the district plan which is set up to provide rules of consistency (anyone wanting to apply for something outside the rules has the right to have that application fairly considered…. but seeking permission to provide larger street numbers or a modest easily-seen sign to street is unlikely to have the mayor or council chief executive lose sleep). Googling the business’s name immediately brings up their street number and building photograph on Kaikorai Valley Rd.
The hotel and apartment building application has extreme height as the main ‘deterrent’ to consent being granted. The independent planner’s report is just that – independent. As with Any planner’s report on behalf of the council it is a Recommendation Only – which the commissioners do not have to take on board in whole or in part in their final decision.
Lowering the tower by four floors (from 60m, arriving at an est. 45.6m still well above the district plan’s 11m max. height limit is for all submitters to contemplate and support or oppose (or remain neutral) at hearing or at appeal. Effectively this will result in a tower of 9 storeys above ground, and 3 storeys below ground.
Read the independent planner’s table of compliance and non compliance in their report which quickly points up what the applicant has yet to face from providers of formal evidence and submitters in the consenting test of ‘fit’ or ‘non fit’:
Click to access LUC-2017-48-SUB-2017-26_Sec42A-Report-FINA.pdf
****
On district plans (commentary from Quality Planning NZ website):
The purpose of regional or district plans under the RMA is to assist a regional council or territorial authority to “carry out [any of] its functions in order to achieve the purpose of this Act” (ss63 and 72). This implies that the intended primary users are local authorities.
The reality is that district and regional plans are also regularly used by others including the general public and businesses (who may be considering applying for a resource consent for the first time), developers, consultants, surveyors, architects, lawyers, judges, commissioners, various environmental or business interest groups. The level of knowledge and regularity of use by each of these parties varies widely but catering to their need for quick and easy access to the information they need from a plan will benefit all.
I “intertwine the publicly notified resource consent application for the hotel and apartment building [snip]….….with a personal shopping journey to a private factory food processing business”. Not entirely relevant is it, precisely which business I looked for and whether it was private or public, processing food or selling cars or kitchen hardware? My point is that rules abound, the place I went to where I was told the procedure involved dealing with the DCC for permit. Experience being that on most things esp involving permits had left them with the impression that the wisest course by far was to keep under their radar and not attract their (expensive, time-wasting, or intrusive) attention.
It was indeed a “personal” journey. A great many objections are based on personal experience, observation, knowledge that if XYZ is approved it will personally affect them adversely. Perhaps such grounds for objecting or commenting are invalid, perhaps unless a person has an impartial report by a suitably qualified expert they should butt out of participation in what goes on in the city, including the degree to which non-compliant proposals are given a moment’s consideration. But no – from this it appears that a good deal of time and therefore money (DCC’s i.e. ours) has been devoted to it:
“Read the independent planner’s table of compliance and non compliance in their report which quickly points up what the applicant has yet to face from providers of formal evidence and submitters in the consenting test of ‘fit’ or ‘non fit’:”
Would it not be fair as well as efficient and a significant saving to promptly send the proposed design back with a form letter saying “Please reapply when you have something planned that is in accordance with our rules” the moment it becomes obvious that it is not within coo-ee of what’s permissible?
It’s not like they need to reinvent a wheel. Other businesses cope, and nicely, there is free advice available to them to help ascertain their options before costs (if any).
Signage rules are very straightforward – most businesses tend to use graphic designers & signmakers from round town who are already well versed in the signage rules. Hardly strange science – the Dunedin community wanted and got “the rules”. Very few rules as it happens; and entirely reasonable and logical.