Category Archives: Education

Stupid ORC Bus Hub : DCC notifies requirement for designation #Dunedin

Proposed ORC Bus Hub, Great King St – concept image [supplied]

CALL FOR PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

DIS-2017-1 – Central City Bus Hub
Open for submissions. Closes 5pm 18 August 2017

Public notice of requirement for a designation
Sections 168 and 169 of the Resource Management Act 1991

The Dunedin City Council has received notice of a requirement for a new designation from the Otago Regional Council.

Notice of Requirement No: DIS-2017-1

The requirement is for: A Central City Bus Hub for Dunedin’s transport network, and includes all buildings, structures and associated facilities and activities for the carrying out of the public transport system by the Otago Regional Council. With the exception of no public parking, the designation will not prevent the use of Great King Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street, being used as a public road.

The designation is to provide for the establishment, operation, maintenance and upgrading of the Central City Bus Hub for Dunedin public transport service purposes and will provide public transport services described in the Otago Regional Council’s Public Transport Plan, and to provide for any site works, buildings or structures, integral and ancillary to the Dunedin public transport system, including but not limited to: Bus shelters and seating; timetable and information displays; bus stops; public amenities, including toilets; landscaping including structures; pedestrian footpaths and accessways; drainage; technology; lighting; security; vehicle priority; signage; passenger comfort initiatives and facilities; passenger information facilities; and all other structures and facilities associated with, or incidental to, a comprehensive facility for the performances of functions of the Central City Bus Hub and support of the Dunedin Public Transport Network for the Otago Regional Council.

The nature of the functions is that these activities will initially occur from approximately 05:30am to 12:30am, 7 days a week, year-round.

The sites to which the requirement applies are as follows:
● Great King Street Road Reserve, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street, Dunedin;
● Moray Place Road Reserve (part of);
● 12.4m² (approx.) within 157 St Andrew Street, legally described as Lot 1 DP 486801;
● Two areas within the Countdown car park adjoining Great King Street – one comprising 58.8m² and the second comprising 50.4m² (approx.) legally described as Lots 2 and 3, DP 6552 and Section 29, Town of Dunedin.
● 19.5m² (approx.) within the Countdown car park adjoining Moray Place, legally described as part Sections 27 and 28, Block XVI, Town Survey District;
● 63m² (approx.) within the Community House car park at 301 Moray Place, legally described as part Town Section 26, Block XVI, Town of Dunedin; and
● 60.8m² (approx.) within the Wilsons car park at 30-36 Great King Street, legally described as Lot 2 DP 338932.

The Notice of Requirement, plans showing the extent of the requirement, and the assessment of environmental effects may be inspected at the following locations:
● City Planning Enquiries, Customer Services Centre, Ground Floor, Civic Centre, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin
● The Dunedin Central Public Library
● The Mosgiel Service Centre
Online

Please contact Paul Freeland on 477 4000 if you have any questions about the Notice of Requirement.

█ Go to this DCC webpage for all the information pertaining to the Notice of Requirement (NoR):
DIS-2017-1 – Central City Bus Hub
Closing date for submissions: Friday 18 August 2017 at 5pm.
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/district-plan/district-plan-changes/dis-2017-1-central-city-bus-hub

****

█ Supplementary Reading
From the ‘RMA Quality Planning Resource’ (NZ):

Notices of requirement and requiring authorities

To begin the process of designating land, a requiring authority must serve a notice of requirement on the relevant territorial authority (s168 of the RMA) or lodge it with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (s145(3)).  A notice of requirement is a proposal for a designation. 

The notice of requirement has an interim effect, in that it protects the land for the designated purpose until the designation is confirmed and included in an operative district plan (s178).  If the designation is confirmed it overrides the provisions of the district plan so the project or the works may be implemented by the requiring authority in accordance with that designation and any conditions attached to it.  However, the underlying plan provisions continue to apply if the land is used for a purpose other than the designated purpose.

When processing a notice of requirement Part 8 of the RMA requires the territorial authority to consider the requirement and any submissions received (if the requirement was notified), and then make a recommendation to the requiring authority. The territorial authority is only able to make a recommendation to the requiring authority and the requiring authority has the final decision on the matter. Refer to the flowchart for steps in the new designation process.

An alternative process is available under Part 6AA of the RMA for notices of requirement that are for proposals of national significance. Sections 198A – 198M of the RMA also provide for the direct referral of notices of requirement to the Environment Court for a decision.  The direct referral provisions under the RMA allow for requiring authorities to request that notified notices of requirement be directly referred to the Environment Court for a decision, instead of a recommendation by a territorial authority and a decision by a requiring authority.

The designation provides for the long-term ‘approval’ of the work. Because details of the work may not be known at the time of lodging the notice of requirement, s176A provides for further detail or subsequent changes and updates to the work through an outline plan. An outline plan is required to be submitted to the territorial authority, showing details of the work or project to be constructed on the designated land.

As for the notice of requirement process, the territorial authority only has a recommendation role for outline plans. The territorial authority is only able to request changes of the requiring authority and cannot turn down an outline plan. 

A notice of requirement and an outline plan describing the works proposed can be served/submitted at the same time. This approach can be helpful to allow the territorial authority to understand the designation, and can speed up the overall process allowing works to begin sooner. Alternatively, the requirement for an outline plan can be waived by the territorial authority if sufficient information was submitted with the notice of requirement.

Read more: http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/plan-development-components/designations/overview/notices-of-requirements

****

All we want is …. [possibly?]

No highly coloured tarseal or paving materials not in keeping with Dunedin’s built environment.

NO Bus Hub in Great King St.

And….
smaller more frequent shuttle buses, suburban areas properly serviced with well-spaced bus stops and shelters, easy transfer cards, on-board EFTPOS card top-ups ($5 minimum), digital readouts for next bus at all stops, wifi buses, direct pick-up drop-off in George and Princes streets, well serviced peak hours and school runs, bus inspectors, highly trained drivers, mechanically well serviced buses, plenty of mobility access for all comers.

Or to just call an affordable version of Uber or Lyft.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

[whatifdunedin]

2 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Health & Safety, Heritage, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORC, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Apartment hotel proposal has FATAL Flaws : ODT offers Flimsy Poll

Updated post.
Tue, 7 Aug 2017 at 2:58 p.m.

We (Dunedin) are confronted by a poorly detailed, plonk-down apartment building proposal that we suspect is fronted by an agent for Asian developers –it would not be unusual for such a proposal to be offered on the strength of tainted money looking for safe haven in the South Pacific.

Our gullible country.
The gullible shiny pants Grow Dunedin partnership.
Our ever so gullible city council under the leadership of cull-cat Cull.

A massively over-height apartment building with a frilly hard-to-read podium base is proposed —a building that may never see a five star hotel as the anchor tenant (never believe unquantified/unqualified pitches from used car salesmen, if all they offer is a Price plucked from the air).

Not so long ago large tracts of New Zealand land were bought and sold for glass beads and muskets.

A lot can happen between resource consent being granted and a deathly, failing, improperly costed build.

Is Dunedin City Council about to find out.

Beware the gift horse.
It turned out Dunedin disliked the hocks of the last one (41 Wharf St), ridden by a little cardigan-wearer. The local suits were paid to make the waterfront tower seem generous, rousing and necessary. Ha-haaa.

At ALL times, the Dunedin City Council MUST stay acutely awake despite its needful dependence on independent commissioners and independent professional advisors – the latter advisors, along with some council staff, appear to have greatly missed the Fact that the minimal concept plans presented for 143-193 Moray Place DO NOT provide a workable building; or a building compliant with district plan objectives, policies, rules, and anticipated environmental results ….or prevailing traffic standards.

Oh dear. ‘So much’ [$$$] for the independent advice. Yes, expensive use of expert and staff time to massage the applicant dream – to no convincing or winning effect.

Further, Dunedin City Council MUST be prepared to APPEAL the outcome of the decision-making process should it wish to AVOID being left with another expensive DEBT VEHICLE in the form of one unfinished and or leaky building …..as the collapsed companies, and dusty heels of run-away developers and construction personnel disappear back to Asian shores, far away from Lake Tekapo ….. dangerously constructed, whole or in part, as a further burden on beleaguered Ratepayers of this fair city.

“What a stupid thing to assume!” you thunder.
“How? On what grounds?”, you chide.
“Dunedin NEEDS a five star hotel!”, imperiously.

You think it’s that simple ??
You’re about to be done over, Buds.

The inference being, oh great apartment hotel supporters, that all that glistens in green-tinted glass is gold, or might be a five star hotel. Yeah right.

It never was. The gold, I mean.
The five star hotel, I mean.
A hoover-up of NZ cash to offshore parties who remain anonymous throughout planning and consenting, and construction and building operation; all supported by the errant notion of immigrant labour and (imperfect) imported materials.

You might as well ask now, How MUCH will the Dunedin economy make ($$$) on this “slap in the face” to the community owned district plan (statutory), and the (strategic) spatial and the central city plans which are publicly consulted policy directions informing the city council’s annual and long term plans.

Not much.

****

During five days of evidence and submissions, one knowledgeable submitter, Mr Russell Lund – well up on construction management, hotel building costs, the visitor accommodation market and investment patterns, and the risk and liability to local authorities in consequence – carefully outlined the quandaries which for various councils around New Zealand have become money-losing Unalterable Fact.

In the original written submission for himself and Suzanne Lund (affected property owners), Mr Lund asserted:

The “assessment of effects” is hollow and of no substance. Under the Act, the assessment of effects is required to be just that, an assessment of effects on the affected properties and tenants. Incredibly, the assessment makes no attempt to examine the effects on all the affected parties.

This, of course, is echoed in independently written and voiced submissions by many opposing the application; and curiously, it is underlined in evidence given by Mr Don Anderson (planning consultant) and Mr David Compton-Moen (urban design, visual amenity consultant), for the applicant.

My own submission to hearing states:

We can’t take what is offered [from the applicant] on trust, because it is incomplete and imprecise; therefore the assessment of effects is difficult to pin down to anything concrete and remains unhelpfully superficial – this was “the work” the applicant was to table for us, we thought, to generously persuade us that moving beyond the ‘norms’ of height in this Dunedin location has measurable benefits against other sites or, through strong honest examination of design alternatives for this site.

I am open to being persuaded. It is expensive to do that persuading. However, it has to happen in other city centres in this country. For an expensive building, isn’t it worth doing the budgeting for preparation of your case – to get the result you want, which is consent to subdivide and build. These are open questions but they lie at the heart of A for architecture as the practical art and science of building economics and professional practice. Behind and in front of the commercial facades, that must have depth of delivery. […] And so I come to the white building model here [a 3D-printed solid plastic model of the proposed building, of hand-held size, put into evidence by Christchurch architect Thom Craig], and the drawings presented by the applicant. There appears to have been too much time spent on merely diagrammatic ‘entreaties’ to architectural form and texture without hacking into 3D investigation. There is not one clear drawing of the way the podium can work for the public or the ‘retailers’ or ‘exhibitors’ – or indeed the people staying at the hotel, servicing the building functions and or using vehicles on site. We get an idea ‘about it’, a not convincing one, there is too much guesswork to do. And so the commissioners’ questions have been rather intense.

****

Now, back to the points the Lunds are making. In their original submission on the application, Mr Lund says:

7. I have serious concerns about the expertise and amount of resource that has gone into assessing the feasibility of the project. In the last year, the Otago Daily Times advised the developer, Mr Tosswill of Horizon Hospitality, had indicated that the cost of the project, which was then 200 rooms and 52 apartments was $50-75M. The proposal now is for 210 rooms and 66 apartments, which is not substantially different. The car parking and front of house areas are similar to the original application. The application confirms the hotel has a gross floor area of 20,835 m2.
In my opinion this hotel will be not built for anything less than around $100M, and this casts serious doubts over the viability of the scheme.
Evidence of this is found for the building costs of the much simpler 200 room 4 star Novotel Hotel being built at Christchurch airport after a competitive tender process (and utilising an Asian fabricated structural steel structure). It is well known in the building industry that the tender costs received for that very regular and efficient 7 level hotel were $4,500-5,000 per m2. The Novotel is a filing cabinet design, that is, it is a completely regular rectangular structure which provides the most efficient floorplates and the best wall to floor ratio, ie the least amount of exterior wall enclosing the maximum possible amount of interior space. The Novotel has no balconies.
The applicant’s proposal is far less efficient, and therefore more costly per m2, as it is effectively three blocks grouped around a central core, but the blocks themselves are not rectangular, but have recesses, and there is a significant amount of extra cost with most rooms having screened “smokers” balconies, which entails effectively, 2 exterior systems, one for the rooms, and another enclosing the balconies.

8. The application confirms there are 16,136 m2 of above ground (habitable or hospitality space) and 4,687 m2 of below ground, back of house / car park space. At a cost of $2,200-2,500 per m2 for the below ground floors, and $5,500 per m2 for the above ground space, the proposal has a construction cost of over $100m, excluding land, furnishings, design marketing, et al. The total budget excluding GST will be around $130M. A feasibility study will typically have to include a development margin of at least 20 %, preferably 25 %, if any sort of lender is involved. This means the end value of the project will need to be at or over $160M. If the best case scenario is adopted and Mr Tosswill is able to convince Chinese or other overseas investors to pay the current market value in Queenstown for premium, new managed hotel rooms and apartments of $10,000 per m2 – for a hotel with an unproven demand in Dunedin, it is still not enough.
Selling all the apartments and hotel rooms will yield about $90M, which is a long, long way from the $160M end value needed. The parking and lower public floor spaces on a yield basis will have a value of around $10M, that might get the project to $100M. Mr Tosswill in earlier reports stated that the value was around $90M, so while there is broad agreement on the likely end value, the estimate of the cost is not close to reality. Mr Tosswill may be planning to bring in a Chinese construction company who will park a retired cruise ship at the waterfront for the duration of the project and have their workers stay there, but they will be subject to the same minimum wage laws, working conditions and health and safety requirements that local companies face, which will dramatically reduce any cost benefit from using overseas labour. (The idea of having a cruise ship accommodating Chinese workers is not fanciful – the Chinese government offered to repair the damaged sections of SH1 after last year’s Kaikoura earthquake using that same method, and did not require any New Zealand labour resources, but the Government decided that this was politically unacceptable). One hopes it would be also unacceptable to have a Council endorsed project built using essentially, forced labour.

9. There is sufficient doubt around the financial viability of the project that the applicant should provide some evidence that the entire scheme is not in fact fanciful, but makes economic sense, and provide details about the proposed ownership model, which is highly relevant to Council, in light of their liability which is discussed below.

10. Mr Tosswill may think he is able to make savings from current building costs by utilising Chinese products, but many Local Authorities around New Zealand are very wary of various untested products as there have been many failures for which Local Authorities ultimately end up bearing the cost of.
This raises another issue which is the massive liability that the building control division of the Dunedin City Council will be exposed to, in relation to its building consent approval and compliance monitoring. The experience of the QLDC in recent years is extremely relevant : A large number of hotel and apartments have been built in Queenstown and the individual hotel rooms and apartments are sold off individually. A body corporate is then responsible for repairs and maintenance. The developer has no long term or permanent stake in the completed structure, and therefore no incentive to specify materials and pay for quality standards with the long term in mind. As Warren Buffet has said, “show me the incentive and I will show you the result”, and the result for QLDC has been an ongoing series of legal actions brought by Body Corporates against Council, alleging that Council was at fault in some form, and as they are the “last man standing”, the Council have inevitably had to pay substantial figures. [I have] experience of several of these, having repaired one major complex in Queenstown at a cost of several million dollars, and provided cost evidence in regard to two others, also in Queenstown in the last year. It should be remembered that QLDC has a 7 metre height limit, but despite this, on complexes less than a quarter of the size of the proposed hotels, the cost to repair has run to millions. QLDC has advised this year in the Otago Daily Times that it has now completely drained its reserve fund for remedial building work, and any further costs will need to come directly from ratepayers. It has spent $3.6M just on legal fees for remedial building liability cases, which will rise to close to $4M by the end of this year.

11. At the Hearing, in submission, some proposals will be presented to show how the design liability and weathertightness risk to Council and ratepayers can be mitigated in the unlikely event that the proposal is given consent and such consent is upheld in the Environment Court.

Proposal 1 : A bond be posted with Council to cover sufficient funds to get the building to completed weathertight envelope and have the podium and all external works completed in the event the project is halted.

Proposal 2 : The applicant provide a Owners Protective Professional Indemnity, and have DCC named as an insured party on the policy. This is to protect indemnify the DCC against any claims brought against them in relation the building consent process, compliance monitoring or any matter for which they are liable for.

****

The applicant tabled NEW evidence at the hearing, from Infometrics. At its website, Infometrics (NZ) says it “provides industry, regional, and general economic analysis and forecasts that assist organisations in making their planning, policy, and strategic decisions”.

In the Lunds’ submission to hearing under the subheading ‘Dunedin Hotel Economic Impacts – Ongoing GDP Effects’, Mr Lund says:

….Infometrics assume that the 64 apartments will all be in the hotel pool, but acknowledge this is unclear. This significantly increases the GDP contribution as it raises the income of the hotel by around 40%, assuming conservative tariff rates of $250 per night and $350 per night per apartment. Infometrics also assume that there will be no “crowding out” of the existing activity, ie ALL guests would otherwise have not come to Dunedin had this hotel not been there. This is an unrealistic assumption.
In my opinion this report is an example of tailoring assumptions to achieve the desired outcome.
At Section 2, the “impact” of the construction phase is estimated at $45.6M in total, but based on the “key assumption” that there is capacity in the construction sector to build the hotel without crowding out other investment”. This appears to mean that if other projects are delayed, there is in fact no benefit at all because $63M of other projects will simply be displaced by the alleged $63M cost of this project. History shows that in Dunedin, Clients such as the DCC, University and some private clients keep a close eye on the state of the market. Many Ministry of Education projects have strict cost guidelines, and will not proceed if they are over budget. There have been examples of work deferred in Dunedin when the market is busy, and the Post Office Hotel is one of them. The Owner Mr Geoff Thompson, deferred the construction of the hotel for several years when he first owned the property citing the overheated construction market, due to the construction of the $220M Milton Prison project in 2005-2007.
At the present time, there is a high level of commercial construction activity at present, witnessed by the fact that there are main contractors from outside Dunedin performing the 2 largest projects in Dunedin (The Dental School and the University Science 3 project). There is every likelihood some projects will be delayed due to the high level of activity.
The report assumes that 21.1M of the $63M, or a third of the cost, will flow into the local Dunedin economy. This would be on the basis that local companies and suppliers are employed, but this is far from clear, given the estimated cost of $63M. The only way the cost could be anywhere near this level is if virtually all of the materials were low cost imports, and quite likely a proportion of the labour cost component.
The only significant material that will be made locally is concrete, and it is only the basement levels that will be predominantly a concrete structure. If out of region companies were employed for work to do such trades as painting and carpentry, as they were at the Forsyth Barr stadium, then that figure will not be accurate.
Infometrics then ascribe $16.1M to the “second round of economic effects” but acknowledge there is some “leakage of spending outside the city”. If an outside main contractor, or even an overseas contractor completes the work, they will very likely bring with them their out of town networks of subcontractors and suppliers and there will be much less than the $16.1M as the second round of effects. Having completed many projects out of Dunedin, I have first hand knowledge of the negligible economic effect of construction on the region concerned. Generally, goods and services are sourced from habitual suppliers with whom there is an ongoing relationship, and only the small consumables are sourced from local suppliers.
Mr Tosswill should clarify what the intention is regarding the construction of the hotel, and if that is not forthcoming, then he should at least confirm what type and form of construction contract will be used as that perhaps more than anything will determine whether there is the possibility of a meaningful local business component.

On ‘Construction Cost’, Mr Lund refers the commissioners to the Lunds’ original submission, continuing with:

Further facts about construction
Examples of risk from imported products
FCC (Fletcher) budgeted to use Chinese sourced bathrooms in the Novotel Christchurch projects. Did not work. Has cost FCC $2M extra (unbudgeted) to get prefab bathrooms built locally in Canterbury. The cost is $26,000 per bathroom.
Chinese steel : there are 2 major CBD projects underway in Christchurch that are steel structures using Chinese fabricated steel. On one project the steel is 12 weeks late and on the other it is 16 weeks late. The Chinese suppliers had committed to make the steel, then out-sourced it to another firm without advising the contractor, and the delays have resulted. On one of these projects there is now legal action between the Engineer and contractor because of the nature of the steel does not conform to the specification.
There is a further major dispute litigation on another major project now completed due to extreme delays with the steelwork and external cladding. The project was around 10 months late, and the Owner lost the anchor tenant (The Government) due to the delay. That project was tendered on the basis of using a large degree of imported materials from China in association with a large state run Chinese construction company, but the project was so disastrous (financially and in terms of market perception), involving a loss of 8-15M on a $50M project, it has caused the company to withdraw from large scale commercial construction and focus on project management.
External Cladding : There are only a very small number of NZ firms with the capability to design and build the curtain walling, and they have a huge backlog and extremely onerous business terms that will not be acceptable to any funder or main contractor, so the Owner will probably need to contract with them direct, and take on this risk.

These important matters aside, the legal submissions brought to hearing by Ms Lauren Semple (for Millenium & Copthorne Hotels) and Mr John Hardie (for Misbeary Holdings Ltd) blew the application out of the water; so did the transport evidence to hearing by Mr Andy Carr (for Millenium & Copthorne Hotels) to which Commissioner Mr Stephen Daysh responded by asking if the problems (such as summit points, swept paths, access to basement parking, onsite coach travel, and truck travel as well as loading access) pointed out by Mr Carr in his assessment of the proposed building’s perimeter road were “fatal flaws”? Yes, was the direct reply. Refer article: Traffic problems at hotel (ODT 3.8.17)

The hearing is adjourned until 17 August.

All ODT can do is offer a flimsy and inconsequential readers’ poll.
Not Based On Reality. Go ODT! LOL

█ All application documents, reports, evidence and submissions for 143-193 Moray Place – Non-complying activity – LUC-2017-48 & Sub-2017-26 at this link.

Related Posts and Comments:
● 11.7.17 “Fat” gawky Hotel and Apartment building : Questionable design even with 4 floors lopped off
● 14.5.17 RNZ reports July hearings for proposed hotel apartment building [comments by Mr Tosswill]
● 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.

█ The following images are taken from Appendix 6 – Consultant Urban Designer’s Report – Appendix plans (PDF, 1.5 MB).

They comprise
● 2 cross sections – originally provided as applicant evidence by Thom Craig Architects Ltd, and
● 7 photomontages of anticipated views – originally provided as applicant evidence by Paterson Pitts Group (surveying, planning, engineering)

– to which new height levels have been added in the evidence provided by independent Urban Design consultant Garth Falconer for Dunedin City Council.

[click to enlarge]








7 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Finance, Heritage, Hot air, Hotel, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Technology, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

DCC Proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017 : Public Consultation

The camping control bylaw consultation process was publicly notified on Saturday, 22 July 2017, in the Otago Daily Times.

We have been following the nightmare tale of freedom campers at Warrington Domain —the council did not enforce its existing Bylaw 23 last summer. Local residents were no longer able to use the messed up, vehicle covered village green for pleasure and recreation. Instead, DCC had allowed the whole domain to be turned into a muddy rutted car park. Over summer 1000s of freeloading campers were subsidised by Dunedin ratepayers at roughly $10.00 per head per night. Disgraceful. An appalling and gutless lack of care and management shown by the council.

AFTER ALL THIS . . . .
It is a pleasure to note (finally, yes!) that DCC’s preferred option for bylaw adoption is sensible and workable. Please support this option.

There are 3 options to choose from.

█ The best option is DCC’s preferred option : a ban on people sleeping in cars and restricting freedom camping to self-contained campervans only.

This is the only responsible option – it will reduce camping issues at domain grounds, such as Warrington and Ocean View.

The other 2 options are messy, they require more work and will not be easy to enforce or manage.

█ Please fill in the form at the link below and select:
– Option 1. “Limit freedom camping to certified self contained vehicles only”.

Warrington stakeholders, in particular, see no reason to comment on the “criteria to apply to sites” questions. Just leave them blank.

They recommend you note the following in the Comments section:
– Area at Warrington for certified campers to be limited in area to accommodate maximum 10 vehicles per night.
– No non-self-contained vehicles.
– No freedom camping anywhere else in Warrington other than a small designated area in the domain.

Link to the online submission form:
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/online-forms/proposed-camping-control-bylaw-2017

Please complete the form and share this information with friends and colleagues.

At last DCC has done something right by preferring Option 1.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL

Proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017
Closes: 09/08/2017

DCC is asking the community for feedback on a proposed change to freedom camping in the Dunedin area. They would like your views on whether DCC should continue to provide freedom camping for both certified self-contained vehicles and non-certified self-contained vehicles.

The Statement of Proposal outlines changing the current bylaw to provide camping areas for certified self-contained vehicles only.

Two other options have also been considered and these are:
– to continue to provide for both certified self-contained vehicles and non-certified self-contained vehicles
– to provide extra areas for non-certified self-contained vehicles based on a set of criteria.

The proposed change is in response to the impacts of overcrowding at the two existing unrestricted camping areas at Warrington and Ocean View, and because of changes to the current standard for certified self-contained vehicles.

Freedom camping throughout Dunedin is very popular, especially between November and May. The focus of this bylaw review is to make the bylaw more robust and workable, based on two seasons’ worth of feedback and observation.

Following community feedback and hearings, the Council will consider the submissions and decide on any changes. DCC hopes to have the new bylaw in place in October/November.

Feedback closes 5pm 9 August 2017

Consultation documents:

Proposed Camping Control Bylaw – Public Notice (PDF, 123.4 KB)
This document is a pdf copy of the Public Notice for the Proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017 consultation

Proposed Camping Control Bylaw – Statement of proposal (PDF, 216.0 KB)
This is a pdf copy of the Proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017 Statement of Proposal

Part 23 Dunedin City – Proposed Camping Control Bylaw (PDF, 1.4 MB)
This is a pdf copy of the Proposed Camping Control Bylaw

23. Camping Control Bylaw
This is a pdf copy of the current Camping Control Bylaw 2015

Proposed Camping Control Bylaw Feedback form (PDF, 394.9 KB)
This pdf can be downloaded and completed to provide feedback to the Proposed Camping Control Bylaw consultation

Consultation details:

Closing date: 09/08/2017
Contact person: Ashley Reid
█ Public feedback: Online submission form

Email to – camping.bylaw@dcc.govt.nz
Post to – Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin 9058. Attention: Proposed Camping Control Bylaw
Hand deliver to – Dunedin City Council Customer Service Centre, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin. Attention: Proposed Camping Control Bylaw

DCC Link

ENDS

****

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Leave a comment

Filed under DCC, DCC Bylaws, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Freedom camping, Health & Safety, Heritage, Infrastructure, New Zealand, People, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design

Rainy Day reading —The Spinoff : Ministry of Transport fraud case

The ever-deepening storm centred on the Joanne Harrison fraud case just became a hurricane. Yesterday’s State Services Commission investigation report is likely to trigger a new chain of events that could extend well beyond embattled Auditor General Martin Matthews, writes Peter Newport

### thespinoff.co.nz July 21, 2017
Politics
The Ministry of Transport fraud case: Why the rot goes deeper than Joanne Harrison
By Peter Newport | Contributing writer
The State Services Commission investigation, published yesterday, makes one thing very clear: Joanne Harrison influenced the exit of four fellow Ministry of Transport employees who tried to tell their bosses that she was a fraudster. She managed to hire friends and steal over $700,000 from the ministry despite numerous staff attempting to call attention to her actions. This all happened while she was reporting directly to then-chief executive Martin Matthews, who is now our auditor general – albeit on temporary leave. The Commission has now apologised and is offering compensation to those former staff members. Its report also highlights many other issues at the Ministry, arguing that the 17-year-old legislation that covers whistleblowers needs to be changed and improved.

A second investigation, into whether Martin Matthews is a suitable person to continue as auditor general, is due from Sir Maarten Wevers in the coming days. Matthews is currently constructing his response to the unpublished, but complete, Wevers investigation. He has been given until the end of this week to complete it.

The Harrison case has some similar dynamics to the Todd Barclay drama. It’s become less about the initial problem than how it was handled. Who told the truth and who tried to obscure or even bury the truth. The difference with the Harrison situation is that she is now in jail and the truth is coming out – fast.

The Spinoff has been looking at exactly who did what, and when. That job has been made easier by a new, recent MOT whistle-blower who has produced and provided to us a detailed timeline noting all the evidence, which we publish here, utilising material released by the Ministry of Transport and available to view here. The same whistle-blower has shared a bizarre insight into Martin Matthews’ statements during his time at the Ministry of Transport.

But first, a quick tour of the jigsaw puzzle of documents that reveal a picture of Martin Matthews being given not clues, or hints, but what appear to be multiple solid facts that highlighted Joanne Harrison as a Grade A con artist and thief.
Read more

Founded in 2014, The Spinoff is New Zealand’s fastest growing media startup, amassing a monthly New Zealand audience of over 500,000 in less than three years.
We’ve assembled a team of agenda-setting journalists and critics, working across text, audio and video to create a true 21st century media brand. In just two years, The Spinoff has been nominated for 24 Canon awards, winning six. Our growth has been driven by a creative editorial style and innovative business model, emphasising long-term relationships with like-minded brands and a close connection with a young, educated and urban audience. Duncan Greive won both NZ Marketing Magazine‘s Editor of the Year as well as the People’s Choice title for Editor and Media Visionary in their media issue, July 2017. The Spinoff also claimed the title for Digital Media Brand of the Year as well as the People’s Choice title for the same award.

****

Comment received from russandbev
2017/07/21 at 10:52 am

The recent revelations about what happened to the whistleblowers in the Ministry of Transport have, I’d suggest, application in Dunedin. Think of the parallels. In the MoT case a manipulative person with a barely-hidden track record of fraud and vindictiveness as well as a well developed sense of entitlement goes about systematically defrauding a government department of close on 3/4 million dollars. Not through some incredibly complex fraud, but one of simply creating business that didn’t exist and creating invoices from them for services that were never provided. Not exactly something that would take a lot to investigate.

Whistleblowers blow the alarm whistles to their managers and nothing happens and the further up the chain the questions were asked, the more dismissive the denials became. Meantime the fraudster moves against the whistleblowers. The Head of the Ministry moves on to even more wondrous things as Auditor General (is that ironic or is that ironic?) and the Minister dismisses all suggestions of wrong-doing. Even the Speaker of the House who employs the Auditor General doesn’t want to get involved.

Now found that the whistleblowers were entirely vindicated by their concerns and they get private and public apologies and a confidential settlement to, in part, recompense them for their treatment by both a fraudster and by management and governance failures. The Protected Disclosures Act [2000] is supposed to protect whistleblowers in BOTH public and private sectors.

Now, I don’t think anyone is suggesting fraud in the case of Aurora/Delta and that should be made plain. However look at the track record of these companies. A fearful record of stupid property speculation costing many many millions which is still going on thanks to Yaldhurst. A willingness to go along with borrowing to supply dividends to the DCHL and the DCC. Decades of ignoring maintenance on the Aurora network closely linked to the governance requirements to minimise costs, maximise profits and supply dividends to build vanity projects by the owners and now the spendup of northwards of 3/4 billion dollars on urgent maintenance bought about these years of neglect.

And then think of the years and layers of denials that these things happened over. When Richard Healey found he could no longer keep working in the company because of all that was being hidden, he gets vilified by EVERYONE that should have listened. EVERYONE is in denial including his past Managers who continued to receive their grossly inflated salaries and those in governance – many of whom refused to even sit down with him and discuss his concerns.

Am I the only one to see the parallels in how a Ministry or a City company deals with whistleblowers? I wonder if we will ever see similar end results in the case of Richard Healey?

{Link added. -Eds}

Reply from Elizabeth
2017/07/21 at 1:02 pm

Not involving Aurora:

Charges of Constructive Fraud have been brought, by joinder, against Delta Utility Services Ltd in the Christchurch High Court by the caveators (original property owners of the Noble Subdivision) at Yaldhurst. The case proceeds.

****

[decisionmaker.co.nz] formatted by whatifdunedin

Transparency International New Zealand
http://www.transparency.org.nz/

Related Posts and Comments:
19.7.17 Southern Police : Nothing changed since Tom Lewis wrote Coverups & Copouts
18.7.17 Delta | Infinity | CCC staff collude to defeat Yaldhurst residents (again)
23.5.17 Topical debates on Corruption in New Zealand
22.2.17 Some Councils/CCOs get cleanup from FRAUD and CORRUPTION #NotAll
9.12.16 Auckland corruption charges proved —ring any bells? #South
28.1.16 New Zealand local government T-shirt #haze #corruption
20.9.15 Corruption serious threat to New Zealand #CAANZ
14.9.15 Screening tonight: Paradigm Episode 2! Local Government Corruption in NZ #Sky #YouTube
23.7.15 Publicise: laudafinem.org
13.5.14 Stuff: Colin Espiner usefully defines Corruption

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

1 Comment

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Commerce Commission, Construction, Corruption, Crime, Delta, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, SFO, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

Southern Police : Nothing changed since Tom Lewis wrote Coverups & Copouts

Remember when Police bought up all the copies they could, and ‘disappeared’ public library lending copies….

Nothing has changed. No-one is policing the Police.
This is the New old news….

****

C L O S E ● T O ● H O M E

A 25-year-old woman says she filmed a police officer minutes before he attacked her.

### ODT Online Wed, 19 Jul 2017
Police assault allegation
By Rob Kidd
Police are investigating allegations an experienced Otago police officer subjected a woman to a vicious attack while he was off-duty. The 25-year-old complainant said she was at a fancy-dress birthday party on Saturday night when the alleged assault took place. She said the man, who was wearing a wig at the time, smashed her face into the bonnet of a car before dragging her down a driveway on her front. The pair had never previously met, she said. “He just lost it.” The Otago Daily Times has chosen not to identify the officer involved, the woman or the town where the alleged incident took place. A police spokesman said police were aware of a complaint about an off-duty officer early on Sunday. Police would not confirm whether the man remained at work.
Read more

****

Speaking of cover-ups….

After reading the Otago Daily Times (page 3) yesterday, it was interesting to google the name *Kallam Croudis* —there’s a name for Conflicts of Interest, past and present.

NZ Police should sack Croudis. What a corrupting and observable liability—

Det Snr Sgt Kallum Croudis has been criticised over his handling of a case which resulted in a woman’s confession being thrown out by the court.

### ODT Online Mon, 17 Jul 2017
Judge critical of senior officer
By Rob Kidd
A senior Dunedin police officer has been slammed by the court over his involvement in a case in which he had a conflict of interest. Detective Senior Sergeant Kallum Croudis spoke to a suspect at least three times without being part of the investigation team. Judge Michael Crosbie also criticised the officer’s record-keeping and his “casual approach”, which resulted in police obtaining an unlawful confession from the woman regarding the death of a Dunedin man. In his judgement ruling the confession inadmissible [Judge Crosbie] noted Det Snr Sgt Croudis was a friend of the dead man’s father. Southern district commander Superintendent Paul Basham said the comments of the court would be taken very seriously and “the issues raised in the judgement are of concern”. A spokeswoman later confirmed police would not pursue the prosecution against the woman. […] At the May hearing, [Croudis] said he spoke to the female defendant at least three more times before she had a “voluntary” interview at the station.
Read more

Back when, the same, the same….
ONE BAD COP AMONGST MANY

### Stuff.co.nz 01:43, Jan 31 2009
Judge lambasts top cops in damning report
via Sunday Star-Times
The actions of some of the country’s highest-ranking police have been criticised in a damning Independent Police Conduct Authority report due out later today. The report – released after a two-year investigation – makes adverse comments about 10 Dunedin police, including four inspectors, a detective senior sergeant and two detective sergeants. Justice Lowell Goddard is understood to criticise police for their involvement in private investigations of ACC clients – and for how they handled their subsequent inquiries into complaints. The inquiry was launched after conflict of interest allegations that Peter Gibbons – a former Dunedin CIB head who became a private investigator working for ACC’s fraud unit – used his police constable son-in-law to improperly obtain search warrants and seize property from ACC clients. The clients alleged that when they complained, senior police – including three of Gibbons’ former CIB colleagues – failed to act. […] Gibbons, who was a detective senior sergeant in the CIB in the 1990s, supervised three of the police criticised in the Goddard report Detective Senior Sergeant Kallum Croudis, Detective Sergeant Malcolm Inglis and Detective Sergeant Brett Roberts. A previous internal police inquiry showed Croudis assigned Henderson ACC-related cases knowing about his conflict of interest as Gibbons’ son-in-law. Inglis and Roberts conducted the initial inquiries into Van Essen’s complaints. Croudis, Inglis and Roberts have been involved in both the original inquiry and reinvestigation of the David Bain mass murder case. Croudis arrested Bain in 1995.
Read more

****

Peanut-brain danger man Jeremy Buis of Dunedin Police….

Stuff.co.nz Last updated 22:36, July 17 2017
Police officer convicted for harassing Dunedin businessman for years
By Jack Fletcher
Dunedin policeman Jeremy Buis was responsible for the more than two-year campaign of harassment of local businessman Daniel Pryde. Jeremy Fraser Buis, 39, was convicted on a raft of charges relating to the harassment of Daniel Pryde after a June 2012 parking dispute escalated. Suppression of his occupation was lifted in the High Court at Dunedin on Monday. [17 July 2017] …. In April, Buis was found guilty of criminal harassment, threatening to do grievous bodily harm and intentional damage. He was sentenced to 200 hours of community work and order to pay emotional harm reparation of $15,000. Buis’ name suppression was lifted on April 21, but his occupation remained suppressed until Monday.
Read more

****

Southern Police have a dreadful history including participation in the crimes and events described in Coverups & Copouts, for which no prosecutions have issued. Few street-wise people in Dunedin trust the thin blue line to do their job. Is it any wonder Buis, Croudis and their ilk exist, and what of the off-duty police thug who attacked the 25-year-old female complainant on the weekend?

For these men, Louise Nicholas doesn’t exist.

****

### ODT Online Wed, 19 July 2017
Integrity of police threatened
OPINION New Zealanders need to have faith in the police force, a belief that when bad things happen to them, someone will be on their side, helping to right a wrong. That faith has been sorely tested in past years when police officers themselves have decided they are above the law. At the extreme end of the spectrum, in the United States, there has been ongoing debate about the role of the police in the shootings of young black men, in particular. Now, a white Australian woman has been shot in a Minnesota alley after calling the police about a possible assault in the alley behind her home. Most New Zealanders will surmise those sorts of incidents will never happen in this country. But the line between upholding the law by men and women in uniform and them taking the law into their own hands is becoming increasingly blurred. This week, the Otago Daily Times has reported on two incidents which have shaken public confidence in the police to the core.
Read more

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[previously]

Comment by Elizabeth
2017/03/31 at 2:24 am

Calls for a Royal Commission of inquiry into historic child abuse have been rife these last weeks, inflaming social media and mainstream media (MSM) around New Zealand.

Bless their hearts, Lauda Finem, based offshore, banged out a post at their website yesterday that easily sums up the New Zealand ‘scene’. This is a must read.

LF’s introductory comments are provided here, with excerpts of relevance to Dunedin.

[begins]

March 30, 2017 1:14 am • Lauda Finem
Why Bill English & Nasty Nats find Child Abuse Royal Commissions Terrifying
For the past month or so Kiwi newspapers and other media outlets have been slowly publishing stories relating to the growing chorus of voices calling for a Royal Commission into historic child abuse.
The latest trigger seems to have been an open letter calling for the same, although, in our view, a very narrow, much less desirable version of the ‘Royal Commission Into The Institutional Responses to Historic Child Sexual Abuse’ that our Australian PM Julia Gillard was forced to initiate in 2013; which is only now beginning to release various stats and reports on some of the findings and the evidence that has been heard.
Bill English, the halfwit that National decided to replace John Key with, has of course avoided mentioning the apparent success of the Australian commission, noting only that it might come in handy for New Zealand’s state sector when it comes to lessons that might be learned.

[photo caption] Just how much sway has Police Commissioner Mike Bush had on a government that is clearly terrified of any inquiry

English is in fact completely out of touch with reality in almost everything he has said publicly on the subject; going so far as to claim that there is nothing to be gained or learned by New Zealand establishing a similar inquiry.
This is despite the success of the Australian model and the fact that both Ireland and the UK have also conducted national inquiries.
Not only is the National party Government determined NOT to hold such an inquiry, they are also, seemingly, equally determined not to even entertain the notion that the victims of historic child abuse, sexual, physical and emotional deserve an unreserved apology from the crown. They also deserve to see, where at all possible, their abusers convicted and serving prison sentences.
This fact alone should have every right thinking New Zealander appalled. More especially given the likely scale of the criminal offending, if the Australian Royal Commissions findings are anything to go by; there being absolutely no reason to believe that New Zealand’s statistics would be any different to those of Australia.
In fact, if one is to take the figures recently released by the Australian Commission, and then compare them with the suggested 1100 children that the Kiwis say have been sexually abused whilst in care historically, clearly, New Zealand has had a far more significant problem than Australia per capita.
In fact, New Zealand’s problem does not seem to have abated, the country is still in the grip of almost daily reports of contemporary offending; the only conclusion being that the problem is not only systemic but there may be continuing cultural or institutional causes for its existence.

Read more at http://www.laudafinem.org/2017/03/30/why-bill-english-nasty-nats-find-child-abuse-royal-commissions-terrifying/

● To view the open letter and petition go to http://www.neveragain.co.nz/

****

[excerpts – Lauda Finem]

The first thing that has to be said is that those who have only just arrived at this cause are only calling for an inquiry into children in State care. This is significantly less than the Australian model which has left absolutely no rock un-turned in its pursuit of perpetrators, cover-ups and the truth.

The beauty of the Australian model is that it has captured everything, the words “Institutional Response” powerful in who it captured. Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Religious orders, schools, Teachers; state and private, police, social workers, the scope has been enormous….and rewarding, if the sheer volume of the Commissions results are anything to go by.

There is some anecdotal evidence that the New Zealand police have in fact been one of the primary reasons for the National Party Government, to date, being loathed to even consider a Royal Commission. First and foremost the absence of the religious organisations stands out like balls on a short haired dog. Second, the absence of the New Zealand police.

Does Bill English seriously believe that New Zealand Govt agencies, including the country’s systemically corrupt police force will learn anything from the published results of the Australian Royal Commission? Does any New Zealand politician seriously believe that for one minute? If they do then they should be pointed in the direction of a clinical psychologist for evaluation and treatment.

For both the New Zealand police and the country’s government it’s always been about harm minimisation, not for the unfortunate victims you understand, but rather for themselves.
Until recently, Police Association president for life, Greg O’Connor, was living breathing evidence that the New Zealand police force had gained absolutely nothing from either of the two Australian State crackdowns on police corruption. In fact, many of the gang rapes committed by New Zealand police remained concealed for years after both of those inquiries, some that we are aware of, indeed probably many more, remaining outside the public’s knowledge, the Police Commissioner and Prime Ministers dirty little secret.

Just how many of these men and woman suffered serious abuse at the hands of paedophiles and psychopaths working for New Zealand Govt agencies, including its police force?

In short, Bill English knows that once the scale of historic sexual physical and emotional harm to Kiwi children is known to the public the government will no longer be in control of the inquiry. Growing public anger will inevitably ensure that any Royal Commission gets what it needs, whether initially proposed and sanctioned or not, to aid in the job of ascertaining the enormous scale of the problem in New Zealand.

Evidence of these police and Government cover-ups is to be found here on Lauda Finem, it’s also to be found in a variety other places, libraries and online.
The work of Kiwi investigative journo Ian Wishart, in particular a special investigation Wishart conducted over a two year period, culminating in his 2007 accusations of New Zealand Police involvement in organised child sexual exploitation rings in both Christchurch and Dunedin. Accusations that were never properly investigated by police or the IPCA for quite obvious reasons.
Police behaviour that was at the time of the offending known to John Jamieson, then Christchurch District Commander and subsequently, as Commissioner of police (1984 – 1994), a man who the Catholic Church, following Jamieson’s brief and unremarkable political career, hired with the obvious intention of insuring that all accusations of historic child sexual abuse were mustered smoothly out the back door, much to the Arch Bishop’s benefit.

Prior to joining the Catholic Church John Jamieson, as Commissioner of Police, himself assisted in concealing, from the media and the public, allegations of rape, violence and corruption against serving police officers, one of whom escaped to South Africa with the aid of at least nine other serving Gisborne police officers.
In short, Bill English, without a shadow of a doubt, is fully cognisant of the scale of the historic problem in New Zealand, in particular the police involvement. He also likely knows that the scale of Historic child abuse in New Zealand is far greater than what has historically occurred in Australia, if only on a per capita basis.

New Zealand police have in the past used all sorts of skulduggery in efforts to thwart official inquiries into their unlawful practices and conduct, including sexual and physical abuses.

[photo caption] Two dirty cops: ex New Zealand police commissioners John Jamieson (L) and Howard Broad (R) Jamieson was certainly, without a shred of doubt, a master of the dark art of police corruption and cover-up

Lauda Finem have in the past written extensively on the existence of these practices and a secret police network, comprising ex police, some turned corrupt private investigators and others turned corrupt politicians, from local bodies right up to New Zealand’s Parliament.

See: New Zealand Police, ODESSA and just how they look after their own

See: New Zealand’s most powerful political force is?

We would also recommend that readers check out Ian Wishart’s article “To Serve and Protect”, also published in 2007, it’s an eye opener and gives readers some idea of what could be investigated had the New Zealand Government followed an identical path to that of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

See: Ex police commissioner Howard Broad to head CYF inquiry

Like ex Commissioner Jamieson, Police Commissioner Howard Broad was implicated by Wishart in sordid events which had been exposed by ex Christchurch cop turned whistle-blower and author Tom Lewis.

[ends]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Quick references:

August 14, 2007
Ian Wishart: To Serve & Protect: June 07
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/13956/to-serve-protect-june-07/

Tom Lewis: Coverups & Copouts (Hodder Moa Beckett, 20 March 1998)
The book written by ex senior police officer Tom Lewis traverses the seedy side of Dunedin during the eighties, including the infamous ‘Dunedin Sex Ring’ case.

[promo]
“There have been police enquiries in New Zealand and there has even been the odd exposé but there has never been a book like Tom Lewis’ COVERUPS AND COPOUTS. His story will shock the average New Zealander and shake the New Zealand police to the very core. Not only does the former detective sergeant describe in methodical detail some of the worst coverups in NZ police history, but he punctuates his story in the most compelling fashion. Tom Lewis actually dares to name names. From commissioners to constables, the truncheon isn’t spared. This book will not have won Tom Lewis any friends in the New Zealand Police, but it will finally lay bare to New Zealanders what most had never thought possible of our Police:
* Christopher John Lewis – the truth behind the royal assassination attempt
* Ron Jorgensen – alive and well – and living in Australia
* Dunedin sex ring – why the police copped out
and much more.”

More on police officer Tom Lewis and the Dunedin Sex Ring:
http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_ruling.php?case_number=2015
Case Number: 2015 Tom and Teresa Lewis Against Otago Daily Times | Press Council Meeting December 2007

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posts by the New Zealand Police Conduct Association (NZPCA):

July 27, 2014
INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV publish allegations
http://nzpca.co.nz/investigatemagazine-tv-publish-allegations/

July 27, 2014
Tom Lewis
https://nzpca.co.nz/tom-lewis/

July 27, 2014
“Cover ups and Cop outs” the book
https://nzpca.co.nz/cover-ups-and-cop-outs-the-book/

August 1, 2014
Police respond to allegations and possible publication
https://nzpca.co.nz/police-respond-to-allegations-and-possible-publication/

****

Other references:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/04/the_bazley_report.html

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/05/pca_refuses_to_investigate_dunedin_police_claims.html

[ends]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: deviantart.net – Behind my eyelids are islands of violence by feebeelu

8 Comments

Filed under Business, Central Otago, Corruption, Democracy, Dunedin, Education, Events, Finance, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Police, Politics, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, Travesty

Delta | Infinity | CCC staff collude to defeat Yaldhurst residents (again)

Yaldhurst Subdivision (former Noble Subdivision)

S T A T E ● O F ● P L A Y

Christchurch City Council is failing to ensure compliance with the subdivision consent and is then assisting the developer Noble/Delta – Infinity/Delta, to screw the Yaldhurst residents.

[click to enlarge]

****

About five of the affected Yaldhurst residents gave deputations to the full meeting of the Christchurch City Council on Thursday, 6 July 2017.

Prior to the meeting, the Infinity Joint Venture of which Delta is a majority partner (with its $13m gift investment from Dunedin City Council) had convinced CCC staff to sway Christchurch City councillors to vote for the dedication of private roads as opposed to vesting ownership in the Council. This in the attempt to first defeat land covenants the affected residents have over the property registered in 2003 to protect their inclusion in any subdivision. However, Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) cannot accept roads vesting in ownership with the Council when there are any encumbrances on the land – such as the residents’ covenants.

For the residents, Colin Stokes, at the council meeting, distributed to councillors a review of what CCC staff have done over the years.

Of course, as the facts flow they continue to entwine around Delta.

The residents are fighting to protect and enforce their rights in the subdivision consent; and to halt Delta and their Southern associates’ onslaught against them.

****

Received from Colin Stokes (Yaldhurst resident and caveator)
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 9:16 a.m.

Thanks for your ongoing support Elizabeth

Chris Hutching’s piece (The Press 10.7.17) is weak and void of facts that present our case.

● We have Land Covenants registered over all the land in 2003 to protect our inclusion in any subdivision – our specific Access Lot road has to be formed and vested to Christchurch City Council standards with CCC as a term of extinguishment of the covenants.
● The encumbrance on the land prevent vesting of roads as LINZ won’t allow roads to vest with the council with them on.
● Infinity/Delta behind closed doors with CCC staff came up with a scheme to dedicate the roads under old rules (not compliant with the RMA and the subdivision consent) so as to circumvent our covenant protection.
● The real story is that CCC is breaking rules and NOT requiring compliance with the subdivision consent so as to cheat the residents of their protection and their interests protected by that protection so as CCC and the developer can cut them out of the subdivision.
● CCC and the developer Noble/Delta – Infinity/Delta have taken conditions out of the consent, varied the consent, and permitted non-complying undersized infrastructure that makes our part of the subdivision impossible – specifically stormwater pipes and basins required on the lower lying developers’ land which is where the consent (and physical topography and site layout) requires our stormwater to go.
● CCC failing to enforce the conditions of the consent as the law requires means our Access Lot road cannot be formed, meaning we can not subdivide.
● Delta with the misuse of mortgagee powers passed the property to itself, or at least part of the property ($13.4m of an $18.35m “sale” = 73% of which $12.5m was left in the property in passing it to Infinity in the orchestrated “sale”).

[ends]

****

Prepared Summary and Review with subdivision plans as tabled at Christchurch City Council’s meeting (6 July), to assist understanding:

███ D 2017 07 04 Summary and Review of Circumvention of Covenants for Councillors Yaldhurst (16 pages)

1 Plan RMA92009135

2 Plan RMA92009135 hlite

The coloured plan shows the residents’ Access Lot between green lines going from Yaldhurst Rd and then dog-legging east to west. What is inside the yellow border is what is within the Subdivision Consent (note there is an internal yellow small 2 sites that are NOT in the consent – and 3 other of the residents’ lots in common ownership on the NS leg are not included in the consent).

It is this east west leg of the Access Lot that requires widened roading to enable the Lots each side to be subdivided pursuant to:-
– 2002 Agreements for sale and purchase (and 2008 further agreement)
– 2003 Registered Land Covenant Protection [see Summary and Review, page 1 para 2 for terms of extinguishment]
– 2009 Subdivision Consent (Condition 5 and stormwater Conditions for it 9.) [see Summary and Review, page 5 para 12]

The problem is
– the Security Sharing Joint Venture (Noble/Delta/Gold Band) SSJV designed and constructed their part of the subdivision such that it made the East West Access Lot owners (residents) parts of the subdivision impossible AND that the Council permitted this.

– Undersized stormwater infrastructure was corruptly installed without consent to NOT include the residents’ subdivisions (all the while falsely assuring residents it did).

– The stormwater is required to be on land the residents transferred to the developer in return for this stormwater and other provisions. It is required to be there for numerous reasons including physical and legal reasons;
* Residents transferred the land in return for this provision
* 2003 Land Covenants protect this land for that provision (required for the Access Lot Road to be formed and vested)
* 2009 The Subdivision Consent requires it to be on the developers’ land (Condition 9.5 which “disappeared”) [see Summary and Review, page 5 para 12 and page 10 email 16 Feb 2010]
* Residents that are part of that subdivision consent have the legal rights to the stormwater (s134 RMA) – the Council is refusing to enforce the conditions of the consent; and permitted the developer to NOT comply with the conditions.
* Land topography and layout physically requires it to go there. The land slopes High NWest to SEast Low

– Delta went ahead and constructed the infrastructure without legal consent – [see Summary and Review, page 10 email 22 Aug 2012]
* This is akin to a builder building a house without consent.
* Council failed to issue an abatement notice for works being complete without consent, and to non-complying standards.

For all the Council staff failings, and the consent holders and JV partners’ failings and corruption of making the residents parts of the subdivision impossible:-
– Delta/Infinity and Council staff are recommending to the Elected Council to vote to circumvent the residents’ Land Covenants so:-
* the residents roading and subdivisions will no longer be protected and will be impossible;
* the JV Infinity/Delta will make more profit by not having to comply with the conditions of the consent that requires the residents’ roading and inclusion (as above)
* Council staff “mistakes” and wrongdoing of permitting non-complying works and not enforcing the conditions of the consent (as required by law) will be covered up.

– Delta and DCC was the facilitator of transferring the property from the Delta/Gold Band/Noble Joint Venture to the Delta/Infinity Joint Venture.
– Delta (illegally) owned 67.5% of the 1st mortgage and controlled Gold Band through their Security Sharing JV.
– Delta’s assurances it had nothing to do with the mortgagee sale is a lie.
– Delta refused to allow Gold Band to accept offers to redeem the 1st mortgage (illegal under s102 & s103 Property Law Act).
– DCC refused to allow redemption of the 1st mortgage.
– DCC (and Delta) refused to accept assignment of the 1st mortgage when Colin Stokes and another (as parties with interests in the land entitled to redeem) offered it to them
* had they done, Delta could have registered about an additional $16m in agreements to mortgage they were sitting on
* all that was required in return was “our little road” which is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT of the subdivision consent in any event.

[ends]

As reported by The Press, the eight-year dispute involving the stalled Yaldhurst subdivision has now gone to mediation between the property owners and the developers.
The dispute has been aired in several High Court cases between the private landowners and the developers, which are continuing.

Related Post and Comments:
11.7.17 Delta has deep fingers into 8-year subdivision dispute at Yaldhurst

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *aurora*, *grady*, *luggate*, *jacks point*, *dchl*, *auditor-general*, *noble*, *yaldhurst* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

17 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, Corruption, DCC, DCHL, Delta, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

DCC makes no direct return from rugby or events held at Fubar Stadium

L A S T ● M O N T H ’S ● P R O N O U N C E M E N T ● F R O M ● A B O V E

ODT 20.6.17 (page 6)

ODT 26.6.17 (page 8)

Trevor Lloyd: Defeat of British rugby by the All Blacks in 1905 [pinimg.com]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

6 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Baloney, Business, Concerts, Construction, DCC, Design, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Education, Events, Finance, Hot air, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Public interest, Sport, Structural engineering, Technology, Tourism, Travesty, What stadium