Category Archives: Pics

DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow)

Pool 7Proposed Taieri Aquatic Centre [click to enlarge]

Taieri Community Facilities Trust (aka ‘Pooling Together’) — Who we are

### ODT Online Sun, 1 Mar 2015
Workshop to discuss Mosgiel pool options
Source: The Star [primary: DCC media release 24.2.15]
Dunedin City Councillors and the Taieri Communities Facilities Trust (TCFT) will hold a workshop on Tuesday to discuss proposals to build a new pool in Mosgiel. Mayor Dave Cull said the workshop, on March 3, would be an opportunity to discuss the framework around which the decision-making process needs to be based.
During Long Term Plan (LTP) discussions last month, the council agreed to include information on two-pool, three-pool and four-pool Mosgiel Pool options as unfunded options in the LTP consultation document for public feedback in March and April.
Read more

RESPONSE
Submitted to ODT Online. Not published.

Private facilities trust
new
Submitted by ej kerr on Sun, 01/03/2015 – 6:24pm.

TCFT is a private trust, its trustee board has not been democratically elected; the trust does not represent the Mosgiel-Taieri community or indeed the Dunedin community, comprising all residents and ratepayers.

Based on two reports from the trust to DCC (here and here, the second being a revision), both dated 21.01.15, there appears to have been no thorough community consultation whatsoever. The reports, as reviewed by council staff, appear to hold little credence in terms of identified issues and options, and that old chestnut, affordability (or not).

Critically accurate budget costings are not provided.

Projected figures would need to be realistic before full and proper community consultation occurs – but which ‘community(s)’ is it for canvass?

At this stage, to emphasise, the figures appear to be both contrived and substantially deficient. But there are wider matters too, for our collective consideration, affecting the future of the Mosgiel-Taieri area in relation to the greater city area which are sidestepped or completely omitted.

The idea that the trust (with help of council politicians and old boy networks?) is bulldozing to get a pool project budget line into the Long Term Plan is all rather previous, given their lobbying appears to be based on very poor homework akin to winks nudges between self-interested cronies, including Mosgiel-Taieri housing developers (effecting sprawl) and the local business association (mainstreet impresarios).

This ‘much of a fuss’ politicking isn’t helped by recent statements coming from trust chairman Michael Stedman, and the explicit two party / three party confusions of the latest council media release. Mr Stedman knows full well the mounting pressures of the stadium project on council debt levels and service delivery, with consequent erosion of ratepayers’ private wealth as our local population ages. Yet, was he ecstatically happy to compound all that by mustering those who would dive into a pool project for (only guessing) ‘elites’, without checking depth or other safety considerations for the already lumbered Dunedin community. Ah, the true mark of a leader.

█ The trust’s initial intention to meet with members of the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board? Invitation lost in the mail.

Related Posts and Comments:
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.14 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
21.1.15 Dunedin City Council to set rates WAY ABOVE….
15.1.15 Did the pool trust reply, Dr Hamlin?
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

Pool 2Pool 4Pool 6Pool 5

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Scanned images: These renders by Baker Garden Architects were presented in a project report from the Taieri Community Facilities Trust to the Council during pre-draft Long Term Plan 2015/16 meetings in January. Extra copies were provided for the public gallery. [public domain]

8 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Corruption, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Disinformation, Economics, Events, Geography, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stupidity, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

University of Otago can’t beat broadcast news and social media #image

Hyde St 16.2.15 [nzherald.co.nz] 1.2[click screenshot to enlarge]

This is how New Zealand Herald, via the National news section (it’s an ODT story and photograph by Hamish McNeilly), markets the University of Otago Campus Area to parents and intending students, nationals and internationals. Read the full article at NZ Herald.

Better advertising to reduce Otago’s student rolls we couldn’t hope to find.

Glad Vice-chancellor Harlene Hayne has everything under control.
Perhaps the VC could visit and apologise to the distressed student from George Street, hard at work today serving customers at the Octagon, who told me she and her flatmates ventured out on Sunday morning to find their driveway grossly awash with vomit.

Related Posts and Comments:
18.12.14 University of Otago —um Harlene, what you sellin’ now, girl?
12.8.14 Cameras in North Dunedin
1.8.14 University Partyville, North Dunedin: Put the cameras in ~!!
16.7.14 Stadium: Out of the mouths of uni babes…. #DVML
30.4.14 Octagon mud
22.3.14 Dunedin North care less filthy slum
19.3.14 Dunedin North drunks
15.2.14 University of Otago: Starter questions for Harlene
10.2.14 University of Otago major sponsor for Highlanders
19.8.13 Cull on senility (firing up graduates)
25.3.13 UoO: NEGATIVE PRESS: Weekly disorder in Dunedin campus area
20.2.12 University of Otago student orientation
17.2.12 Salvation Army: The Growing Divide
17.12.11 Stadium + Cull love = University of Otago + OUSA party
23.11.11 Judge Oke Blaikie finally said it
9.11.11 DCC has PR problem

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

33 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Events, Highlanders, Media, Name, New Zealand, Otago Polytechnic, People, Pics, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Stupidity, Tourism, University of Otago, Urban design

Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel

Updated post Thu, 12 Feb 2015 at 6:40 p.m.

TaieriAquaticCentre-CapabilityStudy 6 Nov 2014 (PDF, 7 MB)

Received from Night Rider
Submitted on 2015/02/10 at 12:55 pm

Look what I found in the rubbish in Bath St, at 2am this morning.
Notice to all Councillors of a SPECIAL SECRET MEETING.
The Taieri Community Facilities Trust would like to invite Councillors to a discussion on the Spatial Plan with the Trust and members of the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board.
It appears that the proposed Aquatic development may not sit within the Spatial Plan’s intent.
█ Downes Room, Mosgiel Public Library at 7.30pm on Tuesday, 17 February.

I now cordially invite the public to this secret meeting if you are interested in who this group thinks they are representing. I am sure that the Councillors would be interested in what the actual inhabitants of Mosgiel think rather than those who work in the shadows of darkness, under the cloak of secrecy, representing none other than developers and interested main street business people, who see a great financial gain if this project [‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’] goes ahead at the selected site.

My reply: Night Rider, how many Councillors would think it prudent to show up to such a clandestine self-interested sort of meeting !!? This is what housing sprawl lobbyists do isn’t it. Wonder what kickbacks are proposed to buy the Council’s vote.

Received from Night Rider
Submitted on 2015/02/10 at 2:27 pm

Another titbit that fell out of the Bath St rubbish this morning was a summary of a Community Board Workshop held recently. Board members in attendance actually suggested that they have a closed Facebook page – to share ideas. More Secrecy. Elected to represent their communities, but want to have a secret Facebook page for themselves. Not good, sounds a bit like the old East European style.
An interesting contribution from the Mosgiel Mob at the combined community boards meeting. They were crowing that the success story has been community consultation and engagement. Maybe someone from out Mosgiel way would like to comment on that one. Night Rider hasn’t been out that way recently, must get out there and check my traps.

Taieri Community Facilities Trust (aka ‘Pooling Together’) — Who we are

[click to enlarge]
Pool 2Pool 4Pool 5Pool 6Pool 7These scanned images (supplied) were presented in a project report from the Taieri Community Facilities Trust to the Council during pre-draft Long Term Plan 2015/16 meetings in January. Extra copies were provided for the public gallery. [site plan and renders: Baker Garden Architects]

█ The private trust expects DCC to be the major funder for the (note: under-calculated) +$17 million pool project, which is only achievable if the Council increases its borrowing.

Related Posts and Comments:
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

24 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Corruption, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Events, Geography, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Tony Avery is “somebody’s” pet #gigatown lapdog

Tony Avery 3 Infrastructure and Networks General Manager Tony Avery resigned from Dunedin City Council on 28 August 2014, falling on his sword as a result of the Citifleet/Citipark fraud —something, the Council conveniently brushes under its carpet with ALL BLAME politically attaching (for insurance purposes) to the deceased former Citifleet manager Brent Bachop. Other council staff were clearly involved; one person alone does not dispose of 152+ cars, and related council assets. So Mr Avery, WENT…. But not really.
With all the scandal and corruption appearing at Mr Avery’s door, the Council, VERY supportively, extended his “help” and salary repeatedly after initial news that he would work through to Christmas. Then, on Saturday 31 January the Council revealed that: “He would continue working fulltime, assisting [Ruth] Stokes and helping with the transition on key projects, until March 31, [Sue] Bidrose said.” (ODT 1.2.15).

But the latest DCC blinder:

“Tony Avery’s new gig (pun intended)
Helping Gigatown Dunedin secure sources of funding…”

DCC Pets. Pet Projects. NO COUNCIL SHAME.
How do we define corruption, again.

Related Post and Comments:
12.1.15 Traffic lights: Anzac Avenue/Frederick Street intersection
29.12.14 DCC gets QLDC talent…. the weft and warp deviously weaves
6.11.14 DCC pals up with Chorus —gigatown and telecoms cabinets
9.10.14 DCC’s Daaave at university bollard, in his twilight
28.8.14 DCC: Tony Avery resigns
5.6.14 DCC Transport Strategy and Riccarton Road
22.5.14 DCC Transportation Planning —ANOTHER consultation disaster
24.4.14 DCC promotes Riccarton Rd as sole heavy traffic bypass
29.10.13 DCC (EDU) invents new job! —Gigatown/Digital Office
20.11.12 DCC vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”

█ For more, enter the terms *citifleet*, *sh88*, *anzide*, *cycle*, *parking* or *riccarton* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Tony Avery tweaked by whatifdunedin

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Citifleet, Corruption, DCC, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Fraud, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Stupidity

Charles Jencks —extreme emotion and neutrality

Dalian International Conference Centre, China 4

►► Jencks excerpts [click to enlarge or ctrl +]

Jencks, Charles - Architecture Becomes Music. Essay 6 May 2013 - Architectural Review 1

Jencks - Architecture Becomes Music. 6 May 2013 - Architectural Review 2b

Ed Sheeran Published on Oct 7, 2014
Ed Sheeran – Thinking Out Loud [Official Video]
Here’s my official video for ‘Thinking Out Loud’, I learnt to dance! Taken from my album ‘x’, available to buy via iTunes here: http://smarturl.it/x-itunesdlx

Jencks - Architecture Becomes Music. 6 May 2013 - Architectural Review 3a

TaylorSwiftVEVO Published on Nov 10, 2014
Taylor Swift – Blank Space
Watch Taylor’s new video for “Blank Space”. No animals, trees, automobiles or actors were harmed in the making of this video. Taylor’s new release 1989 is Available Now on iTunes http://www.smarturl.it/TS1989

Dalian International Conference Centre, China 9

Coop Himmelb(l)au, Dalian Conference Center, China, 2008-12.
A continuously changing surface that rises and falls and bulges in the middle to include a theatre and opera house. Organised like block chords of music that open up and close, it is reminiscent of both Wagnerian chromaticism and the tonal melding of Philip Glass and John Adams.

Jencks - Architecture Becomes Music. 6 May 2013 - Architectural Review 4a

http://www.coop-himmelblau.at/architecture/projects/dalian-international-conference-center

Dalian International Conference Centre, China 3Dalian International Conference Centre, ChinaDalian International Conference Centre, China 2Dalian International Conference Centre, China 7Dalian International Conference Centre, China 6Dalian International Conference Centre, China 5Dalian International Conference Centre, China 8Images: Coop Himmelb(l)au —Wolf D. Prix and Partner ZT GmbH

█ More at Google Images

█ Download: Charles Jencks – Architecture Becomes Music | The Architectural Review 6 May 2013 via academia.edu [research]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

5 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Concerts, Construction, Design, Events, Geography, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, People, Pics, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design

Kimbell Art Museum Expansion (Piano Pavilion)

Kimbell Art Museum [indiaartndesign.com]Kimbell Art Museum [indiaartndesign.com]

The Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas
Museum of international art with collections ranging from antiquities to 20th century contemporary art — 3333 Camp Bowie Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76107, United States

The Renzo Piano Pavilion at Kimbell’s was in production for six years — Piano accepted the commission in 2007, groundbreaking occurred in 2010, and the Grand Opening took place on November 27, 2013.

“Close enough for a conversation, not too close and not too far away,” remarked architect Renzo Piano, when describing the distance from the Kimbell’s new Renzo Piano Pavilion to the Louis Kahn Building. Piano’s structure, made of glass, concrete, and wood and surrounded by elms and red oaks, stands as an expression of simplicity and lightness some 65 yards to the west of Kahn’s vaulted, luminous museum landmark of 1972.

Kimbell - Kahn Pavilion 1 [texasmonthly.com]Louis Kahn Building [texasmonthly.com]

Kimbell Art Museum section - Renzo Piano Kendall Heaton Associates [archdaily.net]Renzo Piano Kendall Heaton Associates section [archdaily.com]

ArtandSeek Published on Sep 12, 2013
An Early Look At the Kimbell’s Piano Pavilion
Eric Lee, Director of the Kimbell Art Museum explains some of the design features of the new Piano Pavilion, and the excitement surrounding the building’s opening.

KimbellArt Published on Nov 26, 2013
Kahn : Piano – The Piano Pavilion at the Kimbell Art Museum

DESIGN
Piano’s low-slung, colonnaded pavilion with overhanging eaves graciously acknowledges Kahn’s museum building by way of its kindred height, emphasis on natural light, and use of concrete as a primary material. The positioning of the pavilion on the site focuses attention on the west facade of the Kahn Building, which Kahn considered to be the main entrance.
The pavilion is made up of two sections connected by a glass passageway. The front, or easternmost, section conveys an impression of weightlessness: a glass roof system seems to float high above wooden beams and concrete posts. Sleek, square concrete columns flank the central, recessed glass entrance and wrap around three sides of the building. The tripartite facade articulates the interior, with a spacious entrance lobby and large galleries to the north and south.
Tucked under a green roof, the Piano Pavilion’s western section contains a gallery for light-sensitive works of art, three education studios, a large library with reading areas, and an auditorium with superior acoustics for music. The latter, located below ground level, is a design centrepiece: its raked seating faces the stage and the dramatic backdrop of a light well animated by shifting patterns of natural light.
Read more at https://www.kimbellart.org/architecture/piano-pavilion

Kimbell - Piano Pavilion [hyperallergic.com]Kimbell - Piano Pavilion [i.ytimg.com youtube maxresdefault]Renzo Piano Pavilion [hyperallergic.com and maxresdefault at youtube.com]

These time-lapse construction videos are worth the effort — in most cases buildings under construction satisfy the aesthetic complexities of the brain and the body as witness, better than any finished object.

visualimmersion Published on Aug 8, 2012
Kimbell Art Museum Expansion (Piano Pavilion) Animation

KimbellArt Published on Nov 13, 2013
A Glimpse into the Renzo Piano Pavilion at the Kimbell Art Museum

KimbellArt Published on Oct 7, 2014
Completed time-lapse photography of the Renzo Piano Pavilion
Kimbell Art Museum July 2011–September 2013. EarthCam.
The green spaces and sustainable features of the new building construction site are emerging, including the placement of a sophisticated, layered roof-structure, the installation of geothermal wells, and the planting of trees and grass.

KimbellArt Published on Sep 10, 2013
Renzo Piano’s Walls for the Kimbell Art Museum

KimbellArt Published on Oct 19, 2013
Renzo Piano’s Beams for the Kimbell Art Museum HD

KimbellArt Published on Oct 25, 2013
Renzo Piano’s Columns for the Kimbell Art Museum HD

KimbellArt Published on Oct 25, 2013
Renzo Piano’s Glass Roof for the Kimbell Art Museum HD

KimbellArt Published on Oct 25, 2013
Renzo Piano’s Landscape Roof for the Kimbell Art Museum HD

KimbellArt Published on Oct 25, 2013
Landscape at the Renzo Piano Pavilion HD

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Geography, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Museums, Name, People, Pics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Urban design

DCC explains Harbourside subdivision in reply to Vandervis

Received from Sandy Graham, DCC Group Manager Corporate Services
Friday, 16 January 2015 5:06 p.m.

From: Sue Bidrose
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 3:59 p.m.
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Council 2013-2016 (Elected Members); Sandy Graham
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Lee

Here is the Planner’s discussion about the Chalmers subdivision in the paper today. They have given generic information about how such decisions are made (to be notified or non-notified) and then how those principles stacked up in this specific case. They have then also addressed each of your specific attributes for this particular subdivision (size, political interest, transparency etc.) and how much impact that each of these can/can’t have on their decision-making around making the application notified/non-notified. I know you know much of this background Lee, but as you cc’d all Councillors, I wanted a generic response for Councillors who are not Hearings Panel members, so forgive my ‘teaching Granny to suck eggs’ approach.

Attached is also a couple of sketches that the planner (Lianne) made for herself showing the subdivision at the start of the process, and then at the end, just for your information for those of you who are interested in knowing exactly which lots were affected.

Regards
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

[click to enlarge or view PDF immediately below]
DCC Lianne Darby CPL subdivision - sketchmap 1
DCC Lianne Darby CPL subdivision - sketchmap 2

█ Download: Chalmers subdivision diagrams (PDF, 1.0 MB)

——————————

From: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 3:36 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Sue,

Please see below an email that Lianne has prepared in response to your query. I will also be sending some diagrams.

Please let me know if you need anything further.

Regards,
Jeremy

——————————

From: Lianne Darby [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 2:03 p.m.
To: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Subject: RE: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Jeremy

In response to Sue’s questions:

1. All subdivisions require resource consent. This is not a suggestion that there is a fault with subdivision, but is simply a matter whereby Council maintains control i.e. makes sure there is access, servicing, the land is geotechnically stable, etc.

The District Plan sets out the criteria for subdivision within the different zones, and where a subdivision meets the criteria, it is usually processed non-notified. In the case of the Port 2 and Industrial 1 zones, subdivisions are expected to comply with Rules 18.5.3 (access), 18.5.4 & 18.5.4 (requirements for esplanade strips or reserves), 18.5.6 (service connections), 18.5.9 ( a rule which has since been deleted and no long applies), 18.5.10 (lots in unserviced areas) and 18.5.12 (structure plans). Some/most of these rules will not be relevant to specific proposals. It should be noted that there is no minimum area or frontage requirements for lots in these zones. A subdivision meeting all these rules is a restricted discretionary proposal. It is worth noting the final paragraph of Rule 18.5.1 which states:

“… any application for subdivision consent involving a discretionary activity (restricted), the written approval of affected persons need not be obtained.”

… that is, a land owner may subdivide in accordance with the expectations of the District Plan for the zoning without needing to consider others as affected parties.

Subdivisions which do not meet the above rules (unrestricted discretionary and non-notified activities) are often processed non-notified as well if the proposal involves no change in land use, the non-compliance can be mitigated, or there are no consequences for neighbours, the general public or the District Plan integrity. For example, in the residential zones, new lots require frontage. Many lots do not have any frontage at all and the subdivision is a non-complying subdivision as a result. However, these lots will have rights of way providing them with legal and physical access, so the lack of frontage is not considered of any consequence. We do not notify these applications.

As a general rule, subdivisions are notified when there is a breach of density i.e. the new lots are undersized and will result in development at a greater density than the zoning would anticipate. This has the potential to change the wider amenity of an area or overload Council’s services, among other matters. However, if the land is already developed, then the subdivision of the land into lots smaller than anticipated is not usually considered a matter of concern as there will be no actual change occurring except on paper. For example, a lot with two houses could be subdivided into two undersized lots, each containing a house, without the subdivision being notified.

Large subdivisions are not notified simply because they are large. If the subdivision is in accordance with the District Plan expectations, i.e. meets the relevant rules, it will not be notified. For example, the large Mosgiel residential subdivisions currently underway have not been notified except for Heathfield which involved a lot of undersized lots.

Planning does not take into account political or commercial interests when processing resource consents.

2. The subdivision of Chalmers Properties was non-notified for several reasons.
a) It meets the necessary requirements for subdivision in the Port 2 and Industrial 1 zone. Any deficiencies there may be in servicing (e.g. the need for individual water connections) will be addressed as part of the consent conditions, as is typical.
b) There is no new development proposed. The subdivision is not for the purpose of creating vacant sites for new development. This does not mean that the new lots cannot be redeveloped, but this is not the purpose of the subdivision; nor is redevelopment dependent on the subdivision. The existing sites can be redeveloped at any time should the property owner desire.
c) The subdivision is not so much a large subdivision as a number of small subdivisions all being put on the same plan. We are starting with 15 existing titles and finishing with 34.
d) The new lots have, by my understanding, been selected mainly to coincide with existing leases. Council does not have access to lease information and does not know who the leaseholders are (barring door-knocking). Council does not normally consider lessees or property renters as affected parties as the tenancies are private agreements. The subdivision of the freehold parcels should not have implications for the terms of any leases or leasehold titles.
e) Many of the existing titles are comprised of multiple sections. The original subdivision created many small parcels, and these have been grouped into freehold titles to give the 15 subject sites. Section 226 of the RMA allows a property owner to separate these parcels onto separate freehold titles if certain conditions are met. This is not a subdivision, and Council does not have discretion to say ‘no’ if the conditions are satisfied. Many of the new lots follow existing parcel boundaries and could arguably have been dealt with using s226. Given the number of titles being dealt with and the fact that some buildings might actually, when checked by survey, be over boundaries, the applicant decided to deal with them all by a formal subdivision at once; a one step process whereby any breaches of buildings over existing parcel boundaries will not cause the project to stall.

3. As noted above:
a) Size. The size of the subdivision is not a deciding factor in notification if the subdivision rules are met. In this case, the subdivision is not so much a large subdivision as a number of small subdivisions dealt with together. There is no change in land use anticipated as a direct result of this subdivision as there are already established land uses for the new sites.
b) Political implications: Council does not take into account political implications when processing resource consents. Consents are assessed on their merits and not according to who the applicant is or where it is situated. The zone is the relevant factor, not the neighbourhood or the history of the area.
c) Planning implications: There are no planning implications associated with this subdivision. The subdivision meets the necessary rules as set out by Rule 18.5.1(iv) for the Port and Industrial zones. There is no minimum site size set for the zones, so there are no undersized lots. All lots are serviced and have access. They are already developed with lawfully established activities. Any existing encroachments of buildings over boundaries will be resolved by this subdivision. The subdivision is a restricted discretionary activity.
d) Public interest: It is difficult to see how public interest is relevant in this case. The subdivision does not challenge the integrity of the District Plan in any way, and this is the public planning document being applied. The terms of all existing leases should not be affected (and this is a matter between the property owner and tenants anyway, not Council). There is no change to the sites occurring as a direct result of the subdivision. While the new lots may be sold and/or redeveloped, the land is in private ownership and can already be sold and/or redeveloped. Council does not decide whether or not a property owner can sell their land. Redevelopment proposals will be assessed by Council if and when they arise.
e) Commercial interest: Council does not take into account commercial interests when processing resource consents. The RMA sections 74(3) and 95D(d) instructs a consent authority to disregard trade completion or the effects of trade competition.
f) Transparency: The applicant is a private land owner who is entitled by the District Plan to undertake certain activities on their land. While subdivision is not a permitted activity, Council does not decline subdivision applications where the proposal is in accordance with the relevant subdivision requirements and the land is stable (i.e. section 106 of the RMA is not triggered). This is not Council land, nor Council’s project. The resource consent application and decision are public documents available for anyone to view, and in this regard, there is transparency about the proposal. It was decided for the above reasons that the proposal did not need to be notified.

The consent decision makes evident that there are a large number of addresses involved. In a nutshell, the property owner has a large number of addresses which do not fully align with leases, which do not fully align with freehold titles, which do not fully align with buildings on-site. The subdivision seeks to tidy up, or rationalise, the landholdings for ease of the property owner’s administration, as noted in today’s Otago Daily Times paper.

Regards

Lianne

——————————

From: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:43 a.m.
To: Lianne Darby [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

FYI…

From: Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:11 a.m.
To: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Jeremy
Please read the Councillor email below about why the subdivision in today’s paper was done on a non-notified basis. I need details on this – is it possible (please read the details below) to do this today?

I need the details about:
1. Generically: how a planner decides notified vs non-notified – the things you are legally allowed to take into consideration generically, not specifically this case – what are the RULES and steps for making that decision
2. Specifically: how those rules were applied and steps taken in this specific case

Given my response to the Councillors is quite likely be shared reasonably widely, it might be useful in answering that first dotpoint for you to imagine you are writing a sort of ‘guide to the notification decision-making process’.

Thirdly, it would be also useful if you could tell me specifically on how each of the following issues is allowed to have weight in that decision of notification:
Size (of subdivision/change)
Political implications
Planning implications
Public interest
Commercial interest
Transparency.

Jeremy, if you could cc Sandy in your response please, as we will disseminate the answer and all relevant emails the way we do with LGOIMAs – and I suspect we could well get LGOIMAs about this also.

Thanks
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

From: [name redacted on forwarding to council staff]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 7:53 a.m.
To: Sue Bidrose [DCC]; Sandy Graham [DCC]
Cc: (all councillors)
Subject: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Dear Sue,
Why has the massive subdivision of 15 ORC properties into 34 lots [today’s ODT p4] been processed on a non-notified basis, given the size, political and planning implications, and public and commercial interest in this range of properties?
Notification is surely a necessary prerequisite for such a large range of subdivisions to be carried out in a transparent manner is it not?
Kind regards,
[name redacted]

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
9.1.15 DCC: Non-notified decision for harbourside subdivision
27.12.14 Port Otago Ltd + Chalmers Properties
17.11.14 Bradken keen to sell Tewsley Street premises
12.6.14 Dunedin’s industrial land
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Heritage NZ, Name, New Zealand, ORC, People, Pics, POL, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design