Category Archives: South Dunedin

thoughts and faces #loosematerial

My father [never a follower of the FedUp Farmers, as he deemed them; always the campaigner for removal of farm subsidies, to enhance production and market competition] had ‘stock’ phrases with which to judge the faces of female adversaries, those with little brain or spine in politics, pretenders. One adept phrase that sticks in my mind is “like a horse eating thistles” —so I look on the following with my tinted lens, and laugh, rurally (ruefully). No one target.

On 19 May @StuFleming tweeted: “Spend $200k, revenue projections of $2.4M to others, 10% margin yields say $240k net”
[minus ODT news photo of face]

[DUD ‘money hype’ typically depends on false multipliers, anechoic silences, and arrogant self-belief —this (yes) bleak statement applies across a broad range of proposed deals and associated marketing detritus in the city, especially to events, conferences, sport, hospitality and accommodation, and even the re-use (Not conservation) of truly rare and precious instances of historic heritage] Here’s to all the fricking horses out there, including hypocritical colleagues and friends with blinkers like demo balls prepared to squeeze the last dollar and pass us to Hell. Anyway, back to “the business”…. cargo cult tourism. The wider effects of tourism are like those of dairying. Too many eggs in one basket and everybody (I mean, everybody) ends up doing it badly —killing Our Place for generations. Greed, like endorphins, like a running addiction, binds them up. They think they’re bright, they think they’re enablers (read risk takers/investors centred on their own gains only), they think they’re entrepreneurs, better than others (but because I for one will tell you things you don’t want to hear, you’ll say “I’ll ring you tomorrow”, that silence again) but they’re just funneled, tunneled sheepybaas – doing it wrong. Like cows, deer, Chinese gooseberries (Kiwifruit!), wines, stadiums….. or ‘getting a room’ behind the poorly remembered, heavily made-up, Disney’d facade of our city and nationhood. The worst kind didn’t, or didn’t bother to, ‘grow up’ here. They get desperate, create mess, import other yes men. Ring you like nothing happened, their exploits —not to ask deeply madly who and how you really are.

### ODT Online Sat, 20 May 2017
Trenz prompts high aspirations
By David Loughrey
Next year’s Trenz conference in Dunedin is set to cost ratepayers $200,000, but the long-term pay-off should run well into the millions.
The Dunedin City Council will next week be given an idea of the costs to the city of hosting the conference from May 7 to 10, and also the estimated benefits. The city learned last week it would host the tourism industry event next year, bringing up to 1200 international travel and tourism buyers, media and New Zealand tourism operators to Dunedin. It will be the first time the event, run by Tourism Industry Aotearoa (TIA), has come to Dunedin and the first time it has been hosted outside Auckland, Rotorua, Christchurch or Queenstown since it began in the 1960s. Trenz is an opportunity for New Zealand tourism operators to sell their product to buyers, effectively overseas travel agents who put together itineraries for overseas tourists. Attracting more than 350 buyers to experience the tourism products on offer here is considered a huge coup. On average, each buyer sends 4000 visitors a year to New Zealand, totalling 1.5 million. It comes as figures show New Zealand’s tourism market is expected to continue to grow strongly, topping $15 billion by 2023. Tourism contributes more than $690 million to Dunedin’s economy every year.
Read more

Meanwhile, although we (‘our stock’ NZ) and the UK farm gate look pretty much the same……

‘Herdwick Shepherd’ aka James Rebanks (@herdyshepherd1) farms Herdwick sheep in the English Lake District. Author of bestselling memoir, The Shepherd’s Life:

### ODT Online Saturday, 20 May 2017
OE to Britain set to get tougher
Prime Minister Bill English says the Conservative Party’s new plans to clamp down on immigration will sting New Zealanders wanting to live in the United Kingdom, including on the traditional OE, but there is little he can do until Brexit is completed. The British party’s election manifesto includes plans to drastically cut net migration from 273,000 to less than 100,000 by targeting students and those on working visas. It proposes cutting the number of skilled migrants to get visas, higher levies on employers who take on migrant workers and tripling the National Health Service immigration health surcharge from £200 to £600 ($NZ380 to $NZ1130) a year for those in the UK on visas of more than six months and 450 for international students. That surcharge increase will also affect those on the traditional OE, although there is no mention of scrapping the two-year youth mobility visa which allows young New Zealanders to get a two-year visa to work and travel in the United Kingdom. Mr English said the changes would affect those on their OE but they would have to grin and bear it until Brexit was completed. NZME.
Read more

Super City mayor Phil Goff has a plan for getting money from tourists – it bears some similarity to that of the Mongrel Mob……

### NZ Herald Thu, 18 May 2017
Winston Aldworth: Seeking the smart money
OPINION What do Phil Goff and the Mongrel Mob have in common? As hundreds of travel industry figures from all around the world gathered in Auckland for last week’s Trenz conference, one of the many topics up for discussion was the Auckland mayor’s enthusiasm for a hotel bed tax on visitors to the city. Meanwhile, up north at Ahipara on Ninety Mile Beach, three German tourists were approached by two local Mongrel Mob members who told them that they were on Maori land, and had to pay koha. They also told the tourists they’d be taking a few of their cigarettes. A tobacco tax, if you will. Perhaps their plan for putting heavy taxes on visitors was inspired by the Super City mayor. Goff’s bed tax is about as blunt an instrument as the Mob’s shakedown. “Look there’s a foreigner! Let’s get a couple of bucks off them.” The airport tax introduced by John Key a year ago is equally clumsy. It’s a travesty that these tariffs are the best we can come up with for making money out of tourism. Yes, other countries put dull levies on visitor arrivals, but that’s no reason to follow suit. We New Zealanders pride ourselves on being innovators, so let’s find innovative ways to get more money out of the tourism sector. Both Goff and Key were ministers in governments that did everything they could to remove tariffs from the dairy trade. Today, the best and brightest marketing wallahs of Goff’s inner circle are putting forward a plan no more sophisticated than one devised by two Mongrel Mob members standing on a Northland beach. I’m not against making money out of tourists — quite the opposite, in fact. I think it’s terrific that our country can be boosted by an industry that encourages us to care for our environment, celebrate the things that make our culture unique and spreads revenue quickly and efficiently to the regions. But how about instead of putting a dumb tax on the visitors, we upsell them? Take their money at the gate for sure, but give them something special in return.
Read more

Enough randomising. More rain and ice falls.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

13 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Baloney, Business, Carisbrook, Central Otago, COC (Otago), Concerts, Construction, Corruption, Crime, CST, Cycle network, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Electricity, Enterprise Dunedin, Events, Finance, Freedom camping, Geography, Health & Safety, Heritage, Highlanders, Hospital, Hotel, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Music, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, Offshore drilling, ORFU, Otago Polytechnic, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, Resource management, SDHB, SFO, Site, South Dunedin, Sport, Stadiums, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design

Cumulative DCC rates rise; council boffins continue ruse of ‘found savings’

At Facebook:

****

The council had engaged with the public well, and arrived at a figure under the 3% limit. It was pleasing to keep faith with the community, and keep that promise. –Mayor Cull

### ODT Online Wed, 17 May 2017
2.99% Dunedin rates rise
By David Loughrey
Despite an extra $100,000 of spending approved this week, the Dunedin City Council scraped in under its self-imposed 3% target for rates rises for the next financial year. The council approved a budget that will see ratepayers asked for an extra 2.99% for 2017-18. Annual plan deliberations ended yesterday, after councillors spent a day and a-half discussing spending for the year ahead. The only major changes affecting ratepayers were an extra $100,000 approved for two projects, changes that came after staff found a further $100,000 in savings. […] Mr Cull said some people had reservations about the annual plan process, which featured feedback meetings rather than formal submissions this year, before full submissions are brought back for the long-term plan next year.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Wed, 17 May 2017
DCC approves $1m for artificial turf
By David Loughrey
Dunedin is set to get two artificial turf sports fields at Logan Park late this year or early next, after a proposal set to cost the city $1 million won unanimous approval yesterday. The move has delighted Football South, which had asked for the money to be provided urgently to attract available funding from Fifa. The Dunedin City Council annual plan deliberations meeting supported the proposal despite concerns from Cr Aaron Hawkins there had been no official public submissions this year, and others had been discouraged from suggesting new projects until next year’s long-term plan.
Read more

****

We’re not interested in (thank god) ex Cr Jinty MacTavish’s or the Green Party’s vision (what vision). DCC’s job IS to look after the environment together with infrastructure service provision. No further strategy is needed. Note the contradictions and hypocrisy contained in this item (italics by whatifdunedin):

The council moved the decision to give the strategy $200,000 to continue work towards making Dunedin a zero carbon, healthy environment.

### ODT Online Tue, 16 May 2017
Funding set for strategy
By Margot Taylor
The environment, bus governance and pool admission fees dominated discussions at the first day of Dunedin City Council annual plan hearings yesterday. The absence of public submissions was a notable difference at the hearing. The public had a chance to voice their opinions on the 2017-18 draft annual plan at public forums and drop-in sessions from March 30 to May 1, rather than at annual plan hearings as in previous years. Dunedin’s environment strategy received 26 comments during the consultation. Mayor Dave Cull said the comments provided “a pretty clear response” about funding for the initiative.
Read more

CUMULATIVE RATES INCREASES –
NO FAITH IS KEPT AT ALL EXCEPT THAT MAYOR CULL HAS TO GO

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

32 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Central Otago, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Electricity, Finance, Geography, Health & Safety, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

TOMMYROT from ‘academic’ local authorities…. #SouthDunedin it’s PUNCH BACK TIME

At Facebook:

More in tomorrow’s newspaper.

****

Chairman of the Otago chapter of the Property Council New Zealand Geoff Thomas says policymakers need to be careful not to damage property development opportunities in South Dunedin.

### ODT Online Wed, 10 May 2017
Policy could hold back South Dunedin
By Margot Taylor
Residential property development in South Dunedin could be “squashed” by the Dunedin City Council’s overly cautious natural hazards policies, the Otago branch president of the Property Council New Zealand warns.
Geoff Thomas said a proposal under the proposed second generation Dunedin city district plan (2GP), to require all residential properties in the area to be movable, could stymie the replacement of housing stock. The proposed policy ignored costs associated with residential development, including land, compliance costs and construction materials. “Making residential housing relocatable doesn’t make sense. I, personally, have sold a 1980s house with aluminium joinery for $1 to be moved.” If approved, the proposal would result in either more substandard houses, or houses that would be “very expensive” to build, he said. The natural hazards policies did not adequately consider current and potential technologies to manage sea-level rise and floods. “I think South Dunedin is full of opportunity. A lot of the housing stock is from a day gone by. It is an opportunity to do something with the area and our concern is we don’t want to end up with a caravan park out there.” Water drainage was a clear issue. A more reasonable approach to protect the economic viability of the area could be taken to address it.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

16 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Baloney, Business, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Health & Safety, Heritage, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZIA, NZPI, NZTA, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, SFO, Site, South Dunedin, Stadiums, Structural engineering, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design

Dunedin’s second generation district plan (2GP) —notes on Natural Hazards

Received from Neil Johnstone
Wed, 3 May 2017 at 7:19 p.m.

Message: Last Thursday (27 April) I presented the remainder of my submission on Natural Hazards. Notes attached in case they might help anybody’s further efforts.

{The notes from Mr Johnstone are public domain by virtue of the consultative 2GP hearing process. -Eds}

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: LANDSLIDES
Neil Johnstone

I have no property interest in any landslide hazard area (although I did previously), nor in the Water of Leith catchment, nor in South Dunedin. My main purpose in appearing at this stage is to bring to the panel’s attention that the expert (so-called) opinions received from Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) natural hazard analysts are often deficient to the detriment of the 2GP process and the city’s residents.

I am a long-term resident of Dunedin and am highly experienced in flood control issues and solutions. I am appearing here on my own behalf, therefore not strictly as an Expert Witness in this instance, although I have done so in past years both in both the High Court and the Environment Court. I also acted as lead technical advisor to the NZ Govt investigation into the massive 1999 Clutha flood. My detailed investigations have ranged from simple issues such as the Water of Leith (as Investigations Engineer at Otago Catchment Board and ORC) to the entire Clutha catchment (in varying roles). These investigations have often incorporated the construction and operation of accurate, properly verified models.

I am now semi-retired MIPENZ, but still running my own consultancy on a reduced basis. I am a highly experienced expert in flood issues, I am much less so wrt landslide identification and mitigation (but I know a nonsensical report when I read one). ORC hazard analysts responsible for the landslide buffer zones originally imposed across my former property (and many others) need to accept that their approach was seriously flawed, and far from expert. Paul Freeland has mentioned to me in a recent phone conversation that Dunedin City Council (DCC) should be able to have confidence that ORC hazard analysts are expert. I have no strong criticism of Mr Freeland, but those days have passed – in this region at least – when expertise was based on proven performance, and not on a position’s title. A property previously owned by my wife and me in Porterfield Street, Macandrew Bay was quite ridiculously misrepresented in ORC’s landslide report of September 2015. The landslide hazard zone on that property has apparently now been removed, but uncaring damage has been done to us, and no doubt to many others. The Hazard 2 zone was reportedly imposed without site inspection, or without anybody properly reviewing output or checking accuracy of references.

[Reason for submitting: Natural Hazards section of 2GP dominated (undermined) by ORC hazards staff input and DCC failure to verify/review; DCC presumption that ORC “experts” do/should have appropriate expertise. We appear to be witnessing a proliferation of Hazard Analysts in NZ Local Government with little relevant experience or skill.]

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: SOUTH DUNEDIN
Neil Johnstone

The comments re South Dunedin flood hazard contained in my original written submission were written prior to DCC’s producing its inaccurate flood reports in respect of the South Dunedin flooding of early June 2015 in which high groundwater levels were held to blame. These DCC reports were eventually released in late November 2015 and April 2016 respectively. My analyses (well after my original submission) demonstrated that the prime cause of widespread flooding in South Dunedin was DCC’s failure (in order of probable significance) to utilise the bypass facility at Tahuna Wastewater Treatment Plant, to fully utilise its stormwater pumping capacity at Portobello Road, and to maintain its stormwater infrastructure (mudtanks etc). Inflow of “foreign” water from the St Clair catchment added to the depth of inundation in some areas. All these can be remedied by a diligent Council. Some have already been remedied, as positively demonstrated in the admittedly rather over-hyped rain event of the subtropical cyclone remnant around this past Easter.

ORC natural hazard analysts were probably responsible for the origin of the groundwater myth as a cause of the South Dunedin flooding in their Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 report. Reference was made there to “elevated” ground water levels. They followed up with a contentious report (The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin, July 2016). This opens by stating that the June 2015 flooding was caused by heavy rainfall and high groundwater levels, with no mention of mudtanks, or pumping failures (plural). Such reporting cannot be treated as balanced, nor its authors credible. Elsewhere, ORC essentially conceded the groundwater myth in Rebecca Macfie’s excellent NZ Listener article entitled Flood Fiasco (June 11, 2016).

Shortly after, however, ORC produced the aforementioned South Dunedin Hazards report (backed up by an embarrassingly inaccurate video presentation) that seems to reflect a desire to preach doom rather than convey a balanced defendable scientific analysis of South Dunedin realities and solutions where needed.

One of the worst features of the report and subsequent video was the depiction of projected permanently inundated areas of South Dunedin based on ORC modelling of rising sea level effects. These depictions made front page news in the Otago Daily Times with flow-on reporting nationally. The mapped areas of inundation are actually taken from an earlier ORC report entitled The South Dunedin Coastal Aquifer and Effect of Sea Level Fluctuations (October 2012). The modelling was based on limited information, and the findings would therefore be expected to be of limited reliability. The 2012 report essentially confirms this, noting that modelling of existing conditions overestimates actual groundwater levels (by the order of half a metre in places). Figure 2 (Scenario 0) of that report shows significant permanent ponding for current conditions. None exists in reality. Almost lost (in Section 3.8) are the following (abbreviated, and amongst other) concessions:

• Uncertainty of input data
• Potential inaccuracy of model predictions
• High level of uncertainty
• Groundwater system is poorly to moderately well characterised
• Aquifer properties are poorly understood or quantified
• Each of these uncertainties could have the effect of overestimating the groundwater ponding in the current setting.

The reader is advised to read the full Section 3.8 to ensure contextual accuracy. In my view (as an experienced modeller), a study that cannot even replicate known existing relationships is imperfectly calibrated and unverified. It cannot therefore be relied on. Strictly speaking, it does not qualify as a model. The relationship between possible sea level rise and consequent groundwater impact remains highly uncertain.

Unfortunately, the 2016 ORC South Dunedin Hazards report (and video) chose to reproduce the 2012 ponding predictions using more recent data (but without any better appreciation of aquifer characteristics), but the predictions are similar. It is noted that no Scenario 0 mapping is included in the latter report, nor are the model’s inherent weaknesses described. No admission of the potential modelling inaccuracies is presented other than the following note in Section 4.1: “Further discussion of the original model parameters, model calibration and potential pitfalls is included in the ORC (2012a) report, which can be accessed on the ORC website”. I believe that all parties were entitled to know unequivocally that the modelling was unreliable and unverified.

The 2016 report also makes reference to the fact that dry-weather ground water levels at the Culling Park recorder are at or below mean sea level. This is attributed by the authors to leakage of ground water into the stormwater and wastewater sewers. If that is correct (I would reserve judgement as to whether there may be other factors), then we are witnessing just one example of how an engineered solution could be utilised to dissipate increasing depth of groundwater. Such solutions are canvassed in the BECA report commissioned by DCC several years back.

To summarise, South Dunedin’s exposure to flood (current or future) is poorly described by ORC hazard analysts. The 2GP process seems to have seen these analysts “adopted” by DCC planners as their experts. I consider that to be an inappropriate approach to the detriment of our citizens.

The proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. The proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empts the currently-planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise solutions.

Requiring relocatable houses will likely simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably insufficient money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal to require relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

With respect to ground water issues across South Dunedin, the 2016 Hazard Report presents –

The reason for my pointing out these facts is to encourage Commissioners to take a step back from the current hysteria surrounding South Dunedin. Had the 2015 flooding extent been restricted (as it should have been) to that which occurred in a slightly larger rainfall event in March 1968, the event would have already been forgotten. Seemingly, at least partly as a result of that hysteria, the proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. Just as ORC floodplain mapping contradicts its in-place flood protection philosophy, so does the proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empt the currently planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise.

Requiring relocatable houses will simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably no money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal for relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

****

2GP PRESENTATION: URBAN STREAM HAZARDS
Neil Johnstone

Urban Stream Comment re Leith and Lindsay Streams:

ORC’s mapping is said to be of residual flooding (post-flood protection works of the past 80-plus years), but actually represents what might have been envisaged many decades back in something considerably greater than the record 1929 flood with none of the very significant channel works of the 1930s, 1940s and 1960s; or even those lesser improvement of the 2010s in place. The ORC 2GP mapping includes areas that didn’t get flooded in 1923 or 1929. I agree with some potential dangers of stream blockage (especially in Lindsay Creek, and to a lesser extent at Clyde Street and Rockside Road), but one can only consider locations of feasible blockage in today’s conditions. Furthermore, accepted professional practice for flood plain mapping requires detailed hydrology, probability analyses, climate change allowance, hydrograph routing, in-channel modelling (allowing for stream capacity variability), and overland flow modelling. ORC’s flood mapping incorporates none of these fundamentals; instead, it reads as little more than a colouring-in exercise, when a professionally researched technical document is required. In short, ORC’s hazard analysts have carried out no fit-for-purpose analysis for a District Plan process.

Interestingly, the concerns expressed by ORC hazard analysts re channel blockage are entirely inconsistent with ORC’s own design philosophy and consent application evidence for the recent Flood protection scheme (so called). Design Philosophy minimises the issue.

Very briefly, the mapping is challenged for the following reasons (inter alia):

No descriptions of the effective flood protection initiatives (OHB -1920s and 1930s, DCC -1940s, OCB -1960s) are included. These works have ensured that overtopping is practically impossible in the George Street to Cumberland Street reach, the Clock Tower reach and Forth Street to Harbour reaches. Flood protection in these areas are all built to a much higher hydraulic standard than the so-called ORC scheme of the past decade, and to a far, far higher standard than existed pre-1929.

It is further noted that ORC’s own Design Philosophy Report (OPUS for ORC, 2005) for the proposed Leith/Lindsay flood protection scheme is adamant that debris traps recently (then) constructed at Malvern Street and Bethunes Gully would further mitigate any debris problems. Refer paras 7.7 and 10.6 of that document.

Ponding is mapped where water couldn’t even reach in 1929 (peak flood currently estimated at 220 cumecs, and predating flood protection measures) in the wider CBD area. Flows along George Street in the 1920s only occurred south as far as about Howe Street, then re-entered the river. Nowadays, the accelerating weir above George Street and the structural high velocity channel immediately downstream provide much more clearance than existed in 1929. [Most outflow then from the river occurred much further downstream.] In those downstream reaches, many of the bridges have been replaced or upgraded. Possible remaining points of interest are the hydraulically insignificant extension (circa 2015) of the St David Street footbridge, the historic Union Street arch footbridge, and the widened (circa 2012) Clyde Street road bridge. The flimsy St David Street bridge would not survive any hydraulic heading up so there would likely be of little flood consequence, and backing up upstream of Union St would be largely inconsequential because of the height of the Clock Tower reach banks immediately upstream. The Clyde Street bridge is acknowledged as being lower than optimum, but it has not created any issues in its half century existence. Any overtopping there could only impact on a limited area between the bridge and the railway line.

Overland lows beyond (east of) the rail line remain highly improbable because of the ongoing blocking effect of road and rail embankments. Flows as far as the railway station to the west of the rail line are also highly improbable nowadays as only the Clyde Street area could conceivably contribute.

The 1923 photograph showing ponding along Harrow Street is presented by ORC with an unfortunate caption stating that the water is sourced from the Leith. Some undoubtedly was, but the whole of the city was subject to “internal” stormwater flooding from Caversham tunnel, across South Dunedin to the CBD and beyond. To illustrate further, a NIWA April 1923 flood summary (accessible online) provides a summary of some of the information more fully described in technical reports and newspaper accounts, including:

• Portions of Caversham, South Dunedin, St Kilda, the lower portions of central and northern areas of the City and North East Valley were completely inundated.
• Water in South Dunedin was waist deep.
• The Water of Leith rose considerably and burst its banks in many places, causing extensive damage along its banks and flooding low-lying areas.

Today’s stormwater infrastructure is rather more extensive and effective (when maintained), and DCC has a continuing legal obligation to provide to maintain that service.

The levels plotted across Lindsay Creek seem highly pessimistic. Levels are shown to be of the order of 2 metres above North Road in some locations at least. I have [no] knowledge of any such levels ever having been approached. Care must be taken not to include unfloodable areas in the mapping. I don’t however discount localised channel blockage, and the channel capacity is substandard in many areas. The valley slope ensures that overland flow will achieve damaging velocities. Such velocities are noted in the NIWA summary.

Of greater concern to me, however, is that ORC’s mapping appears to have seriously underestimated the significance of potential Woodhaugh flood issues:-

The river channel through here is both steep and confined. The influences of Pine Hill Creek (immediately upstream) and Ross Creek (immediately downstream) add to turbulence and bank attack. The area was ravaged in 1923 and 1929, and there have been evacuations in some much lesser events in later decades. These areas are at considerable risk in a 50- to 100-year plus event. Hardin Street, Malvern Street had houses evacuated in the 1960s flood. High velocity, rock laden flows and mudslides can all be anticipated, and difficult to counter. Area below camping ground / Woodhaugh was overwhelmed in floods of the 1920s – a focus for flooding depth and velocity.

If the 2GP process is to include urban flood maps, these should be diligently derived, based on historical record and appropriate modelling. The mapping should reflect the real flood risks (including likelihood, velocity and depth). The decreasing flood risk from Woodhaugh (potentially high impact) through North East Valley (moderate impact) through to the main urban area south of the Leith waterway (localised and of little-to-zero impact) should be reflected in the mapping.

[ends]

2GP Hearing Topic: Natural Hazards
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/hearings-schedule/natural-hazards.html

█ For more, enter the terms *johnstone*, *flood* and *south dunedin* in the search box at right.

Related Posts and Comments
6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood
10.6.16 “Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article

[DCC Map differs from what was notified]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

8 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Education, Geography, Health & Safety, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Urban design

DCC leases space for South Dunedin community hub at Cargill Enterprises

How many years has this taken DCC
It’s still only “temporary” accommodation….

South Dunedin has been waiting for a public library since the time of borough amalgamation.

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Home found for South Dunedin pop up hub

This item was published on 02 May 2017

A home has been found for the South Dunedin pop up community hub. The Dunedin City Council this week signed a two year lease to set up a temporary hub in part of the Cargill Enterprises premises at 199 Hillside Road.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]
DCC Webmap – 199 Hillside Rd, South Dunedin JanFeb 2013

Group Manager Arts and Culture Bernie Hawke says, “We are delighted to have a confirmed location for the pop up hub. This is a well known, central location and we look forward to providing a range of services on site for local residents.”

The DCC is leasing about 200sq m, which includes space for community activities, meeting areas, DCC service centre and library activities, and kitchen and toilet facilities. The hub will also provide access to Gig wifi for the South Dunedin community. It is hoped the pop up hub will be open about mid year. As well as providing access to DCC services, the hub will provide an opportunity for the community to have input into the development of the permanent South Dunedin Community Hub. While the opening hours for the pop up hub are still to be confirmed, the hub is expected to be open about 25 hours a week, across five days and including one evening and Saturday morning.

Cargill Enterprises Chief Executive Geoff Kemp says, “Cargills are thrilled to be in a position to accommodate the city’s South D interim hub initiative. “A community centre and library adjoining the main facility will give our 94 staff easy access to the many services planned, particularly the opportunity to explore a wide range of reading material and multimedia. We view the hub as complementing our employer-led numeracy and literacy training programme. Very exciting!”

Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull comments, “The establishment of the pop up hub shows the Council’s commitment to South Dunedin and is a key part of a much wider engagement with the South Dunedin community and agencies working in the area.”

DCC Chief Executive Officer Dr Sue Bidrose says, “When the pop up hub has been established, we will turn our attention to the location and development of the permanent hub. The signing of a lease for the pop up hub is an important step in this process. In addition to the pop up hub development, our Community Development team has been working alongside groups within South Dunedin to look at the social and economic needs and strengths of this community. As part of this, on 18 May we are organising a number of local community-based groups and individuals to meet to see if a collective action plan to support improved social and economic wellbeing can be created within the South Dunedin area.”

Contact DCC on 03 477 4000.
DCC Link

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

6 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Infrastructure, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Site, South Dunedin, Technology, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

#RNZAFBlackFalcons performing over Dunedin’s St Kilda beach today

At Twitter:

[unfortunately Dunedin has fog and low cloud but we still Heard….. the #RNZAFBlackFalcons]

Photos received from Rose McRobie, maxing out her iPhone zoom:

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalNZAirForceBlackFalcons/

At Facebook:

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

3 Comments

Filed under Dunedin, Events, Fun, Media, Name, New Zealand, Public interest, South Dunedin

JimmyJones deflates *mad utterings* of Prof Emer Jim Flynn

Received from JimmyJones
2017/03/17 at 7:43 pm

Prof Flynn, Emeritus Professor in Politics, deserves much criticism for his use of fake facts to support his presentation to the DCC councillors on Monday. He is said to have a good understanding of scientific methodology and so he should have known better than to use spindoctored, hyper-exaggerated data. Perhaps it was deliberate. Remember that he is a red-to-the-core Lefty, having been an initiating member of the New Labour Party and the Alliance Party. He was an Alliance electoral candidate for a few elections and was #4 on the Alliance list near the end. Here is what he got wrong:

● the sea level at Dunedin isn’t the ludicrous 10mm/year, it’s not the fake 3.5mm/yr, it’s only 1.3mm/yr (source- Statistics NZ). That means that 25cm of sea level rise will take 192 years not the 17 years that the panicky professor said.

● the 25cm danger level seems to be his own creation – the ORC LIDAR data shows that South Dunedin is mostly over 1.0 metre above sea level and only a handful of properties are below 500mm. Probably there are no houses within 25cm of sea level; he says there are 1932. For the sea level to increase by 1.0 metre will take 769 years. Put it on your calendar.

● fear-monger Flynn tells us about the “huge erosion of polar ice” that started in 2014 – unfortunately he didn’t check the sea-level data which shows us that nothing unusual has happened to the sea level since 2014.

● Prof Flynn tried to scare us by saying that insurance companies are unlikely to cover sea-level rise in their policies in future (ODT- Flynn’s sea level figures disputed), but it turns out that even now, none of us are insured for sea-level rise. There has never been cover for gradual damage. He’s talking crap.

● The Otago Regional Council has had groundwater sensors at South Dunedin for several years and they tell us that there is no detectable increase in groundwater level (no increasing trend).
In fact, there is no reason for a rising sea to cause rising groundwater. There is no connection, except for some places which are close to the shoreline. Also, the South Dunedin groundwater level is about 600mm above sea level and so it is mostly not affected by the sea, since water doesn’t flow uphill. Have a look for yourself: the ORC has recently given us (almost) live groundwater sensor graphs for South Dunedin and other places – thanks ORC. There are four South Dunedin groundwater sites:

http://water.orc.govt.nz/WaterInfo/Catchment.aspx?r=Dunedin

Of the four groundwater sensors only the one closest to the shoreline shows a tidal influence. Other places similarly close to the sea are likely to have some tidal influence on their groundwater level. Further inland there is no effect.

[ends]

****

At Facebook:

whatifdunedin says: Here is DCC and ORC’s outlandish and mythical project, designed to put Ratepayer Funds into the hands of private sector consultants for no good reason, and on it goes. Your elected representatives agreed to this rort:

Related Post and Comments:
14.3.17 Brightness panicked [#effect]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

81 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health & Safety, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Perversion, Politics, Property, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium