Tag Archives: 41 Wharf Street – Dunedin

Woop! Waterfront TOWER hotel RIP

Updated Post 15.4.14

### dunedintv.co.nz April 14, 2014 – 6:46pm
Hotel may be dead in the water
Dunedin’s multi-storey harbourside hotel appears to be dead in the water.
Just before this bulletin went to air, development company Betterways sent a copy of a letter noting a memorandum of understanding deadline had passed.
The company signed the memorandum with the council earlier this year, amid hopes the $100 million project could find a way forward. That followed a DCC resource consent committee decision not to allow the hotel.
Betterways director Jing Song told 39 Dunedin News the project was over. She said she was left speechless by the council’s lack of communication.
Ch39 Link [no video available]

HURRAH HURRAH HURRAH
Hmmm, wonder how much that just cost the ratepayers???
Or was this just a little timing hiccup because of the Royal Tour.
Will Daaave go begging, again.
From the start Betterways has been acutely useless at Communication.
Was never going to be a sound investment. Jing should be thanking Us.
But is it true.
Dunno, read tomorrow’s ODT….

Comment to ODT Online (unabridged):
Comment ODT Online 15.4.14

Related Posts and Comments:
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group…
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO
11.3.14 Hotel MOU: DCC #fail
10.3.14 Hotel: DCC and COC sell out Dunedin community to Chinese trojans
26.2.14 Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
12.1.14 Dunedin (apartments) Hotel: Better ways to lipstick a pig
7.1.14 Dunedin Hotel (apartments): Who ARE the developers?
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed
5.6.13 Hotel decision . . . (the vacuum)

► For more, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

56 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Heritage, Hotel, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Hotel MOU: DCC #fail

dcc-betterways-mou-detail1

Hotel Memorandum of Understanding (PDF, 297 KB)

Comment received from Rob Hamlin
Submitted on 2014/03/11 at 10:54 am

Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this is the precedent that it sets. The MOU essentially commits the Council to make it happen by whatever means and by whatever council costs are necessary. The ludicrous conflict of interest that this sets up between the Council as developer regulator and Council as developer agent is breezily dismissed early on. If the DCC fails to deliver what the developer wants, then they (we) get to pay all the developer’s costs too. Thereby setting up a situation with considerable motive for the developer to increase the toxicity of this regulatory ‘poison pill’ by inflating these costs a la Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust.

There is nothing in this document that indicates why it is a special case or anything that defines it as a ‘one off’. This means that the next time a large developer wants to carve up rural zoned land on the Taieri or build an exclusive shooting resort next to the Albatross Colony all they have to do is download the .pdf of this MOU from McPravda’s website, replace Jing Song’s name with their own and present it to Cull and Bidrose with a request to ‘please sign this forthwith’. I can see no legal grounds on the basis of equity of treatment of development proposals by the territorial authority upon which Cull and Bidrose could reasonably refuse to do so. Refusal would therefore promptly lead to court action.

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
10.3.14 Hotel: DCC and COC sell out Dunedin community to Chinese trojans
26.2.14 Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

█ For more, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

16 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212 (41 Wharf St)

41 Wharf Street, Dunedin 1 (DCC WebMap)41 Wharf Street, Dunedin (DCC WebMap)

Copy supplied.
Also published at Otago Daily Times (page 17).

### ODT Online Wed, 26 Feb 2014
Opinion
Hotel decision was legal, not political
By Rosemary McQueen
Two related misapprehensions run through nearly all the comment on the application to build a 27-storey residential building in the industrial zone.

The first is that the reason the development was rejected was that a minority of noisy nay-sayers objected to the proposal. Yet, had 500 supporters put in submissions and only 4 or 5 naysayers, the decision would have been the same. The decision was not made on the basis of counting heads (though no doubt the planners were gratified that the District Plan’s provisions were so whole-heartedly supported by the populace) but on the basis of law. The developers want to build their accommodation block in an industrial area. Residential activity is specifically excluded from this area and only allowed at the discretion of the court hearing the application. Discretionary treatment can only be accorded if the effects of the variation to what is allowed are minor and the general intention accords with the aims and objectives of the district plan. The applicants’ arguments to this effect were rejected at law – not by counting heads. Until that decision is found to be wrong, or those aspects of the proposal change, it can not proceed.

There is also a view that the the city council could and should have found a way of overturning – or at least of getting round – the planning committee’s decision. This is a misapprehension because the decision is a legal one that can only be overturned by a higher court and the council is not a court. The negotiations that have been taking place have been around trying to find a site and design that complies with the city’s district plan and the developers’ needs. By describing the setback to the development as “red tape” the ODT implied that the development’s lack of progress since being rejected by the planning committee is caused by overweening bureaucracy. But Ms Song has made clear that the site and design are not negotiable. How can the lack of progress be the fault of red tape when the impediment is so clearly the developers’ intransigence, despite having had their application for that site and design turned down because it doesn’t meet the law?

By insisting the proposal is non-negotiable during their discussion with the city, the developers appear to believe that overturning the planning decision is on the discussion’s agenda and within the council’s power. Instead of dismissing any such suggestion, the ODT and the Chamber of Commerce have encouraged them in the view that the council can change or flout the law in order to allow the development to go ahead. Fostering these misapprehensions has led to unnecessary division in the city. It’s time to stop accusing bureaucrats and antis of holding up progress and start explaining why changes to our built environment are not effected by political whim, but are, and need to be, conducted by rule of law that has undergone full democratic process.

ODT Link

Related Posts and Comments:
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

For more, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

18 Comments

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

‘Hotel’ Hucksters wanna spend $60M at Dunedin

That’s the news or THE MONEY on tonight’s Channel 39 as ODT sprayed saliva over what’s in the newspaper tomorrow. You got it. The Jing-Song-Pings, post-teenagers from hell. HONEY, THEY’RE BACK.

Updated post.

THAT was the fear. Please, not the tasteless cardboard box crew again! Their idea of architecture is merely ‘building’ and gross affrontery to Dunedin’s cultural heritage landscape, not SYMPATHETIC CONTEXTUAL DESIGN.

So, yeah maybe it’s another anonymous bunch who are too conniving or stupid to front to the good people of this small town. Obviously, they’re known to DCC and the Chamber and those who share their pillows, as it turns out. Lovely! Dunedin’s public treated with ignore by our civic leaders and their honkies yet again. Look how that turned with the stadium project. And why the media release ahead of faces, why do that? Why be so crass, desperate and manipulative? —it feeds directly into the deep distrust held for Dunedin City Council by this community. This is no democracy. Where is the openness and transparency we’ve been promised for SO LONG, and not had delivered ??!!

The (blind) Channel 39 announcement came on the heels of a good number of searches at this site lately, in both Jing Song’s, Cao Ping’s and her father’s name — a man known to Michael Hill of Eiontown — no wonder we’re completely off the scent, or was it MISINFORMED.

Chinese plans for Dunedin school
Chinese investors with plans for a $60 million international school have chosen Dunedin as their preferred location, and hope to open a facility within three years.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/290486/chinese-plans-school

But let’s refresh on the horrific notification and resource consenting process followed by the Jing-Song-Pings for the proposed waterfront hotel (via posts and comments) as a check on what happens for the proposed “school” with Daaave and Ali’s (Jinty got bounced) lack of red tape. Carpet, anyone?

Related Posts and Comments:
12.1.14 Dunedin (apartments) Hotel: Better ways to lipstick a pig
7.1.14 Dunedin Hotel (apartments): Who ARE the developers?
27.8.13 41 Wharf Street —DCC ends debacle
24.7.13 Tauranga: Office leases to cover potential losses from hotel
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed
18.6.13 Hotel: COC’s greasy spoon race. Ugh!
5.6.13 Hotel decision . . . (the vacuum)
4.6.13 WATERFRONT HOTEL #DUNEDIN
24.5.13 41 Wharf Street —consent renewed, with HOTEL decision pending
18.5.13 Waterfront hotel investigation II
18.4.13 ‘Heartbreak Hotel’ —Grahame Sydney
18.4.13 Hotel: Grahame Sydney on tenants for 164 apartments
15.4.13 University buys LivingSpace Dunedin
15.4.13 Shane McGrath —Gelber LuftBallon (Dunedin Research Project)
14.4.13 Ballooning! —playing off Betterways
12.4.13 Christchurch: HOTELS with Chinese investment pending
4.4.13 Towering inferno: Fire engulfs luxury apartments and 5-star hotel
16.3.13 Hotel: COC jollies and sweet cherry pie
23.1.13 Proposed hotel: Council and submitters await detailed information
28.12.12 ‘Low-rises are great for the community and the residents’
24.12.12 A Christmas Tale
21.12.12 Proposed hotel – ODT graphic indicates building height
19.12.12 Hearing for proposed hotel – competencies, conflicts of interest?
16.12.12 Proposed Dunedin Hotel #height
10.12.12 Proposed hotel, 41 Wharf St – “LEARNING FROM LAS VEGAS”
7.12.12 Proposed hotel – Truescape shenanigans
6.12.12 Dunedin Hotel – revised design
2.12.12 Roy Rogers and Trigger photographed recently at Dunedin
26.11.12 Proposed hotel, 41 Wharf Street – indicative landscape effects
20.11.12 City planner’s report recommends against consent for hotel
10.11.12 Dunedin Hotel, 41 Wharf Street (LUC 2012-212)
4.10.12 DUNEDIN: We’re short(!) but here is some UK nous…
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
23.6.12 Mis(t)apprehension: website visits, not bookings?
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

39 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Hot air, Hotel, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site

41 Wharf Street —DCC ends debacle

Fear not! More costly settlement is due.
There’s the perplexing State Highway 88 Realignment Project for Council to conclude with affected parties damaged by foul-play planning activity, and the new round of ‘proper’ designation! This will make Mr Barnett’s cheque seem like a 4% discount fuel voucher ripped from a mile-long supermarket receipt for your best ever, most hair-raising Christmas shop!

### ODT Online Tue, 27 Aug 2013
Apology, payout to developer
By Debbie Porteous
Dunedin developer Tim Barnett has received a public apology and a $200,000 payout following a lengthy battle to recover his costs after the Dunedin City Council restricted his ability to develop his harbourside property. The property, at 41 Wharf St, has since been sold to developers who are hoping to build a 27-storey hotel on it.

41 Wharf Street, Dunedin 1 (DCC WebMap)41 Wharf Street, Dunedin [DCC WebMap]

DCC chief executive Paul Orders yesterday apologised to Mr Barnett, of Arthur Barnett Properties, for the inconvenience caused by the council’s decision-making since 2008. The formal apology, issued by Mr Orders yesterday, read:

”Council apologises for the inconvenience, and also thanks Mr Barnett for working with council in good faith as the parties explored options over some years. Mr Barnett has a long history of commitment to the city of Dunedin. Council trusts that the good working relationship that has developed between Mr Barnett and the council over the years will continue.”

The $200,000 covers Mr Barnett’s out-of-pocket costs (just under $118,000), the interest on his costs ($41,000) and a contribution to his legal fees during his lengthy attempt to first remove the restrictions on developing the site and then recover from the council the cost of those restrictions.
Read more

For more on 41 Wharf Street, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

Updated 2.7.13

Tweet:

peter mcintyre @macthebroker
Hotel decision to be appealed | Otago Daily Times Online News : Zealand & International News shar.es/x85Pq via @ShareThis

5:11pm · 25 Jun 13 · Tweet Button

****

### RNZ News Updated 24 minutes ago
Dunedin hotel plan heading to court
The developer planning a 27-storey waterfront hotel in Dunedin is taking its case to court. A Dunedin City Council panel declined resource consents for the $100 million project three weeks ago, saying it failed a key legal test and the glass tower would be too high for its industrial-zoned site. The five-star hotel and apartment complex has been hotly debated since being announced a year ago. On Tuesday afternoon, the company behind the project Betterways Advisory Limited, announced it will be appealing to the Environment Court against the council’s decision. The appeal will mean the court will attempt to broker a compromise between the developer, the council and any of the public submitters who want to get involved.
However, it seems likely that the court will have to hold its own full hearing into the project, probably early in 2014.
RNZ Link

****

We really love Jing Song, Steve Rodgers, and their gift that keeps on giving. FO.
A source reveals Betterways’ appeal cites Consultancy House as a precedent. Interesting, the owners of Consultancy House strongly objected to the application in their submissions.

Related Posts and Comments:
18.6.13 Hotel: COC’s greasy spoon race. Ugh!
5.6.13 Hotel decision . . . (the vacuum)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

[screenshot]ODT 25.6.13 Hotel decision to be appealed [screenshot]

53 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Heritage, Hotel, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Hotel: COC’s greasy spoon race. Ugh!

### ODT Online Tue, 18 Jun 2013
Hotel supporters still in discussions
By Chris Morris
Alternatives to a $100 million waterfront hotel in Dunedin are still being discussed as the clock ticks towards a decision deadline. However, exactly what the hotel developers’ next move will be remains a closely guarded secret after they were refused resource consent earlier this month.

Betterways Advisory Ltd has until June 26 to decide whether to appeal the decision of the Dunedin City Council’s hearings committee to decline consent for the hotel at 41 Wharf St.

Betterways director Steve Rodgers – the man fronting the hotel bid – did not want to comment on any aspect of the hotel bid yesterday, saying only the full time allowed to decide any appeal would be needed. However, the Otago Daily Times understands several property owners have come forward with alternative sites capable of accommodating a hotel, and that parties were busy behind the scenes. That included the Otago Chamber of Commerce, which had indicated earlier this month it was talking to Betterways to try and rescue the situation.
Read more

*[Otago] Chamber of Commerce, affectionately known as “COC”.

Related Post and Comments:
5.6.13 Hotel decision . . . (the vacuum)

For more, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

Posted By Elizabeth Kerr

1 Comment

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Hotel, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium