123 Vogel St, an action about council process?

123 Vogel St before external building changes [Google Street View]

At Facebook:

****

Where to start. Here we have an award winning redevelopment of a substantial old warehouse for new commercial use. Reading the Otago Daily Times today we learn a local businessman questions council process on consenting grounds – apparently, there was an ‘administrative error’ with a set(s) of drawings, and a condition of the resource consent issued for 123 Vogel St was neither correctly tracked or enforced.

Rightly, the businessman doesn’t wish to litigate the matter through the newspaper.

The building owner to his credit has made a large and worthy investment in the building structure and its upgrade for commercial occupancy, revitalising a large segment of the block running between Vogel and Cumberland streets.

Why then would an ungenerous attack by one party not closely involved in the proposed warehouse precinct, be lobbed at this one building owner in such negative and disastrous fashion.

What is at stake. More importantly, what does bringing the action do to enhance the historic built environment, commercial property development, and council processes – if ad hocism (planning rules enforced here, and not there?) is argued as ‘state of play’. Is there any good in an Environment Court challenge – is it ‘vexatious’.

Impartiality, transparency, technical proficiency and fairmindedness is the hoped-for collective quality to be seen in any council operation, particularly in regards to planning matters. How far can ‘the managers’ of the District Plan, a community owned living document, seek room to breathe —or indeed, treat every resource consent application on its individual merits ….for positive precinct and in-zone outcomes, for the avoidance of new (adverse) precedents or laxity of interpretation where the rules go swimming. Where does the line bite.

In practical terms we read that what was built (window-wise at second floor level) does not accord with what was granted by resource consent.

We see minorly dropped sills (pretty? hmm) and a small extra pane of glass added for greater daylighting and liveability, done in such a way that the original scale and depth of the windows remains readable. The intervention isn’t screaming. It is very quiet, and reasonable? Why then did someone fudge the option to be consented. Who did not enforce the agreed design solution? Were affected parties given all proper information as the application processed to decision? Does the error set a precedent for destruction of protected facades and heritage townscape? This most certainly can be argued and tested generally and legally – but probably not with 123 Vogel St hauled to centre stage, pointing up administrative error or wilful and confused intention at DCC if that could be shown…. The second generation district plan public consultation process is perhaps the best place to locate the discussion. Not here, unless there is something else forming the agenda for the current challenge.

Recently, there has been another example of ‘sill dropping’ in the precinct (TH13) at the corner of Rattray and Cumberland Sts. Most people – heritage advocates included – would view the degree of change to sill height as rather subtle in the context of the overall historic heritage ‘Save’. But these details niggle aesthetes and the conscientious.

Is the effect (of design subtleties – a broad tradition….) to cumulatively – with more than minor effect – destroy ‘old’ townscape in the Vogel Street Heritage Precinct, other heritage and townscape precincts, and more widely across the central city —the ‘sense of place’ (held by ‘original’ built fabric) that District Plan policy and rules are designed to constrain, curbing overt changes to external building appearance?

How on earth did this happen at the council? Perhaps the challenge and subsequent ruling (win or lose) will ensure that all comers receive the same level of service in the adminstration of consents and conditions, and the intent of District Plan rules is more strictly adhered to by council planners.

Everyone is entitled to their day in court. The other hope is that DCC is meeting all of Mr Barnes’ legal costs.

If that was the fight advertised on page 1 today.

****

OPTION ONE STAYED IN THE CONSENT DECISION …. Option one would have had a new sash and two panes of glass, instead of what was built.

### ODT Online Tue, 20 Jun 2017
Building owner baffled over court action
By David Loughrey
The owner of an award-winning Dunedin warehouse precinct building has been called to face the Environment Court in a case he described yesterday as “vexatious”. The court action calls on 123 Vogel St owner Chris Barnes to remove windows on the second floor and replace them with a design applicant Dunedin businessman John Evans says should have been built under the building’s resource consent. Court documents from Mr Barnes’ counsel describe the action as “utterly baffling”. Mr Barnes has questioned the intentions of Mr Evans, and the court documents ask who Mr Evans is representing, and whether he is “receiving funds from a third party”. Some people involved would not speak on the record but one claimed property interests in “the big end of town” were behind what they saw as an attack on the precinct. […] Mr Evans’ application referred to a condition in the resource consent.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
19.6.17 Vogel Street parking on a quiet Sunday afternoon #petroltheft
1.6.17 Oh noes! One adverse slip of the pen and it’s Over Rover #warehouseprecinct
3.2.17 MORE DCC bull dust and poor investment #Sammy’s
18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
9.10.16 Vogel Street Party 2016 #randoms
3.10.16 Vogel Street Party 2016 #Dunedin
10.4.16 spilt milk, tears, Unnecessary
23.1.16 Zoning issues: Vogel Street activities
16.12.15 DCC: Restriction of Vehicles from Parts of Jetty Street DECLARED
18.11.15 SAVE Sammy’s (former His Majesty’s Theatre & Agricultural Hall)
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
7.10.15 Vogel Street Party —Sat, 10 October
17.3.15 Dunedin Heritage Re-use Awards
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
28.10.14 Dunedin’s “period architecture”, not so quaintly….
19.10.14 Dunedin: Randoms from inside warehouse precinct 18.10.14
15.10.14 Vogel St. Street Party | Saturday 18 Oct 3pm – 11pm [2014]
5.8.14 DCC staff-led CBD projects that impact ratepayers | consolidated council debt
22.6.14 Vogel Street Heritage Precinct (TH13)
13.7.13 Cities: Organic renewal3.3.11 Dunedin can provide vacant buildings, warehouses and offices #eqnz
8.3.13 Stupid bid for two-way highway ditched for now #DCC
31.10.12 Cull’s council takes business away from retailers
21.2.11 Dunedin Heritage: Central government should be contributing
19.2.11 Dunedin, are you ‘of a mind’ to protect Historic Heritage?
19.2.11 Reed Building, 75 Crawford Street for demolition?
7.4.10 DScene alerts commercial building owners to responsibilities
24.3.10 DScene features heritage/issues!

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

SDHB change management: 59 roles proposed to go

Updated post
Sat, 29 Apr 2017 at 6:37 p.m.

At Facebook:

### ODT Online Fri, 28 Apr 2017
Roles dumped in SDHB proposal
By Eileen Goodwin
The roles of chief operating officer (COO) and deputy chief executive will be dumped in a sweeping management restructure proposal unveiled at the Southern District Health Board. In the formal document released yesterday, chief executive Chris Fleming said a new director of specialist services would replace the COO role. The proposed restructuring would not slim the executive leadership team. Its number would increase by one to 13 (including the chief executive), but there is quite a bit of change in the make-up of the roles. The brunt of job losses would be borne at the next two levels of management.
Read more

****

Restructure proposal appears to break up a joint decision-making model which involves senior doctors and nurses.

Sat, 29 Apr 2017
Proposal devastates nurses
By Eileen Goodwin
Nurses are “devastate” by the proposed restructuring at the Southern District Health Board. New Zealand Nurses Organisation Dunedin organiser Lorraine Lobb said the proposal removed budgetary and operational control from nursing leadership. There would be fewer nurse management roles, and those who remained would have less say in decision-making, Mrs Lobb said. “We’re quite devastated by this proposal. We’re all about safe staffing, [and that] requires nursing leadership,” she said. The proposal would see a net loss of 23 management positions. It was unclear how many were nursing roles. […] The new chief nursing and midwifery officer would have no control over budgets as their underlings would only report to them on professional matters, she said. […] The proposal also removes operational responsibilities from the board’s top doctor, the chief medical officer. On operational matters, medical directors would report to the director of specialist services, rather than the chief medical officer.
Read more

█ SDHB to consider submissions before announcing the final structure in June.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
8.4.17 Questions over Council’s Dunedin Hospital SOS campaign
6.4.17 ODT editor comments strongly #tick —Dunedin Hospital rebuild
27.3.17 Site Notice #DunedinHospital
26.2.17 Dunedin Hospital Redevelopment
6.2.17 Let the Ombudsman recommend for democracy at SDHB
24.1.17 SDHB/Govt : Physio Pool GRIEF
9.1.17 Audit NZ admonishes commissioner Grant and SDHB #Health
18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
20.11.16 Delta at Dunedin Hospital #worseluck
7.11.16 SDHB #FAILS with Healthcare Communication and Governance

█ For more, enter the terms *hospital*, *sdhb* and *swann* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

DCC: Back in empire building mode (ZERO HARM staff positions)

Comment and link received from Hype O’Thermia
Monday, 21 April 2014 6:59 p.m.

“…will be a key part of the newly established Organisational Development and Performance team.”

Newly, again? A necessity of course, not a nice-to-have nor even a make-work scheme giving the impression that something they do* will improve other people’s safety.

*Do, meaning make rules and produce forms to be filled in for Compliance, without which the fair and reasonable fee cannot be charged and nothing can happen.

—

http://jobs.odt.co.nz/displayjob.php?JobID=352982&occupation%5B%5D=8

█ Health and Safety positions
Dunedin City Council Opportunities

Help us embark on the next phase of our Health and Safety journey. Dunedin City Council has recently adopted a new Health and Safety Strategic Plan and is embarking on a new and exciting chapter in achieving a Zero Harm goal.

You will be able to influence and support change in a complex working environment, recognising that health and safety is everyone’s business. We are looking to drive continuous improvement within the working environment, supporting our managers, improving the lives of our employees and volunteers, and maximising our performance for our customers and ratepayers.

The roles are new, challenging and varied, and provide an excellent career opportunity to work in a progressive service led organisation.

█ Health and Safety Compliance Officer
You will be a health and safety professional experienced in driving health and safety in a complex environment. You will be able to demonstrate a ‘can-do ’ attitude, have excellent communication skills and an eye for detail. Specific experience of health and safety or contractor management systems is desirable, but more important is your working knowledge of management information systems in general. Experience in a health and safety or human resources role is essential.

█ Health and Safety Analyst
With a strong focus on safety analysis and effective administrative skills, you will provide advice and support to managers within a large multifunctional environment. This is a unique opportunity for an aspiring health and safety or human resources graduate looking to further develop their career and fully utilise their existing skills and knowledge.

An understanding of, or experience working with management systems is desirable. It is expected that you will have well developed analytical skills and a relevant health and safety or Human Resources qualification.

Both roles report to the Health and Safety Manager and will be a key part of the newly established Organisational Development and Performance team.

For informal enquiries about either of these roles, please contact Brian Ballantyne, Health and Safety Manager on 03 477-4000.

For an application pack please refer to our website www.dunedin.govt.nz/jobs or contact our Customer Service Agency in the Civic Centre, telephone 03 477 4000, PO Box 5045, Dunedin. Email address: jobs @ dcc.govt.nz

Applications close 4p.m.,
Friday, 2 May.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Unlike red carpet…

Farry’s CST overspends budget by 46%

They spent $5.4 million on their own activities, as opposed to a budget of $3.7 million.

Comment received from Rob Hamlin
Submitted on 2012/05/12 at 3:47 pm

The critical part of the PWC report is given below. A deeply buried nugget on page 28 (of 43). As PWC note, the overruns excluding interest amounted to 206.4 – 198 = 8.4 million dollars – an overrun of around 4%. Which as PWC point out, is not that bad by the standards of such things.

However, 20% of this total is accounted for by budget overspend related to the Carisbrook Stadium Trust’s own internal activities. They spent $5.4 million on their own activities, as opposed to a budget of $3.7 million, an overspend of 46% of budget – as opposed to the rest of the project, which overspent by 3% once the CST’s contribution to the overall overspend is removed.

In addition, the reasons for the overspend in the other areas is covered in some detail in the other sections of the report and are fairly easy to understand (if not necessarily to agree with). The CST’s blowout contribution is different, with no real reason for this overspend appearing in the passage below. They were given a budget – they blew it – Why? PWC is silent – read on…

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr