Apartment hotel proposal has FATAL Flaws : ODT offers Flimsy Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Dunedin City Council about to find out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not much.

****

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

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

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

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

My own submission to hearing states:

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hearing is adjourned until 17 August.

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

—

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

Related Posts and Comments:
● 11.7.17 “Fat” gawky Hotel and Apartment building : Questionable design even with 4 floors lopped off
● 14.5.17 RNZ reports July hearings for proposed hotel apartment building [comments by Mr Tosswill]
● 4.5.17 Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building
● 7.4.17 Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls
● 5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

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

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

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

[click to enlarge]

“Fat” gawky Hotel and Apartment building : Questionable design even with 4 floors lopped off

What environmental considerations, Mr Page?

More than minor.

[Everyone will remember the learned Mr Page from the Betterways hotel and apartment building application for 41 Wharf St at the waterfront, not so long ago.]

Mr Bryce (independent planner): …a “key concern” for submitters…the building would block sun from reaching the Regent Theatre and surrounds from 3pm at winter solstice. “At this time of year, the proposal will effectively remove all remaining access to sunlight received over [the] southern end of the western side of the Octagon.” (ODT)

Mr Page (the developer’s ‘Brief’): The “potential shading effect” was acknowledged, but Mr Page was confident the hotel’s benefits “will far outweigh” those concerns. (ODT)

Mr Page, again : The hotel’s “tall, slender built form” minimised the impact on those living closest to the hotel project site… (ODT)

Good heavens.

Source: Application documents

—

At Facebook:

### ODT Online Tue, 11 July 2017
Hotel developer still confident
By Chris Morris
Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel bid will “not be viable” if the developer is forced to reduce the building’s height, it has been claimed. But the man behind the project, Tekapo businessman Anthony Tosswill, remains confident the hearings panel set to decide the project’s fate can yet be swayed by the hotel’s benefits. The comments came from Phil Page, the lawyer acting for Mr Tosswill, days after the public release of an independent planner’s report running the ruler over the hotel proposal.
The report by Nigel Bryce concluded consent be declined unless Mr Tosswill agreed to a “substantial reduction” in the building’s height, by four storeys, to bring it down from 60m to 45.5m.
Read more

****

Resource Consent Application LUC 2017-48 and SUB 2017-26, 143 – 193 Moray Place, Dunedin (Proposed Hotel)

The hearing will be held on Mon 31 Jul, Tue 1 Aug, Wed 2 Aug, Thu 3 Aug and Fri 4 Aug 2017 in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers (off the Octagon). The hearing will commence at 9.30 am each day.

█ Consultant Planner’s Section 42a Report (PDF, 4.3 MB)

[excerpt]

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
[5] For the reasons set out in paragraphs 72 to 334 below, I consider that the Proposal in its current form, will not promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in accordance with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA or the Act).
[6] The Development promotes a contemporary design, which is considered acceptable within this setting and articulates sufficient design interest and modulation through the facades and its pinwheel like form expressed in the tower component of the building. The building’s design incorporates a base building or podium, which allows the structure to have an active street frontage to Moray Place and Filleul Street, which is considered a positive design response.
[7] The Development will be ‘juxtaposed’ against a backdrop of the heritage buildings located to the east of Moray Place, including the Town Hall and St Paul’s Cathedral when viewed from the west and St Paul’s Cathedral and the Municipal Chambers when viewed from the south (including from the Octagon).
[8] The building’s overall height is considered to generate an over-dominance on properties to the north and west of the Site, and will have more than minor adverse effects on the amenity values of residential properties to the west of the Site. This is largely due to the significant change in scale introduced by the Development and the lower scale built environment that currently exists to the west and north of the development site, comprising predominantly two to three storeys in height.
[9] The Development will adversely impact upon the townscape values of the TH02 Octagon townscape precinct under the Operative Dunedin City District Plan (Operative Plan), including loss of sunlight penetration into the Octagon during the Winter Solstice and will adversely impact upon the setting and pre-eminence of existing heritage buildings such as the St Paul’s Cathedral and the Municipal Chambers building when viewed from the Octagon.
[10] The Development is considered to result in more than minor visual amenity and shading effects on Kingsgate Hotel to the south of the Site. The Kingsgate Hotel will experience prolonged and more sustained loss of light over a wider part of the property and associated buildings over the critical morning period during the Equinox and Winter Solstice periods (or collectively over ¾ of the year). This conclusion has been reached having regard to the potential for the Site to be developed up to a maximum height of 11 metres with a building erected against all boundaries (the ‘controlled activity building outline’).
[11] For the scale of the building to be mitigated to an acceptable level, and to maintain and enhance the amenity values of the City Centre and wider environs, Council’s urban design consultant, Mr [Garth] Falconer recommends reducing the proposed building height by four levels to bring the total height down to nine storeys (Level 13, +157,500 (datum level) on Drawing Section AA). This reduction would provide for a maximum height of 45.6 metres from existing ground level, or a maximum height breach of 34.4 metres (including the lift shaft). This mitigation response would not remove any of the 210 visitor accommodation rooms (hotel rooms), and would maintain supporting facilities including licensed premises, retail, conference, meeting facilities and on-site amenities, parking, and servicing areas. I note, for completeness, that the Applicant is not currently proposing to reduce the height of the Development.
[12] In its current form, it is my recommendation that the proposal should be declined.

More about Garth Falconer, DCC’s consulting urban designer:
LinkedIn profile: https://nz.linkedin.com/in/garth-falconer-a0699bb3
Owner and Director, Reset Urban Design Ltd: http://reseturban.co.nz/

Take a glimpse of the ‘urban form’ at Takapuna, North Shore Auckland (his home turf), to know Mr Falconer is likely missing any handle on building height for a heritage city like Dunedin.

****

Agenda and all documents including Submissions at:

http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/notified-applications-pending/luc-2017-48-and-sub-2017-26

****

At Facebook [see comments]:

### ODT Online Sat, 8 Jul 2017
Reject hotel bid: planner
By Chris Morris
A planner has recommended rejecting Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel bid, unless the developer agrees to a “substantial reduction” in the building’s height. The recommendation to decline consent came in a report by independent consultant Nigel Bryce, made public yesterday, ahead of the public hearing beginning on July 31. In his report to the panel of independent commissioners, Mr Bryce said the hotel development would “visually dominate” its surroundings, including the town hall, St Paul’s Cathedral and the Municipal Chambers. It would be the tallest building in the central city and would cast a shadow over the Octagon, as well as the nearby Kingsgate Hotel, during winter. Together with other impacts, the development was considered to be “non-complying” under the city’s district plan rules. It would only be acceptable if the building was reduced by four storeys, lowering its overall height from 60m to 45.6m, which was still well above the existing 11m height limit for the site, his report said.
Read more

[initial coverage]
7.7.17 ODT: Decline hotel consent: report

### ODT Online Wed, 28 Jun 2017
Two from North Island on hotel hearings panel
By Chris Morris
The panel to decide the fate of Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel bid features one familiar face and two from the North Island. Tekapo businessman Anthony Tosswill’s bid to build a 17-storey hotel and apartment tower in Dunedin would be considered over five days, beginning on July 31, it was confirmed yesterday. […] The panel of three would be headed by chairman Andrew Noone, now an Otago regional councillor, acting in his role as an independent commissioner. […] Alongside him will be fellow independent commissioners Stephen Daysh, of Napier, and Gavin Lister, of Auckland.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 14.5.17 RNZ reports July hearings for proposed hotel apartment building [comments by Mr Tosswill]
● 4.5.17 Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building
● 7.4.17 Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls
● 5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Source: Application documents

RNZ reports July hearings for proposed hotel apartment building

Image: Paterson Pitts Group

Image: Thom Craig Architects

### rnz.co.nz Wed, 10 May 2017 at 6:13 p.m.
RNZ News: New Zealand / Business
Hotel plans prioritise visitors over residents – objectors
By Lydia Anderson – Otago/Southland reporter
Residents above the proposed site for Dunedin’s first five-star hotel say it’s not right their view of the city will be blocked so tourists can have a better one. The 17-storey ‘Electric Thistle’ Moray Place design would sit behind the city’s heritage buildings in the Octagon. More than 200 submissions on the project have been filed – three quarters of them in opposition. The hotel’s height and modern design has some residents worried – at about 64m high it would be significantly taller than the current 11m limit imposed on the chosen site, which is currently a carpark.
….The proposed hotel would feature 210 hotel rooms plus apartments, cafe, a wine club, public hot pools and conference rooms.
….The hotel’s developer [?]* Tony Tosswill, who represented Horizon Hospitality Group, said the hotel was being built high rather than wide out of consideration for the views of people living in the city rise area. To meet international five-star standards the hotel needed views and around 200 rooms, he said.
….Public hearings on the submissions will take place in July.
Read more

● Full application: 143-193 Moray Place – LUC-2017-48 and SUB-2017-26
● View all submissions

****

The applicant is NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5876487

The name of the building developer/financier hasn’t been announced. Asian finance is suspected as being needed but likely not obtained yet; New Zealand’s Australian-owned banks aren’t providing credit on speculative developments at this scale.

Pullman Hotels is fêted as the hotel manager.

█ Spokesman for the (unnamed) developer is Anthony Tosswill of Tekapo, NZ. Mr Tosswill is not the developer, as may have been construed from MSM news items.

****

The following comments from Mr Tosswill were received for publication by What if? Dunedin in late April. Links to the threads where they appear are provided here:

2017/04/24 at 9:37 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
why do you wish to destroy employment in Dunedin, why do you want to prevent creating Jobs and more revenues for the Community and supporting Tourism and local Business?
Why do you wish to keep subsidizing Dunedin venues when they can support themselves with the Services that this Hotel can offer.
Why dont you disclose who you are so People can judge you and your motives. The Jobs that Cadburys will make redundant are you able to give them Jobs or the new Students ending there education.
When was the Last New Hotel Built in Dunedin? Dunedin None Queenstown 6, Queenstown 26,000 Dunedin 126,000.
How about supporting Development, and Jobs or are you one of those that just as you say destroy everything before its starts.
Who am I, I am a spokesman for the Developer

2017/04/24 at 9:46 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
Great Video, it suggests you are supporting Terrorism. Is that amusing blowing up things. It also suggests you want to stop Jobs, supporting local Business. preventing People attending Events and Venues, dislike tourism and dont want a venue that supports Dunedin. I suggest you at least remove the Blowing up of the Developments its in very bad taste.
When reading comments on this site its easy to see why it has so little support.
I am a spokesman for the Developer, who are you?

2017/04/25 at 4:58 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Peter.
I would like to point out that Residents in Londo complained about the about the Shard in London and the London Eye yet, Yet Today we Recognize London for these 2 Buildings as they are also Top Tourists sites as is the Palace. Hindsight is marvelous
Do you recall the complaints when the stadium prior to been Built now its recognized as one of the Top 20 in the World. Dunedin be proud.
One may tell us of Identical Buildings so we can learn from your expertise.
The Design relates to minimizing views from residents behind plus maximizing views of Tourists that want to appreciate Dunedin and its Harbour we believe in our design and concept.
Retrospective opinions are great if you are trying to stop the future progress of Dunedin, if your view point is taken seriously its Dunedin’s loss.
Spokesman for the Developer.

2017/04/25 at 5:28 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
Hi Elizabeth,
you made several comments. Architectural design.
a) Design and the Changes,
In Response, I respectfully point out that does not relate to commercial facts or results, hence for any 5 Star Hotel and in Particular in Dunedin our view is very different but it is for this type of Development whats been Built in All Cities around the World, we are one of the 99% (Not the 1%)
b) We have incorporated a Design that shows off Dunedin, with new Technology that is expected today by 5 Star Guests. Dunedin is the Showcase, the Development is to provide Access to the City not be the City~
You suggest and refer to your time and Resources “What are They”?
It Also appears that you think Asians are also different or at least there Money is, maybe you should complain also about the contribution made by Asians that go to Otago University is their money bad? I like Asian People, I married to one.
Love to know more about whatever Cargo Growth is? Are you a Supporter of Cadbury Factory Closure as well? Is that not a local Resource?
400 Persons Daily Spending Money in New 5 Star Hotel in Dunedin is Growth to Dunedin, please re add up the equation since you have an alleged financial background your sums should add up one cold think,
Good on you Farmer for having an independent view point congratulation is this Elizabeth’s Blog its appears to be!
Spokesman for the Developer

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 4.5.17 Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building
● 7.4.17 Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls
● 5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building

Where to access more information about the application:

Dunedin City Council website:

█ Current notified resource consent applications
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents

Applicant: NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited
[ http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5876487 ]
Subject site: 143-193 Moray Place
Status: Non-complying activity
Submissions close: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 at 5:00 p.m.

█ Application information + submission information/online form at:
143-193 Moray Place – Non-complying activity – LUC-2017-48 and SUB-2017-26

A P P L I C A T I O N ● D E S C R I P T I O N

Land use consent is sought to construct and operate a commercial residential development involving 210 visitor accommodation rooms (hotel rooms), 64 self-contained apartments, four self-contained penthouse suites, together with licensed premises, retail, conference, meeting facilities and on-site amenities, parking, and servicing. The development proposes a new building with 17 storeys (including the lift core on the top of the building, and three levels of the building extending below ground). The overall height of the proposed building varies in relation to the existing ground level, but will be approximately 62.5m at the highest point above the existing ground level (including the lift core). The proposed building is assessed as a non-complying activity under the operative Dunedin City District Plan. The application includes an assessment of effects.

Land use consent is also sought for earthworks because the site development will involve an estimated 8,914m3 of earthworks and a maximum cut depth of 7.35 metres from existing ground level.

Subdivision consent is sought for a unit title subdivision in relation to the proposed building. The application includes plans of the proposed subdivision.
The subject site is located in the Central Activity Zone in the operative Dunedin City District Plan and is located within the north Princes Street/Moray Place/Exchange townscape precinct TH03.

The proposed building is a non-complying activity under the operative Dunedin City District Plan (due to non-compliance with Rule 9.5.2(i) no front or side yards, Rule 9.5.2(iii) veranda requirements along Filleul Street frontage of the site, and signage under Rule 9.5.2(vi)). The building also exceeds the maximum 11 metre height limit under Rule 9.5.2(ii) which requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity under Rule 9.5.3(i). The proposal is also a controlled activity under Townscape Rule 13.7.2(i).  

The proposed earthworks are a restricted discretionary activity under Rule 17.7.3 of the operative Dunedin City District Plan.

The unit title subdivision is a non-complying activity under Rule 18.5.2. Rule 18.5.3 requires that every allotment in a subdivision must have both legal access and vehicle access to a formed road. The rules for subdivision do not expressly provide for unit title divisions where the allotments created may comprise multiple units within a building.

The subject site is zoned Central Business District in the proposed Second Generation Plan and a secondary pedestrian frontage applies.

The proposed 2GP was notified on 26 September 2015. The relevant objectives and policies of the 2GP must be considered. Rules in the 2GP can be deemed as operative if no submissions have been made in opposition. The application says that some 2GP rules may be deemed operative. If the decision maker determines that 2GP rules are deemed operative these rules will apply instead of the corresponding Dunedin City District Plan rule. {bolding by whatifdunedin}

█ SUB-2017-26 & LUC-2017-48 – Public Notice (PDF, 31.4 KB)

Please read the accompanying documents and reports that apply to this application, as listed here.

—

M A K I N G ● A ● S U B M I S S I O N

█ Online submission form

█ SUB-2016-26 & LUC-2017-48 – Submission Form (Form 13) (PDF, 38.9 KB)

IMPORTANT: If you wish to make a submission on this application you may do so by sending a written submission to the consent authority, Dunedin City Council at PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin, 9058 Attn: City Planning, no later than 5:00 pm on the closing date shown.
● Email: resconsent.submission@dcc.govt.nz

The submission must be dated, signed by you, and include the following information:

• Your name and postal address and phone number/fax number;
• Details of the application in respect of which you are making the submission including location;
• Whether you support, oppose, or are neutral towards the application;
• Your submission, with reasons;
• The decision you wish the consent authority to make;
• Whether you wish to be heard in support of your submission.

Please note: If you make your submission by electronic means, a signature is not required.

An acknowledgment of your submission will be sent by post when the submission is accepted as complete. The application may be viewed at the City Planning Enquiries Desk, Customer Service Centre on the Ground Floor, Civic Centre, 50 The Octagon.

You must serve a copy of your submission on NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited, the applicant, whose address for service is Anderson & Co Resource Management, PO Box 5933, Dunedin 9058, as soon as reasonably practicable after serving your submission on the Dunedin City Council.

Alternatively, you can Email copy of your submission to NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited via Anderson & Co Resource Management (Dunedin) –
Attention: Conrad Anderson conrad_a@xtra.co.nz

—

V I E W S ● A N D ● L A N D S C A P E ● C O N T E X T

7. Architectural Drawings, including Arch Statement and earthworks (PDF)
8. Subdivision plans (PDF)
13a. Photomontage notes (PDF)
13b. Photomontage (PDF)
13c. Anticipated Views Assessment Notes – supplementary (PDF)
20. Urban Design (PDF)
21. Memo – Re: Glass (PDF)

NB. Note a number of the angled street views provided in the application are partial only – the full extent of the proposed building (in order to help assess accompanying effects) is not given except in wider landscape perspectives such as when seen from across the harbour or along street vistas. Most close-up perspective views of the proposed building, such as when seen from the Octagon, may appear to be ‘diminished’ or foreshortened in height – scale accuracy is difficult to determine in the presentation renders without technical knowledge of how the views were generated. It is somewhat likely that independent peer review(s) of the (landscape and townscape) presentation renders provided by the applicant and their consultants will be sought by submitters, if not the processing authority.

█ Spokesman for the (unnamed) developer is Anthony Tosswill of Tekapo, NZ.
Mr Tosswill has noted in comments to What if? Dunedin that he speaks for the developer. Mr Tosswill is not the developer, as may have been construed from news items published by the Otago Daily Times previously.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Selected renders from application documents : Thom Craig Architects and Paterson Pitts Group

*Poor quality of images as received via DCC webpages.

Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls

At Facebook:

[screenshot]

Channel 39 via YouTube [screenshot]

—

Related Post and Comments:
5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks

At Facebook:

****

Tekapo-based businessman Anthony Tosswill is hoping to send the signal “the city is open” with this master-disaster, or something closely akin.
JFC i

An application for resource consent was lodged with DCC today for this unlanced boil on the elegant hind quarter of our heritage city.

Details in brief according to ODT deputy editor Craig Page at Channel 39 News tonight:

● 17 storey ‘glass hotel in central city’
● 60 [read 64] metres at highest point
● 210 rooms
● 64 apartments
● 4 penthourse suites
as well as retail opportunities.

The proposal exceeds the district plan height limit (11 metres) – meaning the application is to be publicly notified.

ODT will publish concept renders and contextuals tomorrow.

Get your Smart Hats on Dunedinites, give him a fricking run for his (or other people’s) money. Beyond the Mass Unsightliness, you will lose your convenient central city parking area – be prepared to walk for blocks next time you want to attend events at the Council, Town Hall, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, Central Library or Regent Theatre.

Has the Dunedin City Council SOLD YOU OUT ???
Ratepayers own/owned the site. What DEAL has been done by council politicians and staff to prosper an OUT OF TOWN private individual above and beyond your immediate and long term LOCAL requirements in the central city.
JFC ii

DCC Webmap – Filleul St council-owned parking area (shaded)

█ Market Gap Report Hotels – Evidence Stephen Hamilton, Horwath HTL
December 2012 (PDF, 482 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Kaipara rates row : High Court finds “serious and substantial” errors

“If the council had just accepted the money, admitted that the people withholding their rates were wronged, that their case had merit, we could have all moved forward together” – Mangawhai ratepayer Bruce Rogan
(via Checkpoint) Audio | Download: MP3 (3′04″)

### radionz.co.nz 6:01 pm on 16 Sep 2016
New Zealand: Northland
Northland rates rebels win partial victory
By Lois Williams – Northland reporter
The rebel ratepayers of Mangawhai in Northland have won a partial victory in the High Court. The court has found that rates levied from 2011 to 2014 by the Northland Regional Council, via Kaipara District Council rate demands, were unlawful. In an interim decision, Justice Duffy found the Northland Regional Council (NRC) has no power to delegate the assessment of rates or the recovery of arrears to other councils. “The errors I have identified are serious and substantial,” the judge said. “In short, the NRC has failed to exercise its statutory powers properly when determining rates resolutions and it has unlawfully sought to delegate the performance of a number of its functions in relation to rates to the Kaipara District Council.” […] The Mangawhai ratepayers’ chair, Bruce Rogan, said the ruling was very welcome, although the court did not uphold the group’s challenge to penalties and GST imposed by the Kaipara District Council. The council should now agree to negotiate a deal to end the six-year-old Kaipara rates row, Mr Rogan said.
Read more

—

From Kaipara Concerns (community website):

INTERIM HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RELEASED 16.09.2016
Duffy J has made an interim judgment in respect of the judicial review brought by the MRRA and Bruce and Heather Rogan challenging the lawfulness of rates set by the NRC and the KDC.

She has made the following decisions:

NRC
1. The NRC rates were not set lawfully for the 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 rating years. [27]
2. The NRC’s delegation to the KDC of the assessment of rates and recovery of rates for the rating years between 2011/2012 and 2015/2016 inclusive was unlawful. Accordingly those rates were not lawfully assessed. [58]
3. The NRC’s delegation to the KDC to add penalties to NRC rates was unlawful. Therefore the penalties imposed on rates in respect of NRC rates was unlawful. [74]
4. The Validation Act only validated the unlawful rates of the KDC. It did not validate the unlawful rates of the NRC. [111]

Result
[129] I make the following declaration: The NRC’s rates for the KDC region have not been lawfully set or assessed for the rating years from 2011/2012 to 2015/2016 inclusive.

Duffy J has not yet decided what order to make in respect of ordering the NRC to refund the unlawful rates charged. She has invited the NRC to make further submissions and especially to examine how this ruling might affect the legality of the rates that it has set for its other constituent areas – Whangarei and the Far North. Those rates might also be unlawful.

She will make her final decision once both parties have made further submissions.
Read more

—

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has issued a press release in respect of the Duffy J’s High Court decision:

—

Related Posts and Comments:
31.3.16 Ratepayers achieve for Kaipara District —what Dunedin counterparts…
3.10.15 Kaipara Concerns —ADOTROL* disease [Dunedin mention, again!]
13.2.15 Associate Minister of Local Government: Return democracy to Kaipara
2.2.15 LGNZ run by Mad Rooster Yule, end of story
27.11.14 Auditor-general Lyn Provost #Resign
31.10.14 Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC
9.9.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara: Latest news + Winston Peter’s speech
19.7.14 Whaleoil / Cameron Slater on ratepayers’ lament
29.5.14 Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Assn wins at High Court
31.3.14 Audit services to (paying) local bodies #FAIL ● AuditNZ ● OAG…
29.1.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara —we hear ya!
3.12.13 LGNZ: OAG report on Kaipara
12.11.13 Northland council amalgamation
29.6.13 Audit NZ and OAG clean bill of health —Suspicious!
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
19.3.12 Local government reform
21.2.12 Kaipara this time

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

M-alicious treatment dealt to #Wests

Dunedin soft drinks institution subjected to “full-scale assault” from medical officer of health and licensing inspector. (ODT 16.8.16)

—

Fri, 2 Sep 2016
Scoop: Mayor disappointed by ARLA Wests Cordial Decision
Dunedin (Thu, 1 Sep 2016) – The Mayor of Dunedin, Dave Cull is disappointed the new alcohol legislation has caused South Dunedin company Wests Southern Liquor to lose its licence.

Fri, 2 Sep 2016
ODT: ‘Crazy’ decision to strip Wests of liquor licence, owner claims
A Dunedin soft drinks institution has had its liquor licence stripped in what its owner is calling a “crazy” decision. Wests (NZ) Ltd’s director Alf Loretan said he was “very disappointed” with the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority decision, which will most likely signal the end of his and his wife’s stressful two-and-a-half-year fight for their 140-year-old Bay View Rd business to retain its licence.

Thu, 1 Sep 2016
Stuff: Last call for iconic Dunedin soft drink retailer Wests?
Dunedin’s mayor has lashed out at “ridiculous” alcohol licensing legislation after it cost a local company its licence to sell booze from its factory shop. Wests (NZ) Ltd has lost its fight to keep its liquor licence. The company has been trading in Dunedin for 140 years. […] To qualify for a liquor licence, Wests needed to prove 85 per cent of its sales were for alcohol, which it did not do. The case was heard by the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) earlier this month, after Southern medical officer of health Marion Poore and Dunedin district licensing inspector Martine Cashell-Smith appealed a decision by the Dunedin District Licensing Committee (DLC) to renew Wests’ liquor licence.

—

WESTS is proud to be New Zealand’s oldest continuous manufacturer of Cordials and Soft Drinks. The Wests brand began back in 1876, the same year another local family, the Speight’s, began their brewing business….

Website: http://www.wests.co.nz/

█ Read about the history of the company and what it does now at http://www.wests.co.nz/history

Related Post and Comments:
5.7.16 #Wests —Councillors ??! Please act. [DCC out of order.]

—

Posted By Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: odt.co.nz + whatifdunedin tweaks

#Wests —Councillors ??! Please act. [DCC out of order.]

Image: wests.co.nz

Tue, 5 Jul 2016
ODT: Liquor licence appeal baffles Wests
Public Health South and the Dunedin City Council’s decision to appeal the renewal of a Dunedin soft drinks institution’s liquor licence is “bewildering in the extreme”, the company’s director says. Wests (NZ) Ltd was granted an off-licence in April after a battle from November last year by the company to renew its licence.

NAMES
The decision has been appealed by Public Health South medical officer of health Dr Marion Poore and Dunedin City Council licensing inspector Martine Cashell-Smith. The appeal will be heard by the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority next month.

—

Comment at ODT Online:

What is the Council doing?
Submitted by Challispoint on Tue, 05/07/2016 – 10:14am.

This morning I sent the following letter to each of the DCC Councillors as I am furious they are picking on this great local business.

Dear Councillor –

I read with dismay your Council’s decision to appeal the West’s licence renewal after 139 years of exemplary service to the people of Dunedin. Your action appears to be a further example of the Dunedin City Council’s failure to support local businesses, and confirms a complete lack of appreciation for your voters’ opinion on this issue.

If you are going to argue, as I am sure you are, that you have no choice as you must act within some law which demands shops cannot sell alcohol and lollies then you will have my complete support to shut down Wests after you have taken action against the two main Countdown Supermarkets in Dunedin. In both these operations you cannot enter the stores without passing the highly discounted alcohol on sale. If you are not prepared to act against these stores, then your action against Wests is nothing other than bureaucratic bullying at its worst.

Having made so many negative decisions affecting the people of South Dunedin in recent times, I suggest you do not add this action to your list.

I ask that you immediately withdraw the Council’s appeal against the re-issue of West’s licence and act instead to support this longstanding, excellent, South Dunedin business.

WESTS is proud to be New Zealand’s oldest continuous manufacturer of Cordials and Soft Drinks. The Wests brand began back in 1876, the same year another local family, the Speight’s, began their brewing business….

Website: http://www.wests.co.nz/

█ Read about the history of the company and what it does now at http://www.wests.co.nz/history

Otago Daily Times Published on Aug 26, 2015
Making of a Wests soft drink bottle
The staff at Wests are fizzing with excitement because the company’s own automatic bottle-moulding machine has just produced its millionth bottle.

—

Posted By Elizabeth Kerr

Ratepayers achieve for Kaipara District —what Dunedin counterparts fail to do for spurious ‘pet projects’

Link + message received.
Thu, 31 Mar 2016 at 8:24 a.m.

█ Message: Maybe time to revisit Jacks Point and Luggate? …

—

The Mangawhai wastewater scheme cost about $63.3 million. Overall costs were not just financial, the Auditor-General’s report said. “They included a failed council, councillors replaced with commissioners, the departure of a chief executive, a severely damaged relationship between the council and community, an organisation that needed to be rebuilt, and much more.”

### Stuff.co.nz Last updated 17:21, March 30 2016
Dispute settlement sees Auditor General pay nearly $5.4 million to Kaipara District Council
About $5.375 million will be paid to the Kaipara District Council by the Auditor-General’s office now that a dispute between the two has been settled. Mediation of the dispute over audit issues around the controversial and costly Mangawhai wastewater scheme was held by retired High Court judge Rodney Hansen QC, without any admission of liability and for each party to cover their own litigation costs.

Auditor-General Lyn Provost’s scathing inquiry report to Parliament in December 2013 outlined “a woeful saga” surrounding the community wastewater scheme, managed by the then-council between 1996 and 2012. It covered roles played by other agencies, including the Controller and Auditor-General’s office. The inquiry found the council failed to adequately perform its responsibilities to the community in connection with the wastewater scheme. The council itself alleged the Auditor-General did not identify these failings in a timely manner and take appropriate steps to bring them to the council’s attention. It also alleged some of the poor decisions it made could have been averted if the Auditor-General’s office had performed its responsibilities appropriately.

The Auditor-General offered an unreserved apology in the report to the Kaipara district community for the office’s failings in some of its work, but disputed the council’s damages claim. In particular, the Auditor-General considered the council had the responsibility to comply with its statutory obligations, and its failure to do so is not attributable to the Auditor-General’s office. The dispute was settled with neither party admitting liability but the Auditor-General’s office agreeing to pay $5.38 million to Kaipara District Council.

A rates revolt began as costs were included in Mangawhai rates, with some properties connected to the new scheme now paying around $3000 annually in rates. Kaipara District Council commissioner John Robertson said the council was pleased to see a positive outcome from the High Court action it took against the Auditor-General in 2014. “If we hadn’t got an outcome we would be back in court and facing all the risks of whatever judgments go on these sorts of things.”

The Kaipara District Council has two more court battles pending with Mangawhai ratepayers.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
3.10.15 Kaipara Concerns —ADOTROL* disease [Dunedin mention, again!]
13.2.15 Associate Minister of Local Government: Return democracy to Kaipara
2.2.15 LGNZ run by Mad Rooster Yule, end of story
27.11.14 Auditor-general Lyn Provost #Resign
31.10.14 Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC
9.9.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara: Latest news + Winston Peter’s speech
19.7.14 Whaleoil / Cameron Slater on ratepayers’ lament
29.5.14 Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Assn wins at High Court
31.3.14 Audit services to (paying) local bodies #FAIL ● AuditNZ ● OAG…
29.1.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara —we hear ya!
3.12.13 LGNZ: OAG report on Kaipara
12.11.13 Northland council amalgamation
29.6.13 Audit NZ and OAG clean bill of health —Suspicious!
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
19.3.12 Local government reform
21.2.12 Kaipara this time

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Kaipara Concerns —ADOTROL* disease [Dunedin mention, again!]

Received from Anonymous
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 at 6:49 a.m.

█ [fascinating] Latest Updates at KAIPARA CONCERNS
http://www.kaiparaconcerns.co.nz/

THE FLAG DEBATE 01.10.2015
It is worth reading Guy Steward’s article on the flag debate, the symbolism behind the flag, and the reasons why John Key is pressing for a change. Cont/

A MONSTROUS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE? 30.09.2015
Many will have read the article on Penny Bright in today’s Herald and the massive legal bills that the Auckland City has incurred pursuing her for arrears of rates. Penny tends to polarise. To some she is a folk-hero espousing the interests of a fair and just society, and to others she is a no-hoper who should “get a life” and pay her dues. The reality is that she has discovered the Achilles heel of local government, and all the whitewash from the Council, the defamatory put-downs, and all the legal pressure they are putting on her, is not going to alter that fact.

All local authorities in New Zealand have the legal right to charge rates but only if, and I repeat only if, they comply with the requirements of the LGA in respect of consultation and only if they comply with the LGRA in respect of rating processes and rating documents.

Ms Bright has refused to pay her rates until she knows where the council spends its money – particularly on private contractors – and acts in a democratic manner.

Unlike taxes which are levied by statutes that are unconditionally binding on all citizens, rates are only binding if they comply with the law. Local government in New Zealand has long suffered from a chronic case of ADOTROL* disease [Arrogant Disregard Of The Rule Of Law] which has caused it to adopt procedures and documentation that are lazy, slovenly and simply fail to comply with the law. That means that most of the rates set by local authorities are unlawful. Cont/

[2.10.15 NZH Editorial: Bright’s free ride has cost us enough]

SECRETS AND MORE SECRETS 30.09.2015
Alexandra Newlove’s article in the Northern Advocate reported Whangarei councillor Stuart Bell’s criticism of public–excluded workshops. “I don’t agree with having to make decisions on behalf of our community when, because an issue has been deemed confidential, the discussion I can have with the community on it is somewhat limited.” Cont/

AND EVEN MORE SECRETS 30.09.2015
How is that when someone goes into central government or local government their individual ethical standards become compromised and they adopt the party line or appropriate political line? Respect for the principles of law or fair play, or common sense for that matter, fly out of the window. We have seen it in successive Ministers of Local Government who chose to ignore the blatant illegalities of the KDC, and tacitly gave Jack McKerchar and Neil Tiller the stamp of approval for their reckless plunder of Kaipara ratepayers. […] But the ADOTROL* disease is endemic throughout the Beehive. Justice Minister Amy Adams has a severe case of the disease if the NZ Lawyer is correct. An article in that magazine claims that the Minister has refused to disclose details of why the costs of renovating Dunedin’s historic courthouse have leapt from $2.5 million to $15 million. Barrister Anne Stevens has slammed the secrecy saying that “scrutiny of decision-making underpins a democracy”. Cont/

[30.9.15 NZ Lawyer: Lawyers slam secretive plans for courthouse upgrade]

—

More to read at Kaipara Concerns.
But is it true activism stands more chance in Northland than Dunedin.

YES, because the Dunedin public are nearly if not always asleep. Or they want to pick up someone else’s trash to qualify for Darlene’s job keeping Dunedin ‘beautiful’ and semi-comatose.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
13.2.15 Associate Minister of Local Government: Return democracy to Kaipara
2.2.15 LGNZ run by Mad Rooster Yule, end of story
27.11.14 Auditor-general Lyn Provost #Resign
31.10.14 Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC
9.9.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara: Latest news + Winston Peter’s speech
19.7.14 Whaleoil / Cameron Slater on ratepayers’ lament
29.5.14 Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Assn wins at High Court
31.3.14 Audit services to (paying) local bodies #FAIL ● AuditNZ ● OAG…
29.1.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara —we hear ya!
3.12.13 LGNZ: OAG report on Kaipara
12.11.13 Northland council amalgamation
29.6.13 Audit NZ and OAG clean bill of health —Suspicious!
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
19.3.12 Local government reform
21.2.12 Kaipara this time

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Associate Minister of Local Government: Return democracy to Kaipara

From our friends at MRRA, the Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Association (Inc.) —a plea for public support for their online petition.

Associate Minister of Local Government: Return democracy to Kaipara

Moves are afoot to have the term of the appointed Commissioners extended beyond the set date of October 2015. This appears to be an effort to create a platform towards amalgamation of the whole of Northland into a single Local Authority. Given the parlous state of Kaipara’s finances and the stubborn refusal of Commissioners to listen to ratepayers and residents, amalgamation can only be detrimental to Kaipara’s best interests and would likely result in those who created this mess escaping scot free. We want the minister to:
(a) Ignore requests for extension of term of the Commissioners
(b) Be open on discussions regarding reorganisation of local government in Northland
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Associate_Minister_of_Local_Government_Return_democracy_to_Kaipara/?tbVJcjb

Please forward the link to your friends and colleagues.
Click to share this petition on Facebook

—

█ Read more about the petition at Kaipara Concerns, a community newsletter that clearly outlines the issues affecting the people of Kaipara district. http://www.kaiparaconcerns.co.nz/

[screenshot – click to enlarge]
Kaipara Concerns 13.2.15 Read on….

—

█ MP for Maungakiekie, Peseta Sam Lotu-liga is the Associate Minister of Local Government.

█ Hon Paula Bennett is the Minister of Local Government.
Ms Bennett’s portfolio includes roles as Minister for Social Development and Associate Minister of Housing. She replaces the outgoing Minister of Local Government, the Hon Chris Tremain, who is retiring at the next election.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
2.2.15 LGNZ run by Mad Rooster Yule, end of story
27.11.14 Auditor-general Lyn Provost #Resign
31.10.14 Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC
9.9.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara: Latest news + Winston Peter’s speech
19.7.14 Whaleoil / Cameron Slater on ratepayers’ lament
29.5.14 Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Assn wins at High Court
31.3.14 Audit services to (paying) local bodies #FAIL ● AuditNZ ● OAG…
29.1.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara —we hear ya!
3.12.13 LGNZ: OAG report on Kaipara
12.11.13 Northland council amalgamation
29.6.13 Audit NZ and OAG clean bill of health —Suspicious!
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
19.3.12 Local government reform
21.2.12 Kaipara this time

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Disclaimer: This post, ‘Stadium: Online petition to pressure $1M donation’, does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation of any kind by Elizabeth Kerr and the parties to What if? Dunedin.

Dunedin real estate, seriously?

Names. Companies. How long is a piece of string.

—

### ODT Online Fri, 6 Feb 2015
Business
Fined $17,000; appeal lodged
By Simon Hartley
Three members of Dunedin’s Sievwright real estate family and employer Edinburgh Realty have been censured and collectively fined more than $17,000 for “unsatisfactory conduct” by the Real Estate Agents Authority (REAA). The decision, published last week, is under appeal by the Sievwrights and Edinburgh. Barclay Sievwright and sons Lane and Clayton were censured for “unsatisfactory conduct” and fined $3750. Edinburgh Realty was similarly censured and fined $6000. Another real estate agent, Matthew Shepherd, was censured.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Fri, 6 Feb 2015
Business
Real estate agent fined, censured over commission; decision appealed
By Simon Hartley
Dunedin real estate agent Tim Barnett has been censured and fined by the Real Estate Agents Authority (REAA) – a decision which is under appeal – over commission on a more than $700,000 commercial building. The decision, released last week, found “unsatisfactory conduct” against Mr Barnett. He was fined $2000 and required to undergo further training. Mr Barnett, of Tim Barnett Realty, declined to comment when contacted because the decision was under appeal.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
5.2.15 Dunedin median house prices down
19.1.15 Housing affordability in this country is “just hopeless” –Hugh Pavletich

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Mangawhai, Kaipara: Latest news + Winston Peter’s speech

Received.
Tue, 9 Sep 2014 at 8:53 a.m.

A SERIOUSLY GOOD READ from the MRRA Executive (Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc). The newsletter follows their public meeting at Mangawhai Gym on Sunday, 7 September 2014, to which New Zealand First’s Winston Peters gave an address.

Dunedin residents and ratepayers take heed.

—

[begins]

Another remarkable turnout in Mangawhai
This is the staunchest, toughest, fairest community in New Zealand. The solidarity you have exhibited in the face of vilification, lies, corruption, deceit, bullying and state-funded spin puts the Mangawhai people into a category that verges on martyrdom. And Sunday was proof if proof was needed that nobody is about to give up on the quest for justice.
Yesterday, 200 MRRA members and numerous members of the public turned out to hear some of the candidates for election this month talk about their policies. The MRRA had extended an invitation specifically asking the candidates to speak on local government, and what they would do in office to prevent a recurrence of what happened in Kaipara. Several parties didn’t show up, possibly because they did not have an answer to that question, and those parties that voted for the Validation Act that effectively stymied our application to the Court have to be assumed to be in favour of council law-breaking and mis-treatment of ratepayers, because they keep on rewarding it by passing retrospective legislation.

Most of those who sold us out didn’t show up
The Green candidate, David Clendon, defended the Green party’s stance by saying that if the Act hadn’t been passed the cost to the ratepayers would have been even greater. He may have believed that at the time, and that is one thing. To believe it still, after everything that has happened, demonstrates that the “Fairer Society” the Greens espouse is just another slogan to be taken with a grain of salt. However, David Clendon did have the courage to show up and take the lumps. The same cannot be said of National and Labour, the other two parties who sold us all down the river in 2013.

Can they be Trusted?
The Conservative Party’s Northland candidate promised to come to the meeting, then she phoned to say she wasn’t coming, but that Colin Craig (party leader) was coming instead. Then, on the morning of the meeting, we got a text saying he wasn’t coming either. Could people who behave like that be relied upon if they got into government? Did John Key tell him that he wouldn’t get a clear run at East Coast Bays if he fraternised with us? Where do the dirty tricks begin and end?

Those who did show up
The start-up local party led by Ken Rintoul (Focus New Zealand) sent a strong delegation along, and participated energetically in proceedings. ACT’s number 3 man, Robin Grieve likewise.

And those who answered the question posed
Only one candidate really responded to our call for information about their party’s local government policies. That was New Zealand First, represented by their leader Winston Peters. His full speech is reprinted below for those who were not present but are keen to hear what he said. In summary, he catalogued the litany of crime and wrong-doing that led to the Kaipara debacle, stated that central government had, through its persistent failure to heed the warnings, effectively (and possibly knowingly) let the whole catastrophe happen under its nose, and that it needed to make reparations.

Clive Boonham moved to tears!
A week previously, the National candidate convened his own meeting in the same venue and mustered about a third of our audience. His audience included a coterie of diehard supporters, at least one of them probably being paid by ratepayers to attend. At that meeting the candidate made the announcement that he had been in Bruce Rogan’s house and Bruce Rogan had said “Mike, if you will go after the auditor general I will hug you!”. I did once attend a meeting with Mike Sabin, at Helen Curreen’s house. When Mike made a characteristically motormouth claim that he was prepared to leave no Fairy tern unstoned in pursuit of the Auditor General, I think I responded that I would embrace any move to bring the culprits in this saga to justice. Mike is clearly in need of affection to have turned that response into an offer of man love. Why he assumed the Curreens’ place belonged to the Rogans is anyone’s guess, but perhaps he thought it didn’t much matter, because once the Validation Bill was passed all the houses would end up being owned by the banks anyway!
But the point of that little anecdote is that sometimes politicians’ speeches generate emotional responses in the audience. When Winston Peters finished speaking, the normally undemonstrative Clive Boonham rose to his feet (an event of greater significance in Clive’s case than for the ordinary citizen, owing to the distance involved in the rising), and said that the speech had brought tears to his eyes. That probably reflected the sentiment of quite a few others in the room – to hear, most of them for the first time, confirmation that we were not the villains in this piece, and to hear it from someone who just might be in a position to do something about it after the election, is very moving.

Two to Tango?
As he left the meeting Winston made it clear, with that famous disarming smile on his face, that he would study the returns from the Mangawhai polling booth very closely, and his commitment to go into bat for us would be directly linked to how hard we went to bat for him!! Sounds like a fair deal, perhaps? Rest assured that if we get shafted again in the Courts we are certainly going to need someone in the political system to be batting for us. Seriously though, SOMEBODY has to go into bat on behalf of the country’s ratepayers, and very soon.

GST on Rates
NZ First said GST should come off rates because rates are a tax and it is wrong to tax taxes. Focus NZ said that the GST on rates should not go to central government but should be used in the district in which it was collected. ACT said that under a government in which it was a part rates would not rise by more than the inflation rate, which would require regulation, which ACT said it was going to remove.
Most of the proceedings were videoed, and a sound recording was made of all the speeches and the exchanges afterwards.

Our Appeal of the High Court judgment
Clive Boonham addressed the meeting with a very clear explanation of the case at the Court of Appeal. He was concerned that it might have been a bit dry after all the hurly burly that went before. Nobody in the room thought that was the case at all.

Our case has three prongs:
● The true legal effect of the Validation Act
● The true legal meaning of the Protected Transaction Provisions of the LGA
● The breach of the Bill of Rights by the Commissioners in bringing their vindictive and vicious Bill to the House while our case was before the High Court.

The Rates Strike and the Bully Boys
The questions were asked “What should we do about withholding rates?”, and “What do we do if we are threatened with legal action?”
You are safe for now.
Nothing further can be added to your rates bill until the 20th November. If you are still not paying rates, hang on until we get some properly considered advice out to you about that, in good time for you to make a decision before any further penalties are applied.
If you are being sued and if you need help, we will help you.
If you are threatened with legal action and you would like help, get in touch with us. We believe that the council will have to climb some very steep hills to successfully sue any Kaipara ratepayer for non-payment of rates, and when the time comes we intend to be ready to provide a vigorous defence to anyone who is sued by this council.

Contest for YOU!
Lastly, on a lighter note, Tom Parsons made the observation that these commissioners call themselves the council, when they are not a council and are in reality nothing remotely like a council. Think of a more appropriate name for them and email it to mrra @ vodafone.co.nz We will publish the (printable!) results, and award a prize (Bennett’s chocolate fish) for the best entry.

Winston Peters’ Speech
Winston Peters spoke at the Meet the Candidates’ Meeting at the Mangawhai Gym today (Sunday the 7th of September 2014):

Posted at 3:07pm Sunday 07 Sep, 2014

There needs to be a corrective history of how this sorry saga came about.

• About 14 years ago the Beca group became head consultant for the Mangawhai sewerage project, it evaluated tenders, and awarded the tender to itself, receiving $675000 of ratepayers’ money to manage the bid process.

• The Beca group in association with the council’s chief executive officer Jack McKerchar settled on Simon Engineering from Australia as the preferred bidder.

• Simon Engineering had claimed experience in dozens of engineering projects in Australia like Mangawhai.

• Simon Engineering had no such experience other than a trailer park equivalent to a single subdivision in Mangawhai.

• Councillor Bruce Rogan sought a referral from one of Simon Engineering’s purported happy customers in Australia.

• This cautious request was attacked by Beca group project group leader Johnson and the Mayor and no information was forthcoming.

• In 2002 the local government amendment Act banned the concept of a 25 year old –build-own-operate-transfer project.

• Neither Beca or the chief executive observed the law change because the deal had already been secretly committed to.

• Councillor Rogan’s request that Simon Engineering be warned of exceeding its budget was ignored by the chief executive officer who later said that his failure to follow a council resolution was because it might have frightened the horses.

• Councillor Rogan directly advised Simon Engineering of the council resolution, which caused the company to bolt and financially go belly up.

• What remained of Simon Engineering’s skeletal remains morphed into a new creation Beca-Simon which promoted itself as a multinational infrastructure builder.

• So the project manager became the builder, or put it another way, had now organised a contract with himself.

• In time the contract ended up with Water Infrastructure Group now running the entire waste water system project.

• Quarterly reviews were denied the Kaipara councillors under threat of legal action.

• Some councillors were asking difficult questions of the relationship of Mr McKerchar and a council staff employee working on the planning for the sewerage scheme.

• The council employee transferred from the council to the Beca group who then contracted her back to provide services to the Kaipara council.

• Another sewerage scheme on the west coast of Kaipara went to the same contractors for $7 million despite the financial blow out on the Mangawhai scheme, or that another proposed tenderer at $5 million was warned off because of the affect that this tender might have on the roading contracts in the Kaipara district the following year.

• The Auditor-General was aware of the chief executive officer-council employee-cum Beca employee connection but she did not think it was relevant.

• Staff at the council lived in fear for their positions if they questioned decisions. And the chief executive officer, when appointed commissioners took over the council, was given a $240,000 handshake.

Ladies and gentlemen this is not the script for a novel or a bodice-ripping bestseller. This is a sorry litany of negligence, corruption and coverup.

The Simon Engineering connection puts one in mind of Novopay, another bunch of Aussie Ned Kellys, who took over our education payroll system despite having no experience in that business whatsoever. Costs have blown out to around $60 million, some teachers are still not getting paid despite the government picking up the skeletons of Novopay.

New Zealand First, as a result of extensive investigation, discussions, and analysis, opposed the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and other Matters) Bill.

The National Party, Labour, Greens, Māori, ACT and United Future parties all supported it.

Hone Harawira, believing that New Zealand First was on to something, opposed it as well.

Illegalities in entering into loans are not mere technicalities or formalities but go to the heart of local government’s obligation to consult ratepayers before entering into large financial commitments.

Especially where the rates can be set to cover illegal loans.

In Kaipara’s case community consultation stopped at $34 million. But the scheme’s cost ended up being far more than double the price.

Contractors have taken large margins. The ANZ bank acquired the original loans at a 40%mark down, clearly having done some due diligence on the whole scheme. But that bank is insisting upon the full loan. Where Beca Group sits in this is a good question requiring answer. They were contracted to manage the project so why are they not taking a haircut as well.

But the key issue here is what is the responsibility of central government in this sorry mess. The auditor general’s office is a key agency in central government.

Retrospective legislation that is harmful to any party should be an abomination in a democracy.

In this instance, it was used as a device to brush incompetence and corruption under the carpet.

New Zealand First’s view is clear; inconvenient truths should not be buried but exposed to the cleansing light of public scrutiny.

Cover up – deny – and avoid scrutiny whilst the innocent suffer and the guilty walk away unscathed and fully paid.

How the Audit Office allowed five years of clean audits to go through on the Kaipara District Council while the sewerage scheme racked up so much debt is incredible, especially as some of you were voicing concerns early on.

How the Auditor General refused to consider many questionable matters, saying they were irrelevant, begs the question.

If that is not relevant what is?

The Auditor General’s office has a reputation for integrity but what went wrong here?

Was it that some the participants looked too big to be questioned?

However your political representatives in Parliament, from all parties, except New Zealand First and Mana, were no better.

They defended the Auditor General and take no responsibility for forgetting about you.

Former Prime Minister Norman Kirk once pointed out to MPs that it was not their job to defend the Government Department from the people; instead their role was to defend the people from the Department.

He was precisely right. So instead of defending you, 112 politicians rushed to defend the Audit Office, and they went further collectively sweeping all the wrongdoing under the carpet by voting for retrospective legislation.

The National government has wiped its hands of your problem, as have the other parties and there’s been no attempt to try and renegotiate the loans, to lessen the load, or step in do their duty by you.

There’s been no admission of the culpability of the Audit Office which should see Central Government pick up the bill for the bloated cost.

We are 13 days from an election and some of you want New Zealand First to declare its position on Coalitions now. I trust you now all understand what a betrayal of you it would be to enter pre-election Coalition arrangements without securing your interests in negotiations first. Or would you prefer someone who is ‘all tea and sympathy’ with no objective of backing it up.

National and its local MPs, past and present, should be ashamed of their underhand way of allowing the guilty to escape accountability and leaving you with the cost.

A similar matter is occurring under your eyes where the SuperGoldCard is concerned.

It has a free travel component which is under review in November, after the election.

We know the National Party wants to wind it back, although its annual cost would be a third of the Novopay debacle.

It benefits 630,000 Seniors.

Last night Minister Woodhouse on TV denied our allegations. Well, Mr Woodhouse, how do you explain the discussions between government and local body transport authorities being held behind closed doors as I speak.

Four years ago the master of Novopay was caught out on a similar denial. And now another Minister, Woodhouse, has been caught out doing the same.

With 13 days to go before the election you can vote for your political choice and remain with an albatross around your neck, or can you see with great clarity what you now must do.

Party vote New Zealand First because for you, more than probably any other group in New Zealand

It’s Common Sense
– See more at: http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/81874-winstons-speech.html

Bullet points from Clive’s address:
Appeal Process
We have been criticised by Robertson, Pooley and others, for appealing.
If we had won would the KDC have sucked it up like they are telling us to do, and not have appealed?
If we had won would KDC have immediately refunded all the illegal rates, pending appeal outcome?
Yeah RIGHT!

Grounds for Appeal
● Validation ACT – What did it really validate?
● The so-called Protected Transactions-
– What do they protect
– Who do they protect
– Who is responsible for honouring them?

● New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
– There was a breach (High Court said so)
– Who committed the breach? (we think it was the commissioners, who simply cannot commit breaches of the Bill of Rights Act)
– Are they accountable for that?

Funding
Sincere thanks to those who made financial contributions at the meeting and to those who continue to help out with funding. If you have donated to the cause please don’t feel any obligation to do so again, but for those who haven’t….? As we said at the meeting, the award of costs by the High Court will go a long way to funding the cost of the appeal(s).

Our bank account number is:-
38-9012-0318164-00 and our postal address for cheques is PO Box 225 Mangawhai 0540.
Please attach your membership number 2012047.
Thank you again to those who came along and made the meeting on Sunday such a success. It might not have been our biggest turnout ever, but it was a much bigger community turnout than most politicians ever see in their lifetimes!

Kind regards,
MRRA Executive.

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

StS didn't know the cost all along???

Hello…

### ODT Online Tue, 10 Mar 2009
By David Loughrey

Stadium appeal dropped

Stop the Stadium has dropped its Environment Court appeals against the district plan and roading changes necessary for the stadium project, just days before preliminary hearings were to begin. The group’s president, Bev Butler, yesterday said the cost of the appeal would have been at least $200,000, making it “imprudent” to continue.

Read More Online Here…

Full ODT link

****

Fairyland just went crunch. Best rule out the judicial review while we’re at it. AWAIT the public meeting, after all, according to Bev Butler on Newstalk ZB, “Reality must intervene.”

StS withdrawal of appeals?

Council has today been advised by Stop the Stadium that they have withdrawn their appeal against the Stadium Plan Change and also their appeal against the Notice of Requirement for the arterial road. They have also issued a press statement to this effect. It is not, as yet, on their website though!

This from a very good source.

Whatever next? Available processes…

Last year and this, speaking with resource management practitioners (planners) at Dunedin and Christchurch, some of whom also act as planning commissioners, it was easily established that the Otago stadium project could not be stopped via the plan change process.

Refer to Dunedin City Council’s Plan Change 8 – Stadium (PC8) and the Notice of Requirement – Harbour Arterial (DIS-2008-3). Link

On reviewing the Council’s applications for PC8 and the NoR, and listening to points of view of potential submitters, the practitioners explained that to participate in the plan change process might alter, most likely for the good, aspects of the plan change documentation and subsequent effects. Fair enough.

This information was made available to several parties within the submission period, including the management committee of Stop the Stadium Inc.

Since the plan change hearings, and following receipt of the commissioners’ decisions for PC8 and the NoR, Stop the Stadium has gone on to lodge appeals with the Environment Court – most properly it seems, not as a ‘delaying tactic’.

Recently, the organisation’s president Bev Butler said an approach had been made to Chen Palmer, the only specialist Public Law firm in New Zealand. There are indications that Stop the Stadium is investigating whether to seek a judicial review at the High Court in relation to council decision-making processes under the Local Government Act. Time will tell. As will finance.

OH DEAR GOD. 9 March 2009. Stop the Stadium has issued a press release to confirm it has withdrawn its appeals to the Environment Court. If intending to seek a judicial review, on who knows what grounds – as yet, or if – then things get interesting. Meantime don’t hold your breath, people.

****

The Environment Court is the primary judicial decision-making body under the RMA, and is at the same level as the District Court. The Environment Court hears appeals from people who disagree with RMA-related decisions made by local councils. The Court can enforce their decision on a person, company or organisation. Link

The Court can be asked to overturn any council decision to do with a plan or resource consent application.

If you disagree with a decision from the Environment Court, you can appeal to the High Court. Any appeal is considered on points-of-law only, rather than a reconsideration of all the matters that were considered by the Environment Court in making its decision.

****

Judicial review is the review by a Judge of the High Court of a decision to determine whether it was according to law, proper procedure, fair and reasonable. Link

Judicial review is not the same as an appeal.

Judicial review is an enquiry into the process by which the decision was made, rather than the merits of the decision itself. The grounds for judicial review include mistakes of law, taking account of irrelevant considerations (or failing to consider relevant matters), or having insufficient information to reach a certain decision.

The judicial review of a decision-making process by a local authority may only be sought if the option of an appeal under the RMA is not available (section 296 RMA).

All judicial reviews heard in the High Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court will scrutinise the decision-making process and, if it finds errors, usually send the decision back to the decision-maker for correction.

****

The classic theory of judicial review is that it is an important restraint on the exercise of public power. By this theory, judicial review imposes upon all decision-makers standards that are inherent in a democracy and embraced by the rule of law. The role of the courts to uphold the rule of law and restrain the exercise of power has long been articulated.

Link to Judicial Review – An Update by Charles Chauvel, Partner, Minter Ellison Rudd Watts (Thursday, 04 July 2002).

The principal difficulty in determining whether a decision-maker has acted illegally occurs in those circumstances where the decision-maker has been granted a broad decision-making discretion. However, the courts’ jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the statute confers upon a decision-maker a discretionary power.

The courts maintain a reluctance to interfere in the exercise of a discretion that has been granted to a decision-maker. Even so, the courts maintain their right as the ultimate arbiter of what is lawful.

****

Relationship between Local Government Act and RMA
Visit the Quality Planning website here.

The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) represented the first major revision of local government law for 28 years. This review was also part of a wider legislative reform, which included the reform of earlier legislation to create the Local Electoral Act 2001, and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (which replaced the Rating Powers Act 1988).

The reforms encourage local authorities to focus on promoting the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of their communities, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Local authorities in consultation with their communities now have greater discretion in the choices they make about what services will be provided, and the manner in which these services will be undertaken. The very prescriptive provisions of the previous Act have been replaced by a general form of empowerment.

The LGA requires local authorities to consult with their local communities and Crown Agencies to determine what public goods and services the community wants provided. This process leads to the development of ‘community outcomes’. These outcomes are then translated into a plan of action referred to as the long-term council community plan (LTCCP).

This is a ten-year strategic planning document, and covers all local authority functions from financial planning and economic development initiatives, to social service provisions such as libraries, housing and community facilities. LTCCPs must be reviewed triennially.

The Resource Management Act (1991) establishes a hierarchy of policy documents from national instruments to regional policy statements, and regional and district plans. This ‘hierarchy’ and requirement to ensure consistency between plans, is to promote sustainable management and ensure integrated management of natural and physical resources at a national, regional and local level.

The following FAQ were prepared by John McSweeney and Sandra Proctor from the Ministry for the Environment; and peer reviewed by Fiona Illingsworth from the Department of Internal Affairs and Jane Johnston from Local Government New Zealand. More

What regard must be given to the decision-making and consultation principles under the LGA when following specified processes in the RMA?

The decision making and consultation principles (sections 76-82) of the LGA are designed to apply only where no requirements are specified in other relevant local government legislation. For example, a decision about notifying a resource consent application would be made under the processes of the Resource Management Act, not under the LGA.

A general principle of law is that specific provisions contained in one Act override the general provisions contained in another Act. The RMA contains specific requirements pertaining to resource consents and decision making, whereas the LGA has general consultative principles that must be applied when consulting with the local community. As there are no specific processes for carrying out consultation under the RMA about how the community should be consulted when preparing a policy statement or plan, local authorities will be required to apply the consultative provisions contained in the LGA.

What are the differences between the decision making processes in the RMA and the LGA?

The RMA has a codified submissions and hearings process, where the Act sets out the process and timeframes to be following, the manner in which hearings must be conducted, and the matters that must be taken into account in making decisions. This quasi judicial process allows for RMA decisions to be challenged on policy grounds to the Environment Court. Any submitter or further submitter can also be a ‘party to proceedings’ in the Environment Court.

RMA decisions can also be challenged in the High Court on points of law and process. For example, decisions relating to whether resource consent applications should, or shouldn’t be notified.

The LGA does not codify the way consultation and decision making is undertaken by local authorities. Each local authority must however ensure that its decision making processes ‘promote compliance’ with sections 76-82. The effect of this is that a local authority’s decision-making processes must:

* involve consideration of all reasonably practical options;
* involve consideration of the views of persons likely to be affected by a decision;
* identify any significant inconsistency between the decision and any policy or plan adopted by a local authority;
* provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to the processes; and
* promote compliance with the principles of consultation, including giving interested persons a reasonable opportunity to present their views.

The LGA contains consultation principles that should be applied when consulting with the public. This is not a mandatory requirement as it is under the RMA.

Members of the public can only challenge LGA decisions in the High Court on the basis that the correct process has not been followed or on a point of law. Legal challenges cannot be made on the merits of the decision. This is the main point of difference between RMA and LGA decisions.

Other sources of information include:
Local Government KNOWHOW guides to the Local Government Act: produced by SOLGM, LGNZ and the Department of Internal Affairs.

****

The High Court, established in 1841 and known as the Supreme Court until 1980, is of pivotal importance in New Zealand’s justice system. It has general jurisdiction and responsibility, under the Judicature Act 1908, for the administration of justice throughout New Zealand. This includes maintaining the consistent application of the rule of law, supervision of other courts and tribunals, and the judicial review of administrative power. It has jurisdiction over both criminal and civil matters, and deals with cases at first instance or on appeal from other courts and certain tribunals.

It comprises the head of the New Zealand Judiciary, the Chief Justice and up to 55 other Judges (which includes the Judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal). In addition, Associate Judges of the High Court (formerly known as Masters of the High Court) supervise the Court’s preliminary processes in most civil proceedings, and have jurisdiction to deal with summary judgement applications, company liquidations, bankruptcy proceedings, and some other types of civil proceedings. The High Court Judges and Associate Judges are based in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, but also travel on circuit to Whangarei, Hamilton, Rotorua, Gisborne, New Plymouth, Napier, Wanganui, Palmerston North, Nelson, Blenheim, Greymouth, Timaru, Dunedin and Invercargill. The Court also has registries in Masterton and Tauranga. Court staff in those centres are responsible for supporting the management of cases before the Court and, as Registrars and Sheriffs of the Court, are responsible for exercising certain judicial powers, and enforcing the Court’s judgements and orders. Link

See comment on definitions

Plunket, 'Appeal will be withdrawn immediately'

### D Scene 25-2-09 (page 5)
And then there was one

Dunedin’s proposed $188 million stadium is about to dodge one of the two Environment Court appeals lodged against it this month. Chalmers Properties Ltd have lodged an appeal to the Environment Court through its Auckland-based lawyers. The appeal relates to a Dunedin City Council-initiated arterial route making way for the Awatea St stadium. However, Port Otago chief executive Geoff Plunket says the appeal will be withdrawn immediately.
{story continues}

Register to read D Scene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### D Scene 25-2-09 (page 5)
‘A plan change appeal won’t hold up demolition work’ – Trust
Stadium start regardless
By Michelle Sutton

Opponents’ hopes that court appeals will stall work on Dunedin’s controversial megabucks stadium will come crashing down in June. Demolition work at the site will start regardless, according to the Carisbrook Stadium Trust.
{story continues}

HOT PRESS – Dunedin Harbourside Zone

Decision on Proposed Plan Change 7: The panel of commissioners – comprising John Lumsden and Roger Tasker – has given approval for a new Harbourside Zone to be added to the Dunedin City District Plan, to include Stages 1 and 2 of development, subject to amendments and conditions.

The new zone is a mere skip and a jump from the subject site for Plan Change 8 Stadium Zone. The proposed Harbour Arterial is associated with both plan changes.

PC7 seems ripe for appeal.

“Just idiotic” – local business owners expressed their anger and disappointment saying the plan change was not beneficial to industry, given the uncertainty of the future.

ODT Link

If to Environment Court

Stop The Stadium President Bev Butler has confirmed the organisation has lodged a letter of appeal to the Environment Court seeking to prevent the Harbour Arterial Link project – this joins the proposed harbourside arterial with State Highway 88 by skirting the site for the Awatea St stadium.

Loss of the Harbour Arterial Link would place the proposed stadium project in jeopardy. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/42373/environment-court-stadium-appeal

******

What is the role of the Environment Court?

Ministry for Environment web pages cleanly state (http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/court-guide/html/page2.html):

“The Environment Court is a specialist court operating under the Resource Management Act (RMA). The Environment Court has the same powers as the District Court and considers appeals on council decisions about:

* resource consents
* abatement notices
* proposed district and regional plans
* proposed regional policy statements.”

Among other things, the Environment Court can consider appeals on designations.

“The Environment Court has the power to:

* direct councils to make changes to their policy statements or plans
* confirm, amend or cancel decisions on applications for resource consents and designations
* stay or confirm abatement notices
* make or decline to make declarations and make or refuse to make enforcement orders
* award costs in favour of one or other of the parties involved.”

The Environment Court holds sittings as required throughout the country. These are usually held as close as possible to the site that the proceeding is concerned with.

Always google “Environment Court” or “RMA” to pick up useful explanatory guides, definitions and descriptions of planning processes, court processes, procedural matters and participation. Most of these are phrased for easy comprehension by lay people and practitioners, and general query solving. Plenty of cross links are given for consistency and elaboration.

******

Last year, Ms Butler expressed concerns when she discovered the Dunedin City Council had pushed for early Environment Court slots for expected appeals blocking the Awatea St stadium proposal. She considered this application to the Court to be highly unusual. Via media reporting – and, as underlined to Ms Butler by the Commissioners at the stadium plan change hearings – this was shown to be standard practice. Forward scheduling allows the Court to allocate personnel and resources to see to upcoming business. Appeal hearings have been sought for April or May 2009.

******

Case Management

One of the objectives of case management by the Environment Court is to “efficiently use available judicial, legal, and administrative resources, and achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act (where that is the relevant controlling legislation)”.

Cases such as statutory plan appeals, appeals concerning a major development proposal (and matters referred to the Court by the Minister for the Environment under s141B(l)(b)) which require individual management are “assigned to a complex track, and are managed through mechanisms such as timetabling of procedural steps and progress reporting to the Court, judicial conferencing, and formal pre-hearing directions or rulings”.

To find out more about the Court’s case management system, go to:
http://www.courts.govt.nz/environment/procedure/case-management.asp
http://www.courts.govt.nz/environment/legislation-and-resources/practice-notes.asp?inline=case-management.asp

Designations

Unsure of the term ‘designation’ as it applies to local authority planning processes? What does it mean?

Areas of land can be designated for use by requiring authorities as network utilities or public works, for example, roads. This means that works can be carried out without the subsequent need to comply with district plan rules. The process for designating land is similar to a resource consent application and provides for public submissions.

“[A designation] gives providers of network utilities and public facilities certainty and the ability to plan ahead. It gives them control over activities on the site to prevent anything that may compromise future works, even if the site remains in private ownership.”

In effect, the designation “creates a special zone within the district plan where the specified activity becomes a permitted activity”.

To note: “Tensions can develop between the community’s desire to achieve a good environmental outcome, and the necessity to provide public utilities such as a road or a wastewater treatment plant, within a designated area.”

Use the following links to view the full context of these excerpts:
http://www.rmalink.org.nz/view-subprocess.php?id=4
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/designations/index.html
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/public/designations/index.html

Sections 166-186 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) deal with designations. These are searchable online.

Notified Decision

The Council notifies the decision of the requiring authority (Dunedin City Council, in this case) to all submitters and affected landowners/occupiers.

Planning hearing commissioners Roger Tasker, John Lumsden and John Matthews confirmed a notice of requirement for the new Harbour Arterial Link, subject to a list of conditions, on 9 January 2009.

STS, as a submitter, didn’t like the notified decision and has appealed to the Environment Court by the due date set down in the decision (2 February 2009).

ODT reports (go to link at top of page), “Among Stop the Stadium’s reasons for appealing to annul the Dunedin City Council’s “notice of requirement” – the process by which a designated authority gives notice it is seeking to designate land – were that the planned new infrastructure duplicated existing infrastructure; it was contrary to various objectives and policies of the Dunedin district plan and Otago’s regional policy statements and objectives because it failed to recognise available transportation alternatives and to reduce the use of fossil fuels and production of harmful emissions; and it made more appropriate technology less likely in the future. The new route would isolate the harbour area from the rest of Dunedin and make access to the harbour area more problematic…Ms Butler noted the commissioners had conceded a shorter arterial route through fewer private properties than would be needed to go around the proposed Otago Stadium site would be preferable.”

If you hold concerns similar to these about an RMA decision, initially you might consult the following guidelines, Resolving Resource Management Act Concerns and Your Guide to the Environment Court:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/concerns/index.html
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/court-guide/index.html

Better, directly consult a lawyer for advice and to know your options, and or an experienced RMA practitioner.

The Resource Management Act

The Ministry for Environment provides a gateway to information about the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), New Zealand’s main piece of legislation that sets out how we should manage our environment. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/

The approach to environmental management under the RMA is centred on the concepts of sustainable and integrated management of resources. Other principles of national and lesser importance are set out in the Act.

The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) also provides a community guide to the RMA: http://www.rmaguide.org.nz/rma/introduction.cfm

In 2005, the RMA was amended – and shortly, it will be again.

The Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 changed Environment Court procedure. “Rather than the ‘de novo’ hearing, the Court must now consider the decision made by the consent authority, and the evidence that was presented at it. This provision avoids the need to re-hear entire cases, and will speed up Court proceedings. However, there has been a corresponding increase in the documentation that consent authorities are required to make for consent hearings.” http://www.rmalink.org.nz/view-subprocess.php?id=3

Quality Planning is another RMA resource, providing valuable information on a range of planning topics (including conduct at hearings), as well as best practice guidance and relevant case law. http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/

******

Pending the Dunedin City Council’s decision on the stadium project tomorrow, will StS continue with its appeal? It’s understood Chalmers Properties Ltd (CPL) has also appealed the decision for the notice of requirement.

More soon.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

—

Postscript, from ODT Online

Comment submitted by andy73 on Sat, 07/02/2009 – 11:31am.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/42373/environment-court-stadium-appeal#comment-2338
“Although I don’t particularly think that the ‘Stop the Stadium’ group is the best to represent the vast majority of Dunedin’s residents that are against the stadium, I am pleased that they are at least doing something about it. Dunedinite’s apathy is the reason we have ended up with such an out of touch council in the first place. I would hope that Stop the Stadium is also looking at legal ways of having this council removed from office due to a ‘vote of no confidence’ from the people. I really believe that the problem has got that bad!”