123 Vogel St, an action about council process?

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

At Facebook:

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If that was the fight advertised on page 1 today.

****

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

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

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Zoning issues: Vogel Street activities

76 Vogel Street. Question to Dunedin City Council:
How did this activity happen without a publicly notified plan change?

The ‘warehouse precinct’ referred to in the restaurant’s marketing isn’t recognised by the current Dunedin City District Plan. The building is located within the LSR – Large Scale Retail Zone (see comparative district plan maps below), and the Vogel Street Heritage Precinct (TH13).

—

Vogel Street “remained zoned for large-scale retail uses, although it was proposed to become a mixed-use zone [the warehouse precinct] – allowing a wider variety of uses” – under the 2GP.

### ODT Online Sat, 23 Jan 2016
Objector to cafe’s licence slammed
By Chris Morris
A Dunedin businessman and his city councillor wife have been labelled “dinosaurs” amid claims they are deliberately standing in the way of the warehouse precinct’s regeneration. The criticism came after it was confirmed yesterday Alistair Broad, a commercial property owner and businessman, had filed an objection opposing the Vogel St Kitchen’s bid to renew its liquor licence.
Read more

—

In a former life, the popular Vogel St Kitchen (VSK) was the McIndoe printery. The old brick building has been strengthened and given a new lease of life as a two-level coffee house and licensed eatery. Restaurant proprietor Riah McLean and property owner Lawrie Forbes commissioned a mural by London-based street artist Phlegm for the south exterior wall, visible from the street.

“Dunedin’s coolest destination cafe situated in the heart of the Warehouse Precinct. If you like your coffee and dining to have character and spirit come and check us out.” (publicity)

█ Website: www.vogelstkitchen.co.nz
76 Vogel Street, Dunedin 9016

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

District Plan Maps (2GP) – Compare existing and Second Generation District Plan maps:

DCC Rates Information

DCC consents subdivisions without full consultation on stormwater & drainage

Guidelines on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Introduction to sections 27(1) to 27(3): The right to justice Link

Introduction to sections 27(1) to 27(3): The right to justice
Section 27(1) The right to the observance of the principles of natural justice
Section 27(2) The right to a judicial review of determinations
Section 27(3) Proceedings involving the Crown same as proceedings between individuals

█ RE: COUNCIL LIABILITY AND RISK | COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND RATEPAYERS —Non-notified v Notified Resource Consents

GUILTY PARTIES:
Mayor and Councillors, Hearings Committee, Chair of Infrastructure Services Committee, Chief Executive, General Manager Infrastructure and Networks, General Manager Services and Development, Group Manager Water and Waste, City Planning, City Development Team, Resource Consents Team et al.

—

ODT 12.9.15 (page 30)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
27.8.15 DCC: Non-notified … consent Leith Valley 19-lot subdivision #ULCA
7.6.12 Dunedin stormwater: more differences between ORC and DCC
[240 Portobello Road and more]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Esco —‘just the global hardball player we always were’, sorry staff….

Esco Dunedin was among a group of neighbouring businesses objecting to Russell Lund’s plans to redevelop the 142 year old Loan and Mercantile building, citing reverse sensitivity concerns, including over noise. The outcome of Environment Court mediation talks was yet to be revealed, but Mr Kershaw said the issue played no part in the company’s decision. (ODT)

### ODT Online Wed, 2 Sep 2015
Foundry closure ‘a blow’
By Chris Morris
Australia’s mining downturn is set to deliver a “real blow” to Dunedin’s economy with the closure of the Esco foundry and the loss of dozens of jobs. Staff at Esco Dunedin were told yesterday the foundry would close by the end of the year, with the loss of 34 jobs. Esco products division president Jeff Kershaw, of Portland, in the United States, said in a statement the decision reflected a downturn in Australia’s mining industry that showed no sign of letting up.
Read more

—

TWO THINGS

█ Remember when Esco pushed this button (highlighted) at the NZ Loan and Mercantile Building resource consent hearing:

ODT Online [screenshot]

█ From file records, see Russell Lund’s percipient closing to hearing:

[para] 102. The biggest hurdle would seem to be the decline of the Australian coal mining industry. I refer to a Guardian article May 5, 2014 Australian Coalmining entering structural decline.

116. Esco have a large foundry operation in China. They employ 675 people in China.

117. I am very sure the production costs of Esco’s Chinese foundries are markedly less than in Dunedin, Portland or anywhere else. That is the ticking clock for the Dunedin foundry, and other Esco foundries.

118. The bottom line is that Esco will operate this small Dunedin foundry only as long as it serves their shareholders’ interests. If the market conditions dictate that consolidation is required and it is surplus to requirements, then they will act swiftly, as they did in Brisbane.

LUC-2014-259 RV Lund Applicant Right of Reply 22.9.14
(PDF, 6 MB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
6.8.15 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —meeting tomorrow
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
7.1.15 Industrial Heritage Save: Cowes Hammerhead crane
28.11.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —Resource Consent granted
26.11.14 Retraction (see comment on ‘Heritage Counts’)
● 26.9.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —what ESCO said!
30.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing
16.3.10 Public meeting: planning the future of Dunedin heritage buildings
24.10.09 Rodney Wilson: Dunedin as national heritage city

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile*, *heritage*, *bradken* or *harbourside* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: Non-notified resource consent Leith Valley 19-lot subdivision #ULCA

259 Malvern Street Dunedin (LUC-2014-631)
This consent was an application to/for earthworks to form building platforms for 19-lot residential subdivision at 259 Malvern Street Dunedin. This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 1 January 2008.

Source: DCC Non-notified Consent Decisions, page 8 as at 26.8.15

DCC Webmap – 259 Malvern Street (Jan/Feb 2013)

—

Received from Jeff Dickie (Woodhaugh)
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 at 10:10 a.m.

Subject: dodgy valuations

There’s a 19-lot subdivision underway in Malvern Street, just past the bridge after Patmos Avenue. What makes this odd is that it was granted non-notified consent.

There is a ground swell of anger that this has been allowed. None of the residents knew anything about it until it was through.

It also appears to be within Dunedin’s Leith Valley Urban Landscape Conservation Area [ULCA24], that incidentally was foisted on me. I spent $25,000 fighting this including appealing to the Environment Court. I employed a QC, a barrister and an Environmental Planner. In summary, the Judge said I had a right to feel aggrieved. However, he was reluctant to make a ruling that could potentially open the floodgates to other cases against a local authority [DCC].

It meant people like me, and all the other affected re-zoned owners were privately funding a public visual amenity, a de facto reserve.

The reason I felt so aggrieved is that it has happened to me before with an eight and a half acre section directly opposite Millbrook in Queenstown. My partners and I have owned this for about 26 years and have been obstructed for that entire time. Surrounding us everywhere is quite intensive development and ours remains an island of undeveloped land. Our intentions had been for very restrained use, unlike our more successful neighbours, who are clearly “better connected” than us!

The Leith Valley case is odd. The ULCA was supposed to protect the rocky escarpment and bush area and the latest development doesn’t do that.

I’m not certain, but I’ve been told the developer is John Dunckley, a valuer.
He used to live on-site but now lives in Motueka. Ironically, he objected to a neighbour’s subdivision on the grounds of spoiling his view. One has to wonder how on earth this was granted by the DCC. A reward for favours past?

John Dunckley is the ‘stadium valuer’. He put the eye-watering $225M value on the just completed well over budget stadium. That in effect validated the cost overruns.

[ends]

—

It appears the developer Dunckley has chosen to push through with subdivision prior to public consultation of the proposed 2GP this year. Very possibly, the existing overlay of ULCA24 should have been one of the factors necessitating full public notification of the application for (land use) consent. The decision should be investigated or challenged due to the number of potentially affected / interested parties not made formally aware of the land owner’s or indeed the city council’s (covert) process and intentions.

—

Ratepayer: Three Hills Limited

NZ Companies Register:
THREE HILLS LIMITED 5547070
Incorporation Date: 23 Dec 2014
Company Status: Registered
Registered Office: 147b Redwood Valley Road, Rd 1, Richmond 7081
Address for service: 147b Redwood Valley Road, Rd 1, Richmond 7081

Directors (1 of 1):
John DUNCKLEY – 259 Malvern Street, Glenleith, Dunedin 9010

Total Number of Shares: 100
Shareholders in Allocation:
Allocation 1: 100 shares (100.00%)
John DUNCKLEY – 259 Malvern Street, Glenleith, Dunedin 9010
Ellen Jane DUNCKLEY – 259 Malvern Street, Glenleith, Dunedin 9010
Stuart James MCLAUCHLAN – 3 Walsh Lane, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010

—

Subject Site at Leith Valley [screenshot]

█ For interactive comparative maps, go to District Plan Maps

—

Definition (Dunedin City District Plan):
Urban Landscape Conservation Areas – means those areas addressed in the Townscape Section and identified on the District Plan Maps which provide a landscape setting for the urban areas.

● Dunedin City District Plan Volume 1
● District Plan – Section 3: Definitions
● District Plan – Section 13: Townscape

Source: Townscape, page 13:47 [screenshot]

—

█ The 2GP appears to reduce Dunedin City’s biodiversity in residential areas due to Dunedin City Council’s unconstrained support for private speculator/developers to subdivide property holdings and intensify/densify construction, resulting in the removal of existing ULCAs from significant and potentially regenerative conservational environments.

DCC on Natural Environment and Biodiversity
– in reference to the proposed second generation district plan (2GP)

Review of Urban Landscape Conservation Areas
A review of Urban Landscape Conservation Areas (ULCA) has determined that it has been applied in most cases to public reserves. A large number of these reserves are sports grounds with limited vegetation cover and do not meet the intent of a ULCA. Instead the ULCA Zone has functioned as a default reserves zone. The preferred approach in the new Plan [2GP] is to zone large reserves as part of a new Recreation Zone which will better recognise the values of reserves (refer to Q&A: Community and Recreation Activities). This will reduce the need to include such areas as a ULCA.

The approach to be taken with reserves in the 2GP provides an opportunity to reconsider the remaining ULCA areas and whether there are alternative approaches. Some large reserves, such as the Dunedin Town Belt contain extensive areas of vegetative cover that play a significant role in providing corridors for biodiversity and these values need to be recognised with a method that manages biodiversity. The ULCA also includes areas of private land, generally the vegetated steep sides of valleys or gullies, such as the Leith Valley, that provide biodiversity corridors. It is proposed to recognise their values in any method that manages biodiversity.
DCC Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —meeting tomorrow

“You can’t be too confident, but if we’re all reasonable I think an agreement is definitely within reach.” –Russell Lund

Farra Engineering chief executive John Whitaker agreed yesterday when contacted there had been “good work” during mediation.

### ODT Online Thu, 6 Aug 2015
Extra conditions may rescue project
By Chris Morris
Plans to breathe new life into Dunedin’s historic Loan and Mercantile building could be about to take a significant step forward. Building owner Russell Lund will meet a group of neighbouring harbourside businesses, as well as Dunedin City Council and Otago Chamber of Commerce representatives, tomorrow to discuss the stalled project.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
28.11.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —Resource Consent granted (pics)
26.11.14 Retraction (see comment on ‘Heritage Counts’)
26.9.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —what ESCO said!
30.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing
24.10.09 Rodney Wilson: Dunedin as national heritage city

█ For more, enter the terms *harbourside*, *heritage* or *lund* in the search box at right.

[click image to enlarge]

—

Post/image by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS)

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Tell Us What You Think!

This item was published on 23 Jun 2015

Letters have been sent this week to 4500 Dunedin residents inviting them to take part in the Dunedin City Council’s annual Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS).

DCC General Manager Services and Development Simon Pickford says, “The ROS provides valuable feedback on what Dunedin residents think of their Council and the services and facilities we provide. It is particularly useful as it allows us to hear from the ‘silent majority’ of residents who are less likely to tell us what they think in other ways, such as the Long Term Plan consultation.”

The 4500 residents, randomly selected from the electoral roll, will be invited to complete the ROS online using a unique code. A hard copy questionnaire will be provided on request.

The survey is also open to other residents, who can fill out the survey at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/ros.

Everyone who provides feedback will have the opportunity to enter a draw to win one of five $100 supermarket vouchers.

The survey is open until 17 July 2015. A reminder letter will be sent to those who have not responded about two weeks after the initial letter. This practice has proved successful in increasing the response rate. The survey results are expected to be publicly available by late August.

Mr Pickford says, “We have been using this survey for more than 20 years and it has become a key tool for us to assess how well we are doing and ultimately guide our planning and decision making. ROS focuses on how well we deliver our services and asks questions about residents’ perceptions of our performance. Some of the results are used as official measures of the DCC’s performance for audit purposes. But equally importantly, the feedback is used by staff and the Council to guide our thinking about how we might best deliver services to better meet the needs of Dunedin residents.”

The survey, which costs about $40,000, will be undertaken by independent research company Versus Research.

The results of previous surveys can be viewed at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/ros.

Contact Simon Pickford, General Manager Services and Development on 03 474 3707.

DCC Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC explains Harbourside subdivision in reply to Vandervis

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

—

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

Hi Lee

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

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

Regards
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

[click to enlarge or view PDF immediately below]

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

——————————

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

Hi Sue,

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

Please let me know if you need anything further.

Regards,
Jeremy

——————————

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

Hi Jeremy

In response to Sue’s questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Lianne

——————————

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

FYI…

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

—

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

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

[ends]

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Traffic lights: Anzac Avenue/Frederick Street intersection

Four questions put to DCC Transportation Planning today:

● What work is needed to activate the traffic lights at Anzac/Frederick?
● Why it is requiring remediation?
● How much it will cost?
● Why weren’t the lights just switched on as planned in early December immediately after the site [Hall Brothers yard – Anzide Properties Ltd] was cleared?

The argument goes like this: there was a break made in a fibre optic cable during site clearance at Hall Bros yard. Chorus billed the property owner for the breakage. The property owner didn’t know the cable existed or that it had been attached to one of their buildings on site.

Meanwhile, DCC says the cable issue isn’t connected to the traffic lights not working.

So back to those questions:

DCC says new medians and yellow-dot pads are being added at crossings, and ‘green boxes’ for cyclists are being re-scoped — for improved traffic management, and cycle and pedestrian safety; the 5-way intersection is being turned to a *4-way* intersection (with the access way formerly used by Hall Bros being removed) — simplifying the intersection and lights control of it.

DCC says all work to cost circa $100,000.

Timelines as such around the holiday break meant the traffic lights weren’t turned on earlier [in December, immediately following site clearance by Hall Bros].

DCC says Tony Avery will likely handle media statements on completion of the project.
(why is Mr Avery still at DCC, he’s retained until the new GM arrives in February)

The real story?

Hall Bros had to clear their site by a certain date in December 2014. They did.
Chorus turned up the next day saying the property owner had broken the cable.
Chorus had no easement. The cable should not have been there.

The irony of the lights not working because they were connected illegally to a building on the land that had to be cleared because the lights were illegally installed, is THE ANSWER.

Remember, DCC says the cable issue isn’t connected to the traffic lights not working.

Ye Gods of Irony, please do not explode.

DCC Webmap – Anzac Avenue/Frederick Street [click to enlarge]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr —with thanks to correspondents for their wording, collaged

*Image: Tony Avery – tweaked by whatifdunedin

Yurts for Tunnel Beach *names [commercial activity proposed]

The following information exists in public domain. -Eds.

—

Andrea (36), who did not want her last name used, said she and husband Brendon (40) planned to use the yurts to offer a unique type of homestay accommodation. (ODT)

### ODT Online Fri, 9 Jan 2015
Couple to put up yurts
By Chris Morris
A Dunedin couple are planning to install three yurts – traditionally used by Mongolian and other nomads across Central Asia – on 2.8ha of gorse-covered land they own above Tunnel Beach. The yurts would be built sometime next year, the first to be used as a family space, but the couple hoped to turn their idea into a tourist attraction.
Read more

—

DCC Non-notified Decision:

47 Tunnel Beach Road Green Island (LUC-2014-69)
This consent was an application to/for construct dwelling, barn, three yurts and undertake earthworks at 47 Tunnel Beach Road Green Island.
This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 1 April 2014.

http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning/browse-non-notified-decisions/non-notified-decisions/2014/luc-2014-484

—

[click to enlarge]
DCC Webmap – 47 Tunnel Beach Road, Green Island, Dunedin

Dunedin City District Plan – Map 59

Rates information

—

Recent comment at Facebook page Dunedin NZ:
Andrea Buhr Tunnel beach track, lovely in a sunny day!!!
Like · Reply · 1 · 30 September 2014 at 18:09

Andrea Buhr – Facebook page as at 9.1.15 [Andrea.B.Lemm]

—

Brendon Lemm – Facebook page as at 9.1.15 [another car man]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: Non-notified decision for Harbourside subdivision

Updated post 13.1.15 at 1:25 a.m. Map added.

Notice:

20 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 8 Bombay Street Dunedin, 10 Bombay Street Dunedin, 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin, 47 Willis Street Dunedin, 59 Willis Street Dunedin, 34 Mason Street Dunedin, 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 56 Willis Street Dunedin (SUB-2014-149)

This consent was an application to/for subdivision at 20 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 8 Bombay Street Dunedin, 10 Bombay Street Dunedin, 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin, 47 Willis Street Dunedin, 59 Willis Street Dunedin, 34 Mason Street Dunedin, 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 56 Willis Street Dunedin.

This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 25 November 2014.

█ http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning/browse-non-notified-decisions?result_146838_result_page=3

Information obtained from City Planning 12.1.15

Harbourside subdivision (SUB-2014-149)
Applicant: Chalmers Properties Ltd

“The proposed subdivision is to be undertaken in one stage, and will not create any vacant sites intended for development. Nor is any redevelopment of the new lots anticipated.” (from the Decision) ??? Are we sure….

█ SUB-2014-149 Decision (DOCX, 1.62 MB)

█ SUB-2014-149 Application 2014-10-30 (PDF, 9.33 MB)

Decision (final page) – Copy of Plan: Not to Scale. [click to enlarge]

DCC Webmap – Dunedin Harbourside [click to enlarge]

Dunedin City District Plan – Harbourside zones (detail) via Map 35 and Map 49

Heritage New Zealand – Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area # List No. 7767

—

DCC Ratepayers:

● 20 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Anzide Properties Ltd
● 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Anzide Properties Ltd
● 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin – McCormick Carrying Properties Ltd
● 8 Bombay Street Dunedin – Ross D Matheson, Mary K O’Hara Matheson
● 10 Bombay Street Dunedin – Nicen Ltd
● 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin – Ewen W Heather, Leanne M Kent, Russell S Melville
● 47 Willis Street Dunedin – Steel and Tube Holdings Ltd, Pacific Oriental Holdings Ltd
● 59 Willis Street Dunedin – Christie Paper Ltd
● 34 Mason Street Dunedin – Otago Daily Times Ltd
● 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin* – Graeme M Crosbie, Gillian K Crosbie
● 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Hyde Park Industrial Developments Ltd
● 56 Willis Street Dunedin – Development Six Ltd

*Note: Conflicting DCC mapping information for 44 Cresswell Street, Dunedin. Property adjoins 14 Tewsley Street, does not include 14 Tewsley Street.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
16.1.14 DCC explains Harbourside subdivision in reply to Vandervis
27.12.14 Port Otago Ltd + Chalmers Properties
17.11.14 Bradken keen to sell Tewsley Street premises
12.6.14 Dunedin’s industrial land
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —Resource Consent granted

Dunedin City Council has granted resource consent with conditions (LUC-2014-259) to Russell Lund, owner of the former NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building, for the development of residential apartments on the upper (top) floor.
The building is located in the Port 2 zone and the Queens Gardens Heritage Precinct (TH12).
The entire external building envelope is listed for protection in the Dunedin City District Plan.
Heritage New Zealand has registered the former industrial warehouse as a Category 2 historic place and recognises its heritage values and significance within the registered Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area.
The building is pivotal to contextual readings and narratives for the Port of Dunedin, Steamer Basin, and reclaimed foreshore as much as future development in the Port 2 and Harbourside zones incorporating public access to the water’s edge.

Decision
The final consideration of the application, which took into account all information presented at the hearing, was undertaken during the public-excluded portion of the Hearing.
The Committee reached the following decision after considering the application under the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991:

Land Use LUC-2014-259
Pursuant to section 34A(1) and 104B and after having regard to Part 2 matters and sections 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Dunedin City Council grants consent to a non-complying activity being the establishment of residential activity within the NZ Loans (sic) and Mercantile Building and associated building alterations at 31 & 33 Thomas Burns Street, Dunedin, being the land legally described as Section 21-22 Block XLVII held in CRF 0T288161 (Limited as to Parcels) subject to conditions imposed under section 108 of the Act, as shown on the attached Certificate.

█ Download: LUC-2014-259 Letter of decision

Right of Appeal — In accordance with Section 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the applicant and/or any submitter may appeal to the Environment Court against the whole or any part of the decision within 15 working days of the notice of the decision being received.

—

[click to enlarge]

Recently, architectural historian Peter Entwisle assessed the building’s significance in the national context and recommended review of the registration status to Category 1. Earlier assessment work in the 2000s commissioned by the Otago Branch Committee of New Zealand Historic Places Trust and led by Elizabeth Kerr, included the achievement of two academic studies by University of Otago history student Stephen Deed with supervision from Dr Alexander Trapeznik towards Committee review of the building’s registration and establishment of a historic area on the Dunedin harbourside. Assessment work for registration of the historic area was successfully completed by the NZHPT Otago Southland Area Office. Unfortunately, ongoing restructuring within the Trust has meant review of the building’s registration has not been prioritised or resourced. It is hoped that Mr Entwisle’s strong research will lead Heritage New Zealand to mandate the work with some urgency.

Onwards…….

—

Related Posts and Comments:
26.11.14 Retraction (see comment on ‘Heritage Counts’)
26.9.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —what ESCO said!
30.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile* or *harbourside* in the search box at right.

—

Post and images by Elizabeth Kerr

*All images lowres only at this webpage.

NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —what ESCO said!

Land Use Consent: LUC-2014-259
31-33 Thomas Burns Street, Dunedin
NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building

█ Application LUC-2014-259 (PDF, 4.0 MB)

—

[see related posts below] The consent hearing reconvened on Monday 22 September at 9:30 AM to hear closings of the city planners and right of reply for applicant Russell Lund. The hearing is now closed; commissioners Andrew Noone (chair), David Benson-Pope and Lee Vandervis are considering their decision.

Background to this post:
Following the initial hearing held on Tuesday 19 August, it is What if? Dunedin’s contention that Debbie Porteous, for the Otago Daily Times, provided news stories which failed to give appropriate weight and balance to submissions and evidence from supporting and opposing submitters, the applicant, and experts for the parties.

ODT stories:
█ 20.8.14 Demolition threatened; job loss possibility raised
Esco Dunedin site manager Dean Taig told the panel if the apartments were allowed next door he would have “grave concerns” for the future of the foundry which employed 39 people and had plans to employ 100 people.
[negative writerly tone]

█ 21.8.14 Businesses fear being driven out of area
It is a choice between buildings and jobs, a panel considering whether to allow apartments in a heritage building in Dunedin’s waterfront industrial area has been told. The district plan had already made the choice for them, lawyer Phil Page also said, because it said there could not be incompatible activities in the same area.
[negative writerly tone becomes shrill, no right of reply for applicant]

█ 29.8.14 DCC to foot apartments consent bill
The development is opposed by nearby industrial businesses, which are concerned about reverse sensitivity issues such as noise and smell and the effect of gentrification of the area on their future enterprises.
[stirring, ends with a negative, no right of reply for applicant]

What on earth had ESCO put to hearing?
● Evidence of Counsel for ESCO Dunedin Pty Ltd – D R Clay (Minter Ellison Rudd Watts Lawyers – Auckland) (PDF, 704 KB)
● Evidence of Dean Taig, site manager of ESCO Dunedin Pty Ltd Dunedin foundry (PDF, 246 KB)
● Evidence of Michael Smith, independent traffic engineering expert (Traffic Design Group) (PDF, 531 KB)
● Evidence of Shane Roberts, independent planning expert (Opus International Consultants) (PDF, 1.82 MB)

—

█ These snivellings from Ms Porteous ran counter to a supportive comment by editor Murray Kirkness on Saturday 6 September:

“It is certainly encouraging that another local developer is prepared to foot the bill to preserve a distinctive piece of the city’s heritage. It is to be hoped his plans go more smoothly than those for Russell Lund’s restoration and apartment conversion of the Loan and Mercantile building. That proposal is complicated by the fact it is in the wharf area and has been opposed by neighbouring industrial businesses. The council hearing into Mr Lund’s consent application resumes this month.” (ODT)

█ On Tuesday 9 September, reporter Chris Morris also cleared the biased air of Ms Porteous, with last sentences:

“Last month, building owner Russell Lund criticised a council planner’s decision to recommend declining consent for his planned redevelopment of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Building. That proposal, which has attracted more support than opposition, is still being considered, with an adjourned hearing set to resume later this month.” (ODT)

Heritage advocates are awaiting something/anything in print from Ms Porteous about the applicant’s technically fulsome right of reply given on 22 September. Why the delay, we ask?

It’s pleasing to learn Murray Kirkness kindly phoned Russell Lund this evening to say a story appears in tomorrow’s newspaper.
THANK YOU MURRAY !!
We look forward to reading this, we hope….

—

Related Posts and Comments:
30.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile* or *harbourside* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: wikimedia.org – NZ Loan and Mercantile Building by Ben C Hill for Heritage New Zealand [NZHPT]

Veggie Boys blames resource consent

“Everybody says there’s a great economic boom. There isn’t in Dunedin, and we’ve got to tighten our belt.” -Marty Hay

### ODT Online Mon, 7 Jul 2014
Consent process blamed for veg store closure
By Shawn McAvinue
A costly consent hearing is being blamed for Veggie Boys’ Mosgiel store withering economically and it will close at the end of the month. Veggie Boys’ co-owner Marty Hay said the Bush Rd store was not economically viable and management had decided to ‘‘pull the pin”. The outlet had been open nearly two years but three months after opening, business became difficult when the owners were required to obtain a consent for it to operate, he said.
Read more

█ Notified decision (2.5.13): LUC-2012-563 58 Ayr St, Mosgiel – Letter of decision. ● Note: Notified decision LUC-2012-563 removed from DCC online listings at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning/browse-notified-decisions.

█ Non-notified decision (14.1.14): “58 Ayr Street Mosgiel (LUC-2012-563/A) – This consent was an application to/for s127 change or cancellation of conditions at 58 Ayr Street Mosgiel. This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 14 January 2014.” Go to (currently at page 2) http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning/browse-non-notified-decisions ● Note: DCC failed to consult the original 11 submitters on LUC-2012-563 before granting this decision.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
2.4.13 Dunedin: Developers stoop to resource consents instead of private plan change applications
9.1.13 Fresh veggies, a holiday mystery

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Hotel MOU: DCC #fail

█ Hotel Memorandum of Understanding (PDF, 297 KB)

—

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

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

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

[ends]

—

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

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Hotel: DCC and COC sell out Dunedin community to Chinese trojans

‘Perceived’ Conflict of Interest:
Dave Cull (also Mayor of Dunedin) has used Steve Rodgers (partner in Rodgers Law; also a director of Betterways Advisory Ltd) as his personal solicitor in recent times. The mayor is welcome to confirm or deny this in order to set the record straight.

Dunedin’s Old-Boy CARGO CULT is disabling your City

ODT Online 21.12.12 (screenshot)

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Next Step for Waterfront Hotel Proposal

This item was published on 10 Mar 2014

Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull and Betterways Advisory Limited have today announced the signing of an agreement to work together to try to achieve the construction of a five-star hotel for Dunedin.

The parties have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that establishes a framework and a process to address issues raised by an earlier resource consent application.

Betterways’ application to build a 27-storey, five-star hotel at 41 Wharf Street was declined resource consent in June last year.

Mr Cull says, “Since that time, the DCC has worked extensively with Betterways to find whether a hotel can be constructed on this site that both realises Betterways’ investment ambitions and benefits the city.”

The DCC and Betterways agree that connectivity issues are a major focus going forward and have committed to work together to seek solutions.

If solutions can be found, the DCC will set up an urban design panel to provide independent design review and subsequent advice. Their focus will be on sustainable development and the creation of a design that contributes to a safe, healthy and attractive urban environment.

The panel will encourage best practice approaches to development, specific to the hotel’s site. This process provides an independent peer review from leaders in a variety of relevant professional institutes, including the development sector, practitioners and academics.

“Urban design panels are widely used in other centres. We’re really delighted to have an opportunity to use this successful formula here in Dunedin, and on such an important project for the city,” Mr Cull says.

Once the design panel and DCC staff members were satisfied the new hotel proposal had resolved the issues, the DCC would initiate a District Plan Change process to change the zoning of the Wharf Street site from industrial so a panel-approved design could be built on the site.

Any development proposal would still be subject to the Resource Management Act.

One of Betterways’ owners, Jing Song, says, “After a very challenging two years, we are delighted that the Council has shown a commitment to our investment in this beautiful city. We know our hotel plans are exciting for Dunedin and we are very pleased to have established a framework to deliver a hotel that meets the desires of the local community.”

The Council agreed to sign the MoU during the non-public part of its meeting on 24 February.

Betterways will make a decision about whether to pursue its appeal when the process agreed through the MoU has advanced enough to show that the proposal will be supported by the Council.

Hotel MOU (PDF, 297 KB)

Contact Mayor of Dunedin on 03 477 4000.

DCC Link

—

Related Posts and Comments:
26.2.14 Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

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

ODT 10.3.14: Agreement signed over waterfront hotel

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Norman Foster: SkyCycling utopia above London railways #ThinkBig

Or how to put DCC and NZTA to shame for their dangerous, low-design segregated cycle lane solution at Dunners. See the latest DCC / NZTA report, Summary of Cycle Safety Options Made Public, at Comments.

Foster SkyCycle [click to enlarge]

So Big Norm’s a cyclist, and when he gets a wee bit of work in New York City from time to time he likes to travel The High Line [Wikipedia]. But then. He had a gazumping thought about London congestion.

Foster is the only architect on Britain’s rich list.

—

### dezeen.com 2 January 2014
Norman Foster promotes “cycling utopia” above London’s railways
News: British architect Norman Foster has unveiled a concept to build a network of elevated pathways above London’s railways to create safe car-free cycling routes, following 14 cyclist deaths on the city’s streets in 2013.
Entitled SkyCycle, the proposal by architects Foster + Partners, landscape architects Exterior Architecture and transport consultant Space Syntax is for a “cycling utopia” of approximately 220 kilometres of dedicated cycle lanes, following the routes of existing train lines.
Over 200 entrance points would be dotted across the UK capital to provide access to ten different cycle paths. Each route would accommodate up to 12,000 cyclists per hour and could improve journey times across the city by up to half an hour.
“SkyCycle is a lateral approach to finding space in a congested city,” said Foster, who is both a regular cyclist and the president of Britain’s National Byway Trust. “By using the corridors above the suburban railways, we could create a world-class network of safe, car free cycle routes that are ideally located for commuters.”
If approved, the routes could be in place within 20 years, offering relief to a transport network that is already at capacity and will need to contend with 12 percent population growth over the next decade.
“To improve the quality of life for all in London and to encourage a new generation of cyclists, we have to make it safe. However, the greatest barrier to segregating cars and cyclists is the physical constraint of London’s streets, where space is already at a premium.”
According to the designers, construction of elevated decks would be considerably cheaper than building new roads and tunnels.
Read more

****

### dezeen.com 28 November 2013
Sandwichbike flat-pack wooden bicycle by PedalFactory goes into production
A flat-pack wooden bicycle that can be assembled in less than an hour has gone into production. PedalFactory claims the Sandwichbike can be unpacked and put together in just 45 minutes. The single-speed bike is constructed from 19 parts that are packaged and delivered in a box along with the tools required to assemble it. The Sandwichbike was launched in Amsterdam on Sunday 1 December 2013. This innovative wooden bicycle is now being shipped.
Read more + images/slide show

“If you can make a sandwich, you can make a Sandwichbike.”

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images via dezeen.com

Cycle lobby games and media tilts

Commuters [cycling.com]

—

### ODT Online Sat, 19 Oct 2013
Leuchs accuses Vandervis
By Chris Morris
Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis has been accused of misrepresenting former Olympian Kashi Leuchs’ views on cycleways to ”push forward his own agenda” at a recent Dunedin City Council meeting.
However, Cr Vandervis hit back yesterday, denying the claim and saying any suggestion he did so deliberately was ”slanderous”.
Read more

—

Correspondence received.

—– Original Message —–
From: Lee Vandervis
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 1:51 PM
Subject: FW: reaction? Feel free to quote.

ODT reporter Chris Morris has muddied rather than clarified the issues around my supposed misrepresentation of statements made by serious cyclists, including an employee running the Bike Otago shop.

Even worse, the Bike Otago owner Kashi Leuchs who I have never met or discussed anything with, wades in to today’s ODT and on his blog pretending to be one of the blokes that I spoke with running his shop and pretending he took part in or heard the supposedly misrepresented conversation!
The millions we have already spent on Dunedin ‘painted on’ cycle lanes are now not what they want according to their blog, but they have no idea of how what they do want will work at intersections.
How much more do they want ratepayers to spend to reinvent the cycle lane?

Cheers,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:31:04 +1300
To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Conversation: reaction?
Subject: Re: reaction?

First time this has been brought to my attention thanks Chris.

The Bike Otago blog confirms just what I said and that I accurately described these serious cyclists reservations about existing cycle lanes;

“So we would just like to put a little context to what Lee tells the council here. Lee states that we said that cycling lanes actually give cyclists a false sense of security… But what Lee has missed out is the words ‘painted on’. For sure, we, like almost all cyclists you ask are against the painted on cycling lanes, similar to what we currently have on our one way system.”

I did not miss out the words “painted on” as these words were never mentioned in the cycle-shop discussion, and ‘painted on’ is mostly what we have.

This still leaves the most dangerous part of any road – the intersections – as needing special provision which is often provided overseas by cyclists/pedestrian stop lights on separated cyclelane/footpaths.

The statement “What Lee states about intersections not being separable is not something that we would consider hard to fix… it would just take a bit of good planning to ensure everyone can enjoy the roads safely together.” fails to suggest just what planning/expense might reduce the latest car-park-lane separated cycleway intersection danger issue, and fails to give any overseas examples.

I have studied and photographed European cycleway solutions this year [at my own expense] in Munich, Barcelona, Heidelberg and Berlin and have spent weeks cycling around the last two cities. The most common cycleway solution in these cities is shared cycleway/footpaths separated from moving cars by parked cars. Next most common is our painted cycle lanes. Even when separated cycle-lanes/footpaths were marked with dividing lines, most serious cyclists [carbon fibre/lycra/commuter] still rode with the car traffic as this was faster and easier at intersections.
This highlights that there are many different cycling styles and preferences, and claims that a new separated car-park-lane cycleway will please most cyclists is misleading.

My question to the new enthusiasts for wiping out 200+ car-parks all the way up the one-way street and having a physically separated bicycle path along the car-parking strip, is why not use the under-used eastern footpath as a separated cycle lane, as recommended recently in the ODT by roading engineer Paul Hambleton, and which has plenty of relatively safe precedent overseas? I have previously asked staff to consider this overseas proven option, and had a Council resolution supporting this.
I believe we need a proven cost-effective compromise that recognises all road users as well as a variety of cyclists styles, from the recreational to the serious. So far my shared-eastern-foot-path solution is the only affordable one I have seen.

Cheers,
Lee

—

On 18/10/13 12:18 PM, “Chris Morris” wrote:

Hi Lee,

Not sure if you’re aware of the post about you on http://www.bikeotago.co.nz/

They’re taking issue with your earlier comments at a council meeting in September, when you claimed Bike Otago cyclists and the bloke that run the shop did not support cycleways.

I’d like your response by 5pm at the latest, but as soon as possible, actually, as I may need to do follow-ups.

Chris.

—— End of Forwarded Message

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:37:37 +1300
To: Chris Morris
Conversation: reaction?
Subject: Re: reaction?

Bike Otago’s own quotation “we, like almost all cyclists you ask are against the painted on cycling lanes,” confirms that they are opposed to current cycle lanes, and shows that I did not misquote them Chris.
Nobody specified ‘painted on’ at the time, but the news that theses cyclists are against the already considerable expensive Dunedin cycle lanes should be of wide interest.
If Bike Otago want to fully represent their views at Council on a new specific type of separated cycleway that has not yet been detailed, designed, intersection explained, or built, they are welcome to try and do so.

The record shows;
It was moved (Vandervis/Hudson):
“1 That the Council further consult with the AA on cycle safety proposals.
2 That the eastern footpath of the One Way North be considered as a long-term separated cycle way.”
A request was made to take each recommendation separately. Motion 1 was put and carried.
Motion 2 was put and carried with Cr MacTavish voting against.

that I have pushed for a much more affordable separated cycleway not requiring the loss of 200+ car-parks along the unused eastern footpath as regularly seen overseas. Whether Bike Otago approve of this or not is up to them to say.
I don’t have an own agenda other than to prevent an enormous waste of ratepayers and limited Transit funds on a new type of separated cycleway yet to be designed that does not address the statistically most dangerous intersections.
For you or anyone else to suggest that I deliberately misrepresented unnamed serious cyclists chatting in a cycle-shop is slanderous.

Kind regards,
Lee

—

Related Posts and Comments:
24.9.13 Mediocrity and lack of critical awareness at DCC
9.9.13 Residents’ dissatisfaction (2013) with elected council and mayor —increase!
4.9.13 Draft Dunedin City Transport Strategy
30.8.13 Transport Strategy: Is this responsible local government?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Draft Dunedin City Transport Strategy

Read the draft strategy here. [DCC webpage and links]

—

Comment received.

BlueBottle
Submitted on 2013/09/03 at 1:28 pm

Lee Vandervis was very impressive at the transport strategy hearing on Monday. Lee challenged all the ridiculous assumptions that the strategy is based on. He did this using factual well researched arguments. Council staff were forced to back down on many points because there was no factual basis for their conclusions. Lee’s performance was remarkable because there was one of him against 4 Councillors and the Transport Planning/City Development staff who had a whole weekend to find ways to respond to Lee’s challenges. Although Lee helped to make some improvements to the strategy, the thing is still deeply flawed and will be harmful for Dunedin if it is accepted by the whole Council.
The Network Operating Plan (fig. 24) has been kept quiet by the DCC and the ODT. The plan is to make a big chunk of the CBD either car-less or mostly car-less. The methods of hindering motor vehicles haven’t been described but will be achieved with total bans from some streets as well as removing parking and restrictions on turning and entry. Another plan is to fiddle with the timing of traffic lights so as to cause intolerable delays to motorists. Have a look to see which streets are affected. While in their vision they see hoards of cyclists and pedestrians, more likely the CBD will become empty and turned into an economic dead-zone. The Network Operating Plan and the rest of the Transport Strategy are among the biggest threats that Dunedin faces.

Developing a Network Operating Plan [DCC]

Figure 24. Draft Network Operating Plan for the central city

—

Email received.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:05 PM

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 09:06:00 +1200
To: Wendy Collard, Sarah Connolly, Emerson Yeoman, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, Paul Orders
Cc: Kate Wilson, Andrew Noone, Jinty MacTavish, Teresa Stevenson
Conversation: Draft Transport Strategy Hearing additional data requested.
Subject: Re: Draft Transport Strategy Hearing additional data requested.

Ta Wendy,

Questions as follows:

Can I see Data to justify claims of:

1 – significant car ownership increase in the last 15 years/many Dunedin households now do not have access to a car. [A graph would be ideal]
2 – reduced fatalities and serious accidents [increasing safety] when transferring from automobile to pedestrian and cycling modes of transport [Elvik’s opinion on safety in numbers is not data and suggests only possibility with very large numbers of transfer not possible in a hilly city]
3 – increasing fossil fuel prices since 1974 “rising fuel costs” “Rising fuel prices are likely to lead to changes not only in travel behaviour and people’s choice of transport mode” “Assumption 1: The cost of fuel will continue to increase”
4 – increasing fuel efficiency of cars since 1974
5 – “much of car travel in Dunedin [or anywhere else] is non-essential”
6 – “other options are available for most trips”
7 – “deaths/serious injury of vulnerable road users [cyclists pedestrians] around schools” and “Safety problems at the school gate” “The research highlights that the transitory nature of traffic around schools has tended to hide the risks this situation presents to all users, but especially to children.”
8 – “poor provision for other modes and little congestion has led to high crash rates”
9 – “In part due to wide, high-speed urban street environments (such as the one-way system, Andersons Bay Road, Princes Street, and Hillside Road) and poor provision for other modes (such as buses, walking and cycling), road safety has suffered in Dunedin”
10 – “provision for private motor vehicles has also meant amenity, pedestrian connectivity and, in some instances, surrounding land use value has suffered”
11 – “Demand for cheap, convenient, and consistent on and off-street parking availability is no longer a realistic expectation with Dunedin’s modern high level of car use”
12 – “despite the fact that many children would prefer to cycle, scooter or walk to school”
13 – “it appears the cost of transport fuel will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. This is already having an effect on the way people are choosing to travel.”?

If reliable supporting data is not available, then these unsubstantiated claims and resultant aim to spend $47 million on cycling infrastructure should be removed from the Draft.

Kind regards,
Lee

——————————–

On 30/08/13 5:44 PM, “Wendy Collard” wrote:

Hi Lee

The deliberations have now finished. Kate has asked if you could please have the questions that you require to be answered be [sic] to staff by 12 noon on Sunday.

The hearing is going to carry on at 1pm on Monday as Public Forum has now been cancelled.

Regards

Wendy Collard
Governance Support Officer
Dunedin City Council
50 The Octagon, Dunedin; PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin 9058, New Zealand
Telephone: 03 474 3374, Fax: 03 474 3594

—

Related Posts and Comments:
30.8.13 Transport Strategy: Is this responsible local government?
29.8.13 The Don, imagines . . .
4.8.13 World War I memorial project
24.11.11 Dunedin buses: ORC or DCC
8.7.13 Bloody $tupid cycleways and Cull’s electioneering . . .
28.3.13 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2013/14: Portobello Harington Point…
8.3.13 Stupid bid for two-way highway ditched for now #DCC

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Transport Strategy: Is this responsible local government?

DRAFT Dunedin City Transport Strategy (2013)

The Otago Chamber of Commerce (COC) gets brownie points for taking a stick to Dunedin City Council and the politicised ‘sustainability crew’, this week… A crew primed with council staff, (spuriously-appointed) leadership and steering groups, university academics (with their little students in tow, aww) receiving substantial research funds into energy research, and the like; but let’s not forget the undue influence of Greater Dunedin and its two councillors, MacTavish and Wilson (paid $250 a day, was it?), sitting on the strategy panel – who, having spruced up their images lately (cutesy dyed haircuts, necklaces and dresses in adornment – closely resembling the old ‘pearl and cardy set’), will find the clobber just too awkward for bike riding.

It’s recognised the Chamber can’t hope to represent the wide breadth of Dunedinites – but it’s fair to say the Chamber’s focus and agendas (collectively and personally) are experienced as being unbearably narrow at times and slant at others – for example, its handling of the Dunedin harbourside plan change appeal, and its support for the new stadium (knife to the throat of Dunedin’s economy) and the proposed apartment and hotel development at 41 Wharf Street (cheap bling, with strings). All up, the Chamber is a mysterious if not loose male-order assembly of ‘business minds’.

Nevertheless, DCC, give your dog a bone…
But don’t think the Chamber will accept more stupidity from your transportation planners and general managers controlling the whole (desktop) strategic exercise —or from the ‘mission’ of idealistic ‘non-business’ greenies who lack the commonsense, experience, resilience and determination of Dunedin companies (the ones who actually make the dollars happen!), and which greenies will surely fail if pitted hard against Otago’s most successful export earners!!

The Transport Strategy is not a statutory document – but where it attempts to flow into District Plan changes, well, let’s wait for all the costly appeals to Environment Court. The council can hardly afford more legal battles – it can’t fund the challenges it’s already immured by.

The worst fear with the transport strategy revolves around pending changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) which could see council-driven and developer-driven projects bulldozed through without public consultation; with few benefits to anyone or the environment, except to the proponents. The new legislation will mean even less accountability and transparency in local government than ever before – thanks to the National-led government. You know who to vote for in 2014.

Do you know who to vote for in 2013?

—

### ODT Online Fri, 30 Aug 2013
Attack on transport strategy
By Chris Morris
The Otago Chamber of Commerce has launched an attack on Dunedin’s draft transport strategy, saying it pushed a ”questionable agenda” of sustainability while ignoring major transport issues. The strongly-worded rebuke came in the chamber’s submission on the Dunedin City Council’s draft strategy, presented on the first day of a two-day public hearing yesterday.
However, Prof Herbert Harris, a member of the chamber’s logistics committee, also offered an olive branch at the hearing by suggesting a joint working party be formed to fix the document’s flaws.

Prof Harris said the strategy was of ”major concern” because it ignored the inadequate arterial route through the city, a lack of commuter parking and the significance of the road link to Port Otago.

The draft strategy sought to identify and address key transport challenges facing the city over the next 30 years, beginning with improving the city’s poor road safety record. Initiatives proposed included everything from a multimillion-dollar central-city upgrade, to improved cycleways, bus services and a new eastern freight bypass. Prof Harris said the strategy was of ”major concern” because it ignored the inadequate arterial route through the city, a lack of commuter parking and the significance of the road link to Port Otago.
Read more

GREY AREAS… If you received this DRAFT Summary by post in late July, look no further than the grey back cover – it’s easier to read than the illegible and contrived contents, having about the same informational content.

****

### ODT Online Fri, 30 Aug 2013
Transport transfer considered
By Chris Morris
The Otago Regional Council says it will consider handing responsibility for public transport to the Dunedin City Council.
Council transportation planning manager Sarah Connolly confirmed a report on the issue was being finalised, and the chief executives of both organisations, Paul Orders and Peter Bodeker, would be briefed within weeks. Councillors from both organisations were yet to see the report, but a decision on how to proceed would be decided after the briefing, she said.
The news came two years after the Otago Daily Times reported the DCC and ORC were in talks about a possible transfer of the public transport network to the city council.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
29.8.13 The Don, imagines . . .
4.8.13 World War I memorial project
24.11.11 Dunedin buses: ORC or DCC
8.7.13 Bloody $tupid cycleways and Cull’s electioneering . . .
28.3.13 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2013/14: Portobello Harington Point…
8.3.13 Stupid bid for two-way highway ditched for now #DCC

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC governance = management ?

QUESTIONS
Mayor & Councillors | City Property | City Planning | Strategy and Development Team | Council-owned Companies | Consenting Processes | Conflicts

—

On selling council-owned property…. [public notification restricted]

[Mr McLaren] told the Otago Daily Times he was not consulted about the proposal, in part because he was a commercial rival. However, he was also a resident living in a house that overlooked the proposed development site from Braeview Cres….

### ODT Online Tue, 30 Apr 2013
Anger over motor caravan park plan
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council will consider allowing a new motor caravan park to be developed near Woodhaugh Gardens, just metres away from a rival camping spot. […] The New Zealand Motor Caravan Association has applied to the council for consent to establish the park at 51, 55 and 57 Woodhaugh St, on a vacant residential site next to houses and the Leith Stream. […] The proposal was deemed non-complying under the district plan, but attracted only four submissions – three of them opposed – after public notification was restricted to surrounding neighbours deemed to be affected.
Read more

****

Only yesterday . . . [heading to non-notified consent]

### ODT Online Mon, 29 Apr 2013
New supermarket plan hailed
By Chris Morris
A planned multimillion-dollar supermarket development in Green Island could bring jobs and investment and trigger wider improvements in the area, a Dunedin city councillor says. Progressive Enterprises is in talks with the Dunedin City Council aimed at developing a Fresh Choice supermarket on land between Main South Rd and Shand St.
Read more

Related Post and Comments:
29.4.13 Green Island activity centre

****

Last year . . . [non-notified application, loss of oldest brewery building on site]

### ODT Online Fri, 17 Aug 2012
Speight’s demolition to make way for expansion
By Chris Morris
Part of the Speight’s Brewery in Dunedin will be demolished to make room for the $29 million expansion of its operation. […] The company announced its intention to redevelop the brewery last year, after earthquake damage to the Canterbury Brewery, and began by relocating its Maltexo production plant to Dunedin in May this year.
Read more

### ODT Online Sat, 18 Aug 2012
Questions over consent for Speight’s
By Chris Morris
Heritage advocates are questioning why the public was not given a say about the demolition of a protected part of Speight’s Brewery in Dunedin.
Read more

****

Property acquisition for the stadium and SH88 developments . . .
[the hornet’s nest]

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 18:04 20/11/2012
Dunedin City Council fined for road botch up
By Wilma McCorkindale – DScene
A High Court decision has slammed Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) handling of a roading realignment in the city, ordering the cash -strapped authority to pay affected parties more than $185,000 in costs. Justice Alan Mackenzie indicated in a written decision the legality of the stretch of State Highways 1 and 88 through the city remained in question because of the council’s botch up.
Read more

Judgment-221310 (PDF, 109 KB)

Related Post and Comments:
20.11.12 Dunedin City Council vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”

****

Then there was Delta . . . [property acquisition at Jacks Point and Luggate, which names in common]

### ODT Online Thu, 25 Apr 2013
Delta investigation ‘major’
By Chris Morris
The Office of the Auditor-general considers its investigation into land purchases by Dunedin City Council-owned company Delta to be one of its major inquiries for the coming year. Results of the investigation might not be made public for some months, at the earliest. The OAG’s draft annual plan for the 2013-14 year, published last week, detailed work planned for the 12 months from July 1. The plan listed the Delta investigation as one of the “major inquiries” to be reported on during the year. The investigation into Delta’s $14.12 million land purchases in 2008 and 2009 at Luggate, near Wanaka, and Jacks Point, near Queenstown, was confirmed last November.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Dunedin: Developers stoop to resource consents instead of private plan change applications

Local resource management consultant/planners such as Allan Cubitt (also an independent commissioner that the Dunedin City Council calls on from time to time) and Don Anderson (Anderson & Co) are ‘chipping away’ at the Dunedin City District Plan zoning provisions with greater insistence out on the Taieri, in (surprise!) Cr Syd Brown’s patch, the Mosgiel Taieri ward.

We have the Veggie Boys application for retrospective resource consent coming to hearing on 10 April (see earlier post, Fresh veggies, a holiday mystery), hosted by Don Anderson. Meanwhile, DCC has allowed Veggie Boys to trade without resource consent since last year. There is some heat on the Council to clarify the planning issues (after a run of five non-notified consents involving Wallis Nurseries ‘destination’ developments, thus the notified application. DCC has sought a legal opinion but refuses to release it.

Veggie Boys Ltd (LUC-2012-563 Resource Consent Application)

There are only three submitters opposing the application. Wider than this application is the matter of “how much leeway” Wallis Nurseries have received from Council to extend their commercial retail activities – of which Veggie Boys is a part – in the rural zone, on high class soils. In particular, the development of ‘Wal’s Plant and Fun Land’ by fragmentary consenting processes, with the potential for cumulative adverse effects arising.

In its repeating, whole-page Easter advertising in the Otago Daily Times, Wal’s boasts there is now a commercial florist on site, and a “Great New Professional Driving Range for Golfers” has opened (a rather average flat farm paddock with cheap distance marking signs – something you’d normally want to crop, in a rural zone)…

It’s clear the land use is changing in a way that undermines the district plan Rural Zone provisions, and all without a private plan change application.

Will granting consent to Veggie Boys set a precedent that (widely) undermines zoning in the District Plan?

If consent is granted to Veggie Boys, is this the (surreptitious) track a supermarket chain would go down to open up for business outside Mosgiel’s Local Activity Area (LA1)? In a word…

****

### ODT Online Tue, 2 Apr 2013
Saddle Hill house sites bid debated
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council has been warned that if it grants consent for more residential development on the lower and middle slopes of Saddle Hill, the rest of the hill will soon follow.
But the consulting planner for developers planning two new subdivisions on the hill has told the council’s hearings committee he is not sure people care that much about it.
Read more

Interesting to read Allan Cubitt’s ‘planning’ assault on the Rural Zone, on behalf of developers wanting to subdivide the lower rise of Saddle Hill. To be taken with a pinch of salt, his badass statements include this on the lack of submissions from people living on the Taieri:

”I would suggest that they expect this type of development in this location and are not overly concerned about it, if they ever were … the lower/mid slopes of Saddle Hill do not appear to have a great deal of significance to residents in the area. I suspect the general public realise Dunedin is a hilly place so to restrict elevated building options within the city just because someone may see it, isn’t valid or appropriate.”

There’s a great deal of public sensitivity surrounding the future of Saddle Hill with regards to subdivision and quarrying – it is substantially a district plan zoning and landscape matter.

People leading busy lives – without time, knowledge and resources – should not be buried by DCC’s perpetual paperchase calling for an endless stream of submission-making on resource consents, spatial plan, district plan review, plan changes, whole city and area strategies, or other. On balance, we wouldn’t automatically or superficially conclude similarly to Mr Cubitt.

With Saddle Hill and the Taieri in general, it seems, a plan change process is far preferable to ‘chipping away’ by an ad hoc lingering resource consenting process, to assess the merits of land use (zoning) and to quantify the rural and landscape values for protection(s) against entirely foreseeable, wanton attempts to damage, modify or destroy the existing rural environment (cumulative adverse effects).

City Planning has its work cut out.

Perhaps note the commercial forces lined up in the background to pillage the Taieri Plain, Saddle Hill and Outram areas for Wanaka-like subdivisions (‘dippieville’ strikes again). Probably why you need a Veggie Boys now, to open the gate to was it (open-slather) ‘retail amenity’…

Cr Syd Brown has for years declared his hand in residential subdivision activity, squandering land for housing and own wealth. His developer friends and cousins seem to enjoy (oh so quietly) his ongoing patronage at council – as happens if ‘the movers’ can keep clipping tickets and to hell with high class soils, zoning rules, lack of stormwater drainage from the Mosgiel main street, and lack of appropriate swimming pool amenity, etc.

Cr Brown knows how to back-slap the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board. We think it’s called control. We suggest Cr Brown has to go in the October elections, especially if through rugby and racing he is a fair-weather friend of Murray Acklin, Queenstown; a gentleman and his files currently under the stare of SFO.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC could foil best landscape solution for Ellis Park

Image Source: ODT

Ellis Park neighbours Kerry and Elizabeth Goodhew express their frustration at the planned location and style for softball clubrooms at Ellis Park, and at what they see as a lack of Dunedin City Council consultation and poor processes.

### ODT Online Mon, 18 Feb 2013
Opinion
Consultation goes long way to good results
By Kerry and Elizabeth Goodhew
We wish to say for the fourth time that we are not opposed to clubrooms on Ellis Park. We never have been. All three of our submissions from October, two written and one oral at the consent hearing, opened clearly and firmly with comment that: ”We fully agree that softball should have a clubrooms and toilet facilities in the vicinity of Ellis Park.” Next year we will have loved living here 20 years, and all we have asked is that the clubrooms and toilets not be placed in front of our homes.
If you walk/jog/bike/ride a horse along Frasers Rd, and hundreds enjoy doing this, stand at the children’s playground, hundreds use this, and look up the park to imagine two gulag-style prefab buildings joined together two storeys high park-side, on rows of telegraph poles extending 33m into the park, to obliterate the beautiful ”green-scape” view up the park. Is there anybody else in this city (other than council staff or softball interests) who really thinks that this is the right thing to do at that location?
One of the senior officers from the council itself, the landscape architect, does not think so. He states: ”The visual character would be adversely affected” and ”what is now a balanced visual outlook viewed from the playing field or Frasers Rd would be downgraded”. Read ”ruined”.
It was our submission to locate the building elsewhere for all but one of the suggested locations. Before a meeting and our submission, council staff had not considered other places elsewhere on Ellis Park as there is no statement to that effect in the application. Our suggestions were a surprise to them.
Read more

—

Related Items:
ODT 1.2.13 Upgrade project at park defended
ODT 3.1.13 Ellis Park plans an ‘abomination’
The Star [undated] Otago Softball dreams of new rooms but neighbours have other views

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Hearing for proposed hotel – competencies, conflicts of interest?

Comments received.

Phil
Submitted on 2012/12/19 at 12:49 am
The consent process in New Zealand is fatally flawed by having unqualified elected officials on the hearings panels. In Europe consent hearings are presided over by qualified independent persons. The applicant has little chance of covering up a project’s shortcoming with glitter and sparkles, as is the case with this current application. The risk for bias or for conflicts of interest is also dramatically reduced to the point where it is no longer a factor in decisions. We all know, from the Mayor’s repeated media broadcasts of glee, that approval of this hotel is a foregone conclusion.

—

Phil
Submitted on 2012/12/19 at 12:52 am
At the very least they should be stopping Colin Weatherall from attending the City Planning consents meetings every week, to “advise” the trained planners on the best approach they should be taking on certain pending applications. No conflict of interest there, right ? Only on this Council could we have the least qualified person telling the most qualified people how to do their jobs and what conclusion to reach.

—

Related Posts:
16.12.12 Proposed Dunedin Hotel #height
10.12.12 Proposed hotel, 41 Wharf St – “LEARNING FROM LAS VEGAS”
7.12.12 Proposed hotel – Truescape shenanigans
6.12.12 Dunedin Hotel – revised design
2.12.12 Roy Rogers and Trigger photographed recently at Dunedin
26.11.12 Proposed hotel, 41 Wharf Street – indicative landscape effects
20.11.12 City planner’s report recommends against consent for hotel
10.11.12 Dunedin Hotel, 41 Wharf Street (LUC 2012-212)
4.10.12 DUNEDIN: We’re short(!) but here is some UK nous…
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

—

Yesterday, chairman of the hearing committee, commissioner Weatherall reiterated that the three elected commissioners have NO conflicts of interest.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

National Government puts champagne and stadium before shelter housing

A replacement stadium for the earthquake-damaged AMI Stadium in Phillipstown will be built on the old Turners & Growers site, on the edge of the CBD’s new eastern frame. It will be a covered stadium with natural turf and seating for 35,000 people. –The Press

Christchurch residents in the eastern suburbs are left to fend for themselves…

—

The first project to get underway is the river precinct along the Avon

### thepress.co.nz Last updated 18:03 30/07/2012
Bold plan for a new Christchurch
By Lois Cairns
Christchurch’s new city centre will be compact and low rise, with all key facilities and precincts corralled between the Avon River and a new green ‘frame’. The 100-day blueprint released by the Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU) outlines a bold plan to significantly shrink the size of the CBD by designating two strips of land – one in the east of the city and one in the south – as open spaces. These spaces, along with the Avon River, which will be widened in stretches and developed into a riverside park, will serve to frame the new CBD, ensuring that all development is concentrated within a tight geographic area. Building heights in the city will be kept at a maximum of 28 metres, although exceptions may be made in some areas around the planned convention centre to accommodate hotel developments. The convention centre will occupy a prime site next to Victoria Square and will be big enough to allow the city to host three events simultaneously. It will stretch the entire block between Gloucester and Armagh streets and incorporate two new hotels.
Read more + Flyover and Interactive Map

—

At The Press…
Excerpt from comment made by Nicholas Lynch #8 06:34 pm Jul 30 2012
“The whole thing is a racket,” Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby recently observed. “Once again the politicos will expand their empire. Once again crony capitalism will enrich a handful of wired business operators. And once again Joe and Jane Taxpayer will pay through the nose. How many times must we see this movie before we finally shut it off?”

At Otago Daily Times…
Wider Earthquake Communities’ Action Network (WeCan) spokesman Mike Coleman said today marked further evidence of a “corporate recovery” while residents in the eastern city suburbs were being “left to flounder”. “They open up the champagne bottles for the CBD but there’s mere drips of water for the plebs in the suburbs.” APNZ (ODT Link)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr