South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP

Dunedin City Council (website) on Stormwater:

Stormwater is rain or snow runoff that does not soak into the soil.
When an area is developed, stormwater generally increases due to runoff from impermeable surfaces (eg roofs, roads, carparks, or compacted soil). It flows naturally from higher to lower ground, and ultimately discharges into natural watercourses such as wetlands, creeks, rivers or the sea. Land development results in the creation of both private and public stormwater systems, which collect and transfer stormwater to lower ground more efficiently. The public stormwater system is a network of drains, gutters, pipes, mud tanks, detention ponds, stormwater reserves and other associated infrastructure.

—

At other threads (here and here), contributor JimmyJones has cited the South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) to draw attention to the actual or perceived state of the stormwater pipes at South Dunedin. He believes the type of pipeways and the deteriorating condition of the pipes contributed to the June 2015 South Dunedin “flood event”, and will require budgeted upgrade.

But is the South Dunedin ICMP correct about the underground pipes and their condition?

Largely, the ICMP was a desktop assessment carried out by consultants for the Dunedin 3 Waters Strategy. Namely, Opus International Consultants and URS New Zealand (now trading as Aecom) in association with Dunedin City Council.

South Dunedin ICMP – Integrated Catchment Management Plan
● Sth Dunedin ICMP (PDF, 11.1 MB)
● Sth Dunedin Mapbook (PDF, 12.0 MB)

Read more about the 11 ICMPs for Dunedin here.

DCC says ICMPs are used for planning and management of the stormwater system. For each stormwater management area, or catchment, issues are identified and prioritised, and solutions are identified and implemented. The ICMPs are mainly in the metropolitan Dunedin area (including Mosgiel and Port Chalmers). They inform investigation and planning decisions and help focus council priorities for future operational and capital works. Implementing the ICMPs is also a key requirement of DCC consents to discharge stormwater into the coastal marine area. Further information is available on the Stormwater monitoring page, see also the Stormwater responsibilities page.

—

The Pipes at South Dunedin
Local water and drainage experts familiar with the stormwater system say:

Received.
Sat, 18 Jun 2016 at 10:52 a.m.

The South Dunedin ICMP report has been read, it’s “ok”. But it’s also described as “…glossy and costly for the consultant(s). Basically, such reports tell the Council stuff they neither read nor understand, but would have mostly been trivial knowledge (where accurate)” to local experts familiar with the design and day-to-day workings of the stormwater system.

“You can believe any part of [the ICMP] or not. It’s a desktop study, which speculates on pipe condition. Robinson and Hendry have read it and obviously don’t agree. Pipes last for an eternity with limited maintenance (other than blockage removal) provided there isn’t ground movement or corrosion (these pipes are concrete).”

—

Listener, June 11-17 2016, pp22-29 (not yet available online):

[excerpt —click to enlarge]

—

ODT 13.2.16
“Mr Hendry believed South Dunedin’s infrastructure, which he spent six years helping build as a surveyor in the 1960s, would have been good enough to prevent much of the damage had it been properly maintained. […] My view is that these people out here, a lot of them have got nothing. Now they have got a hell of lot less. It’s not fair on them. Nobody’s come out and said ‘we were wrong. Something wasn’t done right’.”

█ Come to the Public Meeting in South Dunedin on Monday evening, hosted by the South Dunedin Action Group.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
10.6.16 “Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
● 4.6.16 Johnstone review … DCC Infrastructure Services meeting 26.4.16
3.6.16 DCC —godsakes, how did it get to this? #flood #property damage
● 19.5.16 Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood
29.4.16 Vandervis emails batch 2 #Dunedin #infrastructure #flood #mudtanks
27.4.16 Vandervis emails batch 1 #Dunedin #infrastructure #flood #mudtanks
27.4.16 DCC meeting and apology NOT Enough— #SouthDunedinFlood
20.4.16 DCC Politics : Release of Infrastructure Report #SouthDunedinFlood
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
31.3.16 DCC: Infrastructure report 2 pending —Mudtanks & stormwater…
● 8.3.16 Johnstone independent review of DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood
2.3.16 DCC compels extensions on LGOIMA requests #SouthDunedinFlood
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
21.2.16 DCC infrastructure … report (30.11.15) subject to ‘internal review’ only
● 13.2.16 South Dunedin Flood (3 June 2015): Bruce Hendry via ODT
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome… #hazardzones
4.2.16 Level responses to Dunedin mayor’s hippo soup #Jun2015flood
30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
● 25.1.16 DCC: South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP)
19.1.16 Listener 23.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
16.1.16 NZ Listener 16.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
14.1.16 ‘Quaking!’ Dark day$ and tide$ to come #Dunedin #Jun2015flood
10.1.16 Infrastructure ‘open to facile misinterpretation’…. or local ignore
5.1.16 Hammered from all sides #fixit [dunedinflood Jun2015]
24.12.15 Site notice: posts removed
● 3.11.15 South Dunedin Flood | Correspondence & Debriefing Notes released by DCC today #LGOIMA

Downloads:
● Kerr, Elizabeth LGOIMA Correspondence Hendry and Williams 2015
● Kerr, Elizabeth LGOIMA Flood Debrief Notes 2015

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood

ODT 17.6.16 (page 10) —[click to enlarge]

—

whatifdunedin:

1. The claim of “factual errors” is surely able to be substantiated or thrown out by a suitably qualified (named) EXTERNAL peer reviewer acceptable to DCC and engineer Neil Johnstone. The ‘matter of degree’ (serious ?) is a matter for the peer reviewer to comment on. As are issues of professional competencies —which only an independent and transparent peer reviewer with nationally recognised engineering expertise can deal to. Not an in-house operational.

2. Neil Johnstone has issued three reviews, two of these deal to DCC’s formal reports on the June 2015 South Dunedin “flood event”, dated 30 Nov 2015 and 26 Apr 2016 respectively; and the third deals to comments (video recorded by Ch39 and published at DCC’s Youtube channel) during the DCC Infrastructure Services Committee meeting held on 26 April 2016. The reviews are published at this website – enter the term *johnstone* in the search box at right.

3. Neil Johnstone has requested that factual errors noted by DCC be made discoverable. DCC appears to be side-stepping qualification and quantification of its verbal assertions every which way.

4. It is highly likely that no expert external peer reviews exist or they would have been made public by now. More than a year after the “flood event”, we wait.

5. A peer review(s) is not something to hide. Why is DCC doing secret squirrel when challenged to substantiate its earlier comments (publicly stated on more than one occasion, recorded by mainstream media – for example, by Mayor Cull and Transportation’s Ian McCabe, who later resigned) – that external peer reviews of its formal reports did happen. After the fact is a little squiffy, if DCC is writing them now.

“Technical qualifications and experience with stormwater infrastructure design and management” are not provided. Rhetorical.

Holes being dug, an epitaph.

█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome

[click to enlarge]

Date: Monday, 20 June 2016
Venue: Nations Church, 334 King Edward St, South Dunedin
Time: 6:00pm (1800 hours)

█ Facebook: South Dunedin Action Group
https://www.facebook.com/SouthDunedinActionGroup/

—

Message to Mayor David Cull

M E M O R Y • P R O B L E M S • C A N • H A P P E N • A T • A N Y • A G E
keep managed retreat and climate change out of local body politics

ODT 16.6.16 (page 12) —[click to enlarge]

█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

“Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article

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

S o u t h • D u n e d i n • F l o o d

Truth and decency are owed to the flood affected people of South Dunedin.

Interpretations post flood and in the months since —appear without technical evidence, making false claim to Climate Change (the ‘end is nigh’ if only to avoid local government liability), in contradiction to data and analysis provided by local engineers, ORC, MetService and former council staff, amongst others.

6 June 2016
[post] Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood

‘Our leader’ is in a self-flagellating hole —prepared to say anything to attract votes in the October local body elections. Serious ? Genuine ?

We owe it to ourselves.
The Mayor of Dunedin should not get a third term.

‘Leadership’ has involved neglect of core council business – specifically, maintenance of key infrastructure network and services.

This has done too much damage: tens of millions of dollars of damage at South Dunedin. A massive hit sustained by constituents and insurers. Yet today ‘the administration’ rattles and unsettles the community it has comprehensively failed, with latest wanton burble at the opinion pages of the Otago Daily Times.

The Mayor should immediately resign his office at Dunedin City Council.

Bullshit from the Mayor and underlings is UNACCEPTABLE.
South Dunedin has a stormwater system that when properly maintained is well able to take rainstorms equivalent to that experienced a year ago.

Systems can always be improved but the current stormwater system is not all that old and has been designed with sufficient control mechanisms and stopgaps.

The Administration failed (for years) to deliver on budget, contracts, drain and mudtank maintenance; failed to check pump performance and screens at pumping stations during the June 2015 storm event; as staffing changed, failed to set in place procedures for weather events; failed to understand Civil Defence requirements for the most densely settled suburb of Dunedin; failed to adequately consider storm run-off from surrounding hill areas and the increase of impermeable surfaces as The Flat developed; failed to release stormwater to the ocean, etc etc……. but ultimately FAILED to put proper thought and planning to AVOIDANCE of Endangerment to the lives, health and livelihoods of thousands of South Dunedin residents.

Seriously. That’s the sort of ‘care and concern’ the gold-chained opinion-writer represents at ODT today. Further, there are Absolutely No Grounds to grease up the loophole backside of the technically inexpert Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

The Listener article raises the issue of “mismanagement” during the rains of early June 2015. The liability rests at council doors.
That is a hammering public fact.

█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood

R E S O N A T E S
Get the latest issue of New Zealand Listener (pp 22-29), more soon….

█ For related posts and comments, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.
—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

*Image: phoneshot at a diner by whatifdunedin [click to enlarge]

Johnstone review following DCC Infrastructure Services meeting 26.4.16 #SouthDunedinFlood

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

B A C K G R O U N D
On and about 3 June 2015, South Dunedin was severely affected by stormwater flooding – the Council has since discussed why and how council-owned infrastructure failure occurred. The extent of stormwater damage to private property and the upheaval and distress for affected residents, property investors and businesses is undeniable. Council operationals refer to this as the “June 2015 Flood Event” in formal reports.

A public meeting coordinated by Dunedin South MP Clare Curran was held at South Dunedin on Monday, 7 March 2016. At the meeting the South Dunedin Action Group(SDAG) was formed. Group representatives headed by spokesman Ray Macleod have since met with the Mayor and council officials – the first meeting was held on Tuesday, 3 May 2016. A meeting with council staff has followed more recently.

Local media, the Otago Daily Times and Channel 39, are presently covering the anniversary and aftermath of the “flood event”. Noticeably, the city council has yet to formally apologise to all the many people affected by the lack of council-owned infrastructure maintenance and stewardship at South Dunedin during the rain event of June 2015.

Council ‘not liable for flood damage’ (ODT 27/11/15)
“The Dunedin City Council says it is not liable for private property damage caused by the South Dunedin flood, despite admitting problems with its pumping network prolonged the pain for residents …. The issue had been considered by the council’s lawyers and insurers, but the advice from both was the council was not liable, [council infrastructure and networks general manager] Mrs Stokes said.”

Otago Daily Times Published on Jun 4, 2015
Raw aerial video of Dunedin Flooding [Video courtesy One News]

—

DCC Reports and Responses:

● 30 November 2015 –Council
Agenda – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 39.6 KB)
Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 553.9 KB) ‘Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event’ (McElhone)
Minutes – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 121.8 KB) | Meeting Video

● 7 March 2016 –Letter, DCC Chief Executive [supplied by DCC]
Sue Bidrose to Neil Johnstone 7.3.16 (PDF, 653 KB)

● 20 April 2016 –DCC Media Release
Report on South Dunedin infrastructure performance during June 2015 flood released

● 26 April 2016 –Infrastructure Services Committee
Agenda – ISC – 26/04/2016 (PDF, 6.3 MB) [agenda and reports]
Item 5 Report, ‘South Dunedin Public Infrastructure Performance during June 2015 Flood Event Follow up’ (Stokes), pp 6-27
Minutes – ISC – 26/04/2016 (PDF, 123.0 KB) | Meeting Video

—

WEBSITE DISCLAIMER
The following content from consulting engineer Neil Johnstone is provided for your information and convenience. However, the site owner cannot accept any liability for its accuracy or content. Visitors who rely on this information do so at their own risk.

Reviews previously published at this website:
● 8.3.16 Johnstone independent review of DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood
● 19.5.16 Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood

█ Third Review | dated 31.5.16
[With minor formatting changes for the WordPress template only. -Eds]

SOUTH DUNEDIN FLOODING JUNE 2015
A Follow-up Review subsequent to DCC Infrastructure Services Committee meeting 26 April 2016

By N.P. Johnstone, MIPENZ

DCC has produced 2 reports on infrastructure performance during the flooding that reportedly entered approximately 1000 houses and caused in excess of 100 million dollars of damage. I have previously produced 2 independent reviews that are highly critical of DCC’s Stormwater Infrastructure Report (November 2015) and its “follow up” (the “mudtank report”, April 2016).

I also attended DCC’s Infrastructure Services Committee meeting on April 26, and have sighted video recordings of that meeting, which were belatedly posted by DCC close to a month later. I have formed an opinion that DCC has not fully acknowledged its role in failing to prevent much of the flood damage, but (often unreasonably) blames external influences and alleged historical design deficiencies.

I had originally intended to present a blow by blow comment on proceedings of the meeting, but that has proved a bigger task than my time allows, and would probably prove as tedious as the meeting itself. I have preferred not to align statements with the individual staff or councillor that made them, but the reader can view the recording of the meeting at leisure. I can however, not resist the temptation to present the comments of one councillor who stated: I am heartened by how well staff have responded to the challenges…and we can be comforted, I think by the feeling that you are treating our assets like you would your own. South Dunedin residents who had their assets ruined might see things rather differently.

1. THE FLOOD EVENT OF MARCH 8/9 1968
The rainfall event of March 1968 was of the order of 10% greater than that of June 2015, on any comparison. This is incontrovertibly clear from readily available data, and thus demonstrates that the much greater flooding in the recent event should not have happened. DCC has consistently underestimated the significance of the 1968 rainfall.

2. PRE-EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVELS
DCC has misinterpreted ORC reporting that groundwater levels prior to the onset of rainfall were significantly elevated. DCC has extrapolated this error to claim that no infiltration of rainfall into the ground was possible, thereby explaining away the record surface flooding. ORC’s data is readily available, and demonstrates that groundwater levels only started to increase in concert with the June 3 rainfall, proving that infiltration was both significant and (probably) normal.

3. RAINFALL SIGNIFICANCE
DCC, relying on superficial analyses of other agencies, have claimed that the 24-hour rainfall experienced in June 2015 was a 150-year event, then 100, then 60, then 100 again. The selection of 24-hour duration rainfalls is not entirely appropriate (being rather too long). Nevertheless, the March (or April) 1923 24-hour rainfall was much greater, the 1968 rainfall slightly higher (but ignored in analyses), and at least 2 others between the 1890s and late 1920s were similar, and possibly slightly lower. Analyses of shorter duration events would likely further reduce the assessed recurrence interval of the June flood. I believe it was a 30-year rainfall event at worst.

4. LANDUSE CHANGES
Increased impermeable areas have certainly increased runoff rates; based on DCC-supplied estimates of changes, I have estimated that these changes could have increased flood levels by up to 150mm. Ex-DCC engineers have expressed doubt as to the degree of landuse change. In any case, I would have expected additional stormwater infrastructure to have been installed to compensate.

5. MUDTANK BLOCKAGE
The degree of blocked mudtanks across the catchment was underestimated by DCC, until the release of the mudtank report in April 2016. The extent of the mudtank issue was finally confirmed then, at no great surprise to South Dunedin residents. An unseemly blame game ensued, and may not be over. DCC then took the stance that the plethora of blocked mudtanks had no impact on the depth of flooding across South Dunedin, but may have prolonged the flooding. The claim defies reason, and in part relies on DCC’s adherence to the zero infiltration myth.

6. PORTOBELLO ROAD PUMPING STATION
The partial blockage – and difficulties experienced in the clearing – of the screens at this pumping station has been well publicised, and may have added approximately 200mm to the depth of flooding. Less well publicised are the facts that no emergency staff visited the pump station until about noon on the day of the flood, and (apparently) only attended the station to attempt clearing the screens between visits to other locations during the latter part of the day. Equally poorly understood is that not all of the station’s pumps were operating throughout the flood event due to the manner in which pump cut-ins were programmed. No decision to override the pumps’ programming was made. No information on which pumps remained inoperative has been made available, so it is not possible to attribute the depth of flooding caused by the inability to clear screens, compared with that caused by poor pump management.

7. MUSSELBURGH PUMPING STATION
This pumping station has the ability to bypass the wastewater treatment plant and discharge sewage-contaminated stormwater directly to the ocean at Lawyers Head. The option was not taken in the June 2015 flood. By contrast, in the 1968 event the pumping option at Musselburgh was fully utilised to the extent that approximately 5m³/s was pumped to the ocean for a period of 24 hours. Such pumping would have proved effective as long as individual property gully traps were submerged by stormwater, and may have reduced flood depth by more than half a metre. It is not known (by me) whether a comparable benefit could be achieved under June 2015 conditions, but a very significant opportunity was apparently lost. No information on the Musselburgh station’s pumping operation in the June flood is included in either of DCC infrastructure performance reports.

8. INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN LIMITATIONS
DCC has relied heavily on the belief that the stormwater system can only handle rainfall intensities of 4.1mm/hr, and therefore regular flooding cannot be avoided. This is contrary to historic reality. The 4.1mm/hr limitation only applies if DCC’s assumption of zero infiltration applies. The assumption has no validity, and the existing infrastructure is far more capable than DCC is stating.

9. EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW
One of the main reasons for the extraordinary delay in the presentation of the “mudtank” report was that a robust external peer review was to be obtained. Reference to such peer review has surfaced occasionally since, but no review has been published. I have sought a copy of any such review – or even confirmation of its existence – from DCC. No such review has yet been confirmed to exist.

10. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
Many of the above topics were discussed to a greater or lesser level of detail at the Committee Meeting on April 26. From sitting through the majority of the meeting and viewing video coverage of it later, it became apparent that Councillors’ understanding of the June 2015 flood causes was generally weak, and that many of their questions directed to staff were inadequately or confusingly answered, if they were answered at all. These included:

10.1 Pre-existing Groundwater Levels
Selective reference was made to ORC report text, but no data was referenced. The data disproves the assertion of high groundwater and zero infiltration.

10.2 Mudtanks
According to staff, mudtank blockage didn’t increase flood levels, yet a raised vegetable patch could.

10.3 Portobello Road Pumping Station
No information on unused pump capacity or its impact on flood levels was given (or sought); and the final word on the subject was that the only issue at the station had been debris blockage, now fixed.

10.4 Musselburgh Pumping Station
In response to a question re pumping rates at this station, the reply was to the effect that “we have no data on this, is there a follow-up question?” There wasn’t a follow-up question on the subject, despite its fundamental importance.

10.5 Infrastructure Design Limitation
The existing infrastructure was repeatedly deemed to be inadequate on the basis that only 4.1mm/hr of rainfall could be accommodated, once pipe storage was exhausted. There was no proviso given that this determination required the impossible condition of zero infiltration of rainwater into the ground.

This review does not exhaust my concerns with the technical presented at the meeting, but I can conclude the following with confidence:

i. Maintenance prior to the flood was inadequate;
ii. Emergency management during the event was poor;
iii. DCC’s understanding and reporting of flood issues remains unconvincing, especially without the benefit of promised external peer review.

31 May 2016

[ends]

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood

Updated post
Sat, 4 Jun 2016 at 4:11 p.m.

—

DCC publications:

● 30 Nov 2015 (McElhone)
Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event | Meeting Video

● 20 Apr 2016 (Media Release)
Report on South Dunedin infrastructure performance during June 2015 flood released

● 26 Apr 2016 Agenda (and reports) Infrastructure Services Committee
Item 5 (Stokes, pp 6-27) South Dunedin Public Infrastructure Performance during June 2015 Flood Event Follow up | Meeting Video

—

WEBSITE DISCLAIMER
The following content from consulting engineer Neil Johnstone is provided for your information and convenience. However, the site owner cannot accept any liability for its accuracy or content. Visitors who rely on this information do so at their own risk.

Received: 18 May 2016 [full text]

An Independent Review of DCC Report : ‘South Dunedin Public Infrastructure Performance during June 2015 Flood Event Follow up’

By N. P. Johnstone, MIPENZ

1. This review complements my peer review of DCC’s first flood report, published in November 2015. This review assesses the content of the second report (described henceforth as “the report”) published in late April 2016, and contextual statements made elsewhere by DCC staff and elected members. The author of the report is Ms R. Stokes. The technical qualifications and relevant experience of the report’s author are not stated.

2. I consider that there is a need for such a review for reasons of historical accuracy and context, the identification of solutions (which can only be achieved be if the problem is understood and acknowledged) and – most importantly – to provide a considered assessment of what South Dunedin’s current flood risk really is, noting that two events (of which only the recent one caused major inundation) in five decades does not suggest a current flood risk much different from that existing in many other established New Zealand communities, despite some landuse changes. It is emphasised that the flood had nothing to do with climate change, nor therefore does this review. The failure to understand the issues may lead to inaction or to inappropriate and expensive actions.

3. This review may be criticised for being repetitive on some issues, but the repetition is at least partly driven by the number of times challengeable information on the flood event and its causes has been circulated by DCC. In many respects, the report under review could be seen as a concentration of such challengeable information. The report is solely based on my research, knowledge and experience; any errors are therefore mine, but hopefully, few.

4. This review has led to the following conclusions:
4.1 Council’s continued insistence that the June 2015 rainfall event was the largest since 1923 remains erroneous;
4.2 Pre-existing groundwater levels were unexceptional, and had no impact on the flooding, contrary to claims made in the report, previously and subsequently;
4.3 South Dunedin does not have a significant imminent exposure to stormwater flooding. This finding is based on the original design parameters, historical performance, an absence of groundwater issues, and provided existing infrastructure is properly maintained, monitored and operated;
4.4 Problems at the Portobello Road Pumping Station caused elevated flood levels and prolonged the period of inundation, but the report acknowledges only the latter;
4.5 Similarly, the now-admitted failures to ensure that mudtanks were properly maintained impacted adversely on flood levels attained in some locations at least, and prolonged the period of inundation in many areas;
4.6 Comparisons with the 1968 flood event can be instructive in assessing the impact of Council failures in 2015 in terms of water level, disruption and cost. The report fails to make such assessments.

5. My review of the first report, written by Ms L. McElhone, was driven by DCC claims that the prime causes of the flood were high sea and ground water levels, a 150-year, then a 100-year, then a 63-year (and incidentally and extraordinarily now again a 100-year*) rainfall event, and confirmed that Portobello Road pumping station issues added not less than 200mm to peak flood levels. That review also demonstrated that the rainfall event of March 1968 was demonstrably larger than that of June 2015, but caused much less damage, and that land use changes added up to 150mm to flood levels (based on DCC’s unconfirmed data on impermeable areas). Any consented landuse changes should, in my opinion, have been compensated for in past years with additional infrastructure to maintain drainage standards and South Dunedin’s protection standards.
(*Ms Stokes to John Campbell on Checkpoint, 21 April 2016).

6. Exaggerated assessments of both the historical significance of the 2015 rainfalls and groundwater levels, and the absence of mudtank information originally helped DCC promote its position of zero liability. The mudtank maintenance failures are at last largely revealed in the new report; significant mudtank maintenance issues were previously reported by Cr Lee Vandervis as early as 2014, but were seemingly largely ignored by DCC. Paragraph 37 of the report which reads: “Mudtank maintenance and performance in general has been the subject of focus for a number of years”, appears vague, and therefore requires elaboration. The statement, if accurate makes the failures more disturbing. There is still some unfortunate reliance on the groundwater myth (paragraphs 2 & 32), and to the underestimation of the 1968 event (paragraph 20). There appear to be newly-entrenched positions at DCC that the existing stormwater system is inadequate, presumably based on the report’s paragraphs 23-27, and reinforced in recent public statements from Ms Stokes and Mayor Cull, that the flood would have occurred (or that a serious flood would have occurred) even if the current system including the mudtanks had operated at optimum. This review strongly disputes such claims, and uses the well-documented event of March 1968 as a very useful “model” for key comparisons between a contained flood (1968) and a disaster (2015).

7. The general understanding was that DCC’s second review was to concentrate in detail on the performance of mudtanks, and was to be peer reviewed. Detailed reporting and peer review processes were understood to be the reason for the extraordinary delays in publication. In reality, only paragraphs 33-61 deal with mudtanks issues and no peer review is included. It is noted that Mayor Cull confirmed to John Campbell on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint programme (22 April 2016) that peer reviews of the report had been produced. The peer review(s) could usefully have been attached to the report; failing that, the report’s author should have explained their absence.

Cr Andrew Whiley easily points up Greenie Hawkins’ inadequacy #SouthDunedinFlood

LOUD Applause for Cr Andrew Whiley —whom Cr Hawkins thought he could sting with a little pop gun that blows bubbles. Greenie Hawkins is particularly keen was it(?) to stand in Waikouaiti Coast-Chalmers Ward at the next election, if that is his game in moving to Port Chalmers recently.

ODT 16.3.16 (page 14)

█ VIDEO Dunedin City Council – Council Meeting – November 30 2015
Published on Dec 7, 2015

### ODT Online Tue, 8 Mar 2016
South Dunedin needs some love from city
By Andrew Whiley [Councillor]
OPINION It is amazing how the future of South Dunedin has become such a political issue since the flood of June 3, 2015. […] It is a great community, with a vital shopping area, wonderful schools and proud citizens. It is a valuable area that just needs attention with the appropriate investment in services and maintenance. In my opinion, the flood of June 3 was exacerbated by the poor maintenance of the mud tanks and the issues around the Portobello Rd pumping station. The mud tank report has yet to come to the council but any resident in the area will tell you there was an issue with maintenance.
Read more

****

SOUTH DUNEDIN FLOOD | Stormwater Infrastructure Failure
After the DCC chief executive’s non-technical response to Neil Johnstone’s independent peer review of the DCC Water and Waste Services report 30 Nov 2015 [see too Neil Johnstone’s response to the chief executive’s letter]…. if I was Cr Andrew Whiley I wouldn’t put too much faith in DCC Transport’s forthcoming mudtank / stormwater drainage report —due for public release in April.

Remember that in advance of the two VERY LATE infrastructure performance reports was the DCC’s media statement that its lawyers and insurers had determined that the city council had no liability in connection with the [majorly devastating] flood event at South Dunedin on and about 3 June 2015.

█ 27.11.15 ODT: Council ‘not liable for flood damage’
“The Dunedin City Council says it is not liable for private property damage caused by the South Dunedin flood, despite admitting problems with its pumping network prolonged the pain for residents. […] The issue had been considered by the council’s lawyers and insurers, but the advice from both was the council was not liable, Mrs Stokes said.”

More:
12.10.15 ODT: Floods not expected to affect premiums
8.7.15 ODT: $2.75m flood bill for city
10.6.15 ODT: Mud-tanks did not worsen floods: DCC
9.6.15 ODT: Stream of complaints over mud-tank maintenance
8.6.15 ODT: Drains blocked, residents claim

****

MUDTANKS AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE

******Failed LGOIMA Request lodged by Elizabeth Kerr

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016 9:24 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham; DCC LGOIMA Information Request
Cc: Kristy Rusher; Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531420

Further to my use of the online form at DCC website:

Dear Sandy

LGOIMA Request – South Dunedin mudtanks and stormwater drains
Reference No. 531420

I request the following information:

1. Can Dunedin City Council tell me if all mudtanks and stormwater drains in the South Dunedin catchment have been physically cleared in the time elapsed since the 3 June 2015 flood?

2. How many times have these mudtanks and stormwater drains been checked and cleared since the 3 June 2015 flood?

3. Which contractor / subcontractor has been responsible for this monitoring and clearance work since the 3 June 2015 flood?

4. Who (name and staff position) at Dunedin City Council has been directly responsible for checking the contractor / subcontractor work since the 3 June 2015 flood?

5. Are there any items of stormwater infrastructure in the South Dunedin catchment that are known to be blocked or cannot be cleared (if for any reason), since the 3 June 2015 flood?

I look forward to your reply in digital format by email.

Kind regards, Elizabeth

—

Response

From: Kristy Rusher
Date: 26/01/2016 8:36 am (GMT+12:00)
To: Elizabeth Kerr, Sandy Graham, DCC LGOIMA Information Request
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request – Ref No. 531420

Hi Elizabeth,

Thank you for your LGOIMA request. I have forwarded your questions to our Group Manager, Transport [Ian McCabe -Eds] for a response. As you are aware, a decision on your request will be made within 20 working days.

Regards,
Kristy Rusher

Kristy Rusher
Manager Civic and Legal, Civic
Dunedin City Council

—

Notice of Extension 1

From: Kristy Rusher
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2016 5:47 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: LGOIMA request – Mudtanks number: 531420

Hi Elizabeth,

The DCC is extending your request for information for 5 working days as meeting the time limits for the original request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the Council (section 14(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).

Regards,

Kristy Rusher
Manager Civic and Legal, Civic
Dunedin City Council

—

Notice of Extension 2

——– Original message ——–
From: Kristy Rusher
Date: 02/03/2016 8:29 am (GMT+12:00)
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Re: LGOIMA request – Mudtanks number: 531420

Hi Elizabeth,

The DCC is currently extending your information request for a further 15 working days (section 14(1)(a) LGOIMA 87). This is because meeting the timeframes would unreasonably interfere with organisational priorities.

Regards,
Kristy

Sent from my iPhone

—

REQUEST DECLINED

From: Kristy Rusher
Sent: Monday, 14 March 2016 8:21 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Information Request – Mudtanks.

Dear Elizabeth,

Your information request concerning mudtanks in the South Dunedin area has been declined, as this information will soon become publicly available in a report to Council in coming months (section 17(d) Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).

As we have declined your request, we are required to advise you that you may have this decision reviewed by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman may be reached on the following contact details:

Email: info @ombudsman.parliament.nz

Free phone: [numbers deleted -Eds]

Regards,
Kristy Rusher
Manager Civic and Legal, Civic
Dunedin City Council

While the above correspondence was in play the following letter to the editor by John Evans (ODT 17.2.16) received reply from Mr Ian McCabe. Hmm.

And further, Ms Ruth Stokes declared (ODT 5.3.16) that CityCare had been awarded the contract to clear South Dunedin mudtanks:

New contractor for mud tanks
The companies responsible for keeping South Dunedin’s mud tanks clean, and stamping new markings on the city’s cycleways, are set to lose $15 million worth of contracts with the Dunedin City Council. The decisions were confirmed yesterday, as it was also announced City Care – a Christchurch City Council-owned company already working in Dunedin – would clean all 1500 mud tanks in South Dunedin over the next month.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 8.3.16 Johnstone independent review of DCC report…
● 2.3.16 DCC compels extensions on LGOIMA requests #SouthDunedinFlood
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 21.2.16 DCC infrastructure report (30.11.15) subject to ‘internal review’ only…
● 13.2.16 South Dunedin Flood (3 June 2015): Bruce Hendry via ODT
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome… #hazardzones
4.2.16 Level responses to Dunedin mayor’s hippo soup #Jun2015flood
30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
25.1.16 DCC: South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP)
19.1.16 Listener 23.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
16.1.16 NZ Listener 16.1.16 (letter): South Dunedin #Jun2015flood
10.1.16 Infrastructure ‘open to facile misinterpretation’…. or local ignore
5.1.16 Hammered from all sides #fixit [dunedinflood Jun2015]
● 24.12.15 Site notice: posts removed
● 3.11.15 South Dunedin Flood | Correspondence & Debriefing Notes released by DCC today #LGOIMA

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Johnstone independent review of DCC report #SouthDunedinFlood

Semi-retired consulting engineer Neil Johnstone was invited to speak to his independent review of the DCC report, Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event (30 Nov 2015), at Monday night’s public meeting held in South Dunedin.

Large numbers of local householders and business people, together with news media, filled Nations Church Auditorium at 334 King Edward Street, to examine why South Dunedin “flooded” on 3 June of last year.

Dunedin City Council personnel who didn’t bother to show up included Mayor Cull, CE Bidrose and members of the Executive Leadership Team (RLT). How many elected council representatives turned up —one, Cr Mike Lord (the question was nearly rhetorical although a couple of councillors had forwarded their apologies).

A fortnight ago Mr Johnstone sent a copy of his review to DCC chief executive Sue Bidrose. Notably, it took until the day of the public meeting for Ms Bidrose to acknowledge receipt and respond to the review by letter —DCC made sure to effect personal delivery to Mr Johnson’s home in Macandrew Bay, followed by an electronic copy some time later.

Copies of the review were circulated at the public meeting —these were in some demand!

Following the close of meeting, the reviewer kindly supplied What if? Dunedin with copy for publication.

—

WEBSITE DISCLAIMER
The following content from consulting engineer Neil Johnstone is provided for your information and convenience. However, the site owner cannot accept any liability for its accuracy or content. Visitors who rely on this information do so at their own risk.

An Independent Review if DCC Report
‘Infrastructure Performance during the June 2015 Flood Event’

1. Having lived most of my life in Dunedin and its environs (though never in South Dunedin), and having had a long career in natural hazard identification and mitigation, I am concerned with the standard of understanding and reporting of current natural hazard issues by our local Councils and, to a lesser extent by Government Agencies. I spent many years as Investigations Engineer at the Otago Catchment Board from 1986, and held a similar position at the Otago Regional Council until 2002. During those years I analysed numerous recent and historic flood events; none was more straightforward than the South Dunedin flood event of June 2015, and many were far more complicated. Now semi-retired, I still operate my own small consultancy.

2. In my opinion the DCC Report might best have been produced by independent experts, or – at the very least – have been subject to rigorous expert peer review. Current “victims” of the in-house reporting approach appear to include residents of South Dunedin who were affected by the June 2015 flood, and the wider population of the city and beyond who have been presented with information of questionable validity.

3. I have no personal interest in the South Dunedin area, but do jointly own a property elsewhere in Dunedin City. This paper only peer reviews DCC’s Report Infrastructure Performance During the June 2015 [Flood] Event. Further reviews of other hazard reports are planned. The reader can access online both DCC’s Report on the June 2015 flood event (referred herein to as “the DCC Report”) and ORC’s report Coastal Otago Flood Event, 3 June 2015 (referred herein to as “the ORC Report”). The latter is frequently referenced in the DCC Report.

4. The DCC Report is lacking in detail and thoroughness. It is short, but neither concise nor accurate, in my view. No reason is given why such a simplistic document took virtually six months to produce. By contrast, an earlier DCC report on the South Dunedin flood of 9 March 1968 took about a week to prepare following that event. My review is intended to provide alternative and more plausible explanations for the flooding experienced in June to those given in the DCC Report and accepted and promoted by some Councillors. I have used almost exclusively data provided by ORC and DCC publications. My approach is reasonably “broad-brushed”, but to a level of accuracy I believe limited only by the quality of data available.

5. Specifically, the DCC Report lacks objectivity in that it:

A. exaggerates the historical significance of the June 2015 rainfall,

B. repeatedly (and contrary to very clear evidence) identifies high groundwater levels as a prime cause of the flooding,

C. fails to discuss why staff did not (apparently) continuously attempt clearance of pumping station screens,

D. fails to adequately address the impacts on total runoff volume of reduced ground surface permeability due to land use change,

E. promotes a simplistic flow volume model that contains a key erroneous assumption,

F. fails to quantify ingress of “foreign” water from other sub-catchments, especially St Clair,

G. refers only briefly to the Shore St (Tainui) sub-catchment, and then fails to note that flooding was much less significant there than in the South Dunedin catchment or to explain the reason why,

H. defends the maintenance performance of mudtanks without providing any supporting evidence.

6. With respect to the above lettered points:

Point A: DCC has persistently exaggerated the significance of recent rainfall in the city. Initial claims regarding the June rainfall had it as a 150-year event, and (with respect to a disadvantaged peninsula property owner) reportedly claimed rainfall intensities increasing by 82% as a result of climate change. Now the June [flood] is stated in the Report to be a 63 year event. Such claims are all substantially in error. Rainfall in the March 1968 event is conceded in the DCC Report to be higher than in June 2015, yet the earlier event is omitted from consideration of flood frequency. Inclusion of the 1968 rainfall must substantially reduce the assessed return period of the 2015 rainfall.

DCC: Growth v development contributions

Worth a read —Whaleoil link received from Anonymous
Tuesday, 11 February 2014 8:11 p.m.

### whaleoil.co.nz February 10, 2014
Why do Property Developers hate development contributions?
By Cameron Slater
A property developer writes:
“Lately Developers and Councils have been busy preparing submissions on the proposed changes to the Local Government Act relating to development contributions. There are many issues. Firstly, the issue with charging developers for improvements that have nothing to do with growth.
(1) Hiding the real cost apportionment and charging developers for improvements that [have] nothing to do with new development growth:
When developing up capital works and budgeting the Annual Plan councils develop formula and apportion some of the costs to ‘growth’ – which is then charged to developers. Councils argue that as cities grow and intensify – the costs of that growth include replacing or improving infrastructure. Hence they want new developments to pay for it.
Developers take issue however with the amount of money required from them to pay for the infrastructure improvements not that they have to pay for their share of growth. As such the argument is about whether the right pro-rata apportionment is applied.
Obfuscating the debate is that all Councils must replace infrastructure as it ages and is due for replacement. Additionally, most Councils are in recent times adopting new development standards that increase the capacity of assets and they improve assets as technology advances.
Replacing assets is supposed to occur from a built sinking fund that is generated over the life span of an infrastructure asset. Council receive money over the lifespan in cash as depreciation as part of rates. Over time, and subject to annual revaluation each asset builds up a depreciation sinking fund that should be sufficient to replace it. Developers are concerned that Councils spend that money through internal loans to OPEX and other creative accounting and then hope to use ‘growth’ as a mechanism for replacing the assets. A psuedo ponzi scheme with ratepayers the duped investors.”
Read more

****

DCC: Development Contributions Policy
Development contributions are charges paid by property developers to meet the increased demand for infrastructure resulting from growth.
The Council is proposing some significant changes to its Development Contributions Policy.
In April 2011, the Council released a Statement of Proposal to adopt a Draft Revised Development Contributions Policy (the Draft Policy). The proposal included a schedule of charges which could apply if the Draft Policy was adopted. Submissions on the Draft Policy closed in July 2011 and were followed by hearings in November 2011. After beginning its deliberations the Hearings Committee decided that more information was required from Council staff before the Draft Policy could be considered further. Deliberations started again in December 2012 with Council staff reporting back to the Committee on the information it requested. The Committee has yet to conclude its deliberations.
As a final decision on the Draft Policy is yet to be made, the Council’s existing Development Contributions Policy applies until further notice. Read more

DCC: Spatial Plan for Dunedin
‘Dunedin Towards 2050′ (The Spatial Plan), sets the strategic direction for Dunedin’s growth and development for the next 30+ years. It outlines a broad set of principles, strategic directions, policies, and actions and visually illustrates how the city may develop in the future. It will be used to guide land-use planning in the city as well as influencing how future infrastructure and services may be provided or limited. The Spatial Plan is primarily, but not solely, concerned with Dunedin’s urban form and design. Urban form and design refer to the spatial arrangement of a city, in other words, the shape of a city as seen from the air including the overall pattern of development, activities, and infrastructure as well as the design or ‘look and feel’ of the city and how it functions. Urban form and design have a significant impact on the sustainability, liveability and economic performance of cities.

DCC: Second Generation Plan for Dunedin
The Dunedin City District Plan controls what people can do on their land and how it can be developed. While there have been some changes and new zones added (eg the Stadium, Airport and Harbourside zones), most of the current Plan has not been reviewed since 2006 and a lot of it dates back to the 1990s. The council is reviewing the Plan as a whole to fix the parts that are not clear or working properly, to recognise the changes to land use and development within Dunedin, to discourage poor development and to align with changes in national policy guidance. The review will produce a second generation plan (2GP), which is the second plan prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991. This is a long process with a lot of research and analysis, and input from stakeholders and the community.

DCC: Strategic Directions
The Strategic Directions of the second generation plan will establish the overall management approach for the 2GP, stating the important outcomes for the city:
● Dunedin is Environmentally Sustainable and Resilient
● Dunedin is Economically Prosperous
● Dunedin is a Memorable and Distinctive City with a Strong Built and Natural Character
● Dunedin has Strong Social and Cultural Capital
● Dunedin has an Attractive and Enjoyable Built Environment
● Dunedin has Affordable and Efficient Public Infrastructure
● Dunedin has Quality and Affordable Housing
● Dunedin is a Compact City with Resilient Townships

—

On the local . . .
Meanwhile, developers across the Taieri are champing at the bit to re-create ‘Wanaka sprawl’ on the flood plain with little regard for the protection of high class soils —despite the objectives of the spatial plan that places wise emphasis on the rural area becoming the city’s food basket (resilience).

### ODT Online Wed, 12 Feb 2014
Benefits seen for Taieri area
By Rosie Manins
Mosgiel, Middlemarch and the wider Taieri area will benefit from a new marketing approach by the Dunedin City Council, chief executive Sue Bidrose says. The establishment of an in-house marketing agency at the council, replacing Tourism Dunedin, would offer ”more bang for buck”, she said. The agency would use existing council staff, such as those in human resources and finance, and run alongside the council’s economic development unit.
Read more

New chief executive Sue Bidrose says the council will review performance of the in-house marketing agency after 18 months, with a view to assessing if in the longer term the agency should become a council-owned company. (via ODT)

—

Other ODT stories:
● Riccarton Rd widening set to begin Asked if the upgrade was designed to accommodate more heavy vehicle traffic, Mr Matheson played down those concerns. [Evan Matheson hasn’t referenced the revising ‘district plans’ then]
● Trail trust awaits talks outcome The group behind a project aiming to provide a cycle link between Mosgiel and Dunedin is awaiting the result of crucial land negotiations.
● Crematorium not yet begun Hope and Sons is yet to begin construction of its new Mosgiel crematorium, but hopes to have it operating this year. Managing director Michael Hope said it was still working on gaining building consent.
● Police presence of concern
● Town’s population to disappear Mosgiel’s Pearl of the Plain sign in Quarry Rd is to lose its population figure and receive a general spruce-up. [spot feathery bill]
● Hope signal problems fixed

Syd Brown, Taieri property developer and ex city councillor/FSD chairman

—

Related Posts and Comments:
10.2.14 University of Otago major sponsor for Highlanders [rugby, a pool]
5.2.14 Mosgiel pool sluts get their tops off for ex ORFU guy
4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project . . .
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see comment & ff]
18.11.13 DCC: New chief executive
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
7.10.13 DCC councillors, no idea annual cost of owning, operating FB Stadium
23.6.13 DCC Community Boards
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
6.12.12 Local Government Act Amendment Bill
6.12.12 DCC debt —Cr Vandervis
6.9.12 DCC pays out $millions to cover loss making stadium and rugby…
30.11.11 amalgamation, Anyone?
8.11.11 Development contributions
9.8.11 CRITICAL Dunedin City Council meeting
25.7.11 DCC Finance, Strategy and Development Committee – meeting postponed
16.7.11 Major Dunedin City Council infrastructure assets NOT INSURED
7.7.11 More than $1 billion of infrastructure assets NOT insured
23.3.11 Dunedin City Council’s rock and its hard place

—

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

New Zealand Architects: Pete Bossley, and Ian and Clare Athfield

### radionz.co.nz Monday 18 June 2012
Nine To Noon with Kathryn Ryan
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon

Feature Guest – Pete Bossley
Auckland-based architect Pete Bossley last month won the NZ Institute of Architects’ Gold Medal for 2012. The Director of Bossley Architects is best known for his designs for Te Papa, the Voyager Maritime Museum and the McCahon Artist Retreat in Auckland. (34′00″)
Gallery: Architecture by Pete Bossley
Audio | Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3 | Embed

10:40 Book Review – Athfield Architects
Written by Julia Gatley, published by Auckland University Press. Reviewed by Jeremy Hansen. (5′27″)
Audio | Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3 | Embed
http://www.homenewzealand.blogspot.co.nz/

****

### radionz.co.nz Saturday 23 June 2012
Saturday Morning with Kim Hill
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday

10:05 Playing Favourites with Ian and Clare Athfield
Ian and Claire Athfield have been running one of New Zealand’s most celebrated architectural practices for over four decades, and their work is celebrated in a new book and gallery exhibition. (40′57″)
Audio | Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3 | Embed

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Note: *Radio New Zealand misspells Clare Athfield’s first name as ‘Claire’; the error is repeated in their Urls for the item.

City Property to compete more obviously in the market (their excuse: PPP)

UPDATED POST June 11, 2012 at 5:53 pm

Read: DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL LET’S MOVE TO PROTECT THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY JUST LIKE WE DID PROFESSIONAL RUGBY
(Side bar: Let’s replicate Dunedin’s central police station in Queens Gardens, and other such crocks)
(Question of the Day: Why is a council manager empowered to speak out ahead of councillors and the chief executive? Wethinks Dave Cull has a lot to do with this. Your turn to answer, Mr Cull)
(This is a bit like GM Tony Avery speaking out on council’s need to redesignate for SH88, without telling the whole story of gross council incompetence and the likely multi-million dollar cost to ratepayers)
(It’s what you don’t say)

—

### ODT Online Sat, 9 Jun 2012
Council mulls public-private hotel plan
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council is considering a public-private partnership that could result in a second new hotel being built in the central city.

Council seeks $15 million portfolio boost

The idea was among several being considered by the council’s city property department to increase the value of the $89 million investment property portfolio it will manage over the next few years. The proposal could result in a 60-room, three or four-star “boutique” hotel being constructed on the council’s Dowling St car park site, south of the Octagon, council city property manager Robert Clark confirmed. If approved, it would be built together with a multistorey parking building, with the estimated $15 million cost split between the council and an interested private developer, Mr Clark said. The council would build the car park and the developer the hotel, meaning the two parties would share costs and returns from the investment, Mr Clark said.

Various council departments were involved in discussing the project, but it was yet to be considered by the council’s property subcommittee – headed by Mayor Dave Cull – and would also need approval at a subsequent full council meeting.

Mr Clark said that could happen later this year, if a detailed analysis established a healthy return on investment was achievable.
Read more

—

TWO COMMENTS
Phil’s eyes-wide-open look at City Property!
https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/city-property-to-compete-more-obviously-in-the-market-their-excuse-ppp/#comment-24692
https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/city-property-to-compete-more-obviously-in-the-market-their-excuse-ppp/#comment-24695

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr