Tag Archives: Conflicts of interest

by Elizabeth | August 5, 2017 · 6:32 pm

Apartment hotel proposal has FATAL Flaws : ODT offers Flimsy Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Dunedin City Council about to find out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not much.

****

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

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

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

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

My own submission to hearing states:

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hearing is adjourned until 17 August.

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

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

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

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

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

[click to enlarge]

7 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Finance, Heritage, Hot air, Hotel, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Technology, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Tagged as 1980s Chase, 5-star hotels, Agents, Anthony Tosswill (Tekapo), Anti-contextual design, Apartment buildings, Appeals, Applicant rebuttals, Asian finance, Built environment, Central Business District, City parking, City Property transaction, Commissioners, Conflicts of interest, Connections, Contextual fit, DCC, Dunedin City Council, Environment Court, Evidence, Fairytale futures, Filleul Street, Footprint, GOBs, Height planes, Heritage context, Hot money, Hotels, INAPPROPRIATE DESIGN, Independent planner, Middle men, Moray Place, NOT VIABLE, Notified applications, NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Ltd, Property sale, Protest, Ratepayer-owned site, Ratepayers' equity, Reports, Resource Consent application, SAME OLD BOYS, Secret deals, Sense of Place, Shading, Shoeboxes, Student Accommodation, Submissions, Thom Craig - architect (Christchurch), Views, Visitor accommodation

by Elizabeth | July 11, 2017 · 2:33 pm

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

What environmental considerations, Mr Page?

More than minor.

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

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

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

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

Good heavens.

Source: Application documents

—

At Facebook:

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

****

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

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

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

[excerpt]

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

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

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

****

Agenda and all documents including Submissions at:

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

****

At Facebook [see comments]:

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

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

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Source: Application documents

15 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Enterprise Dunedin, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Hotel, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, Otago Polytechnic, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Tagged as 1980s Chase, 5-star hotels, Agents, Anthony Tosswill (Tekapo), Anti-contextual design, Apartments, Appeals, Applicant rebuttals, Asian finance, Built environment, Central Business District, City parking, City Property transaction, Commissioners, Conflicts of interest, Connections, Contextual fit, DCC, Dunedin City Council, Environment Court, Evidence, Fairytale futures, Filleul Street, Footprint, GOBs, Height planes, Heritage context, Hot money, Hotels, INAPPROPRIATE DESIGN, Independent planner, Middle men, Moray Place, NOT VIABLE, Notified applications, NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Ltd, Property sale, Protest, Ratepayer-owned site, Ratepayers' equity, Reports, Resource Consent application, SAME OLD BOYS, Secret deals, Sense of Place, Shading, Shoeboxes, Student Accommodation, Submissions, Thom Craig - architect (Christchurch), Views, Visitor accommodation

by Elizabeth | May 14, 2017 · 9:04 pm

RNZ reports July hearings for proposed hotel apartment building

Image: Paterson Pitts Group

Image: Thom Craig Architects

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

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

****

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

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

Pullman Hotels is fêted as the hotel manager.

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

14 Comments

Tagged as 1980s Chase, 5-star hotels, Agents, Anthony Tosswill (Tekapo), Anti-contextual design, Apartments, Appeals, Applicant rebuttals, Asian finance, Central Business District, City parking, City Property transaction, Conflicts of interest, Connections, DCC, Dunedin City Council, Environment Court, Filleul Street, GOBs, Height planes, Hot money, Hotels, Middle men, Moray Place, Notified applications, NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Ltd, Property sale, Protest, Ratepayer-owned site, Ratepayers' equity, Resource Consent application, SAME OLD BOYS, Secret deals, Shoeboxes, Student Accommodation, Submissions, Thom Craig - architect (Christchurch), Visitor accommodation

by Elizabeth | May 4, 2017 · 5:20 pm

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

Where to access more information about the application:

Dunedin City Council website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

M A K I N G ● A ● S U B M I S S I O N

█ Online submission form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

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

*Poor quality of images as received via DCC webpages.

70 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Hotel, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

Tagged as 1980s Chase, 5-star hotels, Agents, Anthony Tosswill (Tekapo), Anti-contextual design, Apartments, Appeals, Asian finance, Central Business District, City parking, City Property transaction, Conflicts of interest, Connections, DCC, Dunedin City Council, Environment Court, Filleul Street, GOBs, Height planes, Hot money, Hotels, Middle men, Moray Place, Notified applications, NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Ltd, Property sale, Protest, Ratepayer-owned site, Ratepayers' equity, Resource Consent application, SAME OLD BOYS, Secret deals, Shoeboxes, Student Accommodation, Submissions, Thom Craig - architect (Christchurch), Visitor accommodation

by Elizabeth | March 27, 2017 · 9:07 pm

Mosgiel Pool site options, survey twists

At Facebook:

****

### ODT Online Mon, 27 Mar 2017
Delay in approving pool site irks trust
By John Lewis
The Taieri Community Facilities Trust has made a decision on the preferred site for the new Mosgiel pool, but will have to wait another two weeks before it is considered by the Dunedin City Council …. [Trust chairwoman Irene Mosley] said the trust voted about 10 days ago to ask the DCC to go with an amended Site A, which was near the existing pool. “The trust had 447 responses; 52% were for Site B (Memorial Gardens), and 40% were for Site A …. However, once the comments were taken into consideration, along with the actual votes, the trust discovered that many of those in favour of Site B were in favour because of concerns about the existing pool being closed during the new pool build, potential parking issues and road safety concerns at the proposed entrance off Gordon Rd. The trust believes by locating the new pool further into the existing caravan park, and moving the park towards the Reid Ave side of the fields, these concerns can be mitigated.”
Read more

****

Old footage / older survey:

Channel 39 Published on Aug 13, 2015
Proposed Mosgiel pool site submissions being analysed
More than three hundred public submissions on the proposed Mosgiel pool site are being analysed. The city council’s earmarked four possible locations for a new swimming complex. And a clash with existing assets is upsetting some residents.

—

Related Post and Comments:
14.12.16 Mosgiel pool site options —muddy water from mainstreet businesses

█ For more, enter the term *mosgiel pool* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

47 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Hot air, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Sport, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Tagged as Car parking, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Council subsidies, DCC, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, Feasibility, Good Old Boys (GOBs), High class soils, Housing speculators, Lobbying, Long Term Plan (LTP), Long Term Plan 2015/16 - 2024/25, Memorandum of Understanding, Mosgiel, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel mainstreet, Mosgiel Pool, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, ORC, Otago Regional Council, Pooling Together, Pools, Public consultation, Ratepayers and Residents, Real Estate, Road safety, Rorts, Secret meetings, Site options, Stadium funding model, Staging concerns, Subdivision, Surveys, Swimming pools, Taieri, Taieri Aquatic Centre, Taieri Community Facilities Trust, Targeted rates, Vested interests, Warren & Mahoney Architects Ltd

by Elizabeth | December 14, 2016 · 3:20 am

Mosgiel pool site options —muddy water from mainstreet businesses

At the public forum before Monday’s Council meeting, the Taieri Community Facilities Trust (aka TCFT or ‘pooling together’) turned up in the guise of Irene Mosley, its chairwoman. Her only visible means of support was Bill Feather, ex Mosgiel-Taieri community board chairman.

Ms Mosley put up images of two site options (see graphics below), however nobody in the public gallery could read them. A previous round of public consultation had determined that 127 people favoured Site A, the site of the existing pool beside the Silver Stream. And 17 favoured Site B, at the township’s Memorial Gardens.

Ms Mosley is lobbying for the build being at the Gardens, a site (B) more likely to flood. Site A, the existing pool site, is higher; and the flood banks to the Silver Stream are doing their job.

We were trotted the line that the (rearguard) push for Site B was entirely down to the Otago Regional Council (ORC) because they have issues with Site A, that construction could potentially destabilise the flood bank. Phooey. Pure folly, Ms Mosley! Besides, ORC has no particular jurisdiction over the siting.

Ms Mosley carefully emphasised that a second round of public concultation on site options was for “transparency”. Hmm. Although she told Councillors there’s lots of positive support for the new pool, we’re not too sure who Ms Mosley has asked lately. We doubt the “positive support” is people with spare millions to give away on her trust’s “Logic” (loaded commercial term) dream.

All we know is business owners in central Mosgiel want the pool located closer to them, thus why Site B is being PUSHED by the trust. What a lot of fines there are, swirling about in the local water supply.

—

Mosgiel resident Peter Sim said he would oppose Site B. Green space was “at a premium” in Mosgiel and the DCC was “nibbling away” at it. “It’s time it bloody well stopped.”

### ODT Online Tue, 13 Dec 2016
Pool locations not ‘perfect’
By Shawn McAvinue
The two possible locations for a new aquatic facility in Mosgiel were revealed yesterday, along with a concession that “neither site is perfect”. At a Dunedin City Council meeting, Taieri Communities Facility Trust chairwoman Irene Mosley revealed the possible footprint of both sites … “We have decided we need to go back to the community and explain there is no perfect site … we just want to get it right.”
Read more

—

From the pool trust’s website [click to enlarge]:

█ More information at http://www.poolingtogether.org.nz/

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

22 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, DCTL, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Highlanders, Infrastructure, Media, Name, NZRU, OAG, Ombudsman, ORC, ORFU, People, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Sport, Tourism, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Tagged as Backroom deals, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Council subsidies, DCC, Developers, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, Feasibility, Good Old Boys (GOBs), High class soils, Housing speculators, Lobbying, Logic Group, Long Term Plan (LTP), Memorandum of Understanding, Mosgiel, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel mainstreet, Mosgiel Pool, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, ORC, Otago Regional Council, Pooling Together, Pools, Public consultation, Ratepayers and Residents, Real Estate, Rorts, Secret meetings, Stadium funding model, Subdivision, Swimming pools, Taieri, Taieri Aquatic Centre, Taieri Community Facilities Trust, Targeted rates, Vested interests, Warren & Mahoney Architects Ltd

by Elizabeth | November 25, 2016 · 9:10 pm

New pool —Or, SAFE electricity network for Dunedin and Central Otago

THE BULLSHIT METER is off the Scale:

At a Mosgiel Community Board meeting on Tuesday, Mrs Mosley said research revealed the community was willing to give up to $7.5million for the project.

### ODT Online Thu, 24 Nov 2016
Get your togs on, Mosgiel
By Shawn McAvinue
A date to get your “togs on” and make a splash in a new Mosgiel aquatic facility has been set and a decision about location is down to two sites. Taieri Communities Facility Trust chairwoman Irene Mosley said a timeline to build the facility had been made and people should prepare to enjoy a dip in November 2019. The trust had worked with the Dunedin City Council to identify two sites in Mosgiel to build the facility. […] The announcement of the sites would be made in the Otago Daily Times before Christmas so the public could provide feedback to the trust over summer.
Read more

—

Oh Yeah! Let’s consult on the site for a new ‘4-pool’ complex [DO NOT mention the $$$$$$$$] while EVERYONE IS AWAY ON HOLIDAY. That way we the pool trust (using submissions from our pet Unmonied stakeholders) can easily shove it through Council, led and supported by Cull, Staynes and the new Lord of Finance…. who together, will never see large AURORA/DELTA DEBTS looming for Dunedin City Council ie for the Ratepayers and Residents of Dunedin and Central Otago.

BTW
WE the ratepayers, on behalf of DCC, DO NOT accept unsecured pledges from the Pool Trust– that’s a Stadium mugs’ game we CAN’T AFFORD to play anymore.

—

Comment from Jacob
Fri, 25 Nov 2016 at 11:23 a.m.
Did anybody bother to read the ODT front page propaganda from Irene Mosley ‘Get your togs on, Mosgiel’ ? Research had revealed the community was prepared to throw $7.5million, and might even want to make it $10million. Yeah Right. Then reported in the Taieri Times the same day, the Mosgiel food bank declared that earlier this year demand was at a 10-year high, and was to have a collection to ensure that nobody goes hungry over Christmas. Sounds to me like an awful lot of people out Mosgiel way can’t even afford to buy togs, let alone donate twice for a pool – once through their rates, and again through a donation.

Received from snorkel
Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 12:43 p.m.
It’s an interesting ODT story, but let’s read between the lines. No transparency (not wanting to be up front with the sites – maybe a landowner with close connections to the trust, will get an inflated price). The timing of the new pool will suit Mike Lord as he’s made his intentions clear that he’ll run for Mayor next time.

█ Report: MOSGIEL POOL FUTURE AQUATIC PROVISION
30 November 2015
Department of Parks, Recreation and Aquatics
https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/526248/ma_council_r_MosgielPool_2015_11_30.pdf (49 pages)

*OPM – Other People’s Money

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

11 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Central Otago, Construction, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Electricity, Finance, Geography, Health, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, Resource management, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

Tagged as Aurora Energy Ltd, Backroom deals, Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust, Central Otago, Conflicts of interest, Council consolidated debt +$600m, Council debt CRISIS, Council subsidies, Councillors, CST, DCC, DCC Draft Long Term Plan, Delta Utility Services Ltd, Developers, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, Electricity network, Feasibility, Good Old Boys (GOBs), greater Dunedin trollops, GREED, Health and Safety, High class soils, Housing speculators, Lobbying, Logic Group, Long Term Plan (LTP), Long Term Plan 2015/16 - 2024/25, Massive debt, Memorandum of Understanding, Mosgiel, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel Pool, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, MOU, Pool designs, Pooling Together, Pools, Power supply, Power users, Public consultation, Public submissions, Ratepayers and Residents, Real Estate, Retailers, Rorts, Secret meetings, Shaun Pont, Stadium funding model, Swimming pools, Taieri, Taieri Aquatic Centre, Taieri Community Facilities Trust, The Logic Group, Vested interests, Warren & Mahoney Architects Ltd

by Elizabeth | September 11, 2016 · 10:51 pm

Whiley, buying the mayoralty with Dunedin Ratepayers’ money ?

Much hoo-haa over a very expensive community pool.
Who pays for it.

Andrew Whiley probably loves former Greater Dunedin candidate Irene Mosley (Taieri Community Facilities Trust aka Pooling Together) who appears to support taking major projects off DCC to project manage privately….
[Carisbrook Stadium Trust tricks].

Or, does the mayoral and council hopeful love – So Much – For Votes – the residential developers carving up Taieri paddocks with bunker-style housing on cul-de-sacs, who might or might not say no to a ‘greater Dunedin’ rates-funded pool complex over their back fence. Dunno.

Would Professional Rugby rather its own pool complex at the Logan Park sport and recreation hub ?? Since Mosgiel is far flung, and all that’s really needed is an upgrade to the township’s existing pool !!

Now, about targeted rates for the Taieri Area population to afford their Expensive Four-Pool Complex.

What Should happen.
Consider very carefully who you rate when voting.

Received today:

█ For more, enter the terms *mosgiel*, *taieri* and *pool* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

19 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Dunedin Amenities Society, Economics, Finance, Fun, Geography, Health, Housing, Infrastructure, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Sport, Town planning, Travesty, What stadium

Tagged as 2016 local body elections, Backroom deals, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Council subsidies, DCC, Developers, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, Election campaigns, Feasibility, Good Old Boys (GOBs), High class soils, Housing speculators, Lobbying, Local body elections 2016, Logic Group, Long Term Plan (LTP), Long Term Plan 2015/16 - 2024/25, Mayoral race, Meetings, Memorandum of Understanding, Mosgiel, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel Pool, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, Pooling Together, Pools, Public consultation, Ratepayers and Residents, Real Estate, Rorts, Secret meetings, Stadium funding model, Subdivision, Swimming pools, Taieri, Taieri Aquatic Centre, Taieri Community Facilities Trust, Vested interests, Vote catching, Warren & Mahoney Architects Ltd

by Elizabeth | July 23, 2016 · 6:12 pm

Mosley’s Pond now a Dunedin Community ‘asset’ to fund

Taieri Times 13.7.16 (page 1)

Taieri Times 20.7.16 (page 8)

Taieri Times 20.7.16 (page 7)

Epitaph. Prudence said she couldn’t swim in the DCC pool at Mosgiel, nor Moana, they both drowned.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

*Images: shortzilla.com – duck in pond | dadvmom.com – blacknwhiteswim

9 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Sport, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

by Elizabeth | November 26, 2015 · 3:36 am

DCC report: Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision

█ Full Council Meeting Monday 30 November 2015 at 1:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon

█ Agenda – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 39.6 KB)

Other Reports to be tabled.

—

Item 16

█ Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 7.1 MB)
Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision

[Extract]

Council 30 November 2015
MOSGIEL POOL FUTURE AQUATIC PROVISION
Department: Parks, Recreation and Aquatics

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This report presents high level concept design options and associated capital and operating costs for a new aquatic facility in Mosgiel. A decision is required on which, if any option should be progressed to developed design stage to enable more detailed operating costs, capital costs and whole of life cost options to be developed.

2. Staff have conducted a robust process, assisted by aquatic facility development and operation experts, using architects and quantity surveyors with substantial aquatic experience (including Selwyn) and with the input of Sport New Zealand. Despite this, and whilst reaching agreement on a preferred site, there is a fundamental difference between the staff position and that of the Taieri Community Facilities Trust (the Trust).

3. Council staff consider they can deliver a high quality aquatic facility containing two bodies of water that provide for casual recreation (leisure), casual fitness (lap swimming) and learn to swim that will be valued by the Mosgiel community. The Trust does not agree.

4. The estimated total capital cost for this option is approximately $14.4m, based on benchmarking, which can be refined and reduced through developed design, value management and procurement processes.

5. The Trust position is that for the same amount of money, ie approximately $14.4m, a four-pool proposal, as presented in 2014, can be delivered. The staff assessment of this position is that the capital cost is more likely to be approximately $18-20m, based on feedback from Sport New Zealand and the quantity surveyor.

RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Decides that Site A, located adjacent to the existing Mosgiel Pool is the preferred site for the development of a new aquatic facility.

b) Directs officers to progress the option of two bodies of water, delivering leisure, lap and learn to swim activities through to developed design including further refinement of capital costs, operating costs, and the development of whole of life facility costs, and report back to Council in May 2016.

c) Notes the estimated capital cost of the current concept for two bodies of water is $10,458,000 (buildings, siteworks and infrastructure) plus $2,379,500 (fees, consents, furniture and equipment) plus $1,567,000 (project contingency and ground improvement provision); a total of $14,404,500.

d) Notes that the estimated capital cost excludes an escalation provision, currently estimated at 2.8% per annum for the three years until the Council funding is available.

e) Acknowledges the continued commitment of the Taieri Community Facilities Trust to the project, through their participation in the steering group and input into the concept design process.

Author: Jendi Paterson, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager
Authoriser(s): Richard Saunders, Group Manager, Parks, Recreation and Aquatics; Ruth Stokes, General Manager, Infrastructure and Networks

—

DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED TAIERI AQUATIC CENTRE – MOSGIEL
19 October 2015
Feedback on Taieri Community Facilities Trust Feasibility Study (November 2014), Warren & Mahoney Architects (WAM) and Barnes Beagley Doherr (BBD) Master Plan and Cost Estimate (September 2015).

[Extracts]

1. General observations – There is universal acceptance that the existing Mosgiel Community Pool is an asset at the end of its usefulness and fit with existing and future community needs. The Taieri Community Facilities Trusts (the Trust) Feasibility correctly establishes that historical reports, information and recommendations along with DCC support this view. What is unclear or fully evidenced in the study is:
– What needs assessment and demand are evident and directly related to the size, scale and component mix for the facility required? E.g. need for a FINA certified 10 lane competition pool.
– Confirmation of the likely and sustainable catchment that the centre will serve?
– The impact of the proposed facility on the existing aquatic network?
– What is the projects full capital cost and whole of life affordability for the community?

3. Site and location – It is agreed that Memorial Park is the preferred site for the development of a new aquatic centre. The Feasibility Study promotes the use of a site that impacts significantly the existing Memorial Park Gardens. This option seems unnecessary given the other options available at the park to DCC. Of the subsequent locations within the park proposed by Warren and Mahoney Architects (20.09.15) those sites favoured are those that enable the existing pool to operate during any development period, impact adjacent residents the least, provides multiple points of entry, maximises existing car parking and allows for future expansion should be considered. In this context Site A and Site B are favoured. Site A may offer the opportunity to upgrade and integrate the Caravan Park operation into the new facility, management model and provide a positive revenue stream for the centre.

6. Funding Strategy – the expectation placed on the Trust to raise 50% ($7.5m) of the capital cost of the project is considered unrealistic and unfair. Despite the optimism of the Trust would be unachievable by the second half of 2016 as identified in the Trusts timeline for achieving the pledged funding target. Undoubtedly, this would place extreme pressure of exiting funding agencies and fundraising organisations delivering alternative community outcomes and services for some time. One needs to ask the question – is the same expectation places on communities of interest to raise 50% of funding for developments of public libraries, community halls, sport parks and other public amenities?

Conclusion, the size scale and complexity of the proposed aquatic centre seems to address the wants rather than the needs of the community. Justification of the overall component mix, the need for 10 v’s 8 lanes, competitive aquatic sport needs v’s wider community recreation, wellness and entertainment (youth and older adults) would benefit from closer consideration given the significant level of investment under consideration. The size and extent of the projected catchment population may be inflated and with minimal consideration given to the impact of the new centre on the existing aquatic network of facilities and in its current form designed to compete rather than compliment Moana Pool. The assessment of capital cost seems consistent based on similar south island projects and assessment of construction rates without due consideration to those costs currently excluded. The projected operating budget is not inclusive of all relevant costs (debt repayments and depreciation) nor does it consider the whole of life costs for the assets which will require the need for an ongoing level of operational subsidy.

[screenshots – click to enlarge]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

34 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Tagged as Backroom deals, Bev Butler, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Council subsidies, Councillors, Cr Jinty MacTavish, Cr Lee Vandervis, Dave Cull, DCC, DCC Draft Long Term Plan, Developers, Dunedin City Council, Feasibility, Good Old Boys (GOBs), greater Dunedin trollops, GREED, High class soils, Housing speculators, Lobbying, Logic Group, Long Term Plan (LTP), Long Term Plan 2015/16 - 2024/25, Mayor Cull, Meetings, Memorandum of Understanding, Mosgiel, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel Pool, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, MOU, Otago Daily Times, Pool designs, Pooling Together, Pools, Public consultation, Public submissions, Ratepayers and Residents, Real Estate, Retailers, Rorts, Secret meetings, Shaun Pont, Stadium funding model, Swimming pools, Taieri, Taieri Aquatic Centre, Taieri Community Facilities Trust, The Logic Group, Vested interests, Vote catching, Warren & Mahoney Architects Ltd

by Elizabeth | September 16, 2015 · 12:20 pm

DCC Please Explain —Mosgiel pool design to Warren & Mahoney

This is Dunedin City Council, Cr Jinty MacTavish (Chair, DCC Community and Environment Committee), Mosgiel Taieri Community Board, and the Taieri Community Facilities Trust (TCFT) keeping Dunedin ratepayers and residents THOROUGHLY INFORMED.

Read all about it at NBR, why not. [thanks Anon Anon]
Corruption, backroom deals, vested interests, Anyone?

—

National Business Review
Warren & Mahoney clinches three big sports contracts
Chris Hutching · Friday September 11, 2015

Today’s sports centres accommodate a diverse range of disciplines under one roof and are social hubs and health centres. “Their design should have clarity of access, and a welcoming pathway which encourages maximum participation in recreation. The scale of the recent commissions varies. At the Mosgiel Aquatic Centre, the $14 million budget is earmarked for lane swimming, as well as pools for learners, leisure and warm water.

█ http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/warren-mahoney-clinches-three-big-sports-contracts-ch-178407

—

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

22 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Democracy, Design, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Geography, Hot air, LGNZ, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, OCA, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, SFO, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

by Elizabeth | September 10, 2015 · 5:26 pm

Tale of two pools & very different community boards #Mosgiel #Wanaka

ODT 8.9.15 (page 8)

[click to enlarge]

The Mosgiel Taieri Community Board is heading for disestablishment. (tick)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

6 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Tagged as Backroom deals, Bev Butler, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Council subsidies, Councillors, Cr Jinty MacTavish, Cr Lee Vandervis, Dave Cull, DCC, DCC Draft Long Term Plan, Developers, Dunedin City Council, Feasibility, Good Old Boys (GOBs), GREED, High class soils, Housing speculators, Lobbying, Logic Group, Long Term Plan (LTP), Long Term Plan 2015/16 - 2024/25, Mayor Cull, Meetings, Memorandum of Understanding, Mosgiel, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel Pool, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, MOU, NZRU, ORFU, Otago Daily Times, Otago Rugby Football Union, Pooling Together, Pools, PROFESSIONAL RUGBY, Public consultation, Public submissions, Ratepayers and Residents, Real Estate, Retailers, Rorts, Secret meetings, Shaun Pont, Stadium funding model, Swimming pools, Taieri, Taieri Aquatic Centre, Taieri Community Facilities Trust, The Logic Group, Vested interests

by Elizabeth | August 7, 2015 · 1:01 pm

MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility #MosgielPool

In previous weeks, with receipt of the DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25, contributors to What if? Dunedin seized upon the fact (page 166) that the Council has somehow (if by political vote-catching, deception and or undemocratic business method?) — facilitated by the Mayor of Dunedin — taken on the whole cost of the proposed ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’ for Mosgiel, to be loaded onto UNSUSPECTING Dunedin ratepayers.

This is contrary to what was discussed, and understood, at the time of the draft LTP hearings.

[click to enlarge]
DCC LTP Section 3 – Forecast Financial Statements (PDF, 877.9 KB)
Forecast Financial Statements (financial statements, gross debt chart, accounting policies, 10 year capital expenditure programme, prospective information, significant forecasting assumptions, inflation adjusters, reserve funds, long term plan disclosure statement)

—

In reference to page 166, Bev Butler (23 July) emailed all Councillors about the figures for Aquatic Services new Capital Expenditure: Mosgiel Pool $410,000 in 2016/17 and $14.478 million in 2018/19.

In email reply, Cr Richard Thomson, chair of the Finance Committee, noted an asterisk:
‘you will see that the figure is asterixed and that this references back to notes that these are projects which have “full or partial external funding”. In this case the pool is subject to the community fundraising their share but that is included in the capital spend. you will see a similar situation with the cricket lights at Logan park where $2.2m is being spent but Council has approved up to $1m of its money only…’

This is what ODT reported on 22 May:

ODT: Mosgiel pool wins support
Dunedin City councillors have thrown their support behind a Mosgiel aquatic facility, despite a staff warning about council missing its debt targets. Councillors at yesterday’s long-term plan hearings voted in favour of building a facility “in principle”, subject to a number of conditions.
● Taieri Community Facilities Trust to raise $7.5 million towards project.
● Council has allocated a placeholder budget of $6 million for the facility in the 2018-19 financial year.
● Budget of up to $300,000 approved for council staff to investigate project costs, design options and site location
● Staff to report back to council by April next year, at which point councillors would decide whether to proceed with the project and how.
● Councillors voted that council staff and the trust develop a new memorandum of understanding.

Without building a Mosgiel pool, debt was forecast to be at $223 million in 2021, $7 million below the council’s self-imposed $230 million target. (ODT)

—

Now read the following chain of correspondence.

Received from Lee Vandervis
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 at 8:22 a.m.

█ Message: I believe it is in the pubic interest for the points below to be made public. Kind regards, Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:18:32 +1200
To: Dave Cull, Jinty MacTavish
Cc: Chris Staynes, Kate Wilson, Richard Thomson, Aaron Hawkins, Neville Peat, Mike Lord, David Benson-Pope, Andrew Whiley, Andrew Noone, John Bezett, Hilary Calvert, Doug Hall, Richard Saunders [DCC], Jendi Paterson [DCC], Sue Bidrose [DCC], Sandy Graham [DCC]
Conversation: MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility
Subject: Re: MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility

Dear Mayor Cull,

Thank you for your helpful suggestion which I intend to take up especially when DCC file evidence is available which can confirm many allegations made to me by members of the public.

I do wonder that you seem to think so little of an MOU statement of intent that apparently commits Council to “the development of a new Aquatic Facility Complex“ when Council has not yet made any final Pool Complex decision and in any case has not got the financial resources or even a sufficiently large place holder budget to achieve building the proposed Pool Complex. At the risk of boring our public as you suggest, I will do what I can to let them know.

The claim by Cr. McTavish below “that the phrase “new aquatic facility complex” covers everything from a refurbishment of the existing (which is the base level of service required for the aging, arguably beyond useful life, asset)…” is not credible in commonly understood usage of the words used, but I hope that wide publication of this particular interpretation will reduce the misrepresentation that I believe the Mosgiel Aquatic MOU currently represents.

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

———————————

On 7/08/15 6:29 AM, “Dave Cull” wrote:

Lee
Rather than boring an even wider audience with your laughable brew of ignorance and malice, how about developing some testicular fortitude and going public, as you have been requested to, with the evidence behind the other far more serious accusations and insinuations you have made?
Dave

———————————

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 10:49 PM
To: Jinty MacTavish
Cc: Dave Cull; Chris Staynes; Kate Wilson; Richard Thomson; Aaron Hawkins; Neville Peat; Mike Lord; David Benson-Pope; Andrew Whiley; Andrew Noone; John Bezett; Hilary Calvert; Doug Hall; Richard Saunders; Jendi Paterson; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham
Subject: Re: MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility

Dear Jinty,

Your response below is not acceptable to me as an elected representative.
Your being ‘comfortable’ is no reason to assume Council decision-making status.
Who is this executive that you speak of who are apparently authorised to trump Council decisions as you would have them?
If you insist on acting beyond Council resolutions, I will have little alternative but to go public.

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

———————————

On 6/08/15 10:43 AM, “Jinty MacTavish” wrote:

Kia ora Lee,

Many thanks for your feedback. You raise two concerns:

A. Specific wording of paragraph.

Council’s resolution at LTP time included the following:

“That the Council agree to:
1 support in principle the development of a new aquatic facility complex for Dunedin in Mosgiel.”

The executive’s view is that the that the phrase “new aquatic facility complex” covers everything from a refurbishment of the existing (which is the base level of service required for the aging, arguably beyond useful life, asset), with “efficient” recognising the whole of life cost associated with any option. In the context of there having been a lengthy discussions between staff and the Trust to get to the point where both parties are comfortable with the wording, and given our executive’s interpretation, I am comfortable that the paragraph allows for a wide range of outcomes. A range of options will be brought back to Council in October for consideration and a decision on which to progress to detailed design with.

B. Sign off process

The sign-off on this document was delegated to chair C&E by a resolution of the Committee.
Jinty MacTavish

{Phone number deleted. -Eds}

———————————

On 6/08/2015, at 9:31 am, Lee Vandervis wrote:

Re: MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility
Dear Jinty,

The Intent paragraph of the proposed MOU is unacceptable to me in its present form.

“The intent of the parties is to give effect to a Community/Council partnership for the development of a new Aquatic Facility Complex for Dunedin in Mosgiel in accordance with the LTP resolutions referred to in paragraph 3.4 and with the object of Council delivering an efficient modern complex that caters for all sectors of the community.”

These are weasel words which can easily be understood to mean that Council has resolved to deliver an efficient modern Aquatic Facility Complex in Mosgiel when I do not believe Council has made such a resolution. My understanding is that despite the absurdly arrived at $6 million ‘placeholder budget’, Council has asked that the Aquatic complex in Mosgiel be thoroughly mutually investigated, and that Council has not decided to give effect to the development, as stated above.

I strongly object to any such MOU INTENT being signed off by you or anybody else, and I am deeply concerned by process irregularities and the unprecedented fast-tracking of this project past many others that have been long awaited, the South Dunedin Library/Community Complex in particular.

The INTENT as I understand it, is for the parties to give effect to a Community/Council partnership to further EXPLORE the development detail of a new Aquatic Facility Complex for Dunedin in Mosgiel in accordance with the LTP resolutions referred to in paragraph 3.4 and with the object of Council then being able to decide whether it can or wishes to deliver an efficient modern complex that caters for all sectors of the community.”

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

———————————

On 5/08/15 10:20 AM, “Jinty MacTavish” wrote:

Kia ora koutou,
Please find attached a copy of a draft MOU between the DCC and the Taieri Community Facilities Trust. As it stands, both staff and the Trust are supportive of the document. As per the Council resolution, I’ve been asked to sign it off as C&E chair but would value any feedback from you before close of business tomorrow should you have concerns.
Thanks very much,
Jinty

—— End of Forwarded Message

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

36 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, COC (Otago), Construction, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Democracy, Design, Economics, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, OAG, ORFU, People, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Tagged as Backroom deals, Bev Butler, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Council subsidies, Councillors, Cr Jinty MacTavish, Cr Lee Vandervis, Dave Cull, DCC, DCC Draft Long Term Plan, Developers, Dunedin City Council, Feasibility, Good Old Boys (GOBs), GREED, High class soils, Housing speculators, Lobbying, Logic Group, Long Term Plan (LTP), Long Term Plan 2015/16 - 2024/25, Mayor Cull, Meetings, Memorandum of Understanding, Mosgiel, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel Pool, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, MOU, Otago Daily Times, Pooling Together, Pools, Public consultation, Public submissions, Ratepayers and Residents, Real Estate, Retailers, Rorts, Secret meetings, Shaun Pont, Stadium funding model, Swimming pools, Taieri, Taieri Aquatic Centre, Taieri Community Facilities Trust, The Logic Group, Vested interests

by Elizabeth | July 23, 2015 · 3:30 pm

Dunedin ratepayers —Green Island best site for city pool users #Mosgielfarce

DUNEDIN RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS | HAVE YOUR SAY

The best option is to upgrade and maintain the existing Mosgiel Pool, rather than give Taieri (sprawl) housing speculator-developers and main street businessmen a pool to help their privateering (and professional rugby/training connections). Larger numbers of rate-paying Dunedin residents will benefit from a long-term (funded) aquatic centre sited at Green Island. However, the Stadium is still costing ratepayers +$20 million per annum…..

It looks like Greater Dunedin, through the Mayor and MacTavish, are keen to foster the Mosgiel proposal as a vote catcher in next year’s local body elections.

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Feedback Sought on Mosgiel Pool Options

This item was published on 23 Jul 2015

Consultation opens today on four shortlisted sites for a new aquatic centre in Mosgiel….

Over the next fortnight, the Dunedin City Council, in partnership with the Taieri Community Facilities Trust, is seeking community feedback on the four sites. One of the options is to use the existing pool site on Gordon Road and the other three options are different locations within Memorial Park and the Mosgiel Memorial Gardens.
Since the Council decided to allocate a placeholder of $6 million for the project in the Long Term Plan 2015/16 to 2024/25, work has begun to progress investigations around the proposed facility. The first step of these investigations involves identifying a preferred site.
The work is being led by a steering group, comprised of three Councillors, three Trust members and a member of the Mosgiel community. The group has been given the mandate to work to develop the proposal to the point where there is a preferred site, plans and costings for a new aquatic centre in Mosgiel. These stages are to be reported back to the Council by 30 October.
Mosgiel Aquatic Facility Steering Group Chair Cr Jinty MacTavish says the four sites out for consultation have been shortlisted by the steering group from identified options, including those in the original feasibility study.

“Site selection is an important part of the design process. We’re looking forward to hearing the community’s thoughts on the site they think would be best.”

The DCC is working with the Trust to ensure the reports needed for Council decisions are completed on time. Trust Chair Irene Mosley says, “The community gave a very clear indication during the Long Term Plan process that they wanted a new pool facility in Mosgiel. Now that the DCC has allocated some funding for this project we need to go back to the community and make sure they have the opportunity to comment on the shortlisted sites.”

█ Feedback must be received by Friday, 7 August.

For more information and to fill in a questionnaire visit http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/mosgielpool-consultation or http://www.poolingtogether.org.nz. Hard copy information is also available at the Mosgiel Library and Service Centre

Contact Cr Jinty MacTavish, Chair, Mosgiel Aquatic Facility Steering Group on 027 277 5631. DCC Link

—

█ Someone else to YELL at besides Jinty Mactavish:
Irene Mosley
Chair, Taieri Community Facilities Trust [aka Pooling Together]
Phone 021 231 9197

Taieri Aquatic Centre —proposal [Images: Baker Garden Architects]

—

Correspondence received.
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 at 12:20 p.m.

From: Bev Butler
To: Lee Vandervis, Dave Cull, David Benson-Pope, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Doug Hall, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Jinty MacTavish, Andrew Noone, Neville Peat, Chris Staynes, Richard Thomson, Andrew Whiley, Kate Wilson
Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2015 11:05 AM
Subject: LTAP and Mosgiel Pool

Dear Mayor Cull and Councillors

I recently received a copy of the LTAP and noticed on page 166 of the new LTAP, Aquatic Services new Capital Expenditure: Mosgiel Pool $410,000 in 2016/17 and $14.478 million in 2018/19.

However, when referencing the ODT report on 22 May 2015:
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/343130/mosgiel-pool-wins-support
It is reported:
“Council allocated a placeholder budget of $6 million in the 2018-19 financial year for the facility.”

So at what point did the $6 million reported in May change to $14.478 million? I couldn’t find any reference to the change in ODT. Maybe I missed it.
I have also looked up the Council meeting minutes but can find no reference there either.

Would someone please tell me the date when this $14.478 million was approved by Council and preferably send me a copy of the minutes or point me in the direction to find them.

Many thanks
Bev Butler

————————

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:17:09 +0000
From: Richard Thomson
To: Bev Butler; Lee Vandervis; Dave Cull; David Benson-Pope; Hilary Calvert; John Bezett; Doug Hall; Aaron Hawkins; Mike Lord; Jinty MacTavish; Andrew Noone; Neville Peat; Chris Staynes; Richard Thomson; Andrew Whiley; Kate Wilson
Subject: Re: LTAP and Mosgiel Pool

Bev,

you will see that the figure is asterixed and that this references back to notes that these are projects which have “full or partial external funding”. In this case the pool is subject to the community fundraising their share but that is included in the capital spend. you will see a similar situation with the cricket lights at Logan park where $2.2m is being spent but Council has approved up to $1m of its money only..

Richard [Thomson, Cr]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

7 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, OCA, ORFU, People, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design

Tagged as Backroom deals, Bill Feather, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Council subsidies, Councillors, Dave Cull, DCC, DCC Draft Long Term Plan, Developers, Dunedin City Council, Feasibility, Good Old Boys (GOBs), GREED, High class soils, Housing speculators, Janice Pont, Lobbying, Logic Group, Martin Dillon, Meetings, Mosgiel, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel Pool, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, Otago Daily Times, Pooling Together, Pools, Public consultation, Public submissions, Ratepayers and Residents, Real Estate, Retailers, Rorts, Secret meetings, Selwyn, Shaun Pont, Stadium funding model, Swimming pools, Taieri, Taieri Aquatic Centre, Taieri Community Facilities Trust, Taieri housing sprawl, The Logic Group, Vested interests, WANAKA at Mosgiel

by Elizabeth | July 3, 2015 · 10:25 pm

SFO fails to clean up Far North District Council

Council members and employees apparently failed to comply with internal systems and controls.

### ODT Online Thu, 2 Jul 2015
SFO rules out crime at council
By Imran Ali – Northern Advocate
A year-long Serious Fraud Office inquiry into the Far North District Council found some councillors and staff failed to follow rules governing the approval of projects and use of ratepayers’ money, but insufficient evidence to lay criminal charges against anyone. But exactly what the SFO was looking into and who was at fault may never be known, with the office and mayor John Carter unable to discuss the matter further due to restrictions under the SFO Act. NZME
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

1 Comment

Filed under Business, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Politics, Project management, SFO

Tagged as Conflicts of interest, Council staff, Councillors, Criminality, Crooked, Far North District Council, John Carter, Lack of accountability, Lack of transparency, Mayors, New Zealand, Pet projects, Ratepayers and Residents, SFO

by Elizabeth | June 27, 2015 · 8:46 pm

Ratepayer boxes #saga

Once upon a time, Rugby louts and owners of industrially-zoned land at Dunedin decided they deserved a new Rugby stadium and some personal spending CASH! (ie ratepayer money)

It wasn’t long before DCC was vigorously lobbied from within and without by slimy fatcats, to build a Hopeless Stadium.

The evil plan was to saddle ratepayers with outlandish debt for decades and decades.

It also transpired that the Chin Council thought only slightly about lines in the sand but agreed ‘it’s perfectly alright to rob the poor to support the well-off’ —the practice continues to this very day, Mayor Cull’s merry band of dimwits subsidise DVML and have recently transferred $30m of Hopeless Stadium debt back onto the DCC books.

Going back a treacle-filled step or two… the spendthrift Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CST), headed by Malcolm Farry, became agent to the Council via a Service Level Agreement (SLA), to see in the Hopeless Stadium construction project and associated fundraising.

[Aside, like it didn’t matter: Farry in his construction safety hat and dayglo vest failed miserably at raising public donations for the Hopeless Stadium.]

Long short… regular as well as ‘other’ payments were made by DCC to CST and co-greedy sods without much corroborating paperwork.

Despite non-accountability and lack of transparency, and the odd crucial missing document, there’s a stash of CST files kept “in storage” somewhere – files to drive a bulldozer through, lawfully the property of the Council, paid for by ratepayers.

Turns out two of DCC’s most senior executives, with Malcolm Farry, appear to have no interest whatsoever in surrendering the files for independent forensic audit. They’ll only retrieve file boxes in batches, while pedalling strongly backwards.

The files are not sealed, seized or safe. Where are they? DCC will not say. Farry won’t say. Fairytales are being told.

The files were long ago officially requested through the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) by Dunedin resident Bev Butler. They’re also subject to the Public Records Act.

The Ombudsmen’s Office is involved, due to deliberate lack of co-operation shown by CST and DCC to supply copy of the original files to Ms Butler in a timely manner.

Have the files been thrown into plastic shopping bags, shredded or dumped? We simply don’t know.

CST and DCC are equally culpable, they’re both prepared to lie and defer – What if? can only imagine the files might be as tidy as this.

If it takes a court order…..

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: clipart.org – Filing Cabinet Overload

9 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Democracy, Design, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Highlanders, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, ORC, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design

Tagged as 2011 Rugby World Cup, Boxes, Chief Executive, Conflicts of interest, CST, DCC, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, File storage, Files, Forensic audits, fubar stadium, Group Manager Corporate Services, Highlanders, Invoices, LGOIMA, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, Malcolm Farry, NZRU, Obfuscation, Obstruction, Ombudsman, Ombudsmen's Office, ORFU, Otago Rugby Football Union, Otago Stadium, PROFESSIONAL RUGBY, Public Records Act, Service Level Agreement, SLA, Stadiums

by Elizabeth | June 14, 2015 · 9:48 am

Mosgiel Taieri Community Board threatened with demise

Received from Maurice Prendergast
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 at 12:32 a.m.

—

[Undated email by excerpt. -Eds]

From: Maurice Prendergast
To: Bill [Feather]

In response to your e-mail below in which you seek feedback from Board members on the recommendation of the Representation Review team, I offer my comments as described below.

Effective representation and fair representation; while enshrined in legislation, are really just haughty ‘weasel words’ because while members may masquerade during election campaign as being representative of a particular catchment/community; once elected they can freely abandon their ‘fine principles’ and commit their loyalties to quite alien causes. Case in point: Rural electors who thought they would be effectively and fairly represented by a rural Councillor/ representative of the huge City hinterland found that same Councillor voting to remove their one precious budget consideration (the seal extension budget) and curiously voted for the same amount of funding to favour the provision of cycleways. Conclusion: there is no discipline that binds elected members to the principles of fair and/or effective representation. Cr Wilson has demonstrably personified this. This segment of Local Body law should be removed and pronounced unworkable.

Number of Councillors: The most effective Councils since re-organisation in 1989 were those with 21 and 18 councillors. Why? Enhanced salaries for (presumed) talented chairmen of Committees generates a ‘dash for cash’. Currently (at 14 Councillors) the mayor ‘cabals’ by having guaranteed loyalty from his six Committee Chairmen whose salary he has enhanced by bestowing upon them lavishly paid Chairmanships; thus securing an implied loyalty to the Mayor (or be sacked). Peter Chin introduced this draconian practice. When I was Deputy Mayor back in the mid-nineties the Mayor (Turner) relied on trust and appointed for three years. Peter Chin changed that to annual reviews – just to stop his footmen straying from loyalty to him I guess. So having secured six avaricious troopers, on any given issue he can be sure of six votes plus his own (7) which curiously is half of 14 and in the event of a tied vote he can exercise his casting vote to get across the line. That is what is so magical about the number 14, and that is why it will be strenuously defended (or even reduced). So a decision to have only 14 Councillors gives the Mayor a guarantee that he will preside over his ‘Fiefdom’ This was never possible when (say) there was 18/20 elected members. There was always up to 14 and then 12 (when the number dropped to 18 Councillors) who were not ‘tainted’ by having accepted gratuities from the Mayor. In a perverse way this always guaranteed honourable behaviour and reasoned decision making by Council and ‘debt laden vanity projects’ never saw the light of day. I don’t expect a ‘buy-in’ from the public at large because the rank and file electors (largely) don’t like Councillors, and if there were more I would anticipate an ‘uninformed’ revolt – which is a pity because this would be guaranteed means of discipline. But my analysis is that an addition of (say) six more ‘back-bench’ councillors at (say) $50,000 per annum, ($300,000) would be about the best investment the ratepayers could have made in the recent past. And the remedy is staring us in the face. Who was that philosopher who said “those who ignore their history shall be condemned by it”. The exercise of power that currently burdens us in debt is the product of having insufficient disaffected/ unsullied members – members who have retained the capacity not to be corrupted.

Community Boards: I am ambivalent about the Review Team’s proposal. Community Boards have never worked as expected by the Commissioner when established in 1989, and while I have served on six or seven Boards during the 35 year life of the ‘new City’, with the exception of the Strath Taieri Board it has been an unrewarding experience. The Boards suffer from not having any decision making authority and consequently suffer from having no sense of purpose. Initially each Board was granted $2000 per annum (euphemistically referred to by the CEO of the day as ‘drop dead’ money) – such was his limited respect for the function of the Boards and intended for the most menial of chores like keeping the toilet paper and light bulbs up to their community Halls etc. Then a Committee/Working Party was established to review the function of Boards with power to decide – a committee stacked with Community Board members and unsurprisingly the annual grant went from $2000 to $10,000 pa; but this change was not intended for any particular purpose. Without any strict purpose set down for these funds it has often generated an exercise in a kind of cronyism where conflicts of interest seemed to flourish. The distribution of these funds is attended by a set of criteria which is carefully described as ‘Guidelines’. Of course nobody can be nailed for imprudent expenditure of these funds because their distribution is bound by the discretionary word ‘Guidelines’. I attempted to get some kind of discipline on board at a recent Board meeting by changing the operative word Guidelines to a more disciplined caption ‘Rules’ but I did not even get the support of a seconder for my motion. Therefore every other member seemed to be comfortable with the freedom of having no rules associated with this ratepayer funded slush fund, and this kind of caballing is in my view why the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board is being abolished. I cannot raise an argument against that recommendation. E&0E)

Sincerely,

Maurice Prendergast

————

From: Bill Feather
Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2015 3:10 p.m.
To: Sarah Nitis; Martin Dillon ; Maurice Prendergast; Blackie Catlow; Mark Willis
Subject: Representatation Review

Good afternoon all,

You each will have received a copy of the findings and recommendations of the Hearing panel released last evening. If not a copy of the report is attached.

The Council are to consider this report at an extraordinary meeting on Monday 15th June at which a number of Community Board Chairs including myself will attend.

I am interested to gauge the feeling of the community over the Review Panel’s recommendations and would like for you to forward to me your assessment of community support or otherwise that you learn of over the next day or two for the recommendations under consideration. The media broke the news this morning in the ODT and are planning a follow-up in more detail in either tomorrow or Saturday’s edition.

Your thoughts are important please respond earliest.

Regards

Bill

[Bill Feather, Chairman, Mosgiel Taieri Community Board]

—

Related Post and Comments:
11.6.15 DCC representation review

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

34 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, What stadium

Tagged as Bill Feather, Board members, Community Boards, Conflicts of interest, Councillors, DCC, DCC Representation Review, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, Ratepayers and Residents, Representation, Rorts, Taieri Community Facilities Trust

by Elizabeth | May 31, 2015 · 7:00 am

ODT weekend mix —Lee Vandervis

Updated post Mon, 1 Jun 2015 at 1:37 p.m.

This weekend’s newspaper magazine has THAT face plastered over page one. The accompanying feature article (pages 6-8) is now available online.

—

Lee Vandervis knows that people either love him or loathe him and he doesn’t care. Kim Dungey finds out what drives Dunedin’s most controversial city councillor. Otago Daily Times

After five years in London working as an acoustic engineer and building mixing consoles for the likes of Stevie Wonder and Pink Floyd, he returned to Dunedin in 1981 and set up his own sound and lighting business.

Pink Floyd Published on Jun 25, 2014
Pink Floyd – Money (Official Music Video)
The official promo video for ‘Money’ by Pink Floyd, taken from the album ‘The Dark Side Of The Moon’.
Originally released in 1973, ‘The Dark Side of The Moon’ became Pink Floyd’s first number 1 album in the US, remaining on the chart for 741 weeks between 1973 and 1988. One of the best-selling and most critically acclaimed albums of all time, The Dark Side of The Moon also introduced the iconic album cover artwork by Hipgnosis, after a request for a ‘simple and bold’ design.
Music: “Money (2011 Remastered Version)” by Pink Floyd (Google Play • iTunes)

“I’ve had a ring from the chemist. He says you’ve bought these chemicals that could make a very large explosion.” –Mrs Vandervis, on her 11-year-old son’s decision to manufacture gunpowder.

—

Mix (page 8), ODT

—

█ For more, enter the terms *vandervis*, *cull*, *bidrose*, *citifleet* or *deloitte* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

7 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, Concerts, Construction, DCC, Delta, Democracy, Design, Economics, Heritage, Hot air, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Urban design

Tagged as Accountability, Citifleet, Code of Conduct complaints, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Council sanction, Cr Lee Vandervis, Delta, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, Feature article, Financial crime, Investigations, Kim Dungey, Otago Daily Times, Rorts, Standing orders, Transparency

by Elizabeth | May 19, 2015 · 7:02 pm

Mosgiel pool trust conflicts of interest #bigfishsmallpond

CARBON COPY OF SELWYN POOL
PONT WANTS $750,000 FROM DCC TO INVESTIGATE A REPLICA !!!!
Funny that, given his connections………………

Selwyn Aquatic Centre

—

{Original correspondence sighted and filed. Ratepayer name removed. -Eds}

Received from Cr Lee Vandervis
‎Tue‎, ‎19‎ ‎May‎ ‎2015 at ‎2‎:‎02‎ ‎p.m.

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎19‎ ‎May‎ ‎2015 ‎2‎:‎02‎ ‎p.m.
To: ██████████
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr [What if? Dunedin]

Dear ██████████ ,

Thank you for raising the Mosgiel Pool design and Shaun Pont conflict of interest issues which have been highlighted on the ‘What If?’ site.
I was disappointed that the ODT did not report my direct challenge to Mr Pont’s claimed need for $750,000 of rates funding to pay for initial Mosgiel pool design work, when the pool they want has already been designed, and built [by local contractors Calder Stewart] in Selwyn.
We were told repeatedly at the Mosgiel meeting that the desired pool complex was a “carbon copy of the Selwyn pool”, making the requested $750,000 for initial design potentially the most expensive bits of carbon copy paper in local government history.
As I saw it, Mr Pont not only failed to declare his glaring conflict of interest at the Mosgiel meeting, but he failed to account for the claimed $750,000 cost of an initial pool design needed, saying that there were different ground conditions [both level alluvial plains], different parking requirements [there is an existing car park next door], and different more efficient heat-pump system planned [this detail not needed for initial design].
My question as to ‘why 90% of the speakers listed as wanting to present in person to the Mosgiel meeting did not show up?’ was not answered satisfactorily. It was suggested that there was a problem with advising people of the date of the Mosgiel meeting, yet more Councillors managed to show up than local people wanting to speak in support of the Pool project.

Kind regards,
Cr. Vandervis

On 18/05/15 10:46 AM, “ ██████████ ” wrote:

Hi Lee,

I was at the LTP Plan submission hearing in Mosgiel and heard Shaun Pont of the pool trust asking for $750,000 from Council for further investigation work on pool design etc. I believe there is a vested interest here as Shaun Pont is a director of Logic Group and stands to gain financially from this money if Council is stupid enough to grant it. He also appears to be affiliated with Arrow International, and we know how they benefited from the stadium.

You are the only one on Council I can trust to speak up if I am correct, and can see through the spin doctoring of the pool trust. Best of luck and keep up the good work.

Regards
██████████

—

Taieri Aquatic Centre —proposal

Related Post and Comments:
18.5.15 NEWSFLASH —Mosgiel pool, tracking [PONT] . . . . [see other links]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: Selwyn Aquatic Centre – engenium.co.nz (exterior); xypex.co.nz (interior) | Proposed Taieri Aquatic Centre – scanned renders by Baker Garden Architects, from TCFT feasibility report (Jan 2015)

42 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, COC (Otago), Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Events, Geography, Highlanders, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Town planning, Urban design

Tagged as Backroom deals, Bill Feather, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Council subsidies, Councillors, Dave Cull, DCC, DCC Draft Long Term Plan, Developers, Dunedin City Council, Feasibility, Good Old Boys (GOBs), GREED, High class soils, Housing speculators, Janice Pont, Lobbying, Logic Group, Martin Dillon, Meetings, Mosgiel, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel Pool, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, Otago Daily Times, Pooling Together, Pools, Public submissions, Ratepayers and Residents, Real Estate, Retailers, Rorts, Secret meetings, Selwyn, Shaun Pont, Stadium funding model, Swimming pools, Taieri, Taieri Aquatic Centre, Taieri Community Facilities Trust, Taieri housing sprawl, The Logic Group, Vested interests, WANAKA at Mosgiel

by Elizabeth | October 31, 2014 · 10:55 pm

Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC

### whaleoil.co.nz Fri, 31 Oct 2014 at 5:20pm
Why is there no law to rein in dodgy ratbag local body politicians?
By Cameron Slater
Former ARC Councillor Bill Burrill is not the first dodgy ratbag Councillor to trough from abuses of power to his own pecuniary advantage in recent years. A few years back in 2009 Council Watch was calling for a number of Councillors from the Canterbury Regional Council to be prosecuted and sacked from their positions after an investigation by the Auditor General Lyn Provost found that four individuals had broken the law by acting in conflict with their official role. Back then those Canterbury Councillors failed to declare a conflict on interest that [led] to a financial benefit for themselves by participating in discussion and voting on proposals before Council. Under investigation the Auditor General’s office chose not to prosecute stating that whilst the Councillors should have withdrawn as a matter of principle – they had each received and shared legal advice that they could participate. And here in lies the problem. The Auditor General and Office of the Ombudsmen publish clear guidelines for Councillors and council staff but the reality is that the law is erroneously filled with holes that are exploited and there is precious little oversight of Local Government leading to the Auditor General loathing to bother and the Courts uninterested.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

2 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Carisbrook, Citifleet, Construction, CST, Cycle network, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Design, DVL, DVML, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Geography, Highlanders, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, ORFU, Otago Polytechnic, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design

Tagged as "Serious conflicts of interest", Athol Stephens, Auditor-General, Carisbrook, Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust, Chief Executive Officer, Citifleet, City Development Team, City Forests, City Property, COC, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Council staff, Councillors, CSCT, CST, Daaave Cull, Darren Burden, Dave Cull, DCC, DCC CEO, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Delta Investments Ltd, Delta Utility Services Ltd, Dunedin City Council, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, Dunedin City Treasury Ltd, Dunedin Cycle Network, EDS, EDU, Enterprise Dunedin, fubar stadium, GRATER Dunedin, Greater Dunedin, Highlanders, Investigations, Jacks Point, Jim Harland, Jinters, Jinty, Jokers bars, Lesser Dunedin, List goes on..., Luggate, Lyn Provost, Malcolm Farry, Mike Coburn, MintyJinty, Office of the Auditor-General, ORFU, Otago Chamber of Commerce, Otago rugby, Otago Rugby Football Union, Otago Stadium, Paul Hudson, Peter Chin, Private trusts, Ratepayers and Residents, Ron Anderson, Rugby, Stadium Councillors, Stadiums, Stewart Barnett, Syd Brown, Terry Davies, Toothless investigations, Tourism Dunedin, Water and waste services, Whistleblower policy

by Elizabeth | July 2, 2014 · 2:02 pm

McLauchlan replies! #handsalloverit #UoOteamofthree

ODT 1.7.14 Letter to the editor (page 8)

****

### ODT Online Fri, 20 Jun 2014
Dunedin is ‘the laughing stock of the country’
By Vaughan Elder
Dunedin is a “laughing stock” over a proposal to launch an independent airline, Dunedin International Airport Ltd chairman Stuart McLauchlan says. Otago Air had no chance of getting off the ground, he said.
Read more

### ODT Online Fri, 20 Jun 2014
City’s mentality praised
By David Loughrey
The Dunedin City Council and the Otago Regional Council should get together to underwrite air services to Dunedin, an aviation expert says. Former University of Otago air transport research director Dr David Duval said Otago Air was a great Dunedin idea, but not one anybody should go ahead with.
Read more

—

[steering/connected/influential ??]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

11 Comments

Filed under Business, Economics, Highlanders, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, University of Otago, What stadium

Tagged as Air services, Boards, Chairships, Chancellor, COI, Conflicts of interest, DCC, DCHL, Directorships, Dunedin, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, Dunedin International Airport Ltd, fubar stadium, Harlene Hayne, Highlanders, Influence, Laughing stock, Otago Stadium, Pro-Chancellor, PROFESSIONAL RUGBY, Sponsorship, Stadiums, Tartan Mafia, Tawdry Tartan, Thugby, University Council, University of Otago, Vice-chancellor

by Elizabeth | June 8, 2014 · 12:24 am

DCC pedalling to…… #hell

Received from Jeff Dickie
Sat, 7 Jun 2014 at 3:41 pm

You could be forgiven for thinking Cull, Bidrose, the Finance Committee, and the majority of compliant councillors don’t have a vision for Dunedin’s future. That to believe that, not hearing bad news, smiling and riding a bike, will make the financial mire we are now in go away. That to continue to spend huge amounts on yet more foolish projects will somehow fix things. That to embrace a culture of no accountability will magically preclude the idiots who have cocked up so many DCC things in the recent past, doing EXACTLY the same thing again.

Just look at how many of the idiots who have foisted this debt and the numerous foolish failed projects are still on council. These people do have a vision, and here it is!

Hopefully the cycle trail will lead there.

Jeff Dickie
Woodhaugh

****

An opinion piece from 28.9.12, written by Calvin Oaten, continues to have currency.

The End of The Golden Weather?
Are we coming to the end of the ‘Golden Weather’? I say this, not in the meteorological sense, but rather in the sense that perhaps our society and its economic construct might be on the verge of a catastrophic change. Why? Well it seems that many signposts are pointing to an approaching collapse of the present model of the economy as constructed. This requires constant growth in order to sustain an ever increasing social budget.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image supplied.

5 Comments

Filed under Business, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Stadiums

Tagged as Audit and Risk Subcommittee, Business ethics, Conflicts of interest, Council debt CRISIS, Cycle network, DCC, Discovery, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, ETHICS, Fiduciary responsibility, fubar stadium, Juggernauts, Leadership, Mayoralty, Money honey! Finance, Otago Stadium, Project management, Ratepayers and Residents, Rates, Stadiums

by Elizabeth | May 20, 2014 · 9:13 pm

Tim Hunter on Ward, McLauchlan, Hayne #Highlanders

Sunday Star-Times 18.5.14, Business (page D7)

● Tim Hunter is deputy editor, Auckland Business Bureau at Fairfax Media.

—

Comment received at What if? Dunedin

Anonymous
Submitted on 2014/05/18 at 3:54 pm

Connect the dots

McLauchlan -> Project Delivery Team -> Carisbrook Stadium Trust
McLauchlan -> Delta -> Otago Highlanders
McLauchlan -> University of Otago -> Otago Highlanders
McLauchlan -> Dunedin Casino -> Earl Hagaman -> SH88
McLauchlan -> SDHB -> Southlink Health dispute
McLauchlan -> Dunedin Casino -> Trevor Scott -> Chris Swann -> Christine Keenan

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

14 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DVL, DVML, Economics, Highlanders, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Sport, Stadiums, University of Otago

Tagged as COI, Conflicts of interest, Cronyism, Dunedin, fubar stadium, GOBs, Harlene Hayne, Highlanders, Lack of due process, Marketing, New Zealand, Official Information Act, OIA, Otago Stadium, PROFESSIONAL RUGBY, Promotion, Rugby, Sponsorship, Stadiums, Sunday Star Times, Super 12 rugby, Tim Hunter, Undemocratic, University of Otago, Vice-chancellor

by Elizabeth | March 11, 2014 · 10:44 pm

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]

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

16 Comments

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

Tagged as 41 Wharf Street - Dunedin, Betterways Advisory Ltd, Cao Ping, Carte blanche, City Planning, Conflicts of interest, Connectivity, Dave Cull, DCC, Developers, Dunedin, Dunedin City Council, Footbridge, Highrise development, Hotel, Jing Song, Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, ODT, Old Boy ticket clippers, Plan Change, Precedents, Property matters, Resource Management Act, RMA, Steve Rodgers, Tower design, Traffic, Urban design panel, Waterfront

by Elizabeth | November 16, 2013 · 10:22 am

Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings

“The key principle of LGOIMA [Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act] is about transparency and openness.” –Sandy Graham, DCC Corporate Services manager

### The Star Thu, 14 Nov 2013
Board warned off private meetings
By Tim Miller
A catch-up over coffee nearly landed the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board in hot water after members of the public complained it was meeting in secret.

Read more (page 3) at http://digital.thestar.co.nz/olive/ode/str_daily/

****

### dunedinty.co.nz November 11, 2013 – 7:11pm
Nightly interview: Bill Feather
One group of Dunedin’s elected officials do their work often under the radar of the media. They are the members of the city’s six community boards, which each have six members, plus one councillor appointed by the DCC.
Video

****

QUESTION
Cr Kate Wilson is the DCC appointee to the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board; and Cr Mike Lord, to the Strath Taieri Community Board.
The two councillors are required to travel to community board meetings outside their own constituencies, for which they may now claim a travel disbursement.
Is Mayor Cull ensuring (more) money for friends? Surely not.
Shouldn’t Cr Wilson and Cr Lord stay on their own home turf, reducing the impost on DCC ratepayers?

Profiles for new councillors were supposed to be available at the DCC website from 8 November. It hasn’t happened.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image – dcc.govt.nz Bill Feather

55 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management

Tagged as Bill Feather, Clandestine, Committee business procedure, Community Boards, Community representation, Conflicts of interest, Democracy, Discretionary funds, Dunedin City Council, LGOIMA, Manipulations, Mosgiel Business Association, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board, Ratepayers and Residents, Secret meetings, SUSPICIOUS

	Paul on Commercial residential, 143-19…
	Paul on Commercial residential, 143-19…
	Elizabeth on Commercial residential, 143-19…
	Mike on LEAVE the Statue Alone —gormle…
	Rob Hamlin on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu…
	Hype O'Thermia on Commercial residential, 143-19…
	Hype O'Thermia on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu…
	Peter on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu…
	Peter on Commercial residential, 143-19…
	Hype O'Thermia on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu…
	Hype O'Thermia on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu…
	Tom on LEAVE the Statue Alone —gormle…
	Elizabeth on LEAVE the Statue Alone —gormle…
	Gurglars on LEAVE the Statue Alone —gormle…
	Simon on Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Tu…

Tag Archives: Conflicts of interest

Mosgiel Pool site options, survey twists

Mosgiel pool site options —muddy water from mainstreet businesses

New pool —Or, SAFE electricity network for Dunedin and Central Otago

Whiley, buying the mayoralty with Dunedin Ratepayers’ money ?

Mosley’s Pond now a Dunedin Community ‘asset’ to fund

DCC report: Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision

DCC Please Explain —Mosgiel pool design to Warren & Mahoney

Tale of two pools & very different community boards #Mosgiel #Wanaka

MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility #MosgielPool

Dunedin ratepayers —Green Island best site for city pool users #Mosgielfarce

SFO fails to clean up Far North District Council

Mosgiel Taieri Community Board threatened with demise

ODT weekend mix —Lee Vandervis

Mosgiel pool trust conflicts of interest #bigfishsmallpond

McLauchlan replies! #handsalloverit #UoOteamofthree

DCC pedalling to…… #hell

Tim Hunter on Ward, McLauchlan, Hayne #Highlanders

Hotel MOU: DCC #fail

Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings

Recent Comments

Twitter Updates

Recent Posts

Follow Blog via Email

Great Links

Pro Stadium

Sports

Stadiums

Archives

Pages

Meta

Tag Archives: Conflicts of interest

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Go on share this:

Like this:

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Follow Blog via Email

Great Links

Pro Stadium

Sports

Stadiums

Archives

Pages

Meta