Screening tonight: Paradigm Episode 2! Local Government Corruption in NZ #Sky #YouTube

Updated post
Tue, 15 Sep 2015 at 1:25 a.m.

███ A “MUST” WATCH
Vincent Eastwood Published on Sep 14, 2015
Local Governance & Corruption, Paradigm Episode 2 Vinny Eastwood
Episode 2 of PARADIGM broadcasted on Face TV Sky Channel 083 on September 14th 2015 at 9pm NZT

TOPIC: Local Governance & Corruption
GUESTS: Bruce Rogan from the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association with activist and Mayoral candidate Penny Bright.
● How privatisation and secretive powerful roundtable groups (comprised mostly of large companies) have led to the rise of unelected, unaccountable officials.
● The utter refusal of EVERY SINGLE AUTHORITY in New Zealand to investigate corruption.
The police, the judiciary, the ombudsman, the minister for local government, the auditor general, political parties, the list goes on, every authority whose job is to investigate, prevent or punish corruption actually supports it!
● Why local citizens have no rights and why local government has no rules.

FACE FACT KIWIS
Believing NZ is corruption free was the very mechanism by which criminals took control of our country. The only reason NZ is #2 on Transparency International’s “perceived” least corrupt countries in the world list, is we’re the 2nd best in the world at concealing our corruption.

—

Vincent Eastwood Published on Sep 12, 2015
Paradigm Episode 2 coming soon! Local Government Corruption
PLEASE SHARE THIS!
Help me get as many people as possible to watch the show tomorrow night!
9pm NZT

—

Received. [names deleted]
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 at 4:00 p.m.

Re: DOCO ON CORRUPTION, AND MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL.

Tonight (14 September, 9:00pm) on Sky channel 83 there will be an episode of Paradigm which will feature the Kaipara Scam. Paradigm is a program that is the brainchild of a guy called Vinny Eastwood, and it is not an exaggeration to say that Vinny has picked up the ball that John Campbell (or rather Channel 3) dropped. Promo for the programme is at https://www.facebook.com/vincenteastwood/videos/10153220793607879/
Vinny has a deceptively casual and disarming manner that belies a very serious commitment to exposing corruption and fraud (he calls it scumbaggery).
As an MRRA member you will already be aware of the degree of scumbaggery besetting Kaipara, but it is highly unlikely that your friends and relations will grasp the scale of what is happening in New Zealand. Please do yourself a favour and send this email to everyone in your circle, especially your adult children, who are going to be wealth-stripped by the corporates that are taking over. Add your personal plea that they take a few minutes away from Coronation Street and watch something that might actually affect their lives.
Our financial year ends on 31 October. We want everyone to renew their membership please and we want new members from all over the country (world!) as we mount the final campaign to get justice for the country’s ratepayers. Please renew – don’t just leave it to the other guys to carry all the water. What other association can you think of that supplies over forty free informative newsletters per year?!, and has an executive team that is prepared to go to jail to defend your rights! (informative might be stretching it, but beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, going to jail is still a real possibility!).
The annual sub is still only $15.00 per family, or $10.00 single, and we have put no limit on donations, because we do not want to discourage that philanthropic person out there with $100,000 they have no further use for.
The account number is 38 9012 0318164 00 or cheques to MRRA at Box 225 Mangawhai 0540. Make sure please to include your membership number […], and if you are a new member please provide a name and phone number so we can call you and get all the details.

Kind regards,
MRRA Executive Committee.
[Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association]

—

█ More at Kaipara Concerns (online news):

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION SCAM 14.09.2015
Tonight, Monday night (14 September 2015), 9pm on Face (access) TV. Sky network channel 83.

NZ’s MASSIVE Local Government Corruption Scam, Paradigm Episode 2

Bruce Rogan (Mangawhai Ratepayers) and Penny Bright interviewed by Vinny Eastwood on council corruption in New Zealand.

See the promo video here. #Facebook

See Bruce Rogan’s rates revolt speech here. #YouTube

—

Related Posts and Comments:
28.8.15 Joel Cayford: ‘Mangawhai Ratepayers at Court of Appeal’
2.2.15 LGNZ run by Mad Rooster Yule, end of story
27.11.14 Auditor-general Lyn Provost #Resign
31.10.14 Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC
9.9.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara: Latest news + Winston Peter’s speech
19.7.14 Whaleoil / Cameron Slater on ratepayers’ lament
12.6.14 Fairfax Media [not ODT] initiative on Local Bodies
29.5.14 Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Assn wins at High Court
11.4.14 Councils: Unaccountable, ready to tax? #DCC #ORC
31.3.14 Audit services to (paying) local bodies #FAIL ● AuditNZ ● OAG…
29.1.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara —we hear ya!
3.12.13 LGNZ: OAG report on Kaipara
12.11.13 Northland council amalgamation
29.6.13 Audit NZ and OAG clean bill of health —Suspicious!
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
19.3.12 Local government reform
21.2.12 Kaipara this time

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Joel Cayford: ‘Mangawhai Ratepayers at Court of Appeal’

Link received. [Hooray!]
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 at 10:50 a.m.

—

### joelcayford.blogspot.co.nz Thu, 27 August 2015
Mangawhai Ratepayers at Court of Appeal

Joel Cayford [‘Reflections on Auckland Planning’] updates the Court of Appeal hearing (25-26 August) – Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Association v Kaipara District Council – in front of Justice Rhys Harrison, Justice Mark Cooper, and Justice Forrest Miller.

Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Association (MRRA) is represented by Matthew Palmer QC and barrister Kitt Littlejohn. David Goddard QC represents the council.

Cayford summarises the “causes of action for this hearing – which followed the judicial review heard by Justice Heath (posts here and here)”:

“that the Kaipara District Council (KDC) does not have the power to rate for unlawful purposes. That KDC acted unlawfully in deciding to enter into and expand the Ecocare Wastewater Scheme, and that it could not then enforce rates on ratepayers.

“that the Validation Act did not retrospectively validate ALL matters stemming from those unlawful decisions. It only validated various historic rating defects. Significant matters – including the additional $30,000,000 loan were not dealt with or validated by the Validation Act.

“that the KDC acted inconsistently with the Bill of Rights Act by initiating Validation Legislation which had an effect of undermining MRRA judicial review proceedings – to which they had a right.”

Of critical interest, Cayford says Matthew Palmer, in his closing, “told the Justices, to the effect: “a consequence of adopting the arguments of my learned friend would mean that any Council in New Zealand can breech Local Government Act provisions with impunity, leave ratepayers with the bill, and mean that Long Term Plans all become window-dressing, ratepayer submissions become meaningless. That cannot have been what Parliament intended.””

█ Read Cayford’s excellent post and reader comments here.

LinkedIn: Joel Cayford

Although the Court of Appeal ruling is some way off, fallout might very well illuminate effects of the Dunedin stadium rort, council debt loading and issues of general competency.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
2.2.15 LGNZ run by Mad Rooster Yule, end of story
27.11.14 Auditor-general Lyn Provost #Resign
31.10.14 Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC
9.9.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara: Latest news + Winston Peter’s speech
19.7.14 Whaleoil / Cameron Slater on ratepayers’ lament
12.6.14 Fairfax Media [not ODT] initiative on Local Bodies
29.5.14 Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Assn wins at High Court
11.4.14 Councils: Unaccountable, ready to tax? #DCC #ORC
31.3.14 Audit services to (paying) local bodies #FAIL ● AuditNZ ● OAG…
29.1.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara —we hear ya!
3.12.13 LGNZ: OAG report on Kaipara
12.11.13 Northland council amalgamation
29.6.13 Audit NZ and OAG clean bill of health —Suspicious!
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
19.3.12 Local government reform
21.2.12 Kaipara this time

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

John Wickliffe House, 265 Princes Street LUC-2014-203 | Decision

Received by mail this morning, the Decision for the resource consent application (LUC-2014-203) to paint John Wickliffe House in The Exchange.

Phil Page (legal counsel) represented the applicant, Nick Baker of Baker Garden Architects, consulting architect and agent for the Plaza Property Trust.

Declined.

Decision
The final consideration of the application, which took into account all information presented at the Hearing, was held during the public-excluded portion of the Hearing. The Committee reached the following decision after considering the application under the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991. In addition, a site visit was undertaken during the public-excluded portion of the Hearing. The Committee inspected the site and some other buildings referred to during the hearing and this added physical reality to the Committee’s considerations.

That, pursuant to Sections 34A and 104C and after having regard to Part II matters and Section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991, The Dunedin City Council declines consent to the restricted discretionary activity to paint John Wickliffe House on the site at 265 Princes Street, Dunedin, being that land legally described as Section 6 Block XLIV Town of Dunedin held in Computer Freehold Register OT 18A/1024.

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

█ Download: John Wickliffe House LUC-2014-203 Decision 12 11 14

█ Acknowledgements

Related Post and Comments:
17.7.14 John Wickliffe House – application to paint exterior

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: Baker Garden Architects – proposed paint scheme; deltapsych.co.nz – John Wickliffe House, existing surfaces

Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc wins at High Court

v Kaipara District Council

Brilliant ~!!!

Case webpage:
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mangawhai-ratepayers-and-residents-association-inc-v-kaipara-district-council

The decision (date of judgment 28 May 2014):
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mangawhai-ratepayers-and-residents-association-inc-v-kaipara-district-council/at_download/fileDecision
(PDF, 332 KB)

● Decision is not sealed.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212 (41 Wharf St)

41 Wharf Street, Dunedin (DCC WebMap)

—

Copy supplied.
Also published at Otago Daily Times (page 17).

### ODT Online Wed, 26 Feb 2014
Opinion
Hotel decision was legal, not political
By Rosemary McQueen
Two related misapprehensions run through nearly all the comment on the application to build a 27-storey residential building in the industrial zone.

The first is that the reason the development was rejected was that a minority of noisy nay-sayers objected to the proposal. Yet, had 500 supporters put in submissions and only 4 or 5 naysayers, the decision would have been the same. The decision was not made on the basis of counting heads (though no doubt the planners were gratified that the District Plan’s provisions were so whole-heartedly supported by the populace) but on the basis of law. The developers want to build their accommodation block in an industrial area. Residential activity is specifically excluded from this area and only allowed at the discretion of the court hearing the application. Discretionary treatment can only be accorded if the effects of the variation to what is allowed are minor and the general intention accords with the aims and objectives of the district plan. The applicants’ arguments to this effect were rejected at law – not by counting heads. Until that decision is found to be wrong, or those aspects of the proposal change, it can not proceed.

There is also a view that the the city council could and should have found a way of overturning – or at least of getting round – the planning committee’s decision. This is a misapprehension because the decision is a legal one that can only be overturned by a higher court and the council is not a court. The negotiations that have been taking place have been around trying to find a site and design that complies with the city’s district plan and the developers’ needs. By describing the setback to the development as “red tape” the ODT implied that the development’s lack of progress since being rejected by the planning committee is caused by overweening bureaucracy. But Ms Song has made clear that the site and design are not negotiable. How can the lack of progress be the fault of red tape when the impediment is so clearly the developers’ intransigence, despite having had their application for that site and design turned down because it doesn’t meet the law?

By insisting the proposal is non-negotiable during their discussion with the city, the developers appear to believe that overturning the planning decision is on the discussion’s agenda and within the council’s power. Instead of dismissing any such suggestion, the ODT and the Chamber of Commerce have encouraged them in the view that the council can change or flout the law in order to allow the development to go ahead. Fostering these misapprehensions has led to unnecessary division in the city. It’s time to stop accusing bureaucrats and antis of holding up progress and start explaining why changes to our built environment are not effected by political whim, but are, and need to be, conducted by rule of law that has undergone full democratic process.

ODT Link

—

Related Posts and Comments:
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

SH88 realignment: decision to Environment Court?

Updated Post 3.9.13 at 1:30pm

### ODT Online Mon, 2 Sep 2013
Decision on SH88 looms
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council has until Friday to determine whether it will make a decision on the controversial designation of land for the realignment of State Highway 88 near Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium – or hand the responsibility for the decision to the Environment Court.
To opt for the latter would be a first for the council, which is both the authority requesting the land be designated, and the authority that would require it to be designated. It publicly notified the requirement for the land last month, after a previous non-notified designation was quashed by the court following the council’s admission it had not followed the proper consultation process. The new road has been built, but final measures including traffic lights have been in limbo while the designation issue is resolved.

Mr Hall has already indicated publicly he would ”fight” the proposed designation as notified because it still did not provide safe access to his property.

One of the affected landowners, Doug Hall, who is running for the DCC, took the council to court to argue the original designation was illegal because he was not notified as an affected party, and sought an injunction stopping the traffic lights from being switched on until the resolution of safety issues at that intersection and around access to his property as a result of the realigned road. Affected parties, including Mr Hall, were consulted on the new designation late last year, and again earlier this year after the notification of the requirement was delayed while negotiations with Mr Hall continued.
The council had received 13 submissions by Friday, the end of the submission period. Submitters included the University of Otago, Port Otago Ltd, the NZ Transport Agency, the Otago Regional Council and several heavy transport companies among others, but not Mr Hall, or his representatives.
Read more

ODT Correction 3.9.13 (page 3):

Submissions from companies owned by Doug Hall, one of the parties affected by the realignment of State Highway 88 in Dunedin, were received by the Dunedin City Council within the statutory timeframe and will be included in the process for designating the land for realignment. The submissions from Anzide Properties Ltd, Hall Brothers Transport Ltd, and Dunedin Crane Hire (2005) Ltd were received by deadline on Friday, but were not processed until yesterday.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
3.8.13 SH88 notice of requirement [more maps]
30.4.13 DCC governance = management ?
20.11.12 DCC vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”
27.5.12 SH88 realignment – information
25.5.12 SH88 realignment costs (injunction)
27.2.12 Bringing DCC, related entities and individuals to account…
23.8.11 Stadium project tangles
4.11.10 SH88 realignment for stadium disrupts traffic
21.7.10 SH88 realignment – update
7.7.10 Goodbye to great store buildings in Parry St
21.4.10 SH88 realignment – update
31.3.10 SH88 realignment
24.2.10 SH88 realignment: Are ratepayers buying the land twice?
20.11.09 Interesting. SH88 realignment.
2.9.09 SH88 realignment past stadium

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

SH88 notice of requirement

Affected Party: Anzide Properties Ltd

Doug Hall, who was informed about the designation process on Thursday, said he was going to fight the issue. ”I have no choice. It is a safety issue. Someone is going to get killed on that road.”

### ODT Online Sat, 3 Aug 2013
Hall to oppose designation
By Hamish McNeilly
Dunedin businessman Doug Hall remains defiant after the Dunedin City Council confirmed it was revisiting the designation process for an affected area of State Highway 88. Yesterday, the council announced it had lodged a notice of requirement to restart the designation process, after negotiations stalled following a botched handling of the original process.
DCC general manager infrastructure and networks Tony Avery said the section of road had not been legally designated and the council acknowledged it had made process mistakes when trying to designate it earlier.
Last year, the Otago Daily Times reported the council had spent $485,000 over 18 months to try to find a solution, and it was too early to say how much the designation process would add to the final tally.
Read more

● Submissions on the notice of requirement, which is publicly notified today, close on August 30.

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Designation Process for Part of State Highway 88

This item was published on 02 Aug 2013.

The Dunedin City Council has lodged a Notice of Requirement to start afresh the designation process for the section of State Highway 88 near Anzac Avenue.
The Notice of Requirement is a formal process to have land designated as road. It will be publicly notified tomorrow.
DCC General Manager Infrastructure and Networks Tony Avery says the new section of SH88 has been in use since July 2011, but has not been legally designated. The DCC has previously acknowledged that it made process mistakes during an earlier attempt to designate the road.
Temporary traffic controls have been in place since the new section of road was opened, while the DCC negotiated with an adjacent landowner over access arrangements.
“Those negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful, despite the best intentions of all parties, so we are now proceeding with the formal legal process to have the road designated.”
Once the designation proposed is approved, traffic lights at the intersection of Anzac Avenue and Frederick Street would be activated, and the Ward Street bridge ramp would be re-opened to provide much-needed access to the Harbourside area, Mr Avery says. Access to the adjacent properties is to be provided as well, consistent with acceptable standards and in a safe manner.
The DCC is confident the changes are in the best interests of the public.
Submissions on the Notice of Requirement will close on 30 August.

Contact General Manager Infrastructure and Networks on 477 4000.
DCC Link

DIS-2013-1 Fredrick St – Ravensbourne Rd Layout Plan

Territorial Authority’s Requirement for Two Designations
DIS-2013-1 Fredrick Street – Ravensbourne Road
The requirement is for:
The Notice of Requirement seeks to designate two areas of land. Designation 1 is for part of the Dunedin Harbourside Arterial and will link Anzac Avenue (D465) with Ravensbourne Road (D845) to the south of Parry Street West. Designation 2 is for the Dunedin Harbourside Arterial – Access Road which will provide access from the Designation 1 area to the site at 80 Anzac Avenue.
Read more + Official Documents/Maps

—

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

Judgment-221310 (PDF, 109 KB)

—

Related Post and Comments:
30.4.13 DCC governance = management ?
20.11.12 DCC vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”
27.5.12 SH88 realignment – information
25.5.12 SH88 realignment costs (injunction)
27.2.12 Bringing DCC, related entities and individuals to account…
23.8.11 Stadium project tangles
4.11.10 SH88 realignment for stadium disrupts traffic
21.7.10 SH88 realignment – update
7.7.10 Goodbye to great store buildings in Parry St
21.4.10 SH88 realignment – update
31.3.10 SH88 realignment
24.2.10 SH88 realignment: Are ratepayers buying the land twice?
20.11.09 Interesting. SH88 realignment.
2.9.09 SH88 realignment past stadium

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

Updated 2.7.13

Tweet:

peter mcintyre @macthebroker
Hotel decision to be appealed | Otago Daily Times Online News : Zealand & International News shar.es/x85Pq via @ShareThis

5:11pm · 25 Jun 13 · Tweet Button

****

### RNZ News Updated 24 minutes ago
Dunedin hotel plan heading to court
The developer planning a 27-storey waterfront hotel in Dunedin is taking its case to court. A Dunedin City Council panel declined resource consents for the $100 million project three weeks ago, saying it failed a key legal test and the glass tower would be too high for its industrial-zoned site. The five-star hotel and apartment complex has been hotly debated since being announced a year ago. On Tuesday afternoon, the company behind the project Betterways Advisory Limited, announced it will be appealing to the Environment Court against the council’s decision. The appeal will mean the court will attempt to broker a compromise between the developer, the council and any of the public submitters who want to get involved.
However, it seems likely that the court will have to hold its own full hearing into the project, probably early in 2014.
RNZ Link

****

We really love Jing Song, Steve Rodgers, and their gift that keeps on giving. FO.
A source reveals Betterways’ appeal cites Consultancy House as a precedent. Interesting, the owners of Consultancy House strongly objected to the application in their submissions.

Related Posts and Comments:
18.6.13 Hotel: COC’s greasy spoon race. Ugh!
5.6.13 Hotel decision . . . (the vacuum)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

[screenshot]

Hotel: COC’s greasy spoon race. Ugh!

### ODT Online Tue, 18 Jun 2013
Hotel supporters still in discussions
By Chris Morris
Alternatives to a $100 million waterfront hotel in Dunedin are still being discussed as the clock ticks towards a decision deadline. However, exactly what the hotel developers’ next move will be remains a closely guarded secret after they were refused resource consent earlier this month.

Betterways Advisory Ltd has until June 26 to decide whether to appeal the decision of the Dunedin City Council’s hearings committee to decline consent for the hotel at 41 Wharf St.

Betterways director Steve Rodgers – the man fronting the hotel bid – did not want to comment on any aspect of the hotel bid yesterday, saying only the full time allowed to decide any appeal would be needed. However, the Otago Daily Times understands several property owners have come forward with alternative sites capable of accommodating a hotel, and that parties were busy behind the scenes. That included the Otago Chamber of Commerce, which had indicated earlier this month it was talking to Betterways to try and rescue the situation.
Read more

*[Otago] Chamber of Commerce, affectionately known as “COC”.

—

Related Post and Comments:
5.6.13 Hotel decision . . . (the vacuum)

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

—

Posted By Elizabeth Kerr

Why should we lift a finger . . .

Not the same finger we lifted to the 27-storey, 96.300m high hotel/apartment building.

### ODT Online Fri, 7 Jun 2013
Editorial: Dunedin’s five-star hotel
The decision to reject the Betterways Advisory bid to build a $100 million waterfront hotel in Dunedin is, on the face of it, not surprising. As the Dunedin City Council hearings committee kept calling for further information, there was a sense within the community the project would fall at the first hurdle.

No city in the country can afford to stand by and let $100 million of private investment disappear.

Dunedin is a heritage city, having escaped the worst of the 1980s excesses of glass towers. That, in fact, proved to be something of a problem for the developers. Hearings committee chairman Colin Weatherall this week correctly said the decision had to be made on facts, not the heart. The city prides itself on its buildings. And tourists come here for many reasons, including the cityscape. So where to from here?
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Hotel decision . . . (the vacuum)

DECISION OF COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY
DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL (4 JUNE 2013)

1
Having carefully considered all the relevant reports and documentation supplied with the application, submissions, and the evidence presented to us during the course of the hearing, we have resolved to refuse the application from Betterways Advisory Limited to construct and operate a licensed hotel with residential apartments at 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin.

2
Since the proposal is a non-complying activity we were required to consider the particular restrictions imposed by s.104D in the Resource Management Act 1991. This requires the proposal to pass at least one of two tests. Having considered these, we were not satisfied that the adverse effects on the environment would be minor (s.104D(1)(a)), and nor were we satisfied that the activities associated with the application would not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the Dunedin City District Plan (s.104D(1)(b)). Having made these determinations, in terms of s.104D, we were unable to grant consent.

3
Throughout Chapter 6 of this decision we considered the environmental effects that were brought to our attention and have drawn our own conclusions as to how each of these issues impacted on this decision. Having done so, we have also undertaken an overall evaluation of the adverse impacts of the proposal in light of the expected positive effects.

4
Having examined the proposal with reference to Part 2 and Section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991, we have also concluded that the proposal is not consistent with the overriding sustainability purpose of the Act as expressed in s.5(1).

The Hearings Committee of Ministry for the Environment-approved independent Commissioners was comprised of Crs Colin Weatherall (Chair), Andrew Noone and Kate Wilson, and John Lumsden of Christchurch.

Full decision (PDF 1.5 MB, 333 pages)

Stuff at 11:06 06/06/2013

ODT Online 06/06/2013
ODT Online 06/06/2013

RNZ News at 8:45pm 05/06/2013
RNZ Checkpoint 05/06/2013

Ch39 at 6:54pm 05/06/2013 [with video]

RNZ News at 12:24 05/06/2013

Stuff at 12:12 05/06/2013

3News at 10:36 05/06/2013 + Video

ODT Online 05/06/2013 [with video]

TVNZ ONE News at 9:46 05/06/2013 + Video

DCC Media Release 05/06/2013

► Enter *hotel* in the search box at right for more.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Dunedin City Council vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”

Concerning the State Highway 88 realignment, skirting the new stadium.

Judgment-221310 (PDF, 109 KB)

—

DScene breaks the news at Stuff:

Dunedin City Council fined for road botch up
A High Court decision has slammed Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) handling of a roading realignment in the city, ordering the cash-strapped authority to pay affected parties more than $185,000 in costs. Justice Alan Mackenzie indicated in a written decision the legality of the stretch of State Highways 1 and 88 through the city remained in question because of the council’s botch up.

—

Related Posts:
9.6.12 City Property to compete more obviously in the market
27.5.12 SH88 realignment – information
25.5.12 SH88 realignment costs (injunction)
27.2.12 Bringing DCC councillors, staff, related entities and individuals to account
23.8.11 Stadium project tangles
24.11.10 SH88 realignment for stadium disrupts traffic
29.10.10 DCC Chief Executive resigns – timing is everything!
21.7.10 SH88 realignment – update
7.7.10 Goodbye to great store buildings in Parry St
21.4.10 SH88 realignment – update
31.3.10 SH88 realignment
24.2.10 SH88 realignment: Are ratepayers buying the land twice?
20.11.09 Interesting. SH88 realignment.
2.9.09 SH88 realignment past stadium
27.8.09 $294.8m investment for Otago region
19.5.09 There’s more, really?
12.2.09 DCC, and the right to ask?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

On engineering risk at Stadium site

He’s not wrong! Further to Paul’s post ‘ODT remiss’ this is where “The Decision” goes on engineering risk for the stadium area.

****

Planning commissioners Roger Tasker, John Lumsden and John Matthews have made the decision to accept, subject to amendments, Plan Change 8 as notified.

This means the Dunedin City District Plan will contain a new Chapter 27, Stadium as it relates to the (new) Stadium Zone and (extended) Campus Zone.

The stadium site is approximately 5.5ha in size and is generally located between Anzac Avenue (SH 88 ) to the north, Ravensbourne Road, Logan Park and the Logan Point Quarry to the east, the Water of Leith to the west, and the Main South Railway line to the south.

The area is intended to provide for a purpose-built regional stadium with a capacity for up to 35,000 spectators, plus a number of associated activities.

****

During the plan change hearings, Dunedin City Council (the Applicant) called on the evidence of consulting engineers David John Hamilton and Roderick (Rod) Keith Macleod.

Mr Hamilton had prepared evidence in relation to stormwater issues and flooding threats, including the existing environment, the effect of development, appropriate mitigation measures and response to submissions.

He used the terminology ‘stormwater’ to refer to water that is generated by rainfall on the site itself, and ‘flooding’ to refer to an external threat from either freshwater or sea water.

In his Executive Summary, he said:
(3.1) The proposed site is subject to flooding threats from three sources: Otago Harbour, Water of Leith and Opoho Creek;
(3.2) In my assessment the proposed minimum floor level for buildings set at 3.7m above mean sea level provides an appropriate mitigation of the impacts of flooding from all three sources including allowances for climate and sea level change; and
(3.3) Stormwater generated from the site is expected to be slightly less than that permitted under the current zoning.

He noted the site is reclaimed land that predates 1909. The existing ground level at the site varies from 2m to 3.8m with much of the site above 3.2m.

Mr Macleod had prepared evidence in relation to natural hazards and sub-surface conditions at Logan Point.

The evidence included a review of ‘Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations Report and Contamination Investigations Report’ prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T & T), dated December 2007; the ‘additional information’ prepared by Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (Beca), dated 8 and 22 February 2008; and the Statement of Evidence of David John Hamilton regarding District Plan Change 8.

Mr Macleod found that, “Whilst the site is at risk from: foundation liquefaction; foundation lateral spreading; tsunami events; predicted climate change effects upon groundwater levels; storm surge events; and flooding this is no different that [sic] other land in the area and can be appropriately managed.”

Subject to his concerns regarding natural hazards and foundation conditions being addressed at subsequent stages of the development (building consent), he recommended “the zone change application should not be withheld”.

He could see no reason why Plan Change 8 should be declined on geotechnical or engineering risk matters.

Mr Macleod accepted that specific design of building foundations would be required but this was consistent with the site’s current industrial zoning and consistent with that which would be required on adjacent land. Such matters could be appropriately dealt with at the detailed design stage and could be adequately addressed through the building consent process.

****

The commissioners referred to Council policy planner Paul Freeland’s evidence in which he said, “Issues in respect of this matter [engineering risk] have been covered in the evidence of Messrs Hamilton and McLeod [sic]. From a planning perspective there remains little comment beyond noting that I am satisfied that the effects of these issues have been adequately considered and mitigated.”

The commissioners agreed with Mr Freeland that the expert evidence provided dealt suitably with these issues.

****

In regard to Stop the Stadium Inc’s submission (see 10.0 Specific Matters Raised in Submissions), the commissioners observed that while the submission clearly indicated a list of specific concerns [including engineering risk] with the provisions of the Plan Change, “the submitter did not call evidence that dealt specifically with these issues. Accordingly, and in the absence of any further consideration by the submitter, we prefer the evidence presented by Mr Freeland, on behalf of the Council.”

****

In section 8.9 (para 55) of the decision, the commissioners had this to say about site contamination: “We noted that the documentation that accompanies Plan Change 8 recognises the likelihood of contamination of the stadium site, and that this issue is controlled and managed by the provisions of the Regional Plan: Waste for Otago. We are satisfied, therefore, that any work occurring on a contaminated site would require a resource consent from the Otago Regional Council.”

Postscript: Appeals to Environment Court on the decision must be lodged by 23 February 2009.