Dunedin’s second generation district plan (2GP) —notes on Natural Hazards

Received from Neil Johnstone
Wed, 3 May 2017 at 7:19 p.m.

Message: Last Thursday (27 April) I presented the remainder of my submission on Natural Hazards. Notes attached in case they might help anybody’s further efforts.

{The notes from Mr Johnstone are public domain by virtue of the consultative 2GP hearing process. -Eds}

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: LANDSLIDES
Neil Johnstone

I have no property interest in any landslide hazard area (although I did previously), nor in the Water of Leith catchment, nor in South Dunedin. My main purpose in appearing at this stage is to bring to the panel’s attention that the expert (so-called) opinions received from Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) natural hazard analysts are often deficient to the detriment of the 2GP process and the city’s residents.

I am a long-term resident of Dunedin and am highly experienced in flood control issues and solutions. I am appearing here on my own behalf, therefore not strictly as an Expert Witness in this instance, although I have done so in past years both in both the High Court and the Environment Court. I also acted as lead technical advisor to the NZ Govt investigation into the massive 1999 Clutha flood. My detailed investigations have ranged from simple issues such as the Water of Leith (as Investigations Engineer at Otago Catchment Board and ORC) to the entire Clutha catchment (in varying roles). These investigations have often incorporated the construction and operation of accurate, properly verified models.

I am now semi-retired MIPENZ, but still running my own consultancy on a reduced basis. I am a highly experienced expert in flood issues, I am much less so wrt landslide identification and mitigation (but I know a nonsensical report when I read one). ORC hazard analysts responsible for the landslide buffer zones originally imposed across my former property (and many others) need to accept that their approach was seriously flawed, and far from expert. Paul Freeland has mentioned to me in a recent phone conversation that Dunedin City Council (DCC) should be able to have confidence that ORC hazard analysts are expert. I have no strong criticism of Mr Freeland, but those days have passed – in this region at least – when expertise was based on proven performance, and not on a position’s title. A property previously owned by my wife and me in Porterfield Street, Macandrew Bay was quite ridiculously misrepresented in ORC’s landslide report of September 2015. The landslide hazard zone on that property has apparently now been removed, but uncaring damage has been done to us, and no doubt to many others. The Hazard 2 zone was reportedly imposed without site inspection, or without anybody properly reviewing output or checking accuracy of references.

[Reason for submitting: Natural Hazards section of 2GP dominated (undermined) by ORC hazards staff input and DCC failure to verify/review; DCC presumption that ORC “experts” do/should have appropriate expertise. We appear to be witnessing a proliferation of Hazard Analysts in NZ Local Government with little relevant experience or skill.]

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: SOUTH DUNEDIN
Neil Johnstone

The comments re South Dunedin flood hazard contained in my original written submission were written prior to DCC’s producing its inaccurate flood reports in respect of the South Dunedin flooding of early June 2015 in which high groundwater levels were held to blame. These DCC reports were eventually released in late November 2015 and April 2016 respectively. My analyses (well after my original submission) demonstrated that the prime cause of widespread flooding in South Dunedin was DCC’s failure (in order of probable significance) to utilise the bypass facility at Tahuna Wastewater Treatment Plant, to fully utilise its stormwater pumping capacity at Portobello Road, and to maintain its stormwater infrastructure (mudtanks etc). Inflow of “foreign” water from the St Clair catchment added to the depth of inundation in some areas. All these can be remedied by a diligent Council. Some have already been remedied, as positively demonstrated in the admittedly rather over-hyped rain event of the subtropical cyclone remnant around this past Easter.

ORC natural hazard analysts were probably responsible for the origin of the groundwater myth as a cause of the South Dunedin flooding in their Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 report. Reference was made there to “elevated” ground water levels. They followed up with a contentious report (The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin, July 2016). This opens by stating that the June 2015 flooding was caused by heavy rainfall and high groundwater levels, with no mention of mudtanks, or pumping failures (plural). Such reporting cannot be treated as balanced, nor its authors credible. Elsewhere, ORC essentially conceded the groundwater myth in Rebecca Macfie’s excellent NZ Listener article entitled Flood Fiasco (June 11, 2016).

Shortly after, however, ORC produced the aforementioned South Dunedin Hazards report (backed up by an embarrassingly inaccurate video presentation) that seems to reflect a desire to preach doom rather than convey a balanced defendable scientific analysis of South Dunedin realities and solutions where needed.

One of the worst features of the report and subsequent video was the depiction of projected permanently inundated areas of South Dunedin based on ORC modelling of rising sea level effects. These depictions made front page news in the Otago Daily Times with flow-on reporting nationally. The mapped areas of inundation are actually taken from an earlier ORC report entitled The South Dunedin Coastal Aquifer and Effect of Sea Level Fluctuations (October 2012). The modelling was based on limited information, and the findings would therefore be expected to be of limited reliability. The 2012 report essentially confirms this, noting that modelling of existing conditions overestimates actual groundwater levels (by the order of half a metre in places). Figure 2 (Scenario 0) of that report shows significant permanent ponding for current conditions. None exists in reality. Almost lost (in Section 3.8) are the following (abbreviated, and amongst other) concessions:

• Uncertainty of input data
• Potential inaccuracy of model predictions
• High level of uncertainty
• Groundwater system is poorly to moderately well characterised
• Aquifer properties are poorly understood or quantified
• Each of these uncertainties could have the effect of overestimating the groundwater ponding in the current setting.

The reader is advised to read the full Section 3.8 to ensure contextual accuracy. In my view (as an experienced modeller), a study that cannot even replicate known existing relationships is imperfectly calibrated and unverified. It cannot therefore be relied on. Strictly speaking, it does not qualify as a model. The relationship between possible sea level rise and consequent groundwater impact remains highly uncertain.

Unfortunately, the 2016 ORC South Dunedin Hazards report (and video) chose to reproduce the 2012 ponding predictions using more recent data (but without any better appreciation of aquifer characteristics), but the predictions are similar. It is noted that no Scenario 0 mapping is included in the latter report, nor are the model’s inherent weaknesses described. No admission of the potential modelling inaccuracies is presented other than the following note in Section 4.1: “Further discussion of the original model parameters, model calibration and potential pitfalls is included in the ORC (2012a) report, which can be accessed on the ORC website”. I believe that all parties were entitled to know unequivocally that the modelling was unreliable and unverified.

The 2016 report also makes reference to the fact that dry-weather ground water levels at the Culling Park recorder are at or below mean sea level. This is attributed by the authors to leakage of ground water into the stormwater and wastewater sewers. If that is correct (I would reserve judgement as to whether there may be other factors), then we are witnessing just one example of how an engineered solution could be utilised to dissipate increasing depth of groundwater. Such solutions are canvassed in the BECA report commissioned by DCC several years back.

To summarise, South Dunedin’s exposure to flood (current or future) is poorly described by ORC hazard analysts. The 2GP process seems to have seen these analysts “adopted” by DCC planners as their experts. I consider that to be an inappropriate approach to the detriment of our citizens.

The proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. The proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empts the currently-planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise solutions.

Requiring relocatable houses will likely simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably insufficient money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal to require relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

With respect to ground water issues across South Dunedin, the 2016 Hazard Report presents –

The reason for my pointing out these facts is to encourage Commissioners to take a step back from the current hysteria surrounding South Dunedin. Had the 2015 flooding extent been restricted (as it should have been) to that which occurred in a slightly larger rainfall event in March 1968, the event would have already been forgotten. Seemingly, at least partly as a result of that hysteria, the proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. Just as ORC floodplain mapping contradicts its in-place flood protection philosophy, so does the proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empt the currently planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise.

Requiring relocatable houses will simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably no money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal for relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

****

2GP PRESENTATION: URBAN STREAM HAZARDS
Neil Johnstone

Urban Stream Comment re Leith and Lindsay Streams:

ORC’s mapping is said to be of residual flooding (post-flood protection works of the past 80-plus years), but actually represents what might have been envisaged many decades back in something considerably greater than the record 1929 flood with none of the very significant channel works of the 1930s, 1940s and 1960s; or even those lesser improvement of the 2010s in place. The ORC 2GP mapping includes areas that didn’t get flooded in 1923 or 1929. I agree with some potential dangers of stream blockage (especially in Lindsay Creek, and to a lesser extent at Clyde Street and Rockside Road), but one can only consider locations of feasible blockage in today’s conditions. Furthermore, accepted professional practice for flood plain mapping requires detailed hydrology, probability analyses, climate change allowance, hydrograph routing, in-channel modelling (allowing for stream capacity variability), and overland flow modelling. ORC’s flood mapping incorporates none of these fundamentals; instead, it reads as little more than a colouring-in exercise, when a professionally researched technical document is required. In short, ORC’s hazard analysts have carried out no fit-for-purpose analysis for a District Plan process.

Interestingly, the concerns expressed by ORC hazard analysts re channel blockage are entirely inconsistent with ORC’s own design philosophy and consent application evidence for the recent Flood protection scheme (so called). Design Philosophy minimises the issue.

Very briefly, the mapping is challenged for the following reasons (inter alia):

No descriptions of the effective flood protection initiatives (OHB -1920s and 1930s, DCC -1940s, OCB -1960s) are included. These works have ensured that overtopping is practically impossible in the George Street to Cumberland Street reach, the Clock Tower reach and Forth Street to Harbour reaches. Flood protection in these areas are all built to a much higher hydraulic standard than the so-called ORC scheme of the past decade, and to a far, far higher standard than existed pre-1929.

It is further noted that ORC’s own Design Philosophy Report (OPUS for ORC, 2005) for the proposed Leith/Lindsay flood protection scheme is adamant that debris traps recently (then) constructed at Malvern Street and Bethunes Gully would further mitigate any debris problems. Refer paras 7.7 and 10.6 of that document.

Ponding is mapped where water couldn’t even reach in 1929 (peak flood currently estimated at 220 cumecs, and predating flood protection measures) in the wider CBD area. Flows along George Street in the 1920s only occurred south as far as about Howe Street, then re-entered the river. Nowadays, the accelerating weir above George Street and the structural high velocity channel immediately downstream provide much more clearance than existed in 1929. [Most outflow then from the river occurred much further downstream.] In those downstream reaches, many of the bridges have been replaced or upgraded. Possible remaining points of interest are the hydraulically insignificant extension (circa 2015) of the St David Street footbridge, the historic Union Street arch footbridge, and the widened (circa 2012) Clyde Street road bridge. The flimsy St David Street bridge would not survive any hydraulic heading up so there would likely be of little flood consequence, and backing up upstream of Union St would be largely inconsequential because of the height of the Clock Tower reach banks immediately upstream. The Clyde Street bridge is acknowledged as being lower than optimum, but it has not created any issues in its half century existence. Any overtopping there could only impact on a limited area between the bridge and the railway line.

Overland lows beyond (east of) the rail line remain highly improbable because of the ongoing blocking effect of road and rail embankments. Flows as far as the railway station to the west of the rail line are also highly improbable nowadays as only the Clyde Street area could conceivably contribute.

The 1923 photograph showing ponding along Harrow Street is presented by ORC with an unfortunate caption stating that the water is sourced from the Leith. Some undoubtedly was, but the whole of the city was subject to “internal” stormwater flooding from Caversham tunnel, across South Dunedin to the CBD and beyond. To illustrate further, a NIWA April 1923 flood summary (accessible online) provides a summary of some of the information more fully described in technical reports and newspaper accounts, including:

• Portions of Caversham, South Dunedin, St Kilda, the lower portions of central and northern areas of the City and North East Valley were completely inundated.
• Water in South Dunedin was waist deep.
• The Water of Leith rose considerably and burst its banks in many places, causing extensive damage along its banks and flooding low-lying areas.

Today’s stormwater infrastructure is rather more extensive and effective (when maintained), and DCC has a continuing legal obligation to provide to maintain that service.

The levels plotted across Lindsay Creek seem highly pessimistic. Levels are shown to be of the order of 2 metres above North Road in some locations at least. I have [no] knowledge of any such levels ever having been approached. Care must be taken not to include unfloodable areas in the mapping. I don’t however discount localised channel blockage, and the channel capacity is substandard in many areas. The valley slope ensures that overland flow will achieve damaging velocities. Such velocities are noted in the NIWA summary.

Of greater concern to me, however, is that ORC’s mapping appears to have seriously underestimated the significance of potential Woodhaugh flood issues:-

The river channel through here is both steep and confined. The influences of Pine Hill Creek (immediately upstream) and Ross Creek (immediately downstream) add to turbulence and bank attack. The area was ravaged in 1923 and 1929, and there have been evacuations in some much lesser events in later decades. These areas are at considerable risk in a 50- to 100-year plus event. Hardin Street, Malvern Street had houses evacuated in the 1960s flood. High velocity, rock laden flows and mudslides can all be anticipated, and difficult to counter. Area below camping ground / Woodhaugh was overwhelmed in floods of the 1920s – a focus for flooding depth and velocity.

If the 2GP process is to include urban flood maps, these should be diligently derived, based on historical record and appropriate modelling. The mapping should reflect the real flood risks (including likelihood, velocity and depth). The decreasing flood risk from Woodhaugh (potentially high impact) through North East Valley (moderate impact) through to the main urban area south of the Leith waterway (localised and of little-to-zero impact) should be reflected in the mapping.

[ends]

—

█ 2GP Hearing Topic: Natural Hazards
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/hearings-schedule/natural-hazards.html

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

Related Posts and Comments
6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood
10.6.16 “Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article

—

[DCC Map differs from what was notified]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Calder Stewart playing games at Carisbrook

S H I F T I N G ● T H E ● G O A L ● P O S T S

█ Site zoned industrial under district plan and proposed 2GP.

█ Company lobbying to evade set condition for 10.5m setback —for own commercial gain.

### ODT Online Mon, 15 Aug 2016
Old stadium site ruling questioned
By David Loughrey
The company that owns the former Carisbrook Stadium site in South Dunedin is calling on the Dunedin City Council to scrap a 10.5m setback suggested for its Burns St frontage. Calder Stewart says the setback will cover 1963sq m of land worth about $600,000, and will not provide the benefits suggested in the second generation district plan (2GP). The company took its concerns to the 2GP hearings last week, as a hearings committee considered what the next district plan will look like. […] Research undertaken by the University of Otago had shown South Dunedin had a low population of native birds because of a lack of habitat, and planting of native or exotic trees there would provide a valuable habitat resource.
Read more

[click to enlarge]
Dunedin Jan 2003. Image: flyinn.co.nz

Carisbrook May 2013. Image: Rob Hamlin

DCC Webmap – Carisbrook, South Dunedin JanFeb 2013

—

C A R I S B R O O K

Source: Wikipedia

Broke ground 1881 | Opened 1883 | Closed 2011 | Demolition starting 2013

Former Tenants:
Otago Rugby Football Union | Highlanders (Super 14) (1996–2011)

Carisbrook was a major sporting venue in Dunedin, New Zealand. The city’s main domestic and international rugby union venue, it was also used for other sports such as cricket, football, rugby league and motocross. Carisbrook also hosted a Joe Cocker concert and frequently hosted pre-game concerts before rugby matches in the 1990s. In 2011 Carisbrook was closed, and was replaced by Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza in North Dunedin.
Floodlit since the 1990s, it could cater for both day and night fixtures. Known locally simply as “The Brook”, it has been branded with the name “The House of Pain”, due to its reputation as a difficult venue for visiting teams.
Located at the foot of The Glen, a steep valley, the ground was flanked by the South Island Main Trunk Railway and the Hillside Railway Workshops, two miles southwest of Dunedin city centre in the suburb of Caversham. State Highway 1 also ran close to the northern perimeter of the ground.
Carisbrook was named after the estate of early colonial settler James Macandrew (itself named after a castle on the Isle of Wight). Developed during the 1870s, it was first used for international cricket in 1883, when Otago hosted a team from Tasmania. It hosted rugby union internationals since 1908 and full cricket internationals since 1955.
The stadium was home to both the Highlanders in Super Rugby and Otago in the ITM Cup through each side’s respective 2011 season. It is also the former home of Otago cricket, which moved to the University Oval at Logan Park in the north of the city after the redevelopment in the early 2000s, and also of Otago United Football team in the New Zealand Football Championship, which moved to the lower-capacity Sunnyvale Park for the 2008–09 season.
█ Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carisbrook

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

Where is the unreserved DCC apology to the Community of South Dunedin ?

Updated post
Thu, 7 Jul 2016 at 5:45 p.m. [link to peer reviews via LGOIMA]

—

And where are the Opus International ‘peer reviews’ for public scrutiny.

All we have is the self-congratulatory propaganda from DCC and the motley crew, propagated by friends at ODT.

Flood review clears DCC staff findings

SHAME

We hear from inside DCC that the peer reviews are not up to much.

Opus, you say?

Hmm.

News. Farce. Like an incessant rash.

Reasons for political Removal.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

Presentations available —a) 4 July USA —b) 20 June SDAG

Link received.
Mon, 4 Jul 2016 at 12:29 p.m.

Sam Eagle Uploaded on Jun 27, 2008
Stars & Stripes FOREVER!
I, Sam the Eagle, present a musical salute to America.
(c) 2009 The Muppets Studio, LLC

—

From: [Dunedin City Council]
Sent: Monday, 4 July 2016 11:55 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Response to Information Request

Dear Ms Kerr,

Official information request for CEO SPEECH SOUTH DUNEDIN

I refer to your official information request dated 27-June-2016 for “a full copy of DCC Chief Executive Sue Bidrose’s speech and overhead slides presented to the public meeting hosted by the South Dunedin Action Group on 20 June at Nations Church, King Edward St.”

The information you have requested is available on our website at:

Click to access SC2200115516062812500.pdf

If you wish to discuss this further with us, please feel free to contact the chief executive and request an appointment.

Yours sincerely

[Dunedin City Council]

Download: Sue Bidrose – South Dunedin and stormwater June 20 2016
(PDF, 1 MB)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

Ray Macleod, letter to editor

ODT 2.7.16 (page 30)

****

Received from Lyndon Weggery
Tue, 21 June 2016 at 7:29 p.m.

Message: In the light of concerns last night [South Dunedin public meeting] about the effects of the Proposed 2GP on South Dunedin, suggest you extract the Hazard Zone portion and post it on What if?

South Dunedin Hazard Zone (PDF, 2 MB)

The following report by Anna Johnson shows that very little was done [public consultation] in 2014. In fact only 17 people turned up to the DCC workshop in South Dunedin and their Appendices show that less than 10 people commented on their draft natural hazard policy.

Preferred Options Report (1) (PDF, 2 MB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 28.6.16 The Star and RNZ on raised flood levels #SouthDunedin
● 27.6.16 CULL commingled #AGWbullsfeatherartists
● 23.6.16 Sa pièce de résistance @ #DUD
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)

Received.
Friday, 6 May 2016 6:02 p.m.

From: Clare Curran [Dunedin South MP]
Subject: Notes from the Meeting with DCC on 3 May
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 00:31:05 +0000
To:

Dear everyone
Further to my last email here is the notes taken by office from the meeting with the Mayor and senior Council management on 3 May.
This is to keep you informed and for transparency purposes.

A new meeting date will be set up soon and I will keep you all informed

Kind regards

Clare Curran

[begins]

Notes from meeting 3 May 2016
South Dunedin Action Group (SDAG) and mayor + senior management

Mayor Cull
– acknowledged that there was collective concern, that they were pleased to meet with the group and that the meeting provided the best place to provide clarifications
– Acknowledged that the process had been lengthy and frustrating, and “sloppy”
– Council was now very sceptical about evidence relating to the flood and had been let down. He added that they would not make any changes to anything without evidence.
– If the event occurred again even with the proper maintenance there would have been severe flooding
– Determined to make the system we have work the best that it can
– Agreed need another mechanism other than the ODT to communicate with the community
– Will consider the discussion and come back with a proposal for the next meeting with a smaller group

Laura McElhone. Group Manager Water and Waste
– All mudtanks had been cleaned in South Dunedin (marked with green spray)
– Screen has been redesigned at pumping station, work about to go to tender, installation expected July/August
– Screen currently cleaned weekly by contract with photograph for proof
– Proposed screen modifications would see a 4 part screen to allow for safer and easier cleaning – could not confirm bar spacing
– Approx. 100 manholes had been lifted (Oct/Nov 2015) to identify any siltation – none identified as a problem – map can be provided of manholes checked – this exercise will be repeated in Oct/Nov 2016
– Confirmed that with the work carried out or in progress expected reduction in level of water would be about 200mm – however difficult to predict because too many variable to undertake modelling
– On issue of foul sewage infiltration confirmed that work being undertaken in Kaikorai Valley was to reduce the pressure on the system before it came through to Caversham
– On the issue of diverting foul sewage to Green Island treatment works stated that it was only able to handle a certain amount as it had been set up for a different type of sewage
– With regard to pumping out to sea, confirmed that they now know who to contact at the ORC and will maintain valves to enable this to happen if necessary
– Advised Musselburgh pumping capacity cannot run at maximum [this is disputed by Darrel]
– Forecast received on 2 June was for 1/3 less rain – only after midday on 3 June did they receive prediction on the size of the event
– Definitely had contractors and staff monitoring and out in South Dunedin, but did not have enough people to cover the scale of event
– Door-knocking by DCC did not record the number of flooded houses [DCC has not been back to check]
– 1968 flood had two peaks so had time to recover [disputed by Darrel]
– Too many variables to accurately measure topographical data
– Understand need to reassure and quantify but have to be careful not to give false impression
– Advised that 4/5 engineers employed in planning and 6/7 at the delivery end – acknowledged the identified lack of a storm water specialist – currently under recruitment

Ruth Stokes. Infrastructure and Networks General Manager
– Contractors have been asked to verify status of periphery areas
– Need to build resilience in the community – have recognised need to contact secondary schools and community groups and extend beyond the ‘What’s the plan Stan” initiative

Sue Bidrose. Chief Executive
– Unable to provide a figure on the number of roads closed by DCC as the water washed the cones away.
– Civil defence, Fire and Police all advised DCC that only 20-30 houses had been flooded – suggested that volunteers sandbagging were not part of the information loop and therefore message did not get through to emergency services

Kate Wilson. Councillor
– Have been advocating for a rain radar for a number of years on the Taieri

David B-P. Councillor
– Not just South Dunedin affected but other areas also, we need answers to give the community reassurance that the system is operating

[ends]

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC meeting and apology NOT Enough— #SouthDunedinFlood

Election Year : The following post is offered in the public interest. -Eds

Received today.

From: Hilary Calvert
To: Dave Cull
Cc: Golds [Godfrey Dodd], All Elected Members, Vaughan Elder [ODT]
Subject: Re: Flooding

Thanks for copying us in.

May we know when you requested that the mudtanks were cleaned thoroughly?

I had thought that it was an initiative from Ruth Stokes, as part of the looking into and reporting back on the flood.

I am also interested in your “fact” that the stormwater system is not capable even at optimal condition and performance……. Do you mean that it was not then, or that it would not be even if we made adjustments and sorted out the mudtanks and fixed the screen/pump and made changes which we have signalled to the general stormwater system which flows through South Dunedin?

If council modelling showed the extent of the flooding would be precisely as it was in the event of that magnitude, what relevance had the problems with the screen/pump and the mudtanks? I guess all the problems in South Dunedin during the flood were localised problems and many of them as a result of water lying about, so did our modelling show that as well?

I understood that there was still more work to be done to understand what we could best do particularly about the interconnection between the water from various sources and what we could afford of the options available.

Do you see the governance part of the Council completely blameless in this process?
Since you have apparently arranged for the mudtanks to be cleared, surely you/we could have done something sooner.

Do we have a role at all in your view, apart from advising people they are wrong when it turns out we may have incomplete information?

As seems true for all of the information surrounding this horrible flood, the more information we receive the more questions we have.

Kind regards,

Hilary

_______________________________

On 26/04/2016, at 5:30 AM, Dave Cull wrote:

Dear Mr Dodd,
Thank you for your email. I am puzzled by the apparent assertion that I have blamed the 2015 June flooding on Climate Change. While that may be the root cause I don’t recall saying that. The cause of the flooding, as has finally been comprehensively reported (for a meeting today) was the fact that the stormwater system in South Dunedin is not capable, even at optimum condition and performance, of coping with the amount of rain that fell over that period. That is a simple calculation given the capacity of the system in both volume and pumping terms, and the severity of the event. The mudbank maintenance failure was reprehensible from both a contractor and staff oversight perspective, especially as exactly the same issue had been raised some four years ago and assurances given that it would not happen again. The fact that some mudbanks were not up to scratch may have caused some localised problems and perhaps prolonged the water lying, but they did not cause the extent of the flooding. That was exactly as Council’s modelling showed it would be in an event of that magnitude.
Six years ago Council received reports stating (among other conclusions) two things. First that more frequent and severe rain events were likely. Second that the stormwater system in South Dunedin was not capable of handling those. So flooding was very likely. Last year the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment issued a report showing that rising ground water, pushed up by sea level rise will increasingly afflict South Dunedin.
It’s most important to recognise that while stormwater and groundwater can each affect the other, they are different and have different causes.
The failure was operational and managerial as Council was repeatedly assured that maintenance was up to scratch.
Council’s challenge now is to address both stormwater and groundwater issues. We have already, at my request, ensured that the stormwater system is in the best shape possible as winter approaches, by having all the mudbanks cleaned properly. Additionally the screen at the Portobello Rd pumping station, which was blocked by debris carried by the overwhelming amount of water, will be replaced by July.
Council will consider that report which has taken such a frustratingly long time to get to us, and determine the next necessary steps.
At your request I have copied this to all elected members.

Dave Cull

_______________________________

From: Golds [Godfrey Dodd]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 7:07 PM
To: mayor @dcc.govt.nz
Subject: FW: Flooding

Dear Mayor
I am sending you this email in that it may make you understand how one ratepayer views your complete failure in the flooding in South Dunedin
WE all know that climate warming is a fact but your glib PR spin and articles in the paper does nothing for your credibility and your lack apology shows that you and the council do not except responsibility for this lack of governance
It is sad that only one of the council appears to have enough bottle to ask you to do in an old fashion way the decent thing
My wish is that you pass this email as part of an agenda item a the next council meeting on how one ratepayer views your lack of understanding in the way a Mayor should carry out his role
I would interested in your reply

Regards
Godfrey Dodd

_______________________________

From: Golds [Godfrey Dodd]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 10:00 AM
To: Andrew Whiley [DCC]
Subject: Flooding

Hi Andrew
It is with disappointment reading the failure of governance by the council I was a chairman in those days that was the title of a high school board If the school had a problem which effected the community you had to stand up and take the blame
I do not expect the council elected members to clean mud tanks but when there is failure of this size then the expectation of the community that something is seriously wrong with the governance of the council The glib excuses as regards rise in sea level is the catch cry of the council which you as a member are part of
In my view the council members should of put on gumboots and gone out with the CEO and inspected the mud tanks instead of waiting a year for a report It saddens me to find that people in South Dunedin were not accorded this Instead we had articles written that showed how out of touch the council members were These articles were part of the green PR spin which now blights any decision that this particular council makes All that was needed was clean mud tanks and clear governance by the members of the council not excuses I hope that this is a lesson that you as a council member takes on board when making decisions in the future
Kindest Regards

Godfrey Dodd

—

ODT 25.4.16 (letter to the editor)

Tue, 26 Apr 2016
ODT: Vandervis forcing mud-tank issue [+ Letters]
A series of emails released by Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis show he was raising concerns about the state of Dunedin’s mud-tanks as long ago as 2011. Cr Vandervis said he released the emails because only publicity forced the council to change its ways. “This publicity is going to make sure it really is sorted once and for all this time.” The release of the emails follows a report released by the Dunedin City Council last week into last June’s flood, which found 75% of mud-tanks in South Dunedin were not properly maintained.

Tue, 26 Apr 2016
ODT: Staff apology for mud-tank failure
Council staff were responsible for not properly overseeing mud-tank maintenance in South Dunedin, not councillors or the mayor, a senior staff member says. Council infrastructure and networks general manager Ruth Stokes started today’s council infrastructure services committee meeting by apologising on behalf of council staff for the failings identified in a report on last June’s flood. Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull and Crs David Benson-Pope and Lee Vandervis were among those who had raised mud-tank performance prior to the South Dunedin floods, and been given incorrect information by staff. “For that I would like to, on behalf of the executive, apologise,” Ms Stokes. The failure was a management failure and not governance one, she said.

Douglas Field 26.4.16 (detail)

Comment at ODT Online:

Mayor Dave Cull outraged
Submitted by JimmyJones on Tue, 26/04/2016 – 1:49pm.

Mayor Cull says he is outraged at the failure of Fulton Hogan and council staff to adequately ensure that the mudtanks were in working condition. He should also be outraged at his own poor leadership and failure to respond to developing problems. Under his leadership the city continued to build up a backlog of worn-out stormwater pipes and equipment waiting for funding to be allocated. With this lack of funding we have seen the inevitable result of a deteriorating stormwater system. The poor state of the stormwater system was the primary cause of the severity of the flooding at Kaikorai, Mosgiel and South Dunedin last year.

This under-funding of the stormwater renewals is not an accident. Every year the DCC Mayor and councillors decide and vote on this spending – and every year they vote to under-fund the stormwater renewals because they think that a new stadium and a new swimming pool and more bicycle lanes are more important than a functioning stormwater system. The Annual Plan shows that the under-funding will continue next year. Expect the deterioration to continue.

Related Post and Comments:
20.4.16 DCC Politics : Release of Infrastructure Report #SouthDunedinFlood

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Email image: carleton.ca – android-email-app

DCC Politics : Release of Infrastructure Report #SouthDunedinFlood

Election Year : The following post is offered in the public interest. -Eds

Photo: Paul Allen

New Report [excerpt]—

—

Next meeting of the Infrastructure Services Committee will be held on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 at 1:30 pm or at the conclusion of the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting (whichever is later) – Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers

PUBLIC AGENDA
1 Public Forum (page 4)
2 Apologies (4)
3 Confirmation of Agenda (4)
4 Declaration of Interest (5)
PART A REPORTS (Committee has power to decide these matters)
●● 5 South Dunedin Public Infrastructure Performance during June 2015 Flood Event Follow up (6-27)
6 Recycling Markets and Bin Contamination (28)
7 Northern Wastewater Schemes’ Options (34)
PART B REPORTS (Committee has power to recommend only on these items
8 Resolution to Stop a Portion of Peel Street, Allanton (44)
9 Road Name – Three Hills Subdivision (54)
PART A REPORTS (Committee has power to decide these matters)
10 Notification of Agenda Items for Consideration by the Chair

█ Agenda – ISC – 26/04/2016 (PDF, 6.3 MB)
The agenda and reports are located together in this file.

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Report on South Dunedin infrastructure performance during June 2015 flood released

This item was published on 20 Apr 2016

The report on the South Dunedin infrastructure performance during the June 2015 flood event was released today as part of the agenda for the Infrastructure and Services Committee meeting next week.

The report concludes that while a number of factors contributed, the main factor was the highest 24-hour rainfall total in Musselburgh since 1923.

General Manager Infrastructure and Networks Ruth Stokes says the report outlines the known challenges with managing the South Dunedin catchment and highlights concerns about the performance of mudtanks and the Portobello Road pumping station during the event.

“Changes in the South Dunedin catchment since the stormwater network was designed, combined with operational challenges and high ground water levels, all contributed to the effects of the extreme rainfall event that occurred in June 2015.”

Mrs Stokes says the report shows that mudtanks weren’t maintained as required. As a result, a number of steps, including a full review and retendering of road maintenance contracts have been adopted. Other measures include accurately capturing data on the status of the mudtanks, a redesign of the Portobello Pumping station screen and the development of a communications plan to inform the community of the local infrastructure challenges and how to best plan for future events.

“However, given the volume of rainfall and the system at capacity during the June event, the water would have been unable to enter the network even if all mudtanks were clear.”

She says the DCC must now look at what measures can be taken to mitigate such events in future.

The DCC will soon be engaging with the community about these issues and what the long term responses might be.

Contact Ruth Stokes, General Manager Infrastructure and Networks on 477 4000.

DCC Link

—

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

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Dairying, Housing : More on Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

Irrigation [lincoln.ac.nz]

█ Interpretation of the existing RMA has led to dairy intensification destroying waterways and threatening public health and welfare, in large measure.
A bit of a tour….

### Stuff.co.nz Last updated 14:29, March 23 2016
Canterbury rumbly-gut outbreak linked to dairying
By Pat Deavoll
An outbreak of “rumbly-gut” among communities in Canterbury has Waikato veterinarian and agri-ecology consultant Alison Dewes concerned. She thinks the outbreak is the result of dairy intensification and irrigation contaminating public drinking water. Thirty per cent of the region’s shallow wells have already experienced an increase in nitrogen and pathogen levels after 10-15 years of irrigation on shallow lighter soils, she says. “We have the highest rates of ecoli diseases in the world, and the highest rate of campylobacter, cryptosporidia and giardia in communities in the Hinds region. We have the highest rates of zoonoses (disease spread from animals to humans) in the world in some of the irrigated/dairy catchments like Selwyn and Hinds and the government is promoting a further 40,000ha of irrigation in an already allocated and at risk catchment. Economics and dairy intensification are trumping public health and welfare.”
Read more

****

### NZ Herald Online 8:42 AM Wednesday Mar 9, 2016
40pc of farms fail to lodge consents
By Zaryd Wilson – Wanganui Chronicle
Forty per cent of dairy farms required to lodge a resource consent application with Horizons Regional Council have not done so. A total of 229 dairy operations were required to have lodged an application by January 1 this year under the regional council’s One Plan, which aims to limit nitrogen pollution of waterways. The One Plan – adopted by the council in 2014 – limits nitrogen leaching by intensive farm operations, namely dairy, commercial horticulture, cropping and intensive sheep and beef farming. Figures released to the Chronicle under the Official Information Act reveal that only 137 of the 229 dairy operations which came under new rules have lodged consent applications. The new rules took effect on July 1 last year, and farms had six months – up until January 1 – to apply.
Read more

****

Wetlands [nzarm.org.nz]

26.11.15 NZH: Resource Management Act reforms to be introduced
The Government will introduce its long awaited Resource Management Act reforms to Parliament next week after securing the support of the Maori Party. The reforms to the country’s main planning document stalled two years ago when National’s support partners refused to back them because of their potential impact on the environment.

Ministry for the Environment

█ About the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
This page has information on the amendments proposed in 2015 to the Resource Management Act 1991.

█ Resource Legislation Amendment Bill [New Zealand Legislation website]
The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (the Bill) was introduced to Parliament on 26 November 2015.

****

Leading New Zealand law firm Chapman Tripp say:
OPINION Most of the provisions in the Bill have been telegraphed in advance so there is little to surprise. If passed as drafted, it has the capacity to reduce costs and speed up planning processes – but probably only at the margins. For more radical and meaningful change we may have to await the results of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into urban planning (see Chapman Tripp’s commentary here, dated 2.11.15).

RMA Reform Bill – busy with change but less than National wanted
Chapman Tripp 26 November 2015
OPINION The ‘phase two’ RMA reforms, initially to have been passed in 2014, have now finally been introduced to Parliament as the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. The Bill is a busy piece of legislation running to more than 200 pages, and aims to help streamline planning and consenting processes. But National has had to abandon its proposals to remove the “hierarchy” some saw as enshrined in the existing Part 2 of the RMA, promoting environmental values ahead of economic development in sections six and seven. After the loss of the Northland seat to Winston Peters in March, it does not have the votes to get the wider and more far-reaching changes through. We look at the Bill:
Major changes
● Requiring councils to follow national planning templates (once such templates are available) with standardised provisions across the country.
● A range of measures aimed at producing faster, more flexible planning processes. These include: tighter timelines for plan production and the introduction of two new tracks – a collaborative track and a streamlined track.
● Reduced requirements for consents – allowing councils discretion not to require a resource consent for minor changes, creating a new 10 day fast-track for simple consents and eliminating the need for an RMA consent when consenting is provided for in other legislation.
● Stronger national direction – especially in relation to hot-button issues like providing for new housing or addressing dairy stock in rivers.
Read more

Blue skies review for urban planning – the take-off
Chapman Tripp 15 January 2016
OPINION The blue skies review into urban planning has now left the runway, with the release by the Productivity Commission before Christmas of an issues paper seeking feedback on possible directions for change.

Takes the Cake | What Dairy Crisis ? #DUD #PropertySpeculation

Updated post – audio links added below
Mon, 21 Mar 2015 at 7:48 p.m.

—

WHERE ARE THE PERMANENT JOBS, DUNEDIN

Real estate across the city is suddenly booming for the first time since 2007.

### radionz.co.nz 8:05 am on 18 March 2016
Is Dunedin out of the doldrums?
By Ian Telfer – Otago reporter
Dunedin has been economically stagnant so long that no-one is brave enough to declare the gloomy times over. But all the signs say it is out of the economic doldrums it has been in for 10 years.
The city is enjoying booms in real estate, tourism and niche technology industries such as video gaming. A report from economic monitoring company BERL shows 1770 new jobs have been created in the city in the past two years and Dunedin’s economy is now growing at 1.3 percent a year per capita.
[…] An example of the city’s turnaround is Highland Park in Mosgiel, Dunedin’s first major housing subdivision in many years. Today, 100 tradespeople are on site, building 25 homes.
The subdivision’s developer Syd Brown said they set themselves a decade to sell 225 sections, but the demand is so strong they are two-thirds sold and three years ahead of schedule. “It’s racing ahead for us. Sometimes you wake up in the morning and think ‘is this real?’, but that’s the market at the moment, and the demand is here,” Mr Brown said. Mr Brown said 60 percent of the people buying were from out of town, mainly from Christchurch and other South Island locations, such as Ashburton and Timaru.
Read more

### radionz.co.nz 8:49 am on 18 March 2016
RNZ National – Morning Report
Dunedin out of doldrums for the first time in a decade
8:36 AM. Dunedin’s economy is sailing out of the doldrums for the first time in 10 years.
Audio | Download: Ogg  MP3 (4′13″)

QUESTIONS : What did Syd Brown have to do to convert rural zoned land to residential zoned land ? How did a position on council enable zone changes, new roading and infrastructure services to benefit these properties ?

—

[the blurb]

Highland Park is an exciting new community located in the heart of the Taieri and is set to redefine living standards in the Otago region. Seamless integration with Mosgiel’s rich Scottish tradition, Highland Park properties express qualities of modern urban living right on the doorstep of Dunedin city. With a high level of amenities and land and home packages to suit all, Highland Park offers a unique lifestyle defined by openness, green spaces, and a nurtured sense of community.

All section packages are designed to take the hassle and stress out of building a new home. Every section with Highland includes:
• Quality Timber Fences
• Professionally Installed Vehicular Crossings
• Storm Water Discharge Connections
• All Services To The Boundary … Including Fibre
Sections are priced with services as above and with flexible land and home packages available to suit all lifestyles, there has never been a better time to move out to the Taieri.

[click to enlarge]

DCC Webmap – Highland Park, Mosgiel JanFeb 2013

GROAN – #ImpoverishedSubdivisionDesign #UrbanSprawl
Shades of 1940s-style cul de sac living without neighbourhood amenity, includes migration from central Dunedin to flat sections (urban drift). It looks bad, and is. ‘Browning’ the greenfields.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: whatifdunedin – Syd Brown + Mosgiel sign

Douglas Field counters DCC climate change bunkum

Received.
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 5:19 pm (GMT+12:00)

Douglas Field Published on Feb 7, 2016
Dr John Christy testimony US House Committee 2 Feb 2016
Comparison between local politicians’ opinions on climate and Professor John Christy’s testimony at US senate committee hearing.

—

The full text of Christy’s testimony to the Senate Science committee. It really reinforces the little clip above and is so clear and easy to comprehend.

[begins] I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as Lead Author, Contributing Author and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
It is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the current situation regarding (1) the temperature datasets used to study climate, (2) our basic understanding of climate change and (3) the effect that regulations, such as the Paris agreement, might have on climate. I have also attached an extract from my Senate Testimony last December in which I address (1) the popular notion that extreme climate events are increasing due to humaninduced climate change (they are not), and (2) the unfortunate direction research in this area has taken.
My research area might be best described as building datasets from scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why. Cont/

█ Download: https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Uglies: Black-tie at 715 George

715 George St, corner Regent Rd, Dunedin

█ Clan Construction Commercial Ltd
http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/4013678

—

### ODT Online Thu, 10 Dec 2015
Student apartments going up
Construction has begun on six new student apartments at the corner of George St and Regent Rd, Dunedin. The 962sq m triangular-shaped site is owned by Straits International Ltd, and was the site of a service station for about 80 years. The Dunedin City Council has given resource consent for the company to construct four residential units in a two-storey building (block 1) and two residential units in a three-storey building (block 2), thereby creating 22 habitable rooms. Construction is expected to be completed next year.
ODT Link

—

Comments at ODT Online:

Student apartments
Submitted by Barnaby on Thu, 10/12/2015 – 6:35pm.

No! This was not a service station site for 80 years. There was a beautiful two-storey substantial brick heritage house on this site until about the 1970s. This is just another step in the incremental loss of North End heritage. This shows very poor planning from DCC, making this part of town, and the main street in this case, an ever expanding precinct of badly designed cheaply built high density housing. These will add to the stock of other similar structures forming “North Dunedin’s slums of the future”. Ratepayers’ will probably end up funding the future purchase of such cheap accomodation to mitigate associated social problems and the appalling visual amenity. Very poor city planning indeed.

Habitable room disasters
Submitted by ej kerr on Fri, 11/12/2015 – 12:43pm.

Prominent George St corner sites are being trashed by the banal. More habitable rooms – No emphasis on good contemporary design, no flair.
This one’s built right to the footpath on the main street, with little modulation and no hint of garden or vertical planting possible, except something to the corner part-screened by the witless bus shelter shoved on its concrete pad.
Given the rich inheritance, where has Dunedin street architecture gone? Where are the design professions? Why so much visual erosion? Where is the NZ Institute of Architects? Why no City Architect Office and independent Urban Design Panel to uphold design values for Dunedin residents and ratepayers?
Ugh! DCC planning fail. DCC urban design fail. DCC district plan fail. When will DCC grow up – to promote sympathetic edgy contemporary architecture and design for major city axials, at the very least. A step up from turning Dunedin into bog city with tawdry gateway approaches.

Related Posts and Comments:
[distasteful]
6.1.14 George Street: Two new uglies (thanks DCC, no City Architect…)

[sensitive]
9.1.14 Facadism: 3%, 10%, 50%, 75%, 99.9% (how much is enough) | University of Otago warps Castle Street

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: misted lettered tweaked by whatifdunedin

DCC: South Dunedin flood | higher learning for chief executive

ODT health reporter Eileen Goodwin looks at the welfare of those adversely affected and speaks to health authorities about what they are doing to help.

### ODT Online Tue, 27 Oct 2015
It’s been ‘a constant battle’ since flood
By Eileen Goodwin
Months of stress and insurance hassles are taking a heavy toll on some people long after most have moved on from the June flood. […] The flood response lacked co-ordination, and [Aurora Health Centre GP Dr Jill McIlraith] says the likes of the health board and city council should have considered appointing a flood ombudsman or similar position as a central clearance point for three to six months.
Read more

****

Dr Bidrose said she had also faced a “pretty rough” first year in the role, grappling with the fallout from the Citifleet fraud.

### ODT Online Tue, 27 Oct 2015
Council boss’ UK trips supported
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council has spent $36,000 sending chief executive Dr Sue Bidrose to leadership training courses at England’s prestigious Oxford University. Details of the four trips, which were supported by Mayor Dave Cull, were confirmed by Dr Bidrose last week, in response to Otago Daily Times questions.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: Full Council meeting Tue, 27 Oct 2015 at 1pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon

█ Agenda – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 51.3 KB)

Public Forum
a) Legal High Retail Location Policy – Carl Lapham, Cupid Shop
b) Work Opportunities within the Council – Anneloes de Groot
c) Oil and Gas Block Offers – Siana Fitzjohn, Annabeth Cohen, Rosemary Penwarden – Oil Free Otago
d) Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and Council’s Previous Resolution – Jenny Olsen
e) Safety of Roads – Neil Burrow

—

Item of interest on the main agenda, apart from annual reports:

● 25 Delegations to Officers to mediate on the 2GP Dunedin District Plan
Report from Corporate Services. Refer to pages 25.1 – 25.5.

The general public should be wary of Proposed 2GP mediation processes and how they are to be conducted. Mediation processes could segment (playing to like interests) planning direction and rules to such an extent the public will lose the ‘big picture’ which includes, if needed, having the Proposed 2GP set aside and sections fully redrafted (!!) for community ownership; and, of course, the public not recognising or becoming oblivious to cumulative adverse effects promoted within the Proposed 2GP, and these not being dealt to with sufficient weight.
If in doubt at mediation, positively strive to be heard at hearing – slow the process down until you have individual clarity as a submitter. Do not be pressured by DCC staff and management to agree anything without your taking time and effort to carefully deliberate potential cumulative adverse and knock-on effects.
The current district plan took YEARS to become operational —note well, there is NO RUSH to settle the Proposed 2GP if it is inequitable.

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 255.8 KB)
Block Offer 2016 Submission

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 613.2 KB)
Legal High Retail Location Policy

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 224.8 KB)
Regional Policy Statement Further Submission

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 2.7 MB)
Dunedin City Council 2015 Annual Report

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 66.0 KB)
2015 Annual Reports of Dunedin City Holdings Limited, its Subsidiaries and Associate Companies

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 63.9 KB)
2015 Annual Reports from Dunedin Venues Management Limited and Dunedin Venues Limited

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 391.9 KB)
Waipori Fund – Report for Quarter Ending September 2015

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 540.7 KB)
Review of the Food Safety Bylaw

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 139.5 KB)
Boundary Backflow Prevention

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 97.0 KB)
Delegations to Officers to Mediate on the 2GP Dunedin District Plan

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 86.7 KB)
Theomin Gallery Management Committee – Appointment of Committee Members

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Significant tree: 28 Argyle Street Mosgiel – LUC-2015-296

As a community board member and a businessman-resident, Martin Dillon, it seems, has set a precedent for removal of (District Plan listed) Significant Trees from the streets of Mosgiel township. Not only this, his community board supports the destruction of many community-established trees at Mosgiel’s Memorial Gardens – to make way for a new swimming pool complex. Earlier this year the community board was ultimately responsible for destruction of the community’s beautification scheme at Gladstone Road (railway corridor).
That’s one hell of a lot of greenery you’ve seen wiped off the planet, Mr Dillon.
SHAME ON YOU

—

ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL – A COPPER BEECH THIS TIME
The tree is prettier than the freaking house beside it.

Significant tree – 28 Argyle Street Mosgiel – LUC-2015-296
Closes: 28/08/2015
Notification of Application for a Resource Consent – Under Section 93(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
The Dunedin City Council has received the following application for Resource Consent:

Application description
To remove a tree that is listed in the Dunedin City District Plan under Schedule 25.3 as T151 (Copper Beech).

Application documents
● LUC-2015-296 – Public notice (PDF, 34.6 KB)
This document is the Public Notice for Resource Consent application LUC-2015-296

● LUC-2015-296 – Submission 13 form (PDF, 78.2 KB)
This document can be used to make a submission regarding Resource Consent application LUC-2015-296

● LUC-2015-296 – Application (PDF, 530.0 KB)
This document is a scanned copy of the application for resource consent LUC-2015-296

Notified resource consent details
Closing date: 28/08/2015
Consent number: Significant tree – 28 Argyle Street Mosgiel – LUC-2015-296

Name of applicant: M J Sproule & J A Maxwell

Location of site: 28 Argyle Street, Mosgiel, being that land legally described as Lot 3 Deposited Plan, 470637 held in Computer Freehold Register 636380

Address for service: M J Sproule & J A Maxwell, 34A Ayr Street, Mosgiel 9024

Online submissions: Online submission form

█ http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/current-consultation/significant-tree-28-argyle-street-Mosgiel

—

LUC-2015-296 [excerpts from application]

█ DCC on Significant Trees
█ Dunedin City District Plan — Schedule 25.3 Significant Trees (PDF, 275.6 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
24.7.15 Hands off Mosgiel Memorial Gardens
20.3.15 DESTROYED, beautification project —Railway corridor, Gladstone Road
14.12.14 Significant Tree: 23 Church St, Mosgiel [Applicant: M L & M C Dillon]
15.5.14 Significant Tree: 28A Heriot Row
22.2.13 DCC: Significant Trees

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: 2GP – Notification Pre-Approval #secondgenerationdistrictplan

Tabled at the Dunedin City Council meeting on 29 June 2015:

Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 129.2 KB)
2GP – Notification Pre-Approval

Content:

Council
29 June 2015

2GP – NOTIFICATION PRE-APPROVAL
Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report seeks approval in principle to notify the second generation District Plan (2GP), ahead of the formal decision to notify the 2GP to be considered by the Council meeting scheduled for 21 September 2015.

2. The approval in principle is being sought to enable rates inserts informing ratepayers of the 2GP’s notification, to be printed and included in the first instalment of rates mail-outs scheduled for 31st July 2015. The details of the 2GP will not be released until Council approves notification of the 2GP.

3. Using the rates mail-outs to meet the requirements for public notice as set out in the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), provides a significant cost saving to Council compared with separately sending letters to all ratepayers.

4. The decision to approve notification of the 2GP is primarily a procedural decision to allow the next stage of the Plan’s development to occur, which includes submissions and hearings. It should be based on councillors’ satisfaction that the plan has been developed to date in accordance with section 32 of the RMA.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:
a) Approves the inclusion of rates inserts informing ratepayers of the 2GP’s notification, scheduled for 26 September, based on a programmed date for a formal decision to notify to be considered by the Council meeting scheduled for 21 September 2015. This approval constitutes an approval in principle to notify the second generation District Plan.

BACKGROUND

5. The Dunedin City District Plan was initially notified on 24 July 1995, and revised and re-released on 19 July 1999, and became operative on 3 July 2006. The RMA requires district plans to be reviewed every 10 years. While some parts of the plan have been subject to rolling reviews and changes or were added later as new sections, this is the first full review of the district plan since the RMA. Hence, it is called the second generation district plan or 2GP for short. Relevant previous reports to Council on the 2GP include:

● 8 February 2012 – Planning and Environment Committee – Approval of the initiation of a District Plan review and preparation and notification of subsequent changes to the District Plan to develop a second generation District Plan.
● 4 September 2012 –Planning and Environment Committee -Noting the proposal for 2GP Issues and Options consultation and the information provided with regard to the role of councillors in that process.
● 23 April 2013 – Planning and Environment Committee:
a. Noting completion of the Issues and Options phase of the 2GP and updated programme for the preparation of the 2GP;
b. Approval of the programme, process and more detailed principles for Councillor involvement in the 2GP; and
c. Endorsing the recommendation regarding members of a technical advisory group for the 2GP.
2GP Notification Pre-Approval 1
● 24 July 2014 – Planning and Regulatory Committee – Noting the 2GP programme update.

DISCUSSION

6. The 2GP will be ready to enter its next phase of development – submissions and hearings after September. This phase is focused on providing the public with the opportunity to make formal submissions on the proposed plan (including the opportunity to make submissions on other people’s submissions). Submissions are summarised by staff and considered at hearings (where people can chose to speak to their submission), along with planners’ recommendations on the submissions. Decisions are then made on the submissions by the Hearings Committee.

7. This submissions and hearings phase is a formal consultation phase that follows from the significant community engagement that has taken place as part of the Plan’s development through the Issues and Options and Preferred Options phases, and earlier through the Spatial Plan.

8. The legal requirements for public notification of a proposed District Plan are set out in Schedule 1 to the RMA.

9. Pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 1 to the RMA, not earlier than 60 working days before public notification or later than 10 working days after public notification, all ratepayers must be sent a public notice which details where the 2GP can inspected and how submissions can be made. This could be achieved by mailing letters to ratepayers, or including a rates insert with rate demands.

10. Public notice mail-outs are only one of the legal requirements for public notification in Schedule 1. In addition to the legal requirements for public notice, a broad communication strategy is being developed with the Marketing and Communications team that will use different types of media and a ‘shop front’ to inform people of the Plan and help them understand how to make submissions. Submissions under the RMA are required to be in a prescribed form, which is set out in the RMA (Form 5).

11. The next date for the rates notices mail-outs commences on 31 July 2015, with the printed rates inserts needing to be printed and sent to Christchurch by 23 July 2015. Further mail-outs for the same rating period follow on 7th and 21st August 2015.

12. Including the public notification of the 2GP with rates mail-outs will save approximately $40,000 compared to a separate mail-out.

OPTIONS

13. If approval in principle is not given at this point the options are:
a. Option A: Waiting until after the September meeting and (presuming the decision is to notify and aligning the public notice to the next available rates mail-out timetable. This would mean a notification date of mid-November, which due to Christmas, would not only delay the process significantly but create a much less convenient submission period for the public. It would also mean hearings are very unlikely to be completed prior to the local body elections, which is likely to create cost and logistical problems, as well as inconvenience submitters and delay the Plan becoming operative.
b. Option B: Undertaking a separate mail-out immediately after the 26th of September (presuming the decision is to notify), which would require approximately $40,000 in additional budget for the 2GP.
c. Option C: Delaying the decision to notify until after September which would have the disadvantages of Option A and potentially also Option B, depending on the revised timing.

NEXT STEPS

14. Prepare the public notification information for the rates insert, and mail-out to ratepayers.

15. Request approval of notification of the 2GP at the Council meeting scheduled for 21 September 2015.

Signatories
Author/s: Dr Anna Johnson, City Development Manager

Authoriser/s: Nicola Pinfold, Group Manager Community and Planning; Simon Pickford, General Manager Services and Development

—

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government
This decision relates to providing a regulatory function and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework
[Contributes / Detracts / Not applicable]

Social Wellbeing Strategy [Contributes]
Economic Development Strategy [Contributes]
Environment Strategy [Contributes]
Arts and Culture Strategy [Contributes]
3 Waters Strategy [Contributes]
Spatial Plan [Contributes]
Integrated Transport Strategy [Contributes]
Parks and Recreation Strategy [Contributes]
Other strategic projects/policies/plans [Contributes]
The District Plan manages land use activities throughout Dunedin, and is Council’s principal policy document for enabling land use development envisaged by the various strategies of Council.

Māori Impact Statement
In accordance with Clause 3 of the First Schedule to the RMA, tangata whenua of the area who may be affected have been consulted with.

Sustainability
Sustainable management is a fundamental principle of the RMA, and the 2GP is being developed in accordance with this principle.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy
There are no implications.

Financial considerations
If notification of the 2GP cannot be aligned with rates notices mail-outs, this will add approximately $40,000 in notification costs.

Significance
The decision to approve notification of the 2GP is primarily a procedural decision to allow the next stage of the Plan’s development to occur, which includes submissions and hearings. It should be based on councillors consideration that the plan has been developed to date in accordance with section 32 of the RMA.

Engagement – internal
No but consultation with internal departments on the 2GP has been significant and is ongoing.

Engagement – external
No but there has been significant consultation as part of the development of the 2GP, starting from initial consultation on RMA-related issues through the ‘Your City, Our Future’ and Spatial Plan consultation; continuing through the ‘Issues and Options’, ‘Preferred Options’ phases, including a separate process for natural hazards provisions consultation. Consultation with key stakeholders through reference groups and individual discussion has been on-going. Specific consultation with individuals with more significant proposed changes in planning provisions has also occurred.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety / Conflict of Interest etc.
There are no legal, health and safety, or conflict of interest risks associated with making this decision.

Community Boards
The Community Boards have been consulted with as the 2GP has developed, and will be given briefings ahead of public notification.

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS)

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

This item was published on 23 Jun 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCC Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Significant Tree: 23 Church St, Mosgiel

The applicant (LUC-2014-579) wanting to remove a Significant Tree is none other than Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board member Martin Dillon.

His profile at the DCC website:

Significant Tree – 23 Church Street, Mosgiel – LUC-2014-579

Closes: 16/01/2015

Notification of Application for a Resource Consent – Under Section 93(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

The Dunedin City Council has received the following application for Resource Consent:

Application description
To remove a tree that is listed in the Dunedin City District Plan under Schedule 25.5 as T068 (English elm).

Related documents
█ LUC-2014-579 Public Notice (PDF, 33.8 KB)
This document is the Public Notice for Resource Consent application LUC-2014-579

█ LUC-2014-579 Submission form (PDF, 92.4 KB)
This document can be used to make a submission regarding Resource Consent application LUC-2014-579

█ LUC-2014-579 Application (PDF, 1.8 MB)
This document is a scanned copy of the application for resource consent LUC-2014-579

Notified resource consent details

Closing date
16/01/2015

Consent number
Significant tree – 23 Church Street, Mosgiel – LUC-2014-579

Name of applicant
M L & M C Dillon [Martin Dillon]

Location of site
23 Church Street, Mosgiel, being that land legally described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 9558, held in Computer Freehold Register OT412/28

Address for service
M L & M C Dillon, 23 Church Street, Mosgiel 9024.

Online submission form

—

Making a submission

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.

The submission must be dated, signed by you, and include the following information:
1. Your name and postal address and phone number/fax number;
2. Details of the application in respect of which you are making the submission including location;
3. Whether you support, oppose, or are neutral towards the application;
4. Your submission, with reasons;
5. The decision you wish the consent authority to make;
6. 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.
A copy of your submission must also be served as soon as reasonably practicable on the applicant at the address for service detailed on the public notices, available above.

DCC Link

█ DCC on Significant Trees

█ Dunedin City District Plan — Schedule 25.3 Significant Trees (PDF, 275.6 KB)

—

Related Post and Comments:
15.5.14 Significant Tree: 28A Heriot Row
22.2.13 DCC: Significant Trees

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Dunedin’s industrial land

Alistair Broad – is he having a meltdown, or what?

Why is freehold baron Earl Hagaman not mentioned in this story?

[why is DCC’s treatment of the Caledonian leaseholders vaguely referenced, not by name… ugliness alert]

Oh dear, moths flying around the noble art of leaseholding as it may hold back development – what do they want? For Port Otago Ltd and Otago Regional Council to relinquish their power and wealth? Why should they?

What have Hilary Calvert and investor friends got to do with all this? The plot thickens.

Has this really anything to do with city councillors, EMT and the City Development Team (including the shattered urban design team) using “friends” to arbitrate change in the property sector. District plan and spatial plan objectives to be met for (cough) economic development?

—

### ODT Online Thu, 12 Jun 2014
Businessman slams leasehold ‘parasite’
By Shawn McAvinue
Leasehold land is a ”parasite” killing development in Dunedin, property owner and businessmen Alistair Broad says. Mr Broad, of Dunedin, says property developers are reluctant to invest in Dunedin because of the large amount of leasehold land.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Significant Tree: 28A Heriot Row

Proposed for Removal: Significant Tree T578

Submissions Close: 30/05/2014

Notification of Application for a Resource Consent – Under Section 93(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

The Dunedin City Council has received the following application for Resource Consent:

Application description
Resource consent is sought to remove a significant tree at 28A Heriot Row, Dunedin. The tree is a Maple Tree (genus Acer) and is recorded as T578 in Schedule 25.3 of the Dunedin City District Plan. The tree is located in the front yard of the subject site.

The site is legally described as Part Section 30 Block XXIV Town of Dunedin, held in Computer Freehold Register OT96/150, and has an approximate area of 463m2. The site is located within the Royal Terrace/Pitt Street/Heriot Row Heritage Precinct (TH08).

Applicant: John and Evellen Jackson of Drysdale Ltd – 142 Stafford Drive, Ruby Bay, Mapua 7005

Read more:
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/current-consultation/significant-tree-28a-heriot-row

Quick Find: Application LUC-2014-157 (PDF, 882.3 KB)

Light green circle indicates trunk position of Maple tree at 28A
Sketch concept for site development supplied by applicant

DCC Webmap showing proximity of Ritchie House, 26 Heriot Row

—

The applicant only seeks removal of the listed tree; a second resource consent application would be required to develop the subject site, since it is located in the heritage precinct.

SUBDIVISION HELL AT HERIOT ROW
The subject site is part of the former garden allotment, with original brick garage, of the Heritage New Zealand listed Category 1 Historic Place, the Ritchie House at 26 Heriot Row. This large, outstanding Arts and Crafts house and the brick garage were designed by renowned Dunedin architect Basil Hooper.

The applicant bought the property knowing the Significant Tree (Maple) was listed for protection in the district plan. The tree does not preclude development of the site; and note there is a covenant in place.

Independent consulting advice from an arborist, a landscape architect, and a design architect, to the Hearing Committee should be mandatory for consideration of the application. An opinion should also be sought from Heritage New Zealand (heritage precinct).

—

Heritage New Zealand registration information for 26 Heriot Row – go to Assessment criteria at http://www.heritage.org.nz/the-register/details/7492

Dunedin Heritage Fund
(administered by Heritage New Zealand and the Dunedin City Council)
2004. The owners of Ritchie House received a $20,000 loan to assist with a range of restoration works.

Seen from 28 Heriot Row – 28A garden with Maple tree, and 26 Ritchie House

Related Post and Comments:
22.2.13 DCC: Significant Trees

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: Growth v development contributions

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

—

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

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

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: Councillors delegated street furniture decisions to staff

Peter Entwisle says “some principles need teasing out: CONTEXT, AUTHENTICITY, FLEXIBILITY and TRUE EXCEPTIONALITY”

[transpressnz.blogspot.com]

### ODT Online Mon, 11 Nov 2013
Opinion
Rearranging the street furniture
By Peter Entwisle
Dunedin is adopting a new generation of street furniture. It’s happened before with varying results and we should try to do better this time.
Read more

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Free Parking – for Cycles
This item was published on 19 Jun 2012.
The rollout of 56 new cycle stands around the city is almost complete. The sites are high demand and high profile areas that were identified in consultation with community boards and cycling groups.
There are two types of stand – 46 basic U-shaped stainless steel stands, and two sets of five stands that, when installed, spell ‘cycle’. The stands were designed in-house and manufactured by local business Identimark with some parts of the manufacturing process undertaken in Auckland.
Read more

16.7.11 ODT More cyclists than a year ago: survey
Dunedin will spend $20,000 on 70 cycle stands for central city sites over the next two years.

—

Bicycle Management
Dunedin City Council: Cycle stands, hitching rails and facilities
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/cycling/cycle-stands

University of Otago, Property Services: Cycling & Cycle Racks
http://www.propserv.otago.ac.nz/services/parkingcyclerack.html

—

Related Posts and Comments:
8.11.13 Dunedin Separated Cycle Lane Proposal
5.11.13 DCC, NZTA: Cycle lanes controversy
19.10.13 Cycle lobby games and media tilts
24.9.13 Mediocrity and lack of critical awareness at DCC [council reports]
8.7.13 Bloody $tupid cycleways and Cull’s electioneering . . . [route maps]
28.3.13 DCC DAP 2013/14: Portobello Harington Point Road Improvements
26.2.13 DCC binge spending alert: Proposed South Dunedin cycle network
22.2.13 DCC: Council meeting agenda and reports for 25 February 2013
31.1.13 Who? 2010 electioneering
21.11.12 Safe cycling -Cr Fliss Butcher

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Doh, low growth for Dunedin

North Dunedin [flickriver.com] re-imaged by whatifdunedin

—

### ODT Online Sun, 20 Oct 2013
Census data tests planning assumptions
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council will review some of the assumptions underpinning its planning efforts, after census data revealed slower-than-expected growth in the city. Council city development manager Dr Anna Johnson yesterday told the Otago Daily Times the city’s growth rate was lower than council planning had anticipated. The city’s resident population had increased from 118,683 in 2006 to 120,246 this year, which equated to annual growth of just 0.19%, she said. That was below 2006 expectations, which had anticipated annual growth of 0.4%, she said. ”The growth is slower than was expected or planned for, and it is lower than the estimates that we have been working with.” There was nothing in the data as yet to suggest the council should change urban development policies included in its spatial plan, which anticipated demand for an extra 7600 residential units in the city by 2031, Dr Johnson said.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
18.8.13 South Dunedin and other low lying areas
12.6.13 Dunedin housing: building up or Brown-like sprawl…
2.4.13 Dunedin: Developers stoop to resource consents instead of…
18.9.12 DCC ‘vision’ (spatial plan chess)
14.4.12 How perverse is the New Zealand housing market?
8.2.12 Dunedin City district plan review
8.12.11 interest.co heats NZ housing debate – listen up
7.12.11 Spatial Plan consultation #Dunedin
1.12.11 Spatial plan “rainbows” – Dunedin
28.10.11 Dunedin’s DRAFT Spatial Plan

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Cycle lobby games and media tilts

Commuters [cycling.com]

—

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

—

Correspondence received.

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

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

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

Cheers,
Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Lee

—

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

Hi Lee,

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

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

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

Chris.

—— End of Forwarded Message

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,
Lee

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Draft Dunedin City Transport Strategy

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

—

Comment received.

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

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

Developing a Network Operating Plan [DCC]

Figure 24. Draft Network Operating Plan for the central city

—

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

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

Ta Wendy,

Questions as follows:

Can I see Data to justify claims of:

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

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

Kind regards,
Lee

——————————–

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

Hi Lee

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

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

Regards

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

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr