Tag Archives: Dunedin City Council

Commercial residential, 143-193 Moray Place : ODT bias, ignores arguments of opposing legal experts

THUS we gather that the owners/editorial team of the Otago Daily Times have deemed Anthony Tosswill’s proposal for a tall fat Moray Place apartment building (commercial residential) is worthy of being built. Ra Ra ODT.

If you (ODT) want to print half the story, presume away…. to Not be the independent courier of what is public information contrary to the arguments of the greying Mr Page, Counsel for Mr Tosswill’s NZ Horizons Hospitality Group Ltd (widely suspected as a vehicle for Asian finance, yet to bring even one of “12 hotels” on his South Island wish list out of the ground – funny that).

For your attention :
The legal submissions of Ms Semple, Counsel for Millennium and Copthorne Hotels New Zealand Ltd (owner of the 3 star Kingsgate), an affected party.

Ms Semple maintains that the application cannot be lawfully unbundled.

Legal Submissions on behalf of the Millennium and Copthorne Hotels
Casebook for the Millennium and Copthorne Hotels

The legal submissions of Mr Hardie, Counsel for Misbeary Holdings Ltd are not yet available online at the DCC website.

[click to enlarge]

LOLOL

At Facebook:

If the independent commissioners agree with Mr Page then it’s “See you in Court, Buster”.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

3 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Stupid ORC Bus Hub : DCC notifies requirement for designation #Dunedin

Proposed ORC Bus Hub, Great King St – concept image [supplied]

CALL FOR PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

DIS-2017-1 – Central City Bus Hub
Open for submissions. Closes 5pm 18 August 2017

Public notice of requirement for a designation
Sections 168 and 169 of the Resource Management Act 1991

The Dunedin City Council has received notice of a requirement for a new designation from the Otago Regional Council.

Notice of Requirement No: DIS-2017-1

The requirement is for: A Central City Bus Hub for Dunedin’s transport network, and includes all buildings, structures and associated facilities and activities for the carrying out of the public transport system by the Otago Regional Council. With the exception of no public parking, the designation will not prevent the use of Great King Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street, being used as a public road.

The designation is to provide for the establishment, operation, maintenance and upgrading of the Central City Bus Hub for Dunedin public transport service purposes and will provide public transport services described in the Otago Regional Council’s Public Transport Plan, and to provide for any site works, buildings or structures, integral and ancillary to the Dunedin public transport system, including but not limited to: Bus shelters and seating; timetable and information displays; bus stops; public amenities, including toilets; landscaping including structures; pedestrian footpaths and accessways; drainage; technology; lighting; security; vehicle priority; signage; passenger comfort initiatives and facilities; passenger information facilities; and all other structures and facilities associated with, or incidental to, a comprehensive facility for the performances of functions of the Central City Bus Hub and support of the Dunedin Public Transport Network for the Otago Regional Council.

The nature of the functions is that these activities will initially occur from approximately 05:30am to 12:30am, 7 days a week, year-round.

The sites to which the requirement applies are as follows:
● Great King Street Road Reserve, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street, Dunedin;
● Moray Place Road Reserve (part of);
● 12.4m² (approx.) within 157 St Andrew Street, legally described as Lot 1 DP 486801;
● Two areas within the Countdown car park adjoining Great King Street – one comprising 58.8m² and the second comprising 50.4m² (approx.) legally described as Lots 2 and 3, DP 6552 and Section 29, Town of Dunedin.
● 19.5m² (approx.) within the Countdown car park adjoining Moray Place, legally described as part Sections 27 and 28, Block XVI, Town Survey District;
● 63m² (approx.) within the Community House car park at 301 Moray Place, legally described as part Town Section 26, Block XVI, Town of Dunedin; and
● 60.8m² (approx.) within the Wilsons car park at 30-36 Great King Street, legally described as Lot 2 DP 338932.

The Notice of Requirement, plans showing the extent of the requirement, and the assessment of environmental effects may be inspected at the following locations:
● City Planning Enquiries, Customer Services Centre, Ground Floor, Civic Centre, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin
● The Dunedin Central Public Library
● The Mosgiel Service Centre
Online

Please contact Paul Freeland on 477 4000 if you have any questions about the Notice of Requirement.

█ Go to this DCC webpage for all the information pertaining to the Notice of Requirement (NoR):
DIS-2017-1 – Central City Bus Hub
Closing date for submissions: Friday 18 August 2017 at 5pm.
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/district-plan/district-plan-changes/dis-2017-1-central-city-bus-hub

****

█ Supplementary Reading
From the ‘RMA Quality Planning Resource’ (NZ):

Notices of requirement and requiring authorities

To begin the process of designating land, a requiring authority must serve a notice of requirement on the relevant territorial authority (s168 of the RMA) or lodge it with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (s145(3)).  A notice of requirement is a proposal for a designation. 

The notice of requirement has an interim effect, in that it protects the land for the designated purpose until the designation is confirmed and included in an operative district plan (s178).  If the designation is confirmed it overrides the provisions of the district plan so the project or the works may be implemented by the requiring authority in accordance with that designation and any conditions attached to it.  However, the underlying plan provisions continue to apply if the land is used for a purpose other than the designated purpose.

When processing a notice of requirement Part 8 of the RMA requires the territorial authority to consider the requirement and any submissions received (if the requirement was notified), and then make a recommendation to the requiring authority. The territorial authority is only able to make a recommendation to the requiring authority and the requiring authority has the final decision on the matter. Refer to the flowchart for steps in the new designation process.

An alternative process is available under Part 6AA of the RMA for notices of requirement that are for proposals of national significance. Sections 198A – 198M of the RMA also provide for the direct referral of notices of requirement to the Environment Court for a decision.  The direct referral provisions under the RMA allow for requiring authorities to request that notified notices of requirement be directly referred to the Environment Court for a decision, instead of a recommendation by a territorial authority and a decision by a requiring authority.

The designation provides for the long-term ‘approval’ of the work. Because details of the work may not be known at the time of lodging the notice of requirement, s176A provides for further detail or subsequent changes and updates to the work through an outline plan. An outline plan is required to be submitted to the territorial authority, showing details of the work or project to be constructed on the designated land.

As for the notice of requirement process, the territorial authority only has a recommendation role for outline plans. The territorial authority is only able to request changes of the requiring authority and cannot turn down an outline plan. 

A notice of requirement and an outline plan describing the works proposed can be served/submitted at the same time. This approach can be helpful to allow the territorial authority to understand the designation, and can speed up the overall process allowing works to begin sooner. Alternatively, the requirement for an outline plan can be waived by the territorial authority if sufficient information was submitted with the notice of requirement.

Read more: http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/plan-development-components/designations/overview/notices-of-requirements

****

All we want is …. [possibly?]

No highly coloured tarseal or paving materials not in keeping with Dunedin’s built environment.

NO Bus Hub in Great King St.

And….
smaller more frequent shuttle buses, suburban areas properly serviced with well-spaced bus stops and shelters, easy transfer cards, on-board EFTPOS card top-ups ($5 minimum), digital readouts for next bus at all stops, wifi buses, direct pick-up drop-off in George and Princes streets, well serviced peak hours and school runs, bus inspectors, highly trained drivers, mechanically well serviced buses, plenty of mobility access for all comers.

Or to just call an affordable version of Uber or Lyft.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

[whatifdunedin]

2 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Health & Safety, Heritage, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORC, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

DCC contractor Black Power president Albert Epere and his crew all in jail

News came from ‘associates’ last week that all members of Mauri Kohatu Incorporated – contracted by Dunedin City Council to maintain some city greenspaces – were now in jail, including Black Power president Albert Epere.

FAIL.

The mayor and his council acolytes had previously put themselves on the record saying “the council supported social contracting”. Meaning Dunedin ratepayers were paying the gang members to continue their usual nefarious lifestyles.

Epere made at least four court appearances during the contract(s) period.

We note there has been no public statement from the city council since the jailings.

FAIL.

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

7 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Dunedin, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Travesty

Apartment hotel proposal has FATAL Flaws : ODT offers Flimsy Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Dunedin City Council about to find out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not much.

****

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

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

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

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

My own submission to hearing states:

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hearing is adjourned until 17 August.

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

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

Related Posts and Comments:
● 11.7.17 “Fat” gawky Hotel and Apartment building : Questionable design even with 4 floors lopped off
● 14.5.17 RNZ reports July hearings for proposed hotel apartment building [comments by Mr Tosswill]
● 4.5.17 Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building
● 7.4.17 Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls
● 5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

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

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

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

[click to enlarge]








7 Comments

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

Christchurch City Council : Highly Dubious Entity #YaldhurstSubdivision

Subject: Ongoing Property Dispute at Yaldhurst Subdivision

Christchurch City Council held a full council meeting on 27 July 2017.

Readers, the CCC meeting video of Agenda item 26, about Yaldhurst Subdivision, is recommended viewing/listening.

Legal advice to Council is given by Rob Goldsbury, CCC Head of Legal Services – an atrociously lacklustre, unjust and obstructive performance.

The Council stupidly steps itself into (again!) the Constructive Fraud Action being progressed at the Christchurch High Court by Residents/Caveators of the Yaldhurst Subdivision. Although, we see that Councillors supposedly have no idea they’re already in it up to their eyeballs through the actions of Council staff and issues of non-compliance. Interesting.

Christchurch City Council Published on Jul 26, 2017
Christchurch City Council VIDEO
27.07.17 – Item 26 – Yaldhurst Village Subdivision – Dedication of Road – Sir John McKenzie Avenue

The video continues at about 1:26 after a preliminary silence [muted blue screen] – keep watching. The quality of picture is poor throughout. The discomfort of those seen in the public gallery is most perceptible.

Meeting Agenda and Unconfirmed Minutes follow here below – minus Attachment A, Yaldhurst Village Lots 601,613 Plan.

The Council did not vote unanimously.

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board motion was lost.

With the second motion, in short, the Council resolved that Lots 601 (residential) and 613 (commercial) on LT 448725 will be dedicated under Section 349 of the Local Government Act 1974 as a road, in order for the road to vest.

The resolution goes against the Residents’ private property rights.

See the previous post to refresh on the Residents’ situation.

Note, by the votes for, the dishonesty and incompetence present.

Note, by the votes against, the integrity of those supporting the Community Board and members of their community: the private property owners (the Residents), in their protracted, brave and courageous fight against an unjust malevolent council staff working in cahoots with unscrupulous developers.

Vicki Buck is a class act.
Rob Goldsbury, an utterly shameful man.

****

Christchurch City Council
Agenda

Notice of Meeting:
An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

Date: Thursday 27 July 2017
Time: 10.05am
Venue: Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

….

[agenda item]
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26. Yaldhurst Village Subdivision – Dedication of Road – Sir John McKenzie Avenue ………. [page] 529

[the report]
Council
27 July 2017

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 13 June 2017
 
26. Yaldhurst Village Subdivision – Dedication of Road – Sir John McKenzie Avenue

Reference: 17/733313
Contact: Richard Holland richard.holland@ccc.govt.nz 941 8690
 
Note that this report was left to lie on the table at the Council meeting on 6 July 2017.
 
1. Staff Recommendations
 
That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend to the Council:

1. That Lots 601 (residential) and 613 (commercial) on LT 448725 will be dedicated under Section 349 of the Local Government Act 1974 as a road, in order for the road to vest.

2. Note that a Deed of Indemnity will be executed by Infinity Yaldhurst Limited which will indemnify and keep indemnified the Council from all actions, proceedings and claims made by any land owner in relation to the Council accepting the dedication of Lots 601 and 613 on LT 448725, as road.

3. Also note that the Council shall not be required to issue a Section 224(c) Certificate under the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect to Lots 601 and 613 on LT 448725 until all the safety audit requirements as specified by the Council, and included in the Variations of the subdivision consent, have been physically built to the Council’s satisfaction.

4. That the General Manager City Services be delegated authority to negotiate and enter into on behalf of the Council, such documentation required to implement the dedication.
 
2. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council
 
Part A

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend to the Council:

1. Option 2 of the staff report, namely, That the Council not agree to a dedication process and inform Infinity Yaldhurst Limited to pursue the matter through the Courts in accordance with the Property Law Act.
 
2. That the Council agree to meet with the adjoining property owners to discuss options on a way forward regarding the Yaldhurst Village Subdivision.
 
Vicki Buck and Anne Galloway requested that their votes against the above decision, be recorded.
 
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Continue reading

26 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, DCHL, Delta, District Plan, Events, Finance, Housing, Infrastructure, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, SFO, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty

DCC Proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017 : Public Consultation

The camping control bylaw consultation process was publicly notified on Saturday, 22 July 2017, in the Otago Daily Times.

We have been following the nightmare tale of freedom campers at Warrington Domain —the council did not enforce its existing Bylaw 23 last summer. Local residents were no longer able to use the messed up, vehicle covered village green for pleasure and recreation. Instead, DCC had allowed the whole domain to be turned into a muddy rutted car park. Over summer 1000s of freeloading campers were subsidised by Dunedin ratepayers at roughly $10.00 per head per night. Disgraceful. An appalling and gutless lack of care and management shown by the council.

AFTER ALL THIS . . . .
It is a pleasure to note (finally, yes!) that DCC’s preferred option for bylaw adoption is sensible and workable. Please support this option.

There are 3 options to choose from.

█ The best option is DCC’s preferred option : a ban on people sleeping in cars and restricting freedom camping to self-contained campervans only.

This is the only responsible option – it will reduce camping issues at domain grounds, such as Warrington and Ocean View.

The other 2 options are messy, they require more work and will not be easy to enforce or manage.

█ Please fill in the form at the link below and select:
– Option 1. “Limit freedom camping to certified self contained vehicles only”.

Warrington stakeholders, in particular, see no reason to comment on the “criteria to apply to sites” questions. Just leave them blank.

They recommend you note the following in the Comments section:
– Area at Warrington for certified campers to be limited in area to accommodate maximum 10 vehicles per night.
– No non-self-contained vehicles.
– No freedom camping anywhere else in Warrington other than a small designated area in the domain.

Link to the online submission form:
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/online-forms/proposed-camping-control-bylaw-2017

Please complete the form and share this information with friends and colleagues.

At last DCC has done something right by preferring Option 1.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL

Proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017
Closes: 09/08/2017

DCC is asking the community for feedback on a proposed change to freedom camping in the Dunedin area. They would like your views on whether DCC should continue to provide freedom camping for both certified self-contained vehicles and non-certified self-contained vehicles.

The Statement of Proposal outlines changing the current bylaw to provide camping areas for certified self-contained vehicles only.

Two other options have also been considered and these are:
– to continue to provide for both certified self-contained vehicles and non-certified self-contained vehicles
– to provide extra areas for non-certified self-contained vehicles based on a set of criteria.

The proposed change is in response to the impacts of overcrowding at the two existing unrestricted camping areas at Warrington and Ocean View, and because of changes to the current standard for certified self-contained vehicles.

Freedom camping throughout Dunedin is very popular, especially between November and May. The focus of this bylaw review is to make the bylaw more robust and workable, based on two seasons’ worth of feedback and observation.

Following community feedback and hearings, the Council will consider the submissions and decide on any changes. DCC hopes to have the new bylaw in place in October/November.

Feedback closes 5pm 9 August 2017

Consultation documents:

Proposed Camping Control Bylaw – Public Notice (PDF, 123.4 KB)
This document is a pdf copy of the Public Notice for the Proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017 consultation

Proposed Camping Control Bylaw – Statement of proposal (PDF, 216.0 KB)
This is a pdf copy of the Proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017 Statement of Proposal

Part 23 Dunedin City – Proposed Camping Control Bylaw (PDF, 1.4 MB)
This is a pdf copy of the Proposed Camping Control Bylaw

23. Camping Control Bylaw
This is a pdf copy of the current Camping Control Bylaw 2015

Proposed Camping Control Bylaw Feedback form (PDF, 394.9 KB)
This pdf can be downloaded and completed to provide feedback to the Proposed Camping Control Bylaw consultation

Consultation details:

Closing date: 09/08/2017
Contact person: Ashley Reid
█ Public feedback: Online submission form

Email to – camping.bylaw@dcc.govt.nz
Post to – Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin 9058. Attention: Proposed Camping Control Bylaw
Hand deliver to – Dunedin City Council Customer Service Centre, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin. Attention: Proposed Camping Control Bylaw

DCC Link

ENDS

****

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Leave a comment

Filed under DCC, DCC Bylaws, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Freedom camping, Health & Safety, Heritage, Infrastructure, New Zealand, People, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design

Regional state of emergency lifted in Otago (incl Dunedin & Waitaki)

Otago’s state of emergency has been lifted.
Emergency Management Otago this morning lifted the state of emergency which existed since deluges and heavy wind battered Otago’s eastern coast over the weekend. The region has now officially entered a recovery phase with teams moving on to assessing the damage and checking on the needs of those affected by the devastating floods. Emergency Management Otago group controller Chris Hawker, in Dunedin, said the move towards recovery did not signal any reduction in effort.

● Dunedin City Council (03) 477-4000
● Federated Farmers 0800 FARMING (0800 327 646)
● Otago Rural Support Trust 0800 787 254
http://www.rural-support.org.nz

****

DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL

Dunedin July Severe Weather update
10.45am Monday 24 July 2017

State of Emergency lifted

The Dunedin State of Emergency was lifted at 9am today. Under the Civil Defence Emergency Act 2002 we are now operating under a Notice of Local Transition Period as we move into the recovery phase.
The transition period is in force for 28 days (expires 9am 21 August) unless extended or ended earlier. The notice still gives the local authority powers to carry out essential emergency-related work.
More information about the work happening as part of the recovery phase will be provided today. The work will be led by Dunedin City Council Recovery Manager Simon Pickford.

Evacuation map – Upper Taieri Pond (PDF, 3.3 MB)
Mill Creek ponding area (PDF, 2.3 MB)

██████ DCC TWITTER FEED AUTOMATICALLY UPDATING

Continue reading

64 Comments

Filed under Business, Central Otago, DCC, Dunedin, Emergency services, Fire and Emergency NZ, Health & Safety, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, New Zealand, North Otago, NZTA, ORC, People, Police, Property, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, South Dunedin, Transportation