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.

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]

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.

No protection for Dunedin’s DARK Skies —Otago Peninsula subdivision decision #GrievouslySucks

Commissioner Colin Weatherall said the amended application was expected to have fewer adverse effects on the environment. He treated “with caution” some of the evidence received by submitters opposing the consent.
ODT: Peninsula subdivision approved (7.4.17)

Opponents of a plan to allow residential development on land designated an outstanding natural landscape area on the Otago Peninsula have labelled the decision “terrible” and “a travesty”.
ODT: Project by inlets ‘travesty’ (8.4.17)

****

Dunedin City Council
78 Cape Saunders Road, Portobello, Dunedin (LUC-2006-370881/B)
█ Letter of decision (PDF, 3.3 MB) 57 pages all inclusive

More about the application at this DCC webpage.

Whatiffers, consider lending support to any organised submitters (opposing the decision on points of law) who decide to take this to Environment Court.

—

Meanwhile At Twitter:

Oh well. May as well say goodbye to the Aurora Australis from Hoopers and Papanui Inlets. #disaster pic.twitter.com/v6MBwuBFel

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 6, 2017

Today I'm officially in mourning for Dunedin's dark sky initiative. Sorry to say a dream for a dark sky future has been extinguished #sad pic.twitter.com/sgFSPVmbID

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 6, 2017

Very sad day for Dunedin stargazers & dark sky tourism efforts https://t.co/qZeQYDT6be‘terrible’-dark-skies #sad

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 7, 2017

Woah observing Jupiter from my front garden. Star party anyone? pic.twitter.com/fZWTNx6OGG

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

If you have a telescope and live in New Zealand a transit and shadow transit of one of Jupiters moons is about to begin.

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Woah. Just taken this picture of Jupiter. You can see the Red spot + Shadow Transit + Transit of its moon Io #astronomy #astrophotography pic.twitter.com/SQSNRNTFli

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Here’s my picture of Jupiter tonight annotated. #astronomy #Astrophotography #Jupiter pic.twitter.com/oHDJrbes0r

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Next up on tonight's observing list on a perfect night here in Dunedin is Saturn. What a beauty! pic.twitter.com/FO1O8F7kNK

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

What an amazing night here in the Deep South of Aotearoa. Clear sky, moonlight dominating but Jupiter and Saturn looking gorgeous

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Nice view of the moon tonight from Portobello #moon #astronomy #Astrophotography pic.twitter.com/ePGW8DsBA6

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Wow. I can’t believe I shot this picture from my front garden with a small telescope! Saturn last night from Portobello. #astronomy #saturn pic.twitter.com/VEJh1X7Yhk

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Holy Moly. Its incredible what you can see with a small telescope these days! This is Jupiter from my front garden last night! #astronomy pic.twitter.com/tOlrYUVYTm

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

—

Related Post and Comments:
8.3.17 Ancestral landscape, natural heritage, dark skies & the district plan #respect ● [more Dunedin dark sky images from the Peninsula]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Ancestral landscape, natural heritage, dark skies & the district plan #respect

[penguin.au.com]

Peninsula: Exploring the Otago Peninsula | Paul Sorrell
Rich in recreational opportunities and with a strong sense of culture and community, the peninsula is a place like no other. Author Paul Sorrell and photographer Graham Warman discover the sweeping landscapes, unique mix of wildlife and engaging local personalities found on this special slice of New Zealand’s southern coast…. Penguin promotion

### ODT Online Sat, 7 Sep 2013
People and place portrayed
By Helen Speirs – ODT books editor
PENINSULA: Exploring the Otago Peninsula by Paul Sorrell and Graham Warman (Penguin)
From its volcanic formation, to early Maori settlement and the first European visitors, the book traces the influences of humans on the land, examining fishing and farming practices and architectural landmarks including the Mason and Wales “White House”, Larnach Castle, Fletcher House, Otakou marae, Portobello Aquarium and Marine Studies Centre, and the Armstrong Disappearing Gun. […] The rich diversity of the “wildlife capital of New Zealand” is a highlight, with information about the area’s jewelled gecko, its multitude of birdlife – including Taiaroa Head’s northern royal albatross, New Zealand sea lions and yellow-eyed penguins. […] The book’s design and layout is simple and reader-friendly, the writing informative and accessible, and the photography stunning – the sweeping vistas of the peninsula land and seascapes, with the light playing on the water and shadows in the folds of the land are particularly evocative.
Read more

[teara.govt.nz]

Otago Peninsula by Colin McCahon [tepapa.govt.nz]

****

P A P A N U I ● I N L E T ● W A K A ● F I N D

### ODT Online Tue, 14 Oct 2014
Historic waka find excites as peninsula gives up secret
By Hamish McNeilly
The discovery of a historic waka unearthed from Papanui Inlet is a “significant find”, a local kaumatua says. A waka – believed to be a fishing waka (waka hi ika) – measuring 6.17m was excavated from the edge of the inlet over the weekend, and is now in storage. Otakou runanga kaumatua Edward Ellison said the “exciting” discovery “sheds new light [on] the historical use and occupation of the Papanui Inlet and surrounds”. It was likely the vessel dated from the Ngati Mamoe occupation of that part of the Otago Peninsula, before “Ngai Tahu came down and pushed some of them further south”.
Read more

### ODT Online Thu, 16 Oct 2014
‘I knew it was something significant’
By John Lewis
If it were not for changing tidal flows, the fishing waka unearthed from Papanui Inlet on Otago Peninsula at the weekend might never have been discovered, Department of Conservation historic technical adviser Shar Briden said. The 6.17m waka was under 1.6m of sand and was discovered by chance in August by Ms Briden. She said the channel flow had changed, with the estuary water now cutting over the top of the waka. […] The waka was excavated and refloated using whale pontoons at the weekend, and moved across the estuary at high tide to where it could be retrieved. The waka is believed to be the only one found in Otago, and has archaeologists around the country buzzing.
Read more

### ODT Online Sun, 28 Dec 2014
Waka remnants give glimpse into past
By Shawn McAvinue
A waka submerged in a locked wooden tank at the Otakou marae in Dunedin continues to reveal the past to archaeologists. Te Runanga o Otakou manager Rachel Wesley said the fishing waka, unearthed from Papanui inlet on Otago Peninsula in October, was on the marae and submerged in fresh water in a locked wooden tank. […] The waka was moved to the marae in early December […] Samples of the waka had been sent to Auckland and Dunedin to determine its age. The waka conservation work would take more than two years […] Department of Conservation historic technical adviser Shar Briden said other wooden artefacts were found before the waka was discovered and they revealed some more about it.
Read more

### ODT Online Fri, 6 Feb 2015
Waka believed from the 1500s
By Hamish McNeilly
The historic waka unearthed from Papanui Inlet was used in the 1500s, it has been revealed. Dilys John, of Auckland University’s anthropology department, has dated the worked waka and the prepared fibres from inside the hull at being between 440 and 463 years old. Otakou runanga elder Edward Ellison said the waka remained in water at the marae, and the salt would slowly be removed out of the timber over the next two years. The waka would be preserved and then possibly be put on display […] It was believed the waka was used by Waitaha – the first occupants of the site – or Ngati Mamoe […] “The mere thought that the hands that made and used the hand-woven fibres belonged to ancestors who lived at Papanui Inlet at least 20 generations ago is quite breathtaking.” Dating the waka helped with comparisons with other sites around New Zealand and confirmed “the specialness of the Papanui Inlet”.
Read more

█ Anyone who found an object should leave the item in situ and report the find to the Department of Conservation. (ODT)

****

D A R K ● S K I E S ● O T A G O ● P E N I N S U L A

### ODT Online Wed, 15 Apr 2015
Seeking dark sky city status
By Vaughan Elder
The Dunedin City Council is to investigate ways of limiting light pollution, after councillors were told Dunedin could become the world’s largest “dark sky city”. Otago Museum director Ian Griffin spoke about the issue of light pollution at yesterday’s planning and regulatory committee meeting when he discussed the museum’s planetarium development, which is to open later this year. “We see the planetarium as not just a brilliant educational tool [but also] potentially an anchor for a new strand of tourism in this city.” There was a massive potential for growth in night sky tourism in the city and the council could support that by acting to limit light pollution in areas such as Otago Peninsula, where viewing conditions were best, Dr Griffin said.
Read more

fight to save dark sky for #Dunedin is on. A 3 day hearing decides if houses can be built at dark sky beauty spot pic.twitter.com/rswPMWOTk0

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 5, 2017

How many Dunedin councillors are speaking out to save views like this? The silence. The silence….. #speakupfordarksky pic.twitter.com/bxSj19uH5X

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 5, 2017

So. 13 hours until the start of the fight to protect one of the finest views of the heavens I've ever seen #savethebackbaysindunedin pic.twitter.com/FmhDm9Gzo3

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 6, 2017

Picture #1 in the case for the defence of Papanui Inlet. Can you see any lights? You will if the planned houses go ahead #savethebackbays pic.twitter.com/WpmnHPIsDn

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 6, 2017

Pic #2 in defence of Papanui. See this #auroraaustralis? You won't when light pollution stops your pupils dilating pic.twitter.com/cvxwf0Mnvo

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 6, 2017

A video timelapse I shot at Papanui Inlet in 2015. Enjoy it as someone plans to build houses right in this shot! https://t.co/1l6NkzJBve

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 6, 2017

Want to enjoy the sheer majesty of Hoopers Inlet? Voila https://t.co/zgO2k29r0c this is why I love it & want to protect it #savethebackbays

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 6, 2017

Right. Evidence submitted to the Back Bays housing hearing. Respect to @lozzjoy for providing legal advice to try and save views like this! pic.twitter.com/yMLUp8glEV

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 8, 2017

—

Downloads:
● Evidence from Dr Ian Griffin 1.3.17
● Evidence from Dr Ian Griffin Graphic supplement
● Dr Ian Griffin Submitter Legal Counsel’s tabled submission 8.3.17

****

P R O B L E M ● C H I L D R E N

### ODT Online Fri, 10 Apr 2015
Quarry operator faces hearing over breach
By Chris Morris
An Otago Peninsula quarry operator found to be digging beyond his boundary faces a public hearing to determine the future shape of the operation. The Papanui Inlet quarry operation, headed by Peninsula resident Steve Clearwater, was found to be in breach of its existing consent following an inspection by council staff early last year.
Read more

### ODT Online Fri, 31 Jul 2015
May need new consent, quarry hearing told
By John Gibb
A “catch-22” legal problem involving a quarry on Otago Peninsula means all parties, including the applicant and many submitters, may have been wasting their time attending a consent hearing. […] The hearing involves a quarry, which had operated as a smaller farm quarry before a consent allowed it to expand in 2007. Steve Clearwater Contracting, headed by peninsula resident Steve Clearwater, has been accused by council staff of not complying with rules designed to restrict his quarry’s operation. […] Council officials say the quarry was found to be operating beyond its boundary early last year, by extracting rock from further up Geary’s Hill than was permitted. The applicant, Peninsula Holdings Trust, is seeking a variation on its existing consent, to legalise what has been done, but it is also seeking to expand its footprint for future operations. The application has prompted 40 submissions, including 32 from neighbours, many opposing it.
Read more

### ODT Online Sat, 1 Aug 2015
Quarry hearing adjourned
By John Gibb
Independant commissioner Andrew Henderson has adjourned a Dunedin consent hearing to consider legal issues linked to a quarry overlooking Papanui Inlet in a “treasured ancestral landscape”. Mr Henderson, of Christchurch, said yesterday he would consider legal issues over how to proceed with an application, on behalf of the quarry operator, to vary conditions in an earlier 2007 consent, involving the quarry on Otago Peninsula.
Read more

—

Neighbours are fighting plans to expand a quarry overlooking Papanui Inlet, after it was found to be in breach of 10 resource consent conditions. (ODT)

### ODT Online Fri, 28 Aug 2015
Fears for Otago Peninsula hill
By Chris Morris
A quarry operator accused of flouting rules on Otago Peninsula could seek to remove a hill overlooking Papanui Inlet, neighbours fear. Steve Clearwater Contracting, headed by peninsula resident Steve Clearwater, has been accused by Dunedin City Council staff of showing “contempt” for rules designed to restrict his quarry’s operation. […] “Geary’s Hill, at the head of Papanui Inlet, is an integral part of a wider wahi tupuna [ancestral landscape]” […] The Otakou runanga was concerned about the “incremental carving away at the basic elements of this ancestral landscape leading to greater and irreversible changes”.
Read more

### ODT Online Wed, 23 Sep 2015
Quarry expansion plans scuttled
By Craig Borley
Controversial expansion plans for an Otago Peninsula quarry have been declined by an independent commissioner, but quarrying will continue on the site. The Geary’s Hill quarry, overlooking Papanui Inlet, was last year found to have breached many of its 2007 resource consent conditions. It had extended further up and across Geary’s Hill than consented, while a paddock consented to receive fill to a depth of 1m had since received considerably more than that. Dunedin City Council staff concluded it was in breach of at least 10 consent conditions, while compliance with another five was questionable. Quarry operator Steve Clearwater Contracting, headed by peninsula resident Steve Clearwater, had been forced to seek a variation on its existing consent to legalise what it had done, while also seeking to expand its footprint for future operations. Neighbours feared the variation, if accepted, could eventually lead to the complete removal of the hill. But that variation was declined last week and was now subject to a 15-working-day appeal period. […] The council had accepted it had been deficient in monitoring the 2007 consent.
Read more

### ODT Online Mon, 6 Feb 2017
Subdivision bid opposed
By David Loughrey
A plan to subdivide 260ha of rural Otago Peninsula land in an outstanding natural landscape area has run into serious opposition, as a resource consent bid heads for a March hearing. Groups from Forest and Bird to Save the Otago Peninsula (Stop), and individuals from peninsula tourism and accommodation businesses, as well as astronomers and archaeologists, have lined up to oppose the project. Land owner Steven Clearwater described opposition from property owners in the area as “nimbyism”. He said the farm on which the subdivision was planned had been dotted with farmhouses a century ago, and he wanted to protect his right to build there again. The project is the work of the Peninsula Holdings Trust, made up of property owners Steven and Jacqueline Clearwater and Brian Hailes. The trust has applied to the Dunedin City Council to subdivide the rural zoned land at 78 Cape Saunders Rd. The land has a capital value of almost $1.9million.
Read more

—

“Allowing property owners to subdivide small parcels for residential use scattered around a large farm property is not in accordance with the expectations of either the district plan or proposed plan.” –Lianne Darby

### ODT Online Mon, 13 Feb 2017
City planner opposes subdivision
By Margot Taylor
An application to subdivide 260ha of Otago Peninsula land in an outstanding natural landscape has hit another hurdle with a planner’s report recommending the application be declined. Dunedin City Council planner Lianne Darby recommended the council decline the bid to subdivide a property at 78 Cape Saunders Rd, citing negative effects on the environment and the potential  “undesirable” precedents it could set for rural zoning if approved. […] If such a proposal  were approved, there could be a “major change” to the appearance and character of the land, she found. The subdivision, on an isthmus of land between Hoopers Inlet and Papanui Inlet and the northern slopes of Mt Charles, was also inconsistent with aspects of the district plan relating to sustainability, land fragmentation, rural productive worth, roading and landscape, the report found. She did not believe the proposal, which would create 10 new sites, on which consent was sought for residential activity on eight, was a sustainable use of the city’s physical and natural resources. The proposed sites would be between 2ha and 194ha.
Read more

Downloads:
● DCC Planner’s Report Pages 1-44
● DCC Planner’s Report Pages 45-88

—

### ODT Online Wed, 8 Mar 2017
Papanui developer reduces sites plan
By David Loughrey
The developer of a subdivision on an Otago Peninsula isthmus has halved the number of houses planned for the site, surprising opponents ready to argue against the plan. Peninsula Holdings Trust came to a resource consent hearing in Dunedin yesterday with a proposal that reduced the number of houses in the outstanding natural landscape area from eight to four. Landowner Steven Clearwater told the hearing he had recently signed a conditional sale agreement for some of the land involved to nearby farmer. Plans for a covenanted area of wetland and a public walking track were withdrawn, after the buyer of the land made it “very clear” they were not to be offered. The change led hearing commissioner Colin Weatherall to adjourn the meeting after the trust made its submissions, allowing opponents time overnight to modify theirs.
Read more

****

S U B D I V I S I O N ● A P P L I C A T I O N

Dunedin City Council
Non complying activity – 78 Cape Saunders Road – SUB-2016-58 & LUC-2016-336

Closed: 09/12/2016

Notification of Application for a Resource Consent – Under Section 93(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
The Dunedin City Council has received and notified the following application for Resource Consent:

Application description
Council has received an application to subdivide the above nine titles of 78 Cape Saunders Road into eleven lots and a balance parcel. The subdivision will create ten new sites of 2.0ha to 194ha. Eight of the new sites will be smaller than 15.0ha and are therefore considered to be undersized.
Land use consent is sought for new residential activity within proposed Landscape Building Platforms on Lots 1 to 2, 4 to 6, and 8 to 10. Lot 3 (38ha) has an existing quarry operation with an established dwelling. The amalgamated site of Lot 7 and 12 (194ha) will be a farming block with no dwelling, and will be subject to a covenant restricting all residential development of this site. The balance land of Part Lot 54 Papanui Maori Reserve Blk (residue CFR OT205/103) will be amalgamated with Lot 10.
The quarry operation will need to be reauthorised as it will be contained within a smaller site. It will be a discretionary (unrestricted) activity pursuant to Rule 6.5.6(v).
The subject sites are zoned Rural in the Dunedin City District Plan, and are within the Peninsula Coast Outstanding Landscape Area (Visually Recessive and Visually Prominent Areas). The general area is identified as being subject to land stability risks, and parts of the subject sites are potentially at risk to liquefaction.
Subdivision of a Rural-zoned site into lots smaller than 15.0ha is a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 18.5.2 of the Dunedin City District Plan. The construction of buildings (dwellings) within a Landscape Building Platform is considered to be a controlled activity pursuant to Rule 14.6.1(a)(i). The proposed residential activity on those lots smaller than 15.0ha is also considered to be a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 6.5.7(i).
The Proposed Second Generation District Plan (“the Proposed Plan”) was notified on 26 September 2016. Rules 16.7.4 (minimum site size for rural zones) and 16.9.5.5 (assessment of subdivision performance standard contraventions – minimum site size) were given immediate legal effect pursuant to section 86D of the Resource Management Act 1991 at the time of notification. Accordingly, the Proposed Plan rules also need to be considered alongside the Dunedin City District Plan rules.
The subject sites are zoned Rural – Peninsula Coast in the Proposed Second Generation Plan, and are within the Peninsula Coast Outstanding Natural Landscape. There are land stability risks identified for this site. Parts of the subject sites are shown as Hazard 2 – Land Instability, and Hazard 3 – Coastal. The coastal edges of the property are shown as Coastal Environment and Archaeological Alert Layer. There is a Wahi Tupuna Site 36 – Poatiri (Mt Charles) on-site.
Rule 16.7.4 specifies a minimum site size of 40.0ha for lots created by subdivision in the Rural – Peninsula Coast zone. The proposed subdivision is therefore a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 16.7.4.3. The land use rules for the Rural zones are not yet in effect or operative.
The application is accompanied by Ecology, Landscape, Heritage, and Geotechnical Reports.

The submission period for this application has closed, and a hearing/decision is pending.

Consent number: Non complying activity – 78 Cape Saunders Road – SUB-2016-58 & LUC-2016-336
Name of applicant: The Peninsula Holding Trust
Location of site: 78 Cape Saunders Road, being that land held in Computer Freehold Registers 207075 (43.3047ha), 95918 (34.0552ha), 95919 (2004m2), OT15C/195 (20.5432ha), OT45/181 (5741m2), OT254/294 (18.2058ha), OT254/295 (20.8768ha), OT205/103 (102.9627ha), and OT11B/1033 (16.9917ha)
Address for service: The Peninsula Holding Trust, C/O Cubitt Consulting Ltd, 11 Bedford Street, Dunedin 9012

RELATED DOCUMENTS AT DCC WEBSITE:
● Evidence tabled at the hearing
● Submitter Pre-Hearing Evidence
● Applicant’s Pre-Hearing Evidence
● Agenda
● Application documents
● Submissions
Go to http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/notified-applications-pending/sub-2016-58-and-luc-2016-336

● Download: Applicant’s Photographs

[screenshots – click to enlarge] *see Clearwater’s quarry at Lot 3

Site plans

Applicant’s tabled site plan which includes covenants

Applicant’s tabled revised plan for Lot 4

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

STUPIDLY EXPENSIVE crossings, legal status? —Not universally recognised road markings

The urban design team(?!) lost it before they ever got it.

At Facebook, Alan Wilson says: “My concern is the cost. $140,000 for two crossings. Too many other things need money spent on upgrading”

Tony McAuliffe says: “….The Zebra crossing works, in part, ’cause they’re universally recognised for what they are. But 3-D pedestrian crossings? While they look fantastic, how will they perform functionally? If they don’t – and (hypothetically) a pedestrian gets clobbered because a driver fails to perceive them for what they’re meant to be – who’s prepared to answer the awkward questions?”

Too right. Bullshit City: Walk this way: 3-D crossings set to dazzle (ODT)
“Crossing the road in Dunedin’s tertiary precinct will be much more fun from this week, with the installation of two 3-D pedestrian crossings in Clyde St.”

Nothing grey pavement paint can’t remove on a dark night.

The frigging murals like a hippy rash about town are bad enough. A couple of internationally-authored ones are ‘art’, but the rest count as amateur copyist dross (mostly by technically challenged locals) wrecking our unique urban vistas.

****

Thanks to irresponsible building owners and ‘know-it-all-bend-the-rules’ city officials (friends of the irresponsible owners), this mural was applied to raw red brick in the side alley at 98 Bond St —contrary to the Dunedin City District Plan for listed precincts. This industrial building, a rare remnant, dates to the 1860s.
SHAME ON ALL INVOLVED.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: caglecartoons.com – Zebra Crossing by Marian Kamensky | flickr.com – mural at 98 Bond St by Guy Mauve

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.

NZ Loan and Mercantile : Concept and master plan by architect Paul Ries

Letting the building “tell its story”, involves retaining and keeping exposed as many historic features as possible.

### ODT Online Wed, 4 May 2016
Redevelopment revised (+ video)
By Vaughan Elder
Owner Russell Lund’s previous plans to redevelop the three-storey 143-year-old heritage warehouse building in Thomas Burns St involved building 24 long-term apartments on the top floor, but he told the Otago Daily Times yesterday he had changed tack. He has brought over United States architect and friend Paul Ries, who has drawn up ambitious plans to convert the two top floors into more than 50 short-stay apartments, with the ground floor used as a commercial space.
Read more + Gallery

Otago Daily Times Published on May 3, 2016
Dunedin Loan and Mercantile building

█ Site Plan and Images: Paul Ries | Supplied by Russell Lund

Related Posts and Comments:
6.8.15 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —meeting tomorrow
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
28.11.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —Resource Consent granted (pics)
26.11.14 Retraction (see comment on ‘Heritage Counts’)
26.9.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —what ESCO said!
30.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing
24.10.09 Rodney Wilson: Dunedin as national heritage city

█ For more, enter the terms *harbourside*, *heritage* or *lund* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Building Owner | Architect

DCC extends 2GP further submissions period

Dunedin City Council has extended the Further Submissions period for the second generation district plan (2GP) to Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 5pm.

All members of the public are eligible to make submissions on the Summary of Decisions Requested to the proposed 2GP.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

██ DCC 2GP Index Page at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

██ Have Your Say at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/submissions.html

██ Search for Summaries of Decisions Requested and Submissions at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/submit/PublicSubmissionSearch.aspx

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 16.2.16 DCC: 2GP further submissions [consultation software with bug?]
8.2.16 DCC 2GP further submissions [update]
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome before hearings…
3.2.16 DCC 2GP Hearings Panel
22.12.15 DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’
9.12.15 Otago Regional Council hammers DCC’s proposed 2GP
19.11.15 DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)
19.11.15 DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content
16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: 2GP further submissions [consultation software with bug?]

Copy of DCC internal correspondence received.
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 at 7:01 a.m.

—

On 12/02/16 4:53 pm, “Simon Pickford” wrote:

Good afternoon,

A quick update on the 2GP: we have found a technical issue with the reports that were produced in response to the submissions on the 2GP. As a result the reports need to be reissued and this means that we are outside the 10 day minimum statutory period of the current consultation and will have to re-notify.

We are assessing whether there will be an impact on the timing of the 2GP hearings and the remaining consultation process, but it will require us to re-advertise our consultation period. We are updating the website and making sure the necessary adverts are in place.

Regards

Simon

Simon Pickford
General Manager Services and Development
Dunedin City Council

****

I forwarded this yesterday without knowledge of Mr Pickford’s email:

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 10:51 p.m.
To: Simon Pickford; Sandy Graham; Sue Bidrose
Subject: FW: Public Notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested

Dear All

I received the below DCC email on 5 February, and was prepared to make a further submission before the closing date of 26 February 2016.

Today, confusion at the DCC website with regards to further submissions – given two updates provided.

The first said, in effect, that the closing date for further submissions would be put back [because of an internal stuff up] and the new closing date was going to be publicly notified. [I didn’t make a screenshot of the message]

This was followed by another, replacing the first, which said:

Error in Summary of Decisions Requested reports
12/02/2016
The Summary of Decisions Requested reports have been temporarily withdrawn from the website due to a technical error in exporting data. In the interim please use the search function on the Search the Submissions page to view the correct Summary of Decisions Requested. Updated Summary of Decisions Requested reports will be distributed online and to libraries as soon as practically possible.

This last made no reference to public notification of an extended closing date for further submissions.

Given the date of issue was 12/02/2016 this suggests that by now all submitters should have been emailed individually about something having gone wrong with the process and to await further information from DCC.

I hope the technical error which affects all those making further submissions is properly recognised and a public notice will be issued that extends the closing date for submissions.

Otherwise I imagine the Council will leave itself open to challenge.

Please could someone clarify how the process is to presume, and accurately.

Kind regards

Elizabeth Kerr

—

From: Teresa Gutteridge
Sent: Friday, 5 February 2016 3:28 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Public Notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested

Dear Elizabeth Kerr
Dear Submitter,
Please see the public notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested for the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan below.
It would be appreciated if you contacted the 2GP Team at the times and through the options laid out in the public notice rather than by responding to this email.
Yours Sincerely

Anna Johnson
City Development Manager

[ends]

██ DCC 2GP Index Page at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

—

Related Posts and Comments:
8.2.16 DCC 2GP further submissions [update]
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome before hearings…
3.2.16 DCC 2GP Hearings Panel
22.12.15 DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’
9.12.15 Otago Regional Council hammers DCC’s proposed 2GP
19.11.15 DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)
19.11.15 DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content
16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC 2GP further submissions [update]

Updated post
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 at 5:36 p.m. Last updated 10:59 p.m.

Two updates were issued today by DCC on the 2GP further submission process.

In the first, DCC said it had withdrawn the 2GP Summary of Decisions, and the closing date for further submissions would be put back and publicly notified.

The second update made no reference to the closing date or public notification:

DCC says: Error in Summary of Decisions Requested reports
12/02/2016
The Summary of Decisions Requested reports have been temporarily withdrawn from the website due to a technical error in exporting data. In the interim please use the search function on the Search the Submissions page to view the correct Summary of Decisions Requested. Updated Summary of Decisions Requested reports will be distributed online and to libraries as soon as practically possible.

Awaiting clarification and advice from DCC.

—

Have your say
IGNORE THIS DATE – The Further submission period is open from Wednesday, 10 February to Friday, 26 February.

What can a further submission cover?
A further submission can only be made in support or opposition to a point raised in an original submission on the 2GP.

Who can make a further submission?
The RMA limits who can make further submissions to:
● any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest
● any person that has an interest in the proposed plan greater than the interest that the general public has
● the local authority (the Dunedin City Council).

It provides an opportunity for people who may be affected by an original submission to have their views considered. You do not have to have made an original submission to participate. If you have made an original submission you do not need to repeat submission points made in that submission as they will already be considered.

Summary of decisions requested
The Summaries of Decisions Requested are a concise summary of the decisions requested in the submissions on the 2GP which closed on 24 November 2015. It is not the full or exact content of submissions. It is prepared to enable the further submission process which is set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA.

█ The Summary of Decisions Requested and copies of all submissions will be available from midday Tuesday, 9 February.

Hard copies of the Summary of Decisions Requested reports will also be available for inspection at:
● 2GP drop-in centre, 11 George Street, Dunedin, 10am to 3pm, Monday to Friday
● public libraries and/or service centres at Dunedin, Middlemarch, Mosgiel, Port Chalmers, Blueskin Bay (Waitati) and Waikouaiti.

Submissions Map
The submissions map indicates the spatial location of submissions seeking a change to the proposed zoning (management zones only not overlay zones), new heritage precincts, or changes to scheduled items. It reflects the information in the submission point address field of the Summary of Decisions Requested reports. Through pop-ups, the map provides links to relevant submissions.

DISCLAIMER: This map has been prepared as an aid for people wanting to understand the scope of submissions related to an area. The accuracy and completeness of this information is not guaranteed and people should read original submissions. In some cases, the information contained in submissions was not detailed enough to accurately map the scope of the submission. In these cases, the mapping has been either omitted or approximated where possible.

How do I make a further submission?

Online submissions
The RMA requires further submissions to be in a prescribed form (Form 6). An easy way to make a submission is using the 2GP on-line submission system, which ensures submissions are in the prescribed form and allows you to link to specific submission points

Other ways to make a submission
Hard copies of the submission form and submission guidelines can be downloaded below or paper copies can be picked up at the 2GP drop-in centre or from the DCC Customer Services Agency located on the ground floor of the Civic Centre at 50 The Octagon, Dunedin.

For written submissions
Post to: Further submission on Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan, Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9058

Deliver to: Customer Services Agency, Dunedin City Council, Ground Floor, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin

Email to: districtplan @ dcc.govt.nz

Serving a copy of further submissions on submitters
IMPORTANT: Any person making a further submission must serve a copy of that further submission on the person who made the original submission no later than five working days after lodging the further submission with the DCC. A copy of the addresses for service for all submitters is provided in the Submitter Details Report.

● DCC 2GP Have Your Say Page
● DCC 2GP Index Page

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

█ For more at What if? Dunedin, enter the term *2gp* in the search box at right.

2GP commissioner appears to tell Council the outcome before hearings commence #hazardzones

Cr David Benson-Pope is the chairman of the council’s Planning and Regulatory Committee.

This week Benson-Pope has been named as one of the councillor hearing commissioners for the Proposed 2GP.

At the full Council meeting held on Monday, 30 November last year, this report was tabled:

Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 553.9 KB)
Infrastructure Performance During June 2015 Flood Event

In discussion of the item, Councillors provided individual views on low-lying land, flood conditions and future assistance for affected property owners.

Cr Benson-Pope was observed to say:
(confirmed by today’s YouTube release of the video record of the meeting)

2:54:38
“It is this Council’s policy that sea level rise and global warming exist, and I don’t think it’s useful for Councillors to keep propagating the myth that it’s all someone’s fantasy.”

Cr Benson-Pope continued:

2:58:47
“The other issue around this, of course …. is the fact that a lot of these issues are already being addressed in an incremental way over a longer term by the discussions that are happening now as part of the second generation plan, and I am hopeful as we all should be that the regulations and suggestions that are incorporated in that document will hold through the public process, so that management of the issue can be as good as it possibly can.”

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

—

Cr Benson-Pope appears to be telling the Mayor and Councillors, and the general public, what in his view the outcome of the review of the district plan (2GP) should be.

Like the seasoned politician he is I expect the Councillor will look to the symantics and tell us that was not at all the impression he intended to give in the heat of the moment.

But, People, he said it. Let’s think about that. Predetermined.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC 2GP Hearings Panel

Received.
Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 4:21 p.m.

From: Jamie Shaw [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2016 11:36 a.m.
To: Council 2013-2016 (Elected Members); Community Board – Chalmers 2013-2016; Community Board – Mosgiel Taieri 2013-2016; Community Board – Otago Peninsula 2013-2016; Community Board – Saddle Hill 2013-2016; Community Board – Strath Taieri 2013-2016; Community Board – Waikouaiti Coast 2013-2016
Cc: Executive Leadership Team (ELT); Anna Johnson; Ann Rodgers; Teresa Gutteridge; Kristy Rusher
Subject: Media Release – Independent commissioners appointed to 2GP Hearings Panel

Good morning all,

Please find attached a media release announcing the appointment of the independent commissioners on the Proposed Dunedin City District Plan Hearings Panel.

We will be issuing another media release on Friday, outlining the 2GP further submissions process.

This release will be sent to media shortly.

Best regards,

Jamie Shaw
Senior Communications Advisor, Communications and Marketing
Dunedin City Council

(1) Attachment: [click to enlarge]

█ Download: MR 2GP Independent Commissioners appointed (DOCX, 50KB)

—

### dunedintv.co.nz Wed, 3 Feb 2016
Outside experts hired for city planning
The city council is using independent commissioners from out of town to hear submissions on the proposed new district plan. Two experts, from Nelson and Banks Peninsula, have been appointed to the hearings panel. They’re due to consider all information and submissions presented on the second generation plan. Four councillors are also on the committee, which will begin the hearings process in late April. The council’s not saying how much it’ll cost to have commissioners from outside the city involved. They’ve both got decades of experience in the planning sector and have worked with other councils. Hearings for the local plan are expected to run for several months.
Ch39 Video

Related Post and Comments:
9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Zoning issues: Vogel Street activities

76 Vogel Street. Question to Dunedin City Council:
How did this activity happen without a publicly notified plan change?

The ‘warehouse precinct’ referred to in the restaurant’s marketing isn’t recognised by the current Dunedin City District Plan. The building is located within the LSR – Large Scale Retail Zone (see comparative district plan maps below), and the Vogel Street Heritage Precinct (TH13).

—

Vogel Street “remained zoned for large-scale retail uses, although it was proposed to become a mixed-use zone [the warehouse precinct] – allowing a wider variety of uses” – under the 2GP.

### ODT Online Sat, 23 Jan 2016
Objector to cafe’s licence slammed
By Chris Morris
A Dunedin businessman and his city councillor wife have been labelled “dinosaurs” amid claims they are deliberately standing in the way of the warehouse precinct’s regeneration. The criticism came after it was confirmed yesterday Alistair Broad, a commercial property owner and businessman, had filed an objection opposing the Vogel St Kitchen’s bid to renew its liquor licence.
Read more

—

In a former life, the popular Vogel St Kitchen (VSK) was the McIndoe printery. The old brick building has been strengthened and given a new lease of life as a two-level coffee house and licensed eatery. Restaurant proprietor Riah McLean and property owner Lawrie Forbes commissioned a mural by London-based street artist Phlegm for the south exterior wall, visible from the street.

“Dunedin’s coolest destination cafe situated in the heart of the Warehouse Precinct. If you like your coffee and dining to have character and spirit come and check us out.” (publicity)

█ Website: www.vogelstkitchen.co.nz
76 Vogel Street, Dunedin 9016

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

District Plan Maps (2GP) – Compare existing and Second Generation District Plan maps:

DCC Rates Information

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: 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

DCC consents subdivisions without full consultation on stormwater & drainage

Guidelines on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Introduction to sections 27(1) to 27(3): The right to justice Link

Introduction to sections 27(1) to 27(3): The right to justice
Section 27(1) The right to the observance of the principles of natural justice
Section 27(2) The right to a judicial review of determinations
Section 27(3) Proceedings involving the Crown same as proceedings between individuals

█ RE: COUNCIL LIABILITY AND RISK | COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND RATEPAYERS —Non-notified v Notified Resource Consents

GUILTY PARTIES:
Mayor and Councillors, Hearings Committee, Chair of Infrastructure Services Committee, Chief Executive, General Manager Infrastructure and Networks, General Manager Services and Development, Group Manager Water and Waste, City Planning, City Development Team, Resource Consents Team et al.

—

ODT 12.9.15 (page 30)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
27.8.15 DCC: Non-notified … consent Leith Valley 19-lot subdivision #ULCA
7.6.12 Dunedin stormwater: more differences between ORC and DCC
[240 Portobello Road and more]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Esco —‘just the global hardball player we always were’, sorry staff….

Esco Dunedin was among a group of neighbouring businesses objecting to Russell Lund’s plans to redevelop the 142 year old Loan and Mercantile building, citing reverse sensitivity concerns, including over noise. The outcome of Environment Court mediation talks was yet to be revealed, but Mr Kershaw said the issue played no part in the company’s decision. (ODT)

### ODT Online Wed, 2 Sep 2015
Foundry closure ‘a blow’
By Chris Morris
Australia’s mining downturn is set to deliver a “real blow” to Dunedin’s economy with the closure of the Esco foundry and the loss of dozens of jobs. Staff at Esco Dunedin were told yesterday the foundry would close by the end of the year, with the loss of 34 jobs. Esco products division president Jeff Kershaw, of Portland, in the United States, said in a statement the decision reflected a downturn in Australia’s mining industry that showed no sign of letting up.
Read more

—

TWO THINGS

█ Remember when Esco pushed this button (highlighted) at the NZ Loan and Mercantile Building resource consent hearing:

ODT Online [screenshot]

█ From file records, see Russell Lund’s percipient closing to hearing:

[para] 102. The biggest hurdle would seem to be the decline of the Australian coal mining industry. I refer to a Guardian article May 5, 2014 Australian Coalmining entering structural decline.

116. Esco have a large foundry operation in China. They employ 675 people in China.

117. I am very sure the production costs of Esco’s Chinese foundries are markedly less than in Dunedin, Portland or anywhere else. That is the ticking clock for the Dunedin foundry, and other Esco foundries.

118. The bottom line is that Esco will operate this small Dunedin foundry only as long as it serves their shareholders’ interests. If the market conditions dictate that consolidation is required and it is surplus to requirements, then they will act swiftly, as they did in Brisbane.

LUC-2014-259 RV Lund Applicant Right of Reply 22.9.14
(PDF, 6 MB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
6.8.15 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —meeting tomorrow
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
7.1.15 Industrial Heritage Save: Cowes Hammerhead crane
28.11.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —Resource Consent granted
26.11.14 Retraction (see comment on ‘Heritage Counts’)
● 26.9.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —what ESCO said!
30.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing
16.3.10 Public meeting: planning the future of Dunedin heritage buildings
24.10.09 Rodney Wilson: Dunedin as national heritage city

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile*, *heritage*, *bradken* or *harbourside* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: Non-notified resource consent Leith Valley 19-lot subdivision #ULCA

259 Malvern Street Dunedin (LUC-2014-631)
This consent was an application to/for earthworks to form building platforms for 19-lot residential subdivision at 259 Malvern Street Dunedin. This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 1 January 2008.

Source: DCC Non-notified Consent Decisions, page 8 as at 26.8.15

DCC Webmap – 259 Malvern Street (Jan/Feb 2013)

—

Received from Jeff Dickie (Woodhaugh)
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 at 10:10 a.m.

Subject: dodgy valuations

There’s a 19-lot subdivision underway in Malvern Street, just past the bridge after Patmos Avenue. What makes this odd is that it was granted non-notified consent.

There is a ground swell of anger that this has been allowed. None of the residents knew anything about it until it was through.

It also appears to be within Dunedin’s Leith Valley Urban Landscape Conservation Area [ULCA24], that incidentally was foisted on me. I spent $25,000 fighting this including appealing to the Environment Court. I employed a QC, a barrister and an Environmental Planner. In summary, the Judge said I had a right to feel aggrieved. However, he was reluctant to make a ruling that could potentially open the floodgates to other cases against a local authority [DCC].

It meant people like me, and all the other affected re-zoned owners were privately funding a public visual amenity, a de facto reserve.

The reason I felt so aggrieved is that it has happened to me before with an eight and a half acre section directly opposite Millbrook in Queenstown. My partners and I have owned this for about 26 years and have been obstructed for that entire time. Surrounding us everywhere is quite intensive development and ours remains an island of undeveloped land. Our intentions had been for very restrained use, unlike our more successful neighbours, who are clearly “better connected” than us!

The Leith Valley case is odd. The ULCA was supposed to protect the rocky escarpment and bush area and the latest development doesn’t do that.

I’m not certain, but I’ve been told the developer is John Dunckley, a valuer.
He used to live on-site but now lives in Motueka. Ironically, he objected to a neighbour’s subdivision on the grounds of spoiling his view. One has to wonder how on earth this was granted by the DCC. A reward for favours past?

John Dunckley is the ‘stadium valuer’. He put the eye-watering $225M value on the just completed well over budget stadium. That in effect validated the cost overruns.

[ends]

—

It appears the developer Dunckley has chosen to push through with subdivision prior to public consultation of the proposed 2GP this year. Very possibly, the existing overlay of ULCA24 should have been one of the factors necessitating full public notification of the application for (land use) consent. The decision should be investigated or challenged due to the number of potentially affected / interested parties not made formally aware of the land owner’s or indeed the city council’s (covert) process and intentions.

—

Ratepayer: Three Hills Limited

NZ Companies Register:
THREE HILLS LIMITED 5547070
Incorporation Date: 23 Dec 2014
Company Status: Registered
Registered Office: 147b Redwood Valley Road, Rd 1, Richmond 7081
Address for service: 147b Redwood Valley Road, Rd 1, Richmond 7081

Directors (1 of 1):
John DUNCKLEY – 259 Malvern Street, Glenleith, Dunedin 9010

Total Number of Shares: 100
Shareholders in Allocation:
Allocation 1: 100 shares (100.00%)
John DUNCKLEY – 259 Malvern Street, Glenleith, Dunedin 9010
Ellen Jane DUNCKLEY – 259 Malvern Street, Glenleith, Dunedin 9010
Stuart James MCLAUCHLAN – 3 Walsh Lane, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010

—

Subject Site at Leith Valley [screenshot]

█ For interactive comparative maps, go to District Plan Maps

—

Definition (Dunedin City District Plan):
Urban Landscape Conservation Areas – means those areas addressed in the Townscape Section and identified on the District Plan Maps which provide a landscape setting for the urban areas.

● Dunedin City District Plan Volume 1
● District Plan – Section 3: Definitions
● District Plan – Section 13: Townscape

Source: Townscape, page 13:47 [screenshot]

—

█ The 2GP appears to reduce Dunedin City’s biodiversity in residential areas due to Dunedin City Council’s unconstrained support for private speculator/developers to subdivide property holdings and intensify/densify construction, resulting in the removal of existing ULCAs from significant and potentially regenerative conservational environments.

DCC on Natural Environment and Biodiversity
– in reference to the proposed second generation district plan (2GP)

Review of Urban Landscape Conservation Areas
A review of Urban Landscape Conservation Areas (ULCA) has determined that it has been applied in most cases to public reserves. A large number of these reserves are sports grounds with limited vegetation cover and do not meet the intent of a ULCA. Instead the ULCA Zone has functioned as a default reserves zone. The preferred approach in the new Plan [2GP] is to zone large reserves as part of a new Recreation Zone which will better recognise the values of reserves (refer to Q&A: Community and Recreation Activities). This will reduce the need to include such areas as a ULCA.

The approach to be taken with reserves in the 2GP provides an opportunity to reconsider the remaining ULCA areas and whether there are alternative approaches. Some large reserves, such as the Dunedin Town Belt contain extensive areas of vegetative cover that play a significant role in providing corridors for biodiversity and these values need to be recognised with a method that manages biodiversity. The ULCA also includes areas of private land, generally the vegetated steep sides of valleys or gullies, such as the Leith Valley, that provide biodiversity corridors. It is proposed to recognise their values in any method that manages biodiversity.
DCC Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Coldplay – Miracles

Friday afternoon spare time mulling….

Coldplay Official Published on Dec 22, 2014
Coldplay – Miracles (Official Lyric Video)
Download Miracles from iTunes at http://smarturl.it/CPmiracles. Taken from the Unbroken Original Motion Picture Soundtrack.

—

Unbroken is a 2014 American historical biographic war-sports drama film, produced and directed by Angelina Jolie, and based on the award-winning non-fiction book by Laura Hillenbrand, Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption (2010). The film revolves around the life of USA Olympian and athlete Louis “Louie” Zamperini, portrayed by Jack O’Connell. Zamperini survived in a raft for 47 days after his bomber was downed in World War II, then spent more than two and a half years in three brutal Japanese prisoner-of-war camps.

Adapted by Universal Pictures and Legendary Pictures. The Coen brothers, Richard LaGravenese, and William Nicholson wrote the screenplay. The film had its world premiere in Sydney on 17 November 2014, and received a wide release in the United States on 25 December 2014. The film grossed $115.6 million in North America, with a worldwide total of over $161 million.

Laura Hillenbrand also wrote the best-seller, Seabiscuit: An American Legend (2001).

[Source: Wikipedia]

****

The former National Airways Corporation hangar at Taieri Airfield will be refurbished to the state it was during the mid-1940s, when the airfield was a training base during World War II.

### ODT Online Thu, 20 Aug 2015
‘Incredible’ donation secures hangar’s future
By Damian George on
An historic air base hangar built nearly 80 years ago is set to get a makeover, thanks to the charity of a local aviation enthusiast. Murray Barrington (71), a retired businessman turned trainee pilot and plane builder, gave $60,000 to the Otago Aero Club to restore its main hangar, which was built in 1936.
Read more

Otago Daily Times Published on Aug 19, 2015
Otago Aero Club hanger makeover

█ The hangar is listed in the Dunedin City District Plan and recognised as a category two historic place by Heritage New Zealand | List No: 5243

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: wikimedia.org – ‘National Airways Hangar (former) logo, Dunedin’

NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —meeting tomorrow

“You can’t be too confident, but if we’re all reasonable I think an agreement is definitely within reach.” –Russell Lund

Farra Engineering chief executive John Whitaker agreed yesterday when contacted there had been “good work” during mediation.

### ODT Online Thu, 6 Aug 2015
Extra conditions may rescue project
By Chris Morris
Plans to breathe new life into Dunedin’s historic Loan and Mercantile building could be about to take a significant step forward. Building owner Russell Lund will meet a group of neighbouring harbourside businesses, as well as Dunedin City Council and Otago Chamber of Commerce representatives, tomorrow to discuss the stalled project.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
28.11.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —Resource Consent granted (pics)
26.11.14 Retraction (see comment on ‘Heritage Counts’)
26.9.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —what ESCO said!
30.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing
24.10.09 Rodney Wilson: Dunedin as national heritage city

█ For more, enter the terms *harbourside*, *heritage* or *lund* in the search box at right.

[click image to enlarge]

—

Post/image 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