Tag Archives: Dunedin City District Plan

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

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

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

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

Ms Semple maintains that the application cannot be lawfully unbundled.

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

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

[click to enlarge]

LOLOL

At Facebook:

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

3 Comments

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

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

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

CALL FOR PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

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

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

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

Notice of Requirement No: DIS-2017-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

Notices of requirement and requiring authorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

All we want is …. [possibly?]

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

NO Bus Hub in Great King St.

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

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

[whatifdunedin]

2 Comments

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

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.

8 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Education, Geography, Health & Safety, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Urban design

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:

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.

11 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Geography, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZPI, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Travesty, What stadium

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

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.

10 Comments

Filed under Agriculture, Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ngai Tahu, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Travesty

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

zebra-crossing-by-marian-kamensky-caglecartoons-com-1The 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.

****

mural-applied-to-raw-red-brick-alley-next-to-104-bond-st-guy-mauve-at-flickr-comThanks 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

17 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, DCC, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Electricity, Finance, Heritage, Heritage NZ, Infrastructure, Media, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

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.

70 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium