Tag Archives: Dunedin Harbourside

JimmyJones deflates *mad utterings* of Prof Emer Jim Flynn

Received from JimmyJones
2017/03/17 at 7:43 pm

Prof Flynn, Emeritus Professor in Politics, deserves much criticism for his use of fake facts to support his presentation to the DCC councillors on Monday. He is said to have a good understanding of scientific methodology and so he should have known better than to use spindoctored, hyper-exaggerated data. Perhaps it was deliberate. Remember that he is a red-to-the-core Lefty, having been an initiating member of the New Labour Party and the Alliance Party. He was an Alliance electoral candidate for a few elections and was #4 on the Alliance list near the end. Here is what he got wrong:

● the sea level at Dunedin isn’t the ludicrous 10mm/year, it’s not the fake 3.5mm/yr, it’s only 1.3mm/yr (source- Statistics NZ). That means that 25cm of sea level rise will take 192 years not the 17 years that the panicky professor said.

● the 25cm danger level seems to be his own creation – the ORC LIDAR data shows that South Dunedin is mostly over 1.0 metre above sea level and only a handful of properties are below 500mm. Probably there are no houses within 25cm of sea level; he says there are 1932. For the sea level to increase by 1.0 metre will take 769 years. Put it on your calendar.

● fear-monger Flynn tells us about the “huge erosion of polar ice” that started in 2014 – unfortunately he didn’t check the sea-level data which shows us that nothing unusual has happened to the sea level since 2014.

● Prof Flynn tried to scare us by saying that insurance companies are unlikely to cover sea-level rise in their policies in future (ODT- Flynn’s sea level figures disputed), but it turns out that even now, none of us are insured for sea-level rise. There has never been cover for gradual damage. He’s talking crap.

● The Otago Regional Council has had groundwater sensors at South Dunedin for several years and they tell us that there is no detectable increase in groundwater level (no increasing trend).
In fact, there is no reason for a rising sea to cause rising groundwater. There is no connection, except for some places which are close to the shoreline. Also, the South Dunedin groundwater level is about 600mm above sea level and so it is mostly not affected by the sea, since water doesn’t flow uphill. Have a look for yourself: the ORC has recently given us (almost) live groundwater sensor graphs for South Dunedin and other places – thanks ORC. There are four South Dunedin groundwater sites:

http://water.orc.govt.nz/WaterInfo/Catchment.aspx?r=Dunedin

Of the four groundwater sensors only the one closest to the shoreline shows a tidal influence. Other places similarly close to the sea are likely to have some tidal influence on their groundwater level. Further inland there is no effect.

[ends]

****

At Facebook:

whatifdunedin says: Here is DCC and ORC’s outlandish and mythical project, designed to put Ratepayer Funds into the hands of private sector consultants for no good reason, and on it goes. Your elected representatives agreed to this rort:

Related Post and Comments:
14.3.17 Brightness panicked [#effect]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

81 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health & Safety, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Perversion, Politics, Property, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Delta mobile substation, Willis St [industrial/port area]

Sat, 12 Nov 2016 at 3.13 p.m.
Christchurch Driver [CD] phones in a query about the Delta truck parked at Dunedin harbourside: “This jury rig set-up has been in place for at least 6 months – Richard may have more info.”

Photos received at 10:21 p.m.

delta-mobile-substation-willis-st-12-11-16-1-img_1125

delta-mobile-substation-willis-st-12-11-16-1-img_1206Images: CD

What if? query to Richard
Sat, 12 Nov 2016 at 5:42 p.m.
Someone is about to send me photos (not sure when today), of what I think from their description must be a mobile substation? There’s a Delta truck hooked into the network on Willis St, Dunedin harbourside, it’s been there for a few months – can you tell me what the truck is and what it’s there for? – Presumably delivering for local businesses in the industrial zone ? Typically these trucks (if a substation?) are used for continuous supply while maintenance is carried out but given how long this one’s been parked we wonder why the lengthy deployment.

dcc-webmap-delta-mobile-substation-outside-24-willis-st-dunedin-arrowedDCC Webmap – Location of Delta mobile substation (arrowed), 24 Willis St

Reply from Richard Healey
Sat, 12 Nov 2016 at 6:03 p.m.

Yes, that is a mobile substation. It was installed to take the load of a failed transformer nearby. Classic Delta story.
The network refuse to keep strategic spares. Transformers have a 12-week lead time. In this case we ordered a transformer and installed it near that mobile sub but another transformer failed just as we were about to liven it and we pulled it out again to replace the new failure.

A short while ago we had five transformers fail in one night (lightning). Because there are no spares we ended up going to the scrap pile and pulling out five discarded transformers. After painting over the letter s on the side of each one we changed the oil, tested them and put them back on poles.

The second failed transformer was on the corner of Strathallen Street and Andy Bay Road. It was hit by a car.
That means waiting another 12 weeks for a replacement.

[ends]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

4 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Delta, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Infrastructure, Name, People, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Travesty, What stadium

Harbourside: Official information request to Dunedin City Council

Note: LGOIMA official information requests can be emailed direct to officialinformation @dcc.govt.nz

DCC Webmap - Upper Harbour Central Dunedin JanFeb 2013DCC Webmap – Upper Harbour Central Dunedin JanFeb 2013

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 7 September 2015 2:30 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr; Grace Ockwell [DCC]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: LGOIMA Information Request

Dear Sandy

Re: Urban Design and Envisioning for Dunedin Harbourside

I note the following media items:

● ODT (19.8.15) Cull to push for more city hotels [hotel accommodation]
● ODT (20.8.15) Under-fire Cull stands by comments [hotel accommodation]
● ODT (26.8.15) – A Mackay, Opinion Harbourside development adds vibrancy
● ODT (31.8.15) – P Entwisle, Opinion Extraordinary works inspired by nature [Van Brandenburg]
● ODT (5.9.15) Waterfront the next big thing? [bridge, aquarium, ORC headquarters, hotels etc]
● ODT (5.9.15) Harbourside views in conflict
● ODT (5.9.15) ORC denies hindering development
● ODT (7.9.15) Vogel Street Party spreads its wings [Van Brandenburg ‘hotel’ model]
● ODT (7.9.15) Conferences ‘great’ boost for city

●● DCC media release (27.8.15) Building stronger local government connections with China

●● Indications are that DCC wants Otago Rowing Club to relocate from their premises to a site of the DCC’s choosing.

I wish to formally request ALL reports and visionary/guiding documents and or statements/statements of proposal or intent that are currently being used by Dunedin City Council in consultation with other parties (real and potential – local, national and international) be they:

focus groups, steering groups, working parties, development partners, surveyors, designers/architects, resource management specialists, investors, project facilitators, project managers, University of Otago, Otago Polytechnic, Otago Chamber of Commerce and or other – to ‘shape and envision’ the future development of Dunedin Harbourside in the urban area that extends from:

Otago Boat Harbour and its vicinity (includes Industrial 1 zone, Stadium zone, Port 2 zone) to the area zoned for mixed use south of Dunedin’s Steamer Basin (Harbourside zone) and further south to Portsmouth Drive (Industrial 1 zone); including connections to existing precincts TH12, TH13, TH05, TH04, TH03 and TH02.

Any corresponding information and explanation that derives from the, to be publicly notified (this month?), second generation plan (2GP) for these city blocks and foreshore area is also requested.

I look forward to prompt receipt of all available information in electronic format.

Regards

Elizabeth Kerr
[Dunedin North]

——————

From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Sent: Monday, 7 September 2015 2:42 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Cc: Grace Ockwell [DCC]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Information Request

Dear Elizabeth

Thanks for your very detailed LGOIMA request which I have forwarded to the officialinformation @dcc.govt.nz. Your request will be processed under the terms of LGOIMA and a response will be provided as soon as practicable but in any event within 20 working days.

Regards
Sandy

[DCC Group Manager Corporate Services]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
[it’s OK, not holding my breath for too much public disclosure]

26 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, COC (Otago), Construction, CST, Cycle network, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Democracy, Design, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Events, Geography, Heritage, Highlanders, Hotel, KiwiRail, Media, Museums, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, NZTA, Offshore drilling, ORC, ORFU, Otago Polytechnic, People, POL, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design

DCC explains Harbourside subdivision in reply to Vandervis

Received from Sandy Graham, DCC Group Manager Corporate Services
Friday, 16 January 2015 5:06 p.m.

From: Sue Bidrose
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 3:59 p.m.
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Council 2013-2016 (Elected Members); Sandy Graham
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Lee

Here is the Planner’s discussion about the Chalmers subdivision in the paper today. They have given generic information about how such decisions are made (to be notified or non-notified) and then how those principles stacked up in this specific case. They have then also addressed each of your specific attributes for this particular subdivision (size, political interest, transparency etc.) and how much impact that each of these can/can’t have on their decision-making around making the application notified/non-notified. I know you know much of this background Lee, but as you cc’d all Councillors, I wanted a generic response for Councillors who are not Hearings Panel members, so forgive my ‘teaching Granny to suck eggs’ approach.

Attached is also a couple of sketches that the planner (Lianne) made for herself showing the subdivision at the start of the process, and then at the end, just for your information for those of you who are interested in knowing exactly which lots were affected.

Regards
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

[click to enlarge or view PDF immediately below]
DCC Lianne Darby CPL subdivision - sketchmap 1
DCC Lianne Darby CPL subdivision - sketchmap 2

█ Download: Chalmers subdivision diagrams (PDF, 1.0 MB)

——————————

From: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 3:36 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Sue,

Please see below an email that Lianne has prepared in response to your query. I will also be sending some diagrams.

Please let me know if you need anything further.

Regards,
Jeremy

——————————

From: Lianne Darby [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 2:03 p.m.
To: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Subject: RE: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Jeremy

In response to Sue’s questions:

1. All subdivisions require resource consent. This is not a suggestion that there is a fault with subdivision, but is simply a matter whereby Council maintains control i.e. makes sure there is access, servicing, the land is geotechnically stable, etc.

The District Plan sets out the criteria for subdivision within the different zones, and where a subdivision meets the criteria, it is usually processed non-notified. In the case of the Port 2 and Industrial 1 zones, subdivisions are expected to comply with Rules 18.5.3 (access), 18.5.4 & 18.5.4 (requirements for esplanade strips or reserves), 18.5.6 (service connections), 18.5.9 ( a rule which has since been deleted and no long applies), 18.5.10 (lots in unserviced areas) and 18.5.12 (structure plans). Some/most of these rules will not be relevant to specific proposals. It should be noted that there is no minimum area or frontage requirements for lots in these zones. A subdivision meeting all these rules is a restricted discretionary proposal. It is worth noting the final paragraph of Rule 18.5.1 which states:

“… any application for subdivision consent involving a discretionary activity (restricted), the written approval of affected persons need not be obtained.”

… that is, a land owner may subdivide in accordance with the expectations of the District Plan for the zoning without needing to consider others as affected parties.

Subdivisions which do not meet the above rules (unrestricted discretionary and non-notified activities) are often processed non-notified as well if the proposal involves no change in land use, the non-compliance can be mitigated, or there are no consequences for neighbours, the general public or the District Plan integrity. For example, in the residential zones, new lots require frontage. Many lots do not have any frontage at all and the subdivision is a non-complying subdivision as a result. However, these lots will have rights of way providing them with legal and physical access, so the lack of frontage is not considered of any consequence. We do not notify these applications.

As a general rule, subdivisions are notified when there is a breach of density i.e. the new lots are undersized and will result in development at a greater density than the zoning would anticipate. This has the potential to change the wider amenity of an area or overload Council’s services, among other matters. However, if the land is already developed, then the subdivision of the land into lots smaller than anticipated is not usually considered a matter of concern as there will be no actual change occurring except on paper. For example, a lot with two houses could be subdivided into two undersized lots, each containing a house, without the subdivision being notified.

Large subdivisions are not notified simply because they are large. If the subdivision is in accordance with the District Plan expectations, i.e. meets the relevant rules, it will not be notified. For example, the large Mosgiel residential subdivisions currently underway have not been notified except for Heathfield which involved a lot of undersized lots.

Planning does not take into account political or commercial interests when processing resource consents.

2. The subdivision of Chalmers Properties was non-notified for several reasons.
a) It meets the necessary requirements for subdivision in the Port 2 and Industrial 1 zone. Any deficiencies there may be in servicing (e.g. the need for individual water connections) will be addressed as part of the consent conditions, as is typical.
b) There is no new development proposed. The subdivision is not for the purpose of creating vacant sites for new development. This does not mean that the new lots cannot be redeveloped, but this is not the purpose of the subdivision; nor is redevelopment dependent on the subdivision. The existing sites can be redeveloped at any time should the property owner desire.
c) The subdivision is not so much a large subdivision as a number of small subdivisions all being put on the same plan. We are starting with 15 existing titles and finishing with 34.
d) The new lots have, by my understanding, been selected mainly to coincide with existing leases. Council does not have access to lease information and does not know who the leaseholders are (barring door-knocking). Council does not normally consider lessees or property renters as affected parties as the tenancies are private agreements. The subdivision of the freehold parcels should not have implications for the terms of any leases or leasehold titles.
e) Many of the existing titles are comprised of multiple sections. The original subdivision created many small parcels, and these have been grouped into freehold titles to give the 15 subject sites. Section 226 of the RMA allows a property owner to separate these parcels onto separate freehold titles if certain conditions are met. This is not a subdivision, and Council does not have discretion to say ‘no’ if the conditions are satisfied. Many of the new lots follow existing parcel boundaries and could arguably have been dealt with using s226. Given the number of titles being dealt with and the fact that some buildings might actually, when checked by survey, be over boundaries, the applicant decided to deal with them all by a formal subdivision at once; a one step process whereby any breaches of buildings over existing parcel boundaries will not cause the project to stall.

3. As noted above:
a) Size. The size of the subdivision is not a deciding factor in notification if the subdivision rules are met. In this case, the subdivision is not so much a large subdivision as a number of small subdivisions dealt with together. There is no change in land use anticipated as a direct result of this subdivision as there are already established land uses for the new sites.
b) Political implications: Council does not take into account political implications when processing resource consents. Consents are assessed on their merits and not according to who the applicant is or where it is situated. The zone is the relevant factor, not the neighbourhood or the history of the area.
c) Planning implications: There are no planning implications associated with this subdivision. The subdivision meets the necessary rules as set out by Rule 18.5.1(iv) for the Port and Industrial zones. There is no minimum site size set for the zones, so there are no undersized lots. All lots are serviced and have access. They are already developed with lawfully established activities. Any existing encroachments of buildings over boundaries will be resolved by this subdivision. The subdivision is a restricted discretionary activity.
d) Public interest: It is difficult to see how public interest is relevant in this case. The subdivision does not challenge the integrity of the District Plan in any way, and this is the public planning document being applied. The terms of all existing leases should not be affected (and this is a matter between the property owner and tenants anyway, not Council). There is no change to the sites occurring as a direct result of the subdivision. While the new lots may be sold and/or redeveloped, the land is in private ownership and can already be sold and/or redeveloped. Council does not decide whether or not a property owner can sell their land. Redevelopment proposals will be assessed by Council if and when they arise.
e) Commercial interest: Council does not take into account commercial interests when processing resource consents. The RMA sections 74(3) and 95D(d) instructs a consent authority to disregard trade completion or the effects of trade competition.
f) Transparency: The applicant is a private land owner who is entitled by the District Plan to undertake certain activities on their land. While subdivision is not a permitted activity, Council does not decline subdivision applications where the proposal is in accordance with the relevant subdivision requirements and the land is stable (i.e. section 106 of the RMA is not triggered). This is not Council land, nor Council’s project. The resource consent application and decision are public documents available for anyone to view, and in this regard, there is transparency about the proposal. It was decided for the above reasons that the proposal did not need to be notified.

The consent decision makes evident that there are a large number of addresses involved. In a nutshell, the property owner has a large number of addresses which do not fully align with leases, which do not fully align with freehold titles, which do not fully align with buildings on-site. The subdivision seeks to tidy up, or rationalise, the landholdings for ease of the property owner’s administration, as noted in today’s Otago Daily Times paper.

Regards

Lianne

——————————

From: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:43 a.m.
To: Lianne Darby [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

FYI…

From: Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:11 a.m.
To: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Jeremy
Please read the Councillor email below about why the subdivision in today’s paper was done on a non-notified basis. I need details on this – is it possible (please read the details below) to do this today?

I need the details about:
1. Generically: how a planner decides notified vs non-notified – the things you are legally allowed to take into consideration generically, not specifically this case – what are the RULES and steps for making that decision
2. Specifically: how those rules were applied and steps taken in this specific case

Given my response to the Councillors is quite likely be shared reasonably widely, it might be useful in answering that first dotpoint for you to imagine you are writing a sort of ‘guide to the notification decision-making process’.

Thirdly, it would be also useful if you could tell me specifically on how each of the following issues is allowed to have weight in that decision of notification:
Size (of subdivision/change)
Political implications
Planning implications
Public interest
Commercial interest
Transparency.

Jeremy, if you could cc Sandy in your response please, as we will disseminate the answer and all relevant emails the way we do with LGOIMAs – and I suspect we could well get LGOIMAs about this also.

Thanks
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

From: [name redacted on forwarding to council staff]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 7:53 a.m.
To: Sue Bidrose [DCC]; Sandy Graham [DCC]
Cc: (all councillors)
Subject: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Dear Sue,
Why has the massive subdivision of 15 ORC properties into 34 lots [today’s ODT p4] been processed on a non-notified basis, given the size, political and planning implications, and public and commercial interest in this range of properties?
Notification is surely a necessary prerequisite for such a large range of subdivisions to be carried out in a transparent manner is it not?
Kind regards,
[name redacted]

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
9.1.15 DCC: Non-notified decision for harbourside subdivision
27.12.14 Port Otago Ltd + Chalmers Properties
17.11.14 Bradken keen to sell Tewsley Street premises
12.6.14 Dunedin’s industrial land
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Heritage NZ, Name, New Zealand, ORC, People, Pics, POL, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

DCC: Non-notified decision for Harbourside subdivision

Updated post 13.1.15 at 1:25 a.m. Map added.

Notice:

20 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 8 Bombay Street Dunedin, 10 Bombay Street Dunedin, 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin, 47 Willis Street Dunedin, 59 Willis Street Dunedin, 34 Mason Street Dunedin, 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 56 Willis Street Dunedin (SUB-2014-149)

This consent was an application to/for subdivision at 20 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 8 Bombay Street Dunedin, 10 Bombay Street Dunedin, 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin, 47 Willis Street Dunedin, 59 Willis Street Dunedin, 34 Mason Street Dunedin, 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 56 Willis Street Dunedin.

This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 25 November 2014.

http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning/browse-non-notified-decisions?result_146838_result_page=3

Information obtained from City Planning 12.1.15

Harbourside subdivision (SUB-2014-149)
Applicant: Chalmers Properties Ltd

“The proposed subdivision is to be undertaken in one stage, and will not create any vacant sites intended for development. Nor is any redevelopment of the new lots anticipated.” (from the Decision) ??? Are we sure….

SUB-2014-149 Decision (DOCX, 1.62 MB)

SUB-2014-149 Application 2014-10-30 (PDF, 9.33 MB)

Plan. Lots 1 - 34 Subdivision of Land in Industrial Precinct. PatersonPitts for CPLDecision (final page) – Copy of Plan: Not to Scale. [click to enlarge]

DCC Webmap - Dunedin Harbourside (detail)DCC Webmap – Dunedin Harbourside [click to enlarge]

Dunedin City District Plan - Harbourside zones (detail 1)Dunedin City District Plan – Harbourside zones (detail) via Map 35 and Map 49

nzhpt-dunedin-harbourside-historic-area-1Heritage New Zealand – Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area # List No. 7767

DCC Ratepayers:

● 20 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Anzide Properties Ltd
● 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Anzide Properties Ltd
● 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin – McCormick Carrying Properties Ltd
● 8 Bombay Street Dunedin – Ross D Matheson, Mary K O’Hara Matheson
● 10 Bombay Street Dunedin – Nicen Ltd
● 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin – Ewen W Heather, Leanne M Kent, Russell S Melville
● 47 Willis Street Dunedin – Steel and Tube Holdings Ltd, Pacific Oriental Holdings Ltd
● 59 Willis Street Dunedin – Christie Paper Ltd
● 34 Mason Street Dunedin – Otago Daily Times Ltd
● 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin* – Graeme M Crosbie, Gillian K Crosbie
● 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Hyde Park Industrial Developments Ltd
● 56 Willis Street Dunedin – Development Six Ltd

*Note: Conflicting DCC mapping information for 44 Cresswell Street, Dunedin. Property adjoins 14 Tewsley Street, does not include 14 Tewsley Street.

Related Posts and Comments:
16.1.14 DCC explains Harbourside subdivision in reply to Vandervis
27.12.14 Port Otago Ltd + Chalmers Properties
17.11.14 Bradken keen to sell Tewsley Street premises
12.6.14 Dunedin’s industrial land
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

28 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Name, New Zealand, POL, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

Octagon: What?! DCC pointy heads actually care about small businesses?

So they should.

The following report will be tabled at the Council meeting to be held on Monday 3 November 2014 at 2:00pm (Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers).

Report – Council – 03/11/2014 (PDF, 1023.1 KB)
Options to Trial Pedestrianisation in Lower Octagon and Lower Stuart Street

Octagon tweaked 1.1 [via etourism.coOctagon to Steamer Basin, cherry stains by whatifdunedin

Octagon Webcam

█ [Agenda and Other Reports, including Financial for Monday]

The “do minimum” option – one of five options councillors will consider – has the support of lower Octagon and lower Stuart St business owners and retailers, who have banded together to oppose any road closures.

### ODT Online Fri, 31 Oct 2014
Council cools on Octagon trial
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council may back away from trialling any ban or restriction on vehicles in the lower Octagon and lower Stuart St. Council staff are concerned rushing any “pedestrianisation” trial in the area could be costly and potentially have negative effects if it goes ahead without proper investigation.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
19.10.14 Dunedin: Randoms from inside warehouse precinct 18.10.14
● 3.10.14 DCC: Octagon entrée to more spending
● 28.9.14 “DCC entitlement” about to ramrod change at CBD #manipulation
24.9.14 Dunedin old boys, councillors & staff collude on 5-star accommodation
● 5.8.14 DCC staff-led CBD projects that impact ratepayers…
4.8.14 Cr Wilson’s integrity ‘in tatters’
23.6.14 DCC Annual Plan 2014/15 + Rugby and Rates
● 22.6.14 Vogel Street Heritage Precinct (TH13)
22.5.14 DCC Transportation Planning —ANOTHER consultation disaster
7.5.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 hearings
6.5.14 Roading network screwed by council staff
● 30.4.14 Octagon mud
21.4.14 Dunedin economic development strategy — low flying Year 1
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Daaave’s pals from… [April Fool’s?]
14.1.14 DCC: Hospital area parking changes #cyclelanes
24.12.13 Daaave’s $47 million Christmas present to Jinty. We’re paying.
4.12.13 Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten greeted by DCC silence
17.11.13 Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten’s alternative route
11.11.13 DCC: Councillors delegated street furniture decisions to staff
8.11.13 Dunedin Separated Cycle Lane Proposal
5.11.13 DCC, NZTA: Cycle lanes controversy
● 21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin…
24.9.13 Mediocrity and lack of critical awareness at DCC
4.9.13 Draft Dunedin City Transport Strategy
8.3.13 Stupid bid for two-way highway ditched for now #DCC
31.10.12 Cull’s council takes business away from retailers
● 26.10.11 Dunedin Harbourside: DCC “caved”

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: etourism.co.nz – Octagon aerial; pxm-tut.com – cherry

34 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Concerts, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, DVML, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Events, Fun, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Media, New Zealand, NZTA, Otago Polytechnic, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

By properly and logically establishing the significance of a historic port, plans can be laid that enhance and build on that significance and that incorporate difficult heritage buildings and structures.
–Simon Thurley, English Heritage

Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust registered the Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area on 4 April 2008 (List No. 7767). The historic area takes in properties at 25, 31-33 Thomas Burns Street, Birch Street, Fryatt Street, Fish Street, Willis Street, Cresswell Street, Tewsley Street, Wharf Street, Roberts Street and Mason Street.

nzhpt-dunedin-harbourside-historic-area-2 copyImage: Heritage New Zealand

The Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area is made up of the core of the port operations and associated businesses surrounding the steamer basin at the Upper Harbour in Dunedin which had developed by the first decades of the twentieth century. It includes a major portion of the land in Rattray, Willis and Cresswell Streets which was reclaimed by the end of the nineteenth century. It also includes the Fryatt Street and Cross Wharves, including the wharf sheds on Fryatt Street Wharf, as well as the former Otago Harbour Board Administration Building at the Junction of Birch Street and Cross Wharves, the former British Sailors’ Society Seafarers’ Centre, and the former Briscoe’s Wharf Store and Works on the corner of Birch, Wharf and Roberts Streets [since lost to fire], and the walls and bridge abutment on Roberts Street which are the remnants of the bridge which linked that Street to the city.
Read Registration report here.

Dunedin City Council has refused to list the Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area in the District Plan.

Harbour Basin aerialImage: ODT [screenshot]

### ODT Online Sat, 15 Mar 2014
‘Potential new harbourside developments ‘exciting’
By Chris Morris
Excitement is growing about the potential for fresh development of Dunedin’s harbourside, including a new marine science institute featuring a public aquarium being considered by the University of Otago. The Otago Daily Times understands university staff have already held preliminary talks with Dunedin City Council staff about a possible new marine science institute in the harbourside zone, on the south side of steamer basin. The Otago Regional Council has also met Betterways Advisory Ltd, which wants to build a waterfront hotel in the city, to discuss the ORC’s vacant waterfront site, it has been confirmed.
Read more

Potential for contemporary reuse – Fryatt Street wharfsheds
Dunedin wharf sheds [4.bp.blogspot.com] 1Dunedin wharf sheds [m1.behance.net] 1Images: 4.bp.blogspot.com; m1.behance.net

Historic ports are places that need intelligent interrogation before we start to reinvent them for the future: understanding their heritage significance is the first step.

On the waterfront: culture, heritage and regeneration of port cities

HERITAGE IN REGENERATION: INSPIRATION OR IRRELEVANCE?
By Dr Simon Thurley, Chief Executive, English Heritage

I had better come clean at the start. I live in a port. As it happens, it is a port which was, in its time, and on a different scale, as successful as Liverpool was in its heyday. But that time is rather a long time ago now, in fact over four hundred years. In 1600 my home town of King’s Lynn was amongst Britain’s leading ports, bigger than Bristol in numbers of ships and with trading tentacles reaching into the Baltic and far into the Mediterranean. Lynn’s position as a port was destroyed by the railways and although it still has working docks today the tonnage that passes through is very small. Yet anyone visiting it can instantly see that this was once a port; the customs house, the old quays, the merchants houses, the big market places and the fishermen’s houses all add immeasurably to Lynn’s sense of place.

We not only ask developers to build new structures that respect the old, but we also require them to incorporate old ones that have value.

It is this sense of place, this character, that we at English Heritage will always say that needs to be understood. For us the first and most important thing is that any developer and the relevant local authority should have a full understanding of the place in which major change is are planned. Various tools have been invented over the years to try and help that process. These include characterisation, historical studies, view studies, urban analysis and more. But does this actually make any difference? What happens to the richly illustrated historical reports produced by consultants? Are they handed to architects who then use them as their bible? Are they taken up by the planners and turned into supplementary planning guidance? Or do they just get put on a shelf?

There can be a broad consensus about what constitutes successful development that preserves aesthetic values. The trick for planning authorities is finding a way to capture it.

The answer is that normally it just gets forgotten because for most developers and many local authorities heritage is just a hindrance. If a report on heritage is commissioned they will have ticked off a process that they need to say they have done, but once completed it can be set aside and everyone can get on with the business of making money. Ipswich is an example of this. Like many ports, it has refocused its commercial hub away from the historic centre leaving a lot of land in the historic trading heart for regeneration. The city decided to prepare what it called an Area Action Plan for the redevelopment of the historic port. This included some work on the history, archaeology and development of the area: all very useful. The process was then to take this forward to create a series of planning briefs and master plans to inform individual developments. This would reinforce general points in the action plan about storey heights, vistas and through routes as well as issues about historic character. Regrettably, this latter part was not done and what Ipswich got was lots of poorly designed high-rise flats built on a budget. And they got it with the heritage studies still sitting on a shelf.
Read more

Tobacco Warehouse, Stanley Dock, Liverpool (1903) 1Image: English Heritage – Tobacco Warehouse 1903, Stanley Dock LP

Liverpool World Heritage Site
Liverpool was inscribed as a World Heritage Site as the supreme example of a maritime city and its docks are testimony to that claim. Jesse Hartley’s Albert Dock, opened in 1845, is the finest example of a nineteenth century wet dock in the world while the nearby Canning Graving Docks and Waterloo and Wapping Warehouses are also of note. North of Pier Head with its magnificent ‘Three Graces’, Stanley Dock, Victoria Clock Tower and Salisbury Dock lie derelict, awaiting re-use. Link

Contemporary development — Shed 10 and The Cloud, Queens Wharf, Auckland
Queens Wharf - The Cloud Shed [conventionsnz.co.nz] 1Shed 10, Auckland [queens-wharf.co.nz] 1The Cloud Auckland CBD [queens-wharf.co.nz] 1The Cloud Auckland CBD June 2012 [upload.wikimedia.org] 2Images: (from top) conventionsnz.co.nz; queens_wharf.co.nz; queens_wharf.co.nz; upload.wikimedia.org

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

23 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hotel, Innovation, Inspiration, Name, New Zealand, NZHPT, ORC, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design