123 Vogel St, an action about council process?

123 Vogel St before external building changes [Google Street View]

At Facebook:

****

Where to start. Here we have an award winning redevelopment of a substantial old warehouse for new commercial use. Reading the Otago Daily Times today we learn a local businessman questions council process on consenting grounds – apparently, there was an ‘administrative error’ with a set(s) of drawings, and a condition of the resource consent issued for 123 Vogel St was neither correctly tracked or enforced.

Rightly, the businessman doesn’t wish to litigate the matter through the newspaper.

The building owner to his credit has made a large and worthy investment in the building structure and its upgrade for commercial occupancy, revitalising a large segment of the block running between Vogel and Cumberland streets.

Why then would an ungenerous attack by one party not closely involved in the proposed warehouse precinct, be lobbed at this one building owner in such negative and disastrous fashion.

What is at stake. More importantly, what does bringing the action do to enhance the historic built environment, commercial property development, and council processes – if ad hocism (planning rules enforced here, and not there?) is argued as ‘state of play’. Is there any good in an Environment Court challenge – is it ‘vexatious’.

Impartiality, transparency, technical proficiency and fairmindedness is the hoped-for collective quality to be seen in any council operation, particularly in regards to planning matters. How far can ‘the managers’ of the District Plan, a community owned living document, seek room to breathe —or indeed, treat every resource consent application on its individual merits ….for positive precinct and in-zone outcomes, for the avoidance of new (adverse) precedents or laxity of interpretation where the rules go swimming. Where does the line bite.

In practical terms we read that what was built (window-wise at second floor level) does not accord with what was granted by resource consent.

We see minorly dropped sills (pretty? hmm) and a small extra pane of glass added for greater daylighting and liveability, done in such a way that the original scale and depth of the windows remains readable. The intervention isn’t screaming. It is very quiet, and reasonable? Why then did someone fudge the option to be consented. Who did not enforce the agreed design solution? Were affected parties given all proper information as the application processed to decision? Does the error set a precedent for destruction of protected facades and heritage townscape? This most certainly can be argued and tested generally and legally – but probably not with 123 Vogel St hauled to centre stage, pointing up administrative error or wilful and confused intention at DCC if that could be shown…. The second generation district plan public consultation process is perhaps the best place to locate the discussion. Not here, unless there is something else forming the agenda for the current challenge.

Recently, there has been another example of ‘sill dropping’ in the precinct (TH13) at the corner of Rattray and Cumberland Sts. Most people – heritage advocates included – would view the degree of change to sill height as rather subtle in the context of the overall historic heritage ‘Save’. But these details niggle aesthetes and the conscientious.

Is the effect (of design subtleties – a broad tradition….) to cumulatively – with more than minor effect – destroy ‘old’ townscape in the Vogel Street Heritage Precinct, other heritage and townscape precincts, and more widely across the central city —the ‘sense of place’ (held by ‘original’ built fabric) that District Plan policy and rules are designed to constrain, curbing overt changes to external building appearance?

How on earth did this happen at the council? Perhaps the challenge and subsequent ruling (win or lose) will ensure that all comers receive the same level of service in the adminstration of consents and conditions, and the intent of District Plan rules is more strictly adhered to by council planners.

Everyone is entitled to their day in court. The other hope is that DCC is meeting all of Mr Barnes’ legal costs.

If that was the fight advertised on page 1 today.

****

OPTION ONE STAYED IN THE CONSENT DECISION …. Option one would have had a new sash and two panes of glass, instead of what was built.

### ODT Online Tue, 20 Jun 2017
Building owner baffled over court action
By David Loughrey
The owner of an award-winning Dunedin warehouse precinct building has been called to face the Environment Court in a case he described yesterday as “vexatious”. The court action calls on 123 Vogel St owner Chris Barnes to remove windows on the second floor and replace them with a design applicant Dunedin businessman John Evans says should have been built under the building’s resource consent. Court documents from Mr Barnes’ counsel describe the action as “utterly baffling”. Mr Barnes has questioned the intentions of Mr Evans, and the court documents ask who Mr Evans is representing, and whether he is “receiving funds from a third party”. Some people involved would not speak on the record but one claimed property interests in “the big end of town” were behind what they saw as an attack on the precinct. […] Mr Evans’ application referred to a condition in the resource consent.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
19.6.17 Vogel Street parking on a quiet Sunday afternoon #petroltheft
1.6.17 Oh noes! One adverse slip of the pen and it’s Over Rover #warehouseprecinct
3.2.17 MORE DCC bull dust and poor investment #Sammy’s
18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
9.10.16 Vogel Street Party 2016 #randoms
3.10.16 Vogel Street Party 2016 #Dunedin
10.4.16 spilt milk, tears, Unnecessary
23.1.16 Zoning issues: Vogel Street activities
16.12.15 DCC: Restriction of Vehicles from Parts of Jetty Street DECLARED
18.11.15 SAVE Sammy’s (former His Majesty’s Theatre & Agricultural Hall)
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
7.10.15 Vogel Street Party —Sat, 10 October
17.3.15 Dunedin Heritage Re-use Awards
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
28.10.14 Dunedin’s “period architecture”, not so quaintly….
19.10.14 Dunedin: Randoms from inside warehouse precinct 18.10.14
15.10.14 Vogel St. Street Party | Saturday 18 Oct 3pm – 11pm [2014]
5.8.14 DCC staff-led CBD projects that impact ratepayers | consolidated council debt
22.6.14 Vogel Street Heritage Precinct (TH13)
13.7.13 Cities: Organic renewal3.3.11 Dunedin can provide vacant buildings, warehouses and offices #eqnz
8.3.13 Stupid bid for two-way highway ditched for now #DCC
31.10.12 Cull’s council takes business away from retailers
21.2.11 Dunedin Heritage: Central government should be contributing
19.2.11 Dunedin, are you ‘of a mind’ to protect Historic Heritage?
19.2.11 Reed Building, 75 Crawford Street for demolition?
7.4.10 DScene alerts commercial building owners to responsibilities
24.3.10 DScene features heritage/issues!

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

WE have the information, unreasonable delay providing it #LGOIMA

Contrary to DCC Bylaw 23 no camping restriction applied over summer

DCC’s delay in providing official information on freedom camping numbers (Which Is Available) appears to equate with what happened over LGOIMA requests lodged after the South Dunedin Flood of June 2015. Delay, derferment, and obfuscation occurred then as now. There is no reason to believe anything has changed internally, magnified by today’s ‘official response’.

[redacted screenshot – click to enlarge]

****

DCC now has a laborious text response as first acknowledgement of the LGOIMA requests it receives. An associate has been working on improvements to the below on suggestion back to the system. The short information request is highlighted by whatifdunedin:

From: officialinformation @dcc.govt.nz
Sent: Monday, 13 March 2017 7:55 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Confirmation of receipt of LGOIMA request – 577864

Dear Elizabeth

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 13 Mar 2017 7:55am

We support public access to official information. Our obligation under the Local Government Official Information Act 1987 (the Act) is to provide you the information requested as soon as reasonably practicable unless there is a good reason for withholding it.

We will process information requests as below:

1. We will let you know as soon as we can (and in any case within 20 working days) whether your request will be granted or declined, and if the request is declined why we have declined it.

1. In some cases it may be necessary for our decision to be made after 20 working days. When this occurs we will advise you the anticipated delivery date together with the reason why it is necessary to extend that time within the 20 working days.

1. If your request is complex or requires a large amount of collation and research, we may contact you with a view to either refining your request or discussing the possibility of charging for aspects of your request in line with the DCC charging policy.

1. If we decide to release the information, we aim to provide it at the same time as we give our decision. If this is not possible we will provide the information as soon as reasonably practicable.

If you need to contact us about your request, please email officialinformation@dcc.govt.nz or call 03 477 4000. Please quote reference number: 577864

The timeliness of our decisions and the reasons for them are reviewable by the Office of the Ombudsman. You can view the Ombudsman’s guidelines for the processing of information requests at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by calling freephone: 0800 802 602.

Yours sincerely,

Official Information Request Service

Below are the details of the request

Your request:

New information request – Warrington Domain

I have been informed that DCC recently ran a survey of the freedom campers at Warrington Domain, asking (in no particular order here):

1. where they were from
2. their age
3. how much they were spending
4. what activities they were doing in Dunedin, and
5. what type of vehicle they were in.

I’m told the survey ran for two weeks; and that it was conducted by Ashley Reid.

I request a full copy of the survey results (with names of campers redacted for privacy), to be received by email at earliest convenience.

I note hearings for the Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw will be held this week. Prompt receipt of the survey information would be enabling. Thanks.

File attachment
No file uploaded

[ends]

*****

Points:

1. The Reserves and Beaches Bylaw review that had hearings this week did not include a review of freedom camping; freedom camping is specifically excluded from this bylaw review. The freedom camping bylaw review is heralded to take place in about a month’s time.

2. The point numbering error in the response of 13 March above is the DCC’s.

3. The running foot, or footer, italicised in red (“Dance like no one is watching; Email like it may one day be read aloud in a deposition.”) in the redacted screenshot above, has been raised with senior staff this afternoon and has since been sorted.

4. The LGOIMA response received today must be seen in light of a response to another request I made for information about Warrington Domain lodged on 22.1.17 [ref no. 570874]:

[excerpt; my underlining]

14. How many freedom campers have been staying at Warrington Domain nightly from 1 July 2016 to 15 January 2017? (please state number of vehicles; and number of individuals if known)

15. What is the average length of stay per vehicle at the Domain?

DCC response (28.2.17):

14) We do not perform a count of freedom campers at each site daily. An estimate may be available as a result of a recent survey that was conducted across camping sites within the city. Please advise if you wish to refine your request to include an estimate of numbers.

15) See the answer to question (14) above.

****

whatifdunedin’s ‘amateur’ response and translation:

WE have the information —WE are going to control it. Let’s play cat and mouse, if it turns out the information is ‘maybe’ awkward or not in OUR political favour [before a Bylaw review]. Besides, WE need processing time to [‘line up ducks’] before the information, analysed…… hits the iPads of elected representatives. Micromanaging is GOOD. Vive la DCC Operatives !!

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 15.2.17 Warrington : DCC dictates loss of community’s grassed recreation reserve to freeloaders
8.2.17 Hands Off Enjoyment of OUR Beaches #DCC
● 6.2.17 Uncontrolled freedom camping at Warrington Domain this weekend —DCC ‘hell model’ [no enforcement]
● 1.2.17 “Fake news” from DCC boffins & Community Board re freedom camping at Warrington Domain #TheBlight
10.2.16 Dunedin freedom camping #DCC #enforcement
16.12.14 DCC: Freedom Camping issues
7.12.09 Coastal protection zones

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: warrington domain, cropped detail of supplied colour photograph taken 14.2.17

Ex ‘greater’ sitting councillor

Received
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 at 8:47 a.m.

“Not campaigning because of being paid by the day to do 2GP Commissioner work while also being paid as Council Chair. We’re supposed to be impressed.

The most deluded council members have warned us – they say they have visions.
Likely in the city not for the city.”

[image supplied]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

DCC electoral issues : Double jeopardy

Received
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 at 1:19 p.m.

Whiley Coyote sign on SH1 – 13.7 km from Waikouaiti
2.45 m x 1.22 m double sided on power poles….
Authorised site ?????

****

“I see Andrew Whiley has made a bold announcement today that he wants to build a sea wall from the St Clair Pool to Lawyers Head to include a cycle way to protect the beach and dunes. He also suggests it can be done for $20 million, which is a big call but unfortunately not likely to be feasible. The replacement cost for the Oamaru breakwater is estimated as high as $27-$48 million, if you put that into context with the scale of Ocean Beach Domain the cost is significantly higher. The Oamaru breakwater is approximately 500 metres long and allowing for the curvature of the beach, Ocean Beach is 3.6 kilometres, seven times the distance. So you would be looking at an approximate cost of $189-$336 million dollars.” –Paul Pope

[image supplied][thechive.com]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

*Image: youtube.com – Wile E. Coyote Genius

Dunedin rugby’s manifest advantage, and ratepayer subsidy, Again

Received from Rob Hamlin
Fri, 17 Jun 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

[begins]

ODT article today:

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/387120/rugby-clubs-fear-viability

Response posting:

“Until quite recently I was the president of a major Otago sports club that has been operating since the 1870s. The club is located on Dunedin City Council recreational land.

The lease of this land very clearly stated that we were not permitted to hire out the facilities on this site for ANY commercial purposes. A breach led to immediate forfeiture of the lease. This was a condition that both this club, and others like it, adhered to.

It is adhered to because, penalties aside, this condition seems fair enough. The land upon which the club stands is leased for recreational purposes at what were, and are, well below the income that could be raised by the DCC for this publicly owned asset, had the land been zoned and leased for commercial purposes.

If anything the many rugby clubs in this town are even more privileged in terms of their subsidised occupation of public assets, as they have rooms that are on an even grander scale and sit in large and potentially very valuable areas of publicly owned land that are specifically contoured and laid out for rugby, and are maintained for this purpose at considerable public expense.

I am surprised that the DCC recreational leases for their facilities apparently do not contain similar blunt conditions to the one that my committee and I worked with. However, it is rugby, so perhaps I am not so surprised after all. Maybe the leases are rugby ‘specials’ or alternatively, the leases are the same and the apparently regular infringements are just winked at.

For rugby clubs to then maintain that they then have the ‘right’ to routinely operate these recreational facilities, that are largely provided and maintained by the the wider public, for their own commercial benefit, and thereby create a regular nuisance for said wider public within what are largely residential areas, speaks volumes for the ongoing and unreasonable sense of relative entitlement displayed by this small (and shrinking) subset of the community.

For those who become irritated by noise and other nuisances emanating from functions in nearby rugby venues, they may be well advised to acquire a copy of the DCC lease concerned to see if the club concerned are in breach of its terms, and what the penalties/remedies for any such breach are.”

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Dunedin freedom camping #DCC #enforcement

“It could happen here.”

—

### ODT Online Tue, 9 Feb 2016
Freedom camper influx irks residents
By Vaughan Elder
Warrington residents are concerned about a spike in freedom campers, some of whom leave faeces littered through the sand dunes. The concern comes as tensions are rising in Brighton Rd, residents there telling the Otago Daily Times last week they were worried about freedom campers cramming into the Ocean View Reserve.
Read more

### ODT Online Fri, 5 Feb 2016
Campers upsetting residents
Tensions are rising in Brighton Rd as reports of more than 30 freedom campers cramming into the Ocean View Reserve become common. The Dunedin City Council has no plans to change its freedom camping bylaw, despite community concern and more than 280 infringement notices being issued since it came into effect last year.
Read more

### DunedinTV Tue, 9 Feb 2016
Nightly interview: Scott Weatherall
The city council’s new policy for freedom camping is upsetting some seaside residents. Campers are piling up at the Ocean View Reserve near Brighton, which is one of just two designated sites. Saddle Hill Community Board chairman Scott Weatherall joins us to explain the situation.
Ch39 Video

—

The Dunedin City Council bylaw allows freedom campers to stay a maximum of two nights in Dunedin on any council-owned gravelled or sealed land set aside for parking, except in cemeteries, scenic reserves and some prohibited zones on Otago Peninsula, as long as the vehicle was self-contained with a toilet, grey waste and waste capacity for three days.

Limited spaces for non-self-contained vehicles are available at Warrington Domain and in the car park at Ocean View Reserve.

█ DCC Webpage: Freedom Camping
If you are a freedom camper coming to Dunedin, this page will tell you all you need to know before you get here.
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/isite/freedom-camping

█ Freedom Camping in Dunedin (PDF, 333 KB)
8 Dec 2015. This brochure on the Freedom Camping Policy provides guidelines for campers.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Wake-up call for Christchurch #eqnz #SeriousFraud

The content of the following news item by New Zealand Herald has been reproduced here in full, in the public interest. -Eds

—

### nzherald.co.nz 5:45 PM Sunday Sep 23, 2012
Business
Stamp out Chch fraud early – SFO boss
Fraudulent activity during the Christchurch rebuild should be acted on quickly rather than mopped up afterwards, departing Serious Fraud Office chief executive Adam Feeley says.

His comments come after Deloitte international corruption expert Peter Dent last week warned of the potential for huge amounts of fraud as the systems in place for the rebuild get stretched to the limit.

Mr Feeley said enforcement and regulatory agencies had made the mistake of mopping up after the fact at failed finance companies – but the office would not let that happen in Christchurch.

“It’s incredibly important that we don’t mop afterwards – we act now, we act in a very co-ordinated fashion, and we act in respect of what we know to be the problem,” he told TV3’s The Nation.

“The problem is at the moment, we’re not sure what the problem is. But we every reason to believe – unless New Zealand is some unique anomaly in the world – that post-natural disaster you have fraud, and you have fraud on quite a big scale.”

The Serious Fraud Office would focus on three key areas in Christchurch.

“One is around public awareness – to get people to speak up, to come and contact us, police or other agencies if they see things either within their work or just publicly going on that they have concerns about.”

The second was to use intelligence “a lot more cleverly”.

“You need to analyse data, and the sheer volume of data that happens after a natural disaster means you have to be more sophisticated in the way you look for anomalies that might suggest fraud.”

The third and most important focus was to act quickly.

“Far more quickly than we have in the past.”

Mr Feeley said the office would use methods as unsophisticated as hearing something in a pub.

He said it seemed taboo in New Zealand to “snitch” but people needed to speak up if they knew about crimes being committed.

“It’s New Zealand – we know what’s going on and we want to encourage that culture,” he said.

“It is very, very rare that people commit crimes without someone knowing there is a problem happening.”

Mr Feeley leaves the Serious Fraud Office next month to become the chief executive of the Lakes District Council in Queenstown.
NZ Herald Link

—

Related Comments: (Adam Feeley)
https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/dunedin-city-council-seen-by-fairfax-business-bureau-deputy-editor-tim-hunter/#comment-26677

https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/pokie-fraud-odt-fails-to-notice-own-backyard/#comment-25826

https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/st-clair-sea-wall-and-beach-access/#comment-20321

https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/2011-rwc-eden-park-consents/#comment-5830

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Public consultation for DCC Earthquake-prone Buildings Policy

Making buildings safe AND safeguarding Dunedin’s capital investment and reputation as a heritage city.

****

### ODT Online Thu, 14 Apr 2011
Safe building ideas sought
By David Loughrey
The dates are set and the process is about to begin to make Dunedin a safer place in an earthquake. While planning for a review of the Dunedin City Council policy on dangerous, insanitary and earthquake-prone buildings began last year, it took on a new urgency after the Christchurch earthquake in February. The council yesterday announced it had completed its review, and the document was available for inspection and submissions from the public, with the submission process to end on May 27.

Three “drop-in sessions” have been organised, with a May 2 session at the Port Chalmers Library, and two sessions on May 3, one at the Clarion building in Princes St, and another at the Gasworks Museum in South Dunedin. Staff and council representatives would be available to discuss issues related to the policy. A hearing is scheduled for the week beginning June 4 to consider submissions.

Read more

Related Posts:
28.3.11 Dunedin earthquake proneness 2
9.3.11 Dunedin earthquake proneness
4.3.11 Reaction to another instance of unthinking ad-hocism from City Hall
14.2.11 Earthquake proneness
14.9.10 DCC Media Release: Dunedin’s Heritage Buildings

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr