Apartment hotel proposal has FATAL Flaws : ODT offers Flimsy Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Dunedin City Council about to find out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not much.

****

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

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

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

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

My own submission to hearing states:

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hearing is adjourned until 17 August.

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

—

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

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

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

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

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

[click to enlarge]

“Fat” gawky Hotel and Apartment building : Questionable design even with 4 floors lopped off

What environmental considerations, Mr Page?

More than minor.

[Everyone will remember the learned Mr Page from the Betterways hotel and apartment building application for 41 Wharf St at the waterfront, not so long ago.]

Mr Bryce (independent planner): …a “key concern” for submitters…the building would block sun from reaching the Regent Theatre and surrounds from 3pm at winter solstice. “At this time of year, the proposal will effectively remove all remaining access to sunlight received over [the] southern end of the western side of the Octagon.” (ODT)

Mr Page (the developer’s ‘Brief’): The “potential shading effect” was acknowledged, but Mr Page was confident the hotel’s benefits “will far outweigh” those concerns. (ODT)

Mr Page, again : The hotel’s “tall, slender built form” minimised the impact on those living closest to the hotel project site… (ODT)

Good heavens.

Source: Application documents

—

At Facebook:

### ODT Online Tue, 11 July 2017
Hotel developer still confident
By Chris Morris
Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel bid will “not be viable” if the developer is forced to reduce the building’s height, it has been claimed. But the man behind the project, Tekapo businessman Anthony Tosswill, remains confident the hearings panel set to decide the project’s fate can yet be swayed by the hotel’s benefits. The comments came from Phil Page, the lawyer acting for Mr Tosswill, days after the public release of an independent planner’s report running the ruler over the hotel proposal.
The report by Nigel Bryce concluded consent be declined unless Mr Tosswill agreed to a “substantial reduction” in the building’s height, by four storeys, to bring it down from 60m to 45.5m.
Read more

****

Resource Consent Application LUC 2017-48 and SUB 2017-26, 143 – 193 Moray Place, Dunedin (Proposed Hotel)

The hearing will be held on Mon 31 Jul, Tue 1 Aug, Wed 2 Aug, Thu 3 Aug and Fri 4 Aug 2017 in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers (off the Octagon). The hearing will commence at 9.30 am each day.

█ Consultant Planner’s Section 42a Report (PDF, 4.3 MB)

[excerpt]

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
[5] For the reasons set out in paragraphs 72 to 334 below, I consider that the Proposal in its current form, will not promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in accordance with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA or the Act).
[6] The Development promotes a contemporary design, which is considered acceptable within this setting and articulates sufficient design interest and modulation through the facades and its pinwheel like form expressed in the tower component of the building. The building’s design incorporates a base building or podium, which allows the structure to have an active street frontage to Moray Place and Filleul Street, which is considered a positive design response.
[7] The Development will be ‘juxtaposed’ against a backdrop of the heritage buildings located to the east of Moray Place, including the Town Hall and St Paul’s Cathedral when viewed from the west and St Paul’s Cathedral and the Municipal Chambers when viewed from the south (including from the Octagon).
[8] The building’s overall height is considered to generate an over-dominance on properties to the north and west of the Site, and will have more than minor adverse effects on the amenity values of residential properties to the west of the Site. This is largely due to the significant change in scale introduced by the Development and the lower scale built environment that currently exists to the west and north of the development site, comprising predominantly two to three storeys in height.
[9] The Development will adversely impact upon the townscape values of the TH02 Octagon townscape precinct under the Operative Dunedin City District Plan (Operative Plan), including loss of sunlight penetration into the Octagon during the Winter Solstice and will adversely impact upon the setting and pre-eminence of existing heritage buildings such as the St Paul’s Cathedral and the Municipal Chambers building when viewed from the Octagon.
[10] The Development is considered to result in more than minor visual amenity and shading effects on Kingsgate Hotel to the south of the Site. The Kingsgate Hotel will experience prolonged and more sustained loss of light over a wider part of the property and associated buildings over the critical morning period during the Equinox and Winter Solstice periods (or collectively over ¾ of the year). This conclusion has been reached having regard to the potential for the Site to be developed up to a maximum height of 11 metres with a building erected against all boundaries (the ‘controlled activity building outline’).
[11] For the scale of the building to be mitigated to an acceptable level, and to maintain and enhance the amenity values of the City Centre and wider environs, Council’s urban design consultant, Mr [Garth] Falconer recommends reducing the proposed building height by four levels to bring the total height down to nine storeys (Level 13, +157,500 (datum level) on Drawing Section AA). This reduction would provide for a maximum height of 45.6 metres from existing ground level, or a maximum height breach of 34.4 metres (including the lift shaft). This mitigation response would not remove any of the 210 visitor accommodation rooms (hotel rooms), and would maintain supporting facilities including licensed premises, retail, conference, meeting facilities and on-site amenities, parking, and servicing areas. I note, for completeness, that the Applicant is not currently proposing to reduce the height of the Development.
[12] In its current form, it is my recommendation that the proposal should be declined.

More about Garth Falconer, DCC’s consulting urban designer:
LinkedIn profile: https://nz.linkedin.com/in/garth-falconer-a0699bb3
Owner and Director, Reset Urban Design Ltd: http://reseturban.co.nz/

Take a glimpse of the ‘urban form’ at Takapuna, North Shore Auckland (his home turf), to know Mr Falconer is likely missing any handle on building height for a heritage city like Dunedin.

****

Agenda and all documents including Submissions at:

http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/notified-applications-pending/luc-2017-48-and-sub-2017-26

****

At Facebook [see comments]:

### ODT Online Sat, 8 Jul 2017
Reject hotel bid: planner
By Chris Morris
A planner has recommended rejecting Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel bid, unless the developer agrees to a “substantial reduction” in the building’s height. The recommendation to decline consent came in a report by independent consultant Nigel Bryce, made public yesterday, ahead of the public hearing beginning on July 31. In his report to the panel of independent commissioners, Mr Bryce said the hotel development would “visually dominate” its surroundings, including the town hall, St Paul’s Cathedral and the Municipal Chambers. It would be the tallest building in the central city and would cast a shadow over the Octagon, as well as the nearby Kingsgate Hotel, during winter. Together with other impacts, the development was considered to be “non-complying” under the city’s district plan rules. It would only be acceptable if the building was reduced by four storeys, lowering its overall height from 60m to 45.6m, which was still well above the existing 11m height limit for the site, his report said.
Read more

[initial coverage]
7.7.17 ODT: Decline hotel consent: report

### ODT Online Wed, 28 Jun 2017
Two from North Island on hotel hearings panel
By Chris Morris
The panel to decide the fate of Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel bid features one familiar face and two from the North Island. Tekapo businessman Anthony Tosswill’s bid to build a 17-storey hotel and apartment tower in Dunedin would be considered over five days, beginning on July 31, it was confirmed yesterday. […] The panel of three would be headed by chairman Andrew Noone, now an Otago regional councillor, acting in his role as an independent commissioner. […] Alongside him will be fellow independent commissioners Stephen Daysh, of Napier, and Gavin Lister, of Auckland.
Read more

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Source: Application documents

RNZ reports July hearings for proposed hotel apartment building

Image: Paterson Pitts Group

Image: Thom Craig Architects

### rnz.co.nz Wed, 10 May 2017 at 6:13 p.m.
RNZ News: New Zealand / Business
Hotel plans prioritise visitors over residents – objectors
By Lydia Anderson – Otago/Southland reporter
Residents above the proposed site for Dunedin’s first five-star hotel say it’s not right their view of the city will be blocked so tourists can have a better one. The 17-storey ‘Electric Thistle’ Moray Place design would sit behind the city’s heritage buildings in the Octagon. More than 200 submissions on the project have been filed – three quarters of them in opposition. The hotel’s height and modern design has some residents worried – at about 64m high it would be significantly taller than the current 11m limit imposed on the chosen site, which is currently a carpark.
….The proposed hotel would feature 210 hotel rooms plus apartments, cafe, a wine club, public hot pools and conference rooms.
….The hotel’s developer [?]* Tony Tosswill, who represented Horizon Hospitality Group, said the hotel was being built high rather than wide out of consideration for the views of people living in the city rise area. To meet international five-star standards the hotel needed views and around 200 rooms, he said.
….Public hearings on the submissions will take place in July.
Read more

● Full application: 143-193 Moray Place – LUC-2017-48 and SUB-2017-26
● View all submissions

****

The applicant is NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5876487

The name of the building developer/financier hasn’t been announced. Asian finance is suspected as being needed but likely not obtained yet; New Zealand’s Australian-owned banks aren’t providing credit on speculative developments at this scale.

Pullman Hotels is fêted as the hotel manager.

█ Spokesman for the (unnamed) developer is Anthony Tosswill of Tekapo, NZ. Mr Tosswill is not the developer, as may have been construed from MSM news items.

****

The following comments from Mr Tosswill were received for publication by What if? Dunedin in late April. Links to the threads where they appear are provided here:

2017/04/24 at 9:37 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
why do you wish to destroy employment in Dunedin, why do you want to prevent creating Jobs and more revenues for the Community and supporting Tourism and local Business?
Why do you wish to keep subsidizing Dunedin venues when they can support themselves with the Services that this Hotel can offer.
Why dont you disclose who you are so People can judge you and your motives. The Jobs that Cadburys will make redundant are you able to give them Jobs or the new Students ending there education.
When was the Last New Hotel Built in Dunedin? Dunedin None Queenstown 6, Queenstown 26,000 Dunedin 126,000.
How about supporting Development, and Jobs or are you one of those that just as you say destroy everything before its starts.
Who am I, I am a spokesman for the Developer

2017/04/24 at 9:46 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
Great Video, it suggests you are supporting Terrorism. Is that amusing blowing up things. It also suggests you want to stop Jobs, supporting local Business. preventing People attending Events and Venues, dislike tourism and dont want a venue that supports Dunedin. I suggest you at least remove the Blowing up of the Developments its in very bad taste.
When reading comments on this site its easy to see why it has so little support.
I am a spokesman for the Developer, who are you?

2017/04/25 at 4:58 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Peter.
I would like to point out that Residents in Londo complained about the about the Shard in London and the London Eye yet, Yet Today we Recognize London for these 2 Buildings as they are also Top Tourists sites as is the Palace. Hindsight is marvelous
Do you recall the complaints when the stadium prior to been Built now its recognized as one of the Top 20 in the World. Dunedin be proud.
One may tell us of Identical Buildings so we can learn from your expertise.
The Design relates to minimizing views from residents behind plus maximizing views of Tourists that want to appreciate Dunedin and its Harbour we believe in our design and concept.
Retrospective opinions are great if you are trying to stop the future progress of Dunedin, if your view point is taken seriously its Dunedin’s loss.
Spokesman for the Developer.

2017/04/25 at 5:28 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
Hi Elizabeth,
you made several comments. Architectural design.
a) Design and the Changes,
In Response, I respectfully point out that does not relate to commercial facts or results, hence for any 5 Star Hotel and in Particular in Dunedin our view is very different but it is for this type of Development whats been Built in All Cities around the World, we are one of the 99% (Not the 1%)
b) We have incorporated a Design that shows off Dunedin, with new Technology that is expected today by 5 Star Guests. Dunedin is the Showcase, the Development is to provide Access to the City not be the City~
You suggest and refer to your time and Resources “What are They”?
It Also appears that you think Asians are also different or at least there Money is, maybe you should complain also about the contribution made by Asians that go to Otago University is their money bad? I like Asian People, I married to one.
Love to know more about whatever Cargo Growth is? Are you a Supporter of Cadbury Factory Closure as well? Is that not a local Resource?
400 Persons Daily Spending Money in New 5 Star Hotel in Dunedin is Growth to Dunedin, please re add up the equation since you have an alleged financial background your sums should add up one cold think,
Good on you Farmer for having an independent view point congratulation is this Elizabeth’s Blog its appears to be!
Spokesman for the Developer

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building

Where to access more information about the application:

Dunedin City Council website:

█ Current notified resource consent applications
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents

Applicant: NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited
[ http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5876487 ]
Subject site: 143-193 Moray Place
Status: Non-complying activity
Submissions close: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 at 5:00 p.m.

█ Application information + submission information/online form at:
143-193 Moray Place – Non-complying activity – LUC-2017-48 and SUB-2017-26

A P P L I C A T I O N ● D E S C R I P T I O N

Land use consent is sought to construct and operate a commercial residential development involving 210 visitor accommodation rooms (hotel rooms), 64 self-contained apartments, four self-contained penthouse suites, together with licensed premises, retail, conference, meeting facilities and on-site amenities, parking, and servicing. The development proposes a new building with 17 storeys (including the lift core on the top of the building, and three levels of the building extending below ground). The overall height of the proposed building varies in relation to the existing ground level, but will be approximately 62.5m at the highest point above the existing ground level (including the lift core). The proposed building is assessed as a non-complying activity under the operative Dunedin City District Plan. The application includes an assessment of effects.

Land use consent is also sought for earthworks because the site development will involve an estimated 8,914m3 of earthworks and a maximum cut depth of 7.35 metres from existing ground level.

Subdivision consent is sought for a unit title subdivision in relation to the proposed building. The application includes plans of the proposed subdivision.
The subject site is located in the Central Activity Zone in the operative Dunedin City District Plan and is located within the north Princes Street/Moray Place/Exchange townscape precinct TH03.

The proposed building is a non-complying activity under the operative Dunedin City District Plan (due to non-compliance with Rule 9.5.2(i) no front or side yards, Rule 9.5.2(iii) veranda requirements along Filleul Street frontage of the site, and signage under Rule 9.5.2(vi)). The building also exceeds the maximum 11 metre height limit under Rule 9.5.2(ii) which requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity under Rule 9.5.3(i). The proposal is also a controlled activity under Townscape Rule 13.7.2(i).  

The proposed earthworks are a restricted discretionary activity under Rule 17.7.3 of the operative Dunedin City District Plan.

The unit title subdivision is a non-complying activity under Rule 18.5.2. Rule 18.5.3 requires that every allotment in a subdivision must have both legal access and vehicle access to a formed road. The rules for subdivision do not expressly provide for unit title divisions where the allotments created may comprise multiple units within a building.

The subject site is zoned Central Business District in the proposed Second Generation Plan and a secondary pedestrian frontage applies.

The proposed 2GP was notified on 26 September 2015. The relevant objectives and policies of the 2GP must be considered. Rules in the 2GP can be deemed as operative if no submissions have been made in opposition. The application says that some 2GP rules may be deemed operative. If the decision maker determines that 2GP rules are deemed operative these rules will apply instead of the corresponding Dunedin City District Plan rule. {bolding by whatifdunedin}

█ SUB-2017-26 & LUC-2017-48 – Public Notice (PDF, 31.4 KB)

Please read the accompanying documents and reports that apply to this application, as listed here.

—

M A K I N G ● A ● S U B M I S S I O N

█ Online submission form

█ SUB-2016-26 & LUC-2017-48 – Submission Form (Form 13) (PDF, 38.9 KB)

IMPORTANT: If you wish to make a submission on this application you may do so by sending a written submission to the consent authority, Dunedin City Council at PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin, 9058 Attn: City Planning, no later than 5:00 pm on the closing date shown.
● Email: resconsent.submission@dcc.govt.nz

The submission must be dated, signed by you, and include the following information:

• Your name and postal address and phone number/fax number;
• Details of the application in respect of which you are making the submission including location;
• Whether you support, oppose, or are neutral towards the application;
• Your submission, with reasons;
• The decision you wish the consent authority to make;
• Whether you wish to be heard in support of your submission.

Please note: If you make your submission by electronic means, a signature is not required.

An acknowledgment of your submission will be sent by post when the submission is accepted as complete. The application may be viewed at the City Planning Enquiries Desk, Customer Service Centre on the Ground Floor, Civic Centre, 50 The Octagon.

You must serve a copy of your submission on NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited, the applicant, whose address for service is Anderson & Co Resource Management, PO Box 5933, Dunedin 9058, as soon as reasonably practicable after serving your submission on the Dunedin City Council.

Alternatively, you can Email copy of your submission to NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited via Anderson & Co Resource Management (Dunedin) –
Attention: Conrad Anderson conrad_a@xtra.co.nz

—

V I E W S ● A N D ● L A N D S C A P E ● C O N T E X T

7. Architectural Drawings, including Arch Statement and earthworks (PDF)
8. Subdivision plans (PDF)
13a. Photomontage notes (PDF)
13b. Photomontage (PDF)
13c. Anticipated Views Assessment Notes – supplementary (PDF)
20. Urban Design (PDF)
21. Memo – Re: Glass (PDF)

NB. Note a number of the angled street views provided in the application are partial only – the full extent of the proposed building (in order to help assess accompanying effects) is not given except in wider landscape perspectives such as when seen from across the harbour or along street vistas. Most close-up perspective views of the proposed building, such as when seen from the Octagon, may appear to be ‘diminished’ or foreshortened in height – scale accuracy is difficult to determine in the presentation renders without technical knowledge of how the views were generated. It is somewhat likely that independent peer review(s) of the (landscape and townscape) presentation renders provided by the applicant and their consultants will be sought by submitters, if not the processing authority.

█ Spokesman for the (unnamed) developer is Anthony Tosswill of Tekapo, NZ.
Mr Tosswill has noted in comments to What if? Dunedin that he speaks for the developer. Mr Tosswill is not the developer, as may have been construed from news items published by the Otago Daily Times previously.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Selected renders from application documents : Thom Craig Architects and Paterson Pitts Group

*Poor quality of images as received via DCC webpages.

Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls

At Facebook:

[screenshot]

Channel 39 via YouTube [screenshot]

—

Related Post and Comments:
5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks

At Facebook:

****

Tekapo-based businessman Anthony Tosswill is hoping to send the signal “the city is open” with this master-disaster, or something closely akin.
JFC i

An application for resource consent was lodged with DCC today for this unlanced boil on the elegant hind quarter of our heritage city.

Details in brief according to ODT deputy editor Craig Page at Channel 39 News tonight:

● 17 storey ‘glass hotel in central city’
● 60 [read 64] metres at highest point
● 210 rooms
● 64 apartments
● 4 penthourse suites
as well as retail opportunities.

The proposal exceeds the district plan height limit (11 metres) – meaning the application is to be publicly notified.

ODT will publish concept renders and contextuals tomorrow.

Get your Smart Hats on Dunedinites, give him a fricking run for his (or other people’s) money. Beyond the Mass Unsightliness, you will lose your convenient central city parking area – be prepared to walk for blocks next time you want to attend events at the Council, Town Hall, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, Central Library or Regent Theatre.

Has the Dunedin City Council SOLD YOU OUT ???
Ratepayers own/owned the site. What DEAL has been done by council politicians and staff to prosper an OUT OF TOWN private individual above and beyond your immediate and long term LOCAL requirements in the central city.
JFC ii

DCC Webmap – Filleul St council-owned parking area (shaded)

█ Market Gap Report Hotels – Evidence Stephen Hamilton, Horwath HTL
December 2012 (PDF, 482 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

DCC overlooks due process and Environment Court rulings for Mosgiel road hierarchy

Taieri Times / Otago Daily Times fails to understand or elaborate (no research!) the issues raised by local resident and business owner Brian Miller in his submission to the Transportation section of the proposed 2GP.

Mr Miller and his family have lived on Riccarton Rd for the last thirty years. In that time, variously, DCC have planned – and carried out supporting construction works – to enable Hagart-Alexander Dr (HAD) as an arterial route taking heavy vehicles ‘safely’; DCC have been to Environment Court on the matter, receiving clear rulings and sets of conditions bringing about these construction works; since then, however, DCC have formed the view – contrary to the Court rulings and agreed structure plans – that the arterial route should be Riccarton Rd, not HAD. Former city councillor and deputy mayor Sydney Brown has a residential subdivision to HAD.

Who is pulling whose chain here ?
DCC, in changing your minds, where is the due (fair and proper) process of public consultation ?

Are flicks of the pen all that DCC does now.

The Sin : City Planning, in its 2GP recommendations for the Taieri roading hierarchy fails to acknowledge legal determinations of the Environment Court of New Zealand and insodoing the council may be seen as INJUDICIOUS. Court rulings cannot be ignored holus-bolus to suit DCC fairyland futures for the Taieri.

[Sources at Dunedin say this is not the only case of DCC’s recent lack of regard for the Court.]

Further, to underline…. during the ‘Revised Planner’s Recommendations’ on February 10, the city planner was heard to say they regarded information presented in submission(s) as “old” – the strong inference being that Environment Court rulings do not count; or worse, that they had no idea any matters had, in fact, been to court. The City thus appears sunk on a problem of integrity, lawful or otherwise.

This situation simply would not arise if greater supervision and TRAINING was provided to salaried council underlings involved in 2GP processes. They must be fully cognisant of the history and implications of relevant legal rulings made in respect of council activities. That way they could see the trees for the wood when the likes of ex staff appear for ‘advice’ to hearing in trite bouncy-rat mode.

[The implications of contempt should perhaps be underscored instead of multiple teabreaks culture at the Civic Centre.]

Lastly, in god we trust…. the independent commissioners Messrs Collins and Rae are NO FOOLS.

WAKE UP DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL, or
We The People will see you in Court.

[ends]

****

2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation
Hearing dates: February 1, 2, 3, 8
Revised Planner’s Recommendations: February 10 [● DCC to upload]
Commissioners: David Collins (Chair), Gary Rae, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson

THE SUBMISSION | Statement tabled at hearing

Note: Brian Miller gave his family trust’s 28-page submission (plus attachments) on the 2GP Transportation topic in the hearing of independent commissioners David Collins and Gary Rae, only. To avoid conflicts of interest, at Mr Miller’s request and with the Chair’s agreement, no councillor commissioners were present for the submission.

█ H180-421 BJ & AJ Miller family trust (PDF format)

In an email to Elizabeth Kerr (6.2.17), Brian Miller said: “Probably the most important part of our submission is point 3.3, pages 20 to 22.” :

[click to enlarge]

****

[click to enlarge]
2GP Data Map (Roads)

2GP Zone Map

****

█ 2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

Council Evidence (PDF format)
● Section 42A Report
● Appendix 1 DCC Operative Plan Road Hierarchy
● Appendix 2 Road DCC submission – road classification hierarchy corrections
● Appendix 3 Christchurch District Plan Replacement abstract
● Appendix 4 Transportation figures
● Appendix 5 2GP Section 6 – Transportation
● Statement of Evidence of Ian Clark
● Statement of evidence – Grant Fisher
● Amendment to Section 42a Report Transportation

Statement tabled at hearing (PDF format)
█ Transport Advice from Sarah Connolly – Principal Consultant Transport Planning – MWH

—

Related Posts and Comments:
5.2.17 Maurice Prendergast : Defence of 60 year old arterial corridor #2GP
30.5.16 Non-arterial Riccarton Road : Brian Miller stirred by community board
5.6.14 DCC Transport Strategy and Riccarton Road
24.4.14 DCC promotes Riccarton Rd as sole heavy traffic bypass

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Maurice Prendergast : Defence of 60 year old arterial corridor #2GP

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

2GP Consultation (index) Link

2GP Maps Link
● Data Map
● Zoning Map

Hearings schedule and documents Link

****

█ 2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

Council Evidence (PDF format)
● Section 42A Report
● Appendix 1 DCC Operative Plan Road Hierarchy
● Appendix 2 Road DCC submission – road classification hierarchy corrections
● Appendix 3 Christchurch District Plan Replacement abstract
● Appendix 4 Transportation figures
● Appendix 5 2GP Section 6 – Transportation
● Statement of Evidence of Ian Clark
● Statement of evidence – Grant Fisher

****

Disclaimer. The site owner is not responsible for the currency or accuracy of content of this post and the inclusion of the information provided does not imply endorsement by the site owner.

Received from Maurice Prendergast
Sun, 5 Feb 2017 at 12:19 a.m.

Lightly edited; maps added. -Eds

[click to enlarge]
2GP Data Map (Roads)

2GP Zone Map

—

Submission to DCC 2GP Hearing – Transportation
Submitter: Maurice Prendergast Feb 2017

In politics, just as in war, the first casualties are usually the truth.
This is no better illustrated than in the issues that have, over many decades; washed around Hagart-Alexander Drive, Mosgiel. The culture of dishonest comment that has characterised these issues is so extensive that it cannot be illustrated by thumbnail sketch, and though the temptation to condense this summary is real, the principles that represent the truth must never be compromised. Thus I crave your indulgence by presenting some facts that this DCC Transportation Report has not revealed to you.

Some sixty years ago when the Mosgiel Borough Council bordered the Taieri County Council, the collective ‘wise heads’ of those two Authorities opined that with a developing industrial activity in North Taieri there would be a future need to divert nuisance industrial traffic from Mosgiel mainstreet. While it must have seemed an impossible task, they managed a herculean (east side) land purchase corridor from Gordon Rd to the Silverstream. This must have been no mean feat to have had to deal with maybe scores of property owners. The wisdom of these pioneers did not end there; they pegged that corridor so that nobody should be in any doubt as to the Authorities’ intentions.

Not surprisingly the value of land bounding this corridor plummeted (who would want to own property next to an industrial traffic by-pass). But in the minds of the punters, the plan for this road was away in the future, and with the passage of time it became widely believed that it wasn’t going to happen and the Real Estate fraternity in particular perpetuated this mischief. Ignorance abounded and was so profound that it is said that in one case a bounding property owner (when building) sought planning departure to have his building platform set back to allow a greater recreational frontage. It mattered not that this robbed his backyard space; he had a whole roading corridor behind him; upon which he apparently built a tennis court. Such was the contempt in which the belief was held that the road would never be built.

With reference to ignorance, some of the biggest offenders (in my view) have been ‘property conveyancing’ solicitors who have not alerted clients to this impediment when purchasing property which bounds Hagart-Alexander Dr [HAD]. The impediment being that they were purchasing property which bounded a charted traffic by-pass. In my capacity as a former City Councillor I consistently fielded pleas from those who purchased ‘tainted’ properties that “nobody told me”. That unfortunately is the ‘downside’ of democracy. Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst kind of governance; that is, with the exception of all other kinds of governance.” In a democracy nobody is required to hold your hand. Blaming somebody because you didn’t know is simply not a remedy. Not knowing about the purpose of the HAD corridor is a case in point. Caveat Emptor! The early part of HAD (from Gordon Rd for some 800 metres) was developed many years ago with enormously wide berms to provide for eventual road widening. This alone should have alerted property purchasers. The reason it wasn’t developed to full width was to discourage the speed of domestic/hoon traffic.

Now, fast forward to around the turn of this century. Amongst much weeping and gnashing of teeth, the HAD was then developed onward to intersect with Factory Rd. Property owners in Glenbrook Drive (whose rear) bounded HAD became unreasonably hysterical because “they had been told” that the corridor would never be developed. Nobody could say who told them so (probably somebody in the pub), but the People’s Document, the District Plan (to which they or their solicitor should have referred when purchasing) clearly showed the ‘roading drawings’ of the Authority’s intention. This was a classic case of people asking Council to hold the property owners’ hands, and so hysterical were their claims that the Council (quite improperly in my belief) released to them all, four metres from the road corridor to allow them to construct ‘noise abating’ bunding. This bunding has never been constructed.

Then came one of the most torturous exercises of my political life. The Council was obliged to extend HAD across Factory Rd and beyond the Silverstream to Carncross St/Dukes Rd as planned. But there was the matter of rural zoned land on the seaward side of HAD and an application to rezone that land was in gestation (Mosgiel East Variation A). It was I who chaired a Working Party in year 2000 entitled ‘Heavy Vehicle Routes over Taieri Plain Working Party’, with a brief to study (not only) HAD but any route across the Taieri. To me it was a ridiculous brief. Land purchases alone for other route options were perceived to be enormous in relation to HAD where Council owned all the necessary land. The Working Party as I recall was dripping with prejudice and self interest and my memory is that the Working Party was dissolved without a comprehensible conclusion. However, in November 2001, the Working Party was reborn under the title of ‘Mosgiel By-Pass Working Party’, with Terms of Reference that removed the prejudice of the former Working Party.

A Christchurch consultancy (Gabitees–Porter) engaged by transportation manager, the late Don Hill supported that Working Party and provided ‘in depth’ costings on all routes (Highway 87, Alanton/Outram, Riccarton Rd and HAD). Not surprisingly HAD, both economically and environmentally, came out light years ahead of the rest; largely because it was the ‘greenest’ route and Council owned the whole of the proposed corridor, and it was by far the shortest route. As an instance, and as I recall, in the case of the Riccarton Rd option, the land purchase cost to relocate that huge main trunk drainage channel across the Taieri alone (that runs parallel to Riccarton Rd), was in the vicinity of twice the cost of bridging the Silverstream for [the] HAD/Centre St extension option.

I have absolutely no intention to go into any further detail. It’s all in Council’s archives if only today’s planners bothered to research the work we did and the costs the ratepayers met some 10 to 12 years ago, to find that the historically planned HAD/Cairncross St route is the only rational consideration, and in terms of travel, the only “Green Option”.

Prista Apartments Ltd: vulgar design, weak facadism, dog of a new infill to street #compromise

COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT WORSE

DCC reference: LUC-2008-580
Decision: DCC granted resource consent to Prista Apartments Ltd (applicant)
Subject site: 372-392 Princes Street and 11 Stafford Street, Dunedin

Historic heritage and precinct matters:
● District Plan listed facades for protection: 372-392 Princes Street
● District Plan listed South Princes Street Townscape Precinct (TH04)

Environment Court Appeal: Lodged by New Zealand Historic Places Trust on 5 October 2010. Subsequently, Elizabeth Kerr and Peter Entwisle registered as RMA s274 parties to appeal.

————–

LATEST IN BRIEF
After considerable delays, caucusing between the parties has resulted in a Consent Order from the Environment Court, such that there is:

● protection for only three existing heritage building facades to Princes Street (380, 386 and 392);
● one new façade (372 Princes Street) directly to street for new commercial building at 372-392 Princes Street (comprising apartments, retail and internal parking);
● one new commercial building to 11 Stafford Street;
● monitor against damage to historic Empire Hotel south of the application site; and
● site redevelopment at 372-392 Princes Street (including pre-1900 bread ovens at 392 Princes Street) subject to separate archaeological authority process.

Consent lapse date: 1 July 2021
No DCC-imposed bond required of the developer, Prista Apartments Ltd.

[Building colour and signage require separate resource consent.]

The following Consent Order is the culmination of a protracted process of negotiation between the parties New Zealand Historic Places Trust (Appellant), Dunedin City Council (Respondent) and the Applicant, Prista Apartments Ltd (Luke Dirkzwager of Christchurch).

█ Consent Order 26.6.14 (PDF, 748 KB)

Indicative renderings by Fulton Ross Team Architects, Christchurch show approximate bulk, scale and architectural treatment (December 2013) — at first floor level immediately above the verandah the building facades mask car parking, resulting in an obvious strip of dead window space:

Was it a frustrating anger-inducing process to get to this COMPROMISE ???
You betcha, for All concerned. Especially against the receiving environment at Dunedin where local developers and property investors hold a substantially different view to building conservation, sense of place, and sympathetic adaptive reuse for contemporary and future ownership, tenanting and business opportunities. However, all that is Cut Dead at this particular spot in Princes Street by a Christchurch personality who appears to be in no rush to build.
His buildings must remain safe and pose no threat to the general public in the meantime.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
4.3.11 Reaction to another instance of unthinking ad-hocism from City Hall
15.9.10 Prista Apartments: Resource consent Decision + Appeal
4.5.10 Prista Apartments: Dunedin’s goldrush-era heritage won’t fall over…
24.1.10 Prista Apartments: 372-392 Princes St and 11 Stafford St

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Woop! Waterfront TOWER hotel RIP

Updated Post 15.4.14

### dunedintv.co.nz April 14, 2014 – 6:46pm
Hotel may be dead in the water
Dunedin’s multi-storey harbourside hotel appears to be dead in the water.
Just before this bulletin went to air, development company Betterways sent a copy of a letter noting a memorandum of understanding deadline had passed.
The company signed the memorandum with the council earlier this year, amid hopes the $100 million project could find a way forward. That followed a DCC resource consent committee decision not to allow the hotel.
Betterways director Jing Song told 39 Dunedin News the project was over. She said she was left speechless by the council’s lack of communication.
Ch39 Link [no video available]

HURRAH HURRAH HURRAH
Hmmm, wonder how much that just cost the ratepayers???
Or was this just a little timing hiccup because of the Royal Tour.
Will Daaave go begging, again.
From the start Betterways has been acutely useless at Communication.
Was never going to be a sound investment. Jing should be thanking Us.
But is it true.
Dunno, read tomorrow’s ODT….

—

Comment to ODT Online (unabridged):

—

Related Posts and Comments:
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group…
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO
11.3.14 Hotel MOU: DCC #fail
10.3.14 Hotel: DCC and COC sell out Dunedin community to Chinese trojans
26.2.14 Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
12.1.14 Dunedin (apartments) Hotel: Better ways to lipstick a pig
7.1.14 Dunedin Hotel (apartments): Who ARE the developers?
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed
5.6.13 Hotel decision . . . (the vacuum)

► For more, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Hotel: DCC and COC sell out Dunedin community to Chinese trojans

‘Perceived’ Conflict of Interest:
Dave Cull (also Mayor of Dunedin) has used Steve Rodgers (partner in Rodgers Law; also a director of Betterways Advisory Ltd) as his personal solicitor in recent times. The mayor is welcome to confirm or deny this in order to set the record straight.

Dunedin’s Old-Boy CARGO CULT is disabling your City

ODT Online 21.12.12 (screenshot)

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Next Step for Waterfront Hotel Proposal

This item was published on 10 Mar 2014

Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull and Betterways Advisory Limited have today announced the signing of an agreement to work together to try to achieve the construction of a five-star hotel for Dunedin.

The parties have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that establishes a framework and a process to address issues raised by an earlier resource consent application.

Betterways’ application to build a 27-storey, five-star hotel at 41 Wharf Street was declined resource consent in June last year.

Mr Cull says, “Since that time, the DCC has worked extensively with Betterways to find whether a hotel can be constructed on this site that both realises Betterways’ investment ambitions and benefits the city.”

The DCC and Betterways agree that connectivity issues are a major focus going forward and have committed to work together to seek solutions.

If solutions can be found, the DCC will set up an urban design panel to provide independent design review and subsequent advice. Their focus will be on sustainable development and the creation of a design that contributes to a safe, healthy and attractive urban environment.

The panel will encourage best practice approaches to development, specific to the hotel’s site. This process provides an independent peer review from leaders in a variety of relevant professional institutes, including the development sector, practitioners and academics.

“Urban design panels are widely used in other centres. We’re really delighted to have an opportunity to use this successful formula here in Dunedin, and on such an important project for the city,” Mr Cull says.

Once the design panel and DCC staff members were satisfied the new hotel proposal had resolved the issues, the DCC would initiate a District Plan Change process to change the zoning of the Wharf Street site from industrial so a panel-approved design could be built on the site.

Any development proposal would still be subject to the Resource Management Act.

One of Betterways’ owners, Jing Song, says, “After a very challenging two years, we are delighted that the Council has shown a commitment to our investment in this beautiful city. We know our hotel plans are exciting for Dunedin and we are very pleased to have established a framework to deliver a hotel that meets the desires of the local community.”

The Council agreed to sign the MoU during the non-public part of its meeting on 24 February.

Betterways will make a decision about whether to pursue its appeal when the process agreed through the MoU has advanced enough to show that the proposal will be supported by the Council.

Hotel MOU (PDF, 297 KB)

Contact Mayor of Dunedin on 03 477 4000.

DCC Link

—

Related Posts and Comments:
26.2.14 Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

█ For more, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

ODT 10.3.14: Agreement signed over waterfront hotel

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Dunedin Hotel (apartments): Who ARE the developers?

“I’m pretty sure that Ping and Jing and the developers want some conclusions too … they don’t want to be still working through this in six months’ or a year’s time.” –Mayor Cull (ODT)

An interesting statement – any names? Who are the developers? All we heard in evidence, name-wise (not fully explained), was the source of the building plans at China (“tweaked” by some unimaginative pasty sell-out hailing from Auckland).
In the argybargy over resource consent Jing Song always came across as a naive young woman (of potential wealth) with no real idea of how she was being used by the circling sharks of Dunedin and elsewhere.
Despite fronting at hearing she certainly had no idea about the standard of information required for the application process, seemingly duped by legal advisers to play dumb, who maybe weren’t that clear either. The youthful husband never turned up.
Still, “they” might surprise us with something that is well designed and sensitively scaled —but that would cost. To be erected in Queenstown or Christchurch. Given the state of our airport and its relative disconnection with the country’s major international gateways, would it be any wonder.

Image: Jing Song, left, and Ping Cao were married at the Grand Mercure Nelson Monaco resort (Nelson Mail, 10.9.11) Story via stuff.co.nz.

How much has DCC spent on schmoozing the ‘wealthy’ Chinese?
Any New Zealand finance going in (to the ‘university hostel’)?

—

### ODT Online Tue, 7 Jan 2014
Talks on hotel bid ongoing
By Chris Morris
The fate of Dunedin’s proposed $100 million waterfront hotel hangs in the balance, but a decision on whether to proceed – or abandon the project – could be just weeks away, it has been confirmed. Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull told the Otago Daily Times all parties were working to address “complex” issues but he could offer no guarantees a way forward could be found.
Read more

To learn more, enter the term *hotel* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing

Liability Cull is not 100% correct. So what’s new.

The ‘harbourside’ public consultation, including pre-plan change workshops, picked up good support for IMPROVED public access to the waterline (note, via a reinstated Rattray Street rail crossing at grade) and a REVAMPED Steamer Basin.

WE HAVE BEEN ROBBED.
Cull says the harbourside plan change was a mistake. It most surely was not a mistake! The proposed plans for how the plan change would be articulated in the area were the problem. Nearly everyone wanted historic industrial sheds and wharf sheds to remain and be redeveloped sympathetically with respect to heritage values, enhancing the land-water connection. Unfortunately, and fortunately, the Otago Chamber of Commerce with five partners appealed the plan change decision, significantly dashing the intents and purposes of the “vision”. Nonetheless, this shouldn’t stop future redevelopment of the ‘edge’ at the Steamer Basin, for greater community recreational use, with some commercial opportunities built in. We still haven’t got walk-on/walk-off access for the cruising yachts heading to subantarctic waters —embarrassing.

OK DCC’s broke at the moment, but ORC…

Cull – Crash one (PC-7), get bent on inviting the real mistake… the $100m tombstone apartment and hotel complex at 41 Wharf Street, with all inherent costs to Dunedin ratepayers and residents. That’s where Cull stands, nowhere good. Not even close.

█ Plan Change 7 – Harbourside

—

### ODT Online Mon, 21 Oct 2013
Harbour project labelled mistake
By Chris Morris
Pursuing a vision of harbourside redevelopment in Dunedin has so far cost the city’s ratepayers more than $2.6 million, it has been confirmed. The revelation, prompted by Otago Daily Times inquiries, has led the Otago Chamber of Commerce to label the Dunedin City Council’s ”grandiose” plan a mistake. It has also prompted Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, who was an early critic of the proposal, to suggest it should never have got off the ground.
Read more

DCC’s habourside costs – $2.6m (via ODT)
• Legal costs – $401,660
• Settlement – $200,000
• Other costs – $315,633
• Capital costs – $1,697,192
• Total – $2,614,485

Capital costs of $1,697,192 comprising:
• 2005-06 – purchase of 20 Thomas Burns St – $497,500
• 2011-12 – purchase of 30 Thomas Burns St – $1,199,692

NZHPT Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area

—

Related Posts and Comments:
3.8.13 SH88 notice of requirement
21.4.13 ‘Yellow Balloon’ —Blue Oyster invitation to (TOWER) Submitters et al
9.4.13 Dunedin: Future service town to Shell? #realitycheck
24.9.12 Stadium Councillors back coastal oil exploration
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel
● 26.10.11 Dunedin Harbourside: DCC “caved”
17.12.10 HARBOURSIDE Announcement
17.4.10 Harbourside: more negotiation to come
16.4.10 DCC Media Release – Harbourside Stage Two
13.4.10 Dunedin – an oil base?
1.4.10 DCC Media Release – Harbourside
27.3.10 Withdraw proposed Harbourside plan change in its entirety!
18.3.10 Otago Chamber of Commerce campaigns for harbourside
18.3.10 Dunedin harbourside for oil base?
10.3.13 Plan Change 7: Harbourside – remove stage two
9.3.10 Plan Change 7: Harbourside
5.3.10 Plan Change 7 – Dunedin Harbourside
26.2.10 Latest on Dunedin’s offshore oil and gas prospects
13.2.09 HOT PRESS – Dunedin Harbourside Zone

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile*, *harbourside*, *hotel*, *balloon*, *shell*, *anadarko* or *SH88* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

ODT: Piece of maritime history moved
Another lost opportunity cut in half — Te Whaka at Birch St Wharf
Image: norsetroll.blogspot.com

Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

Updated 2.7.13

Tweet:

peter mcintyre @macthebroker
Hotel decision to be appealed | Otago Daily Times Online News : Zealand & International News shar.es/x85Pq via @ShareThis

5:11pm · 25 Jun 13 · Tweet Button

****

### RNZ News Updated 24 minutes ago
Dunedin hotel plan heading to court
The developer planning a 27-storey waterfront hotel in Dunedin is taking its case to court. A Dunedin City Council panel declined resource consents for the $100 million project three weeks ago, saying it failed a key legal test and the glass tower would be too high for its industrial-zoned site. The five-star hotel and apartment complex has been hotly debated since being announced a year ago. On Tuesday afternoon, the company behind the project Betterways Advisory Limited, announced it will be appealing to the Environment Court against the council’s decision. The appeal will mean the court will attempt to broker a compromise between the developer, the council and any of the public submitters who want to get involved.
However, it seems likely that the court will have to hold its own full hearing into the project, probably early in 2014.
RNZ Link

****

We really love Jing Song, Steve Rodgers, and their gift that keeps on giving. FO.
A source reveals Betterways’ appeal cites Consultancy House as a precedent. Interesting, the owners of Consultancy House strongly objected to the application in their submissions.

Related Posts and Comments:
18.6.13 Hotel: COC’s greasy spoon race. Ugh!
5.6.13 Hotel decision . . . (the vacuum)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

[screenshot]

DCC governance = management ?

QUESTIONS
Mayor & Councillors | City Property | City Planning | Strategy and Development Team | Council-owned Companies | Consenting Processes | Conflicts

—

On selling council-owned property…. [public notification restricted]

[Mr McLaren] told the Otago Daily Times he was not consulted about the proposal, in part because he was a commercial rival. However, he was also a resident living in a house that overlooked the proposed development site from Braeview Cres….

### ODT Online Tue, 30 Apr 2013
Anger over motor caravan park plan
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council will consider allowing a new motor caravan park to be developed near Woodhaugh Gardens, just metres away from a rival camping spot. […] The New Zealand Motor Caravan Association has applied to the council for consent to establish the park at 51, 55 and 57 Woodhaugh St, on a vacant residential site next to houses and the Leith Stream. […] The proposal was deemed non-complying under the district plan, but attracted only four submissions – three of them opposed – after public notification was restricted to surrounding neighbours deemed to be affected.
Read more

****

Only yesterday . . . [heading to non-notified consent]

### ODT Online Mon, 29 Apr 2013
New supermarket plan hailed
By Chris Morris
A planned multimillion-dollar supermarket development in Green Island could bring jobs and investment and trigger wider improvements in the area, a Dunedin city councillor says. Progressive Enterprises is in talks with the Dunedin City Council aimed at developing a Fresh Choice supermarket on land between Main South Rd and Shand St.
Read more

Related Post and Comments:
29.4.13 Green Island activity centre

****

Last year . . . [non-notified application, loss of oldest brewery building on site]

### ODT Online Fri, 17 Aug 2012
Speight’s demolition to make way for expansion
By Chris Morris
Part of the Speight’s Brewery in Dunedin will be demolished to make room for the $29 million expansion of its operation. […] The company announced its intention to redevelop the brewery last year, after earthquake damage to the Canterbury Brewery, and began by relocating its Maltexo production plant to Dunedin in May this year.
Read more

### ODT Online Sat, 18 Aug 2012
Questions over consent for Speight’s
By Chris Morris
Heritage advocates are questioning why the public was not given a say about the demolition of a protected part of Speight’s Brewery in Dunedin.
Read more

****

Property acquisition for the stadium and SH88 developments . . .
[the hornet’s nest]

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 18:04 20/11/2012
Dunedin City Council fined for road botch up
By Wilma McCorkindale – DScene
A High Court decision has slammed Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) handling of a roading realignment in the city, ordering the cash -strapped authority to pay affected parties more than $185,000 in costs. Justice Alan Mackenzie indicated in a written decision the legality of the stretch of State Highways 1 and 88 through the city remained in question because of the council’s botch up.
Read more

Judgment-221310 (PDF, 109 KB)

Related Post and Comments:
20.11.12 Dunedin City Council vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”

****

Then there was Delta . . . [property acquisition at Jacks Point and Luggate, which names in common]

### ODT Online Thu, 25 Apr 2013
Delta investigation ‘major’
By Chris Morris
The Office of the Auditor-general considers its investigation into land purchases by Dunedin City Council-owned company Delta to be one of its major inquiries for the coming year. Results of the investigation might not be made public for some months, at the earliest. The OAG’s draft annual plan for the 2013-14 year, published last week, detailed work planned for the 12 months from July 1. The plan listed the Delta investigation as one of the “major inquiries” to be reported on during the year. The investigation into Delta’s $14.12 million land purchases in 2008 and 2009 at Luggate, near Wanaka, and Jacks Point, near Queenstown, was confirmed last November.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Proposed hotel, 41 Wharf Street – indicative landscape effects

The following images (scans of scans…) were supplied by Madeleine Lamont in submission on application LUC-2012-212. The text of Madeleine’s submission has been lightly edited for posting. Her submission as lodged (No. 422) can be viewed here: Submissions 401 to 509 (PDF, 6.9 MB).

1. View from Mornington Park, off Eglinton Rd between Stafford and High Sts

2. (zoom) View from Mornington Park, off Eglinton Rd

3. View from Bellevue St, Belleknowes, just below Highgate

4. View from Adam St, near Russell St, City Rise

—

Submission to Dunedin City Council
Re: Public Notice of application for Resource Consent Section 95A Resource Management Act 1991
Resource Consent Application No: LUC-2012-212
Name of Applicant: Betterways Advisory Limited
Location of Site: 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin, being the land legally described as
Lot 3 Deposited Plan 25158, held in Computer Freehold
Register OT17A/1107.

I submit in the strongest terms, that resource consent for the building of the proposed hotel structure on the above site, NOT BE GRANTED because of the structure’s significant, detrimental effects on the city landscape.

If the applicant had had the courtesy to supply comprehensive spatial design drawings of this structure in the context of the whole city, it would be obvious to all how inappropriate in SCALE this structure is. At 96m in elevation, the structure overbears the entire city and harbour basin, obstructing the entire city centre’s experience of the harbour, the peninsula and Dunedin’s nestling hills, offering an absurd conflict with the human scale and nature of both the historic and current character of city structures and city activities.

Of greatest concern are the western and eastern elevations of the structure. I submit Photo 1 taken from the lookout in Mornington Park, a view celebrated by Dunedin artists numerous times over the years, by visitors to the city and of course, by the hundreds of Dunedin households. The approximate silhouette of the proposed structure is drawn in to show the obstructive nature and ‘selfish’ size and position of the hotel. The scale of the building is completely inappropriate. Photo 2 is from the same position, zoomed in and marked with the Wharf St railway lighting tower measured at 35m used to indicate the dominance of the proposed 96.3m hotel structure. The eastern elevation from the peninsula suburbs too, will experience the overscale of the building against the city and hill suburbs.

Photo 3 taken, on zoom from Bellevue Street, Belleknowes, again includes the structure’s silhouette scaled off the marked rail light tower. If the cladding of the proposed tower is mainly glass, with it being so high above the city, the western sun will create issues of sun strike on roads leading down from the suburbs, and obviously, serious effects and obstruction to the views enjoyed by thousands of households.

Photo 4 is from lower down the Belleknowes spur, from Adam Street, with an estimated, but conservative profile (photo lacks a known structure to measure off) drawn. Again the aesthetic values and scale of the harbour basin are entirely offended by an ill considered structure.

What concerns me most about this application for resource consent to build an inappropriate structure (by position and scale), is the inadequacy of the supplied application documents to present the structure in the context of the city. Widely published images are fantasy, such as an elevated, high angle view from well above the harbour, attempting to diminish the perceived size of the structure. The only humans to view the structure from this angle, position and elevation may be those wealthy enough to, by helicopter. These images are notable for their lack of contextual structures that make, in fact, the character of Dunedin. Buildings of 2, 3 or more storeys set the scale appropriate for development and are absent from the application documents precisely to obscure the real affect this structure will have on the city’s landscape and its aesthetic values. Design consultancy information only focuses on the very immediate surroundings and contains no spatial plan for this giant structure in the context of the city. I have attempted to show how 120 degrees of the city centre and its hill suburbs will have their harbour and peninsula views and joy of place seriously obstructed. The peninsula suburbs will view a structure absurdly contradicting the city structures and rounded hill suburbs. All incoming transport links, as a special feature of this city, enjoy delightful revelation of the ‘great little city’, its harbour and the waters of the Pacific. These heartening views enjoyed by all, citizen and visitor, will be irretrievable spoiled and dominated by a tower designed (and possibly built) for a city the scale of Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur or Singapore.

Lastly, the attempt at this sort of inappropriate development is an affront to the careful planning [of] the city’s forefathers to create an egalitarian community enjoying the delightful natural environment Dunedin offers. The proposed structure stands at 96m. This is only a matter of metres below the elevation of much of the Green Belt. Jubilee Park is at a 100m elevation. The Green Belt designed and implemented so long ago and maintained for the benefit of all, is carefully placed so that wherever a person stands in the city centre they can look up the hills to the skyline and see only green, the suburbs beyond obscured by the angle of view. This creates a very special intimate city, a human scaled city, for the benefit and edification of those living or visiting here. This, in conjunction with historical character (now lost in Christchurch), a rich, intelligent, creative and industrious community is what makes Dunedin a destination, a special, memorable place that with sympathetic development will continue to attract visitors and citizens who will not find the likes, elsewhere in the world. Structures like the proposed hotel are notable for being the same the world over. In being built it will change the very character of the place visitors will be seeking to experience.

I submit in the strongest terms that the Dunedin City Council turn down this application for resource consent and I suggest that the non compliance of this application to the requirements of the Resource Management Act to protect the amenity, aesthetic and cultural values and wellbeing of the people of Dunedin will bring this matter to the Environment Court.

Yours sincerely

Madeleine Lamont
B. Landscape Architecture (Hons), Lincoln University

—

Compare these indicative images to those prepared by Truescape of Christchurch for the Applicant:

LUC-2012-212 12. Viewpoint booklet (PDF, 3.4MB)
This document is a scanned copy of the application for resource consent

—

Related Posts:
20.11.12 City planner’s report recommends against consent for hotel
10.11.12 Dunedin Hotel, 41 Wharf Street (LUC 2012-212)
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

—

The Applicant, Betterways Advisory Limited, gets one and a half days for presentation to the hearing committee (Cr Colin Weatherall, Cr Andrew Noone, Cr Kate Wilson, and independent commissioner John Lumsden). Submitters have been allowed ten minutes each. Written communication from City Planning makes no time allowance for submitters wishing to use experts.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

City planner’s report recommends against consent for hotel

UPDATED 21.11.12

See comments at this thread:

Ro https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/dunedin-hotel-41-wharf-street-luc-2012-212/#comment-29089

Elizabeth https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/dunedin-hotel-41-wharf-street-luc-2012-212/#comment-29090

—

“What Heydary found came as a shock, especially to some buyers who readily admit they were so blinded by the flash and cash of Donald Trump that they didn’t do proper due diligence: Buyers weren’t purchasing so much a condo as a share in a high-end hotel that, so far at least, is losing money.”

Trump Tower developer suing 7 disgruntled investors to close deals they now regret

Anonymous provided this edifying read. It ‘trumps’ what happened with the first tower built at Orewa, and the Spencer on Byron at Takapuna (referred to elsewhere at What if?, or google) – as far as 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin is concerned the tower-scam model is the same. So here we are, naive and wide open to the wiles of our own ‘good old boys’ and their unsavoury quest for a share of dirty-quick money from fickle overseas ‘connections’, and your life savings too.

—

### ODT Online Wed, 21 Nov 2012
DCC report opposes city hotel
By Chris Morris
Plans for a 28-storey waterfront hotel towering over Dunedin have been dealt a blow by a Dunedin City Council report that criticises the design and recommends resource consent be declined. The report by council planner Lianne Darby, made public yesterday, identified the hotel’s height and dominant appearance as among areas of concern. A host of technical worries also raised doubts, ranging from traffic problems and shading to a lack of information about wind gusts magnified by the tower’s height. Ms Darby’s report left the door ajar by including a list of detailed conditions to impose if consent were granted, despite her recommendation.
Read more

Source: ODT Files

Note to graphic: Under the Resource Management Act (RMA) the commissioners to hear the application cannot consider the economic viability of the proposed hotel project – the matters with a red cross, at right, fall within the scope of the Act. The applicant is required to show the adverse effects of the proposed development are no more than minor.

Read Post Application Information at DCC website

‘New information’ about the hypothetical footbridge cannot be considered at hearing since it was NOT included in the notified application.

### ODT Online Tue, 20 Nov 2012
Hotel developer unveils link bridge proposal
By Chris Morris
The man promoting Dunedin’s proposed 28-storey hotel has unveiled plans for a “world class” pedestrian and cyclist bridge that could provide a missing link to the city’s waterfront. However, the idea is only the “starting point for a discussion”, with key details – including how much the sweeping structure would cost and who would pay for it – yet to be confirmed, Betterways Advisory Ltd director Steve Rodgers said.
Read more

Source: Ignite Architects Ltd (via ODT)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Dunedin Hotel, 41 Wharf Street (LUC 2012-212)

All submitters received a letter dated 2 November 2012 from Dunedin City Council informing them of the dates on which the Hearings Committee will consider the Betterways Advisory Ltd’s resource consent application for 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin.

The council hearings committee is Cr Colin Weatherall (chairman), Cr Andrew Noone and Cr Kate Wilson. Submissions will be heard in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers.

Hearing dates:
Monday 3 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Tuesday 4 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Wednesday 5 December 2012 – 10am to 7.30pm
Thursday 6 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm

And if required:
Monday 17 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Tuesday 18 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Wednesday 19 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm

It is anticipated the applicant will present for the first day and part of the second day. Submitters are likely to commence their presentations from 2pm on Tuesday 4 December.

Altogether, there were 508 public submissions. Not all submitters wish to be heard. That’s right, the applicant has about a day and a half to present substantively; submitters get 10 minutes each. Such is the democratic process.

The intention must be that if the Council grants consent – red carpet – then we take it to the Environment Court on appeal.

There has been no cost benefit analysis for the proposed hotel. Given the shortcomings of the site, neither the Applicant or the Dunedin City Council have declared the potential costs, including infrastructure services costs, of this project to ratepayers. There’s quite a lot the Council isn’t saying publicly; and quite a lot it’s saying, politically, behind closed doors to the applicant, we hear.

The Application: (DCC webpages)
● Current notified applications
● LUC-2012-212 (Betterways Advisory Limited) – all documents

—

Published on May 13, 2012 by DunedinNZofficial

—

Dunedin lawyer Steve Rodgers said he remained convinced the hotel would be a “game-changer” for Dunedin and was “98.2%” confident it would win approval at next month’s resource consent hearing.

### ODT Online Sat, 10 Nov 2012
Hotel project spokesman confident of go-ahead
By Chris Morris
The man acting as the public face for a proposed 28-storey waterfront hotel in Dunedin says the project remains “full steam ahead” despite a public outcry. However, Dunedin lawyer Steve Rodgers – the director of Betterways Advisory Ltd, the company fronting the development – would not rule out changes to the hotel’s design, but hoped a fight through the Environment Court could be avoided.
Read more

—

Related Posts:
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application

UPDATED POST 26.9.12
Who is behind the resource consent application? Find out here.
How do I make a submission on the application? Go to DCC webpage.

—

Dunedin City Council
Media Release

Resource consent sought for major hotel

This item was published on 07 Sep 2012.

Betterways Advisory Limited has confirmed its interest in building a waterfront hotel and residential apartments on Dunedin’s Wharf Street. Further information sought by the Council has now been provided and formal notification of the company’s plans for the site will proceed.

The proposed hotel will have 27 floors plus a basement and will contain 215 bedrooms, two restaurants, two bars, a swimming pool for in-house use, as well as 182 on-site parking spaces, and a drop off/pick up area for two coaches. The building will also accommodate 164 self-contained apartments.

The application, which will be notified in Saturday’s Otago Daily Times, is accompanied by an assessment of environmental effects, revised plans and elevations, an architectural design statement, montages of the proposed hotel from viewpoints around Dunedin, shade diagrams, an integrated transport assessment, a reverse sensitivity study report, an infrastructure feasibility report, and a wind assessment report.

The Wharf Street site is zoned Industrial 1. The general area is shown on the Hazards Register as being reclaimed land, at risk to seismic activity. Commercial residential activity and residential activity are considered to be non-complying activities under the District Plan and so the resource consent for the hotel needs to be notified.

Anyone wanting to make submissions on the application has until 5 October 2012 to do so. The application can be viewed at www.dunedin.govt.nz/rma or by visiting the City Planning desk at the Dunedin City Council Service Centre. Information on making a submission and copies of the submission form can also be accessed online or obtained from the DCC Service Centre.

Contact Resource Consents Manager on 477 4000.

DCC Link

—

Related Posts and Comments:
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
23.6.12 Mis(t)apprehension: website visits, not bookings?
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

—

Betterways Advisory Limited
Previous name: DOLCE LMW LIMITED (15 Dec 2011)
Company number: 3142026
Incorporation Date: 23 Sep 2010
Company Status: Registered
Entity type: NZ Limited Company
Company Addresses:
Registered Office: RODGERS LAW, Level 4, 151-155 Princes Street, Dunedin
Address for service: RODGERS LAW, Level 4, 151-155 Princes Street, Dunedin

Directors: (1 of 1)
Stephen John RODGERS
20 Braeview Crescent, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Dunedin Hotel

UPDATED POST 26.9.12
Who is behind the resource consent application? Find out here.
How do I make a submission on the application? Go to DCC webpage

Published on May 13, 2012 by DunedinNZofficial

Plans for a five star, 28-storey luxury hotel, proposed for Dunedin’s waterfront, have been revealed at Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium.

The hotel will position the city as a high-end tourism destination and provide a major boost to the region’s economic development.

The proposed hotel will be the tallest building in Dunedin by a significant margin providing uninterrupted views across the city either to Swampy Summit or the Otago peninsula. It will comprise both hotel and apartment accommodation, a swimming pool, a rooftop restaurant, car parks and a penthouse presidential suite.

The $100 million development is currently going through the resource consent process and is destined for completion by 2015.

Or so it says at YouTube.

—

UPDATE 28.5.12
The city council is pledging to put out the red carpet and not the red tape.

“Don’t let us become the New Zealand equivalent of Springfield from the Simpsons TV show” –Andrew Metcalfe

ODT Online news and opinion:
26.5.12 Tough time for builders in city
18.5.12 Links to city sealed hotel development
13.5.12 Hotel proposal
12.5.12 Hotel developers remain a mystery
11.5.12 $100m hotel for Dunedin waterfront
11.5.12 Harbour hotel proposed for Dunedin

Related Post and Comments:
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
26.10.11 Dunedin Harbourside: DCC “caved”

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

HARBOURSIDE Announcement

Otago Chamber of Commerce
Media Release

17 December 2010

Council Makes Further Move to Protect Industry

The following press release marks a further milestone in the Chamber’s drive to support its members, industry and the retention of employment in the city and the region.

The Chamber supported by Farra Engineering Limited, Kaan’s Catering Supplies, Bradken Dunedin & Crawford Glass recently appealed against the Harbourside Development believing that it would be harmful to industry, jobs and the economy of the region.

This latest move by Council justifies this belief and exonerates the ‘tight five’ from the criticism that the action to stop Harbourside was somehow against the best interests of the city when it was not.

Every member of the Chamber should be grateful for the actions of the Chamber’s co-appellants who used their own time and not inconsiderable personal finances to protect jobs in the city.

Members likewise should take comfort from the Mayor’s acknowledgement that your representative organisation, through its successful and constructive efforts, is now seen as a contributor to the good of the city instead of an objector to council proposals.

This will enable the Chamber in the future to be more successful in its representation of members’ interests with the Council.

The Chamber wishes members to note with appreciation the untiring efforts of Cr Colin Weatherall. Without his patience and perseverance over this long journey this great outcome would not have been achieved.

This success has not been won without hard work over more than two years. It would not have been possible without the support of the wider membership when we asked for the effort with the logo page in the ODT.

With your continuing support this success can easily become the model for the future.

OCC page link

****

Dunedin City Council
Media Release

17 December 2010

Council Withdraws Fairley Street Walkway Plans From Harbourside Vision

This item was published on 17 Dec 2010.

The Dunedin City Council has withdrawn its Notices of Requirement relating to the Fairley Street Walkway as part of its plans for a redeveloped harbourside area.

The designation of the walkway was publicly notified in January 2008 alongside Plan Change 7: Dunedin harbourside which re-zoned the area adjoining the Steamer Basin as Harbourside. The Commissioners decision on the designation and plan change was released in February 2009. The Council has been involved in negotiating appeals on the decision.

The decision to withdraw the Fairley Street Walkway designation was made at the Council meeting on 13 December 2010 to assist with negotiations on the appeals to the plan change and designations.

Mayor Dave Cull praised the contribution of Cr Colin Weatherall’s efforts in bringing this to a satisfactory conclusion, along with the Otago Chamber of Commerce for its leadership in protecting jobs in the city and wider region that it felt were threatened by Council’s proposal. “The Chamber’s constructive contribution, and that of the co-appellants, was crucial to this successful outcome,” said Mayor Cull.

Meanwhile, Otago Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive, John Christie, said “The Chamber applauds the Council’s decision to withdraw from this course of action. They have listened to the very reasonable arguments put forward by our members. It is to be hoped this represents a shift in our relationship with the new Council. My members and I look forward to further constructive partnership with the Council”.

The Council is still looking at ways to meet the community’s wish to have better access from the city to the harbour. Options include a new pedestrian-friendly connection between the Railway Station foot-bridge and the Steamer Basin using a boulevard alongside Thomas Burns Street. Pedestrian and cycle access across the road and rail barrier at the bottom of Rattray Street is also being considered.

Contact DCC on 477 4000.

DCC page link

—

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

Oh for heavens’ sake, DCC

### ODT Online Sat, 20 Nov 2010
Wastewater plant plan
By Chris Morris
A plan to fast-track up to $11.6 million in spending on the Tahuna wastewater treatment plant will be scrutinised by Dunedin city councillors next week.Cr Syd Brown, the chairman of the council’s new finance, strategy and development committee, said he would be checking the proposal carefully over the next few days.

There was wide public support for the Tahuna project, but the proposal would have to go through a “testing process” and was not guaranteed to proceed.
-Syd Brown, Chair of Finance, Strategy and Development Committee

No project was “untouchable”, but debate and progress towards completing Tahuna dated back more than 20 years, and the project had strong community support.
-Andrew Noone, Chair of Infrastructure Services Committee

Read more

Related Post and Comments:
23.9.10 ORC : DCC …. Is there any hope?

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

Harbourside: more negotiation to come

### ODT Online Sat, 17 Apr 2010
Plan for harbour resolved
By David Loughrey
The Dunedin City Council appears to have staved off what could have been a bitter Environment Court battle with the city’s business community, after a joint announcement yesterday that an agreement on the harbourside development had been signed. For its part, the council has agreed to dump much of stage two from its harbourside plan, meaning a reduction to its “50-year vision” for the area. Businesses have agreed to accept stage one, subject to further negotiation.

THE AGREEMENT
• DCC has signed an agreement with Otago Chamber of Commerce and businesses affected by harbourside development to avert Environment Court battle.
• Council has agreed to drop stage two of the development, reducing its size.
• Chamber and businesses have agreed to stage one, subject to continued negotiation.
• Parties will now negotiate, before taking resolved issues to Environment Court for approval.
Read more

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC media release – Harbourside Stage Two

[Otago Chamber of Commerce Media Release below]

Dunedin City Council
Media Release

DCC To Withdraw Part Of Stage Two Harbourside Development

Dunedin (16 April 2010) – The Dunedin City Council has resolved to withdraw part of its planned Harbourside development partly in response to concerns raised by appellants concerned about effects on local businesses.

Cr Colin Weatherall, authorised to represent the Council in negotiations with the Otago Chamber of Commerce and five affected businesses, says the Council will withdraw part of its proposed Stage Two of the development.

It will continue to mediate with those affected to confirm objectives, policies and rules for the rest of the Harbourside zoning.

Along with all of Stage One, the Council is planning to retain from the original Stage Two parts to the south of Stage one and the designations of the Fairley Street Walkway, and the Heritage Buildings identified in the plan.

Parties to the agreement to withdraw part of stage 2 are local businesses Crawford Glass Dunedin Ltd, Kaan’s Catering Ltd, Bradken Resources Pty Ltd, and Farra Engineering Ltd, along with the Chamber.

The Council’s vision for a revitalised inner Harbourside basin, with a mix of activity, people, places and industry, depends on changing zoning in the area. A change of zoning to Harbourside was approved in February last year, but has looked likely to end in the Environment Court due to concerns about the effects on businesses.

Cr Weatherall says all parties hope that by removing the most controversial parts of the proposal, mediation can continue with goodwill on all sides, hopefully without need to have lengthy appearances before the Environment Court.

He says the parts of the zoning north of Willis Street, which will be abandoned, were unlikely to take place for several decades anyway and, given the changes to Dunedin and the world economy in just the past couple of years, it seems sensible to come back to the inner harbour as the principle focus .

“This allows us to keep the visionary view of what the area can become, but retain the viability of local businesses” says Cr Weatherall.

Public notice of withdrawal of part of Plan Change 7: Dunedin harbourside to the Dunedin City District Plan
Clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

The Dunedin City Council gives notice of its withdrawal of the area marked ‘A’ on the map below which was rezoned as Harbourside by way of Plan Change 7: Dunedin harbourside. The area marked ‘A’ on the map below will revert back to Industrial 1 Zone or Port 2 Zone as it was prior to notification of Plan Change 7 on 26 January 2008.

There will be consequential changes to some District Plan provisions to remove reference to the area that is now being withdrawn. A full copy of the updated provisions for Plan Change 7: Dunedin harbourside are available from the City of Dunedin website www.dunedin.govt.nz/harbourside.

The reasons for the Dunedin City Council’s decision to withdrawal part of the Harbourside Zone are:
a) this is a compromise with appellants to resolve the appeals.
b) it allows the objectives of the plan change to be met while protecting industrial activities in the area.

Otago Chamber of Commerce
Media Release

Council Votes to Save Jobs

The signing of this agreement and the resolutions passed by Council on the 29 March 2010, are a clear indication that the Council has listened to the Chamber’s representations and has reassessed its “vision” for the Harbourside development.

The Chamber, on behalf of its members, and in the best interests of the city, has opposed part of the Harbourside development plans as proposed in the conviction that, had it proceeded as planned, existing jobs would be lost along with any future job prospects. The Chamber, together with the other appellants Farra Engineering, Bradken Resources, Kaan’s Catering and Crawford Glass Dunedin, have worked hard with Council representative Cr Colin Weatherall to reach a position that will satisfy many of those concerns.

On behalf of the Chamber and the appellants, and all the industries within the Harbourside, I wish to take the opportunity to thank all those many people who assisted in the outcome. Particular thanks are due to Cr. Weatherall who, on behalf of the Council, has worked tirelessly with us to fully understand our view of the impacts of the proposal on industry and jobs and, having understood, represented those issues to Council with total integrity to achieve this positive outcome.

The Chamber has worked successfully with Council on a number of initiatives over the last twelve months. The Harbourside Plan Change is one of the few issues that have taken longer to successfully resolve.

I take this opportunity to place on record the Chamber’s pride in its working relationship with the Council. On behalf of its members we remain committed to offering the large pool of expertise represented among our members and to working with the Council on issues that will improve the economy of Dunedin and the lifestyles of its residents.

For more information, contact John Christie, Chief Executive on
Phone 03 479 0181 or 0274 915 916

—

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC media release – Harbourside

Dunedin City Council
Media release

Harbourside Progress

Dunedin (Thursday 1 April 2010) – The Council has been advised by the Chair of its Hearings Committee, Cr Colin Weatherall, as its negotiator, that a broad understanding, as a basis for resolving outstanding differences with the appellants to the Harbourside Plan Change 7 proposal, exists final details of which are still being negotiated.

Cr Weatherall has been engaged in discussions with all parties on a ‘confidential without prejudice’ basis in accordance with best practice while, for its part, the Council has maintained a position of not commenting while the appeals process is in train, relying instead on Cr Weatherall’s delegated authority.

At its meeting this Monday 29 March 2010 Cr Weatherall was authorised by the Council to continue to progress the Harbourside negotiations with all the appellants under a confidential protocol until such time as there is a consent order, agreed to by all parties, in place before the Environment Court for its approval.

The purpose of these negotiations is to minimise the matters brought before the Court for its consideration.

The chair of the Council’s Hearings Committee has delegated authority to authorise the negotiation and resolution of appeals under the Resource Management Act.

Given that this process is both on-going and sensitive it is inappropriate for anyone other than the Chair of the Council’s Hearings Committee to make any public comment on how the process is proceeding until such negotiations are completed.

A chronological background, outlining the time-line for realising the Harbourside vision and the resulting Plan Change, follows.

BACKGROUND

The following outlines the time line in developing the harbourside vision and the resulting plan change:

2001:
Consultation on options for Dunedin’s future through “Choices for the Future” in 2001, the community expressed a desire for improved harbour access for both people and vehicles to get to the water, and to enhance harbour amenity.

June 2002:
The Planning and Environment Committee approved a variation to the then Proposed District Plan to provide for the harbourside area.

July 2005:
Draft long term vision for Dunedin’s harbourside launched for public consultation. The vision was refined, options considered and a plan change initiated to facilitate development.

October 2006:
A revised vision and a draft consultation document summarising the principles to be embodied in the plan change were agreed for informal consultation.

October 2007:
The Council resolved to publicly notify Proposed Plan Change 7 and the Notices of Requirement, along with a private plan change to the Regional Plan: Coast.

January 2008:
Proposed District Plan Change 7: Dunedin harbourside was notified alongside six Notices of Requirement to designate land for public squares, walkways and a road alignment included in the Harbourside vision. A decision was subsequently taken, prior to the hearings and in light of concerns raised by submitters, to withdraw three of the designations (No’s 2-4) and to limit the extent of the designation relating to 41 Wharf Street.

The objectives of Plan Change 7 include a Dunedin harbourside that:
• is easily accessible with strong visual and safe physical connections to the city centre, harbour and surrounding areas.
• is a vibrant and attractive place to visit, work and live, with public open spaces along the harbour edge creating a high quality waterfront environment.
• supports a range of compatible land uses that enable the continued operation of Dunedin Port and complement, but do not compete with the vibrancy and vitality of the city centre.
• built form of development creates a liveable environment that reflects and enhances the industrial, maritime and port heritage.

July 2008:
The hearings on Proposed Plan Change 7: Dunedin harbourside and three Notices of Requirement (Fairley Street walkway – northern and southern sections, and 41 Wharf Street roading improvement) were held.

January 2009:
Decisions were released by the Commissioners confirming Plan Change 7 (both Stage 1 and 2) and the designation of the Fairley Street walkway, with modifications. A decision on 41 Wharf Street is yet to be made.

April 2009:
Eight appeals were received on Plan Change 7, two appeals on the Fairley Street walkway – southern section and one appeal on the Fairley Street walkway – northern section. There are also a number of section 274 parties to the proceedings.

PLEASE NOTE: Any further comment on this media statement will be available from the Mayor, Peter Chin, only.

—

DCC Website Link

Post by Elizabeth Kerr