Tag Archives: Environment Court

“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

6 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Enterprise Dunedin, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Hotel, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, Otago Polytechnic, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

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.

14 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Enterprise Dunedin, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Hotel, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, Otago Polytechnic, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

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.

70 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Hotel, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

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.

7 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Baloney, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Heritage, Hot air, Infrastructure, LGNZ, LTP/AP, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, Other, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, SFO, Site, Structural engineering, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

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.

60 Comments

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

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.

taieri-times-odt-22-2-17-residents-in-fight-for-riccarton-rd-p6

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]
submission-h180-421-bj-aj-miller-family-trust-p20
submission-h180-421-bj-aj-miller-family-trust-p21-1
submission-h180-421-bj-aj-miller-family-trust-p22

****

[click to enlarge]
data-map-2gp-land-information-for-mosgiel-roads2GP Data Map (Roads)

zone-map-2gp-mosgiel2GP 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.

5 Comments

Filed under Agriculture, Business, Construction, Corruption, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Transportation, Travesty

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]
data-map-2gp-land-information-for-mosgiel-roads2GP Data Map (Roads)

zone-map-2gp-mosgiel2GP 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”. Continue reading

8 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, NZTA, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design