Tag Archives: Harbourside

Wharf Hotel and the former Gregg’s Coffee Factory, Fryatt St

Today Otago Daily Times columnist Dave Cannan kindly provided lift-off for a little social history project that’s dear to my heart.

At Facebook:

The call for information also appears at page 2 of today’s print and digital editions of the newspaper and at the ODT Facebook page.

We need STORIES – can you help?

Dave and I will be sharing information for publication.

We will take any stories people have, from any era – people can write a couple of paragraphs only if they want (email The Wash), or phone Dave with details.

I welcome a catchup with people hosting larger stories and more complex memories.

Contacts for Dave Cannan:
phone: (03) 479 3519
email: thewash@odt.co.nz
tweet: @thewashodt
http://www.facebook.com/thewashodt

The photograph of the ‘Glenlora’ at Dunedin Wharf was taken circa the 1890s. Glenlora was an iron barque of 764 tons, built in 1864 in Liverpool. Owned by Shaw Savill Line, the ship brought several thousands of immigrants to New Zealand between 1874 and 1895. Photographer: David Alexander De Maus, 1847-1925. D.A. Maus Collection – Alexander Turnbull Library.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post os offered in the public interest.

1 Comment

Filed under Architecture, Business, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Finance, Fun, Geography, Heritage, Infrastructure, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Property, Public interest, Site, Tourism, Transportation, Urban design

NZ Loan and Mercantile : Concept and master plan by architect Paul Ries

Letting the building “tell its story”, involves retaining and keeping exposed as many historic features as possible.

### ODT Online Wed, 4 May 2016
Redevelopment revised (+ video)
By Vaughan Elder
Owner Russell Lund’s previous plans to redevelop the three-storey 143-year-old heritage warehouse building in Thomas Burns St involved building 24 long-term apartments on the top floor, but he told the Otago Daily Times yesterday he had changed tack. He has brought over United States architect and friend Paul Ries, who has drawn up ambitious plans to convert the two top floors into more than 50 short-stay apartments, with the ground floor used as a commercial space.
Read more + Gallery

Otago Daily Times Published on May 3, 2016
Dunedin Loan and Mercantile building

LM Building - site plan
█ Site Plan and Images: Paul Ries | Supplied by Russell Lund

LM Building - south exterior elevationLM Building - lateral sectionLM Building - tracery promenade and coffee shopLM Building - brew pub and restaurant

Related Posts and Comments:
6.8.15 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —meeting tomorrow
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
28.11.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —Resource Consent granted (pics)
26.11.14 Retraction (see comment on ‘Heritage Counts’)
26.9.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —what ESCO said!
30.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing
24.10.09 Rodney Wilson: Dunedin as national heritage city

█ For more, enter the terms *harbourside*, *heritage* or *lund* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

R Lund & P Ries 1Building Owner | Architect

9 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Coolness, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Heritage, Heritage NZ, Innovation, Inspiration, Leading edge, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design

Vogel Street Party —Sat, 10 October

Vogel St Party banner
Admission: FREE

The inaugural Vogel Street Party was held last year in conjunction with the first ever Dunedin Street Art Festival; this year’s event will again be staged in the warehouse precinct and will collaborate with the Dunedin UNESCO City of Literature group for a party themed around Literature and Light.

LITERATURE To celebrate Dunedin’s creative city status as a UNESCO City of Literature Dunedin, New Zealand. You can find us sitting alongside only 10 other cities in the world that hold this status, including Edinburgh, Melbourne, Dublin, Prague & more.

LIGHT As 2015 is the International Year of Light, the VSP will be Dunedin’s major effort to join in the world-wide celebration of light and light based technologies.

Vogel Street Party image 685083-320448-34 1

The events, exhibitions and activities will follow these themes and showcase the talent and creativity we have hidden in our city.

The Vogel Street Party 2015 — fun attractions for people of all ages.
PARTY STARTS 10 October at 3pm.
Note start times vary for Open Hours at Heritage Buildings.

█ Webpage: http://vogelstparty.nz/

█ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/1611938749075531/

█ Download: Vogel Street Party PROGRAMME

OPEN Buildings [excerpt from programme – click to enlarge]

Vogel Street Party 2015 open buildings

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

8 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Dunedin, Events, Fun, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, New Zealand, People, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Esco —‘just the global hardball player we always were’, sorry staff….

Esco Dunedin was among a group of neighbouring businesses objecting to Russell Lund’s plans to redevelop the 142 year old Loan and Mercantile building, citing reverse sensitivity concerns, including over noise. The outcome of Environment Court mediation talks was yet to be revealed, but Mr Kershaw said the issue played no part in the company’s decision. (ODT)

### ODT Online Wed, 2 Sep 2015
Foundry closure ‘a blow’
By Chris Morris
Australia’s mining downturn is set to deliver a “real blow” to Dunedin’s economy with the closure of the Esco foundry and the loss of dozens of jobs. Staff at Esco Dunedin were told yesterday the foundry would close by the end of the year, with the loss of 34 jobs. Esco products division president Jeff Kershaw, of Portland, in the United States, said in a statement the decision reflected a downturn in Australia’s mining industry that showed no sign of letting up.
Read more

TWO THINGS

█ Remember when Esco pushed this button (highlighted) at the NZ Loan and Mercantile Building resource consent hearing:

ODT Online 20.8.14 'Demolition threatened; job loss possibility raised' [screenshot] 1
ODT Online [screenshot]

█ From file records, see Russell Lund’s percipient closing to hearing:

[para] 102. The biggest hurdle would seem to be the decline of the Australian coal mining industry. I refer to a Guardian article May 5, 2014 Australian Coalmining entering structural decline.

116. Esco have a large foundry operation in China. They employ 675 people in China.

117. I am very sure the production costs of Esco’s Chinese foundries are markedly less than in Dunedin, Portland or anywhere else. That is the ticking clock for the Dunedin foundry, and other Esco foundries.

118. The bottom line is that Esco will operate this small Dunedin foundry only as long as it serves their shareholders’ interests. If the market conditions dictate that consolidation is required and it is surplus to requirements, then they will act swiftly, as they did in Brisbane.

LUC-2014-259 RV Lund Applicant Right of Reply 22.9.14
(PDF, 6 MB)

Related Posts and Comments:
6.8.15 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —meeting tomorrow
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
7.1.15 Industrial Heritage Save: Cowes Hammerhead crane
28.11.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —Resource Consent granted
26.11.14 Retraction (see comment on ‘Heritage Counts’)
● 26.9.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —what ESCO said!
30.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing
16.3.10 Public meeting: planning the future of Dunedin heritage buildings
24.10.09 Rodney Wilson: Dunedin as national heritage city

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

8 Comments

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

NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —meeting tomorrow

IMG_5604a11bw12a

“You can’t be too confident, but if we’re all reasonable I think an agreement is definitely within reach.” –Russell Lund

Farra Engineering chief executive John Whitaker agreed yesterday when contacted there had been “good work” during mediation.

### ODT Online Thu, 6 Aug 2015
Extra conditions may rescue project
By Chris Morris
Plans to breathe new life into Dunedin’s historic Loan and Mercantile building could be about to take a significant step forward. Building owner Russell Lund will meet a group of neighbouring harbourside businesses, as well as Dunedin City Council and Otago Chamber of Commerce representatives, tomorrow to discuss the stalled project.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
28.11.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —Resource Consent granted (pics)
26.11.14 Retraction (see comment on ‘Heritage Counts’)
26.9.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building —what ESCO said!
30.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential
18.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building #randomsmartphonepix (interiors)
17.8.14 Public Notices: NZ Loan and Mercantile Building… (site tour, hearing)
13.8.14 Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage (letters)
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development
21.10.13 Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing
24.10.09 Rodney Wilson: Dunedin as national heritage city

█ For more, enter the terms *harbourside*, *heritage* or *lund* in the search box at right.

[click image to enlarge]

Post/image by Elizabeth Kerr

6 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Democracy, Design, Economics, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

Design alternatives to (pre-selected) bridge not canvassed by DCC

GOODBYE to Rattray St VIEW Shaft from Queens Gardens to the waterside.

HELLO to other serious impediments to unique and very significant harbourside cultural heritage and landscape values at the planned city.

Here is another DCC-inspired critically dead PLONK OBJECT.
An overhead rail bridge. Who gains.

Harbourside connector Rattray Fryatt Streets [DCC files] 1DCC files: Harbourside connector Rattray Fryatt Streets [click to enlarge]

It looks innocuous, nothing to scare the horses. A simple sling over the tracks at an estimated a cost of “about $3 million”.

What’s the fuss? Ahhh well.
The history of political deception through use of loose architectural sketches is tied (here as anywhere) to DCC departmental reports and estimates that hardly ever approximate REAL cost. Multiply by two.

Then the idea that the “hotel” is back on the drawing boards, if not a screw-us invitation to Asian investment for the south side.

By all means let’s escalate this (an idea) – the tame little cheapie bridge (pictured above, significantly downplayed structurally as a pencil mark) is another potential rort in the grand family of Council rorts that includes the Stadium*, Centre for High Performance Sport*, Carisbrook*, Dunedin Town Hall Redevelopment*, Citifleet*, City Forests*, Delta investments (severally)*, Cycle Network et al, and very probably the proposed Mosgiel pool if it gains traction for Taieri property speculators. For each, an independent forensic audit isn’t out of the question – for ratepayer ‘information’ that could depose the Council in favour of a Commissioner, presupposing later redress at Court. Visit resort to the *Crimes Act. Now, there’s a ‘visitor strategy’ for Dunedin !!

Meekly, more circumspectly (after all, it was just an idea, a stretch), those of us trained in architectural rendering and graphics as well as contemporary design philosophy of the marketplace know the tricks intimately; we’re not above exploiting them for a quick buck and a further string of new jobs by secret handshake.

Lucky for some, each deal at Dunedin (with links to Queenstown and Auckland if via Christchurch lawyers and accountants) can be sown up by a very small number of predatory boys. The same list we’ve had on our backburner books tracing the Stadium debacle —beginning to rise apparent at the ODT front page of Friday, 22 May 2015. An intriguing warning shot.

But is this right ? Has Dunedin City Council been wowed by just one bridge proposal ? Has DCC in the first place only ever been looking for a bridge —not seeking opportunities for alternatives, such as a designer underpass or an immediately legible automatically controlled crossing at grade, for light vehicle transit as well (shared roads) ?

It’s pretty poor and conflicting if Dunedin City councillors and senior council management have indeed sold out (under a red-carpeted table) to a lone solicited vision of an overhead bridge UNTESTED BY PROFESSIONAL COMPETITION – another signature WHITE model, to augment those other visions in WHITE for ORC sites at the Steamer Basin —nicely, satisfyingly calculated by that little list of club players.

It’s not hard to imagine that this mere slip of a concrete and steel flyover, is an “enlightenment” carrying the City re-brand. A cause célèbre for ego-fired DCC infidels and speculator man-pals. The very people who can’t bear to endure sage, conservative, long-term economic modelling for Dunedin, taking the city and region through 10 to 50 years of solid management to ensure business diversity and job creation. No, they prefer ad hoc spurts and short-term squander plans (how manly, even when couched as the soft-illustrated 2011 Central City Plan FFS).

Where, for this crossing, is the city council’s reasonably time-lined, broadly advertised, professional design competition with clearly expressed intent to utilise open tendering methods for architectural design, engineering and construction ??

TO SAVE US FROM COI’S AND RORTS.

****

The Otago Daily Times has learned the bridge is among only a few New Zealand projects vying for the next allocation from the Urban Cycleway Fund.

### ODT Online Thu, 28 May 2015
Bridge on funding short list
By Chris Morris
A multimillion-dollar bridge linking Dunedin’s inner city and waterfront has been short-listed for Government funds. […] An announcement is expected next month, and, if successful, the bridge could be considered for construction over the next three years.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

32 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Carisbrook, Citifleet, Construction, CST, Cycle network, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Design, DVL, DVML, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Highlanders, Hotel, Innovation, Inspiration, KiwiRail, LGNZ, Media, Museums, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, NZTA, OAG, ORFU, People, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, SFO, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design

DCC explains Harbourside subdivision in reply to Vandervis

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

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

Hi Lee

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

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

Regards
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

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

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

——————————

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

Hi Sue,

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

Please let me know if you need anything further.

Regards,
Jeremy

——————————

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

Hi Jeremy

In response to Sue’s questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Lianne

——————————

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

FYI…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

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

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

[ends]

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

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