Harbourside: Official information request to Dunedin City Council

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

DCC Webmap – Upper Harbour Central Dunedin JanFeb 2013

—

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

Dear Sandy

Re: Urban Design and Envisioning for Dunedin Harbourside

I note the following media items:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Elizabeth Kerr
[Dunedin North]

——————

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

Dear Elizabeth

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

Regards
Sandy

[DCC Group Manager Corporate Services]

—

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

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]

█ 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

DCC: Non-notified decision for Harbourside subdivision

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

Notice:

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

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

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

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

Information obtained from City Planning 12.1.15

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

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

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

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

Decision (final page) – Copy of Plan: Not to Scale. [click to enlarge]

DCC Webmap – Dunedin Harbourside [click to enlarge]

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

Heritage New Zealand – Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area # List No. 7767

—

DCC Ratepayers:

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

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

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

Industrial land – Taieri, Dunedin

“We had a shortage of industrial land in the city. The Taieri land might not be developed yet but we need to take a very long-term perspective on its development.” –John Christie, Chamber of Commerce

### ODT Online Sat, 21 May 2011
Industrial zoning fails to sell Taieri sections
By Allison Rudd
When the Dunedin City Council announced plans to rezone 52ha of land on the Taieri Plain from rural to industrial, it trumpeted the Taieri as a location which would attract new businesses to the city and allow existing companies to expand. Nine years on, almost all the land remains undeveloped, populated by livestock rather than people.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DScene: Michael Guest ‘ruled out standing for mayor, saying he had never considered it’ (page 6)

### DScene 17-3-10
Council lashes out at Chamber (page 4)
By Wilma McCorkindale
Dunedin City Council chief executive Jim Harland has lashed out at the Otago Chamber of Commerce over its challenge against proposed harbourside rezoning. The two organisations are battling the issue out in the Environment Court, and are at the mediation stage.

Last week, John Christie claimed the chamber had been working hard for more than a year to get council to the table on achieving a resolution that would see harbourside access and improved amenity value of the harbourside, but not cost the city jobs. The magapaper says Jim Harland believes the chamber was on dangerous ground and its moves were creating an impossible situation.

{continues} #bookmark

****

Question of 3D to come up at conference (page 5)
By Wilma McCorkindale
Do science centres see 3D in their futures? That’s just one of the questions being raised at the coming week’s ASPAC science centres conference at Otago Museum. Peter Hayden of the internationally renowned Dunedin-based Natural History New Zealand (NHNZ) is presenting a keynote address on links between NHNZ and Otago Museum, and the challenge of attracting audiences, including the future of 3D in that context. Around 100 delegates are expected to converge on Dunedin for ASPAC.
{continues} #bookmark

The Asia Pacific Network of Science & Technology Centres (ASPAC) was formed in 1997 to facilitate communication and cooperation amongst centres, museums and other organisations which use interactive approaches to encourage excellence and innovation in informal learning and the public understanding of science and technology in the Asia Pacific region. www.aspacnet.org

****

Guest takes time to return to law (page 6)
By Michelle Sutton
Dunedin city councillor and former Invercargill District Court judge Michael Guest has yet to step back to law – six months after campaigning successfully to be reinstated to the bar – and is refusing to comment on his future direction.
{continues} #bookmark

****

Register to read DScene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

Advertising feature [excerpt] (page 26) #bookmark
South Dunedin…
“At the end of March the Business Association will be taking part in a meeting with other community bodies and the DCC to review the council’s draft plans for the further development of the Lorne Street site. […] The council’s proposals include plans for enhanced lighting, soft landscaping, outdoor eating areas with tables, seating, and a drinking fountain, and a possible children’s play area. This is just the beginning. It’s an opportunity for local stakeholders to comment on and provide input to the draft plans to make this a truly worthwhile resource for residents and visitors alike. We believe in a positive future for South Dunedin so we’re delighted to see the momentum for redevelopment of the area building so strongly.”
–Jane Orbell, South Dunedin Business Association

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr