Tag Archives: Lee Vandervis

Lee Vandervis . . . . v cull de mayor

lee-vandervis-20160830_181029-detail1

ODT 9.9.16 (page 10)

odt-9-9-16-letters-to-editor-hyndman-dickie-p10-resized

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

*Image: whatifdunedin – election hoarding above Olivier, 468 George St

23 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Public interest

DCC Citifleet: Police finishing final report

DCC logo (fraud) 2

### ODT Online Wed, 16 Sep 2015
Final Citifleet fraud report not finished
By Chris Morris
Dunedin police are still working to finalise a report into the $1.5 million Citifleet fraud, despite announcing in June no charges would be laid, it has been confirmed. The development came as it was confirmed an earlier police report into the Dunedin City Council’s long-running fraud was released to media despite internal concerns from senior police it was out of date, emails showed.
Read more

● The Department of Internal Affairs was keeping a close eye on the Dunedin City Council’s handling of the Citifleet fraud investigation, documents show. (ODT)

█ For more, enter the terms *citifleet*, *bachop*, *bidrose* or *vandervis* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

5 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, Democracy, DIA, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, SFO, Site, What stadium

DCC Citifleet: Council steered off SFO investigation

Link received.
Mon, 7 Sep 2015 at 9:47 p.m.

█ Message: Spot the difference – a Maori group gets the SFO while Dunedin Ratepayers get a lowly detective.

### NZ Herald Online 3:59 PM Monday Sep 7, 2015
Tertiary funding probe: SFO called in as centre agrees to pay back $7.5 million
By Steve Deane
A senior manager is dead and a Serious Fraud Office investigation has been launched following a probe into an agricultural college that uncovered millions of dollars of unjustified taxpayer funding.
The results of a Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) investigation into funding irregularities at Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre were released this afternoon following investigations by the Herald.
Taratahi’s former chief executive, Dr Donovan Wearing, died suddenly in January – three months after the TEC confirmed it was undertaking a ‘targeted review’ of the organisation.
The Herald has been told Dr Wearing addressed staff at the sprawling campus just outside Masterton about the investigation on January 21. The 52-year-old father of six was later found in a critical condition in a shed on campus grounds. He was taken to Wellington Hospital where he died at 10.30pm.
Dr Wearing’s death has been referred to the coroner.
Read more

█ For more, enter the terms *citifleet*, *deloitte*, *vandervis*, *detectives* and *bidrose* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

9 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Events, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Police, Politics, Property, SFO, Site, What stadium

DCC reality check —‘CEO Bidrose confirms no Vandervis complaint with a hug’

Received from Lee Vandervis
Sun, 15 Feb 2015 at 7:08 p.m.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 19:07:29 +1300
To: Chris Morris [ODT], Debbie Porteous [ODT], EditorODT, Nick Smith [ODT]
Conversation: CEO Bidrose confirms no Vandervis complaint with a hug.
Subject: CEO Bidrose confirms no Vandervis complaint with a hug.

Dear Chris and Co,

CEO Bidrose has this weekend confirmed in public, with a hug, that she has not made any complaint of me, that she was out of town when she received my latest email alerting her to a legal issue in the non-public section of the Council meeting underway when we spoke in the hallway, and that her secretary had not read through the email to the legal issue and alerted her prior to the meeting in which Mayor Cull attempted to push the issue through.
The legal issue related to Mayor Cull’s false claim that he was personally empowered to select the membership of the Code of Conduct Committee [against me], when this power is clearly that of the whole Council as detailed in Standing Orders J4.1 and in the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual.
This came on top of Mayor Cull’s falsely claiming statements supposedly made by me at the 3/11/14 Council meeting, and his then immediately demanding that I withdraw these statements which I did not make. Mayor Cull then used my refusal to withdraw the statements as a pretext to eject me from the meeting, all of which the video proves. This was the essence of my Code of Conduct Complaint against Mayor Cull of 10/12/14. Two subsequent Code of Conduct Complaints against me by Greater Dunedin Chairpersons do not mention any swearing or expletives and seem to be personal ‘tone’ attacks to deflect from on-going Mayoral abuses of his position and the Mayor’s attempts to silence my concerns.

Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

PS Chris – You are back to recorded medium only comment from me. You have again invented news rather than honestly reporting it.
—— End of Forwarded Message

Related Posts and Comments:
6.2.15 Cr Lee Vandervis apology
5.1.15 DCC: Chairman denies true and correct Council record

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

4 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics

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

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)

Plan. Lots 1 - 34 Subdivision of Land in Industrial Precinct. PatersonPitts for CPLDecision (final page) – Copy of Plan: Not to Scale. [click to enlarge]

DCC Webmap - Dunedin Harbourside (detail)DCC Webmap – Dunedin Harbourside [click to enlarge]

Dunedin City District Plan - Harbourside zones (detail 1)Dunedin City District Plan – Harbourside zones (detail) via Map 35 and Map 49

nzhpt-dunedin-harbourside-historic-area-1Heritage 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

28 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Name, New Zealand, POL, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

DCC adds staff positions, significant ratepayer cost

Two permanent full-time project co-ordinators to run the Project China and Export Education Uplift initiatives.

### ODT Online Tue, 21 Oct 2014
Vandervis takes aim over funding request
By Chris Morris
There were heated exchanges between Dunedin city councillors as a debate over an economic development funding request turned into a spat yesterday. The dust-up came as councillors considered a request from the Grow Dunedin Partnership to use $190,000 a year from existing council budgets to pay staff salaries for two projects during the next three years.
Read more

Report – EDC – 20/10/2014 (PDF, 126.7 KB)
Economic Development Strategy Projects Budget – Project Co-ordinators’ Funding Request

From the report…

Enterprise Dunedin’s EDS projects budget is $518,000 for the current 2014/2015 financial year and has yet to be ratified for the 2015/16 year and future years. This budget pays for progressing EDS projects and includes payment for the project co-ordinators and project management costs.

RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Committee:

1. Approve the earmarking of $190,000 on an annual basis from the Economic Development Project Budget for the purpose of employing two project co-ordinators.

2. That this funding be included as two line items within the Economic Development Project fund for a period of three years:
- Export Education Uplift Co-ordinator – $95,000
- Project China Co-ordinator – $95,000

Dunedin Economic Development Strategy 2013-2023BACKGROUND
Dunedin’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS) was adopted in 2013 by its six partners. There are two specific economic goals:

1. 10,000 extra jobs over 10 years (requiring employment growth of approximately 2% per annum.

2. An average of $10,000 extra income for each person (requiring GDP per capita to rise by about 2.5% per annum).

. . .

The Strategy is built around five themes:
1. Business vitality
2. Alliances for innovation
3. A hub of skills and talent
4. Linkages beyond our borders
5. A compelling destination

Related Posts and Comments:
14.8.14 Mayor Cull’s reflections on Edinburgh #SisterCity #Junkets
21.4.14 Dunedin economic development strategy — low flying Year 1
15.3.13 Dunedin showcase (election year tripe): economic development strategy
19.6.12 DRAFT Dunedin Economic Development Strategy
31.5.12 Public Forum: Dunedin’s DRAFT Economic Development Strategy

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

14 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, What stadium