Tag Archives: Notice of Requirement

Stupid ORC Bus Hub : DCC notifies requirement for designation #Dunedin

Proposed ORC Bus Hub, Great King St – concept image [supplied]

CALL FOR PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

DIS-2017-1 – Central City Bus Hub
Open for submissions. Closes 5pm 18 August 2017

Public notice of requirement for a designation
Sections 168 and 169 of the Resource Management Act 1991

The Dunedin City Council has received notice of a requirement for a new designation from the Otago Regional Council.

Notice of Requirement No: DIS-2017-1

The requirement is for: A Central City Bus Hub for Dunedin’s transport network, and includes all buildings, structures and associated facilities and activities for the carrying out of the public transport system by the Otago Regional Council. With the exception of no public parking, the designation will not prevent the use of Great King Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street, being used as a public road.

The designation is to provide for the establishment, operation, maintenance and upgrading of the Central City Bus Hub for Dunedin public transport service purposes and will provide public transport services described in the Otago Regional Council’s Public Transport Plan, and to provide for any site works, buildings or structures, integral and ancillary to the Dunedin public transport system, including but not limited to: Bus shelters and seating; timetable and information displays; bus stops; public amenities, including toilets; landscaping including structures; pedestrian footpaths and accessways; drainage; technology; lighting; security; vehicle priority; signage; passenger comfort initiatives and facilities; passenger information facilities; and all other structures and facilities associated with, or incidental to, a comprehensive facility for the performances of functions of the Central City Bus Hub and support of the Dunedin Public Transport Network for the Otago Regional Council.

The nature of the functions is that these activities will initially occur from approximately 05:30am to 12:30am, 7 days a week, year-round.

The sites to which the requirement applies are as follows:
● Great King Street Road Reserve, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street, Dunedin;
● Moray Place Road Reserve (part of);
● 12.4m² (approx.) within 157 St Andrew Street, legally described as Lot 1 DP 486801;
● Two areas within the Countdown car park adjoining Great King Street – one comprising 58.8m² and the second comprising 50.4m² (approx.) legally described as Lots 2 and 3, DP 6552 and Section 29, Town of Dunedin.
● 19.5m² (approx.) within the Countdown car park adjoining Moray Place, legally described as part Sections 27 and 28, Block XVI, Town Survey District;
● 63m² (approx.) within the Community House car park at 301 Moray Place, legally described as part Town Section 26, Block XVI, Town of Dunedin; and
● 60.8m² (approx.) within the Wilsons car park at 30-36 Great King Street, legally described as Lot 2 DP 338932.

The Notice of Requirement, plans showing the extent of the requirement, and the assessment of environmental effects may be inspected at the following locations:
● City Planning Enquiries, Customer Services Centre, Ground Floor, Civic Centre, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin
● The Dunedin Central Public Library
● The Mosgiel Service Centre
Online

Please contact Paul Freeland on 477 4000 if you have any questions about the Notice of Requirement.

█ Go to this DCC webpage for all the information pertaining to the Notice of Requirement (NoR):
DIS-2017-1 – Central City Bus Hub
Closing date for submissions: Friday 18 August 2017 at 5pm.
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/district-plan/district-plan-changes/dis-2017-1-central-city-bus-hub

****

█ Supplementary Reading
From the ‘RMA Quality Planning Resource’ (NZ):

Notices of requirement and requiring authorities

To begin the process of designating land, a requiring authority must serve a notice of requirement on the relevant territorial authority (s168 of the RMA) or lodge it with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (s145(3)).  A notice of requirement is a proposal for a designation. 

The notice of requirement has an interim effect, in that it protects the land for the designated purpose until the designation is confirmed and included in an operative district plan (s178).  If the designation is confirmed it overrides the provisions of the district plan so the project or the works may be implemented by the requiring authority in accordance with that designation and any conditions attached to it.  However, the underlying plan provisions continue to apply if the land is used for a purpose other than the designated purpose.

When processing a notice of requirement Part 8 of the RMA requires the territorial authority to consider the requirement and any submissions received (if the requirement was notified), and then make a recommendation to the requiring authority. The territorial authority is only able to make a recommendation to the requiring authority and the requiring authority has the final decision on the matter. Refer to the flowchart for steps in the new designation process.

An alternative process is available under Part 6AA of the RMA for notices of requirement that are for proposals of national significance. Sections 198A – 198M of the RMA also provide for the direct referral of notices of requirement to the Environment Court for a decision.  The direct referral provisions under the RMA allow for requiring authorities to request that notified notices of requirement be directly referred to the Environment Court for a decision, instead of a recommendation by a territorial authority and a decision by a requiring authority.

The designation provides for the long-term ‘approval’ of the work. Because details of the work may not be known at the time of lodging the notice of requirement, s176A provides for further detail or subsequent changes and updates to the work through an outline plan. An outline plan is required to be submitted to the territorial authority, showing details of the work or project to be constructed on the designated land.

As for the notice of requirement process, the territorial authority only has a recommendation role for outline plans. The territorial authority is only able to request changes of the requiring authority and cannot turn down an outline plan. 

A notice of requirement and an outline plan describing the works proposed can be served/submitted at the same time. This approach can be helpful to allow the territorial authority to understand the designation, and can speed up the overall process allowing works to begin sooner. Alternatively, the requirement for an outline plan can be waived by the territorial authority if sufficient information was submitted with the notice of requirement.

Read more: http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/plan-development-components/designations/overview/notices-of-requirements

****

All we want is …. [possibly?]

No highly coloured tarseal or paving materials not in keeping with Dunedin’s built environment.

NO Bus Hub in Great King St.

And….
smaller more frequent shuttle buses, suburban areas properly serviced with well-spaced bus stops and shelters, easy transfer cards, on-board EFTPOS card top-ups ($5 minimum), digital readouts for next bus at all stops, wifi buses, direct pick-up drop-off in George and Princes streets, well serviced peak hours and school runs, bus inspectors, highly trained drivers, mechanically well serviced buses, plenty of mobility access for all comers.

Or to just call an affordable version of Uber or Lyft.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

[whatifdunedin]

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Health & Safety, Heritage, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORC, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

SH88 realignment: decision to Environment Court?

Updated Post 3.9.13 at 1:30pm

SH88 realignment [ODT Graphic]### ODT Online Mon, 2 Sep 2013
Decision on SH88 looms
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council has until Friday to determine whether it will make a decision on the controversial designation of land for the realignment of State Highway 88 near Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium – or hand the responsibility for the decision to the Environment Court.
To opt for the latter would be a first for the council, which is both the authority requesting the land be designated, and the authority that would require it to be designated. It publicly notified the requirement for the land last month, after a previous non-notified designation was quashed by the court following the council’s admission it had not followed the proper consultation process. The new road has been built, but final measures including traffic lights have been in limbo while the designation issue is resolved.

Mr Hall has already indicated publicly he would ”fight” the proposed designation as notified because it still did not provide safe access to his property.

Doug Hall 1One of the affected landowners, Doug Hall, who is running for the DCC, took the council to court to argue the original designation was illegal because he was not notified as an affected party, and sought an injunction stopping the traffic lights from being switched on until the resolution of safety issues at that intersection and around access to his property as a result of the realigned road. Affected parties, including Mr Hall, were consulted on the new designation late last year, and again earlier this year after the notification of the requirement was delayed while negotiations with Mr Hall continued.
The council had received 13 submissions by Friday, the end of the submission period. Submitters included the University of Otago, Port Otago Ltd, the NZ Transport Agency, the Otago Regional Council and several heavy transport companies among others, but not Mr Hall, or his representatives.
Read more

ODT Correction 3.9.13 (page 3):

Submissions from companies owned by Doug Hall, one of the parties affected by the realignment of State Highway 88 in Dunedin, were received by the Dunedin City Council within the statutory timeframe and will be included in the process for designating the land for realignment. The submissions from Anzide Properties Ltd, Hall Brothers Transport Ltd, and Dunedin Crane Hire (2005) Ltd were received by deadline on Friday, but were not processed until yesterday.

Related Posts and Comments:
3.8.13 SH88 notice of requirement [more maps]
30.4.13 DCC governance = management ?
20.11.12 DCC vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”
27.5.12 SH88 realignment – information
25.5.12 SH88 realignment costs (injunction)
27.2.12 Bringing DCC, related entities and individuals to account…
23.8.11 Stadium project tangles
4.11.10 SH88 realignment for stadium disrupts traffic
21.7.10 SH88 realignment – update
7.7.10 Goodbye to great store buildings in Parry St
21.4.10 SH88 realignment – update
31.3.10 SH88 realignment
24.2.10 SH88 realignment: Are ratepayers buying the land twice?
20.11.09 Interesting. SH88 realignment.
2.9.09 SH88 realignment past stadium

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

45 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

41 Wharf Street —DCC ends debacle

Fear not! More costly settlement is due.
There’s the perplexing State Highway 88 Realignment Project for Council to conclude with affected parties damaged by foul-play planning activity, and the new round of ‘proper’ designation! This will make Mr Barnett’s cheque seem like a 4% discount fuel voucher ripped from a mile-long supermarket receipt for your best ever, most hair-raising Christmas shop!

### ODT Online Tue, 27 Aug 2013
Apology, payout to developer
By Debbie Porteous
Dunedin developer Tim Barnett has received a public apology and a $200,000 payout following a lengthy battle to recover his costs after the Dunedin City Council restricted his ability to develop his harbourside property. The property, at 41 Wharf St, has since been sold to developers who are hoping to build a 27-storey hotel on it.

41 Wharf Street, Dunedin 1 (DCC WebMap)41 Wharf Street, Dunedin [DCC WebMap]

DCC chief executive Paul Orders yesterday apologised to Mr Barnett, of Arthur Barnett Properties, for the inconvenience caused by the council’s decision-making since 2008. The formal apology, issued by Mr Orders yesterday, read:

”Council apologises for the inconvenience, and also thanks Mr Barnett for working with council in good faith as the parties explored options over some years. Mr Barnett has a long history of commitment to the city of Dunedin. Council trusts that the good working relationship that has developed between Mr Barnett and the council over the years will continue.”

The $200,000 covers Mr Barnett’s out-of-pocket costs (just under $118,000), the interest on his costs ($41,000) and a contribution to his legal fees during his lengthy attempt to first remove the restrictions on developing the site and then recover from the council the cost of those restrictions.
Read more

For more on 41 Wharf Street, enter *hotel* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

SH88 notice of requirement

DIS-2013-1 Location Map 1

DIS-2013-1 Fredrick St - Ravensbourne Rd (detail)Affected Party: Anzide Properties Ltd

Doug Hall, who was informed about the designation process on Thursday, said he was going to fight the issue. ”I have no choice. It is a safety issue. Someone is going to get killed on that road.”

### ODT Online Sat, 3 Aug 2013
Hall to oppose designation
By Hamish McNeilly
Dunedin businessman Doug Hall remains defiant after the Dunedin City Council confirmed it was revisiting the designation process for an affected area of State Highway 88. Yesterday, the council announced it had lodged a notice of requirement to restart the designation process, after negotiations stalled following a botched handling of the original process.
DCC general manager infrastructure and networks Tony Avery said the section of road had not been legally designated and the council acknowledged it had made process mistakes when trying to designate it earlier.
Last year, the Otago Daily Times reported the council had spent $485,000 over 18 months to try to find a solution, and it was too early to say how much the designation process would add to the final tally.
Read more

● Submissions on the notice of requirement, which is publicly notified today, close on August 30.

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Designation Process for Part of State Highway 88

This item was published on 02 Aug 2013.

The Dunedin City Council has lodged a Notice of Requirement to start afresh the designation process for the section of State Highway 88 near Anzac Avenue.
The Notice of Requirement is a formal process to have land designated as road. It will be publicly notified tomorrow.
DCC General Manager Infrastructure and Networks Tony Avery says the new section of SH88 has been in use since July 2011, but has not been legally designated. The DCC has previously acknowledged that it made process mistakes during an earlier attempt to designate the road.
Temporary traffic controls have been in place since the new section of road was opened, while the DCC negotiated with an adjacent landowner over access arrangements.
“Those negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful, despite the best intentions of all parties, so we are now proceeding with the formal legal process to have the road designated.”
Once the designation proposed is approved, traffic lights at the intersection of Anzac Avenue and Frederick Street would be activated, and the Ward Street bridge ramp would be re-opened to provide much-needed access to the Harbourside area, Mr Avery says. Access to the adjacent properties is to be provided as well, consistent with acceptable standards and in a safe manner.
The DCC is confident the changes are in the best interests of the public.
Submissions on the Notice of Requirement will close on 30 August.

Contact General Manager Infrastructure and Networks on 477 4000.
DCC Link

DIS-2013-1 Layout PlanDIS-2013-1 Fredrick St – Ravensbourne Rd Layout Plan

Territorial Authority’s Requirement for Two Designations
DIS-2013-1 Fredrick Street – Ravensbourne Road

The requirement is for:
The Notice of Requirement seeks to designate two areas of land. Designation 1 is for part of the Dunedin Harbourside Arterial and will link Anzac Avenue (D465) with Ravensbourne Road (D845) to the south of Parry Street West. Designation 2 is for the Dunedin Harbourside Arterial – Access Road which will provide access from the Designation 1 area to the site at 80 Anzac Avenue.
Read more + Official Documents/Maps

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

Judgment-221310 (PDF, 109 KB)

Related Post and Comments:
30.4.13 DCC governance = management ?
20.11.12 DCC vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”
27.5.12 SH88 realignment – information
25.5.12 SH88 realignment costs (injunction)
27.2.12 Bringing DCC, related entities and individuals to account…
23.8.11 Stadium project tangles
4.11.10 SH88 realignment for stadium disrupts traffic
21.7.10 SH88 realignment – update
7.7.10 Goodbye to great store buildings in Parry St
21.4.10 SH88 realignment – update
31.3.10 SH88 realignment
24.2.10 SH88 realignment: Are ratepayers buying the land twice?
20.11.09 Interesting. SH88 realignment.
2.9.09 SH88 realignment past stadium

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

Dunedin City Council vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”

Concerning the State Highway 88 realignment, skirting the new stadium.

Judgment-221310 (PDF, 109 KB)

DScene breaks the news at Stuff:

Dunedin City Council fined for road botch up
A High Court decision has slammed Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) handling of a roading realignment in the city, ordering the cash-strapped authority to pay affected parties more than $185,000 in costs. Justice Alan Mackenzie indicated in a written decision the legality of the stretch of State Highways 1 and 88 through the city remained in question because of the council’s botch up.

Related Posts:
9.6.12 City Property to compete more obviously in the market
27.5.12 SH88 realignment – information
25.5.12 SH88 realignment costs (injunction)
27.2.12 Bringing DCC councillors, staff, related entities and individuals to account
23.8.11 Stadium project tangles
24.11.10 SH88 realignment for stadium disrupts traffic
29.10.10 DCC Chief Executive resigns – timing is everything!
21.7.10 SH88 realignment – update
7.7.10 Goodbye to great store buildings in Parry St
21.4.10 SH88 realignment – update
31.3.10 SH88 realignment
24.2.10 SH88 realignment: Are ratepayers buying the land twice?
20.11.09 Interesting. SH88 realignment.
2.9.09 SH88 realignment past stadium
27.8.09 $294.8m investment for Otago region
19.5.09 There’s more, really?
12.2.09 DCC, and the right to ask?

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

72 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Geography, People, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

SH88 realignment – information

Comment received from daseditor
Submitted on 2012/05/26 at 8:18 pm

[24.5.12] Edmund Anscombe and the Anzac Avenue Trees

With your discussion of the alignment I hope you’ll also take the time to read the article above on the Anzac Avenue trees. The alignment construction looks as though it has severely affected a critical area of the city’s landscape heritage which is linked to the work of prominent architect Edmund Anscombe.

Images supplied by Anonymous*

The image dates relate to Google Earth snapshots: 2005 January, 2006 March, 2009 July, 2011 January, and 2011 September. 2004 is available but heavy cloud cover obscures the view.

SH88 – Google Earth images including the quarry and Logan Park sports field.

SH88 – The same images cropped to SH88 entry and exit points.

SH88 – The Google Maps image which marks the road.

*Several contributors at this website use the title Anonymous.

Related Post with Links:
25.5.12 SH88 realignment costs (injunction)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

Filed under Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Pics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design