Tag Archives: POL

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

Port Otago Ltd + Chalmers Properties

Port Otago container stack [theblackthornorphans.com] 1

Port Otago has been chosen as the Otago Daily Times Business of the Year

###ODT Online Sat, 27 Dec 2014
Buoyant through the changing tides
By Simon Hartley
Undeterred by the 2007-09 global financial crisis, Port Otago has successfully navigated its way through tough times to deliver 100% owner the Otago Regional Council more than $50 million in dividends during the past five years alone. Simon Hartley talks to Port Otago chief executive Geoff Plunket about its performance and contribution during the past decade.
Port Otago goes into 2015 in fine financial shape, with tens of millions of dollars in development under way, staff numbers increasing and the company optimistic about new developments.
Its subsidiary Chalmers Properties, which oversees a portfolio valued at $260 million, has $20 million to invest, and a separate “inland port” at Mosgiel could be up and running by 2017, as could more Sawyers Bay warehousing – all in all, an average annual capital expenditure of $10 million for each year over the next decade.
Read more

Inland port by 2017, Sawyers Bay developments – TIME TO GET SHUNTING OFF THE SECTION OF MAIN TRUNK LINE THAT PREVENTS HARBOUR ACCESS via Rattray and Fryatt Streets. Restore the controlled pedestrian, cycle and vehicle crossing at grade.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: theblackthornorphans.com – container stack, Port Otago; staticflickr.com – container terminal

5 Comments

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

NZ Loan and Mercantile Building: Looking round at potential

Updated post Wed, 3 Mar 2015 at 2:39 p.m.

LM Building, detail from A Trapeznik, Dunedin's Warehouse Precinct p34 [Hocken Collections]LM Building, detail from A Trapeznik, Dunedin's Warehouse Precinct p68 [Hocken Collections] 1NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, built in stages between 1872 and 1885. Historical building and harbour views (1925) before the addition of the concrete top storey with saw-tooth roof in 1929, the space now proposed for residential use. Details from photographs reproduced in Trapeznik’s book Dunedin’s Warehouse Precinct, pp 34 & 68 [Hocken Collections]

Screenshot (193) 1Screenshot (195)31-33 Wharf Street, proximity to Steamer Basin and Chinese Garden
[Google Streetview 2013]

ODT 29.8.14 (page 12)
ODT 29.8.14 Letter to the editor Wilson p12 (1)

Chinese GardenL&M 1b IMG_6945,jpgChinese GardenL&M 1a IMG_6924Chinese GardenL&M 1a IMG_6933NZ Loan and Mercantile Building with forecourt of Chinese Garden, from Rattray Street. [Elizabeth Kerr]

### ODT Online Fri, 29 Aug 2014
DCC to foot apartments consent bill
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council is footing the bill to process the consent required for the development of the former Loan and Mercantile Building in the harbourside area. But the chairman of the panel deciding whether to grant consent to convert the building to apartments says the historic agreement has no bearing on the decision. The no fee arrangement is the result of a council resolution dated September 2011, in which the council agreed any resource consent required for the development and use of the building at 33 Thomas Burns St should be processed at no cost to the applicant. The resolution was part of a suite of agreements resulting from the mediation process that resolved appeals to Plan Change 7: Dunedin Harbourside.
Read more

Screenshot (183) 1Screenshot (188) 1Building details [Google Streetview 2013] – The NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, originally known as the Otago Wool Stores, was built in 1872 for stock and station agents Driver Stewart and Co. Heritage New Zealand lists the construction professionals as Walter Bell, Robert Arthur Lawson, and Mason & Wales Architects Ltd. According to Trapeznik, William Mason was the architect responsible for the plainer part of the complex in the early 1870s. RA Lawson designed the right-hand corner extension in 1880, with additions in 1883 and 1885.

█ More photos here.

Related Posts and Comments:
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

█ For more on Dunedin’s Harbourside and Plan Change 7, enter the term *harbourside* in the search box at right.

Screenshot (196)Screenshot (197) 1NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (b. 1872-85), next to the former W. Gregg & Co. coffee factory (b. 1878) and the Wharf Hotel established circa 1880
[Google Streetview 2013]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

● NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co. Ltd Building – mention by Alexander Trapeznik in Dunedin’s Warehouse Precinct at http://www.genrebooks.co.nz/ebooks/DunedinsWarehousePrecinct.pdf (2014) pp66-71

● W. Gregg & Co. coffee factory and store, Fryatt St – mention by blogger David Murray at http://builtindunedin.com/2014/02/17/thomas-bedford-cameron-architect/

● Wharf Hotel – mention by Frank Tod in Pubs Galore: History of Dunedin Hotels 1848-1984 (Dunedin: Historical Publications, 1984) p61

Peter Entwisle recently researched the history and significance of the NZ Loan and Mercantile Building, and presented his findings in evidence to hearing for the application (scanned):
LUC-2014-259 History and Heritage Significance of the NZL&MA Building 19.8.14 (PDF, 2 MB)

7 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Heritage, Heritage NZ, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, ORFU, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Dunedin’s industrial land

Alistair Broad – is he having a meltdown, or what?

Why is freehold baron Earl Hagaman not mentioned in this story?

[why is DCC’s treatment of the Caledonian leaseholders vaguely referenced, not by name… ugliness alert]

Oh dear, moths flying around the noble art of leaseholding as it may hold back development – what do they want? For Port Otago Ltd and Otago Regional Council to relinquish their power and wealth? Why should they?

What have Hilary Calvert and investor friends got to do with all this? The plot thickens.

Has this really anything to do with city councillors, EMT and the City Development Team (including the shattered urban design team) using “friends” to arbitrate change in the property sector. District plan and spatial plan objectives to be met for (cough) economic development?

### ODT Online Thu, 12 Jun 2014
Businessman slams leasehold ‘parasite’
By Shawn McAvinue
Leasehold land is a ”parasite” killing development in Dunedin, property owner and businessmen Alistair Broad says. Mr Broad, of Dunedin, says property developers are reluctant to invest in Dunedin because of the large amount of leasehold land.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

18 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, DCC, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Media, Name, ORC, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, What stadium

Harbourside: Access to a revamped Steamer Basin has public backing

Liability Cull is not 100% correct. So what’s new.

The ‘harbourside’ public consultation, including pre-plan change workshops, picked up good support for IMPROVED public access to the waterline (note, via a reinstated Rattray Street rail crossing at grade) and a REVAMPED Steamer Basin.

WE HAVE BEEN ROBBED.
Cull says the harbourside plan change was a mistake. It most surely was not a mistake! The proposed plans for how the plan change would be articulated in the area were the problem. Nearly everyone wanted historic industrial sheds and wharf sheds to remain and be redeveloped sympathetically with respect to heritage values, enhancing the land-water connection. Unfortunately, and fortunately, the Otago Chamber of Commerce with five partners appealed the plan change decision, significantly dashing the intents and purposes of the “vision”. Nonetheless, this shouldn’t stop future redevelopment of the ‘edge’ at the Steamer Basin, for greater community recreational use, with some commercial opportunities built in. We still haven’t got walk-on/walk-off access for the cruising yachts heading to subantarctic waters —embarrassing.

OK DCC’s broke at the moment, but ORC…

Cull – Crash one (PC-7), get bent on inviting the real mistake… the $100m tombstone apartment and hotel complex at 41 Wharf Street, with all inherent costs to Dunedin ratepayers and residents. That’s where Cull stands, nowhere good. Not even close.

Plan Change 7 – Harbourside

### ODT Online Mon, 21 Oct 2013
Harbour project labelled mistake
By Chris Morris
Pursuing a vision of harbourside redevelopment in Dunedin has so far cost the city’s ratepayers more than $2.6 million, it has been confirmed. The revelation, prompted by Otago Daily Times inquiries, has led the Otago Chamber of Commerce to label the Dunedin City Council’s ”grandiose” plan a mistake. It has also prompted Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, who was an early critic of the proposal, to suggest it should never have got off the ground.
Read more

DCC’s habourside costs – $2.6m (via ODT)
• Legal costs – $401,660
• Settlement – $200,000
• Other costs – $315,633
• Capital costs – $1,697,192
• Total – $2,614,485

Capital costs of $1,697,192 comprising:

• 2005-06 – purchase of 20 Thomas Burns St – $497,500
• 2011-12 – purchase of 30 Thomas Burns St – $1,199,692

NZHPT Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area (1)NZHPT Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area

Related Posts and Comments:
3.8.13 SH88 notice of requirement
21.4.13 ‘Yellow Balloon’ —Blue Oyster invitation to (TOWER) Submitters et al
9.4.13 Dunedin: Future service town to Shell? #realitycheck
24.9.12 Stadium Councillors back coastal oil exploration
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel
● 26.10.11 Dunedin Harbourside: DCC “caved”
17.12.10 HARBOURSIDE Announcement
17.4.10 Harbourside: more negotiation to come
16.4.10 DCC Media Release – Harbourside Stage Two
13.4.10 Dunedin – an oil base?
1.4.10 DCC Media Release – Harbourside
27.3.10 Withdraw proposed Harbourside plan change in its entirety!
18.3.10 Otago Chamber of Commerce campaigns for harbourside
18.3.10 Dunedin harbourside for oil base?
10.3.13 Plan Change 7: Harbourside – remove stage two
9.3.10 Plan Change 7: Harbourside
5.3.10 Plan Change 7 – Dunedin Harbourside
26.2.10 Latest on Dunedin’s offshore oil and gas prospects
13.2.09 HOT PRESS – Dunedin Harbourside Zone

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile*, *harbourside*, *hotel*, *balloon*, *shell*, *anadarko* or *SH88* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

ODT: Piece of maritime history moved
Another lost opportunity cut in half — Te Whaka at Birch St Wharf
Image: norsetroll.blogspot.com

Te Whaka, Birch St Wharf [norsetroll.blogspot.com]

11 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, ORC, Otago Polytechnic, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Chalmers Properties Ltd

Port Otago chief executive Geoff Plunket said a review of Chalmers had decided because its largest holding was in Dunedin it was “under-represented” here, and the head office should be relocated.

### ODT Online Sat, 21 Jan 2012
Return of Chalmers Propert[ies]
By Simon Hartley
Port Otago is relocating its subsidiary company Chalmers Propert[ies], which has a $197 million property portfolio around the country, from its Wellington headquarters to Port Chalmers. […] Within Chalmers’ $197 million portfolio, $110 million is in Dunedin, $65 million is in Auckland and the balance of $22 million is in Hamilton. Chalmers is a partner in a 50:50 joint venture in Hamilton. […] Longtime Chalmers chief executive Andrew Duncan is not relocating to Dunedin and a job for general manager of property is being advertised by Port Otago. The job is to be based in Port Chalmers, with administrative support.
Read more

█ NZ Companies Register: http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/925428

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

2 Comments

Filed under Economics, Geography, People, Politics, Property