Tag Archives: Rattray St

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

Expedience: Dunedin City Council’s blunt instrument to demolish listed buildings

Resource Consent Application: LUC-2011-567
191 King Edward Street, Dunedin

Senior planner Campbell Thomson addressing the Applicant on behalf of the Dunedin City Council as at 27 January 2012, writes:

[excerpt, page 1]
“Your application for land use consent for the demolition of an existing building listed in Schedule 25.1 of the District Plan and located within a townscape precinct, at 191 King Edward Street, Dunedin, was processed on a non-notified basis in accordance with sections 95A to 95F of the Resource Management Act 1991. The application was considered by a Senior Planner under delegated authority on 27 January 2012.

“I advise that the Council has granted consent to the application with conditions. The decision and condition are shown on the attached certificate.”

Under ‘Planning Assessment’, Mr Thomson states:

[excerpt, page 3]
Affected Persons
No written consents were submitted with the application. No parties are considered to be adversely affected by this proposal for the reasons outlined below in the section headed Effects on the Environment. It is noted that the New Zealand Historic Places Trust were consulted as a Statutory Body with an interest in the proposal. Their concerns will be addressed through the requirement for an Archaeological Authority which applies to the proposal. There are no special circumstances which warrant notification of this application. While demolition of heritage or townscape buildings generally raises issues of public interest, in this case, the structural condition of the building has reached a state whereby removal of the building façade has become necessary as a matter of public safety. The key environmental issue relevant to this proposal is how to mitigate the loss of the building.”

It is unreasonable and erroneous, in the context provided by the letter writer, for the Dunedin City Council to state that “the New Zealand Historic Places Trust were consulted”.

It is unreasonable and erroneous of the Council to claim “No parties are considered to be adversely affected by this proposal”, supported by following paragraphs that do not mitigate the wrongfulness of the unjust premise.

The letter granting consent carries other instances of pomposity and disregard for due process. Where does natural justice fit?

This forum isn’t the appropriate place to debate glaring technicalities, in light of what ‘affected party’ status requires as a burden of care on the part of the Dunedin City Council. Suffice to say, the Council is telling porkies.

Furthermore, the Dunedin City Council cannot hope to reduce or limit the work, powers and functions of the autonomous Crown Entity, New Zealand Historic Places Trust, empowered under the Historic Places Act 1993, to just that of regulatory responsibilities regarding archaeological sites — for the Council’s own undemocratic purposes.

Certainly, not by Mr Thomson’s convenient slip of the Council’s red pen.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

### D Scene 22.2.12
Opinion: Protecting heritage (page 7)
By Owen Graham
When is a heritage building protected, and when is it not? That question is one that deserves closer attention as the effects of building neglect become more apparent in our city. In the coming months more gaps will occur in our city heritage precincts, particularly with buildings in Rattray St and King Edward St being readied for demolition. They were not damaged by earthquakes, rather by successive owners who have opted to diminish their attractiveness, economic viability and historical significance in what ultimately results in demolition by neglect. {continues} #bookmark

• Owen Graham is the New Zealand Historic Places Trust area manager (Otago/Southland)

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

9 Comments

Filed under #eqnz, Architecture, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Media, NZHPT, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

Disappearing heritage #Dunedin

Updated post 29.7.13

### DScene 27-7-11 (page 7)
Too many historic icons being destroyed or neglected
By Owen Graham
OPINION Now that [Carisbrook] is no longer required, its owner – the Dunedin City Council – is looking to offer the site for a suitable redevelopment. As part of the exercise, council is making clear to interested parties that a few of the last remnants of the historic grounds’ past ought to be retained for incorporation into future developments. The Exchange area of Dunedin today offers one of the best opportunities for revitalisation yet it is a very confused place . . . nearby, up High St and Rattray St, there are active attempts to remove all traces of the past, be it through active demolition or neglect by intent.
{Continues} #bookmark

DScene 27.7.11 (page 7) Owen Graham NZHPT

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Economics, Heritage, People, Politics, Project management, Town planning, Urban design

City to harbour connectivity

At the meeting, Cr Paul Hudson said the crossing was in the “nice to do” area, rather than being essential. He said he would have to be convinced the idea was necessary before he could support funding.

Should we mention here that Cr Hudson supports the stadium, and has been less than useful in considerations of Logan Park’s redevelopment as it tends to a future of use by professional sports bodies parading as ‘community organisations’.

****

### ODT Online Wed, 27 Jul 2011
Link bridge plan shelved
By David Loughrey
Nine options for a bridge to connect the Otago harbourside to central Dunedin – including a new proposal that would take pedestrians from the Queens Gardens to the harbourside – received almost no support from city councillors yesterday.
Read more

Report – PEC – 26/07/2011 (PDF, 389.8 KB, new window)
City to Harbour Connectivity

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

6 Comments

Filed under Economics, Geography, Politics, Urban design