Tag Archives: Reclaimed land

LIM “site hazards”

POST UPDATED

The LIM included a short statement under the “hazards” section, subtitled “site hazards”. It read: “This property is within an area that may be subject to increased seismic movement. The land at this address may be at risk of liquefaction in a severe earthquake. A site-specific foundation design may be required for this site.” Without a change, every home on reclaimed land in the city could find the wording on their LIMs.

### ODT Online Sat, 27 Nov 2010
Threat to property insurance
By David Loughrey
A significant tract of Dunedin’s flat land has been declared at risk of liquefaction, with the potential to jeopardise insurance cover in the area. The issue could affect home owners from Andersons Bay to North Dunedin, but Dunedin City Council officials yesterday promised to look into the matter immediately, after it was brought to their attention by the Otago Daily Times.
Read more

****

Dunedin City Council – Media release
DCC Explains Stance on Liquefaction

2 December 2010

Following the Canterbury earthquake earlier this year, the DCC’s consulting engineers, MWH Ltd, suggested it would be prudent to give greater prominence to cautionary advice on Land Information Memoranda (LIMs) issued by the DCC for any property where there was a risk of liquefaction as a result of seismic activity.

Acting on this advice, the DCC believed it would be prudent to change the wording on LIMs and, accordingly, did so.

The message now reads:

* “This area has been identified as lying within a zone susceptible to amplified shaking in an earthquake and potential liquefaction during a severe earthquake event. The Dunedin City Council will require a site specific design for any new building foundation construction in this area.”

Such a change does not indicate any increase in risk but rather the public’s growing awareness, and interest in, the prospect of liquefaction in certain areas and under certain circumstances.

In Dunedin, there are significant areas of population living on reclaimed land or close to estuaries or rivers – as they have safely done for generations – where it is sensible to draw attention to such a risk, however slight. Indeed DCC Building Control has always required building foundation construction to take into account such conditions.

The DCC is of the view that its first responsibility is to property owners and buyers and it believes that the change in the way this cautionary information is offered suggests no increased level of risk, and should give no cause for a change in the way insurers or lending institutions provide services as they have done in the past.

Contact DCC on 477 4000.
DCC Link

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

7 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Construction, Design, Economics, Site

Oops slime

Hilarious adventures at site…

### ODT Online Thu, 11/06/2009 – 7:01am.
Comment by TheWatcher on Stadium pile-driving

It was an eye-opener to yesterday see a pile being driven for the Stadium foundations suddenly drop vertically over 8 metres under its own weight due to a lack of sound ground below where the grandstand will be built. Now what did the “experts” say about that area being sound and extra deep foundations not being required?

15 Comments

Filed under Adventure sport, Architecture, CST, Design, Economics, Hot air, Politics, Project management, Site, Stadiums

On engineering risk at Stadium site

He’s not wrong! Further to Paul’s post ‘ODT remiss’ this is where “The Decision” goes on engineering risk for the stadium area.

****

Planning commissioners Roger Tasker, John Lumsden and John Matthews have made the decision to accept, subject to amendments, Plan Change 8 as notified.

This means the Dunedin City District Plan will contain a new Chapter 27, Stadium as it relates to the (new) Stadium Zone and (extended) Campus Zone.

The stadium site is approximately 5.5ha in size and is generally located between Anzac Avenue (SH 88 ) to the north, Ravensbourne Road, Logan Park and the Logan Point Quarry to the east, the Water of Leith to the west, and the Main South Railway line to the south.

The area is intended to provide for a purpose-built regional stadium with a capacity for up to 35,000 spectators, plus a number of associated activities.

****

During the plan change hearings, Dunedin City Council (the Applicant) called on the evidence of consulting engineers David John Hamilton and Roderick (Rod) Keith Macleod.

Mr Hamilton had prepared evidence in relation to stormwater issues and flooding threats, including the existing environment, the effect of development, appropriate mitigation measures and response to submissions.

He used the terminology ‘stormwater’ to refer to water that is generated by rainfall on the site itself, and ‘flooding’ to refer to an external threat from either freshwater or sea water.

In his Executive Summary, he said:
(3.1) The proposed site is subject to flooding threats from three sources: Otago Harbour, Water of Leith and Opoho Creek;
(3.2) In my assessment the proposed minimum floor level for buildings set at 3.7m above mean sea level provides an appropriate mitigation of the impacts of flooding from all three sources including allowances for climate and sea level change; and
(3.3) Stormwater generated from the site is expected to be slightly less than that permitted under the current zoning.

He noted the site is reclaimed land that predates 1909. The existing ground level at the site varies from 2m to 3.8m with much of the site above 3.2m.

Mr Macleod had prepared evidence in relation to natural hazards and sub-surface conditions at Logan Point.

The evidence included a review of ‘Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations Report and Contamination Investigations Report’ prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T & T), dated December 2007; the ‘additional information’ prepared by Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (Beca), dated 8 and 22 February 2008; and the Statement of Evidence of David John Hamilton regarding District Plan Change 8.

Mr Macleod found that, “Whilst the site is at risk from: foundation liquefaction; foundation lateral spreading; tsunami events; predicted climate change effects upon groundwater levels; storm surge events; and flooding this is no different that [sic] other land in the area and can be appropriately managed.”

Subject to his concerns regarding natural hazards and foundation conditions being addressed at subsequent stages of the development (building consent), he recommended “the zone change application should not be withheld”.

He could see no reason why Plan Change 8 should be declined on geotechnical or engineering risk matters.

Mr Macleod accepted that specific design of building foundations would be required but this was consistent with the site’s current industrial zoning and consistent with that which would be required on adjacent land. Such matters could be appropriately dealt with at the detailed design stage and could be adequately addressed through the building consent process.

****

The commissioners referred to Council policy planner Paul Freeland’s evidence in which he said, “Issues in respect of this matter [engineering risk] have been covered in the evidence of Messrs Hamilton and McLeod [sic]. From a planning perspective there remains little comment beyond noting that I am satisfied that the effects of these issues have been adequately considered and mitigated.”

The commissioners agreed with Mr Freeland that the expert evidence provided dealt suitably with these issues.

****

In regard to Stop the Stadium Inc’s submission (see 10.0 Specific Matters Raised in Submissions), the commissioners observed that while the submission clearly indicated a list of specific concerns [including engineering risk] with the provisions of the Plan Change, “the submitter did not call evidence that dealt specifically with these issues. Accordingly, and in the absence of any further consideration by the submitter, we prefer the evidence presented by Mr Freeland, on behalf of the Council.”

****

In section 8.9 (para 55) of the decision, the commissioners had this to say about site contamination: “We noted that the documentation that accompanies Plan Change 8 recognises the likelihood of contamination of the stadium site, and that this issue is controlled and managed by the provisions of the Regional Plan: Waste for Otago. We are satisfied, therefore, that any work occurring on a contaminated site would require a resource consent from the Otago Regional Council.”

Postscript: Appeals to Environment Court on the decision must be lodged by 23 February 2009.

6 Comments

Filed under Architecture, CST, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, Other, Site, Stadiums, Town planning