Tag Archives: Residential subdivision

DCC: Growth v development contributions

Worth a read —Whaleoil link received from Anonymous
Tuesday, 11 February 2014 8:11 p.m.

Whale Oil Beef Hooked logo### whaleoil.co.nz February 10, 2014
Why do Property Developers hate development contributions?
By Cameron Slater
A property developer writes:
“Lately Developers and Councils have been busy preparing submissions on the proposed changes to the Local Government Act relating to development contributions. There are many issues. Firstly, the issue with charging developers for improvements that have nothing to do with growth.
(1) Hiding the real cost apportionment and charging developers for improvements that [have] nothing to do with new development growth:
When developing up capital works and budgeting the Annual Plan councils develop formula and apportion some of the costs to ‘growth’ – which is then charged to developers. Councils argue that as cities grow and intensify – the costs of that growth include replacing or improving infrastructure. Hence they want new developments to pay for it.
Developers take issue however with the amount of money required from them to pay for the infrastructure improvements not that they have to pay for their share of growth. As such the argument is about whether the right pro-rata apportionment is applied.
Obfuscating the debate is that all Councils must replace infrastructure as it ages and is due for replacement. Additionally, most Councils are in recent times adopting new development standards that increase the capacity of assets and they improve assets as technology advances.
Replacing assets is supposed to occur from a built sinking fund that is generated over the life span of an infrastructure asset. Council receive money over the lifespan in cash as depreciation as part of rates. Over time, and subject to annual revaluation each asset builds up a depreciation sinking fund that should be sufficient to replace it. Developers are concerned that Councils spend that money through internal loans to OPEX and other creative accounting and then hope to use ‘growth’ as a mechanism for replacing the assets. A psuedo ponzi scheme with ratepayers the duped investors.”
Read more

****

DCC: Development Contributions Policy
Development contributions are charges paid by property developers to meet the increased demand for infrastructure resulting from growth.
The Council is proposing some significant changes to its Development Contributions Policy.
In April 2011, the Council released a Statement of Proposal to adopt a Draft Revised Development Contributions Policy (the Draft Policy). The proposal included a schedule of charges which could apply if the Draft Policy was adopted. Submissions on the Draft Policy closed in July 2011 and were followed by hearings in November 2011. After beginning its deliberations the Hearings Committee decided that more information was required from Council staff before the Draft Policy could be considered further. Deliberations started again in December 2012 with Council staff reporting back to the Committee on the information it requested. The Committee has yet to conclude its deliberations.
As a final decision on the Draft Policy is yet to be made, the Council’s existing Development Contributions Policy applies until further notice. Read more

DCC: Spatial Plan for Dunedin
‘Dunedin Towards 2050′ (The Spatial Plan), sets the strategic direction for Dunedin’s growth and development for the next 30+ years. It outlines a broad set of principles, strategic directions, policies, and actions and visually illustrates how the city may develop in the future. It will be used to guide land-use planning in the city as well as influencing how future infrastructure and services may be provided or limited. The Spatial Plan is primarily, but not solely, concerned with Dunedin’s urban form and design. Urban form and design refer to the spatial arrangement of a city, in other words, the shape of a city as seen from the air including the overall pattern of development, activities, and infrastructure as well as the design or ‘look and feel’ of the city and how it functions. Urban form and design have a significant impact on the sustainability, liveability and economic performance of cities.

DCC: Second Generation Plan for Dunedin
The Dunedin City District Plan controls what people can do on their land and how it can be developed. While there have been some changes and new zones added (eg the Stadium, Airport and Harbourside zones), most of the current Plan has not been reviewed since 2006 and a lot of it dates back to the 1990s. The council is reviewing the Plan as a whole to fix the parts that are not clear or working properly, to recognise the changes to land use and development within Dunedin, to discourage poor development and to align with changes in national policy guidance. The review will produce a second generation plan (2GP), which is the second plan prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991. This is a long process with a lot of research and analysis, and input from stakeholders and the community.

DCC: Strategic Directions
The Strategic Directions of the second generation plan will establish the overall management approach for the 2GP, stating the important outcomes for the city:
● Dunedin is Environmentally Sustainable and Resilient
● Dunedin is Economically Prosperous
● Dunedin is a Memorable and Distinctive City with a Strong Built and Natural Character
● Dunedin has Strong Social and Cultural Capital
● Dunedin has an Attractive and Enjoyable Built Environment
● Dunedin has Affordable and Efficient Public Infrastructure
● Dunedin has Quality and Affordable Housing
● Dunedin is a Compact City with Resilient Townships

On the local . . .
Meanwhile, developers across the Taieri are champing at the bit to re-create ‘Wanaka sprawl’ on the flood plain with little regard for the protection of high class soils —despite the objectives of the spatial plan that places wise emphasis on the rural area becoming the city’s food basket (resilience).

Pearl of the Plain (Mosgiel sign) 3### ODT Online Wed, 12 Feb 2014
Benefits seen for Taieri area
By Rosie Manins
Mosgiel, Middlemarch and the wider Taieri area will benefit from a new marketing approach by the Dunedin City Council, chief executive Sue Bidrose says. The establishment of an in-house marketing agency at the council, replacing Tourism Dunedin, would offer ”more bang for buck”, she said. The agency would use existing council staff, such as those in human resources and finance, and run alongside the council’s economic development unit.
Read more

sue bidrose [whatifdunedin]New chief executive Sue Bidrose says the council will review performance of the in-house marketing agency after 18 months, with a view to assessing if in the longer term the agency should become a council-owned company. (via ODT)

Other ODT stories:
Riccarton Rd widening set to begin Asked if the upgrade was designed to accommodate more heavy vehicle traffic, Mr Matheson played down those concerns. [Evan Matheson hasn’t referenced the revising ‘district plans’ then]
Trail trust awaits talks outcome The group behind a project aiming to provide a cycle link between Mosgiel and Dunedin is awaiting the result of crucial land negotiations.
Crematorium not yet begun Hope and Sons is yet to begin construction of its new Mosgiel crematorium, but hopes to have it operating this year. Managing director Michael Hope said it was still working on gaining building consent.
Police presence of concern
Town’s population to disappear Mosgiel’s Pearl of the Plain sign in Quarry Rd is to lose its population figure and receive a general spruce-up. [spot feathery bill]
Hope signal problems fixed

Syd Brown Mosgiel sign 1Syd Brown, Taieri property developer and ex city councillor/FSD chairman

Related Posts and Comments:
10.2.14 University of Otago major sponsor for Highlanders [rugby, a pool]
5.2.14 Mosgiel pool sluts get their tops off for ex ORFU guy
4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project . . .
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see comment & ff]
18.11.13 DCC: New chief executive
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
7.10.13 DCC councillors, no idea annual cost of owning, operating FB Stadium
23.6.13 DCC Community Boards
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
6.12.12 Local Government Act Amendment Bill
6.12.12 DCC debt —Cr Vandervis
6.9.12 DCC pays out $millions to cover loss making stadium and rugby…
30.11.11 amalgamation, Anyone?
8.11.11 Development contributions
9.8.11 CRITICAL Dunedin City Council meeting
25.7.11 DCC Finance, Strategy and Development Committee – meeting postponed
16.7.11 Major Dunedin City Council infrastructure assets NOT INSURED
7.7.11 More than $1 billion of infrastructure assets NOT insured
23.3.11 Dunedin City Council’s rock and its hard place

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

22 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers

Think ‘New Mosgiel Pool’, put the cost back on the Community!
But wait… “WE CAN HELP” says ex councillor Syd (aka The Slid).

### NZ Herald Online 5:30 AM Thursday Jan 30, 2014
PPPs short-term gain but long-term pain
By Tony Holman
OPINION Mayor [Len] Brown has had another vision and is claiming public-private partnerships (PPPs) can relieve the burden on ratepayers. I wonder if he has done his homework. It’s not a vision, it’s a mirage. PPPs are joint ventures between government, or local government, and companies to build major projects such as bridges, tunnels and underground rail – and, in Britain, also hospitals. Too often PPPs overseas end in the failure of the commercial organisation, with the public picking up greatly increased costs to clear up the mess.

PPPs typically involve long-term agreements (25-50 years). They are secret – neither the public nor elected members know the terms. They are weak on accountability with virtually no transparency. They don’t appear on the public body’s “balance sheet” so its financial position looks rosier than it is.

Fixed returns to the commercial business are based on “notional” values and estimates. Real costs are almost always greatly underestimated. PPPs are much more costly than normal public sector construction. Private companies build in higher costs, making the project more expensive and bringing high risk to the venture. But considerable risk is also assigned to the government or local body. Companies can default or go into receivership, creating a debt that has to be paid for by the public and future generations, exactly as if the local body had undertaken the debt directly.
Read more

Syd Brown Mosgiel sign 1

So. There is former chair of DCC Finance, Strategy and Development, Mr Sydney Brown of the Taieri subdivisions and deals to cousins, and his property speculator/investor friends, thinking to drive the new pool project for Mosgiel. Maybe not quite a PPP but damned near it if DCC gives the nod on squishy terms. Your pockets should feel lighter already.

How much can you trust The Slid —as much as the cost of Fubar Stadium.

Two comments from Jacob at the draft annual plan thread:

Submitted on 2014/01/27 at 9:00 pm
Mosgiel Pool. The suggestion from council is for the community board to set up a trust with $30k of ratepayers’ money, to do the consultation and get the public to buy in and dig deep and pay for this $12-$18 million project. It doesn’t take long to work out. This is the same setup that led us up the garden path with the stadium. At last count there were four pools in the area to serve the local population. What happens to them. Will they become another liability like Carisbrook? What and who actually is driving the need for a new pool? I recently asked someone who is close to this out in Mosgiel if there has been an analysis done on the need for a new pool, and was told no. But a certain developer in Mosgiel’s main street has plans for himself and his mates to get the public to front up with the money for the building, then they will be able to base some of their business on site at no cost to themselves. Mosgiel is becoming the dog of the city. Big new industrial area was trumpeted a few years ago, to be the answer to the lack of industrial land needed to attract industry to come to Dunedin, sits empty and of no use to anyone. Then we had all the new residential areas opened up in Mosgiel. Most are half empty with spec houses; good rural productive land doing nothing and going nowhere, while the stormwater drains in Mosgiel only work during a drought, and the roads are a mess, no more seal extension. Mosgiel is becoming known as the land of the retirement village and the mobile scooter. Why spend so much on a pool when so many other basic requirements are not being met. Leave it to the community board? Yeah Right.

Submitted on 2014/01/27 at 11:34 pm
Hype. Not being a res of Mosgiel I am not able to answer your question, but I have good contacts out that way who tell me that most of the pools are available, and maybe there are more than the 4 that I mentioned. By the way what is so special about Mosgiel having a new pool, areas like Green Island, Normanby and out on the Peninsula appear not to have one and are just as far from Moana pool as Mosgiel. It appears that the homework for a new pool hasn’t been done out at Mosgiel, but it appears that it was just being used as an attention grabber for the election and that didn’t appear to work either. Like I mentioned before, this has all the hallmarks of another stadium, all bullshit and no substance, just wait to see who gets appointed by the board to do the consultation. The whisper is that it is all cut and dried.

Related Post and Comments:
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Syd Brown with Mosgiel sign corpsed and tweaked by Whatifdunedin

1 Comment

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

Dunedin: Developers stoop to resource consents instead of private plan change applications

Local resource management consultant/planners such as Allan Cubitt (also an independent commissioner that the Dunedin City Council calls on from time to time) and Don Anderson (Anderson & Co) are ‘chipping away’ at the Dunedin City District Plan zoning provisions with greater insistence out on the Taieri, in (surprise!) Cr Syd Brown’s patch, the Mosgiel Taieri ward.

We have the Veggie Boys application for retrospective resource consent coming to hearing on 10 April (see earlier post, Fresh veggies, a holiday mystery), hosted by Don Anderson. Meanwhile, DCC has allowed Veggie Boys to trade without resource consent since last year. There is some heat on the Council to clarify the planning issues (after a run of five non-notified consents involving Wallis Nurseries ‘destination’ developments, thus the notified application. DCC has sought a legal opinion but refuses to release it.

Veggie Boys Ltd (LUC-2012-563 Resource Consent Application)

There are only three submitters opposing the application. Wider than this application is the matter of “how much leeway” Wallis Nurseries have received from Council to extend their commercial retail activities – of which Veggie Boys is a part – in the rural zone, on high class soils. In particular, the development of ‘Wal’s Plant and Fun Land’ by fragmentary consenting processes, with the potential for cumulative adverse effects arising.

In its repeating, whole-page Easter advertising in the Otago Daily Times, Wal’s boasts there is now a commercial florist on site, and a “Great New Professional Driving Range for Golfers” has opened (a rather average flat farm paddock with cheap distance marking signs – something you’d normally want to crop, in a rural zone)…

It’s clear the land use is changing in a way that undermines the district plan Rural Zone provisions, and all without a private plan change application.

Will granting consent to Veggie Boys set a precedent that (widely) undermines zoning in the District Plan?

If consent is granted to Veggie Boys, is this the (surreptitious) track a supermarket chain would go down to open up for business outside Mosgiel’s Local Activity Area (LA1)? In a word…

****

### ODT Online Tue, 2 Apr 2013
Saddle Hill house sites bid debated
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council has been warned that if it grants consent for more residential development on the lower and middle slopes of Saddle Hill, the rest of the hill will soon follow.
But the consulting planner for developers planning two new subdivisions on the hill has told the council’s hearings committee he is not sure people care that much about it.
Read more

Interesting to read Allan Cubitt’s ‘planning’ assault on the Rural Zone, on behalf of developers wanting to subdivide the lower rise of Saddle Hill. To be taken with a pinch of salt, his badass statements include this on the lack of submissions from people living on the Taieri:

”I would suggest that they expect this type of development in this location and are not overly concerned about it, if they ever were … the lower/mid slopes of Saddle Hill do not appear to have a great deal of significance to residents in the area. I suspect the general public realise Dunedin is a hilly place so to restrict elevated building options within the city just because someone may see it, isn’t valid or appropriate.”

There’s a great deal of public sensitivity surrounding the future of Saddle Hill with regards to subdivision and quarrying – it is substantially a district plan zoning and landscape matter.

People leading busy lives – without time, knowledge and resources – should not be buried by DCC’s perpetual paperchase calling for an endless stream of submission-making on resource consents, spatial plan, district plan review, plan changes, whole city and area strategies, or other. On balance, we wouldn’t automatically or superficially conclude similarly to Mr Cubitt.

With Saddle Hill and the Taieri in general, it seems, a plan change process is far preferable to ‘chipping away’ by an ad hoc lingering resource consenting process, to assess the merits of land use (zoning) and to quantify the rural and landscape values for protection(s) against entirely foreseeable, wanton attempts to damage, modify or destroy the existing rural environment (cumulative adverse effects).

City Planning has its work cut out.

Perhaps note the commercial forces lined up in the background to pillage the Taieri Plain, Saddle Hill and Outram areas for Wanaka-like subdivisions (‘dippieville’ strikes again). Probably why you need a Veggie Boys now, to open the gate to was it (open-slather) ‘retail amenity’…

Cr Syd Brown has for years declared his hand in residential subdivision activity, squandering land for housing and own wealth. His developer friends and cousins seem to enjoy (oh so quietly) his ongoing patronage at council – as happens if ‘the movers’ can keep clipping tickets and to hell with high class soils, zoning rules, lack of stormwater drainage from the Mosgiel main street, and lack of appropriate swimming pool amenity, etc.

Cr Brown knows how to back-slap the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board. We think it’s called control. We suggest Cr Brown has to go in the October elections, especially if through rugby and racing he is a fair-weather friend of Murray Acklin, Queenstown; a gentleman and his files currently under the stare of SFO.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

64 Comments

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