Tag Archives: Residential zones

DCC overlooks due process and Environment Court rulings for Mosgiel road hierarchy

Taieri Times / Otago Daily Times fails to understand or elaborate (no research!) the issues raised by local resident and business owner Brian Miller in his submission to the Transportation section of the proposed 2GP.

taieri-times-odt-22-2-17-residents-in-fight-for-riccarton-rd-p6

Mr Miller and his family have lived on Riccarton Rd for the last thirty years. In that time, variously, DCC have planned – and carried out supporting construction works – to enable Hagart-Alexander Dr (HAD) as an arterial route taking heavy vehicles ‘safely’; DCC have been to Environment Court on the matter, receiving clear rulings and sets of conditions bringing about these construction works; since then, however, DCC have formed the view – contrary to the Court rulings and agreed structure plans – that the arterial route should be Riccarton Rd, not HAD. Former city councillor and deputy mayor Sydney Brown has a residential subdivision to HAD.

Who is pulling whose chain here ?
DCC, in changing your minds, where is the due (fair and proper) process of public consultation ?

Are flicks of the pen all that DCC does now.

The Sin : City Planning, in its 2GP recommendations for the Taieri roading hierarchy fails to acknowledge legal determinations of the Environment Court of New Zealand and insodoing the council may be seen as INJUDICIOUS. Court rulings cannot be ignored holus-bolus to suit DCC fairyland futures for the Taieri.

[Sources at Dunedin say this is not the only case of DCC’s recent lack of regard for the Court.]

Further, to underline…. during the ‘Revised Planner’s Recommendations’ on February 10, the city planner was heard to say they regarded information presented in submission(s) as “old” – the strong inference being that Environment Court rulings do not count; or worse, that they had no idea any matters had, in fact, been to court. The City thus appears sunk on a problem of integrity, lawful or otherwise.

This situation simply would not arise if greater supervision and TRAINING was provided to salaried council underlings involved in 2GP processes. They must be fully cognisant of the history and implications of relevant legal rulings made in respect of council activities. That way they could see the trees for the wood when the likes of ex staff appear for ‘advice’ to hearing in trite bouncy-rat mode.

[The implications of contempt should perhaps be underscored instead of multiple teabreaks culture at the Civic Centre.]

Lastly, in god we trust…. the independent commissioners Messrs Collins and Rae are NO FOOLS.

WAKE UP DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL, or
We The People will see you in Court.

[ends]

****

2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation
Hearing dates: February 1, 2, 3, 8
Revised Planner’s Recommendations: February 10 [● DCC to upload]
Commissioners: David Collins (Chair), Gary Rae, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson

THE SUBMISSION | Statement tabled at hearing

Note: Brian Miller gave his family trust’s 28-page submission (plus attachments) on the 2GP Transportation topic in the hearing of independent commissioners David Collins and Gary Rae, only. To avoid conflicts of interest, at Mr Miller’s request and with the Chair’s agreement, no councillor commissioners were present for the submission.

H180-421 BJ & AJ Miller family trust (PDF format)

In an email to Elizabeth Kerr (6.2.17), Brian Miller said: “Probably the most important part of our submission is point 3.3, pages 20 to 22.” :

[click to enlarge]
submission-h180-421-bj-aj-miller-family-trust-p20
submission-h180-421-bj-aj-miller-family-trust-p21-1
submission-h180-421-bj-aj-miller-family-trust-p22

****

[click to enlarge]
data-map-2gp-land-information-for-mosgiel-roads2GP Data Map (Roads)

zone-map-2gp-mosgiel2GP Zone Map

****

2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

Council Evidence (PDF format)
Section 42A Report
Appendix 1 DCC Operative Plan Road Hierarchy
Appendix 2 Road DCC submission – road classification hierarchy corrections
Appendix 3 Christchurch District Plan Replacement abstract
Appendix 4 Transportation figures
Appendix 5 2GP Section 6 – Transportation
Statement of Evidence of Ian Clark
Statement of evidence – Grant Fisher
Amendment to Section 42a Report Transportation

Statement tabled at hearing (PDF format)
Transport Advice from Sarah Connolly – Principal Consultant Transport Planning – MWH

Related Posts and Comments:
5.2.17 Maurice Prendergast : Defence of 60 year old arterial corridor #2GP
30.5.16 Non-arterial Riccarton Road : Brian Miller stirred by community board
5.6.14 DCC Transport Strategy and Riccarton Road
24.4.14 DCC promotes Riccarton Rd as sole heavy traffic bypass

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

5 Comments

Filed under Agriculture, Business, Construction, Corruption, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Transportation, Travesty

Maurice Prendergast : Defence of 60 year old arterial corridor #2GP

P R O P O S E D ● S E C O N D ● G E N E R A T I O N ● D I S T R I C T ● P L A N

2GP Consultation (index) Link

2GP Maps Link
Data Map
Zoning Map

Hearings schedule and documents Link

****

2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

Council Evidence (PDF format)
Section 42A Report
Appendix 1 DCC Operative Plan Road Hierarchy
Appendix 2 Road DCC submission – road classification hierarchy corrections
Appendix 3 Christchurch District Plan Replacement abstract
Appendix 4 Transportation figures
Appendix 5 2GP Section 6 – Transportation
Statement of Evidence of Ian Clark
Statement of evidence – Grant Fisher

****

Disclaimer. The site owner is not responsible for the currency or accuracy of content of this post and the inclusion of the information provided does not imply endorsement by the site owner.

Received from Maurice Prendergast
Sun, 5 Feb 2017 at 12:19 a.m.

Lightly edited; maps added. -Eds

[click to enlarge]
data-map-2gp-land-information-for-mosgiel-roads2GP Data Map (Roads)

zone-map-2gp-mosgiel2GP Zone Map

Submission to DCC 2GP Hearing – Transportation
Submitter: Maurice Prendergast Feb 2017

In politics, just as in war, the first casualties are usually the truth.
This is no better illustrated than in the issues that have, over many decades; washed around Hagart-Alexander Drive, Mosgiel. The culture of dishonest comment that has characterised these issues is so extensive that it cannot be illustrated by thumbnail sketch, and though the temptation to condense this summary is real, the principles that represent the truth must never be compromised. Thus I crave your indulgence by presenting some facts that this DCC Transportation Report has not revealed to you.

Some sixty years ago when the Mosgiel Borough Council bordered the Taieri County Council, the collective ‘wise heads’ of those two Authorities opined that with a developing industrial activity in North Taieri there would be a future need to divert nuisance industrial traffic from Mosgiel mainstreet. While it must have seemed an impossible task, they managed a herculean (east side) land purchase corridor from Gordon Rd to the Silverstream. This must have been no mean feat to have had to deal with maybe scores of property owners. The wisdom of these pioneers did not end there; they pegged that corridor so that nobody should be in any doubt as to the Authorities’ intentions.

Not surprisingly the value of land bounding this corridor plummeted (who would want to own property next to an industrial traffic by-pass). But in the minds of the punters, the plan for this road was away in the future, and with the passage of time it became widely believed that it wasn’t going to happen and the Real Estate fraternity in particular perpetuated this mischief. Ignorance abounded and was so profound that it is said that in one case a bounding property owner (when building) sought planning departure to have his building platform set back to allow a greater recreational frontage. It mattered not that this robbed his backyard space; he had a whole roading corridor behind him; upon which he apparently built a tennis court. Such was the contempt in which the belief was held that the road would never be built.

With reference to ignorance, some of the biggest offenders (in my view) have been ‘property conveyancing’ solicitors who have not alerted clients to this impediment when purchasing property which bounds Hagart-Alexander Dr [HAD]. The impediment being that they were purchasing property which bounded a charted traffic by-pass. In my capacity as a former City Councillor I consistently fielded pleas from those who purchased ‘tainted’ properties that “nobody told me”. That unfortunately is the ‘downside’ of democracy. Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst kind of governance; that is, with the exception of all other kinds of governance.” In a democracy nobody is required to hold your hand. Blaming somebody because you didn’t know is simply not a remedy. Not knowing about the purpose of the HAD corridor is a case in point. Caveat Emptor! The early part of HAD (from Gordon Rd for some 800 metres) was developed many years ago with enormously wide berms to provide for eventual road widening. This alone should have alerted property purchasers. The reason it wasn’t developed to full width was to discourage the speed of domestic/hoon traffic.

Now, fast forward to around the turn of this century. Amongst much weeping and gnashing of teeth, the HAD was then developed onward to intersect with Factory Rd. Property owners in Glenbrook Drive (whose rear) bounded HAD became unreasonably hysterical because “they had been told” that the corridor would never be developed. Nobody could say who told them so (probably somebody in the pub), but the People’s Document, the District Plan (to which they or their solicitor should have referred when purchasing) clearly showed the ‘roading drawings’ of the Authority’s intention. This was a classic case of people asking Council to hold the property owners’ hands, and so hysterical were their claims that the Council (quite improperly in my belief) released to them all, four metres from the road corridor to allow them to construct ‘noise abating’ bunding. This bunding has never been constructed.

Then came one of the most torturous exercises of my political life. The Council was obliged to extend HAD across Factory Rd and beyond the Silverstream to Carncross St/Dukes Rd as planned. But there was the matter of rural zoned land on the seaward side of HAD and an application to rezone that land was in gestation (Mosgiel East Variation A). It was I who chaired a Working Party in year 2000 entitled ‘Heavy Vehicle Routes over Taieri Plain Working Party’, with a brief to study (not only) HAD but any route across the Taieri. To me it was a ridiculous brief. Land purchases alone for other route options were perceived to be enormous in relation to HAD where Council owned all the necessary land. The Working Party as I recall was dripping with prejudice and self interest and my memory is that the Working Party was dissolved without a comprehensible conclusion. However, in November 2001, the Working Party was reborn under the title of ‘Mosgiel By-Pass Working Party’, with Terms of Reference that removed the prejudice of the former Working Party.

A Christchurch consultancy (Gabitees–Porter) engaged by transportation manager, the late Don Hill supported that Working Party and provided ‘in depth’ costings on all routes (Highway 87, Alanton/Outram, Riccarton Rd and HAD). Not surprisingly HAD, both economically and environmentally, came out light years ahead of the rest; largely because it was the ‘greenest’ route and Council owned the whole of the proposed corridor, and it was by far the shortest route. As an instance, and as I recall, in the case of the Riccarton Rd option, the land purchase cost to relocate that huge main trunk drainage channel across the Taieri alone (that runs parallel to Riccarton Rd), was in the vicinity of twice the cost of bridging the Silverstream for [the] HAD/Centre St extension option.

I have absolutely no intention to go into any further detail. It’s all in Council’s archives if only today’s planners bothered to research the work we did and the costs the ratepayers met some 10 to 12 years ago, to find that the historically planned HAD/Cairncross St route is the only rational consideration, and in terms of travel, the only “Green Option”. Continue reading

8 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, NZTA, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design

DCC 2GP (district plan): Residential parking + Medium density housing

A flyer received this week at Pitt St…. (the photo is lower Scotland St)

DCC residential parking survey flyer Oct 2014

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Surveying Views on Parking

This item was published on 21 Oct 2014

The Dunedin City Council wants to hear what the public thinks about possible changes to how parking is managed in areas close to the CBD. Areas include City Rise, residential streets near the campus, the Warehouse Precinct, and around Lower Princes Street, Smith Street, York Place and Harrow Street.

Under a review of Dunedin’s District Plan, the DCC is looking at whether the number of off-street car parks required for dwellings in these areas should be reduced. “While this would make more space available for inner city living and could improve neighbourhood amenity, it would also mean more demand for on-street parking,” says City Development Manager Anna Johnson. “To manage this, the DCC may make changes to how parking is managed, with more on-street car parks in the affected areas being reserved for residents with permits or for visitors parking for up to two hours. This would mean that fewer on-street parks would be available to commuters,” says Ms Johnson.

Before any decisions on these matters are made, an online survey will query what the general public, affected residents, commuters, developers, businesses, schools, and other affected organisations think. Survey results will then be used by the DCC to help decide how parking in the affected areas should be managed. If any changes are proposed to District Plan rules for off-street parking, people will be able to make submissions on these changes next year, when the reviewed District Plan is notified. Any changes to these rules would not be likely to come into force until 2016.

In most of the affected areas, changes to on-street parking would only be proposed after the changes to District Plan off-street parking rules had taken place. However, where on-street parking pressure is already particularly high changes may be considered earlier. This could include, for example, areas around Royal Terrace, Heriot Row, London St and Cargill St and parts of City Rise, such as around Arthur Street. If any changes to on-street parking are proposed there will be formal consultation and people will be able to make submissions on the proposals.

█ Online surveys will be available from Wednesday 22 October to Friday 7 November from http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp and paper surveys are available on request from the DCC. Please call 03 477 4000 to request a hard copy to be sent in the post.

Contact Anna Johnson – City Development Manager on 03 474 3874.

DCC Link

****

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Medium Density Housing Zones Identified

This item was published on 21 Oct 2014

The growth in one to two person households in Dunedin has prompted a rethink of how we look at residential development. As part of the development of the Dunedin Spatial Plan and the city’s second generation District Plan (2GP), Dunedin City Council staff have been working with stakeholders and experts, and consulting with the community, to identify areas that should provide for medium density housing, particularly in areas close to centres, public transport, and community and recreational facilities.

Medium density relates to how many residential units there are per section. Medium density housing can be in the form of houses on small sections, semi-detached or terraced houses, or two to three storey apartment buildings on larger sections. Much of South Dunedin and the residential areas around the University of Otago are examples of areas that are developed to a “medium density” level.

DCC City Development Manager Anna Johnson says various ideas about where to provide medium density housing have been tested through different stages of consultation. As a result of that feedback and further field work, a final set of areas to be included in the 2GP, to be notified in the first half of next year, has been proposed.

Many of these areas are already zoned for, or developed as, medium density housing, but some new areas have been identified to cater for a predicted growth in demand for different housing types. From this week, owners and occupiers in areas of medium density zoning will be given a chance to see what is proposed in these areas and to provide feedback on the key draft Plan provisions.

Ms Johnson says the need to identify such areas reflects Dunedin’s changing demographics. “The city’s largest demographic growth area is one to two person households, which includes couples with no children at home. These so-called empty nesters often want to make a move to warm, low maintenance forms of housing in their existing neighbourhoods. We need to ensure the city’s planning rules have scope to do that.”

The proposed medium density zones would require a minimum site size of 200m2 for subdivision. In terms of existing sites and newly-subdivided sites, 45m2 of land would be required for each ‘habitable room’, which equates to a room that is, or could be, a bedroom. Providing all performance standards related to the building were met, this would allow, for example, a four bedroom house, or two semi-detached residential units with two bedrooms each, to be built on a 200m2 site.

Research by DCC planning staff and public submissions on the 2GP point to the need for medium density housing in areas where there is good access to public transport, community facilities and green spaces. There are 23 areas that have been identified for medium density zoning. Five of these may need infrastructure upgrades if significantly more development occurred. The 23 areas include areas that are already zoned medium density, areas where development is at a higher level than is currently permitted and areas that might benefit from redevelopment to improve the range and quality of housing available. It also includes areas where there is a market for more housing choices, where some change in housing types can occur without a major impact on existing amenity values.

Neighbourhoods already zoned for medium density (residential 2, 3 and 4) include areas below the Town Belt, around the University campus and parts of Caversham and Mosgiel. Areas where there is already quite a lot of medium density housing include parts of Mornington, City Rise, the Gardens area and North East Valley. In some suburbs, such as Opoho, Roslyn, Belleknowes, Andersons Bay, Waverley and parts of Caversham, residential 1 zoning currently restricts building to a minimum 500m2 site, but there is a market for more housing choices.

“We believe medium density housing could be provided for, with appropriate design standards, in areas like these without significant impact on the amenity values of the area,” Ms Johnson says. “Ultimately we want to spread the options for medium density housing across the city and not just be focusing on older areas that may be perceived as less desirable. We want people to have choices as they get older. Not everyone who wants to live in an apartment or low maintenance home wants to live in the central city. People want choices in their own neighbourhoods and there is a growing demand for quality smaller homes in our popular suburbs.”

In addition to the medium density housing zones, a further eight areas are proposed to be zoned as heritage residential zones, but with density and plan provisions similar to those for medium density zones.

█ From Wednesday, visit http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp for more details and to fill out a survey on medium density housing. Consultation closes on Friday, 7 November.

Contact Anna Johnson – City Development Manager on 03 474 3874.

DCC Link

● ODT 24.10.14 Plan changes target housing, parking

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

23 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, Otago Polytechnic, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Dunedin housing: building up or Brown-like sprawl #intensification #costlyinfrastructure

Dunedin housing [ODT files] detail 1

There was a risk that Government intervention could actually drive up house prices in Dunedin.

### ODT Online Wed, 12 Jun 2013
DCC seeks changes to housing Bill
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council could be forced to open up land for development – sidestepping long-term council planning in the process – as part of a Government push to bring down house prices. The concern was raised at yesterday’s planning and environment committee meeting, as Dunedin city councillors discussed a council submission on the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill. The Bill, which is before a parliamentary select committee, would allow the Government to create ”special housing areas” in parts of New Zealand deemed to have significant housing affordability problems. Councils would be able to enter into accords with the Government to create the new zones but, if they resisted, the Bill would give the Government the power to force the creation of the new areas.

The council had been given just 10 working days from May 16 to respond, which was “completely insufficient” to allow councils and the public to assess and provide detailed feedback on the Bill, it said. ”In our view, these consultation time frames raise serious concerns about the democratic nature of our legislative process and New Zealand’s system of representative government.”

And, while the Bill appeared aimed primarily at Auckland, Dunedin could also qualify for one of the new housing areas, city councillors were warned. Dunedin could be deemed in need of a special housing area, based on criteria proposed under the Bill, council city strategy and development general manager Sue Bidrose told the meeting. That was largely because of the high population of students and the elderly, whose economic circumstances skewed the city’s housing affordability results, the council’s submission said.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
2.4.13 Dunedin: Developers stoop to resource consents…
29.3.13 Reykjavik, Iceland: The strongest mirror [speculative apartments]
3.3.13 RNZ Sunday Morning | Ideas: Re-imagining the Urban House
29.10.12 Govt to open up more land for houses
29.8.12 Beloved Prime Minister ‘Jonkey’ speaking #childpoverty
14.4.12 How perverse is the New Zealand housing market?
17.2.12 Salvation Army: The Growing Divide
2.2.10 “Tax codes, zoning, community boards, and financing…”
8.12.11 interest.co heats NZ housing debate – listen up
23.11.11 Last night, did John Key watch Inside New Zealand (TV3)…
26.10.11 2011 Voices of Poverty: Research into poverty in Dunedin
26.12.10 New Zealand housing, a sorry tale

Dunedin housing EveningPost 1.9.1937 p10 (teara.govt.nz] 32437-wnIn early 1937 the government provided new loan money for councils to build new dwellings to help meet a chronic housing shortage. The aim was to provide an affordable alternative to the government’s state-rental scheme. Dunedin was among the councils that took advantage of the measure, building hundreds of dwellings for private sale in suburban Clyde Hill. The first three houses were opened by Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage in September 1937.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/document/32437/dunedin-houses-opened

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Dunedin housing (detail) [ODT files]

36 Comments

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

Growth fetish ? Urban sprawl v Higher density living ?

### onenesspublishing.com March 20, 2013
Urban sprawl isn’t to blame: unsustainable cities are the product of growth fetish
By Brendan Gleeson
In a recent article on The Conversation Robert Nelson argues we are all morally culpable for unsustainable urban sprawl. He goes on to suggest we fix this by taking advantage of opportunities for higher density development in sparsely populated inner suburbs. But his argument is based on a false opposition: mounting evidence shows that high density development in inner areas performs very poorly in terms of resource consumption and greenhouse emissions. The idea that outer suburbs are inherently less sustainable than inner ones doesn’t bear scrutiny. The key question is not where we accommodate growth; it’s our slavish pursuit of growth itself.
Read more

● Brendan Gleeson is Professor in Urban Policy Studies at University of Melbourne.

The Conversation hosts in-depth analysis, research, news and ideas from leading academics and researchers.

Urban Expansion shutterstock.com

Read two articles by Robert Nelson at The Conversation:

The grass isn’t greener in the outer ‘burbs (7 March 2013, 6.43am AEST)
“For a long a time real estate close to the palace was socially desirable, and anyone with aspirations didn’t want to know about the rest. Today in Melbourne inner-city people are embarrassed to reveal knowledge of the outer suburbs such as South Morang, like 17th century Parisians who would mispronounce the street-names of poorer areas or affect not to know them at all. Throughout history, the distribution of wealth has had a geographical expression. Snobbery, however, is only part of the challenge of urban geography. Power and privilege are concentrated within 10kms of the city centre.”

The devaluing dream; why Australian suburbia is an economic disaster (11 January 2012, 6.22am AEST)
“In spite of what everyone believes through natural pride and vanity, the family house is an asset that depreciates. Don’t be deceived that the value of property goes up and up, which of course it does. The rising prices are caused by the land becoming more expensive, not the house itself.”

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: shutterstock.com – urban expansion

1 Comment

Filed under #eqnz, Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Innovation, Inspiration, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium