Tag Archives: Resource Consent

123 Vogel St, an action about council process?

123 Vogel St before external building changes [Google Street View]

At Facebook:

****

Where to start. Here we have an award winning redevelopment of a substantial old warehouse for new commercial use. Reading the Otago Daily Times today we learn a local businessman questions council process on consenting grounds – apparently, there was an ‘administrative error’ with a set(s) of drawings, and a condition of the resource consent issued for 123 Vogel St was neither correctly tracked or enforced.

Rightly, the businessman doesn’t wish to litigate the matter through the newspaper.

The building owner to his credit has made a large and worthy investment in the building structure and its upgrade for commercial occupancy, revitalising a large segment of the block running between Vogel and Cumberland streets.

Why then would an ungenerous attack by one party not closely involved in the proposed warehouse precinct, be lobbed at this one building owner in such negative and disastrous fashion.

What is at stake. More importantly, what does bringing the action do to enhance the historic built environment, commercial property development, and council processes – if ad hocism (planning rules enforced here, and not there?) is argued as ‘state of play’. Is there any good in an Environment Court challenge – is it ‘vexatious’.

Impartiality, transparency, technical proficiency and fairmindedness is the hoped-for collective quality to be seen in any council operation, particularly in regards to planning matters. How far can ‘the managers’ of the District Plan, a community owned living document, seek room to breathe —or indeed, treat every resource consent application on its individual merits ….for positive precinct and in-zone outcomes, for the avoidance of new (adverse) precedents or laxity of interpretation where the rules go swimming. Where does the line bite.

In practical terms we read that what was built (window-wise at second floor level) does not accord with what was granted by resource consent.

We see minorly dropped sills (pretty? hmm) and a small extra pane of glass added for greater daylighting and liveability, done in such a way that the original scale and depth of the windows remains readable. The intervention isn’t screaming. It is very quiet, and reasonable? Why then did someone fudge the option to be consented. Who did not enforce the agreed design solution? Were affected parties given all proper information as the application processed to decision? Does the error set a precedent for destruction of protected facades and heritage townscape? This most certainly can be argued and tested generally and legally – but probably not with 123 Vogel St hauled to centre stage, pointing up administrative error or wilful and confused intention at DCC if that could be shown…. The second generation district plan public consultation process is perhaps the best place to locate the discussion. Not here, unless there is something else forming the agenda for the current challenge.

Recently, there has been another example of ‘sill dropping’ in the precinct (TH13) at the corner of Rattray and Cumberland Sts. Most people – heritage advocates included – would view the degree of change to sill height as rather subtle in the context of the overall historic heritage ‘Save’. But these details niggle aesthetes and the conscientious.

Is the effect (of design subtleties – a broad tradition….) to cumulatively – with more than minor effect – destroy ‘old’ townscape in the Vogel Street Heritage Precinct, other heritage and townscape precincts, and more widely across the central city —the ‘sense of place’ (held by ‘original’ built fabric) that District Plan policy and rules are designed to constrain, curbing overt changes to external building appearance?

How on earth did this happen at the council? Perhaps the challenge and subsequent ruling (win or lose) will ensure that all comers receive the same level of service in the adminstration of consents and conditions, and the intent of District Plan rules is more strictly adhered to by council planners.

Everyone is entitled to their day in court. The other hope is that DCC is meeting all of Mr Barnes’ legal costs.

If that was the fight advertised on page 1 today.

****

OPTION ONE STAYED IN THE CONSENT DECISION …. Option one would have had a new sash and two panes of glass, instead of what was built.

### ODT Online Tue, 20 Jun 2017
Building owner baffled over court action
By David Loughrey
The owner of an award-winning Dunedin warehouse precinct building has been called to face the Environment Court in a case he described yesterday as “vexatious”. The court action calls on 123 Vogel St owner Chris Barnes to remove windows on the second floor and replace them with a design applicant Dunedin businessman John Evans says should have been built under the building’s resource consent. Court documents from Mr Barnes’ counsel describe the action as “utterly baffling”. Mr Barnes has questioned the intentions of Mr Evans, and the court documents ask who Mr Evans is representing, and whether he is “receiving funds from a third party”. Some people involved would not speak on the record but one claimed property interests in “the big end of town” were behind what they saw as an attack on the precinct. […] Mr Evans’ application referred to a condition in the resource consent.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
19.6.17 Vogel Street parking on a quiet Sunday afternoon #petroltheft
1.6.17 Oh noes! One adverse slip of the pen and it’s Over Rover #warehouseprecinct
3.2.17 MORE DCC bull dust and poor investment #Sammy’s
18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
9.10.16 Vogel Street Party 2016 #randoms
3.10.16 Vogel Street Party 2016 #Dunedin
10.4.16 spilt milk, tears, Unnecessary
23.1.16 Zoning issues: Vogel Street activities
16.12.15 DCC: Restriction of Vehicles from Parts of Jetty Street DECLARED
18.11.15 SAVE Sammy’s (former His Majesty’s Theatre & Agricultural Hall)
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
7.10.15 Vogel Street Party —Sat, 10 October
17.3.15 Dunedin Heritage Re-use Awards
13.3.15 Making heritage work | Dunedin New Zealand
28.10.14 Dunedin’s “period architecture”, not so quaintly….
19.10.14 Dunedin: Randoms from inside warehouse precinct 18.10.14
15.10.14 Vogel St. Street Party | Saturday 18 Oct 3pm – 11pm [2014]
5.8.14 DCC staff-led CBD projects that impact ratepayers | consolidated council debt
22.6.14 Vogel Street Heritage Precinct (TH13)
13.7.13 Cities: Organic renewal3.3.11 Dunedin can provide vacant buildings, warehouses and offices #eqnz
8.3.13 Stupid bid for two-way highway ditched for now #DCC
31.10.12 Cull’s council takes business away from retailers
21.2.11 Dunedin Heritage: Central government should be contributing
19.2.11 Dunedin, are you ‘of a mind’ to protect Historic Heritage?
19.2.11 Reed Building, 75 Crawford Street for demolition?
7.4.10 DScene alerts commercial building owners to responsibilities
24.3.10 DScene features heritage/issues!

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

13 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Heritage, Heritage NZ, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Town planning, Urban design

DCC could foil best landscape solution for Ellis Park

Ellis Park proposed softball clubroomsImage Source: ODT

Ellis Park neighbours Kerry and Elizabeth Goodhew express their frustration at the planned location and style for softball clubrooms at Ellis Park, and at what they see as a lack of Dunedin City Council consultation and poor processes.

### ODT Online Mon, 18 Feb 2013
Opinion
Consultation goes long way to good results
By Kerry and Elizabeth Goodhew
We wish to say for the fourth time that we are not opposed to clubrooms on Ellis Park. We never have been. All three of our submissions from October, two written and one oral at the consent hearing, opened clearly and firmly with comment that: ”We fully agree that softball should have a clubrooms and toilet facilities in the vicinity of Ellis Park.” Next year we will have loved living here 20 years, and all we have asked is that the clubrooms and toilets not be placed in front of our homes.
If you walk/jog/bike/ride a horse along Frasers Rd, and hundreds enjoy doing this, stand at the children’s playground, hundreds use this, and look up the park to imagine two gulag-style prefab buildings joined together two storeys high park-side, on rows of telegraph poles extending 33m into the park, to obliterate the beautiful ”green-scape” view up the park. Is there anybody else in this city (other than council staff or softball interests) who really thinks that this is the right thing to do at that location?
One of the senior officers from the council itself, the landscape architect, does not think so. He states: ”The visual character would be adversely affected” and ”what is now a balanced visual outlook viewed from the playing field or Frasers Rd would be downgraded”. Read ”ruined”.
It was our submission to locate the building elsewhere for all but one of the suggested locations. Before a meeting and our submission, council staff had not considered other places elsewhere on Ellis Park as there is no statement to that effect in the application. Our suggestions were a surprise to them.
Read more

Related Items:
ODT 1.2.13 Upgrade project at park defended
ODT 3.1.13 Ellis Park plans an ‘abomination’
The Star [undated] Otago Softball dreams of new rooms but neighbours have other views

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

2 Comments

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

Proposed hotel, 41 Wharf Street – indicative landscape effects

The following images (scans of scans…) were supplied by Madeleine Lamont in submission on application LUC-2012-212. The text of Madeleine’s submission has been lightly edited for posting. Her submission as lodged (No. 422) can be viewed here: Submissions 401 to 509 (PDF, 6.9 MB).

1. View from Mornington Park, off Eglinton Rd between Stafford and High Sts

2. (zoom) View from Mornington Park, off Eglinton Rd

3. View from Bellevue St, Belleknowes, just below Highgate

4. View from Adam St, near Russell St, City Rise

Submission to Dunedin City Council
Re: Public Notice of application for Resource Consent Section 95A Resource Management Act 1991
Resource Consent Application No: LUC-2012-212
Name of Applicant: Betterways Advisory Limited
Location of Site: 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin, being the land legally described as
Lot 3 Deposited Plan 25158, held in Computer Freehold
Register OT17A/1107.

I submit in the strongest terms, that resource consent for the building of the proposed hotel structure on the above site, NOT BE GRANTED because of the structure’s significant, detrimental effects on the city landscape.

If the applicant had had the courtesy to supply comprehensive spatial design drawings of this structure in the context of the whole city, it would be obvious to all how inappropriate in SCALE this structure is. At 96m in elevation, the structure overbears the entire city and harbour basin, obstructing the entire city centre’s experience of the harbour, the peninsula and Dunedin’s nestling hills, offering an absurd conflict with the human scale and nature of both the historic and current character of city structures and city activities.

Of greatest concern are the western and eastern elevations of the structure. I submit Photo 1 taken from the lookout in Mornington Park, a view celebrated by Dunedin artists numerous times over the years, by visitors to the city and of course, by the hundreds of Dunedin households. The approximate silhouette of the proposed structure is drawn in to show the obstructive nature and ‘selfish’ size and position of the hotel. The scale of the building is completely inappropriate. Photo 2 is from the same position, zoomed in and marked with the Wharf St railway lighting tower measured at 35m used to indicate the dominance of the proposed 96.3m hotel structure. The eastern elevation from the peninsula suburbs too, will experience the overscale of the building against the city and hill suburbs.

Photo 3 taken, on zoom from Bellevue Street, Belleknowes, again includes the structure’s silhouette scaled off the marked rail light tower. If the cladding of the proposed tower is mainly glass, with it being so high above the city, the western sun will create issues of sun strike on roads leading down from the suburbs, and obviously, serious effects and obstruction to the views enjoyed by thousands of households.

Photo 4 is from lower down the Belleknowes spur, from Adam Street, with an estimated, but conservative profile (photo lacks a known structure to measure off) drawn. Again the aesthetic values and scale of the harbour basin are entirely offended by an ill considered structure.

What concerns me most about this application for resource consent to build an inappropriate structure (by position and scale), is the inadequacy of the supplied application documents to present the structure in the context of the city. Widely published images are fantasy, such as an elevated, high angle view from well above the harbour, attempting to diminish the perceived size of the structure. The only humans to view the structure from this angle, position and elevation may be those wealthy enough to, by helicopter. These images are notable for their lack of contextual structures that make, in fact, the character of Dunedin. Buildings of 2, 3 or more storeys set the scale appropriate for development and are absent from the application documents precisely to obscure the real affect this structure will have on the city’s landscape and its aesthetic values. Design consultancy information only focuses on the very immediate surroundings and contains no spatial plan for this giant structure in the context of the city. I have attempted to show how 120 degrees of the city centre and its hill suburbs will have their harbour and peninsula views and joy of place seriously obstructed. The peninsula suburbs will view a structure absurdly contradicting the city structures and rounded hill suburbs. All incoming transport links, as a special feature of this city, enjoy delightful revelation of the ‘great little city’, its harbour and the waters of the Pacific. These heartening views enjoyed by all, citizen and visitor, will be irretrievable spoiled and dominated by a tower designed (and possibly built) for a city the scale of Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur or Singapore.

Lastly, the attempt at this sort of inappropriate development is an affront to the careful planning [of] the city’s forefathers to create an egalitarian community enjoying the delightful natural environment Dunedin offers. The proposed structure stands at 96m. This is only a matter of metres below the elevation of much of the Green Belt. Jubilee Park is at a 100m elevation. The Green Belt designed and implemented so long ago and maintained for the benefit of all, is carefully placed so that wherever a person stands in the city centre they can look up the hills to the skyline and see only green, the suburbs beyond obscured by the angle of view. This creates a very special intimate city, a human scaled city, for the benefit and edification of those living or visiting here. This, in conjunction with historical character (now lost in Christchurch), a rich, intelligent, creative and industrious community is what makes Dunedin a destination, a special, memorable place that with sympathetic development will continue to attract visitors and citizens who will not find the likes, elsewhere in the world. Structures like the proposed hotel are notable for being the same the world over. In being built it will change the very character of the place visitors will be seeking to experience.

I submit in the strongest terms that the Dunedin City Council turn down this application for resource consent and I suggest that the non compliance of this application to the requirements of the Resource Management Act to protect the amenity, aesthetic and cultural values and wellbeing of the people of Dunedin will bring this matter to the Environment Court.

Yours sincerely

Madeleine Lamont
B. Landscape Architecture (Hons), Lincoln University

Compare these indicative images to those prepared by Truescape of Christchurch for the Applicant:

LUC-2012-212 12. Viewpoint booklet
(PDF, 3.4MB)
This document is a scanned copy of the application for resource consent

Related Posts:
20.11.12 City planner’s report recommends against consent for hotel
10.11.12 Dunedin Hotel, 41 Wharf Street (LUC 2012-212)
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

The Applicant, Betterways Advisory Limited, gets one and a half days for presentation to the hearing committee (Cr Colin Weatherall, Cr Andrew Noone, Cr Kate Wilson, and independent commissioner John Lumsden). Submitters have been allowed ten minutes each. Written communication from City Planning makes no time allowance for submitters wishing to use experts.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

13 Comments

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

City planner’s report recommends against consent for hotel

UPDATED 21.11.12

See comments at this thread:

Ro https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/dunedin-hotel-41-wharf-street-luc-2012-212/#comment-29089

Elizabeth https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/dunedin-hotel-41-wharf-street-luc-2012-212/#comment-29090

“What Heydary found came as a shock, especially to some buyers who readily admit they were so blinded by the flash and cash of Donald Trump that they didn’t do proper due diligence: Buyers weren’t purchasing so much a condo as a share in a high-end hotel that, so far at least, is losing money.”

Trump Tower developer suing 7 disgruntled investors to close deals they now regret

Anonymous provided this edifying read. It ‘trumps’ what happened with the first tower built at Orewa, and the Spencer on Byron at Takapuna (referred to elsewhere at What if?, or google) – as far as 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin is concerned the tower-scam model is the same. So here we are, naive and wide open to the wiles of our own ‘good old boys’ and their unsavoury quest for a share of dirty-quick money from fickle overseas ‘connections’, and your life savings too.

### ODT Online Wed, 21 Nov 2012
DCC report opposes city hotel
By Chris Morris
Plans for a 28-storey waterfront hotel towering over Dunedin have been dealt a blow by a Dunedin City Council report that criticises the design and recommends resource consent be declined. The report by council planner Lianne Darby, made public yesterday, identified the hotel’s height and dominant appearance as among areas of concern. A host of technical worries also raised doubts, ranging from traffic problems and shading to a lack of information about wind gusts magnified by the tower’s height. Ms Darby’s report left the door ajar by including a list of detailed conditions to impose if consent were granted, despite her recommendation.
Read more

Source: ODT Files

Note to graphic: Under the Resource Management Act (RMA) the commissioners to hear the application cannot consider the economic viability of the proposed hotel project – the matters with a red cross, at right, fall within the scope of the Act. The applicant is required to show the adverse effects of the proposed development are no more than minor.

Read Post Application Information at DCC website

‘New information’ about the hypothetical footbridge cannot be considered at hearing since it was NOT included in the notified application.

### ODT Online Tue, 20 Nov 2012
Hotel developer unveils link bridge proposal
By Chris Morris
The man promoting Dunedin’s proposed 28-storey hotel has unveiled plans for a “world class” pedestrian and cyclist bridge that could provide a missing link to the city’s waterfront. However, the idea is only the “starting point for a discussion”, with key details – including how much the sweeping structure would cost and who would pay for it – yet to be confirmed, Betterways Advisory Ltd director Steve Rodgers said.
Read more

Source: Ignite Architects Ltd (via ODT)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

15 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Heritage, Media, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

Dunedin Hotel, 41 Wharf Street (LUC 2012-212)

All submitters received a letter dated 2 November 2012 from Dunedin City Council informing them of the dates on which the Hearings Committee will consider the Betterways Advisory Ltd’s resource consent application for 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin.

The council hearings committee is Cr Colin Weatherall (chairman), Cr Andrew Noone and Cr Kate Wilson. Submissions will be heard in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers.

Hearing dates:
Monday 3 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Tuesday 4 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Wednesday 5 December 2012 – 10am to 7.30pm
Thursday 6 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm

And if required:
Monday 17 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Tuesday 18 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm
Wednesday 19 December 2012 – 9am to 5pm

It is anticipated the applicant will present for the first day and part of the second day. Submitters are likely to commence their presentations from 2pm on Tuesday 4 December.

Altogether, there were 508 public submissions. Not all submitters wish to be heard. That’s right, the applicant has about a day and a half to present substantively; submitters get 10 minutes each. Such is the democratic process.

The intention must be that if the Council grants consent – red carpet – then we take it to the Environment Court on appeal.

There has been no cost benefit analysis for the proposed hotel. Given the shortcomings of the site, neither the Applicant or the Dunedin City Council have declared the potential costs, including infrastructure services costs, of this project to ratepayers. There’s quite a lot the Council isn’t saying publicly; and quite a lot it’s saying, politically, behind closed doors to the applicant, we hear.

The Application: (DCC webpages)
Current notified applications
LUC-2012-212 (Betterways Advisory Limited) – all documents


Published on May 13, 2012 by DunedinNZofficial

Dunedin lawyer Steve Rodgers said he remained convinced the hotel would be a “game-changer” for Dunedin and was “98.2%” confident it would win approval at next month’s resource consent hearing.

### ODT Online Sat, 10 Nov 2012
Hotel project spokesman confident of go-ahead
By Chris Morris
The man acting as the public face for a proposed 28-storey waterfront hotel in Dunedin says the project remains “full steam ahead” despite a public outcry. However, Dunedin lawyer Steve Rodgers – the director of Betterways Advisory Ltd, the company fronting the development – would not rule out changes to the hotel’s design, but hoped a fight through the Environment Court could be avoided.
Read more

Related Posts:
8.9.12 Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

49 Comments

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

Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin (Applicant names?)

UPDATED POST 26.9.12
How do I make a submission on the resource consent application?
Go to DCC webpage.

Tweet (Sat 08 Sep 20:59):

@whatifdunedin Waterfront Hotel #Dunedin – who’s behind it ? bit.ly/QaNO92 bit.ly/QaNRBN Jing Song of #Queenstown and “wifey”… #BrashCash

[Thanks to Phil for the jigsaw piece – http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5600153/Couple-hold-lavish-wedding]

Related Posts and Comments:
7.9.12 Waterfront hotel: DCC to notify resource consent application
23.6.12 Mis(t)apprehension: website visits, not bookings?
16.5.12 Dunedin Hotel

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

82 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Economics, Hot air, Media, People, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

Has DCC Planning lost the plot AGAIN?

### ODT Online Wed, 13 Jul 2011
Call to reject retail development
By Chris Morris
Plans for a multimillion-dollar Green Island retail development should be rejected to help protect Dunedin’s main street experience from a “death by a thousand cuts”, a Dunedin City Council planner says. Irmo Properties Ltd has applied for resource consent to refurbish the rundown Iron Roller Mills Building on Irmo St, Green Island, turning it into a new 4900sq m retail complex with 187 car parks.
Read more

****

Comment by Barch67 at ODT Online:
If the developer were to re-name it “The Rugby World Cup Retail Development”, it’d be consented by now.
Link

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

82 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Construction, Design, Heritage, Innovation, Politics, Project management, Town planning, Urban design