Tag Archives: Second generation district plan (2GP)

Commercial residential, 143-193 Moray Place : ODT bias, ignores arguments of opposing legal experts

THUS we gather that the owners/editorial team of the Otago Daily Times have deemed Anthony Tosswill’s proposal for a tall fat Moray Place apartment building (commercial residential) is worthy of being built. Ra Ra ODT.

If you (ODT) want to print half the story, presume away…. to Not be the independent courier of what is public information contrary to the arguments of the greying Mr Page, Counsel for Mr Tosswill’s NZ Horizons Hospitality Group Ltd (widely suspected as a vehicle for Asian finance, yet to bring even one of “12 hotels” on his South Island wish list out of the ground – funny that).

For your attention :
The legal submissions of Ms Semple, Counsel for Millennium and Copthorne Hotels New Zealand Ltd (owner of the 3 star Kingsgate), an affected party.

Ms Semple maintains that the application cannot be lawfully unbundled.

Legal Submissions on behalf of the Millennium and Copthorne Hotels
Casebook for the Millennium and Copthorne Hotels

The legal submissions of Mr Hardie, Counsel for Misbeary Holdings Ltd are not yet available online at the DCC website.

[click to enlarge]

LOLOL

At Facebook:

If the independent commissioners agree with Mr Page then it’s “See you in Court, Buster”.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Stupid ORC Bus Hub : DCC notifies requirement for designation #Dunedin

Proposed ORC Bus Hub, Great King St – concept image [supplied]

CALL FOR PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

DIS-2017-1 – Central City Bus Hub
Open for submissions. Closes 5pm 18 August 2017

Public notice of requirement for a designation
Sections 168 and 169 of the Resource Management Act 1991

The Dunedin City Council has received notice of a requirement for a new designation from the Otago Regional Council.

Notice of Requirement No: DIS-2017-1

The requirement is for: A Central City Bus Hub for Dunedin’s transport network, and includes all buildings, structures and associated facilities and activities for the carrying out of the public transport system by the Otago Regional Council. With the exception of no public parking, the designation will not prevent the use of Great King Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street, being used as a public road.

The designation is to provide for the establishment, operation, maintenance and upgrading of the Central City Bus Hub for Dunedin public transport service purposes and will provide public transport services described in the Otago Regional Council’s Public Transport Plan, and to provide for any site works, buildings or structures, integral and ancillary to the Dunedin public transport system, including but not limited to: Bus shelters and seating; timetable and information displays; bus stops; public amenities, including toilets; landscaping including structures; pedestrian footpaths and accessways; drainage; technology; lighting; security; vehicle priority; signage; passenger comfort initiatives and facilities; passenger information facilities; and all other structures and facilities associated with, or incidental to, a comprehensive facility for the performances of functions of the Central City Bus Hub and support of the Dunedin Public Transport Network for the Otago Regional Council.

The nature of the functions is that these activities will initially occur from approximately 05:30am to 12:30am, 7 days a week, year-round.

The sites to which the requirement applies are as follows:
● Great King Street Road Reserve, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street, Dunedin;
● Moray Place Road Reserve (part of);
● 12.4m² (approx.) within 157 St Andrew Street, legally described as Lot 1 DP 486801;
● Two areas within the Countdown car park adjoining Great King Street – one comprising 58.8m² and the second comprising 50.4m² (approx.) legally described as Lots 2 and 3, DP 6552 and Section 29, Town of Dunedin.
● 19.5m² (approx.) within the Countdown car park adjoining Moray Place, legally described as part Sections 27 and 28, Block XVI, Town Survey District;
● 63m² (approx.) within the Community House car park at 301 Moray Place, legally described as part Town Section 26, Block XVI, Town of Dunedin; and
● 60.8m² (approx.) within the Wilsons car park at 30-36 Great King Street, legally described as Lot 2 DP 338932.

The Notice of Requirement, plans showing the extent of the requirement, and the assessment of environmental effects may be inspected at the following locations:
● City Planning Enquiries, Customer Services Centre, Ground Floor, Civic Centre, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin
● The Dunedin Central Public Library
● The Mosgiel Service Centre
Online

Please contact Paul Freeland on 477 4000 if you have any questions about the Notice of Requirement.

█ Go to this DCC webpage for all the information pertaining to the Notice of Requirement (NoR):
DIS-2017-1 – Central City Bus Hub
Closing date for submissions: Friday 18 August 2017 at 5pm.
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/district-plan/district-plan-changes/dis-2017-1-central-city-bus-hub

****

█ Supplementary Reading
From the ‘RMA Quality Planning Resource’ (NZ):

Notices of requirement and requiring authorities

To begin the process of designating land, a requiring authority must serve a notice of requirement on the relevant territorial authority (s168 of the RMA) or lodge it with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (s145(3)).  A notice of requirement is a proposal for a designation. 

The notice of requirement has an interim effect, in that it protects the land for the designated purpose until the designation is confirmed and included in an operative district plan (s178).  If the designation is confirmed it overrides the provisions of the district plan so the project or the works may be implemented by the requiring authority in accordance with that designation and any conditions attached to it.  However, the underlying plan provisions continue to apply if the land is used for a purpose other than the designated purpose.

When processing a notice of requirement Part 8 of the RMA requires the territorial authority to consider the requirement and any submissions received (if the requirement was notified), and then make a recommendation to the requiring authority. The territorial authority is only able to make a recommendation to the requiring authority and the requiring authority has the final decision on the matter. Refer to the flowchart for steps in the new designation process.

An alternative process is available under Part 6AA of the RMA for notices of requirement that are for proposals of national significance. Sections 198A – 198M of the RMA also provide for the direct referral of notices of requirement to the Environment Court for a decision.  The direct referral provisions under the RMA allow for requiring authorities to request that notified notices of requirement be directly referred to the Environment Court for a decision, instead of a recommendation by a territorial authority and a decision by a requiring authority.

The designation provides for the long-term ‘approval’ of the work. Because details of the work may not be known at the time of lodging the notice of requirement, s176A provides for further detail or subsequent changes and updates to the work through an outline plan. An outline plan is required to be submitted to the territorial authority, showing details of the work or project to be constructed on the designated land.

As for the notice of requirement process, the territorial authority only has a recommendation role for outline plans. The territorial authority is only able to request changes of the requiring authority and cannot turn down an outline plan. 

A notice of requirement and an outline plan describing the works proposed can be served/submitted at the same time. This approach can be helpful to allow the territorial authority to understand the designation, and can speed up the overall process allowing works to begin sooner. Alternatively, the requirement for an outline plan can be waived by the territorial authority if sufficient information was submitted with the notice of requirement.

Read more: http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/plan-development-components/designations/overview/notices-of-requirements

****

All we want is …. [possibly?]

No highly coloured tarseal or paving materials not in keeping with Dunedin’s built environment.

NO Bus Hub in Great King St.

And….
smaller more frequent shuttle buses, suburban areas properly serviced with well-spaced bus stops and shelters, easy transfer cards, on-board EFTPOS card top-ups ($5 minimum), digital readouts for next bus at all stops, wifi buses, direct pick-up drop-off in George and Princes streets, well serviced peak hours and school runs, bus inspectors, highly trained drivers, mechanically well serviced buses, plenty of mobility access for all comers.

Or to just call an affordable version of Uber or Lyft.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

[whatifdunedin]

2 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Health & Safety, Heritage, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORC, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Dunedin’s second generation district plan (2GP) —notes on Natural Hazards

Received from Neil Johnstone
Wed, 3 May 2017 at 7:19 p.m.

Message: Last Thursday (27 April) I presented the remainder of my submission on Natural Hazards. Notes attached in case they might help anybody’s further efforts.

{The notes from Mr Johnstone are public domain by virtue of the consultative 2GP hearing process. -Eds}

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: LANDSLIDES
Neil Johnstone

I have no property interest in any landslide hazard area (although I did previously), nor in the Water of Leith catchment, nor in South Dunedin. My main purpose in appearing at this stage is to bring to the panel’s attention that the expert (so-called) opinions received from Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) natural hazard analysts are often deficient to the detriment of the 2GP process and the city’s residents.

I am a long-term resident of Dunedin and am highly experienced in flood control issues and solutions. I am appearing here on my own behalf, therefore not strictly as an Expert Witness in this instance, although I have done so in past years both in both the High Court and the Environment Court. I also acted as lead technical advisor to the NZ Govt investigation into the massive 1999 Clutha flood. My detailed investigations have ranged from simple issues such as the Water of Leith (as Investigations Engineer at Otago Catchment Board and ORC) to the entire Clutha catchment (in varying roles). These investigations have often incorporated the construction and operation of accurate, properly verified models.

I am now semi-retired MIPENZ, but still running my own consultancy on a reduced basis. I am a highly experienced expert in flood issues, I am much less so wrt landslide identification and mitigation (but I know a nonsensical report when I read one). ORC hazard analysts responsible for the landslide buffer zones originally imposed across my former property (and many others) need to accept that their approach was seriously flawed, and far from expert. Paul Freeland has mentioned to me in a recent phone conversation that Dunedin City Council (DCC) should be able to have confidence that ORC hazard analysts are expert. I have no strong criticism of Mr Freeland, but those days have passed – in this region at least – when expertise was based on proven performance, and not on a position’s title. A property previously owned by my wife and me in Porterfield Street, Macandrew Bay was quite ridiculously misrepresented in ORC’s landslide report of September 2015. The landslide hazard zone on that property has apparently now been removed, but uncaring damage has been done to us, and no doubt to many others. The Hazard 2 zone was reportedly imposed without site inspection, or without anybody properly reviewing output or checking accuracy of references.

[Reason for submitting: Natural Hazards section of 2GP dominated (undermined) by ORC hazards staff input and DCC failure to verify/review; DCC presumption that ORC “experts” do/should have appropriate expertise. We appear to be witnessing a proliferation of Hazard Analysts in NZ Local Government with little relevant experience or skill.]

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: SOUTH DUNEDIN
Neil Johnstone

The comments re South Dunedin flood hazard contained in my original written submission were written prior to DCC’s producing its inaccurate flood reports in respect of the South Dunedin flooding of early June 2015 in which high groundwater levels were held to blame. These DCC reports were eventually released in late November 2015 and April 2016 respectively. My analyses (well after my original submission) demonstrated that the prime cause of widespread flooding in South Dunedin was DCC’s failure (in order of probable significance) to utilise the bypass facility at Tahuna Wastewater Treatment Plant, to fully utilise its stormwater pumping capacity at Portobello Road, and to maintain its stormwater infrastructure (mudtanks etc). Inflow of “foreign” water from the St Clair catchment added to the depth of inundation in some areas. All these can be remedied by a diligent Council. Some have already been remedied, as positively demonstrated in the admittedly rather over-hyped rain event of the subtropical cyclone remnant around this past Easter.

ORC natural hazard analysts were probably responsible for the origin of the groundwater myth as a cause of the South Dunedin flooding in their Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 report. Reference was made there to “elevated” ground water levels. They followed up with a contentious report (The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin, July 2016). This opens by stating that the June 2015 flooding was caused by heavy rainfall and high groundwater levels, with no mention of mudtanks, or pumping failures (plural). Such reporting cannot be treated as balanced, nor its authors credible. Elsewhere, ORC essentially conceded the groundwater myth in Rebecca Macfie’s excellent NZ Listener article entitled Flood Fiasco (June 11, 2016).

Shortly after, however, ORC produced the aforementioned South Dunedin Hazards report (backed up by an embarrassingly inaccurate video presentation) that seems to reflect a desire to preach doom rather than convey a balanced defendable scientific analysis of South Dunedin realities and solutions where needed.

One of the worst features of the report and subsequent video was the depiction of projected permanently inundated areas of South Dunedin based on ORC modelling of rising sea level effects. These depictions made front page news in the Otago Daily Times with flow-on reporting nationally. The mapped areas of inundation are actually taken from an earlier ORC report entitled The South Dunedin Coastal Aquifer and Effect of Sea Level Fluctuations (October 2012). The modelling was based on limited information, and the findings would therefore be expected to be of limited reliability. The 2012 report essentially confirms this, noting that modelling of existing conditions overestimates actual groundwater levels (by the order of half a metre in places). Figure 2 (Scenario 0) of that report shows significant permanent ponding for current conditions. None exists in reality. Almost lost (in Section 3.8) are the following (abbreviated, and amongst other) concessions:

• Uncertainty of input data
• Potential inaccuracy of model predictions
• High level of uncertainty
• Groundwater system is poorly to moderately well characterised
• Aquifer properties are poorly understood or quantified
• Each of these uncertainties could have the effect of overestimating the groundwater ponding in the current setting.

The reader is advised to read the full Section 3.8 to ensure contextual accuracy. In my view (as an experienced modeller), a study that cannot even replicate known existing relationships is imperfectly calibrated and unverified. It cannot therefore be relied on. Strictly speaking, it does not qualify as a model. The relationship between possible sea level rise and consequent groundwater impact remains highly uncertain.

Unfortunately, the 2016 ORC South Dunedin Hazards report (and video) chose to reproduce the 2012 ponding predictions using more recent data (but without any better appreciation of aquifer characteristics), but the predictions are similar. It is noted that no Scenario 0 mapping is included in the latter report, nor are the model’s inherent weaknesses described. No admission of the potential modelling inaccuracies is presented other than the following note in Section 4.1: “Further discussion of the original model parameters, model calibration and potential pitfalls is included in the ORC (2012a) report, which can be accessed on the ORC website”. I believe that all parties were entitled to know unequivocally that the modelling was unreliable and unverified.

The 2016 report also makes reference to the fact that dry-weather ground water levels at the Culling Park recorder are at or below mean sea level. This is attributed by the authors to leakage of ground water into the stormwater and wastewater sewers. If that is correct (I would reserve judgement as to whether there may be other factors), then we are witnessing just one example of how an engineered solution could be utilised to dissipate increasing depth of groundwater. Such solutions are canvassed in the BECA report commissioned by DCC several years back.

To summarise, South Dunedin’s exposure to flood (current or future) is poorly described by ORC hazard analysts. The 2GP process seems to have seen these analysts “adopted” by DCC planners as their experts. I consider that to be an inappropriate approach to the detriment of our citizens.

The proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. The proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empts the currently-planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise solutions.

Requiring relocatable houses will likely simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably insufficient money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal to require relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

With respect to ground water issues across South Dunedin, the 2016 Hazard Report presents –

The reason for my pointing out these facts is to encourage Commissioners to take a step back from the current hysteria surrounding South Dunedin. Had the 2015 flooding extent been restricted (as it should have been) to that which occurred in a slightly larger rainfall event in March 1968, the event would have already been forgotten. Seemingly, at least partly as a result of that hysteria, the proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. Just as ORC floodplain mapping contradicts its in-place flood protection philosophy, so does the proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empt the currently planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise.

Requiring relocatable houses will simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably no money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal for relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

****

2GP PRESENTATION: URBAN STREAM HAZARDS
Neil Johnstone

Urban Stream Comment re Leith and Lindsay Streams:

ORC’s mapping is said to be of residual flooding (post-flood protection works of the past 80-plus years), but actually represents what might have been envisaged many decades back in something considerably greater than the record 1929 flood with none of the very significant channel works of the 1930s, 1940s and 1960s; or even those lesser improvement of the 2010s in place. The ORC 2GP mapping includes areas that didn’t get flooded in 1923 or 1929. I agree with some potential dangers of stream blockage (especially in Lindsay Creek, and to a lesser extent at Clyde Street and Rockside Road), but one can only consider locations of feasible blockage in today’s conditions. Furthermore, accepted professional practice for flood plain mapping requires detailed hydrology, probability analyses, climate change allowance, hydrograph routing, in-channel modelling (allowing for stream capacity variability), and overland flow modelling. ORC’s flood mapping incorporates none of these fundamentals; instead, it reads as little more than a colouring-in exercise, when a professionally researched technical document is required. In short, ORC’s hazard analysts have carried out no fit-for-purpose analysis for a District Plan process.

Interestingly, the concerns expressed by ORC hazard analysts re channel blockage are entirely inconsistent with ORC’s own design philosophy and consent application evidence for the recent Flood protection scheme (so called). Design Philosophy minimises the issue.

Very briefly, the mapping is challenged for the following reasons (inter alia):

No descriptions of the effective flood protection initiatives (OHB -1920s and 1930s, DCC -1940s, OCB -1960s) are included. These works have ensured that overtopping is practically impossible in the George Street to Cumberland Street reach, the Clock Tower reach and Forth Street to Harbour reaches. Flood protection in these areas are all built to a much higher hydraulic standard than the so-called ORC scheme of the past decade, and to a far, far higher standard than existed pre-1929.

It is further noted that ORC’s own Design Philosophy Report (OPUS for ORC, 2005) for the proposed Leith/Lindsay flood protection scheme is adamant that debris traps recently (then) constructed at Malvern Street and Bethunes Gully would further mitigate any debris problems. Refer paras 7.7 and 10.6 of that document.

Ponding is mapped where water couldn’t even reach in 1929 (peak flood currently estimated at 220 cumecs, and predating flood protection measures) in the wider CBD area. Flows along George Street in the 1920s only occurred south as far as about Howe Street, then re-entered the river. Nowadays, the accelerating weir above George Street and the structural high velocity channel immediately downstream provide much more clearance than existed in 1929. [Most outflow then from the river occurred much further downstream.] In those downstream reaches, many of the bridges have been replaced or upgraded. Possible remaining points of interest are the hydraulically insignificant extension (circa 2015) of the St David Street footbridge, the historic Union Street arch footbridge, and the widened (circa 2012) Clyde Street road bridge. The flimsy St David Street bridge would not survive any hydraulic heading up so there would likely be of little flood consequence, and backing up upstream of Union St would be largely inconsequential because of the height of the Clock Tower reach banks immediately upstream. The Clyde Street bridge is acknowledged as being lower than optimum, but it has not created any issues in its half century existence. Any overtopping there could only impact on a limited area between the bridge and the railway line.

Overland lows beyond (east of) the rail line remain highly improbable because of the ongoing blocking effect of road and rail embankments. Flows as far as the railway station to the west of the rail line are also highly improbable nowadays as only the Clyde Street area could conceivably contribute.

The 1923 photograph showing ponding along Harrow Street is presented by ORC with an unfortunate caption stating that the water is sourced from the Leith. Some undoubtedly was, but the whole of the city was subject to “internal” stormwater flooding from Caversham tunnel, across South Dunedin to the CBD and beyond. To illustrate further, a NIWA April 1923 flood summary (accessible online) provides a summary of some of the information more fully described in technical reports and newspaper accounts, including:

• Portions of Caversham, South Dunedin, St Kilda, the lower portions of central and northern areas of the City and North East Valley were completely inundated.
• Water in South Dunedin was waist deep.
• The Water of Leith rose considerably and burst its banks in many places, causing extensive damage along its banks and flooding low-lying areas.

Today’s stormwater infrastructure is rather more extensive and effective (when maintained), and DCC has a continuing legal obligation to provide to maintain that service.

The levels plotted across Lindsay Creek seem highly pessimistic. Levels are shown to be of the order of 2 metres above North Road in some locations at least. I have [no] knowledge of any such levels ever having been approached. Care must be taken not to include unfloodable areas in the mapping. I don’t however discount localised channel blockage, and the channel capacity is substandard in many areas. The valley slope ensures that overland flow will achieve damaging velocities. Such velocities are noted in the NIWA summary.

Of greater concern to me, however, is that ORC’s mapping appears to have seriously underestimated the significance of potential Woodhaugh flood issues:-

The river channel through here is both steep and confined. The influences of Pine Hill Creek (immediately upstream) and Ross Creek (immediately downstream) add to turbulence and bank attack. The area was ravaged in 1923 and 1929, and there have been evacuations in some much lesser events in later decades. These areas are at considerable risk in a 50- to 100-year plus event. Hardin Street, Malvern Street had houses evacuated in the 1960s flood. High velocity, rock laden flows and mudslides can all be anticipated, and difficult to counter. Area below camping ground / Woodhaugh was overwhelmed in floods of the 1920s – a focus for flooding depth and velocity.

If the 2GP process is to include urban flood maps, these should be diligently derived, based on historical record and appropriate modelling. The mapping should reflect the real flood risks (including likelihood, velocity and depth). The decreasing flood risk from Woodhaugh (potentially high impact) through North East Valley (moderate impact) through to the main urban area south of the Leith waterway (localised and of little-to-zero impact) should be reflected in the mapping.

[ends]

2GP Hearing Topic: Natural Hazards
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/hearings-schedule/natural-hazards.html

█ For more, enter the terms *johnstone*, *flood* and *south dunedin* in the search box at right.

Related Posts and Comments
6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood
10.6.16 “Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article

[DCC Map differs from what was notified]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

8 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Education, Geography, Health & Safety, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Urban design

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

Cracking the truth : June 2015 South Dunedin flood

OPINION received from Neil Johnstone
Sat, 10 Sep 2016 at 12:42 a.m.

Richard Stedman produces (below) a succinct review of the causes of, and failures after, the South Dunedin flood of June 2015. His frustrations appear to match those of Hilary Calvert that were published a few hours earlier. My reviews previously published on What if? Dunedin commencing back around February give more detail.

For your readers’ further consideration, Richard has highlighted the ‘200mm increase’ in flood level as a result of Portobello Road pumping station failures. The figure was derived by me, and appears in my review of the first DCC flood report. To my knowledge the only clear comparable DCC concessions have come from chief executive Sue Bidrose who admitted the figure publicly at the 20 June 2016 (yes, 2016) South Dunedin Action Group-organised public meeting, and subsequently.

The first DCC flood report (30 Nov 2015) is adamant that high groundwater was the cause of the flooding, and enough Councillors bought right into that excuse at the following Infrastructure Services Committee meeting. Just go back and view the video, if you’ve forgotten.

Dunedin City Council Published on Dec 7, 2015
Dunedin City Council – Council Meeting – November 30 2015
Discussion of the report starts at 1:09:52

The second (mudtank) DCC report of 26 April this year states: “Although Portobello Road’s performance did explain some of the length of time flooding was evident, much of the flooded area was below road level…” (para 31). No mention of increased depth of flooding there either, you will note.
[View report at Infrastructure Services Committee: Agenda & Reports 26 April (Part A, Item 5) pp 6-27.]

Neither DCC report mentions the additional depth of flooding caused by inaction at the Musselburgh pumping station.

History and ongoing design may rely on written commentaries. For the wellbeing of South Dunedin people, we must therefore continue to counter the misinformation contained in DCC reports, and in the more recent ORC (DCC-backed) South Dunedin “hazards” report. Even if ODT has switched off.

Related Posts at What if? Dunedin
8.3.16 [Review 1] Johnstone independent review of DCC report
19.5.16 [Review 2] Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report

Correspondence supplied
7.3.16 Letter, Chief Executive Sue Bidrose to Neil Johnstone
10.3.16 Response from Neil Johnstone to CE Bidrose

sue-bidrose-south-dunedin-a-changing-environment-radionz-co-nz-detailSue Bidrose at ORC/DCC hazards presentation [radionz.co.nz]

****

OPINION received from Richard Stedman
Fri, 9 Sept 2016 at 8:24 p.m.

The ODT editorial department is peopled by closed minds, a number of whom subscribe to the climate change/rising sea level mantra and therefore manipulate their content to support their distorted view of the world. Mr Morris is captured by the former/present regime at city hall, a fate which befalls every reporter assigned to that round once they get their feet under the table.

Two weeks ago I prepared an opinion piece re the election and South Dunedin, outlining some of the issues as I see them in the hope that it might be published. I thought it was honestly held opinion, but it was rejected because it added “nothing new” to the debate, yet they run to Cull at every turn and run column after column of repetitive nonsense.

The following is my submission submitted on 24/8 and rejected the same day in this message: “Thanks for this submission, but we have had a “deluge” of flood letters and op eds from all sides so I don’t feel the need to highlight the issue again at the moment – certainly if there’s not anything new in it, as such”.

I have seen little evidence of the cited “deluge”.

The South Dunedin flood of June 2015 may be a tipping point during next month’s local body election. Many voters will look at the burgeoning candidates list for the Dunedin City Council and ask “who will provide the cornerstone elements of responsibility, accountability and integrity?”

Residents and business owners in South Dunedin have been sorely tested in recent times through the failure of the DCC to maintain its infrastructure. Among those adversely affected were elderly residents at Radius Fulton Home, including a number of dementia patients, the most vulnerable in our community, who were subjected to floodwaters containing sewage and transferred from the safety of their home in a crisis beyond acceptance. Some were accommodated as far away as Balclutha and Oamaru and three months passed before the facility was re-opened.

Following the flood, obfuscation clouded the failures that led to the inundation of homes and businesses and the investigation and report into the affair was 12 months in gestation. Officials and councillors, captured by the twin mantras of climate change and rising sea level, avoided any suggestion of culpability to limit the likelihood of litigation, and offered no solace that might have been construed as admission of liability.

The mayor and others were quick to blame rising sea level causing increased groundwater, combined with an “extreme weather event”, the result of climate change, and went so far as suggesting that a planned retreat from South Dunedin may be necessary in the future. The rainfall was described as a one-in-100-year event then gradually downgraded, but none of these pretexts are realistic. Questions arise over who is responsible for what, and how serious are the threats of rising sea level, more frequent adverse weather caused by climate change, and the “sinking of South Dunedin”, not to mention “retreat”.

Dunedin and environs have been subjected to much larger weather events in the past. Flooding of the entire city is well recorded and in particular photographs of the 1923 flood depict rowing in floodwaters in the city as well as inundation in South Dunedin. During a storm in 1898 large tracts of St Clair Esplanade were destroyed by the sea which damaged many houses, leaving some partly suspended. More recently, the storms of 1968 were greater than last year’s, delivering 10% more rainfall. In 1968 there were 90 properties invaded by floodwater, whereas last year some 1200 properties were flooded and many contaminated with effluent. Clearly last year’s event was exceptional only for the damage created and lives disrupted.

At a public meeting in South Dunedin on June 20, more than 12 months after the event, those affected had an opportunity to hear an explanation in the hope that someone might take responsibility for the extent of the damage. Despite a good representation of councillors there was no empathy and no likelihood of accountability. What the meeting heard was a long explanation of how the three-waters system works, or doesn’t work, as the case may be, and of failure at the pumping station from chief executive, Dr Sue Bidrose and other staff. The question is “when did the city’s councillors abdicate?”

south-dunedin-flood-june-2015-radionz-co-nzSouth Dunedin June 2015 [radionz.co.nz]

It can be argued that the damage and distress was the result of neglect, but the DCC says problems at the pumping station added only 200mm to the flooding which would have occurred anyway. Which 200mm was it? Maybe the first 200mm flowed across the ground, reached blocked drains then deepened throughout the area, or perhaps the last 200mm increased the depth and entered homes and business premises carrying undesirable flotsam. Without the extra 200mm would the water have stopped at the thresholds rather than flowing inside?

What of the rising sea level threat? Is it as urgent and as devastating as the commissioner for the environment, some DCC councillors and the Green Party say? The Greens proffer that the Government should help to pay for the reconfiguration of South Dunedin. Why? There has been no disaster on the scale of the Canterbury earthquakes and there is no immediate danger condemning South Dunedin, for if sea level were to rise according to some projections, north Dunedin and other areas are also in jeopardy meaning protection on the coast is futile because the flat land would be inundated from the harbour.

Could it be that models of sea level rise around New Zealand are exaggerated and distorted by the multiplier effect have been grossly over stated? And do the $7 million apartment complex at the Esplanade to be completed next year and the DCC’s belated discussion on a South Dunedin hub indicate mixed messages on the subject?

There is no doubt that the infrastructure must be maintained to the highest level and upgrading implemented with haste. The seafront calls for a level-headed approach to protect the sandhills which shelter the city from the ocean. In the past a network of groynes captured the sand, maintaining a broad beach to dissipate the energy of the waves. The network succeeded for nearly 100 years, but without maintenance fell victim to the ocean, so is it time to reinstate a similar system and then plan carefully for the next 100 to 200 years?

Council says that infrastructure will require “tens of millions of dollars” we cannot afford, but plans to spend some $37 million on George Street and the Octagon, followed by development of the harbourside. These “tens of millions” surely must be re-allocated to South Dunedin for infrastructure, to build a second pumping station, and provide realistic coastal protection.

Dunedin needs new councillors who will make hard decisions, reduce spending on fripperies and attend to basics; people who are prepared to drill deep into reports and costings and who are not afraid to make unpalatable decisions when needed rather than govern with slogans and platitudes.

Declaration: Conrad Stedman is my nephew.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

4 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Calder Stewart playing games at Carisbrook

S H I F T I N G ● T H E ● G O A L ● P O S T S

█ Site zoned industrial under district plan and proposed 2GP.

█ Company lobbying to evade set condition for 10.5m setback —for own commercial gain.

### ODT Online Mon, 15 Aug 2016
Old stadium site ruling questioned
By David Loughrey
The company that owns the former Carisbrook Stadium site in South Dunedin is calling on the Dunedin City Council to scrap a 10.5m setback suggested for its Burns St frontage. Calder Stewart says the setback will cover 1963sq m of land worth about $600,000, and will not provide the benefits suggested in the second generation district plan (2GP). The company took its concerns to the 2GP hearings last week, as a hearings committee considered what the next district plan will look like. […] Research undertaken by the University of Otago had shown South Dunedin had a low population of native birds because of a lack of habitat, and planting of native or exotic trees there would provide a valuable habitat resource.
Read more

[click to enlarge]
Dunedin Jan-03 [flyinn.co.nz] 1Dunedin Jan 2003. Image: flyinn.co.nz

Carisbrook 26.5.13. Rob Hamlin 1Carisbrook May 2013. Image: Rob Hamlin

DCC Webmap - Carisbrook, South Dunedin JanFeb 2013DCC Webmap – Carisbrook, South Dunedin JanFeb 2013

C A R I S B R O O K

Source: Wikipedia

Broke ground 1881 | Opened 1883 | Closed 2011 | Demolition starting 2013

Former Tenants:
Otago Rugby Football Union | Highlanders (Super 14) (1996–2011)

Carisbrook was a major sporting venue in Dunedin, New Zealand. The city’s main domestic and international rugby union venue, it was also used for other sports such as cricket, football, rugby league and motocross. Carisbrook also hosted a Joe Cocker concert and frequently hosted pre-game concerts before rugby matches in the 1990s. In 2011 Carisbrook was closed, and was replaced by Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza in North Dunedin.
Floodlit since the 1990s, it could cater for both day and night fixtures. Known locally simply as “The Brook”, it has been branded with the name “The House of Pain”, due to its reputation as a difficult venue for visiting teams.
Located at the foot of The Glen, a steep valley, the ground was flanked by the South Island Main Trunk Railway and the Hillside Railway Workshops, two miles southwest of Dunedin city centre in the suburb of Caversham. State Highway 1 also ran close to the northern perimeter of the ground.
Carisbrook was named after the estate of early colonial settler James Macandrew (itself named after a castle on the Isle of Wight). Developed during the 1870s, it was first used for international cricket in 1883, when Otago hosted a team from Tasmania. It hosted rugby union internationals since 1908 and full cricket internationals since 1955.
The stadium was home to both the Highlanders in Super Rugby and Otago in the ITM Cup through each side’s respective 2011 season. It is also the former home of Otago cricket, which moved to the University Oval at Logan Park in the north of the city after the redevelopment in the early 2000s, and also of Otago United Football team in the New Zealand Football Championship, which moved to the lower-capacity Sunnyvale Park for the 2008–09 season.
█ Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carisbrook

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

17 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Stadiums, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium