No protection for Dunedin’s DARK Skies —Otago Peninsula subdivision decision #GrievouslySucks

Commissioner Colin Weatherall said the amended application was expected to have fewer adverse effects on the environment. He treated “with caution” some of the evidence received by submitters opposing the consent.
ODT: Peninsula subdivision approved (7.4.17)

Opponents of a plan to allow residential development on land designated an outstanding natural landscape area on the Otago Peninsula have labelled the decision “terrible” and “a travesty”.
ODT: Project by inlets ‘travesty’ (8.4.17)

****

Dunedin City Council
78 Cape Saunders Road, Portobello, Dunedin (LUC-2006-370881/B)
█ Letter of decision (PDF, 3.3 MB) 57 pages all inclusive

More about the application at this DCC webpage.

Whatiffers, consider lending support to any organised submitters (opposing the decision on points of law) who decide to take this to Environment Court.

—

Meanwhile At Twitter:

Oh well. May as well say goodbye to the Aurora Australis from Hoopers and Papanui Inlets. #disaster pic.twitter.com/v6MBwuBFel

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 6, 2017

Today I'm officially in mourning for Dunedin's dark sky initiative. Sorry to say a dream for a dark sky future has been extinguished #sad pic.twitter.com/sgFSPVmbID

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 6, 2017

Very sad day for Dunedin stargazers & dark sky tourism efforts https://t.co/qZeQYDT6be‘terrible’-dark-skies #sad

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 7, 2017

Woah observing Jupiter from my front garden. Star party anyone? pic.twitter.com/fZWTNx6OGG

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

If you have a telescope and live in New Zealand a transit and shadow transit of one of Jupiters moons is about to begin.

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Woah. Just taken this picture of Jupiter. You can see the Red spot + Shadow Transit + Transit of its moon Io #astronomy #astrophotography pic.twitter.com/SQSNRNTFli

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Here’s my picture of Jupiter tonight annotated. #astronomy #Astrophotography #Jupiter pic.twitter.com/oHDJrbes0r

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Next up on tonight's observing list on a perfect night here in Dunedin is Saturn. What a beauty! pic.twitter.com/FO1O8F7kNK

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

What an amazing night here in the Deep South of Aotearoa. Clear sky, moonlight dominating but Jupiter and Saturn looking gorgeous

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Nice view of the moon tonight from Portobello #moon #astronomy #Astrophotography pic.twitter.com/ePGW8DsBA6

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Wow. I can’t believe I shot this picture from my front garden with a small telescope! Saturn last night from Portobello. #astronomy #saturn pic.twitter.com/VEJh1X7Yhk

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

Holy Moly. Its incredible what you can see with a small telescope these days! This is Jupiter from my front garden last night! #astronomy pic.twitter.com/tOlrYUVYTm

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) April 8, 2017

—

Related Post and Comments:
8.3.17 Ancestral landscape, natural heritage, dark skies & the district plan #respect ● [more Dunedin dark sky images from the Peninsula]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Mosgiel Pool site options, survey twists

At Facebook:

****

### ODT Online Mon, 27 Mar 2017
Delay in approving pool site irks trust
By John Lewis
The Taieri Community Facilities Trust has made a decision on the preferred site for the new Mosgiel pool, but will have to wait another two weeks before it is considered by the Dunedin City Council …. [Trust chairwoman Irene Mosley] said the trust voted about 10 days ago to ask the DCC to go with an amended Site A, which was near the existing pool. “The trust had 447 responses; 52% were for Site B (Memorial Gardens), and 40% were for Site A …. However, once the comments were taken into consideration, along with the actual votes, the trust discovered that many of those in favour of Site B were in favour because of concerns about the existing pool being closed during the new pool build, potential parking issues and road safety concerns at the proposed entrance off Gordon Rd. The trust believes by locating the new pool further into the existing caravan park, and moving the park towards the Reid Ave side of the fields, these concerns can be mitigated.”
Read more

****

Old footage / older survey:

Channel 39 Published on Aug 13, 2015
Proposed Mosgiel pool site submissions being analysed
More than three hundred public submissions on the proposed Mosgiel pool site are being analysed. The city council’s earmarked four possible locations for a new swimming complex. And a clash with existing assets is upsetting some residents.

—

Related Post and Comments:
14.12.16 Mosgiel pool site options —muddy water from mainstreet businesses

█ For more, enter the term *mosgiel pool* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Ancestral landscape, natural heritage, dark skies & the district plan #respect

[penguin.au.com]

Peninsula: Exploring the Otago Peninsula | Paul Sorrell
Rich in recreational opportunities and with a strong sense of culture and community, the peninsula is a place like no other. Author Paul Sorrell and photographer Graham Warman discover the sweeping landscapes, unique mix of wildlife and engaging local personalities found on this special slice of New Zealand’s southern coast…. Penguin promotion

### ODT Online Sat, 7 Sep 2013
People and place portrayed
By Helen Speirs – ODT books editor
PENINSULA: Exploring the Otago Peninsula by Paul Sorrell and Graham Warman (Penguin)
From its volcanic formation, to early Maori settlement and the first European visitors, the book traces the influences of humans on the land, examining fishing and farming practices and architectural landmarks including the Mason and Wales “White House”, Larnach Castle, Fletcher House, Otakou marae, Portobello Aquarium and Marine Studies Centre, and the Armstrong Disappearing Gun. […] The rich diversity of the “wildlife capital of New Zealand” is a highlight, with information about the area’s jewelled gecko, its multitude of birdlife – including Taiaroa Head’s northern royal albatross, New Zealand sea lions and yellow-eyed penguins. […] The book’s design and layout is simple and reader-friendly, the writing informative and accessible, and the photography stunning – the sweeping vistas of the peninsula land and seascapes, with the light playing on the water and shadows in the folds of the land are particularly evocative.
Read more

[teara.govt.nz]

Otago Peninsula by Colin McCahon [tepapa.govt.nz]

****

P A P A N U I ● I N L E T ● W A K A ● F I N D

### ODT Online Tue, 14 Oct 2014
Historic waka find excites as peninsula gives up secret
By Hamish McNeilly
The discovery of a historic waka unearthed from Papanui Inlet is a “significant find”, a local kaumatua says. A waka – believed to be a fishing waka (waka hi ika) – measuring 6.17m was excavated from the edge of the inlet over the weekend, and is now in storage. Otakou runanga kaumatua Edward Ellison said the “exciting” discovery “sheds new light [on] the historical use and occupation of the Papanui Inlet and surrounds”. It was likely the vessel dated from the Ngati Mamoe occupation of that part of the Otago Peninsula, before “Ngai Tahu came down and pushed some of them further south”.
Read more

### ODT Online Thu, 16 Oct 2014
‘I knew it was something significant’
By John Lewis
If it were not for changing tidal flows, the fishing waka unearthed from Papanui Inlet on Otago Peninsula at the weekend might never have been discovered, Department of Conservation historic technical adviser Shar Briden said. The 6.17m waka was under 1.6m of sand and was discovered by chance in August by Ms Briden. She said the channel flow had changed, with the estuary water now cutting over the top of the waka. […] The waka was excavated and refloated using whale pontoons at the weekend, and moved across the estuary at high tide to where it could be retrieved. The waka is believed to be the only one found in Otago, and has archaeologists around the country buzzing.
Read more

### ODT Online Sun, 28 Dec 2014
Waka remnants give glimpse into past
By Shawn McAvinue
A waka submerged in a locked wooden tank at the Otakou marae in Dunedin continues to reveal the past to archaeologists. Te Runanga o Otakou manager Rachel Wesley said the fishing waka, unearthed from Papanui inlet on Otago Peninsula in October, was on the marae and submerged in fresh water in a locked wooden tank. […] The waka was moved to the marae in early December […] Samples of the waka had been sent to Auckland and Dunedin to determine its age. The waka conservation work would take more than two years […] Department of Conservation historic technical adviser Shar Briden said other wooden artefacts were found before the waka was discovered and they revealed some more about it.
Read more

### ODT Online Fri, 6 Feb 2015
Waka believed from the 1500s
By Hamish McNeilly
The historic waka unearthed from Papanui Inlet was used in the 1500s, it has been revealed. Dilys John, of Auckland University’s anthropology department, has dated the worked waka and the prepared fibres from inside the hull at being between 440 and 463 years old. Otakou runanga elder Edward Ellison said the waka remained in water at the marae, and the salt would slowly be removed out of the timber over the next two years. The waka would be preserved and then possibly be put on display […] It was believed the waka was used by Waitaha – the first occupants of the site – or Ngati Mamoe […] “The mere thought that the hands that made and used the hand-woven fibres belonged to ancestors who lived at Papanui Inlet at least 20 generations ago is quite breathtaking.” Dating the waka helped with comparisons with other sites around New Zealand and confirmed “the specialness of the Papanui Inlet”.
Read more

█ Anyone who found an object should leave the item in situ and report the find to the Department of Conservation. (ODT)

****

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

### ODT Online Wed, 15 Apr 2015
Seeking dark sky city status
By Vaughan Elder
The Dunedin City Council is to investigate ways of limiting light pollution, after councillors were told Dunedin could become the world’s largest “dark sky city”. Otago Museum director Ian Griffin spoke about the issue of light pollution at yesterday’s planning and regulatory committee meeting when he discussed the museum’s planetarium development, which is to open later this year. “We see the planetarium as not just a brilliant educational tool [but also] potentially an anchor for a new strand of tourism in this city.” There was a massive potential for growth in night sky tourism in the city and the council could support that by acting to limit light pollution in areas such as Otago Peninsula, where viewing conditions were best, Dr Griffin said.
Read more

fight to save dark sky for #Dunedin is on. A 3 day hearing decides if houses can be built at dark sky beauty spot pic.twitter.com/rswPMWOTk0

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 5, 2017

How many Dunedin councillors are speaking out to save views like this? The silence. The silence….. #speakupfordarksky pic.twitter.com/bxSj19uH5X

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 5, 2017

So. 13 hours until the start of the fight to protect one of the finest views of the heavens I've ever seen #savethebackbaysindunedin pic.twitter.com/FmhDm9Gzo3

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 6, 2017

Picture #1 in the case for the defence of Papanui Inlet. Can you see any lights? You will if the planned houses go ahead #savethebackbays pic.twitter.com/WpmnHPIsDn

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 6, 2017

Pic #2 in defence of Papanui. See this #auroraaustralis? You won't when light pollution stops your pupils dilating pic.twitter.com/cvxwf0Mnvo

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 6, 2017

A video timelapse I shot at Papanui Inlet in 2015. Enjoy it as someone plans to build houses right in this shot! https://t.co/1l6NkzJBve

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 6, 2017

Want to enjoy the sheer majesty of Hoopers Inlet? Voila https://t.co/zgO2k29r0c this is why I love it & want to protect it #savethebackbays

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 6, 2017

Right. Evidence submitted to the Back Bays housing hearing. Respect to @lozzjoy for providing legal advice to try and save views like this! pic.twitter.com/yMLUp8glEV

— Ian Griffin (@iangriffin) March 8, 2017

—

Downloads:
● Evidence from Dr Ian Griffin 1.3.17
● Evidence from Dr Ian Griffin Graphic supplement
● Dr Ian Griffin Submitter Legal Counsel’s tabled submission 8.3.17

****

P R O B L E M ● C H I L D R E N

### ODT Online Fri, 10 Apr 2015
Quarry operator faces hearing over breach
By Chris Morris
An Otago Peninsula quarry operator found to be digging beyond his boundary faces a public hearing to determine the future shape of the operation. The Papanui Inlet quarry operation, headed by Peninsula resident Steve Clearwater, was found to be in breach of its existing consent following an inspection by council staff early last year.
Read more

### ODT Online Fri, 31 Jul 2015
May need new consent, quarry hearing told
By John Gibb
A “catch-22” legal problem involving a quarry on Otago Peninsula means all parties, including the applicant and many submitters, may have been wasting their time attending a consent hearing. […] The hearing involves a quarry, which had operated as a smaller farm quarry before a consent allowed it to expand in 2007. Steve Clearwater Contracting, headed by peninsula resident Steve Clearwater, has been accused by council staff of not complying with rules designed to restrict his quarry’s operation. […] Council officials say the quarry was found to be operating beyond its boundary early last year, by extracting rock from further up Geary’s Hill than was permitted. The applicant, Peninsula Holdings Trust, is seeking a variation on its existing consent, to legalise what has been done, but it is also seeking to expand its footprint for future operations. The application has prompted 40 submissions, including 32 from neighbours, many opposing it.
Read more

### ODT Online Sat, 1 Aug 2015
Quarry hearing adjourned
By John Gibb
Independant commissioner Andrew Henderson has adjourned a Dunedin consent hearing to consider legal issues linked to a quarry overlooking Papanui Inlet in a “treasured ancestral landscape”. Mr Henderson, of Christchurch, said yesterday he would consider legal issues over how to proceed with an application, on behalf of the quarry operator, to vary conditions in an earlier 2007 consent, involving the quarry on Otago Peninsula.
Read more

—

Neighbours are fighting plans to expand a quarry overlooking Papanui Inlet, after it was found to be in breach of 10 resource consent conditions. (ODT)

### ODT Online Fri, 28 Aug 2015
Fears for Otago Peninsula hill
By Chris Morris
A quarry operator accused of flouting rules on Otago Peninsula could seek to remove a hill overlooking Papanui Inlet, neighbours fear. Steve Clearwater Contracting, headed by peninsula resident Steve Clearwater, has been accused by Dunedin City Council staff of showing “contempt” for rules designed to restrict his quarry’s operation. […] “Geary’s Hill, at the head of Papanui Inlet, is an integral part of a wider wahi tupuna [ancestral landscape]” […] The Otakou runanga was concerned about the “incremental carving away at the basic elements of this ancestral landscape leading to greater and irreversible changes”.
Read more

### ODT Online Wed, 23 Sep 2015
Quarry expansion plans scuttled
By Craig Borley
Controversial expansion plans for an Otago Peninsula quarry have been declined by an independent commissioner, but quarrying will continue on the site. The Geary’s Hill quarry, overlooking Papanui Inlet, was last year found to have breached many of its 2007 resource consent conditions. It had extended further up and across Geary’s Hill than consented, while a paddock consented to receive fill to a depth of 1m had since received considerably more than that. Dunedin City Council staff concluded it was in breach of at least 10 consent conditions, while compliance with another five was questionable. Quarry operator Steve Clearwater Contracting, headed by peninsula resident Steve Clearwater, had been forced to seek a variation on its existing consent to legalise what it had done, while also seeking to expand its footprint for future operations. Neighbours feared the variation, if accepted, could eventually lead to the complete removal of the hill. But that variation was declined last week and was now subject to a 15-working-day appeal period. […] The council had accepted it had been deficient in monitoring the 2007 consent.
Read more

### ODT Online Mon, 6 Feb 2017
Subdivision bid opposed
By David Loughrey
A plan to subdivide 260ha of rural Otago Peninsula land in an outstanding natural landscape area has run into serious opposition, as a resource consent bid heads for a March hearing. Groups from Forest and Bird to Save the Otago Peninsula (Stop), and individuals from peninsula tourism and accommodation businesses, as well as astronomers and archaeologists, have lined up to oppose the project. Land owner Steven Clearwater described opposition from property owners in the area as “nimbyism”. He said the farm on which the subdivision was planned had been dotted with farmhouses a century ago, and he wanted to protect his right to build there again. The project is the work of the Peninsula Holdings Trust, made up of property owners Steven and Jacqueline Clearwater and Brian Hailes. The trust has applied to the Dunedin City Council to subdivide the rural zoned land at 78 Cape Saunders Rd. The land has a capital value of almost $1.9million.
Read more

—

“Allowing property owners to subdivide small parcels for residential use scattered around a large farm property is not in accordance with the expectations of either the district plan or proposed plan.” –Lianne Darby

### ODT Online Mon, 13 Feb 2017
City planner opposes subdivision
By Margot Taylor
An application to subdivide 260ha of Otago Peninsula land in an outstanding natural landscape has hit another hurdle with a planner’s report recommending the application be declined. Dunedin City Council planner Lianne Darby recommended the council decline the bid to subdivide a property at 78 Cape Saunders Rd, citing negative effects on the environment and the potential  “undesirable” precedents it could set for rural zoning if approved. […] If such a proposal  were approved, there could be a “major change” to the appearance and character of the land, she found. The subdivision, on an isthmus of land between Hoopers Inlet and Papanui Inlet and the northern slopes of Mt Charles, was also inconsistent with aspects of the district plan relating to sustainability, land fragmentation, rural productive worth, roading and landscape, the report found. She did not believe the proposal, which would create 10 new sites, on which consent was sought for residential activity on eight, was a sustainable use of the city’s physical and natural resources. The proposed sites would be between 2ha and 194ha.
Read more

Downloads:
● DCC Planner’s Report Pages 1-44
● DCC Planner’s Report Pages 45-88

—

### ODT Online Wed, 8 Mar 2017
Papanui developer reduces sites plan
By David Loughrey
The developer of a subdivision on an Otago Peninsula isthmus has halved the number of houses planned for the site, surprising opponents ready to argue against the plan. Peninsula Holdings Trust came to a resource consent hearing in Dunedin yesterday with a proposal that reduced the number of houses in the outstanding natural landscape area from eight to four. Landowner Steven Clearwater told the hearing he had recently signed a conditional sale agreement for some of the land involved to nearby farmer. Plans for a covenanted area of wetland and a public walking track were withdrawn, after the buyer of the land made it “very clear” they were not to be offered. The change led hearing commissioner Colin Weatherall to adjourn the meeting after the trust made its submissions, allowing opponents time overnight to modify theirs.
Read more

****

S U B D I V I S I O N ● A P P L I C A T I O N

Dunedin City Council
Non complying activity – 78 Cape Saunders Road – SUB-2016-58 & LUC-2016-336

Closed: 09/12/2016

Notification of Application for a Resource Consent – Under Section 93(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
The Dunedin City Council has received and notified the following application for Resource Consent:

Application description
Council has received an application to subdivide the above nine titles of 78 Cape Saunders Road into eleven lots and a balance parcel. The subdivision will create ten new sites of 2.0ha to 194ha. Eight of the new sites will be smaller than 15.0ha and are therefore considered to be undersized.
Land use consent is sought for new residential activity within proposed Landscape Building Platforms on Lots 1 to 2, 4 to 6, and 8 to 10. Lot 3 (38ha) has an existing quarry operation with an established dwelling. The amalgamated site of Lot 7 and 12 (194ha) will be a farming block with no dwelling, and will be subject to a covenant restricting all residential development of this site. The balance land of Part Lot 54 Papanui Maori Reserve Blk (residue CFR OT205/103) will be amalgamated with Lot 10.
The quarry operation will need to be reauthorised as it will be contained within a smaller site. It will be a discretionary (unrestricted) activity pursuant to Rule 6.5.6(v).
The subject sites are zoned Rural in the Dunedin City District Plan, and are within the Peninsula Coast Outstanding Landscape Area (Visually Recessive and Visually Prominent Areas). The general area is identified as being subject to land stability risks, and parts of the subject sites are potentially at risk to liquefaction.
Subdivision of a Rural-zoned site into lots smaller than 15.0ha is a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 18.5.2 of the Dunedin City District Plan. The construction of buildings (dwellings) within a Landscape Building Platform is considered to be a controlled activity pursuant to Rule 14.6.1(a)(i). The proposed residential activity on those lots smaller than 15.0ha is also considered to be a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 6.5.7(i).
The Proposed Second Generation District Plan (“the Proposed Plan”) was notified on 26 September 2016. Rules 16.7.4 (minimum site size for rural zones) and 16.9.5.5 (assessment of subdivision performance standard contraventions – minimum site size) were given immediate legal effect pursuant to section 86D of the Resource Management Act 1991 at the time of notification. Accordingly, the Proposed Plan rules also need to be considered alongside the Dunedin City District Plan rules.
The subject sites are zoned Rural – Peninsula Coast in the Proposed Second Generation Plan, and are within the Peninsula Coast Outstanding Natural Landscape. There are land stability risks identified for this site. Parts of the subject sites are shown as Hazard 2 – Land Instability, and Hazard 3 – Coastal. The coastal edges of the property are shown as Coastal Environment and Archaeological Alert Layer. There is a Wahi Tupuna Site 36 – Poatiri (Mt Charles) on-site.
Rule 16.7.4 specifies a minimum site size of 40.0ha for lots created by subdivision in the Rural – Peninsula Coast zone. The proposed subdivision is therefore a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 16.7.4.3. The land use rules for the Rural zones are not yet in effect or operative.
The application is accompanied by Ecology, Landscape, Heritage, and Geotechnical Reports.

The submission period for this application has closed, and a hearing/decision is pending.

Consent number: Non complying activity – 78 Cape Saunders Road – SUB-2016-58 & LUC-2016-336
Name of applicant: The Peninsula Holding Trust
Location of site: 78 Cape Saunders Road, being that land held in Computer Freehold Registers 207075 (43.3047ha), 95918 (34.0552ha), 95919 (2004m2), OT15C/195 (20.5432ha), OT45/181 (5741m2), OT254/294 (18.2058ha), OT254/295 (20.8768ha), OT205/103 (102.9627ha), and OT11B/1033 (16.9917ha)
Address for service: The Peninsula Holding Trust, C/O Cubitt Consulting Ltd, 11 Bedford Street, Dunedin 9012

RELATED DOCUMENTS AT DCC WEBSITE:
● Evidence tabled at the hearing
● Submitter Pre-Hearing Evidence
● Applicant’s Pre-Hearing Evidence
● Agenda
● Application documents
● Submissions
Go to http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/notified-applications-pending/sub-2016-58-and-luc-2016-336

● Download: Applicant’s Photographs

[screenshots – click to enlarge] *see Clearwater’s quarry at Lot 3

Site plans

Applicant’s tabled site plan which includes covenants

Applicant’s tabled revised plan for Lot 4

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Gurglars visits the Delta/Noble JV subdivision at Yaldhurst

Received from Gurglars
14/02/2017 9:07 p.m.

George Noble Rd, Yaldhurst

Who wants to live near power lines? They run right through the subdivision.

No one is working at Yaldy, this glass has been on the road for a long time.

A digger strategically placed to suggest action – reality, inaction.

The crowning glory – unbelievable, no ads for Yaldhurst sales but an ad on the property for a subdivision near Pegasus!

—

whatifdunedin replies:
Nearby subdivisions sold well with power lines and pylons…
Weird mentality at CHC.

That hoarding (not that old… months only) originally featured marketing for the commercial area at the Yaldhurst subdivision. Recently pasted over with Infinity’s other project.

[“Ravenswood, half an hour north of Christchurch, is being offered for sale by developer Infinity Investment Group, which says the project is too big for it.” See last note at (28.3.15) Stuff: Gloomy outlook for solar housing in Christchurch; and (9.8.16) Stuff: Work to begin on Ravenswood development after sale abandoned.]

****

Received from Gurglars
2017/02/15 at 6:51 am

News Flash
The word on the street is that a well-heeled solid respectable group offered $12,000,000 actual cash, money, moolah, for Yaldhurst.
The idiotii accepted a notional nonexistent $13million from a $1000 capitalised company who have subsequently made no moves towards repair, consents, or even inspected their new purchase.
If they have inspected it, one would have thought they would clean glass from the road (been there so long it’s almost fused and embedded). Maybe they would have mowed the grass? Or perhaps they would have found the keys to the lone token digger. Having commenced these $5 dollar cleanups they may have been able to put a sign up advertising the properties.
And why is activity important to a Dunedin ratepayer or councillor?
Because honey, we do not get any money until they sell profitable sections.
That’s why the $12,000,000 cash was the only offer that the idiotii should have accepted and folks that’s why you do NOT elect Greens, flakes and dreamers, because it’s your money they have, and will enjoy wasting.

whatifdunedin replies:
Your point is well made, Gurglars. But. It’s much more complicated than that. Seller was the buyer. And we have Graham Crombie (accountant!) as middle man, we wonder who he is really working for, Gordon Stewart? Justin Prain? Murray Frost? Previously/still, Stuart McLauchlan? Who.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Mosgiel pool site options —muddy water from mainstreet businesses

At the public forum before Monday’s Council meeting, the Taieri Community Facilities Trust (aka TCFT or ‘pooling together’) turned up in the guise of Irene Mosley, its chairwoman. Her only visible means of support was Bill Feather, ex Mosgiel-Taieri community board chairman.

Ms Mosley put up images of two site options (see graphics below), however nobody in the public gallery could read them. A previous round of public consultation had determined that 127 people favoured Site A, the site of the existing pool beside the Silver Stream. And 17 favoured Site B, at the township’s Memorial Gardens.

Ms Mosley is lobbying for the build being at the Gardens, a site (B) more likely to flood. Site A, the existing pool site, is higher; and the flood banks to the Silver Stream are doing their job.

We were trotted the line that the (rearguard) push for Site B was entirely down to the Otago Regional Council (ORC) because they have issues with Site A, that construction could potentially destabilise the flood bank. Phooey. Pure folly, Ms Mosley! Besides, ORC has no particular jurisdiction over the siting.

Ms Mosley carefully emphasised that a second round of public concultation on site options was for “transparency”. Hmm. Although she told Councillors there’s lots of positive support for the new pool, we’re not too sure who Ms Mosley has asked lately. We doubt the “positive support” is people with spare millions to give away on her trust’s “Logic” (loaded commercial term) dream.

All we know is business owners in central Mosgiel want the pool located closer to them, thus why Site B is being PUSHED by the trust. What a lot of fines there are, swirling about in the local water supply.

—

Mosgiel resident Peter Sim said he would oppose Site B. Green space was “at a premium” in Mosgiel and the DCC was “nibbling away” at it. “It’s time it bloody well stopped.”

### ODT Online Tue, 13 Dec 2016
Pool locations not ‘perfect’
By Shawn McAvinue
The two possible locations for a new aquatic facility in Mosgiel were revealed yesterday, along with a concession that “neither site is perfect”. At a Dunedin City Council meeting, Taieri Communities Facility Trust chairwoman Irene Mosley revealed the possible footprint of both sites … “We have decided we need to go back to the community and explain there is no perfect site … we just want to get it right.”
Read more

—
 
From the pool trust’s website [click to enlarge]:

█ More information at http://www.poolingtogether.org.nz/

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 23.7.16 Mosley’s Pond now a Dunedin Community ‘asset’ to fund
● 26.11.15 DCC report: Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision
● 16.9.15 DCC Please Explain —Mosgiel pool design to Warren & Mahoney
● 10.9.15 Tale of two pools … #Mosgiel #Wanaka
● 7.8.15 MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility #MosgielPool
● 24.7.15 Hands off Mosgiel Memorial Gardens
● 23.7.15 Dunedin ratepayers —Green Island best site for city pool users…
● 22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
● 19.5.15 Mosgiel pool trust conflicts of interest #bigfishsmallpond
18.5.15 NEWSFLASH —Mosgiel pool, tracking [PONT] . . . .
17.5.15 Cr Vandervis on DCC project budgets
● 4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
● 7.5.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16-2024/25 —public submissions online
● 12.4.15 Mosgiel pool trust calls on Dunedin ratepayers to fund distant complex
1.4.15 ‘Pooling Together’ (TCFT) loses chairman, resigns [see Wanaka pool]
28.3.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16 to 2024/25 —CONSULTATION OPEN
25.3.15 DCC Long Term Plan: Green-dyed chickens home to roost
11.3.15 Mosgiel pool trust PLAINLY hasn’t got ‘$7.5M community support’
● 6.3.15 Propaganda from trust for Taieri pool project #Mosgiel
● 2.3.15 DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow) [renders]
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.15 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
14.1.15 DCC Draft Long Term Plan: more inanity from Cull’s crew pending
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Whiley, buying the mayoralty with Dunedin Ratepayers’ money ?

Much hoo-haa over a very expensive community pool.
Who pays for it.

Andrew Whiley probably loves former Greater Dunedin candidate Irene Mosley (Taieri Community Facilities Trust aka Pooling Together) who appears to support taking major projects off DCC to project manage privately….
[Carisbrook Stadium Trust tricks].

Or, does the mayoral and council hopeful love – So Much – For Votes – the residential developers carving up Taieri paddocks with bunker-style housing on cul-de-sacs, who might or might not say no to a ‘greater Dunedin’ rates-funded pool complex over their back fence. Dunno.

Would Professional Rugby rather its own pool complex at the Logan Park sport and recreation hub ?? Since Mosgiel is far flung, and all that’s really needed is an upgrade to the township’s existing pool !!

Now, about targeted rates for the Taieri Area population to afford their Expensive Four-Pool Complex.

What Should happen.
Consider very carefully who you rate when voting.

Received today:

█ For more, enter the terms *mosgiel*, *taieri* and *pool* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

Mosley’s Pond now a Dunedin Community ‘asset’ to fund

Taieri Times 13.7.16 (page 1)

Taieri Times 20.7.16 (page 8)

Taieri Times 20.7.16 (page 7)

Epitaph. Prudence said she couldn’t swim in the DCC pool at Mosgiel, nor Moana, they both drowned.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 26.11.15 DCC report: Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision
● 16.9.15 DCC Please Explain —Mosgiel pool design to Warren & Mahoney
● 10.9.15 Tale of two pools … #Mosgiel #Wanaka
● 7.8.15 MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility #MosgielPool
● 24.7.15 Hands off Mosgiel Memorial Gardens
● 23.7.15 Dunedin ratepayers —Green Island best site for city pool users…
● 22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
● 19.5.15 Mosgiel pool trust conflicts of interest #bigfishsmallpond
18.5.15 NEWSFLASH —Mosgiel pool, tracking [PONT] . . . .
17.5.15 Cr Vandervis on DCC project budgets
● 4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
● 7.5.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16-2024/25 —public submissions online
● 12.4.15 Mosgiel pool trust calls on Dunedin ratepayers to fund distant complex
1.4.15 ‘Pooling Together’ (TCFT) loses chairman, resigns [see Wanaka pool]
28.3.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16 to 2024/25 —CONSULTATION OPEN
25.3.15 DCC Long Term Plan: Green-dyed chickens home to roost
11.3.15 Mosgiel pool trust PLAINLY hasn’t got ‘$7.5M community support’
● 6.3.15 Propaganda from trust for Taieri pool project #Mosgiel
● 2.3.15 DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow) [renders]
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.15 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
14.1.15 DCC Draft Long Term Plan: more inanity from Cull’s crew pending
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

*Images: shortzilla.com – duck in pond | dadvmom.com – blacknwhiteswim

Delta #EpicFail : L is for (Slow) Luggate Learner and T is for Turnip.

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Wed, 4 May 2016 at 12:55 a.m.

Readers, I must admit defeat. I have I think, even if I say so myself, achieved some quite good lines in my quest to succinctly describe the various acts of stupidity committed by Delta at the Noble Subdivision. But recently, an associate (probably keen to cut me down to size !) sent a piece from Fairfax by Tim Hunter, now at the National Business Review, following the Auditor-General’s report in 2014. I saw immediately I had been bested by a better scribe : He memorably described the Delta management as having “commercial acuity about as sharp as a turnip” . That I could reach such cutting brevity !! Mysteriously, no threat of defamation was forthcoming to Mr Hunter….

And as the coast is clear, to honour Mr Hunter, Delta management shall henceforth be referred to as the Delta Turnips….

Your correspondent was intrigued to read of the Lazarus like re-emergence of Luggate Park as a premium lifestyle subdivision destination of choice with prices for sections between $325,000 – $495,000. (Note, no offers are entertained – these are fixed prices say developers Willowridge !) If this goes according to plan, there appears to be a profit even larger than the reported Delta loss of $5.9M* for the enterprising Mr Allan Dippie, the latest owner of the ex Delta land.

Now, your correspondent understands that Mr Dippie may not have as many university degrees as the Delta directors, or possibly not one at all. Mr Dippie does not breathe the same rarefied directorial air as the likes of Mr Stuart McLauchlan, Mr Denham Shale and other ….directors. However Mr Dippie does know his Central Otago subdivision market very well, and further knows that land development sometimes has to be viewed long term, the way a Japanese banker views the deadbeat property loans they made in Tokyo in the 1980s that are still underwater. That is, if you still own the asset you haven’t lost anything, and time will do its work and lift values. The critical thing is to have the courage of your initial convictions, and stay the course. Yes, yes, I know, the Japanese banks are still waiting, but no waiting is required, it seems, in Luggate.

Readers, take a good long draught of Choysa : Delta had TWO choices in 2012 : Sell the land for basically nothing ($1M vs a total Delta investment of around $7M), or…wait until the market improves. Of course, Delta chose to destroy ratepayers’ funds value in a desperate attempt to show ratepayers they had “moved on” and it was all a bad dream –

If Delta had an ounce of the foresight of someone like Mr Dippie, who has been both very successful, and also very patient at times, they would have held the land. A few facts about the land – the 42 entry level sections to be sold in the next stage will be worth around $6M, added to the $9.17M of the 22 premium sections, gives a total of $16.2M. There possibly could be further sections that would increase the value, but the glass is dark on this detail.

After allowing for subdivision infrastructure and selling costs, the land that Delta sold for $1M three years ago would now realise them $9-10M. Yes readers, Delta could have made a genuine, non Aurora subsidised profit and got the civil work they wanted, at good prices. They could have even paid Mr Boult’s bank debt off, paid off the $1.935M bank loan, some interest to DCC treasury and the entire $5.5M advance and still have a bit left over.

What possessed them to act like lemmings jumping off a financial cliff ? Two words … Denham Shale. Mr Shale was the alleged heavy hitter brought in to clean up the Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) and Delta mess after the Larsen report in 2011, along with Mr Bill Baylis and others. He knew even less about property development than the likes of Mr Ray Polson. L for Learner developers indeed. As Mr Hunter exclaimed, turnip acuity was all around. Mr Shale was of the school that says when you have a mess, a clean out, not a clean up is needed…. A clean up keeps the items that have a chance of retaining value. Mr Shale told Mr Polson to write down the value of Luggate and get shot of it in April 2012. Mr Polson, being the invertebrate mild mannered accountant he is, then parroted that line to the Delta board a month later. The rest is well known. A bath. This is all in the Auditor-General’s report, in Section 6, for readers that doubt your correspondent.

Mr Denham Shale’s legacy to the City of Dunedin is a $8-9M loss due to turnip advice (aka profoundly stupid advice) to sell land for a fraction of its cost and value. Any developer or person involved in land in Central Otago for any length of time has seen huge fluctuations in value, generally in a 7-year cycle… Your correspondent is one such person, who lays no claim to visions of the future, but who has had to hang tough for extended periods in Central Otago on various deals.

All Delta had to do was talk nicely to DCC Treasury, to explain the $5.5M advance they gave Delta was a couple more years away – they had already waited for five years, who’s counting anyway ? Make an offer to Mr Boult of his 50% share of slightly more than the $1M they received (he had already asked Delta to buy him out having seen the Delta trough was empty), and start paying interest on the $1.935M bank loan. Not difficult. But required some vertebrates.

Mr McLauchlan, Mr Shale, Mr Cameron and the other directors, yes, they all displayed “commercial acuity about as sharp as a turnip”. –How I love that phrase ! This band of Delta Directors could not grasp what to Mr Dippie is as natural as breathing – that they stopped making land a long time ago, around the time of the flood and Noah’s Ark. That people want to live in Central Otago, so therefore the land price will rise, maybe not when you think, but given time rise it will. This, Mr Shale, Mr McLauchlan, and (2014 Young Director of the year) Mr Cameron is called, SUPPLY & DEMAND. Your elementary lack of foresight and myopia has cost the City of Dunedin millions. L is for Learner, T is for Turnip. Which one applies, readers ?

[ends]

Election Year : This post is offered in the public interest. -Eds

—

Related Post and Comments:
30.4.16 Luggate à la Dunedin’s lad, Dippie

Auditor-General’s overview
Inquiry into property investments by Delta Utility Services Limited at Luggate and Jacks Point. Access the Auditor-general’s full report here:
http://www.oag.govt.nz/2014/delta

*The ‘Auditor-General’s overview’ states (page 5):
“Delta lost about $5.9 million on the Luggate investment and has projected a loss of about $2.8 million for Jacks Point. These losses are before tax, and Delta expects that they might yet be off set by tax credits of about $1.5 million for Luggate and about $0.8 million for Jacks Point. If so, the overall loss would be about $6.4 million.”

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *luggate*, *jacks point*, *auditor-general* or *noble* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Image: pinterest.com – turnip

Luggate à la Dunedin’s lad, Dippie

The jovial CD was driving towards Dunedin this morning…. gave me a wake-up call to foreshadow a new post pending for that old spectre : “L” for Luggate, or learner plates for Delta Directors and Mr Cameron.

Yessss. While the Noble subdivision at Yaldhurst heads for the rocks, it appears DCC Ratepayers have been doubly triply shafted at Luggate. Anyway, won’t steal CD’s thunder. He is in the offing!

—

Sat, 30 Apr 2016
ODT: Former Delta sections in Luggate hot property
Part of the big Luggate Park subdivision that lost Dunedin City Council-owned infrastructure company Delta $5.9million before tax in 2012 is being advertised for sale. The 22 sections in “Luggate Heights”, near Wanaka, range in price from $325,000 to $495,000, providing the owner, Willowridge Developments Ltd, with a potential gross return of $9,170,000. Similarly-sized sections at lower altitudes nearby were selling for as little as $128,000 five or six years ago.

Willowridge, owned by Allan Dippie, bought the 50ha, 160-section Luggate Park development last year from Auckland development company Dentils Ltd, which was unsuccessful in attempts to sell the sections. Dentils had bought the development from Delta and Queenstown property developer Jim Boult.

█ Willowridge Developments Ltd http://www.willowridge.co.nz/
█ LUGGATE PARK http://luggatepark.co.nz/

Auditor-General’s overview
Inquiry into property investments by Delta Utility Services Limited at Luggate and Jacks Point. Access the Auditor-general’s full report here:
http://www.oag.govt.nz/2014/delta

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *luggate*, *jacks point* and *auditor-general* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: roadcodepractice.co.nz – ‘L-plate’

DCC stewardship #FAIL —Tomahawk School (community asset)

Blog: Paul Pope on the Peninsula
My life and issues on the Otago Peninsula Community Board

Paul writes a new post
Waste Not Want Not – Tomahawk School

I’ve never liked seeing things go to waste. Especially when those things can be used again by someone else or redesigned for another purpose. It’s probably why I have a garage full of “junk” or as I like to call it “things that might come in handy one day”. Now I’m just talking about small stuff, nuts, bolts, door latches and bits of timber, but lately I’ve seen a much bigger issue of waste that has been frustrating Tomahawk for more than three years.

Image: Paul Pope

In 2012 the Dunedin City Council purchased the Tomahawk School site from the Ngai Tahu for $300,000. The school had been closed by the Ministry of Education in 2010 and the property sold by the Crown. The 2012 purchase by the Council was made as part of the Coastal Dune Reserves Management Plan process, creating a required level of protection for adjacent dunes. However, it appears that coastal protection was not the only reason for the purchase by the Council. It would be fair to say that those reasons have become considerably muddled. On one hand there is the thought that the land and school are a community asset. While on the other there was a view within Council that it was essential to buy the property to stop subdivision and consequent residential development on coastal land into 15 properties with 15 houses.
█ It gets worse, read on…. more photos

Media Stories
3.3.12 ODT: DCC buys school from Ngai Tahu
3.2.10 3News: School with no pupils forced to remain open

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Super Dave #DUD #CityRiseUp

Received.
Sun, 6 Sep 2015 at 3:32 p.m.
[click to enlarge]

█ Download: Super Dave (PDF, 106 KB)

—

‘Super Dave’ was written in response to this news item:

### ODT Online Tue, 1 Sep 2015
Group out to protect City Rise
By Damian George
One of Dunedin’s biggest heritage areas is under threat from increasing development of high density student flats, a new lobby group says.
About 60 people from around the area have banded together to form City Rise Up, a group tasked with “maintaining the character” of central Dunedin and stunting what it says is a major demographic shift.
Read more

There has been no meeting of signatories since the statement was published:

### ODT Online Tue, 12 May 2015
Joint effort to tackle Dunedin’s drinking
By Eileen Goodwin
A joint statement signed by 10 organisations signals a new approach to addressing the binge-drinking culture in parts of the city, Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull says. Entitled “Dunedin North Issues”, the statement released yesterday says “pressing action” is required to keep young people safe, curb excesses of alcohol-fuelled behaviour, and protect the livelihoods of Dunedin businesses and tertiary education institutions.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 31.8.15 Legal bloody highs | DCC’s pathetic buffer zones….
● 18.8.15 Dunedin authorities blame SUNSHINE #tui
15.7.15 Business owner forcibly removed from Dunedin Central police station
26.6.15 University of Otago flyover #partyville
24.6.15 DCC Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS)
30.5.15 ‘Captive market for addiction maybe or scapegoats?’ asks Otago student
26.5.15 Student involvement in Dunedin drinking culture
17.5.15 Social media messages after Sunday TVNZ (10 May)
12.5.15 View Street, seen from Moray Place
11.5.15 Don’t for Chrissakes play down effects of liquor barons #DUD
11.5.15 Aftermath of Sunday TVNZ on ‘Party Central’
● 8.5.15 Sunday TVNZ #Dunedin —10 May TV1 at 7:00 pm
2.4.15 University rolls down, Harlene not the only problem….
28.3.15 University of Otago landscaping
22.3.15 University of Otago: More national and global publicity #HydeStreet
18.2.15 University of Otago: Toga Party 2015 #video
16.2.15 University of Otago can’t beat broadcast news and social media #image
● 11.11.14 Dunedin’s draft local alcohol policy (Lap) —submissions….
8.5.14 Student Proof Carpet – New Zealand #video
15.2.14 University of Otago: Starter questions for Harlene

█ For more, enter the terms *university*, *harlene*, *alcohol*, *publicity*, *hyde*, *party*, *octagon mud*, *student*, or *blaikie* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image posted to Twitter by @MartinShovel 6 Jan 2015 – coiffure added by whatifdunedin

DCC explains Harbourside subdivision in reply to Vandervis

Received from Sandy Graham, DCC Group Manager Corporate Services
Friday, 16 January 2015 5:06 p.m.

—

From: Sue Bidrose
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 3:59 p.m.
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Council 2013-2016 (Elected Members); Sandy Graham
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Lee

Here is the Planner’s discussion about the Chalmers subdivision in the paper today. They have given generic information about how such decisions are made (to be notified or non-notified) and then how those principles stacked up in this specific case. They have then also addressed each of your specific attributes for this particular subdivision (size, political interest, transparency etc.) and how much impact that each of these can/can’t have on their decision-making around making the application notified/non-notified. I know you know much of this background Lee, but as you cc’d all Councillors, I wanted a generic response for Councillors who are not Hearings Panel members, so forgive my ‘teaching Granny to suck eggs’ approach.

Attached is also a couple of sketches that the planner (Lianne) made for herself showing the subdivision at the start of the process, and then at the end, just for your information for those of you who are interested in knowing exactly which lots were affected.

Regards
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

[click to enlarge or view PDF immediately below]

█ Download: Chalmers subdivision diagrams (PDF, 1.0 MB)

——————————

From: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 3:36 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Sue,

Please see below an email that Lianne has prepared in response to your query. I will also be sending some diagrams.

Please let me know if you need anything further.

Regards,
Jeremy

——————————

From: Lianne Darby [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 2:03 p.m.
To: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Subject: RE: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Jeremy

In response to Sue’s questions:

1. All subdivisions require resource consent. This is not a suggestion that there is a fault with subdivision, but is simply a matter whereby Council maintains control i.e. makes sure there is access, servicing, the land is geotechnically stable, etc.

The District Plan sets out the criteria for subdivision within the different zones, and where a subdivision meets the criteria, it is usually processed non-notified. In the case of the Port 2 and Industrial 1 zones, subdivisions are expected to comply with Rules 18.5.3 (access), 18.5.4 & 18.5.4 (requirements for esplanade strips or reserves), 18.5.6 (service connections), 18.5.9 ( a rule which has since been deleted and no long applies), 18.5.10 (lots in unserviced areas) and 18.5.12 (structure plans). Some/most of these rules will not be relevant to specific proposals. It should be noted that there is no minimum area or frontage requirements for lots in these zones. A subdivision meeting all these rules is a restricted discretionary proposal. It is worth noting the final paragraph of Rule 18.5.1 which states:

“… any application for subdivision consent involving a discretionary activity (restricted), the written approval of affected persons need not be obtained.”

… that is, a land owner may subdivide in accordance with the expectations of the District Plan for the zoning without needing to consider others as affected parties.

Subdivisions which do not meet the above rules (unrestricted discretionary and non-notified activities) are often processed non-notified as well if the proposal involves no change in land use, the non-compliance can be mitigated, or there are no consequences for neighbours, the general public or the District Plan integrity. For example, in the residential zones, new lots require frontage. Many lots do not have any frontage at all and the subdivision is a non-complying subdivision as a result. However, these lots will have rights of way providing them with legal and physical access, so the lack of frontage is not considered of any consequence. We do not notify these applications.

As a general rule, subdivisions are notified when there is a breach of density i.e. the new lots are undersized and will result in development at a greater density than the zoning would anticipate. This has the potential to change the wider amenity of an area or overload Council’s services, among other matters. However, if the land is already developed, then the subdivision of the land into lots smaller than anticipated is not usually considered a matter of concern as there will be no actual change occurring except on paper. For example, a lot with two houses could be subdivided into two undersized lots, each containing a house, without the subdivision being notified.

Large subdivisions are not notified simply because they are large. If the subdivision is in accordance with the District Plan expectations, i.e. meets the relevant rules, it will not be notified. For example, the large Mosgiel residential subdivisions currently underway have not been notified except for Heathfield which involved a lot of undersized lots.

Planning does not take into account political or commercial interests when processing resource consents.

2. The subdivision of Chalmers Properties was non-notified for several reasons.
a) It meets the necessary requirements for subdivision in the Port 2 and Industrial 1 zone. Any deficiencies there may be in servicing (e.g. the need for individual water connections) will be addressed as part of the consent conditions, as is typical.
b) There is no new development proposed. The subdivision is not for the purpose of creating vacant sites for new development. This does not mean that the new lots cannot be redeveloped, but this is not the purpose of the subdivision; nor is redevelopment dependent on the subdivision. The existing sites can be redeveloped at any time should the property owner desire.
c) The subdivision is not so much a large subdivision as a number of small subdivisions all being put on the same plan. We are starting with 15 existing titles and finishing with 34.
d) The new lots have, by my understanding, been selected mainly to coincide with existing leases. Council does not have access to lease information and does not know who the leaseholders are (barring door-knocking). Council does not normally consider lessees or property renters as affected parties as the tenancies are private agreements. The subdivision of the freehold parcels should not have implications for the terms of any leases or leasehold titles.
e) Many of the existing titles are comprised of multiple sections. The original subdivision created many small parcels, and these have been grouped into freehold titles to give the 15 subject sites. Section 226 of the RMA allows a property owner to separate these parcels onto separate freehold titles if certain conditions are met. This is not a subdivision, and Council does not have discretion to say ‘no’ if the conditions are satisfied. Many of the new lots follow existing parcel boundaries and could arguably have been dealt with using s226. Given the number of titles being dealt with and the fact that some buildings might actually, when checked by survey, be over boundaries, the applicant decided to deal with them all by a formal subdivision at once; a one step process whereby any breaches of buildings over existing parcel boundaries will not cause the project to stall.

3. As noted above:
a) Size. The size of the subdivision is not a deciding factor in notification if the subdivision rules are met. In this case, the subdivision is not so much a large subdivision as a number of small subdivisions dealt with together. There is no change in land use anticipated as a direct result of this subdivision as there are already established land uses for the new sites.
b) Political implications: Council does not take into account political implications when processing resource consents. Consents are assessed on their merits and not according to who the applicant is or where it is situated. The zone is the relevant factor, not the neighbourhood or the history of the area.
c) Planning implications: There are no planning implications associated with this subdivision. The subdivision meets the necessary rules as set out by Rule 18.5.1(iv) for the Port and Industrial zones. There is no minimum site size set for the zones, so there are no undersized lots. All lots are serviced and have access. They are already developed with lawfully established activities. Any existing encroachments of buildings over boundaries will be resolved by this subdivision. The subdivision is a restricted discretionary activity.
d) Public interest: It is difficult to see how public interest is relevant in this case. The subdivision does not challenge the integrity of the District Plan in any way, and this is the public planning document being applied. The terms of all existing leases should not be affected (and this is a matter between the property owner and tenants anyway, not Council). There is no change to the sites occurring as a direct result of the subdivision. While the new lots may be sold and/or redeveloped, the land is in private ownership and can already be sold and/or redeveloped. Council does not decide whether or not a property owner can sell their land. Redevelopment proposals will be assessed by Council if and when they arise.
e) Commercial interest: Council does not take into account commercial interests when processing resource consents. The RMA sections 74(3) and 95D(d) instructs a consent authority to disregard trade completion or the effects of trade competition.
f) Transparency: The applicant is a private land owner who is entitled by the District Plan to undertake certain activities on their land. While subdivision is not a permitted activity, Council does not decline subdivision applications where the proposal is in accordance with the relevant subdivision requirements and the land is stable (i.e. section 106 of the RMA is not triggered). This is not Council land, nor Council’s project. The resource consent application and decision are public documents available for anyone to view, and in this regard, there is transparency about the proposal. It was decided for the above reasons that the proposal did not need to be notified.

The consent decision makes evident that there are a large number of addresses involved. In a nutshell, the property owner has a large number of addresses which do not fully align with leases, which do not fully align with freehold titles, which do not fully align with buildings on-site. The subdivision seeks to tidy up, or rationalise, the landholdings for ease of the property owner’s administration, as noted in today’s Otago Daily Times paper.

Regards

Lianne

——————————

From: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:43 a.m.
To: Lianne Darby [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

FYI…

—

From: Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:11 a.m.
To: Jeremy Grey [DCC]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: FW: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Hi Jeremy
Please read the Councillor email below about why the subdivision in today’s paper was done on a non-notified basis. I need details on this – is it possible (please read the details below) to do this today?

I need the details about:
1. Generically: how a planner decides notified vs non-notified – the things you are legally allowed to take into consideration generically, not specifically this case – what are the RULES and steps for making that decision
2. Specifically: how those rules were applied and steps taken in this specific case

Given my response to the Councillors is quite likely be shared reasonably widely, it might be useful in answering that first dotpoint for you to imagine you are writing a sort of ‘guide to the notification decision-making process’.

Thirdly, it would be also useful if you could tell me specifically on how each of the following issues is allowed to have weight in that decision of notification:
Size (of subdivision/change)
Political implications
Planning implications
Public interest
Commercial interest
Transparency.

Jeremy, if you could cc Sandy in your response please, as we will disseminate the answer and all relevant emails the way we do with LGOIMAs – and I suspect we could well get LGOIMAs about this also.

Thanks
Sue

Dr Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

—

From: [name redacted on forwarding to council staff]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 7:53 a.m.
To: Sue Bidrose [DCC]; Sandy Graham [DCC]
Cc: (all councillors)
Subject: Non-notified ORC subdivision?

Dear Sue,
Why has the massive subdivision of 15 ORC properties into 34 lots [today’s ODT p4] been processed on a non-notified basis, given the size, political and planning implications, and public and commercial interest in this range of properties?
Notification is surely a necessary prerequisite for such a large range of subdivisions to be carried out in a transparent manner is it not?
Kind regards,
[name redacted]

[ends]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
9.1.15 DCC: Non-notified decision for harbourside subdivision
27.12.14 Port Otago Ltd + Chalmers Properties
17.11.14 Bradken keen to sell Tewsley Street premises
12.6.14 Dunedin’s industrial land
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: Non-notified decision for Harbourside subdivision

Updated post 13.1.15 at 1:25 a.m. Map added.

Notice:

20 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 8 Bombay Street Dunedin, 10 Bombay Street Dunedin, 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin, 47 Willis Street Dunedin, 59 Willis Street Dunedin, 34 Mason Street Dunedin, 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 56 Willis Street Dunedin (SUB-2014-149)

This consent was an application to/for subdivision at 20 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 8 Bombay Street Dunedin, 10 Bombay Street Dunedin, 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin, 47 Willis Street Dunedin, 59 Willis Street Dunedin, 34 Mason Street Dunedin, 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin, 56 Willis Street Dunedin.

This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 25 November 2014.

█ http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning/browse-non-notified-decisions?result_146838_result_page=3

Information obtained from City Planning 12.1.15

Harbourside subdivision (SUB-2014-149)
Applicant: Chalmers Properties Ltd

“The proposed subdivision is to be undertaken in one stage, and will not create any vacant sites intended for development. Nor is any redevelopment of the new lots anticipated.” (from the Decision) ??? Are we sure….

█ SUB-2014-149 Decision (DOCX, 1.62 MB)

█ SUB-2014-149 Application 2014-10-30 (PDF, 9.33 MB)

Decision (final page) – Copy of Plan: Not to Scale. [click to enlarge]

DCC Webmap – Dunedin Harbourside [click to enlarge]

Dunedin City District Plan – Harbourside zones (detail) via Map 35 and Map 49

Heritage New Zealand – Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area # List No. 7767

—

DCC Ratepayers:

● 20 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Anzide Properties Ltd
● 32 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Anzide Properties Ltd
● 36 Cresswell Street Dunedin – McCormick Carrying Properties Ltd
● 8 Bombay Street Dunedin – Ross D Matheson, Mary K O’Hara Matheson
● 10 Bombay Street Dunedin – Nicen Ltd
● 14 Tewsley Street Dunedin – Ewen W Heather, Leanne M Kent, Russell S Melville
● 47 Willis Street Dunedin – Steel and Tube Holdings Ltd, Pacific Oriental Holdings Ltd
● 59 Willis Street Dunedin – Christie Paper Ltd
● 34 Mason Street Dunedin – Otago Daily Times Ltd
● 44 Cresswell Street Dunedin* – Graeme M Crosbie, Gillian K Crosbie
● 47 Cresswell Street Dunedin – Hyde Park Industrial Developments Ltd
● 56 Willis Street Dunedin – Development Six Ltd

*Note: Conflicting DCC mapping information for 44 Cresswell Street, Dunedin. Property adjoins 14 Tewsley Street, does not include 14 Tewsley Street.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
16.1.14 DCC explains Harbourside subdivision in reply to Vandervis
27.12.14 Port Otago Ltd + Chalmers Properties
17.11.14 Bradken keen to sell Tewsley Street premises
12.6.14 Dunedin’s industrial land
18.3.14 Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

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

—

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

Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs

Synchronised: Highlanders-to-be (sports star training at Mosgiel)

—

Unaccepted for publication at ODT Online today. Aww.
Hard to sell at Logan Park
new
Submitted by ej kerr on Wed, 16/07/2014 – 11:49am.
What a fine accommodation for professional rugby this aquatic scheme for the Taieri truly is. Shades of the model so well utilised by the earlier trust named after Carisbrook and headed by Malcolm Farry, still operating as a boon to Dunedin city ratepayers. In the months ahead let’s see how many times the new patron leaves out the word ‘Rugby’ (capital R) or the phrase ‘private property development costs on the City’ in favour of philanthropic zeal expressed for healthy retirement living and enhanced aged care facilities (hydrotherapy for aching rugby shoulders and thighs), sunshine and splash for young families – don’t forget schools! – as the Taieri’s high class soils get carved and private forests near Brighton assist the housing build. Yeah, don’t say there’s merely a saint in goggles amongst us, Lord be praised, it’s the second Dollar coming. An epiphany.

ODT article: Gerrard backing pool bid

—

Related Posts and Comments:
15.7.14 Stadium: Who is being protected?
15.7.14 Rugby stadiums not filling #SkyTV
13.7.14 Great quote: men
12.2.14 DCC: Growth v development contributions
10.2.14 University of Otago major sponsor for Highlanders
4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
2.4.13 Dunedin: Developers stoop to resource consents instead of…
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: kpbs.org – Men who swim

Significant Tree: 28A Heriot Row

Proposed for Removal: Significant Tree T578

Submissions Close: 30/05/2014

Notification of Application for a Resource Consent – Under Section 93(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

The Dunedin City Council has received the following application for Resource Consent:

Application description
Resource consent is sought to remove a significant tree at 28A Heriot Row, Dunedin. The tree is a Maple Tree (genus Acer) and is recorded as T578 in Schedule 25.3 of the Dunedin City District Plan. The tree is located in the front yard of the subject site.

The site is legally described as Part Section 30 Block XXIV Town of Dunedin, held in Computer Freehold Register OT96/150, and has an approximate area of 463m2. The site is located within the Royal Terrace/Pitt Street/Heriot Row Heritage Precinct (TH08).

Applicant: John and Evellen Jackson of Drysdale Ltd – 142 Stafford Drive, Ruby Bay, Mapua 7005

Read more:
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/current-consultation/significant-tree-28a-heriot-row

Quick Find: Application LUC-2014-157 (PDF, 882.3 KB)

Light green circle indicates trunk position of Maple tree at 28A
Sketch concept for site development supplied by applicant

DCC Webmap showing proximity of Ritchie House, 26 Heriot Row

—

The applicant only seeks removal of the listed tree; a second resource consent application would be required to develop the subject site, since it is located in the heritage precinct.

SUBDIVISION HELL AT HERIOT ROW
The subject site is part of the former garden allotment, with original brick garage, of the Heritage New Zealand listed Category 1 Historic Place, the Ritchie House at 26 Heriot Row. This large, outstanding Arts and Crafts house and the brick garage were designed by renowned Dunedin architect Basil Hooper.

The applicant bought the property knowing the Significant Tree (Maple) was listed for protection in the district plan. The tree does not preclude development of the site; and note there is a covenant in place.

Independent consulting advice from an arborist, a landscape architect, and a design architect, to the Hearing Committee should be mandatory for consideration of the application. An opinion should also be sought from Heritage New Zealand (heritage precinct).

—

Heritage New Zealand registration information for 26 Heriot Row – go to Assessment criteria at http://www.heritage.org.nz/the-register/details/7492

Dunedin Heritage Fund
(administered by Heritage New Zealand and the Dunedin City Council)
2004. The owners of Ritchie House received a $20,000 loan to assist with a range of restoration works.

Seen from 28 Heriot Row – 28A garden with Maple tree, and 26 Ritchie House

Related Post and Comments:
22.2.13 DCC: Significant Trees

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

You are here: Mapping Auckland — Auckland Museum Tamaki Paenga Hira

Maps capture fleeting moments in history. They reveal the knowledge, perspectives and plans of particular groups of people at specific moments in time.

You Are Here shows Auckland as a city that has been planned, designed and drawn many times over. See maps from the rich, vast collection in Auckland Museum’s library.

What did Auckland look like on paper 70 or even 170 years ago? How did early Aucklanders depict the space around them? And what stories do these maps have to tell?

Created by Auckland Museum, The University of Auckland and Unitec.

Now open | Auckland Museum
Pictorial Gallery (2nd floor)
Open daily, 10am – 5pm
FREE entry

Maps have real impact on the shape of the land. This short film plays in Auckland Museum’s You Are Here exhibition and shows how they reconfigured Auckland City’s waterfront — most dramatically at Freemans Bay. Film made by Lakshman Anandanayagam (www.linechecker.tv)
Concept researched by Solomon Mortimer.

http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/1632/*you-are-here—mapping-auckland

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Same again, Dunedin City District Plan about to be ignored

Just like the application for Prista Apartments in Princes St… pretend the District Plan never happened. Case in point too, the expansion of large retail into land formerly zoned industrial.

Stan Rodger is far from alone in his thinking.
Hello, all Commissioners of the DCC Hearings Committee.

—

“The DCC’s committee says it is of a mind to allow the consent to proceed, and what that means is that the district plan is meaningless, destroyed,” the former Dunedin North MP said yesterday.

### ODT Online Mon, 13 Sep 2010
Claim consent will destroy district plan
By Stu Oldham
The Dunedin City Council is passing the buck and in danger of consigning its own district plan to oblivion as it moves a step closer to approving a Mosgiel subdivision, retired MP Stan Rodger says.
Read more

Spot the delaying tactic too, the council’s interim “of a mind” thinking. This contrivance while the council gets its ducks in a line, along with all interim decisions, should be tested via the Environment Court. More and more, we see local authorities utilising interim decisions – what is the legality of these? A sop to “economic development” and to hell with everything else a community-consulted district plan stands for? Hmmm, maybe. But let’s test that.

****

### ODT Online Mon, 13 Sep 2010
118-lot subdivision set for approval
By Stu Oldham
A plan for a residential development at Mosgiel with up to 118 lots seems set to be approved even though 35 of the proposed sections will be smaller than is allowed in the Dunedin district plan. The city council’s hearings committee appears likely to approve the three-stage development Otago Business Park Ltd proposes off Gladstone Rd North, but it wants more information before making a final decision.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

WILD about Wanaka

### ODT Online Sat, 14 Aug 2010
Developments dismay landscape architect
By Matthew Haggart
As residential subdivisions in Wanaka continue to expand the town’s boundaries, the approach of some developers has saddened the Queenstown Lakes District Council’s top landscape consultant. Dr Marion Read, the chief landscape architect at QLDC’s regulatory authority Lake Environmental, says major earthworks associated with some Wanaka developments are destroying parts of the landscape’s most distinctive features.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Sat, 14/08/2010 – 10:14pm.
Comment by qksmith on Landscape Issues
While I am the first to be critical of landscape issues in the district, I think we have to accept that where land is zoned for LDR that we are dealing with a highly modified environment.
Read more

LDR = Low Density Residential

****

Don’t mind my aportioning blame, rightly or wrongly it’s a considered opinion…more like a bad reaction. Of course, Dunedin isn’t free of sprawl at the hands of some people active in Wanaka.

### ODT Online Sun, 15/08/2010 – 6:52pm.
Comment by ej kerr on Wanaka is sprawl

Being an experienced planner or not is hardly relevant when the adverse cumulative effects of house building are totalled for the Wanaka district landscape.

I fully support the comments, as reported, of Dr Marion Read.

My most recent visit to Wanaka two days ago has again reinforced how inadequate the local district plan is to counter unwarranted housing sprawl.

Half the battle might be with the drive of property owners to create (uncritically) an acontextual, uncompromising slice of suburbia in the extraordinarily picturesque, wild and weathered countryside.

Developers of the subdivisions (a small group of influential citizens whom we know by name), like the property owners, are equally uncritical of the environmental impacts of the sprawl they foster, and derive their not inconsiderable profits from.

This hedonistic activity – speculative building – which does not spring from best practice in landscape architecture, architecture (by registered architects), or sustainable environmental design – is supported (‘controlled’) by an ineffectually dull, unresponsive fabric of arbitrary local authority ‘planning’ decisions (zone rules) constraining the use of colour, gables, materials, height plane angles, non reflective surfaces, bulk and location, density et al.

The result is an impoverished sameness, an unspeakably heavy dreariness in the now over-built environment. An eyesore almost without end that submerges/denies the incredible three-dimensional topographical variances of the natural landscape. It might be expensive, it might be what the market demands, it might be what the bulldozer invites, but this is dumbed down contemporary building development at its illogical worst.

The full battle most probably rests with ‘regional planning’ education and professional practice development in New Zealand that is rather too dependent on quasi-legal/legal experiment with the RMA clause and bland generalities of rural zoning – without mandatory professionally accredited multi-disciplinary training in contextual design processes and environmental sustainability.

The collective forces suburbanising Wanaka should be halted. This is not sustainable.

A moratorium, a re-think. District intelligence must be raised for the stewardship and protection of landscape values, inviting informed sympathetic design responses for the making of comfortable ‘dwelling place’…there should be no need for hackles and loss of hair with each visit to Wanaka.

This is a district for smart design, not stuffy inert planning that expects less of the development community than it has to give.

Elizabeth Kerr, Dunedin

—

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

Bike-only subdivision

Tweet:

@AIAColumbia New bike-only development proposed south of Columbia – one its kind in the nation: http://tinyurl.com/23jmf29

After looking at locations in the Carolinas, Georgia and Virginia, the Lexington County site was chosen because it was near so many colleges in Columbia and the new state farmers market, coming nearby to Dixiana.

****

NEW BOOK
The Landscape of Contemporary Infrastructure by Kelly Shannon. Published by NAI, Mar 2010, hardback, 27.94×23.88cms, 272pages, 9056627201

The design of infrastructural networks such as roads, railways and systems enabling flow within a city structure is among urban design’s foremost tasks. Around the globe, the awareness of enhanced infrastructure fluidity as a catalyst for economic development is rising. This rare book investigates how infrastructure design determines the organisation and flow of the inhabited landscape as an agency of enhanced mobility, as a design feature contributing to the character of a city and as a sound theoretical approach to a positive experience of collective space. Issues are explored in 4 chapters that catalogue these approaches, each buttressed with key projects from the world’s most important designers in this field, including Arata Isozaki, Paul Andreu, Xaveer De Geyter, Jean Nouvel and Ricardo Bofill. The authors demonstrate how the creative potential of architecture, landscape architecture and urban design is essential to the effective flow of infrastructural networks.

Post by Elizabeth Kerr