Apartment hotel proposal has FATAL Flaws : ODT offers Flimsy Poll

Updated post.
Tue, 7 Aug 2017 at 2:58 p.m.

We (Dunedin) are confronted by a poorly detailed, plonk-down apartment building proposal that we suspect is fronted by an agent for Asian developers –it would not be unusual for such a proposal to be offered on the strength of tainted money looking for safe haven in the South Pacific.

Our gullible country.
The gullible shiny pants Grow Dunedin partnership.
Our ever so gullible city council under the leadership of cull-cat Cull.

A massively over-height apartment building with a frilly hard-to-read podium base is proposed —a building that may never see a five star hotel as the anchor tenant (never believe unquantified/unqualified pitches from used car salesmen, if all they offer is a Price plucked from the air).

Not so long ago large tracts of New Zealand land were bought and sold for glass beads and muskets.

A lot can happen between resource consent being granted and a deathly, failing, improperly costed build.

Is Dunedin City Council about to find out.

Beware the gift horse.
It turned out Dunedin disliked the hocks of the last one (41 Wharf St), ridden by a little cardigan-wearer. The local suits were paid to make the waterfront tower seem generous, rousing and necessary. Ha-haaa.

At ALL times, the Dunedin City Council MUST stay acutely awake despite its needful dependence on independent commissioners and independent professional advisors – the latter advisors, along with some council staff, appear to have greatly missed the Fact that the minimal concept plans presented for 143-193 Moray Place DO NOT provide a workable building; or a building compliant with district plan objectives, policies, rules, and anticipated environmental results ….or prevailing traffic standards.

Oh dear. ‘So much’ [$$$] for the independent advice. Yes, expensive use of expert and staff time to massage the applicant dream – to no convincing or winning effect.

Further, Dunedin City Council MUST be prepared to APPEAL the outcome of the decision-making process should it wish to AVOID being left with another expensive DEBT VEHICLE in the form of one unfinished and or leaky building …..as the collapsed companies, and dusty heels of run-away developers and construction personnel disappear back to Asian shores, far away from Lake Tekapo ….. dangerously constructed, whole or in part, as a further burden on beleaguered Ratepayers of this fair city.

“What a stupid thing to assume!” you thunder.
“How? On what grounds?”, you chide.
“Dunedin NEEDS a five star hotel!”, imperiously.

You think it’s that simple ??
You’re about to be done over, Buds.

The inference being, oh great apartment hotel supporters, that all that glistens in green-tinted glass is gold, or might be a five star hotel. Yeah right.

It never was. The gold, I mean.
The five star hotel, I mean.
A hoover-up of NZ cash to offshore parties who remain anonymous throughout planning and consenting, and construction and building operation; all supported by the errant notion of immigrant labour and (imperfect) imported materials.

You might as well ask now, How MUCH will the Dunedin economy make ($$$) on this “slap in the face” to the community owned district plan (statutory), and the (strategic) spatial and the central city plans which are publicly consulted policy directions informing the city council’s annual and long term plans.

Not much.

****

During five days of evidence and submissions, one knowledgeable submitter, Mr Russell Lund – well up on construction management, hotel building costs, the visitor accommodation market and investment patterns, and the risk and liability to local authorities in consequence – carefully outlined the quandaries which for various councils around New Zealand have become money-losing Unalterable Fact.

In the original written submission for himself and Suzanne Lund (affected property owners), Mr Lund asserted:

The “assessment of effects” is hollow and of no substance. Under the Act, the assessment of effects is required to be just that, an assessment of effects on the affected properties and tenants. Incredibly, the assessment makes no attempt to examine the effects on all the affected parties.

This, of course, is echoed in independently written and voiced submissions by many opposing the application; and curiously, it is underlined in evidence given by Mr Don Anderson (planning consultant) and Mr David Compton-Moen (urban design, visual amenity consultant), for the applicant.

My own submission to hearing states:

We can’t take what is offered [from the applicant] on trust, because it is incomplete and imprecise; therefore the assessment of effects is difficult to pin down to anything concrete and remains unhelpfully superficial – this was “the work” the applicant was to table for us, we thought, to generously persuade us that moving beyond the ‘norms’ of height in this Dunedin location has measurable benefits against other sites or, through strong honest examination of design alternatives for this site.

I am open to being persuaded. It is expensive to do that persuading. However, it has to happen in other city centres in this country. For an expensive building, isn’t it worth doing the budgeting for preparation of your case – to get the result you want, which is consent to subdivide and build. These are open questions but they lie at the heart of A for architecture as the practical art and science of building economics and professional practice. Behind and in front of the commercial facades, that must have depth of delivery. […] And so I come to the white building model here [a 3D-printed solid plastic model of the proposed building, of hand-held size, put into evidence by Christchurch architect Thom Craig], and the drawings presented by the applicant. There appears to have been too much time spent on merely diagrammatic ‘entreaties’ to architectural form and texture without hacking into 3D investigation. There is not one clear drawing of the way the podium can work for the public or the ‘retailers’ or ‘exhibitors’ – or indeed the people staying at the hotel, servicing the building functions and or using vehicles on site. We get an idea ‘about it’, a not convincing one, there is too much guesswork to do. And so the commissioners’ questions have been rather intense.

****

Now, back to the points the Lunds are making. In their original submission on the application, Mr Lund says:

7. I have serious concerns about the expertise and amount of resource that has gone into assessing the feasibility of the project. In the last year, the Otago Daily Times advised the developer, Mr Tosswill of Horizon Hospitality, had indicated that the cost of the project, which was then 200 rooms and 52 apartments was $50-75M. The proposal now is for 210 rooms and 66 apartments, which is not substantially different. The car parking and front of house areas are similar to the original application. The application confirms the hotel has a gross floor area of 20,835 m2.
In my opinion this hotel will be not built for anything less than around $100M, and this casts serious doubts over the viability of the scheme.
Evidence of this is found for the building costs of the much simpler 200 room 4 star Novotel Hotel being built at Christchurch airport after a competitive tender process (and utilising an Asian fabricated structural steel structure). It is well known in the building industry that the tender costs received for that very regular and efficient 7 level hotel were $4,500-5,000 per m2. The Novotel is a filing cabinet design, that is, it is a completely regular rectangular structure which provides the most efficient floorplates and the best wall to floor ratio, ie the least amount of exterior wall enclosing the maximum possible amount of interior space. The Novotel has no balconies.
The applicant’s proposal is far less efficient, and therefore more costly per m2, as it is effectively three blocks grouped around a central core, but the blocks themselves are not rectangular, but have recesses, and there is a significant amount of extra cost with most rooms having screened “smokers” balconies, which entails effectively, 2 exterior systems, one for the rooms, and another enclosing the balconies.

8. The application confirms there are 16,136 m2 of above ground (habitable or hospitality space) and 4,687 m2 of below ground, back of house / car park space. At a cost of $2,200-2,500 per m2 for the below ground floors, and $5,500 per m2 for the above ground space, the proposal has a construction cost of over $100m, excluding land, furnishings, design marketing, et al. The total budget excluding GST will be around $130M. A feasibility study will typically have to include a development margin of at least 20 %, preferably 25 %, if any sort of lender is involved. This means the end value of the project will need to be at or over $160M. If the best case scenario is adopted and Mr Tosswill is able to convince Chinese or other overseas investors to pay the current market value in Queenstown for premium, new managed hotel rooms and apartments of $10,000 per m2 – for a hotel with an unproven demand in Dunedin, it is still not enough.
Selling all the apartments and hotel rooms will yield about $90M, which is a long, long way from the $160M end value needed. The parking and lower public floor spaces on a yield basis will have a value of around $10M, that might get the project to $100M. Mr Tosswill in earlier reports stated that the value was around $90M, so while there is broad agreement on the likely end value, the estimate of the cost is not close to reality. Mr Tosswill may be planning to bring in a Chinese construction company who will park a retired cruise ship at the waterfront for the duration of the project and have their workers stay there, but they will be subject to the same minimum wage laws, working conditions and health and safety requirements that local companies face, which will dramatically reduce any cost benefit from using overseas labour. (The idea of having a cruise ship accommodating Chinese workers is not fanciful – the Chinese government offered to repair the damaged sections of SH1 after last year’s Kaikoura earthquake using that same method, and did not require any New Zealand labour resources, but the Government decided that this was politically unacceptable). One hopes it would be also unacceptable to have a Council endorsed project built using essentially, forced labour.

9. There is sufficient doubt around the financial viability of the project that the applicant should provide some evidence that the entire scheme is not in fact fanciful, but makes economic sense, and provide details about the proposed ownership model, which is highly relevant to Council, in light of their liability which is discussed below.

10. Mr Tosswill may think he is able to make savings from current building costs by utilising Chinese products, but many Local Authorities around New Zealand are very wary of various untested products as there have been many failures for which Local Authorities ultimately end up bearing the cost of.
This raises another issue which is the massive liability that the building control division of the Dunedin City Council will be exposed to, in relation to its building consent approval and compliance monitoring. The experience of the QLDC in recent years is extremely relevant : A large number of hotel and apartments have been built in Queenstown and the individual hotel rooms and apartments are sold off individually. A body corporate is then responsible for repairs and maintenance. The developer has no long term or permanent stake in the completed structure, and therefore no incentive to specify materials and pay for quality standards with the long term in mind. As Warren Buffet has said, “show me the incentive and I will show you the result”, and the result for QLDC has been an ongoing series of legal actions brought by Body Corporates against Council, alleging that Council was at fault in some form, and as they are the “last man standing”, the Council have inevitably had to pay substantial figures. [I have] experience of several of these, having repaired one major complex in Queenstown at a cost of several million dollars, and provided cost evidence in regard to two others, also in Queenstown in the last year. It should be remembered that QLDC has a 7 metre height limit, but despite this, on complexes less than a quarter of the size of the proposed hotels, the cost to repair has run to millions. QLDC has advised this year in the Otago Daily Times that it has now completely drained its reserve fund for remedial building work, and any further costs will need to come directly from ratepayers. It has spent $3.6M just on legal fees for remedial building liability cases, which will rise to close to $4M by the end of this year.

11. At the Hearing, in submission, some proposals will be presented to show how the design liability and weathertightness risk to Council and ratepayers can be mitigated in the unlikely event that the proposal is given consent and such consent is upheld in the Environment Court.

Proposal 1 : A bond be posted with Council to cover sufficient funds to get the building to completed weathertight envelope and have the podium and all external works completed in the event the project is halted.

Proposal 2 : The applicant provide a Owners Protective Professional Indemnity, and have DCC named as an insured party on the policy. This is to protect indemnify the DCC against any claims brought against them in relation the building consent process, compliance monitoring or any matter for which they are liable for.

****

The applicant tabled NEW evidence at the hearing, from Infometrics. At its website, Infometrics (NZ) says it “provides industry, regional, and general economic analysis and forecasts that assist organisations in making their planning, policy, and strategic decisions”.

In the Lunds’ submission to hearing under the subheading ‘Dunedin Hotel Economic Impacts – Ongoing GDP Effects’, Mr Lund says:

….Infometrics assume that the 64 apartments will all be in the hotel pool, but acknowledge this is unclear. This significantly increases the GDP contribution as it raises the income of the hotel by around 40%, assuming conservative tariff rates of $250 per night and $350 per night per apartment. Infometrics also assume that there will be no “crowding out” of the existing activity, ie ALL guests would otherwise have not come to Dunedin had this hotel not been there. This is an unrealistic assumption.
In my opinion this report is an example of tailoring assumptions to achieve the desired outcome.
At Section 2, the “impact” of the construction phase is estimated at $45.6M in total, but based on the “key assumption” that there is capacity in the construction sector to build the hotel without crowding out other investment”. This appears to mean that if other projects are delayed, there is in fact no benefit at all because $63M of other projects will simply be displaced by the alleged $63M cost of this project. History shows that in Dunedin, Clients such as the DCC, University and some private clients keep a close eye on the state of the market. Many Ministry of Education projects have strict cost guidelines, and will not proceed if they are over budget. There have been examples of work deferred in Dunedin when the market is busy, and the Post Office Hotel is one of them. The Owner Mr Geoff Thompson, deferred the construction of the hotel for several years when he first owned the property citing the overheated construction market, due to the construction of the $220M Milton Prison project in 2005-2007.
At the present time, there is a high level of commercial construction activity at present, witnessed by the fact that there are main contractors from outside Dunedin performing the 2 largest projects in Dunedin (The Dental School and the University Science 3 project). There is every likelihood some projects will be delayed due to the high level of activity.
The report assumes that 21.1M of the $63M, or a third of the cost, will flow into the local Dunedin economy. This would be on the basis that local companies and suppliers are employed, but this is far from clear, given the estimated cost of $63M. The only way the cost could be anywhere near this level is if virtually all of the materials were low cost imports, and quite likely a proportion of the labour cost component.
The only significant material that will be made locally is concrete, and it is only the basement levels that will be predominantly a concrete structure. If out of region companies were employed for work to do such trades as painting and carpentry, as they were at the Forsyth Barr stadium, then that figure will not be accurate.
Infometrics then ascribe $16.1M to the “second round of economic effects” but acknowledge there is some “leakage of spending outside the city”. If an outside main contractor, or even an overseas contractor completes the work, they will very likely bring with them their out of town networks of subcontractors and suppliers and there will be much less than the $16.1M as the second round of effects. Having completed many projects out of Dunedin, I have first hand knowledge of the negligible economic effect of construction on the region concerned. Generally, goods and services are sourced from habitual suppliers with whom there is an ongoing relationship, and only the small consumables are sourced from local suppliers.
Mr Tosswill should clarify what the intention is regarding the construction of the hotel, and if that is not forthcoming, then he should at least confirm what type and form of construction contract will be used as that perhaps more than anything will determine whether there is the possibility of a meaningful local business component.

On ‘Construction Cost’, Mr Lund refers the commissioners to the Lunds’ original submission, continuing with:

Further facts about construction
Examples of risk from imported products
FCC (Fletcher) budgeted to use Chinese sourced bathrooms in the Novotel Christchurch projects. Did not work. Has cost FCC $2M extra (unbudgeted) to get prefab bathrooms built locally in Canterbury. The cost is $26,000 per bathroom.
Chinese steel : there are 2 major CBD projects underway in Christchurch that are steel structures using Chinese fabricated steel. On one project the steel is 12 weeks late and on the other it is 16 weeks late. The Chinese suppliers had committed to make the steel, then out-sourced it to another firm without advising the contractor, and the delays have resulted. On one of these projects there is now legal action between the Engineer and contractor because of the nature of the steel does not conform to the specification.
There is a further major dispute litigation on another major project now completed due to extreme delays with the steelwork and external cladding. The project was around 10 months late, and the Owner lost the anchor tenant (The Government) due to the delay. That project was tendered on the basis of using a large degree of imported materials from China in association with a large state run Chinese construction company, but the project was so disastrous (financially and in terms of market perception), involving a loss of 8-15M on a $50M project, it has caused the company to withdraw from large scale commercial construction and focus on project management.
External Cladding : There are only a very small number of NZ firms with the capability to design and build the curtain walling, and they have a huge backlog and extremely onerous business terms that will not be acceptable to any funder or main contractor, so the Owner will probably need to contract with them direct, and take on this risk.

These important matters aside, the legal submissions brought to hearing by Ms Lauren Semple (for Millenium & Copthorne Hotels) and Mr John Hardie (for Misbeary Holdings Ltd) blew the application out of the water; so did the transport evidence to hearing by Mr Andy Carr (for Millenium & Copthorne Hotels) to which Commissioner Mr Stephen Daysh responded by asking if the problems (such as summit points, swept paths, access to basement parking, onsite coach travel, and truck travel as well as loading access) pointed out by Mr Carr in his assessment of the proposed building’s perimeter road were “fatal flaws”? Yes, was the direct reply. Refer article: Traffic problems at hotel (ODT 3.8.17)

The hearing is adjourned until 17 August.

All ODT can do is offer a flimsy and inconsequential readers’ poll.
Not Based On Reality. Go ODT! LOL

—

█ All application documents, reports, evidence and submissions for 143-193 Moray Place – Non-complying activity – LUC-2017-48 & Sub-2017-26 at this link.

Related Posts and Comments:
● 11.7.17 “Fat” gawky Hotel and Apartment building : Questionable design even with 4 floors lopped off
● 14.5.17 RNZ reports July hearings for proposed hotel apartment building [comments by Mr Tosswill]
● 4.5.17 Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building
● 7.4.17 Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls
● 5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

█ The following images are taken from Appendix 6 – Consultant Urban Designer’s Report – Appendix plans (PDF, 1.5 MB).

They comprise
● 2 cross sections – originally provided as applicant evidence by Thom Craig Architects Ltd, and
● 7 photomontages of anticipated views – originally provided as applicant evidence by Paterson Pitts Group (surveying, planning, engineering)

– to which new height levels have been added in the evidence provided by independent Urban Design consultant Garth Falconer for Dunedin City Council.

[click to enlarge]

“Fat” gawky Hotel and Apartment building : Questionable design even with 4 floors lopped off

What environmental considerations, Mr Page?

More than minor.

[Everyone will remember the learned Mr Page from the Betterways hotel and apartment building application for 41 Wharf St at the waterfront, not so long ago.]

Mr Bryce (independent planner): …a “key concern” for submitters…the building would block sun from reaching the Regent Theatre and surrounds from 3pm at winter solstice. “At this time of year, the proposal will effectively remove all remaining access to sunlight received over [the] southern end of the western side of the Octagon.” (ODT)

Mr Page (the developer’s ‘Brief’): The “potential shading effect” was acknowledged, but Mr Page was confident the hotel’s benefits “will far outweigh” those concerns. (ODT)

Mr Page, again : The hotel’s “tall, slender built form” minimised the impact on those living closest to the hotel project site… (ODT)

Good heavens.

Source: Application documents

—

At Facebook:

### ODT Online Tue, 11 July 2017
Hotel developer still confident
By Chris Morris
Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel bid will “not be viable” if the developer is forced to reduce the building’s height, it has been claimed. But the man behind the project, Tekapo businessman Anthony Tosswill, remains confident the hearings panel set to decide the project’s fate can yet be swayed by the hotel’s benefits. The comments came from Phil Page, the lawyer acting for Mr Tosswill, days after the public release of an independent planner’s report running the ruler over the hotel proposal.
The report by Nigel Bryce concluded consent be declined unless Mr Tosswill agreed to a “substantial reduction” in the building’s height, by four storeys, to bring it down from 60m to 45.5m.
Read more

****

Resource Consent Application LUC 2017-48 and SUB 2017-26, 143 – 193 Moray Place, Dunedin (Proposed Hotel)

The hearing will be held on Mon 31 Jul, Tue 1 Aug, Wed 2 Aug, Thu 3 Aug and Fri 4 Aug 2017 in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers (off the Octagon). The hearing will commence at 9.30 am each day.

█ Consultant Planner’s Section 42a Report (PDF, 4.3 MB)

[excerpt]

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
[5] For the reasons set out in paragraphs 72 to 334 below, I consider that the Proposal in its current form, will not promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in accordance with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA or the Act).
[6] The Development promotes a contemporary design, which is considered acceptable within this setting and articulates sufficient design interest and modulation through the facades and its pinwheel like form expressed in the tower component of the building. The building’s design incorporates a base building or podium, which allows the structure to have an active street frontage to Moray Place and Filleul Street, which is considered a positive design response.
[7] The Development will be ‘juxtaposed’ against a backdrop of the heritage buildings located to the east of Moray Place, including the Town Hall and St Paul’s Cathedral when viewed from the west and St Paul’s Cathedral and the Municipal Chambers when viewed from the south (including from the Octagon).
[8] The building’s overall height is considered to generate an over-dominance on properties to the north and west of the Site, and will have more than minor adverse effects on the amenity values of residential properties to the west of the Site. This is largely due to the significant change in scale introduced by the Development and the lower scale built environment that currently exists to the west and north of the development site, comprising predominantly two to three storeys in height.
[9] The Development will adversely impact upon the townscape values of the TH02 Octagon townscape precinct under the Operative Dunedin City District Plan (Operative Plan), including loss of sunlight penetration into the Octagon during the Winter Solstice and will adversely impact upon the setting and pre-eminence of existing heritage buildings such as the St Paul’s Cathedral and the Municipal Chambers building when viewed from the Octagon.
[10] The Development is considered to result in more than minor visual amenity and shading effects on Kingsgate Hotel to the south of the Site. The Kingsgate Hotel will experience prolonged and more sustained loss of light over a wider part of the property and associated buildings over the critical morning period during the Equinox and Winter Solstice periods (or collectively over ¾ of the year). This conclusion has been reached having regard to the potential for the Site to be developed up to a maximum height of 11 metres with a building erected against all boundaries (the ‘controlled activity building outline’).
[11] For the scale of the building to be mitigated to an acceptable level, and to maintain and enhance the amenity values of the City Centre and wider environs, Council’s urban design consultant, Mr [Garth] Falconer recommends reducing the proposed building height by four levels to bring the total height down to nine storeys (Level 13, +157,500 (datum level) on Drawing Section AA). This reduction would provide for a maximum height of 45.6 metres from existing ground level, or a maximum height breach of 34.4 metres (including the lift shaft). This mitigation response would not remove any of the 210 visitor accommodation rooms (hotel rooms), and would maintain supporting facilities including licensed premises, retail, conference, meeting facilities and on-site amenities, parking, and servicing areas. I note, for completeness, that the Applicant is not currently proposing to reduce the height of the Development.
[12] In its current form, it is my recommendation that the proposal should be declined.

More about Garth Falconer, DCC’s consulting urban designer:
LinkedIn profile: https://nz.linkedin.com/in/garth-falconer-a0699bb3
Owner and Director, Reset Urban Design Ltd: http://reseturban.co.nz/

Take a glimpse of the ‘urban form’ at Takapuna, North Shore Auckland (his home turf), to know Mr Falconer is likely missing any handle on building height for a heritage city like Dunedin.

****

Agenda and all documents including Submissions at:

http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/notified-applications-pending/luc-2017-48-and-sub-2017-26

****

At Facebook [see comments]:

### ODT Online Sat, 8 Jul 2017
Reject hotel bid: planner
By Chris Morris
A planner has recommended rejecting Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel bid, unless the developer agrees to a “substantial reduction” in the building’s height. The recommendation to decline consent came in a report by independent consultant Nigel Bryce, made public yesterday, ahead of the public hearing beginning on July 31. In his report to the panel of independent commissioners, Mr Bryce said the hotel development would “visually dominate” its surroundings, including the town hall, St Paul’s Cathedral and the Municipal Chambers. It would be the tallest building in the central city and would cast a shadow over the Octagon, as well as the nearby Kingsgate Hotel, during winter. Together with other impacts, the development was considered to be “non-complying” under the city’s district plan rules. It would only be acceptable if the building was reduced by four storeys, lowering its overall height from 60m to 45.6m, which was still well above the existing 11m height limit for the site, his report said.
Read more

[initial coverage]
7.7.17 ODT: Decline hotel consent: report

### ODT Online Wed, 28 Jun 2017
Two from North Island on hotel hearings panel
By Chris Morris
The panel to decide the fate of Dunedin’s latest five-star hotel bid features one familiar face and two from the North Island. Tekapo businessman Anthony Tosswill’s bid to build a 17-storey hotel and apartment tower in Dunedin would be considered over five days, beginning on July 31, it was confirmed yesterday. […] The panel of three would be headed by chairman Andrew Noone, now an Otago regional councillor, acting in his role as an independent commissioner. […] Alongside him will be fellow independent commissioners Stephen Daysh, of Napier, and Gavin Lister, of Auckland.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 14.5.17 RNZ reports July hearings for proposed hotel apartment building [comments by Mr Tosswill]
● 4.5.17 Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building
● 7.4.17 Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls
● 5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Source: Application documents

RNZ reports July hearings for proposed hotel apartment building

Image: Paterson Pitts Group

Image: Thom Craig Architects

### rnz.co.nz Wed, 10 May 2017 at 6:13 p.m.
RNZ News: New Zealand / Business
Hotel plans prioritise visitors over residents – objectors
By Lydia Anderson – Otago/Southland reporter
Residents above the proposed site for Dunedin’s first five-star hotel say it’s not right their view of the city will be blocked so tourists can have a better one. The 17-storey ‘Electric Thistle’ Moray Place design would sit behind the city’s heritage buildings in the Octagon. More than 200 submissions on the project have been filed – three quarters of them in opposition. The hotel’s height and modern design has some residents worried – at about 64m high it would be significantly taller than the current 11m limit imposed on the chosen site, which is currently a carpark.
….The proposed hotel would feature 210 hotel rooms plus apartments, cafe, a wine club, public hot pools and conference rooms.
….The hotel’s developer [?]* Tony Tosswill, who represented Horizon Hospitality Group, said the hotel was being built high rather than wide out of consideration for the views of people living in the city rise area. To meet international five-star standards the hotel needed views and around 200 rooms, he said.
….Public hearings on the submissions will take place in July.
Read more

● Full application: 143-193 Moray Place – LUC-2017-48 and SUB-2017-26
● View all submissions

****

The applicant is NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5876487

The name of the building developer/financier hasn’t been announced. Asian finance is suspected as being needed but likely not obtained yet; New Zealand’s Australian-owned banks aren’t providing credit on speculative developments at this scale.

Pullman Hotels is fêted as the hotel manager.

█ Spokesman for the (unnamed) developer is Anthony Tosswill of Tekapo, NZ. Mr Tosswill is not the developer, as may have been construed from MSM news items.

****

The following comments from Mr Tosswill were received for publication by What if? Dunedin in late April. Links to the threads where they appear are provided here:

2017/04/24 at 9:37 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
why do you wish to destroy employment in Dunedin, why do you want to prevent creating Jobs and more revenues for the Community and supporting Tourism and local Business?
Why do you wish to keep subsidizing Dunedin venues when they can support themselves with the Services that this Hotel can offer.
Why dont you disclose who you are so People can judge you and your motives. The Jobs that Cadburys will make redundant are you able to give them Jobs or the new Students ending there education.
When was the Last New Hotel Built in Dunedin? Dunedin None Queenstown 6, Queenstown 26,000 Dunedin 126,000.
How about supporting Development, and Jobs or are you one of those that just as you say destroy everything before its starts.
Who am I, I am a spokesman for the Developer

2017/04/24 at 9:46 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
Great Video, it suggests you are supporting Terrorism. Is that amusing blowing up things. It also suggests you want to stop Jobs, supporting local Business. preventing People attending Events and Venues, dislike tourism and dont want a venue that supports Dunedin. I suggest you at least remove the Blowing up of the Developments its in very bad taste.
When reading comments on this site its easy to see why it has so little support.
I am a spokesman for the Developer, who are you?

2017/04/25 at 4:58 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Peter.
I would like to point out that Residents in Londo complained about the about the Shard in London and the London Eye yet, Yet Today we Recognize London for these 2 Buildings as they are also Top Tourists sites as is the Palace. Hindsight is marvelous
Do you recall the complaints when the stadium prior to been Built now its recognized as one of the Top 20 in the World. Dunedin be proud.
One may tell us of Identical Buildings so we can learn from your expertise.
The Design relates to minimizing views from residents behind plus maximizing views of Tourists that want to appreciate Dunedin and its Harbour we believe in our design and concept.
Retrospective opinions are great if you are trying to stop the future progress of Dunedin, if your view point is taken seriously its Dunedin’s loss.
Spokesman for the Developer.

2017/04/25 at 5:28 pm
Anthony Tosswill
In reply to Elizabeth.
Hi Elizabeth,
you made several comments. Architectural design.
a) Design and the Changes,
In Response, I respectfully point out that does not relate to commercial facts or results, hence for any 5 Star Hotel and in Particular in Dunedin our view is very different but it is for this type of Development whats been Built in All Cities around the World, we are one of the 99% (Not the 1%)
b) We have incorporated a Design that shows off Dunedin, with new Technology that is expected today by 5 Star Guests. Dunedin is the Showcase, the Development is to provide Access to the City not be the City~
You suggest and refer to your time and Resources “What are They”?
It Also appears that you think Asians are also different or at least there Money is, maybe you should complain also about the contribution made by Asians that go to Otago University is their money bad? I like Asian People, I married to one.
Love to know more about whatever Cargo Growth is? Are you a Supporter of Cadbury Factory Closure as well? Is that not a local Resource?
400 Persons Daily Spending Money in New 5 Star Hotel in Dunedin is Growth to Dunedin, please re add up the equation since you have an alleged financial background your sums should add up one cold think,
Good on you Farmer for having an independent view point congratulation is this Elizabeth’s Blog its appears to be!
Spokesman for the Developer

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 4.5.17 Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building
● 7.4.17 Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls
● 5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Submissions close 10 May : Proposed 17-storey, est. 62.5 metres-high Moray Place hotel/apartment building

Where to access more information about the application:

Dunedin City Council website:

█ Current notified resource consent applications
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents

Applicant: NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited
[ http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/5876487 ]
Subject site: 143-193 Moray Place
Status: Non-complying activity
Submissions close: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 at 5:00 p.m.

█ Application information + submission information/online form at:
143-193 Moray Place – Non-complying activity – LUC-2017-48 and SUB-2017-26

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

Land use consent is sought to construct and operate a commercial residential development involving 210 visitor accommodation rooms (hotel rooms), 64 self-contained apartments, four self-contained penthouse suites, together with licensed premises, retail, conference, meeting facilities and on-site amenities, parking, and servicing. The development proposes a new building with 17 storeys (including the lift core on the top of the building, and three levels of the building extending below ground). The overall height of the proposed building varies in relation to the existing ground level, but will be approximately 62.5m at the highest point above the existing ground level (including the lift core). The proposed building is assessed as a non-complying activity under the operative Dunedin City District Plan. The application includes an assessment of effects.

Land use consent is also sought for earthworks because the site development will involve an estimated 8,914m3 of earthworks and a maximum cut depth of 7.35 metres from existing ground level.

Subdivision consent is sought for a unit title subdivision in relation to the proposed building. The application includes plans of the proposed subdivision.
The subject site is located in the Central Activity Zone in the operative Dunedin City District Plan and is located within the north Princes Street/Moray Place/Exchange townscape precinct TH03.

The proposed building is a non-complying activity under the operative Dunedin City District Plan (due to non-compliance with Rule 9.5.2(i) no front or side yards, Rule 9.5.2(iii) veranda requirements along Filleul Street frontage of the site, and signage under Rule 9.5.2(vi)). The building also exceeds the maximum 11 metre height limit under Rule 9.5.2(ii) which requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity under Rule 9.5.3(i). The proposal is also a controlled activity under Townscape Rule 13.7.2(i).  

The proposed earthworks are a restricted discretionary activity under Rule 17.7.3 of the operative Dunedin City District Plan.

The unit title subdivision is a non-complying activity under Rule 18.5.2. Rule 18.5.3 requires that every allotment in a subdivision must have both legal access and vehicle access to a formed road. The rules for subdivision do not expressly provide for unit title divisions where the allotments created may comprise multiple units within a building.

The subject site is zoned Central Business District in the proposed Second Generation Plan and a secondary pedestrian frontage applies.

The proposed 2GP was notified on 26 September 2015. The relevant objectives and policies of the 2GP must be considered. Rules in the 2GP can be deemed as operative if no submissions have been made in opposition. The application says that some 2GP rules may be deemed operative. If the decision maker determines that 2GP rules are deemed operative these rules will apply instead of the corresponding Dunedin City District Plan rule. {bolding by whatifdunedin}

█ SUB-2017-26 & LUC-2017-48 – Public Notice (PDF, 31.4 KB)

Please read the accompanying documents and reports that apply to this application, as listed here.

—

M A K I N G ● A ● S U B M I S S I O N

█ Online submission form

█ SUB-2016-26 & LUC-2017-48 – Submission Form (Form 13) (PDF, 38.9 KB)

IMPORTANT: If you wish to make a submission on this application you may do so by sending a written submission to the consent authority, Dunedin City Council at PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin, 9058 Attn: City Planning, no later than 5:00 pm on the closing date shown.
● Email: resconsent.submission@dcc.govt.nz

The submission must be dated, signed by you, and include the following information:

• Your name and postal address and phone number/fax number;
• Details of the application in respect of which you are making the submission including location;
• Whether you support, oppose, or are neutral towards the application;
• Your submission, with reasons;
• The decision you wish the consent authority to make;
• Whether you wish to be heard in support of your submission.

Please note: If you make your submission by electronic means, a signature is not required.

An acknowledgment of your submission will be sent by post when the submission is accepted as complete. The application may be viewed at the City Planning Enquiries Desk, Customer Service Centre on the Ground Floor, Civic Centre, 50 The Octagon.

You must serve a copy of your submission on NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited, the applicant, whose address for service is Anderson & Co Resource Management, PO Box 5933, Dunedin 9058, as soon as reasonably practicable after serving your submission on the Dunedin City Council.

Alternatively, you can Email copy of your submission to NZ Horizon Hospitality Group Limited via Anderson & Co Resource Management (Dunedin) –
Attention: Conrad Anderson conrad_a@xtra.co.nz

—

V I E W S ● A N D ● L A N D S C A P E ● C O N T E X T

7. Architectural Drawings, including Arch Statement and earthworks (PDF)
8. Subdivision plans (PDF)
13a. Photomontage notes (PDF)
13b. Photomontage (PDF)
13c. Anticipated Views Assessment Notes – supplementary (PDF)
20. Urban Design (PDF)
21. Memo – Re: Glass (PDF)

NB. Note a number of the angled street views provided in the application are partial only – the full extent of the proposed building (in order to help assess accompanying effects) is not given except in wider landscape perspectives such as when seen from across the harbour or along street vistas. Most close-up perspective views of the proposed building, such as when seen from the Octagon, may appear to be ‘diminished’ or foreshortened in height – scale accuracy is difficult to determine in the presentation renders without technical knowledge of how the views were generated. It is somewhat likely that independent peer review(s) of the (landscape and townscape) presentation renders provided by the applicant and their consultants will be sought by submitters, if not the processing authority.

█ Spokesman for the (unnamed) developer is Anthony Tosswill of Tekapo, NZ.
Mr Tosswill has noted in comments to What if? Dunedin that he speaks for the developer. Mr Tosswill is not the developer, as may have been construed from news items published by the Otago Daily Times previously.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Selected renders from application documents : Thom Craig Architects and Paterson Pitts Group

*Poor quality of images as received via DCC webpages.

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.

DCC 2017/18 Annual Plan —Call for Submissions by Mon 1 May at 5 pm

Updated post
Fri, 21 Apr 2017 at 3:37pm

The site owner has corrected the post below for Cr Hawkins’ name and apologises to the councillor for the error in judgement and any offence or distress the now deleted form of addresss may have caused. A full apology will be emailed to the councillor later today.

+++++++++++++++

If you’ve stacked all your furniture up and carefully placed your mattress on top where it’s dry, here’s a DCC Sudoku to while away the hours before the FLOOD WATERS (what flood waters) recede from your property. Yarp, study the numbers and statements, the patterns, in the (draft) Annual Plan 2017/18, and go Bonkers.

The rain has become fractionally heavier for a moment due to AUTUMN WEATHER, that’s no reason not to try the DCC Sudoku. Do critique where YOUR MONEY is disappearing to, and slap Daaave’s wrist if you Disagree with the prescribed budget lines. Treat this as a warm-up for the Long Term (Community) Plan. Is your money ACTUALLY being spent on core infrastructure services, or more of the soft-goo and popcorn programmed by Cr Hawkins on behalf of the Labour/Greens vote in September.

—

The DCC summary of the current (draft) Annual Plan says:
“We’re on track. We listened carefully to you when we developed the Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) in 2015 and the Annual Plan for 2016/17. We’ve responded to calls to reduce our debt and rates increases and to provide services to high standards.”

Ah well. Rates increases at Dunedin are still far ahead of the national rate of inflation and…. are about to escalate strongly.*

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

*The council-owned Aurora/Delta fiasco is Not Mentioned by your elected mayor and councillors – that’s ONE BILLION DOLLARS WORTH of burnt asset (the totality of Otago’s electricity network) that Dunedin Ratepayers will have to (paying twice!) finance in replacement.

—

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

Active links:

Click here for the Annual Plan summary.

Submissions: Use this online feedback form.

Facebook: www.facebook.com/DunedinCityCouncil
Twitter feed (@DnCity Council): http://twitter.com/DnCityCouncil

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Proposed hotel *height and design* —the very least of it #sellingoursouls

At Facebook:

[screenshot]

Channel 39 via YouTube [screenshot]

—

Related Post and Comments:
5.6.17 Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Application lodged for FIASCO Hotel by Tosswill #DunedinWrecks

At Facebook:

****

Tekapo-based businessman Anthony Tosswill is hoping to send the signal “the city is open” with this master-disaster, or something closely akin.
JFC i

An application for resource consent was lodged with DCC today for this unlanced boil on the elegant hind quarter of our heritage city.

Details in brief according to ODT deputy editor Craig Page at Channel 39 News tonight:

● 17 storey ‘glass hotel in central city’
● 60 [read 64] metres at highest point
● 210 rooms
● 64 apartments
● 4 penthourse suites
as well as retail opportunities.

The proposal exceeds the district plan height limit (11 metres) – meaning the application is to be publicly notified.

ODT will publish concept renders and contextuals tomorrow.

Get your Smart Hats on Dunedinites, give him a fricking run for his (or other people’s) money. Beyond the Mass Unsightliness, you will lose your convenient central city parking area – be prepared to walk for blocks next time you want to attend events at the Council, Town Hall, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, Central Library or Regent Theatre.

Has the Dunedin City Council SOLD YOU OUT ???
Ratepayers own/owned the site. What DEAL has been done by council politicians and staff to prosper an OUT OF TOWN private individual above and beyond your immediate and long term LOCAL requirements in the central city.
JFC ii

DCC Webmap – Filleul St council-owned parking area (shaded)

█ Market Gap Report Hotels – Evidence Stephen Hamilton, Horwath HTL
December 2012 (PDF, 482 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 18.12.16 DCC set to take away CBD car parks without Economic Impact research
● 15.10.16 Battle of the hotels : DCC meat in the sandwich (unedifying)
● 5.10.16 Dunedin bauble #votecatcher
● 4.10.16 The Demon Duck freak show of partial ‘Civic’ information! Before voting closes! #Dunedin
11.1.16 Un hôtel. Dunedin.
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge of building chicken coops, why ?
1.4.14 HOTEL Town Hall… Another investment group, Daaave’s pals from the communist state?
25.3.14 Hotel We LIKE: Distinction Dunedin Hotel at former CPO

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

DCC Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw : Real-deal submission

[click to enlarge]

Dunedin City Council
Current consultations: Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017

****

Received from JimmyJones
Sat, 17 Mar 2017 at 10:03 p.m.

Subject: RE: Reserves and beaches consultation failure

Message: Find attached an outstanding submission on the horse-hating bylaw. I am sure there were many good subs, but I noticed this one from an 11-year-old who has a horse called Tonka. She makes a very good case for freedom. Like many of the other submitters, she bypassed the professionally organised DCC misinformation and understood that the DCC are threatening a total ban on horses on beaches.

I think other people should see it, I have removed her name from the submission in case she wasn’t expecting widespread publicity.

The submitters tell us that no other Council has a ban on horse riding on beaches in New Zealand.

—

Related Post and Comments:
8.2.17 Hands Off Enjoyment of OUR Beaches #DCC

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

DCC extends 2GP further submissions period

Dunedin City Council has extended the Further Submissions period for the second generation district plan (2GP) to Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 5pm.

All members of the public are eligible to make submissions on the Summary of Decisions Requested to the proposed 2GP.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

██ DCC 2GP Index Page at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

██ Have Your Say at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/submissions.html

██ Search for Summaries of Decisions Requested and Submissions at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/submit/PublicSubmissionSearch.aspx

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 16.2.16 DCC: 2GP further submissions [consultation software with bug?]
8.2.16 DCC 2GP further submissions [update]
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome before hearings…
3.2.16 DCC 2GP Hearings Panel
22.12.15 DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’
9.12.15 Otago Regional Council hammers DCC’s proposed 2GP
19.11.15 DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)
19.11.15 DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content
16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: 2GP further submissions [consultation software with bug?]

Copy of DCC internal correspondence received.
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 at 7:01 a.m.

—

On 12/02/16 4:53 pm, “Simon Pickford” wrote:

Good afternoon,

A quick update on the 2GP: we have found a technical issue with the reports that were produced in response to the submissions on the 2GP. As a result the reports need to be reissued and this means that we are outside the 10 day minimum statutory period of the current consultation and will have to re-notify.

We are assessing whether there will be an impact on the timing of the 2GP hearings and the remaining consultation process, but it will require us to re-advertise our consultation period. We are updating the website and making sure the necessary adverts are in place.

Regards

Simon

Simon Pickford
General Manager Services and Development
Dunedin City Council

****

I forwarded this yesterday without knowledge of Mr Pickford’s email:

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 10:51 p.m.
To: Simon Pickford; Sandy Graham; Sue Bidrose
Subject: FW: Public Notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested

Dear All

I received the below DCC email on 5 February, and was prepared to make a further submission before the closing date of 26 February 2016.

Today, confusion at the DCC website with regards to further submissions – given two updates provided.

The first said, in effect, that the closing date for further submissions would be put back [because of an internal stuff up] and the new closing date was going to be publicly notified. [I didn’t make a screenshot of the message]

This was followed by another, replacing the first, which said:

Error in Summary of Decisions Requested reports
12/02/2016
The Summary of Decisions Requested reports have been temporarily withdrawn from the website due to a technical error in exporting data. In the interim please use the search function on the Search the Submissions page to view the correct Summary of Decisions Requested. Updated Summary of Decisions Requested reports will be distributed online and to libraries as soon as practically possible.

This last made no reference to public notification of an extended closing date for further submissions.

Given the date of issue was 12/02/2016 this suggests that by now all submitters should have been emailed individually about something having gone wrong with the process and to await further information from DCC.

I hope the technical error which affects all those making further submissions is properly recognised and a public notice will be issued that extends the closing date for submissions.

Otherwise I imagine the Council will leave itself open to challenge.

Please could someone clarify how the process is to presume, and accurately.

Kind regards

Elizabeth Kerr

—

From: Teresa Gutteridge
Sent: Friday, 5 February 2016 3:28 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Public Notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested

Dear Elizabeth Kerr
Dear Submitter,
Please see the public notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested for the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan below.
It would be appreciated if you contacted the 2GP Team at the times and through the options laid out in the public notice rather than by responding to this email.
Yours Sincerely

Anna Johnson
City Development Manager

[ends]

██ DCC 2GP Index Page at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

—

Related Posts and Comments:
8.2.16 DCC 2GP further submissions [update]
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome before hearings…
3.2.16 DCC 2GP Hearings Panel
22.12.15 DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’
9.12.15 Otago Regional Council hammers DCC’s proposed 2GP
19.11.15 DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)
19.11.15 DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content
16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC 2GP further submissions [update]

Updated post
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 at 5:36 p.m. Last updated 10:59 p.m.

Two updates were issued today by DCC on the 2GP further submission process.

In the first, DCC said it had withdrawn the 2GP Summary of Decisions, and the closing date for further submissions would be put back and publicly notified.

The second update made no reference to the closing date or public notification:

DCC says: Error in Summary of Decisions Requested reports
12/02/2016
The Summary of Decisions Requested reports have been temporarily withdrawn from the website due to a technical error in exporting data. In the interim please use the search function on the Search the Submissions page to view the correct Summary of Decisions Requested. Updated Summary of Decisions Requested reports will be distributed online and to libraries as soon as practically possible.

Awaiting clarification and advice from DCC.

—

Have your say
IGNORE THIS DATE – The Further submission period is open from Wednesday, 10 February to Friday, 26 February.

What can a further submission cover?
A further submission can only be made in support or opposition to a point raised in an original submission on the 2GP.

Who can make a further submission?
The RMA limits who can make further submissions to:
● any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest
● any person that has an interest in the proposed plan greater than the interest that the general public has
● the local authority (the Dunedin City Council).

It provides an opportunity for people who may be affected by an original submission to have their views considered. You do not have to have made an original submission to participate. If you have made an original submission you do not need to repeat submission points made in that submission as they will already be considered.

Summary of decisions requested
The Summaries of Decisions Requested are a concise summary of the decisions requested in the submissions on the 2GP which closed on 24 November 2015. It is not the full or exact content of submissions. It is prepared to enable the further submission process which is set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA.

█ The Summary of Decisions Requested and copies of all submissions will be available from midday Tuesday, 9 February.

Hard copies of the Summary of Decisions Requested reports will also be available for inspection at:
● 2GP drop-in centre, 11 George Street, Dunedin, 10am to 3pm, Monday to Friday
● public libraries and/or service centres at Dunedin, Middlemarch, Mosgiel, Port Chalmers, Blueskin Bay (Waitati) and Waikouaiti.

Submissions Map
The submissions map indicates the spatial location of submissions seeking a change to the proposed zoning (management zones only not overlay zones), new heritage precincts, or changes to scheduled items. It reflects the information in the submission point address field of the Summary of Decisions Requested reports. Through pop-ups, the map provides links to relevant submissions.

DISCLAIMER: This map has been prepared as an aid for people wanting to understand the scope of submissions related to an area. The accuracy and completeness of this information is not guaranteed and people should read original submissions. In some cases, the information contained in submissions was not detailed enough to accurately map the scope of the submission. In these cases, the mapping has been either omitted or approximated where possible.

How do I make a further submission?

Online submissions
The RMA requires further submissions to be in a prescribed form (Form 6). An easy way to make a submission is using the 2GP on-line submission system, which ensures submissions are in the prescribed form and allows you to link to specific submission points

Other ways to make a submission
Hard copies of the submission form and submission guidelines can be downloaded below or paper copies can be picked up at the 2GP drop-in centre or from the DCC Customer Services Agency located on the ground floor of the Civic Centre at 50 The Octagon, Dunedin.

For written submissions
Post to: Further submission on Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan, Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9058

Deliver to: Customer Services Agency, Dunedin City Council, Ground Floor, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin

Email to: districtplan @ dcc.govt.nz

Serving a copy of further submissions on submitters
IMPORTANT: Any person making a further submission must serve a copy of that further submission on the person who made the original submission no later than five working days after lodging the further submission with the DCC. A copy of the addresses for service for all submitters is provided in the Submitter Details Report.

● DCC 2GP Have Your Say Page
● DCC 2GP Index Page

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

█ For more at What if? Dunedin, enter the term *2gp* in the search box at right.

DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’

ODT Online 9.12.15 [screenshot] Link

ODT 21.12.15 (page 8)

—

RECENT CORRESPONDENCE

From: Simon Pickford
Sent: Friday, 18 December 2015 5:40 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: RE: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Hello Elizabeth,

Sue has asked me to email you with regard to the eplan format concerns you raise below. Apologies for the delay – we thought a response had already been sent to you have realised now this is not the case.

The eplan is effectively no different from a plan produced in word processing software (like Microsoft Word which was used for the current District Plan). It has the same ability to be printed and annotated by users.. While we do not offer print out of the whole plan, we are providing hard copies of sections on request.

The strength of the eplan format is making it easier to allow cross linking between plan provisions to locational information (e.g. search plan from property address), which will be added after the plan is finalised. It does not diminish its usability in print form.

The software used to produce our 2GP in the same system that has been used for the Auckland and Christchurch plans and is being used other councils who are currently working on their 2GPs. It is the new ‘norm’ for plan writing in New Zealand.

We have reviewed other District Plans and have found the 2GP is not longer than average. For example, Queenstown’s Residential Section has 68 pages, Christchurch’s has 180 and Dunedin’s has 87.

Much of the increased length from the current district plan is due to better cross-referencing between sections. The plan easier to use because it reduces the need to search through the whole plan to see what is relevant to a particular proposal in a particular location (which has involved more repetition of content rather than new content). This means that most people will need to look at fewer parts of the plan.

We have received positive feedback from planning professionals who work across several Council’s plans. The feedback is that the 2GP is well structured and easy to use. However, we accept it does take some time to get used to.

In additional to providing detailed help information on the website (see guide to the structure of the plan and how to videos) we provide one –on-one assistance to people to help them understand the new plan and most people seem very pleased with the level of help we are offering. We have helped over 1100 people in this way (often with multiple contacts). We invite you to come and see us for more help if you still require it.

Regards

Simon

[Simon Pickford, DCC General Manager Services and Development]

———————————————

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2015 5:12 p.m.
To: Vivienne Harvey; Simon Pickford; Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: FW: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Dear Vivienne, Simon and Sue

Thanks for reply in advance of the public notice at the DCC website today, also appearing Saturday in the local newspaper.

For your information I’m not representing anyone other than myself in addressing letters to the Chief Executive on matters to do with the Proposed 2GP. In my letter (below) I reference need for extension as would apply to “the community” (meaning interested public) as a whole.

The RMA does not mention an ePlan.

The DCC ePLan (1600 pages) launched at us, as we’re well aware, is a horror to deal with for many.

In this regard the RMA requirement of 40 working days scarcely seems fair or practical. Months ahead of ‘back and forth’ through appeals with some parties will, I suggest, place ‘workability’ in sharper relief for the city council. I look forward to what unfolds.

I appreciate your clarification provided for submitters around extensions. This is proactive.

Sincere regards

Elizabeth Kerr

———————————————

From: Vivienne Harvey
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2015 3:32 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: RE: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Dear Elizabeth

Please find attached a response to your email to the CEO.

Regards
Vivienne

Vivienne Harvey
PA to the Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

———————————————

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: 11 November 2015 5:41 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Attention:

Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive, Dunedin City Council

Dear Sue

RE Extension for submissions on Proposed 2GP

I note the closing date for public submissions has been set as Tuesday, 24 November 2015.

Due to the length (1600 pages) and comprehensive nature of the planning document (by ePlan), in that it no longer resembles the current Dunedin City District Plan at all, I request that the closing date for public submissions is extended into the 2016 new year.

This will allow the community to consult itself, the city council, and experts where need, more fairly and comprehensively than has been possible in the time since notification on Saturday, 26 September 2015.

It’s of collective mutual interest to enhance and facilitate the public’s understanding of the document and its likely effect(s) on physical, cultural and political determinants for sustainable management of our environment and resources. This means allowing more time for initial submissions.

Sincere regards

Elizabeth Kerr

█ For more enter the term *2gp* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Otago Regional Council hammers DCC’s proposed 2GP

Congratulations Dunedin! You made over ONE THOUSAND submissions on Dunedin City Council’s proposed second generation district plan (2GP).

Amongst these is a cracker from ORC, can’t wait to read.

—

### dunedintv.co.nz Wed, 9 Dec 2015
Council discord over district plan
The Otago Regional Council is taking aim at its district counterpart, by opposing a draft plan for the wider city area. The ORC has prepared two submissions on the Dunedin City Council’s second generation district plan. As a landowner, the ORC says the plan doesn’t represent sound resource management practice. It says the plan won’t promote efficient use or development of local resources, and is contrary to parts of the relevant government legislation. The ORC’s submission as an authority includes almost 50 separate requests for changes. But it also highlights the ORC’s support for other sections of the plan.
The DCC has received over 1000 submissions on its draft plan.
Ch39 Link

39 Dunedin Television Published on Dec 8, 2015
Council discord over district plan

****

But flawed consultation can be worse than no consultation at all.

### ODT Online Wed, 9 Dec 2015
Sharing fair and expert information among all
By Hilary Calvert
OPINION Consultation has grown like topsy in New Zealand for the best of reasons – a choice of governance once every three years will clearly not on its own provide democracy. […] If we (the council members) get it wrong, consultation can leave people disenchanted and disenfranchised, with a sense of outrage that their time was wasted involving themselves in a process which did not provide fair and accurate feedback.
Read more

—

To The Councillor

Y E S ● I’ M ● A N G R Y

You’re too fricking late – where were you Cr Hilary Calvert when the 2GP was being formulated, formatted and its timeline set, ie well before 24 November this year ??? Where were your ideas and protests then ???
NOT TO BE SEEN. Other than fences….
As for your behaviour lately – in “consultation” – when serving as a commissioner for the Jetty Street restricted access application…. you remain unrepentant. GOD SAVE US.

Nup, don’t do the johnny-come-lately ACT with us.
Con? Look in the mirror why not. And sharpen up at council meetings, learn to speak con-cise plain English when putting a question. Raise your game, but not after everyone’s gone home and you have your pen out to the editor. Talent means timing.

Related Posts and Comments:
19.11.15 DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)
● 19.11.15 DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content
● 16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
● 11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
● 9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
● 2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
● 28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: 2GP Dave green monsters – whatifdunedin

DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)

Received.
Thu, 19 Nov 2015 at 3:32 p.m.

—

Downloads:
█ Letter from Simon Pickford 19.11.15
█ 2GP Close of Submissions ODT CL 18 x 4

████ DCC Public Notice
Submissions on the Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) close at 5pm, Tuesday 24 November.

—

REPLY

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2015 5:13 p.m.
To: Vivienne Harvey; Simon Pickford; Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Dear Vivienne, Simon and Sue

Thanks for reply in advance of the public notice at the DCC website today, also appearing Saturday in the local newspaper.

For your information I’m not representing anyone other than myself in addressing letters to the Chief Executive on matters to do with the Proposed 2GP. In my letter (below) I reference need for extension as would apply to “the community” (meaning interested public) as a whole.

The RMA does not mention an ePlan.

The DCC ePLan (1600 pages) launched at us, as we’re well aware, is a horror to deal with for many.

In this regard the RMA requirement of 40 working days scarcely seems fair or practical. Months ahead of ‘back and forth’ through appeals with some parties will, I suggest, place ‘workability’ in sharper relief for the city council. I look forward to what unfolds.

I appreciate your clarification provided for submitters around extensions. This is proactive.

Sincere regards

Elizabeth Kerr

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 5:41 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Attention:
Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive, Dunedin City Council

Dear Sue

RE Extension for submissions on Proposed 2GP

I note the closing date for public submissions has been set as Tuesday, 24 November 2015.

Due to the length (1600 pages) and comprehensive nature of the planning document (by ePlan), in that it no longer resembles the current Dunedin City District Plan at all, I request that the closing date for public submissions is extended into the 2016 new year.

This will allow the community to consult itself, the city council, and experts where need, more fairly and comprehensively than has been possible in the time since notification on Saturday, 26 September 2015.

It’s of collective mutual interest to enhance and facilitate the public’s understanding of the document and its likely effect(s) on physical, cultural and political determinants for sustainable management of our environment and resources. This means allowing more time for initial submissions.

Sincere regards

Elizabeth Kerr

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

█ Proposed Second Generation District Plan (2GP)
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 19.11.15 DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content
16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
● 11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
● 9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
● 2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
● 28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content

An OVERWHELMING observation….

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2015 4:14 a.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – difficulty with ePlan document tracking

Attention:
Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive, Dunedin City Council

Dear Sue

RE Proposed 2GP – difficulty with ePlan document tracking

In thinking through the public’s approach to carrying through on their submissions, further submissions, and within mediation and hearing processes, or indeed formal appeal processes via Environment Court – how will individual and group submitters and their experts contend with ePlan document tracking in these settings.

● Not all members of the public have access to laptop computers or the ability to use them efficiently in a formal meeting or hearing setting;
● In any case, participants will be disadvantaged if there are inadequate numbers of chairs and tables provided to facilitate safe (ergonomic) use of laptop computers – this also applies for those actively listening from the public gallery;
● Due to the unwieldy size of the (draft) ePlan at 1600 pages it is highly unlikely individuals will want to request print editions in order to ‘keep up’ with business in whichever forum.

This perceived lack of accessibility and usability of the 1600-page ePlan in the delivery of written and oral submissions as well as the giving of expert evidence raises serious questions around fairness and justness – ultimately, a concern to all Dunedin ratepayers and residents, and the city council.

● I have absolutely no idea how submitters, experts, news media, council staff or commissioners will technically follow specific mention of ePlan sections and references, or achieve cross referencing swiftly and successfully, be it with or without laptops or printed copy.

Here looms a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare for all.

To be frank, I see no ready solution.

However, I invite council explanation if through media statement(s) or council website guides that might practically assist or calm the resolve of the interested public wanting to critically engage with the proposed second generation district plan in the coming months.

I look forward to your reply by email.

Sincere regards

Elizabeth Kerr

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

█ The public has until November 24 to make submissions.

█ Proposed Second Generation District Plan (2GP)
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

—

Watch your property values drop….
ODT 18.11.15 (page 14)

As for the notional concept of growth….
ODT 17.11.15 (page 6)

Further to Calvin Oaten’s mention of school rolls dropping….

Roll figures for 2015 show the city’s secondary schools have capacity for 9252 pupils, but 1513 spaces are not used in Dunedin – the equivalent of two secondary school rolls. ODT 18.11.15

—

Related posts and Comments:

● 16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
● 11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
● 9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
● 2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
● 28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions (2GP)

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 5:41 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Attention:
Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive, Dunedin City Council

Dear Sue

RE Extension for submissions on Proposed 2GP

I note the closing date for public submissions has been set as Tuesday, 24 November 2015.

Due to the length (1600 pages) and comprehensive nature of the planning document (by ePlan), in that it no longer resembles the current Dunedin City District Plan at all, I request that the closing date for public submissions is extended into the 2016 new year.

This will allow the community to consult itself, the city council, and experts where need, more fairly and comprehensively than has been possible in the time since notification on Saturday, 26 September 2015.

It’s of collective mutual interest to enhance and facilitate the public’s understanding of the document and its likely effect(s) on physical, cultural and political determinants for sustainable management of our environment and resources. This means allowing more time for initial submissions.

Sincere regards

Elizabeth Kerr

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

█ The public has until November 24 to make submissions.

█ Proposed Second Generation District Plan (2GP)
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
● 2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY
—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Dunedin’s draft local alcohol policy (Lap) —submissions, real story outs

District licensing commissioner received direct reports of enticements to survey submitters.

### ODT Online Tue, 11 Nov 2014
Dunedin bars ‘offered punters cheap drinks to fill in surveys’
By Debbie Porteous
Dunedin bars offered punters cheap drinks to fill in surveys in support of licensees position against a draft liquor licensing policy for the city, Dunedin district licensing commissioner Colin Weatherall says. Mr Weatherall kicked off the first day of Lap hearings in Dunedin with the bombshell accusation.
Read more

Other ODT articles:
10.11.14 Fallout over liquor plan
8.11.14 Alcohol policy: Plenty to pore over
8.11.14 Portal use saves $10,000
6.11.14 Alcohol policy piques

—

Dunedin City council – Media Release
Draft Local Alcohol Policy Hearings Underway

This item was published on 11 Nov 2014

Residents’ views on the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol in the community will be aired at hearings underway in Dunedin. Today is the first of seven days of public hearings on the Dunedin City Council’s draft Local Alcohol Policy, with the last day being Thursday, 4 December. About 280 people are scheduled to speak at the hearings. Two days have been set aside later in December for the Hearings Committee’s deliberations.

The Dunedin City Council’s draft Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) attracted 4262 submissions. Of these, 79% (3,382 submissions) were submitted on forms developed by Hospitality NZ and the Dunedin Inner City Licensing Forum, a group of inner city licensed premises. Of the remainder, 19% (789) were made by individuals and 2% (91) of submissions came from organisations and businesses representing the hospitality, retail, health, tertiary and social sectors, as well as the Police.

The draft LAP suggests a range of changes to current practices, including rules about how close new premises may be to places such as schools and early childhood centres, a one-way door policy from 1am, licensing footpath space outside licensed premises until 11pm and banning the serving of shots from midnight. Some of these proposed changes have been opposed by a range of submitters.

DCC General Manager Services and Development Simon Pickford says, “The purpose of the draft was to get a conversation going with the community and we’re really pleased that has happened. It’s important that all sectors of our community, from businesses to individuals, tell us their views as we work to establish what is acceptable to Dunedin residents in terms of the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol.”

Under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, the draft LAP must take into account issues such as the number of licences of each kind held for premises in its district, and the location and opening hours of each of the premises, the demography of residents and of tourists or holidaymakers who visit the district, the overall health indicators of the district’s residents and the nature and severity of the alcohol-related problems arising in the district.

Mr Pickford says, under the Act, the Hearings Committee is not able to take into account matters such as the economic impact of the suggested changes on businesses.

The membership of the Draft Local Alcohol Policy Hearings Committee is Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull (Chairperson) and Councillors Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Jinty MacTavish, Neville Peat, Andrew Whiley and Lee Vandervis.

Mr Pickford says the Committee will make recommendations to the full Council which will make the final decision on the LAP.
For more details or to view the draft LAP submissions, visit http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/lapsubs.

Contact General Manager Services and Development on 03 477 4000.
DCC Link

—

Dunedin City Council
Draft Local Alcohol Policy —Consultation Hearing details

Submissions closed: 10/10/2014
Hearing: 11, 12, 13, 19 Nov and 2, 3, 4 Dec 2014
Contact person: Kevin Mechen

The purpose of a Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) is to ensure that the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol occurs in a safe and responsible way and that any adverse effects are minimised. The intention is to create an enabling policy that reflects all community aspirations, but finding the balance between various interests is a challenge.

To view the submissions received go to the Draft Local Alcohol Policy submissions information page

● Draft Local Alcohol Policy Hearings Agenda
● Draft Local Alcohol Policy Hearings Speaking Times Listing
● Draft Local Alcohol Policy Report to Hearings Committee
● Schedule of breaks during Hearings Committee

Related documents:
Draft Local Alcohol Policy (PDF, 231.4 KB)
The purpose of a Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) is to ensure that the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol occurs in a safe and responsible way and that any adverse effects are minimised.

Summary of Background Information (PDF, 269.8 KB)
This policy is to be read in conjunction with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013.

Local Alcohol Policy – Statement of Proposal (PDF, 187.3 KB)
This Statement of Proposal has been prepared to fulfil the requirements of sections 83 and 87 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and section 79 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act).

DCC Link

█ Ministry of Health | http://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/addictions/alcohol-and-drugs

█ NZ Drug Foundation | https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/alcohol

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

ORC: City bus services, submissions

“Heart-wrenching” tales of parents walking with young children from Corstorphine to Dunedin Hospital or walking up steep hills carrying bags of groceries while buses zoomed past…

### ODT Online Fri, 12 Sep 2014
Call for cheaper bus fares
By Rebecca Fox
Calls for public transport to be more affordable and accessible for the “walking poor” dominated yesterday’s public transport hearing. “Heart-wrenching” tales of parents walking with young children from Corstorphine to Dunedin Hospital or walking up steep hills carrying bags of groceries while buses zoomed past were made to the panel of regional councillors Sam Neill (chairman) and Michael Deaker, along with Dunedin city councillor Aaron Hawkins, as they sat through the second day of public submissions on the draft regional public transport plan. About 330 people and organisations made submissions to the draft plan that contains sweeping changes, expected to lead to faster and more direct routes away from smaller residential streets.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
28.5.14 Otago Regional Council: Buses —Journey Planner (now online)
10.4.14 Otago Regional Council + Dunedin buses
27.12.13 Otago Heritage Bus shines !!! —ORC holiday bus suspension…
24.11.11 Dunedin buses: ORC or DCC
29.11.10 Phillip Cole on Dunedin buses

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: radionz.co.nz – Dunedin buses, George Street

Stadium costs $23.4144 million per annum

Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:05 +1200

Cover note:
According to the latest DVL/DVML six monthly reports the debt is growing not reducing – that is a concern. The $146.6 million debt was passed over to DVL, many millions were poured into servicing the interest and capital repayments for this debt but even with that happening the combined short term/long term debt of DVML/DVL now stands at $157.6 million – $11 million more! The long term debt of $146.6 million has been reduced to $138.8 million but short term debt stands at $18.8 million. It is a major concern that the combined debt is growing not reducing – and this is during the stadium’s honeymoon period.

———

From: Bev Butler
To: Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham; Kate Wilson; Richard Thomsom; Chris Staynes; John Bezett; Lee Vandervis; Hilary Calvert; Doug Hall; Andrew Whiley; Mike Lord; David Benson-Pope; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone; Jinty MacTavish; Dave Cull; Aaron Hawkins
CC: Calvin Oaten; Grant McKenzie
Subject: Stadium $23.4144 million per annum
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:05 +1200

Dear Mayor Cull and Councillors

As a result of further discussions and more information obtained through further searching Council documents Calvin Oaten and I have updated the annual stadium costs which now stand at $23.4144 million. (See attached word document). No changes have been made to the spreadsheet I sent earlier which I prepared.
There are some costs which have not been included due to the difficulty in quantifying them to the accuracy of which I would be comfortable.

This $23.4144 million figure does not include any payments which may have not been fully transparent through the Council books.
By this I mean that I understand there were approaches by Darren Burden, former CEO of DVML, to obtain payments for bills which DVML were unable to pay but which another Council Department had shown some willingness to transfer their surplus unspent funds from that Department to DVML. In that particular case, I understand the transfer did not happen. However, I have no access to information as to whether this had occurred on previous occasions through other departments.

█ Also attached are Terry Wilson’s calculations coming from a different angle but which come to $23.1 million per annum. (See attached spreadsheet prepared by Terry Wilson).

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Downloads:
● FB Stadium=Annual Ratepayer Costs=V2 (PDF, 9.47 KB)
● Stadium Costs $23.4144 million per annum (DOC, 30.5 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
2.6.14 Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten
23.5.14 Stadium | DCC DAP 2014/15 ● Benson-Pope asserts himself
9.5.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten

Received from Bev Butler
Monday, 2 June 2014 4:10 p.m.

Message: During the presentation of my submission on the draft annual plan I was asked by Council to produce the figures to back up my claim that the stadium was costing approximately $20 million per annum. David Benson-Pope made a general statement questioning whether the claims in my submission were correct – though he didn’t elaborate when I asked him. I have followed up the Council’s request and the final figure is $21.337 million.

Please note there is a huge disparity between what the DCC has published in the Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 and what can be shown by the DCC’s own figures that are very difficult to find and interpret. The ratepayers should not continue to be kept in the dark – the real costs are more than double what is being published.

This has now been sent to the Mayor and Councillors.

Regards
Bev

————————————

From: Bev Butler
To: Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham; Kate Wilson; Richard Thomson; Chris Staynes; John Bezett; Lee Vandervis; Hilary Calvert; Doug Hall; Andrew Whiley; Mike Lord; David Benson-Pope; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone; Jinty MacTavish; Dave Cull; Aaron Hawkins
Cc: Calvin Oaten
Subject: Stadium Cost $21.337 million per annum
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 22:49:43 +1200

Friday 30 May 2014

Dear Mayor Cull and Councillors

Attached is a Word document prepared by Calvin Oaten outlining the annual stadium costs. The final figure of $21.337 million is based on figures sourced from and cross-referenced with DCC/DVML/DVL/DCHL documents.
Also attached is a spreadsheet, containing four spreadsheets, prepared by Bev Butler, showing the treatment of the $146.6 million portion of the stadium debt.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Explanatory Note for Calvin Oaten’s Word document:
I have expressly not mentioned nor quantified costs of what I would term ‘collateral’ effects of the Stadium Project. These of course are very real additional financial burdens to the citizens. These are: the realignment of SH88, the forgiving of considerable debt owed the city by the Otago Rugby Football Union, the costs of the purchase and sale of Carisbrook including the holding of same in the interim period. And of course, the ongoing operational losses of DVML’s operations. These particularly are proving to be a continual drag on the financial conscience of the ratepayer. It seems that if council cannot, or will not bite the bullet and raise the “pay to use” level to at least a break even figure then professional rugby is destined to have the last laugh at our expense. It is simply not fair.
I remain, without prejudice
Calvin Oaten

Explanatory Notes for Bev Butler’s spreadsheets:
1. Sheets 1 & 2 titled “$117.541m” and “$29.059m” respectively outline the calculations for the two tranches of stadium debt outlined in the DVL six-monthly report, dated 31 December 2013. This report states that the $146.6m stadium debt has been divided into two tranches of $117.541m and $29.059m. The $117.541m is for a term of 17 years and the $29.059m is for a term of ten years with a weighted average of 6.05%pa. In the calculations I have assumed monthly compounding periods and assumed the first payment(s) were made between 30 June 2013 and 31 December 2013. If the compounding period is shorter then there would be a small reduction in the payments.
Note that in the DVL six-monthly report it states that a mortgage has been issued to pay for the two tranches. This is the first time this has been mentioned in the DVL reports so it is assumed that the mortgage was issued sometime between the last DVL Annual Report (YE 30 June 2013) and the DVL six-monthly report (31 December 2013). There is also mention of a GSA having been signed. I assume this is a General Security Agreement to secure the payment of the debt in the event of the stadium folding or the rental payments not being met. I acknowledge that I am unsure about this as I have no further information. Perhaps the Council staff could clarify this aspect.

2. Sheets 3 & 4 titled “$146.6m monthly” and “$146.6m weekly” respectively outline the calculations for the stadium debt had [regular repayments been made] from the time the stadium opened. It appears from the calculations and the DVL Annual Reports that this was not happening. If it was then the debt would have reduced to approximately $134 million. The DVL long term debt as of 31 December 2013 stands at $141.090m. So up until the mortgage was secured, it appears the debt repayments were for interest only on the bonds (and an average annual capital injection of $2m) which were issued to pay for the stadium land and other stadium debt.

[ends]

Downloads:
● Stadium Costs $21.337 million per annum (DOC, 30.2 KB)
● Stadium debt calculations FINAL (XLS, 59.3 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
9.5.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler
23.5.14 Stadium | DCC DAP 2014/15 ● Benson-Pope asserts himself

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler

Received Friday, 9 May 2014 at 12:00 p.m.

Submission to DCC Annual Plan 2014/15 by Bev Butler

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to my submission.

I would like to express my support for the stadium review announced a few months ago.

Stadium Review

Due to concerns expressed by various members of the community, and my own growing concerns about the stadium issue, I decided to enquire into spending by DVML, through LGOIMA. It soon became clear that inappropriate spending had been occurring for some time within DVML eg hotel bills for up to $US350 per night etc. Purchase of boys t-shirts, gloves, hat, chewing gum and shaving gear. These are not business expenses. It is clear from some of the expenditure claimed that there is an ingrained sense of entitlement, which is unacceptable.

I understood that Council staff have been committed to curbing their budgets because of the debt problem and were unhappy to see the unbridled spending occurring within DVML. It wasn’t without its difficulties to obtain this information – DVML didn’t release it willingly. DVML treated the request as an imposition rather than an obligation. I was however – persuasive. Without the mechanism of LGOIMA requests some of this information may not have seen the light of day and hence steps made to address this wastage. It was reported in the ODT recently that DVML are now looking into charging for the future release of information. I believe this is a retrograde step: the purpose of acquiring official information is an important check on how public officers use public money or carry out their duties. Without it, unbridled corruption could occur.

Unfortunately for the Carisbrook Stadium Trust, they also operated inappropriately never dreaming that a group of citizens including myself would request information officially to expose their inappropriate spending. In fact, the former CEO, Jim Harland, informed me in 2008 that the CST was not subject to LGOIMA. What Mr Harland failed to tell me was that he had sought two legal opinions which both confirmed that CST was subject to LGOIMA through the DCC under section 2(6). To this day, Mr Malcolm Farry still shows considerable resistance to this and I have had to make several complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman. Mr Farry could have been prosecuted under the Ombudsman Act for his obstructiveness in releasing certain information should the Ombudsman have chosen to do so.

Why has this group of citizens continued to obtain information about the construction of the stadium? After all, it is now built and why don’t people just move on, as some say. I shall now explain why many people have not let go as would normally be expected.

Some may recall after the Christchurch earthquake there was a news item on TV1’s Close Up program. Shock and horror was expressed over invoices being sent to Christchurch residents for repair of their chimneys damaged in the quake. These invoices were for $2,000 and criticism was expressed at so little detail on these invoices. They just stated labour and materials $2,000. This was considered completely inappropriate invoicing and at the time there were questions of possible fraud.

Well, those quake invoices pale into petty significance compared with the CST invoicing. The CST presented millions of dollars worth of invoices to the DCC with merely two words on them: “Trust costs”. And, furthermore, this is after the Auditor General stated in his September 2007 report that no payments would be made to the CST without detailed invoices.

The former DCC Chief Financial Officer also sent me a letter in October 2007 stating that no CST invoices would be paid without third party invoices to support them. It was recently stated in an official information request that these third party invoices do not exist. In response, Mr Farry has now produced some paperwork, which the DCC is processing. This should have been done at the time and not retrospectively. When discussing this with a lawyer I said that the CST invoice process left the door wide open for fraud. The lawyer’s response was: “Not an open door, Bev, but a bloody great cavity!”

I emphasise that I am not saying that fraud occurred, what I am saying is the process was so flawed that no-one would know whether fraud had occurred or not. There is no statute of limitations on private or public fraud. According to the CST financial statements presented to the Charities Commission more than $71 million of public money went through this Trust. Every single dollar must be accounted for. Personally, I think it appalling that the process was so sloppy given that all the CST trustees are so-called top business people including two accountants. At best it shows the sheer arrogance of those trustees. I have also found other unexplained discrepancies in some of their financial reporting which I will deal with in another forum.

Another reason why a group of citizens are still investigating the stadium is because we believe criminal activity may have occurred.
So the issue is not whether you are pro or anti stadium but whether you are pro or anti corruption.

Outcomes from the stadium review

What I hope eventually comes out as a result of the stadium review includes:

1. A cost/benefit analysis of all the possible scenarios for the stadium including:
(a) Retaining the stadium under DVL ownership and DVML management
(b) Bringing the stadium “in house” under direct DCC ownership and management
(c) Privatising the stadium
(d) Mothballing the stadium until the private funding is raised as was promised by the CST prior to the stadium construction.

2. A cost/benefit analysis of the natural turf vs artificial turf .

3. An honest, full analysis of the entire stadium costs – by this I mean a report showing ALL annual costs of the stadium including DVML costs, DVL costs, DCHL costs (including from all the companies directly and indirectly). Ratepayers deserve an honest assessment – it won’t make ratepayers feel any better but at least we will know the full extent of the cost of the stadium. Many people think that the stadium costs Council just a million or two per year when in actual fact it is costing Council approximately $20 million per year overall, directly or indirectly. Ratepayers have a right to know. It is also very difficult to expect Council to make decisions when they are not presented with the full extent of stadium costs.

4. A formal request from the Council for the CST to front up with the three $1 million donations for construction which Mr Farry very excitedly announced in 2007. None of these donations have materialised nor has Sir Eion Edgar’s $1 million donation he announced in DScene in August 2009. A request for interest on late payment at market rates would also be appreciated.

5. A request for an increase in payment for naming rights from Forsyth Barr to keep it in line with what was initially promoted to Council by the CST’s agent The Marketing Bureau. Council was told naming rights were worth over $10 million but Forsyth Barr is only paying $5 million. Eion Edgar is trying to double count his $1 million ‘donation’ as being part of the $5 million naming rights. Naming rights are a corporate contract not a ‘donation’. As a trustee of a number of Charitable Trusts Sir Eion Edgar knows this. He can’t have it both ways.

6. A review of the Stadium Hire Agreement with the ORFU. David Davies, a former CEO of DVML, said ratepayers would be very angry if they knew what was in it – obviously this agreement is not advantageous to the ratepayer. So much so the ORFU are in a position where they only need to sell 200 tickets to break even.

7. No DVML staff should be working for the ORFU – ORFU is a private business and it is not up to the ratepayer to be subsidising the Union through providing staff support.

8. An assessment of the estimated substantial maintenance costs which are looming as reported in the DVML/DVL annual reports. Part of the projected $188 million (‘not one dollar more’) construction cost was a $6.4 million maintenance fund, which never eventuated, like the $45 million ($55 million including interest) in private funding for the construction lie.

Finally, the inappropriate spending, which occurred in the CST and continued through DVML when CST staff transferred to DVML, needs to be addressed. The community were provided with misleading information throughout the stadium construction but thankfully there is a democratic process in place which allows these matters to be exposed, to prevent this from happening in the future and bring those responsible to account.

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 hearings

SUBMISSIONS
“Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull said this was the best opportunity for the council to judge how the community felt on matters.” (ODT)
The DRAFT Annual Plan process is not the best chance to judge the city council – that would take sittings at the High Court.

STADIUM
“Staff are also expected to report next week that they have found another $1 million savings or income, to keep the rates rise at 3% despite expecting Forsyth Barr Stadium to be about $1 million under budget again, also for the third consecutive year. That would bring the total [ratepayers’ contribution] to the venue’s cost annually to more than $10 million.” (ODT)
Everyone knows the cost to ratepayers for the stadium’s capital funding and operationals is +$20 MILLION per year.

—

### ODT Online Wed, 7 May 2014
Council ready to hear funding submissions
By Debbie Porteous
It will be up to the council to juggle tight budgets and the various pleas for extra spending as it begins hearing this morning from some of the 1119 submitters with views on the council’s 2014-15 draft annual plan, which sets out council spending for the coming financial year. It continues a disciplinary stance on new or additional funding, the council having already trimmed more than $3 million from its own budgets as part of its third consecutive year of pushing to cut costs, and keeps the forecast rates increase to 3%.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Earthquake-prone Buildings Amendment Bill

The proposed amendment bill raises significant concerns about the maintenance of current building stock, the character and identity of towns and cities, and the economic and financial wellbeing of provincial councils and their communities. More than 7000 buildings south of Timaru would require upgrading, at a cost of $1.77 billion over a 15-year period.

### ODT Online Mon, 24 Feb 2014
Councils aghast changes could cost billions
By Andrew Ashton
South Island councils are expected to offer a ”united front” in opposing new Government building regulations that could cost councils billions of dollars to implement.
Last year the Waitaki District Council joined the Dunedin and Invercargill city councils and the Central Otago, Clutha, Gore, Mackenzie, Southland, Timaru and Waimate district councils to present a joint submission on a discussion paper detailing proposed changes to the way earthquake-prone buildings are managed.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Town Halls and auxillary functions (clockwise from top left) Invercargill, Dunedin, Timaru and Oamaru – posterised by whatifdunedin

‘Heartbreak Hotel’ —Grahame Sydney

Received Thursday, 18 April 2013 11:23 a.m.

Wharf Street Hotel: time for some answers
By Grahame Sydney

With the DCC’s Resource Consent panel now sitting on its evidence, the full Council prevented from commenting on the proposal, and Dunedin ironically about to indulge in a celebration of its invaluable built heritage, isn’t it time a few things were clarified for the Dunedin public ? Time for a few truths to be told, instead of the shamefully dishonest propaganda from the promoters of the Wharf Street Hotel ?

Let’s start with the promotional video released on May 11, 2012 and voiced on behalf of his clients by Steve Rodgers of “Betterways Advisory”.

This sophisticated promo is a must-watch for all Dunedin residents, because within its 3 minute 49 second running time they will discover a Dunedin totally unlike the one they know: this is a fantasy Dunedin, whose tranquil waterfront bears no resemblance whatever to the facts. It is neat and orderly, blessed with open park spaces, and tied to its wharfs are luxury yachts and container ships. Rows of new, unrecognisable buildings have miraculously appeared behind every view of the towering glass monolith, and as the CGI camera sweeps across this fictional CBD towards the Stadium (curiously glimpsed only from overhead) and down its oddly-scaled roadways citizens will puzzle to identify any of the many buildings occupying the land in the vicinity of the Railway Station.

Perhaps the developers have bolder plans than a single hotel ? Certainly the Dunedin presented in this video sales pitch is not today’s city. It’s a scrubbed up, redesigned, blatantly re-scaled quasi-Auckland Viaduct vision in which the hideous proportions of the hotel appear more comfortable and the truth is deliberately ignored.

Dunedin eNZed May 13, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhiKqnDT06M

As you watch, hit the Pause button at 33 seconds, at 53, at 1.14, at 1.21, at 1.39, at 2.22….. what ARE those buildings ? Where did they come from ? Have I been asleep these last decades ? Am I in the right city here ? Would someone please be honest here ?

Having extolled the virtues of the city’s marvellous heritage buildings, and noting that they are one of the major reasons why “tourists love this city”, Mr Rodgers proceeds to extol the virtues of “my clients’ grand design”, which so brutally desecrates that heritage.

Who are these visionary clients, so hellbent on bestowing gifts ? We are slowly learning: the “Otago Businesswoman” behind the proposal is an ex-accountant locally, now consultant and wine promoter living in Queenstown. Ms Song has the good fortune to be married to Ping Cao, reportedly “one of China’s top construction company owners”. That marriage, incidentally, took place in another New Zealand city with which she reported fell instantly in love: Nelson. No “gifts” for Nelson, however. How fickle is love.

Being pushed forward now as the public face of the project, Ms Song’s repeated professions of love for Dunedin are no substitute for expertise, or indeed sensitivity. It is evident she and her entrepreneur husband belong to the camp which believes Dunedin’s Victorian and Edwardian built heritage has less appeal than the monstrously ugly Dunedin Stadium, and that they anticipate a brighter future for the city when more of the same charmless, cheap, dated design has overwhelmed the city’s essential historic character.

Far too many unanswered questions remain, and honest answers would be enlightening.