123 Vogel St, an action about council process?

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

At Facebook:

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If that was the fight advertised on page 1 today.

****

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

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

—

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Roy Miller, NZ stained glass artist #biography #inspiration

*All images and accompanying texts by Brian Miller [promotion]

“St John’s church in the attractive little town of Pleasant Point, South Canterbury, has a window of a man sowing seed beneath Mt Cook. Designed by K Bunton, executed by Roy Miller.”

“In a valley near Geraldine at Raincliff, New Zealand, is a tiny church with a beautiful abstract window of native NZ flowers. Designed by Kenneth Bunton, and executed by Roy Miller.”

“Naseby is a sleepy little Gold mine town nestled in a forest in Otago, New Zealand. There you will find St Georges Church with beautiful stained glass inside. It contains a pair of windows designed by Kenneth Bunton and executed by Roy Miller – with one of the best sheep I have seen in my travels.”

“There is a tiny church at Manutahi on the edge of Mt Taranaki which only has one service a year – but inside is the most beautiful window of the mountain – took my breath away when I saw it.”

—

A new book aims to shine a light on Dunedin stained-glass maestro Roy Miller. He came from a family boasting a history of artists and artisans. Roy’s (and Ralph’s) grandfather, Henry Miller, was a master coachbuilder whose hansom cabs won several championship awards at the Melbourne Exhibition. Their father, Oswell, established Dunedin signwriting firm O. G. Miller in 1913; it became Miller Studios in 1958, then in 2016 was rebranded Miller Creative Group. –ODT

### ODT Online Mon, 31 Oct 2016
Colour and light
By Shane Gilchrist
Amid the various refractions of memory, as shards of one scene are overlaid on another, Brian Miller recalls a childhood image of a stained-glass kiln out the back of Dunedin signwriting firm Miller Studios. He also pictures his Uncle Roy holding pieces of glass up against the light before cutting curves with the confidence of a master. Thankfully, Roy Miller’s work is a tangible thing. New Zealand’s leading stained glass artist from the 1950s until his death in 1981, Miller produced more than 330 windows, in about 100 churches around New Zealand. Brian details Miller’s legacy in Capturing Light: Roy Miller – New Zealand Stained Glass Artist, which offers an insight not only into the life and work of his uncle but also provides a history of the art of stained glass, both in New Zealand and internationally, as well as an overview of early Dunedin stained-glass artists. In short, it’s a celebration of artistic inspiration and the artisan skills required to, as the title says, capture light. The book also contains plenty of information on techniques for conserving historic stained glass artworks, all of which provides an inherent warning: that many such works are in danger of degradation.
Read more

● ODT: Looking at a stained glass window …

THE BOOK
Capturing Light: Roy Miller – New Zealand Stained Glass Artist
Published by Lifelogs Ltd ($69.99)
More information about Roy Miller and the history of stained glass:
Website https://roymiller.co.nz | Facebook Capturing Light

The publishers Brian and Diane Miller have an extensive background in bookselling, writing, publishing and photography. They operated Tapui Children’s Books for over twenty years before venturing into their own publishing business Lifelogs Ltd.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Red flags to Windows 10

—

### Stuff.co.nz Last updated 17:20, July 31 2015
Windows 10 uses customers’ computers to distribute updates
By Tom Pullar-Strecker
A couple of surprises have been found under the bonnet of Microsoft’s latest operating system.
█ Microsoft has confirmed that people who switch to its latest Windows 10 operating system may find their internet connection is then used to upload Microsoft updates to other Windows 10 users.
█ Another feature of Windows 10 that has raised red flags with some computer users is the inclusion of advertisements in one of its “native” apps, popular game Solitaire.

The use of “peer-to-peer” technology to help distribute software is controversial, in part because it can push computer users through their broadband data caps. Microsoft does not appear to advertise the fact that Windows 10 will harness people’s internet connections to distribute updates, at no advantage to those users whose bandwidth is being consumed.

Microsoft New Zealand marketing director Frazer Scott said he expected the amount of bandwidth used would be small, but conceded he could not quantify how large the files that might be uploaded from people’s computers would be.

United States online music service Spotify also used peer-to-peer technology in the past to distribute music tracks between customers, without making it clear it was doing so, though it stopped the practice last year.

█ Microsoft has published instructions on how to turn off the feature, which is called Windows Update Delivery Optimization, but Owen Williams, a technology writer at TheNextWeb, criticised the company in a blog for “burying the settings” behind an “advanced options menu” in Windows 10.
Read more

█ Also browse Mic Wright’s article at TheNextWeb to learn about privacy issues with Windows 10.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: blackwallstreetmagazine.com – red flag alert [HowWomen]

Dunedin product innovation and production #doubleglazing

### ODT Online Mon, 7 Jul 2014
Retrofit double-glazing system catches on
By Sally Rae
A Dunedin-designed double-glazing system, which started as a concept drawn on a paper pie packet, is now being sold in Australia. Thermawood, a patented retrofit double-glazing system for existing timber joinery, was the brainchild of Graeme Clarke, whose background was both as a joiner and a glazier. The system was developed around drainage.
Read more

Website: Thermawood Otago

From the website: ‘An advanced double glazing system for existing timber joinery. A unique, patented double glazing system which has been approved and tested to building standard NZS4211:2008 the industry standard for weather-tightness for windows and doors. Experienced, skilled tradesmen ensure quality workmanship. Thermawood is proudly locally owned and operated from Dunedin, servicing the wider Otago region. All Thermawood materials are 100% NZ made and the Grandadapter is manufactured locally in Mosgiel. Thermawood Otago are also experienced in and offer – retrofitting aluminium windows and doors, double glazing, re-glazing, frameless glass showers, balustrades, painted glass splash-backs, mirrors, architectural glazing systems.’

Note: What if? Dunedin can’t endorse the product; we can confirm it’s a locally available building option.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: thermawoodotago.co.nz