Monday, 2 July 2007

incomprehensible timing

Within the same week.. the front page of the ODT again. Seriously? with the very real threat of more severe erosion along the same beachfront.. I witness the incomprehensible timing for the unveiling of a major development on the Esplanade. Yes, I know change is inevitable I am not against the development, they're nice plans Mr Chittock, but in my many conversations over the last few weeks with members of the public, we feel quite concerned with the questionable integrity and longevity of the new sea wall. I cannot comprehend how the Dunedin City Council can approve a building consent of this magnitude, with underground carparks too, so close to the sea wall and shoreline at this point in time. We have had the wall 'leaking' last week, with a continuous flow of water from between the panels, the erosion of the panels themselves with rocks/logs and wave action. Continual destruction of the steps and ramp.. dune erosion and intense loss of sand along the beaches making the low tide line where the high tide line was 6 months ago.


Anonymous said...

more concrete for the st clair reef :D

Anonymous said...

Nic, whilst he may have building consent, that counts for little until such stage as the applicant has resource consent. both are very different.


Nic on 02 July, 2007 19:00 said...

Yes, I understand both are different, I assumed he had already gained resource consent under section 106a and b of the RMA which is pretty much under similar criteria as section 71 of the building act 2004 particuarily sections 71 1(b),3(a) and 3(d).

Anonymous said...

yes and the only sand you will find is where the council has burried its head !!

Nic on 03 July, 2007 11:04 said...

haha, classic :0)

Anonymous said...

The buildings are still only in the preliminary design stage so obviously they don't have building consent yet. It doesn't say specifically in the article, but it sounds like they already have resource consent.

Personally, I wouldn't be too worried about the sea wall failing. It's the stairs/ramps that haven't performed well recently, the wall itself looks like it's performing nicely. The leaks you see are coming through at the pre-cast panel joints, which is exactly what you would expect in that kind of situation.

Anonymous said...

The article says the proposal can be built as-of-right. This usually means without a resource consent. It then says that it would not be notified. It is not entirely clear, this can mean that it either doesn't require a resource consent or otherwise it requires a consent but the district plan says that it needn't be notified. If the second situation applies, then there are what is termed "special circumstances" under which a proposal is still publically notified, although Councils usually don't notify applications in this situation. If Council decides not to notify a resource, but special circumstances exist, then a judicial review in the high court can be sought - a costly process - if it can be shown that there was an error of law in the Councils assessment, or that they didn't turn their mind to a particular issue that they should have. Things such as high levels of public interest aren't generally sufficient to be treated as special circumstances.

S106 only applies to subdivision consent - in this case it would only apply to unit titles, which could be applied for after the building is constructed. In terms of the building act, if the Council considers that there is sufficient mitigation proposed to ensure that the building and land are protected, as well as other buildings and land, then it can grant building consent under s72.

Hope this helps some.


Anonymous said...

I should have read the article 1st... Anyhow, I think the land is zoned Local Activity 2. Land was rezoned two years ago so a lot of these scenarios would have been played out in the submission process.

The activity will only be permitted as of right if it is able to comply with the relevant provisions of Rule 9.8.2 ' Conditions attaching to permitted activities.' These include a maximum building height of 11m, 30 deg height plane angles, car parking, restaurant hours, glazing etc.

The failure to comply with any of these rules would result in the activity requiring resource consent. More than likely this would be a discretionary (restricted) activity so public notification would be unlikely to occur.


Nic on 03 July, 2007 20:14 said...

so right, section 106 is not applicable, so the lots will be amalgamated through section 75 of the building Act and I assume a tag applied as to the nature of the natural hazards? and any building work to remedy or mitigate the effects of these hazards on the structure?
would the engineers employed to investigate these natural hazard threats (coastal erosion, storm surges,inundation, sea level rise)be independent or DCC?

well what about the buildings' effects on the community? like the 3 storey shadow cast over the esplanade basically all day over the winter months.. reducing markedly the enjoyment of a public area

Anonymous said...

Commenting from the other end of the country...however:

The lots can be amalgamated simply by going to the LINZ and requesting that they are put in the same title. This doesn't require any consent whatsoever, as it is not a subdivision of land.

The engineers would most likely be DCC engineers, unless they seperately contract out their services. DCC would have to be fully satisfied that the proposal will not excacerbate the hazard, they can then approve under s72 of the building act and registrations on the title would need to be made as per subsequent sections.

As finny has noted, arguments would have been dealt with when the provisions were put in the plan. Not sure whether there is a requirement for recession planes on road frontages for that zoning in the DCDP.

One thing you might consider doing is talking to the developer about your concerns. Dialogue can be very beneficial, and it might also help to understand their design approach and give you the opportunity to influence it. It might be possible that alternative designs could be done to step the building back and going to four levels, or create light shafts in the design for daylight to the Esplanade. Height is not always a bad thing, however it is good design principles aren't used.

While this might result in other rules being breached, the overall result may be better urban design.

This area is important as I know it is one of the landmark areas of Dunedin.


Anonymous said...

Nic, the recession planes as required by Rule 9.8.2 would deal with issue of overshadowing. However, given that the RMA is effects based, would this be any greater than what is already experienced at the esplanade? Also, now that the area is zoned Local Activity 2, the impacts on the existing residential amenity will no doubt be discounted.

Finny in London


phoam surf blog Copyright © 2008 Black Brown Art Template by Ipiet's Blogger Template