Tempers rise over scenic drive 'compromise'

Richard, like you I never came across any significant wildlife on the beach between St Kilda Surf Club and Lawyer's Head. I was once challenged for beach-space by a stroppy sea- lion in front of the St Clair Esplanade, (to the considerable amusement of a large crowd of onlookers), when I was walking along the beach deep in thought, and almost walked into the thing, but wildlife, up the other end of the beach...No.

Thank you for the question. The type of indepth process and/or analysis for major capital projects is essentially undertaken in detail at senior management level, not at Council (or board) level where the focus, of course, is on governance. The reports that come forward from management form the basis of how council deals with what is proposed. If the project is accepted, then inevitably it will require statutory consultation as in the Annual/Community Plan process. While not involving capital expenditure - if any at all - the future use of John Wilson Memorial Drive certainly requires some form of public consultation. So far the matter has been done rather 'ad hoc' simply because of the circumstances that have arisen since its closure to allow the pipeline to be constructed. So it has, to some extent, been 'captured' by those whose who saw - and understandably - took the opportunity to press their case. That is not a criticism. I am certain that no-one - apart from the medical, police and sea rescue people - was really aware of the extent of the tragedies involving people taking their own lives because of the 'easy access' to the cliff face at LH. Which is why I came onto this 'blog'. So please keep your thoughts a-coming.

It seems as if we are not allowed to talk about the reason for the fence on this blog as as I've had 2 comments not posted in the last two day but I would like to meet the person who came up with the idea of ruining one of the most accessible scenic spots in Dunedin with a Stalag 17 style fence they would make Colonel Klink look competent. Who says we have to have a fence? It's a disgrace that this has gone this far. The birds will still be there, the sealife will come and go as it has for all the years the drive has been there and as for the walkers - how would they like a drive placed on the Pineapple track? There is a walking track. It's called the beach. Just open the gate permanently.

If the best our council is able to come up with regarding Lawyers Head, is a view of our glorious stretch of beaches through 'chain-mesh', we might as well all go out and rob a bank somewhere, so we can enjoy a similar view of the surrounding hills, from the confines of the 'Milton Hilton'. In fact, there would even be the advantages of having no rates to pay, three meals a day and I would be able to enjoy the benefits of sport on a wide-screen TV, which I cannot afford at the moment. I recall no such lack of creative imagination, when the Stadium was being 'sold' as a proposition to the gaping yokels; rather the opposite, a gung-ho perception 'that all things were possible'.

...as part of the comprehensive consultation on the sewage/ww upgrades that were held back in the early 1990's and which are now nearing completion and in which remain the best attended and detailed of any undertaken by council. There were many options explored during that process. The restrictions that were statutorily imposed at a later date by parliament were not then "the straitjacket" they have become. The implementation of the agreed programme has followed with only one change, the building of the pipeline to sea ahead of the installation of secondary treatment. That is pretty remarkable given the span over the terms of successive councils. Ditto for the water upgrades.
In the end two factors counted against land disposal. The impermeable soils and the understandable opposition of the runaka to any disposal of ww effluent on The Peninsula and the enormous capital and operating costs of piping and pumping to e.g. nearby forests. Several pumping stations would have been needed and the soil conditions again were regarded as not entirely suitable, unlike Rotorua with its pumice lands. What goes out to sea contains no solids, with secondary treatment it will essentially be "water". The sewage, water and solid waste upgrades are the main drivers of current rate increases and remain so for the immediate future. Operating costs have a significant impact on rates, they go straight to "the bottom line". There is no doubt that your rate for "water in - water out' which already forms a major charge on your Rates Assessment would have been much higher if we were disposing effluent to land.

Thank you, Ian. I have noted this regularly. Something else you might care to comment on. You may recall that when the proposal to keep the Drive shut was first raised some months ago, there was reference in the staff report that came to the Community Development Committee in regard to DOC's comments on their 'noticing' re-establishment of wildlife along the Drive. In all the years as a kid that I regularly trekked through the sandhills between Lawyers Head and halfway to St Kilda (we used to walk down from Oakland Street and cut through the cemetery) and long before the establishment of the Drive, I never encountered or remember any wildlife permanently establishing a habitat anywhere on this stretch of beach.
An occasional visit from a seal or sea-lion perhaps, but that was about it. Your regular walks were, of course, much more recent than that even if some years ago. Did you see any wildlife making their permanent home in the area? I am naturally suspicious of all these things being wheeled out under the guise of conservation plans et al (not that I am against conservation in balance) and as a reason for keeping the drive closed until those plans are completed - if ever. Incidentally, I have also now seen the design of the proposed safety fence for Lawyer's Head - I was not at the committee meeting where it was first shown. Looks like something out of Stalag 17. Well, if we have to have a fence at The Lookout, that is absolutely not what is needed nor, given this is a reserve, do I think it has a hope in hell of gaining a resource consent. I look forward to your response re the wildlife.

Thanks for the comments Ian, as this "consultative" process is indeed unfortunately emerging as a pattern in many issues over the decades. One of the worst we will continue to pay for in the future is the sewage extension to the sea. DCC had research which identified two locations for land based sewage treatment in the early 1990's, as the inevitable way to go, that the sea was merely a short term option. I resubmitted the report back to the investigating panel as surprise, no one was mentioning it. The lawyers on board looked totally unruffled by the facts. I remain in stunned disbelief while my rates continue to climb to an unaffordable level and we are getting a nationwide reputation of being short sighted idiots.

Richard - I agree with you about staying with the suject, however, you have now raised the issue of how you make your decisions as a Councillor duly elected to represent our views.
You state,"But then, consultation does not mean agreement and, in the end, those of us who are elected to make decisions, do so."
Fair enough. Can you now please state what process you use to arrive at your decision? I assume that in light of the very large Council committments in the order of hundreds of millions per project, that you use a formal un-biased well-proven commercial system such as Kepner-Tregoe to arrive at a robust decision? Any comment? I appreciate that any decision to do with the John Wilson Drive does not require a formal process because it is a peanut-sized project. But 6 months to put up a fence. The Stadium fence went up a darn sight quicker then that and probably without a resource consent.

Richard, No one suggested that the consultative process would necessarily lead to 'agreement'; since a whole plethora of different views is held across the wider community on virtually every subject; that would simply lead to chaos. But, there is a wide perception, and it's growing, that 'consultation' of the type indulged in by the Council, is a charade.
You needn't take my word for it, grab a clip-board and buttonhole a representative selection of people who pass you in the street, for their opinions. I once took part in a 'consultative process', Council style and I was highly unimpressed. It was to do with a roundabout which has since been built in our own suburb, Waverley, and for which the council's 'solution' resulted in the expenditure of upwards of $65,000 to solve a 'problem', which to this day some long-term residents, me amongst them, saw as non-existent.
In the end, the general concensus of the meeting was that, 'we might as well, have the money spent in our own suburb, rather than have it spent somewhere else', and on that basis it was grudgingly approved. What struck me about the meeting, was that, we were presented with three alternatives, the presenters obviously favoured one, the most expensive, and were simply inviting an endorsement from the floor of what they had obviously already decided upon.
If that represents 'consultation' in your book, it sure doesn't do, in mine. I was, in fact, the gobby sod who insisted that the assistant on-the-night display the alternative site plans, all the same way up, and with 'north' towards the top, so we knew what they were 'on-about'. Dunedin's citizens are entitled to expect better. Either the process includes 'consultation' or it doesn't. 'Consultation' should be just that, with viewpoints being canvassed and heeded. What we have, at present is a 'Claytons Consultation', an emasculation of the principle, seeking endorsements for Council decisions which I suspect, have been long-since cut-and-dried. The 'City Fathers' go their own sweet way, with reference to nobody, and the outcomes invariably suit no-one as with the decision (or rather the lack of it), affecting John Wilson Drive. Where was the 'consultation' regarding the 'biggie' and most potentially wasteful of them all, the Stadium?

Until a few years ago, I used to go for a daily run which took me along John Wilson Drive. In my experience, one group of patrons, above all others, should be considered. Those are people who, for reasons of advancing age or immobility, are probably not able to reach the beach, but are able to drive to the location, find a park, and curl up on the front seat with a book, or simply take in the 'view', which must surely be unexcelled as an 'urban' phenomenon anywhere on our coastline. In fact, my observations of these people as I passed, once got me into an awkward situation, when I came across an elderly lady who, to all intents and purposes, had 'died' while parked there, as she was slumped over the steering wheel. On knocking on the driver's side window, the 'departed' did a 'Lazarus' and suddenly came back to life, to my acute embarassment. I put it down to the soporific effects of being confined in a car on a hot day.

You are entitled to your opinions although I may not agree with them. But then, consultation does not mean agreement and, in the end, those of us who are elected to make decisions, do so. The formal consultation processes that I take it you are referring to are required by law. By and large, the discussion and/or the debate in e..g. the Annual Plan comes down to about 5% to (maybe) 10% of council non-core expenditure. Having said that, can I again ask what you have to say about John Wilson Drive not all these other things. It is not getting us anywhere. A discussion should be more fruitful than endless arguments.

Richard, credit where it's due; at least you will join in and mix it with 'the great unwashed' in such debate as this, which is more than most of the council's invisible 'faces' seem prepared to do. The fact is, the 'consultation' thing, as everybody knows, is simply window-dressing, photo-opportunities and going- through-the-motions simply to present all council initiatives with the most favourable 'spin'. Dunedin has become for me a city of 'punitive' measures, with the Council's 'big-stick' wielded at every opportunity. In my experience, people don't respond to the 'whip-hand' any more, (and good luck to them), incentives are needed, with 'something-in-it' for both consumers and the council. Unfortunately the prevailing mentality flies in the face of this. It may have escaped the Council and its officials that the days of forelock touching are over, and people increasingly demand, and are entitled to do so, that what the council enacts should be in line with general community needs and expectations. Ratepayers may be a downtrodden lot, but at the end of the day, they are still, technically, the 'employers', and that I think, tends to be forgotten at 'City Hall'.

Thank you for the suggestions. Yes, it is time for a fresh approach on how Council communicates and, in fact, a review is going on right now. Don't be too hard on me though for not trying to cover everything in 'one hit' on here. I was, after all, simply responding to the first post (there are two other blogs running on the same topic) as well as the article and all that has gone before on this matter. In short, coming in "down the track a bit". Bear in mind, whether John Wilson Memorial Drive should reopen or be kept closed has really only arisen by 'accident' (the closure for the construction of the WW pipeline) and Council has 'suddenly' found itself with several unexpected schools of thought on what should be done. Like most - if not all of my colleagues - I do not know the extent of opinion on the matter hence my interest in this and any other blogs. And nothing has, of course, been informally or formally consulted upon, as indeed I pointed out at Community Development last Tuesday. So, can we just keep to the topic - no 'myths', no sidetrips into unrelated matters, please.

Thank you Richard for the last paragraph explaining what parking will be reviewed. Now why on earth could that not have been clarified in the initial article or by yourself in your first letter on the matter? A suggestion - when the DCC prepares their "Noticeboard" for the ODT, could not they also develop a "Council Business" page where matters that have been discussed such as the JW Drive could be reported? Councillor names would not be required. Just plain simple language. To refer ratepayers to the DCC website has only limited value when one considers that many, many ratepayers do not have computers and are reliant on the ODT for Council feedback. The DCC Magazine is not good enough since it is purely a "good news" periodical. Surely it is time for a fresh approach on how Council matters are reported to ratepayers? Ian Smith cannot be chastised for being cynical considering the many secret dealings done during the Stadium process.

Cr. Walls should stop and consider, for a moment, that as soon as the matter of 'parking' on John Wilson Drive is mentioned, so many people in Dunedin immediately call-to-mind the spectre of what has happened in the Central City. If he then considers, that the City Council should be cut-some-slack on the matter, we have the precedent of the means used to bring the Stadium into being. Does he then consider that he belongs to a Council which has the confidence of by far the majority of city ratepayers? For, if he does, I have news for him.

Hi everybody join this facebook page and get the gate at John Wilson Drive opened permanently.http://www.facebook.com/pages/open-the-gate-John-Wilson-Drive/135121435635?ref=nf

It would be helpful to have an objective discussion and suggestions on the matter and not have it 'hi-jacked' into an argument with reference to other projects.
Council has already received and/or heard at the Public Forum and Community Development meetings a considerable number of submissions and views on the matter.
The parking matters to be addressed, relate to spaces near the St. Kilda Surf Club and to ensure that access etc is available for emergency vehicles as well as for those who just want to park and enjoy the view from near there.

There are now many rumours around that the DCC will install parking meters along John Wilson Ocean Drive. Can the Council deny that this will happen?

There is a huge pedestrian area at the Esplanade for those wanting to walk safely with a sea view.

Please open John Wilson Drive seven days a week so that everyone can enjoy the scenery, and open the gates an hour before sunrise and an hour after sunset so that we can once again enjoy watching and photographing the vivid skies that so often occur at those times.

Diane Isaacs There is another thread running on this same topic, can the threads be combined, as so far all believe the Drive should be restored to it's preclosure status.

You may point that out but you may have missed my point. Why should the drive be closed at all, yes its great that the gate is open while i and most of dunedin are at work or school and closed at the weekends when it will get used.

How can you councillors let another six months go by with the drive closed, thousands of tourists will visit Dunedin over that time on the weekend or not some will be denied that drive others won't.

Why is it closed on the weekends? Why havent the council enough guts to make a decision that is best for Dunedin? Come on Richard show strength. Open the gate

What 'parking-issues' are to be considered by Council Staff? I was not aware of 'parking-issues' prior to the poo-pipe closure. Let's hope the 'parking-issue' being considered doesn't have, as its final outcome, yellow lines everywhere and those hideous contrivances which motorists are at such pains to avoid having to feed in the Central City.

Four-dollar parking at John Wilson Drive doesn't exactly carry connotations of 'Dunedin - It's all Right Here', rather the opposite; especially, when we are well aware, that under the present Council and its minions, 'It's all wrong here'.

Cr. Bezett should know all about 'collusion'. Did he not, after all, 'collude' with most of his fellow Councillors when inflicting the Stadium Project upon the almost 80 percent of Dunedin ratepayers who didn't want it?

The compromise at least gets the gates open to vehicle traffic in daylight hours almost immediately for 5 days of the week.
If the previous resolutions - now set aside - had been put into effect, the gates would have remained closed until the resource consent for the proposed fence at the lookout had been obtained.
The consent will probably take 3 months and the construction of the fence, perhaps another three.

Thank you very much Richard and mates. How long do you councillors need to make a decision? Just open the gate permanantly. There is a plaque at the top of John Willies to Leonard Wright former mayor and long serving councillor. He would be disgusted at the way the council has handled this affair.Get real, open the gate.

I doubt there will be hundreds of walkers on the Drive, except perhaps during the summer months. Therefore, to close it during the weekends and evenings to drivers does not make sense to me. Should it be renamed John Wilson Ocean Walk? It is a road and most people, most of the year, will drive on it, not walk on it. Still can't see why a solution can't be found to enable people to walk along it safely, whilst still allowing transport (I commented on this a few weeks back on this website). I'm a keen walker, but I think it'd be a travesty for JW Drive to be traffic-free at anytime, day or night.

Thanks, Diane. A fair question.
As I commented at yesterday's committee meeting, if the Drive had not been closed for the installation of the WW pipeline, the status quo would have remained and probably unchallenged - for the foreseeable future.
So we have seen the emergence of interest in having the Drive as 'a walking street'. On the other, for the return of the previous 'open' road. Both claiming majority support.
Then there are the other issues in regard to Lawyer's Head.
The 'compromise' gives us a chance to find out. Then whatever emerges needs to be meaningfully consulted upon. That can be done outside of the formal draft Annual Plan either at a hearing convened under the authority of the Community Development Committee or at a Public Forum meeting.
I personally believe there is probably a better 'shared' solution than the compromise proposal.
Hopefully that will emerge over the next few months.

If every Saturday and Sunday, rain hail or shine, John Wilson Ocean Drive is covered with the "hundreds" of walkers who expressed the need for it to remain closed, then the decision may be justified. But why should the majority of the citizens who work during the week, or weekend visitors, be denied the chance to enjoy this asset of the city?
Diane Isaacs