What happened to the reason for Ravensdown in Public Excluded. In the agenda (2 April 2012) we have;
Then we have this from the minutes;
Could someone make up their mind…are we sticking to the agenda or not? How about adhering to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.
From the Bluff Community Board agenda for 14 May (Monday)
232 GORE STREET, BLUFF − RAVENSDOWN BUILDING
A building consent has been received to demolish the building at 232 Gore Street.
Council has asked some questions over removal of foundations and how drains are to be
sealed, and also advised the applicant that a resource consent is also required.
The questions were asked on 20 April 2012 and as at 3 May 2012 no reply had been
received.
And that’s about all I have to say that.
It seems whenever Ravensdown are shipping the searches for ‘Ravensdown Bluff’ (and variations) increase. Can’t say I give much of a shit, I’ve said my piece, I’ve told the powers that be and it really is up to them. No use harping on about the same old crap (or urine in this case).
I’m told they shipped into the top shed (events centre) all night. I don’t know which door they were using, front or back but it does raise some relevant points.
I will make a few comments though in support of Ravensdown. The mess hasn’t been as bad of late and the trucks do all seem to have their covers on. I also understand why they are using here. It’s cheap, zoning allows it, the powers that be basically ignore Bluff and increasing fuels costs mean they don’t have far to travel and they can turn around more loads in less time. That all reiterates the need to rezone. What if Ballance decide to have storage in Bluff to reduce transportation costs and turn around times?
The Board has been told the Club Hotel is up for sale. Mayor Tim has been talking about the impact of new earthquake requirements for buildings from central government in light of Christchurch. I’ve pointed out that the Club is not listed on the Historic Places Trust. If you’re like me you can see the problem. Central government standards could make the Club too expensive to remain and demolition will be required and not being historic nothing can be done to prevent it. Anyone looking at purchasing the site will see it as cheap bare land in an enterprise zone close to a port.
If you think council will protect us through the resource consent process, you’re deluded because enterprise zoning is very permissive and they may choose not to notify the resource consent. Short term thinking from the board by not supporting the rezoning. Council in the draft LTP again point out the port is vital and we are a port town. The port is vital to SOUTHLAND and Bluff is a COASTAL town that has a port (Island Harbour). We are also a fishing village with tourist attractions but who gives a shit, not council or the board.
Don’t have time for links to the evidence, I would hope as members of this community you take the time and gather your own evidence. If you work, play or live in Bluff you have a role to play in the community, whether you are a Ravensdown employee, business owner, long time resident, new resident, truck driver or a truck driver’s narrow minded wife.
Open up your minds just a little and you may see that if big business prevails along our main street, smaller businesses will not prosper and you’ll be driving to town for everything.
I’ve previously used comments from Rodney Green, Ravensdown CEO. Those comments came from this email. It’s interesting that in the email he says;
As we have done successfully for many years, please be assured we will be working with the Bluff
Community Board, Invercargill Council and Environment Southland as we evaluate these options. We will
do our part to try and ensure this collaboration can take place at speed. If all those interactions go to
schedule, we expect to be in a position to communicate with residents about the preferred options by March 2012.
Well, it seems things are not going to plan because here we are in April and RAVENSDOWN requested Public Excluded with the community board. Unfortunately our April Fools allowed it! The only information provided is ‘Ravensdown are awaiting compliance before removing 232 Gore Street’.
Compliance? According to Mr Green
we comply with the stated relevant zoning regulations
Why are you ‘awaiting compliance’ if you ‘comply with the stated relevant zoning regulations’? Since they are talking about removing the Shaw Savill building we know it’s not relating to the building itself therefore it must be relating to their activity.
For a long time I have been complaining that they don’t have resource consent for their activity. It seems pretty obvious that they want to get their ducks in a row before they stop using the site for their activity. They have needed resource consent because they store more than 5000kg of a Agrichemical. They have never had consent and ICC have never made them. Herein lies the problem I think.
My guess is that they want a retrospective resource consent. If they knock down the building they will have pre-existing rights to rebuild on the footprint BUT they do not have pre-existing rights for their activity because there is no approval in the first place hence no paperwork (a resource consent). When they rebuild the process will include a resource consent check, unless they sort it out NOW (before demolition) they will have nothing on file.
Council could give them retrospective resource consent but public interest in the activity may make ICC notify (if they have a brain cell) and Ravensdown won’t like that, the community being able to have a say! ICC may show their usual disregard of their residents and grant resource consent without publicly advertising it (until after the fact). We can still have some confidence though because once the activity stops, they have one year to begin again…or they have to re-apply. The Resource Management Act has some good sections:-)
I hope the chairperson doesn’t mind me using her frequent ‘media’ statement, if she does, her lawyer can contact me:-)
Here’s a rundown of last night’s community board meeting. Apologies from P Coote, no show S Allan, leaving three ‘elected’ and one appointed.
Well, it seems the Club Hotel is up for sale and ICC will be forcing some action from the current owner. Maybe we will see something done about the verandah. I came across an old Bluff Beacon (can’t remember which but it was over a year ago) that had a letter to the editor about debris falling from the verandah eaves. The wheels turn slowly. The old pool hall at the back of the Club is to be removed also.
The next District Plan will not list the Club Hotel as historic and in particular no buildings in Bluff since nothing is on NZ Historic Places Trust Register. That surprises me. Established 1824 but officially nothing historic?
It seems Cr Boniface will be facilitating that Urban Rejuvenation meeting, 26 April, 7pm @ St John’s. Thinking caps on!
The Chair spoke about the Easy Rider tragedy and I’m told she managed NOT to bring up the Kotuku. Must have been biting her tongue really hard. The Foveaux Strait Memorial Fund had $3249 a few days ago and Charlie and Lewis moved and seconded that the Board give $200. Hope it gets taken out of the Xmas party budget…lol. Jan and Tim are seemingly in charge of the monies which makes no sense. You would think Cr Abbott and Leon Hamilton (who are leading the charge) would be more appropriate (and committed). Where a tribute goes is going to be hotly debated I think.
The ‘Town Hall Gardens’? Don’t know, don’t care. Leave it to the doers not the talkers.
It seems Ravensdown are ‘waiting on compliance before removing the Shaw Savill building’. That’s another blog post in itself.
I’ve decided to ‘keep Mum’ prior to the community board meeting tonight. It seems my views are being used. Isn’t it interesting that we now have ‘actual’ Chairperson’s report being included in the agenda?
I’ll be impressed when they stop making decisions in workshops or have workshops open to the public AND submit notes to the following meeting agenda. And pigs might fly….
I have comments on many things and interestingly many cross into each other. I might work on them today and wait until they are at the meeting before publishing them. It goes against the grain if they are using my blog as a communication tool and to get information when they have such disdain for it.
It will be interesting to know the statements from the board members in light of recent events and topics in the agenda.
So who else found it in the Action Sheet?
Click to enlarge
Some idiot suggested it be in Public Excluded but I remind anyone and everyone that it is up to the elected members to vote on whether it be in PE.
The reason for the PE is given as ‘to protect the privacy of natural persons’. What natural persons? Can’t be our elected members, they voluntarily gave up that privacy when they ran for the Board. The employees of Ravensdown that are attending? I doubt it, being as they have hundreds of shareholders they are responsible to…
This is the general fob off reason they choose because the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act doesn’t offer
“To exclude the peasants so they can’t see us fold under pressure or hear what bullshit excuses we accept or deals we make that screw over the community and prove we are inept morons who have now crossed way over the line into ICC’s regulatory responsibilities”
BTW, it seems the current price for selling out the community is $5k (previously $4k), are Ravensdown willing to beat that…let the bidding begin!
The Bluff agenda is online and was on Wednesday before Charlie even got his copy.
Have other things on my mind but check out item 16…remember the invitation the Board extended in February…will they be in attendance? I found the answer, brownie points for anyone else that can!
Rumours abound, I’ve heard that quotes are being sought for the rebuild of the Shaw Savill building!
No building consent has been obtained yet though (I’ve checked) and still no resource consent (checked that too). If Ravensdown are storing more than 5000kg they need resource consent. They have never had resource consent and ICC to date have not made them.
One good thing about a rebuild (on the same footprint) is that when the building consent is being processed it will be assessed whether it requires resource consent. Surely ICC will publicly notify the resource consent ‘application’…then we can have our say…the joys of a democracy:-)
If they change the access, we are lucky enough to have Opus (on behalf of Transit) to approve any changes. They ALWAYS go out for consultation and they have a say on any intersections that meet up with SH1. That would mean even if Ravensdown want to bulldoze two houses and use the land as a driveway off Liffey Street, Transit have the last word.
It will be interesting to what our community has to say about that because the board hasn’t been expressing what they know so far. The immediate question is…will Ravensdown show up and update the board at the meeting on the 2nd of April as requested?
Someone searched that term yesterday…are there other communities suffering the effects of Ravensdown activity? Or was it someone local? I did note prills spilled over the footpath outside the Shaw Savill building and more further up the road in the gutter. While it was possibly not much, it was enough for it to be visible when driving past at 50km and obviously in prill form.
I would suggest that staff have a drive around the block when they finish for the day with a dustpan and broom in the boot. Best be on your best behaviour because it looks as if even the Board are getting sick of excuses from Ravensdown.
