‘Disappointed’ bill to refuge not fully waived

Darryl Sycamore says the Dunedin City Council’s decision to slash the fee it charged Otepoti...
Darryl Sycamore says the Dunedin City Council’s decision to slash the fee it charged Otepoti-Dunedin Whanau Refuge for "minor renovations" is a fair one. PHOTO: GREGOR RICHARDSON
A Dunedin charity advocate is "disappointed" after the charity failed to get a full remission of a more than $50,000 Dunedin City Council bill.

Otepoti-Dunedin Whanau Refuge was originally charged $52,866.88 for "minor renovations" to convert a house into office space.

The charity earlier had the development contribution - which can be charged by the council when using a residential-zoned property for commercial purposes - lowered to $41,998, and after a hearing in August it has now been dropped to $24,005, including GST.

In the original bill, the council calculated that, based on the size of the property, the refuge would generate traffic equivalent to 23.25 households.

This calculation, as per the council’s policy, was based on averages for typical developments throughout the city.

Refuge advocate Darryl Sycamore, who is a planner for Terramark and supported the charity at August’s hearing, was disappointed not to secure the full remission.

However, he said it was a fair call by the commission.

"It is fair as the commissioners can only work with the policies that have been formally adopted by council.

"Naturally, we are disappointed to not secure full remission of the development contributions levy as volunteers work hard for every dollar they raise to support vulnerable families."

In a letter to the refuge, the hearings committee said in order to be fair, development contributions had to be charged in accordance with its policy to make sure costs were not transferred to ratepayers.

"We are satisfied that the proposal has unique circumstances that set it apart from the generality of other commercial land use proposals and on this basis, we consider there is no issue ... or policy integrity at stake."

Mr Sycamore said the development contributions policy was written such that the refuge was defined as a commercial activity when, in reality, it was a non-profit community charity.

"I doubt anyone in the community views the refuge as a commercial enterprise," he said.

laine.priestley@odt.co.nz

 

 

Advertisement