Port Otago made clear its support for the Dunedin City Council's multimillion-dollar harbourside vision yesterday, but warned the area was a working port - day and night - that might interrupt a good night's sleep for prospective residents.
And as the council finished its evidence at a hearing to decide on plan changes that would allow a redevelopment of the Steamer Basin with apartments, bars and tree-lined boulevards, council transportation planning manager Don Hill said free parking in the area might become a thing of the past.
"Any change will require a change for people who park freely and walk over the [currently damaged pedestrian] overbridge.
"Those people will have to find somewhere else to park, or look at other ways to travel."
For the council, Marshall Day Acoustics partner Keith Ballagh said the plan change provided an appropriate sound insulation standard that would permit industrial and residential users to co-exist without significant effects on either.
However, in questioning from the panel, he said residents would need to have realistic expectations, and Land Information Memorandum reports for properties would need to note that from time to time there might be effects from industrial activity.
He also called for a requirement for internal insulation between commercial and residential areas in buildings, if it was within the panel's powers to institute it.
Port Otago counsel Len Andersen told the hearing the company supported the plan change, but had serious concerns about the possibility of reverse sensitivity from prospective residents living beside a working port.
To support the redevelopment, the company would surrender part of its coastal permit, and transfer the wharf sheds to Chalmers Properties when they were required.
But Mr Andersen said while it supported stages one and two of the development, it wanted certainty about the future of stage two, as a "deferral" by the council was effectively rejection of the stage.
Port Otago's subsidiary, Chalmers Properties, the major landowner in the area, stands to make money from the sale of land or taking part in redevelopment.
The council last week said it had reduced the scope of the project, by withdrawing notices of requirement that would have acquired land for latter stages.
Mr Andersen said Port Otago needed certainty as to whether stage two would go ahead.
"If you're not going ahead with stage two, stage two is dead."
He told the hearing Port Otago had considerable experience dealing with noise mitigation at Port Chalmers, and did not want to be put in a position where it would have to compensate residents at the harbourside, as it had at Port Chalmers.
While the council had stated the harbourside was "an attractive, quality environment", people also needed to understand it was a noisy environment.
Night-time noise levels could be 60dBA to 65dBA, while 30dBA to 35dbA was the limit for people to get a good night's sleep.
"Noise in the area is unlikely to decrease, so it will remain an issue affecting residential use.
"Port Otago's position is that each new use must be established in a manner that is compatible with the existing port to prevent future conflicts."
Mr Ballagh said earlier he had experience in sound mitigation at Port Chalmers, and 30dBA was achievable without excessive cost.
Port Otago chief executive Geoff Plunket said the company employed 295 staff, and that was expected to increase to between 320 and 330 by the end of the year.
Port Chalmers received 344 vessels in the past year, while 207 used port facilities at Dunedin.
New Zealand Planning Institute member Don Anderson said environmental effects at the harbourside ranged from shipping to industrial, mechanical and transport noise, port-related activities and transport, discharges to air, and light spill.
The plan change needed to be proactive not restrictive.
"It should not be saying to the existing operators in Fryatt St, 'get out'.
"Rather, it should be saying to the existing operators in Fryatt St that `together there is a way forward'."
The project was a 50-year vision of the council and Chalmers Properties.
"In my opinion, that vision has been seriously let down by the negative approach to date, and by the recommendation to reduce its extent."
Mr Anderson said people developing in the area must ensure interior living spaces were adequately protected, no matter the cost.
"The alternative is that they don't develop within the zone. The choice is theirs."
