The Dunedin City Council's idea to redevelop the city's harbourside, local industry's fears of being uprooted by noise-sensitive new residents, and a major landowner keen to get started - those are the elements commissioners making a decision on the issue will have to juggle.
The hearing into whether the city's district plan should be changed to include commercial and residential use at the harbourside alongside industrial use, which would allow developers to start projects in the area, was adjourned yesterday.
Commissioners Roger Tasker and John Lumsden will now consider a raft of submissions from the past nine days, and sit to gather more if necessary, before making their decision.
Mr Tasker said there was no timeframe at this stage for that to be done.
The council released its plan for a harbourside with apartments, bars, a hotel and tree-lined boulevards in 2005.
Under the proposal, developed by the council and Port Otago's property investment subsidiary Chalmers Properties Ltd, a change of zoning to the district plan from industrial to mixed use would set the platform for developers to move in and invest in the area.
The council has about $10 million set aside for public amenities and roading access.
Chalmers Properties owns most of the land there, and has said it would freehold some to enable development.
The commissioners have heard the council's views, the concerns of local businesses, and Chalmers Properties' many witnesses advocating the project.
They will have to decide what evidence they found most compelling, whether the project should be limited to near the Steamer Basin or allowed further afield, and whether the council can acquire the land it needs for public spaces.
The Dunedin City Council ended this stage of the hearing when it gave its rebuttal evidence yesterday.
Planner Debbie Hogan said the recommendation to rezone only stage one of the project stood.
But the extent of the zone should be adjusted to exclude the slipway site, which is at the at the end of Birch St.
Ms Hogan said while Fonterra had asked for additional rules to address reverse sensitivity, the rules in place were sufficient.
The rule allowing businesses "existing use" rights to continue operating in the area was problematic, and difficult to administrate.
Providing a rule, as suggested by submitters, would overcome some difficulties, and if one was established, it should relate to the site rather than the building a business was in.
Council transportation planning manager Don Hill dealt with the issue of 41 Wharf St.
Developer Tim Barnett has resource consent for a three-storeyed office and residential building by the Steamer Basin, but the council wants to use it for roading, as part of the harbourside scheme.
Mr Hill said the preferred option to improve access at the harbourside was a crossing at Rattray St, which would require rail shunting yards to be relocated.
That involved negotiations with rail companies, and could take two to three years.
It would mean the north-facing ramp from the Jetty St overbridge to Wharf St would no longer be necessary.
With that option, it would still be desirable to shift Wharf St closer to the rail corridor - on to 41 Wharf St.
Statistical and retailing consultant Mark Tansley took on evidence by economic consultant Phil Donnelly, who said restrictions on the area that could be used by commercial and retail development were "unjustified".
Mr Tansley said attempts to commercialise the Wellington waterfront were unsuccessful, and retailing had been "more or less irrelevant" at Auckland's Viaduct Harbour.
There was no reason mainstream retailers should take the lead role in developing the harbourside.
Under the plan change, retailing would be an ancillary activity.
"The rules for retailing are arguably generous, unless viewed through the lens of a developer with a strong retail agenda."
Council counsel Michael Garbett said the main concern of industry in the area was the risk of future residents complaining about their activities.
"The concern boils down to a worry that the noise rule requiring acoustic insulation of dwellings will not be effective."
But the council's acoustic expert was unequivocal that it was, and none of the industrial users produced expert evidence to the contrary.
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust had called for the council to carry out an archaeological survey in the area.
But many industrial users had clearly said they were not planning to leave their sites in the foreseeable future, and the council was not attempting a survey before the plan change was confirmed.
"Confirming the plan change in no way prevents the council from allocating money to do such an assessment in the future."
The commissioners indicated they would undertake site visits next week.
