A crucial hearing to decide on a zoning change for the Otago Stadium begins on Monday but, in an unusual move, the council planner's report with a recommendation on whether the change should go ahead will not be available until the first day of the hearing.
The Dunedin City Council intends to change its district plan to allow a new "stadium zone" that would allow the project to be built on Awatea St, and to put in place notices of requirement allowing it to build a road around the stadium.
Carisbrook Stadium Trust chairman Malcolm Farry has said the plan change was one of the most important parts of the stadium process, and that appeals to the Environment Court could stop the project being built before the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
Planner Jane Macleod has completed a report on the notices of requirement for the harbour arterial route, recommending they be approved, with conditions, but said yesterday that because of the tight timeframe for the project, not all the information was available for the zoning aspect of the report to be written.
The reports usually come out before the hearing, but Ms Macleod said it was still being worked on yesterday, and would not be completed until Monday, "I suppose because of the urgency of the project. It will be available for the hearing."
She disagreed that would make it more difficult for people to respond to issues raised in the report, as the report would be the first produced at the hearing, which was expected to last two weeks.
She said there was no legal requirement to complete the report before the hearing.
Three independent commissioners - Roger Tasker, John Lumsden and John Matthews - will make up the committee hearing the issues.
It is their job to decide whether to allow a district plan change on the site that would turn industrial-zoned land into campus and stadium-zoned land, and whether to allow designation of land for 2km of road from Thomas Burns St to Ravensbourne Rd.
There were 108 submissions supporting the plan change, 107 opposed and two neutral, with 83 people indicating they want to be heard.
Arguments in the submissions range from complaints about the level of consultation on the stadium issue to simple statements of support or opposition for and against the project.
Many of the arguments in the submissions are outside the scope of the hearing, which is reflected in Ms Macleod's report on the notice of requirement for the harbour arterial route.
She did not consider submissions on the financial costs of the proposed work, and the "opportunity costs" of funding the stadium rather than other projects, to be resource management matters, and they "will therefore not be considered further in this report".
Ms Macleod treated submissions on funding sources for the stadium, and the effect of the stadium on demand for public transport, in the same way.
She disagreed with submitters who complained consultation was insufficient, although she recommended further information be provided on provision of footpaths and cycleways. The report covers the loss of industrial land, effects on the road network, traffic, noise and urban design.
It recommends the notices of requirement be approved with conditions, including that archaeological work be done, and that final designs for intersections be completed.
