The prospect for Dunedin ratepayers of a huge increase in the costs of the Water of Leith and Lindsay Creek flood protection scheme is alarming.
One of the first questions some will be asking is whether this knowledge was available to Otago regional councillors before last year's local body elections and if so, why was it not made public at that time so that all candidates could properly canvass the matter?
We welcomed as a general principle earlier last year the prospective arrivals of a 50-year plan for Dunedin's waterfront and a 25-year University of Otago campus master plan, but we also cautioned that the university's proposals would have to be matched in some way with the urgent flood-protection plan for the Water of Leith, which bisects the campus.
The university has yet to publicly discuss its master plan, let alone the costs and funding - it is to be hoped such discussions begin soon - but the flood protection cannot wait; indeed, work on it began last year.
But one of the council's committees has been told of revised costs more than doubling the previous estimates, to $53 million, and while the cost rise is mainly due to the delay between original estimates and a more recent analysis, the campus master plan is at least implicated in its implementation - and therefore future cost.
The scheme's highest priority area is, naturally, that part involving the Leith from Dundas St to Forth St through the campus, where the risk of floodwater escaping the confines of the river is greatest and risks the inundation of a much wider city area, as has happened historically.
Comments in a report to the council's committee about substantial planning work now being made potentially redundant because of the campus plan appear to be triggered by at least two causes: the proposed timeline for the campus plan, which could mean expensive flood protection delays; and what seems to be a major disconnect between the scheme's known design and the campus plan.
In short, the co-operation supposed by ratepayers following the agreed landscaping of the Water of Leith where it passes through the campus - agreed with the ORC and the university as long ago as 2006 for incorporation into the overall flood protection scheme - appears to be redundant. If this is the case, then the university has a considerable obligation to city ratepayers to explain just what is going on.
The report to the ORC suggested it was possible the campus plan could provide less expensive options for the flood protection work than the 2005 scheme, which has already undergone the consultative and appeal process, but of course, these might mean new investigations and resource consents.
The 2005 scheme provided for campus works to include widening the left bank from upstream of the University Information Technology Services (ITS) building down to the Clyde St bridge; modifications to the ITS building to allow channel widening underneath; raising the height of the right bank wall between Union St bridge and the Leith St footbridge; raising the height of the right bank wall past the University Staff Club; widening the channel between the footbridge and the Union St bridge; providing an overflow culvert at the footbridge; widening the channel upstream of the footbridge; widening the channel on the left bank below the Dundas St bridge; replacing the Dundas St bridge with a longer span and higher deck level, and widening the channel on both banks on each side of the Dundas St bridge.
There is more besides, in what is a very substantial and disruptive project, and unsurprisingly the ORC's staff has, in the meantime, proposed a 15-stage (rather than a six-stage) scheme, within consents already granted for the work so that progress may not be further delayed.
But all of this is most unsatisfactory: if the scheme is urgent - as the ORC has repeatedly emphasised - then there must be no further delays just because the university has either changed its mind or wants priority given to its campus development plan, or because planning liaison and communication between the university and the ORC have either broken down or reached an impasse; and if the university's new proposals for the Leith are adopted, then the Government should pay a requisite share of the costs, as suggested by councillors at an ORC meeting yesterday.
Ratepayers will certainly be quite unsympathetic if they face additional costs and delays as a result of further procrastination. They already bear the burden of servicing a large expanse of north-end land and buildings unjustly free from general rates.
It is fair to describe the university as Dunedin's leading corporate citizen and that as such it warrants the widest community support, but that status also obliges the institution, and the Government, to treat the Dunedin community's interests with respect and consideration - and to explain themselves.
