Monthly Archives: July 2015

Dunedin Law Courts “an incredible historic building” –Minister

Dunedin Law Courts EJ Kerr IMG_0171 2bw 13May2015

A courthouse needed to show everyone involved in a court sitting had their place. Dunedin’s historic courthouse did that. –Professor Mark Henaghan

Justice Minister Amy Adams said in a statement last night her desire, intention and expectation was “that we want to see the historic courthouse building strengthened and returned to, and that hasn’t changed”.

### ODT Online Sat, 11 Jul 2015
Law alumni plead courthouse case [front page news]
By Craig Borley
Otago law alumni have spoken out from around the world, calling on the Government to do what needs to be done to save and return full court services to Dunedin’s historic courthouse. The calls came after University of Otago faculty of law dean Prof Mark Henaghan wrote to the law school’s alumni, detailing the building’s plight.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Sat, 11 Jul 2015
Courthouse call-out false alarm
By Damian George
Police and fire service were called to a false alarm at the Dunedin District Court building this morning after a sprinkler was tampered with. Senior sergeant Steve Larking, of Dunedin, said someone inside the High St building damaged the sprinkler, causing it to activate.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
14.5.15 Russell Lund on Ministry closure of Dunedin Law Courts
14.5.15 Justice at Dunedin
2.5.15 Ministry serves INJUSTICE for Dunedin Courthouse #HistoricHeritage

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Dunedin Law Courts, east facade (detail) –Kerr
May 13, 2015

34 Comments

Filed under #eqnz, Architecture, Business, Construction, Democracy, Design, Economics, Heritage, Inspiration, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, University of Otago, Urban design

Ombudsman complaint re DCC reply to LGOIMA requests #CSTfiles

Received from Bev Butler
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 at 11:25 a.m.

From: Bev Butler
To: complaint @ ombudsmen.parliament.nz
Subject: Ombudsman complaint: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:19:53 +1200

{Address and phone number removed. -Eds}

Friday 10 July 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to make a complaint about the Dunedin City Council’s reply to a recent LGOIMA request (copied below) where I ask the whereabouts of the secure storage facility and the date the DCC/CST documents were placed in the facility.
Please also refer to my email to Ombudsman Office dated 15 June 2015 where I express concern as to the safety of the DCC/CST documents.

In the DCC response it states:

“The location of the secure storage facility is withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information.”
This is not a valid reason to refuse the request because s7(2)(b)(ii) only provides protection for “the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information”. This could be a valid reason to refuse to provide some of the documents, but not a valid reason to refuse to provide the location of the documents.

The other reason for refusing to provide the location was: “pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.”
This is invalid because there are no public affairs being conducted that would be affected by revealing the location of the documents. More importantly, this only applies to “members or officers or employees of any local authority”. Revealing where the documents are, will not create any “improper pressure or harassment” on Council staff or Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST) members.

The DCC in their response to the date the documents were stored in the secure storage facility state:
“The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia. Attempts were made to contact her but she is hospitalised, recovering from a serious illness and was unable to provide the information. Your request is therefore technically declined pursuant to s17(g) of LGOIMA as the information requested is not held.”
The DCC confirmed this morning that the documents were moved with permission of the CST. Therefore, if the documents were moved with the permission of the CST then section 2(6) of LGOIMA applies because the CST are subject to LGOIMA given their special agency agreement with the DCC.

I request the Ombudsman Office investigate the above.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

{See previous post for chain of correspondence up to and including Ms Graham’s reply at Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:42:53 +0000, provided in full with Ms Butler’s complaint to the Ombudsman. -Eds}

Related Posts and Comments:
9.7.15 DCC: Council-owned CST files whereabouts not declared
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
20.6.15 DCC / CST document scramble #LGOIMA

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

8 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, DVML, Economics, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

DCC: Council-owned CST files whereabouts not declared

Updated post Fri, 10 Jul 2015 at 1:22 p.m.

Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 9 Jul 2015 at 12:32 p.m.

From: Bev Butler
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 1:46 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?

Wednesday 1 July 2015

Dear Sandy and Grace

It was recently stated in the media that the DCC/CST documents were stored in a “secure storage facility”.
Also on Monday 29 June 2015, the CST stated:
“The CST advise that there is no charge for the storage and as such, there is no invoice.”

I request the location where these documents were stored, the type of “secure storage facility” and on what date the documents were taken to the secure storage facility.

Thank you.
Kind Regards
Bev

From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
To: Bev Butler
CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:14:28 +0000

Dear Bev

I refer for your request for information about the CST secure storage facility where you asked the following questions:.
Where are the documents stored?
What type of secure storage facility it is?
What date were the documents taken to the facility?

I provide answers to these questions as follows:

The location of the secure storage facility is withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information and pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.

The facility is a commercial storage facility. I have already advised that it is not EziStor. Any further details that may identify the facility are however withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information and pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.

The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia. Attempts were made to contact her but she is hospitalised, recovering from a serious illness and was unable to provide the information. Your request is therefore technically declined pursuant to s17(g) of LGOIMA as the information requested is not held.

As we have withheld information you are entitled to a review of our decisions by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Regards
Sandy

From: Bev Butler
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:15:33 +1200

Dear Sandy and Grace

Appreciate clarification before contacting Ombudsman.
In the response it states:
“The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia.”
Given the statement above which implies that there is only one person in the world who knows when the documents were moved, is it correct to assume the documents were moved by the “sick lady” without the permission of the CST?
Is it also correct to assume the documents were placed in the secure storage facility without the knowledge of the secure storage facility’s owner, given the “sick lady” in Australia is the only person who knows when the documents were stored there?

Kind Regards
Bev

From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
To: Bev Butler
CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:42:53 +0000

Dear Bev

Your assumptions are incorrect.

Regards
Sandy

Related Posts and Comments:
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
20.6.15 DCC / CST document scramble #LGOIMA

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

15 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, DVML, Economics, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

DCC: Mick Reece’s replacement

Updated post Wed, 8 Jul 2015 at 10:52 p.m.

Richard Saunders, detail [odt.co.nz] 1bw### ODT Online Wed, 8 Jul 2015
Well served with recreation facilities
By David Loughrey
[…] Richard Saunders (35), from Auckland, returned last year to Dunedin, where he completed a masters degree in geography in 2004 at the University of Otago. He moved south to work at the Dunedin City Council, and last week became the council’s group manager of parks, recreation and aquatics. Read more

****

How to make a city VERY ANGRY.

“What we need to do is put all those back on the table,” he said, and consider their cost effectiveness, how long they may last, and “then we can make a decent decision on it”. –Richard Saunders

### ODT Online Wed, 8 Jul 2015
No plans to replace beach sand
By David Loughrey
The Dunedin City Council has no immediate plans to replace sand lost from dunes at city beaches. Instead, it will monitor the situation, continue to seek advice, and again consider long-term options for the area. […] Mr Saunders said consultants would provide advice, and the council would be asked to make decisions on that advice.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: odt.co.nz – Richard Saunders (detail), tweaked by whatifdunedin

15 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Sport, What stadium

EQC reforms, proposed changes to Earthquake Commission Act

Government was now seeking submissions on the proposals, before introducing a bill to Parliament in early 2016.

### NZ Herald Online 11:31 AM Monday Jul 6, 2015
Reforms to Earthquake Commission Act outlined
By Isaac Davison
Government has outlined the changes it wants to make to insurance cover after natural disasters, including a doubling of the cap on building cover to $200,000.

The Earthquake Commission Act is being reformed, and a discussion paper on the proposed changes has been released today.

Earthquake Commission Minister Gerry Brownlee said the reforms would ensure the EQC remained focused on rebuilding homes and would resolve the difficulties experienced in Christchurch with regard to land and building cover. The changes would also better integrate EQC and private insurers’ claim handling processes and ensure the natural disaster insurance scheme remained sustainable. Among the key proposals was increasing the cap on EQC building cover from $100,000 to $200,000.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

7 Comments

Filed under #eqnz, Business, Construction, Democracy, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Property, Site

Postcard from a different edge

Supplied.

Cinque Terre FB 4.7.15

█ [screenshot] Facebook find 4.7.15

The Cinque Terre (Italian pronunciation: [ˌtʃinkwe ˈtɛrːe]) is a rugged portion of coast on the Italian Riviera. It is in the Liguria region of Italy, to the west of the city of La Spezia. “The Five Lands” comprises five villages: Monterosso al Mare, Vernazza, Corniglia, Manarola, and Riomaggiore. More at Wikipedia

Lonely Planet on Cinque Terre

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

7 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Citifleet, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Events, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Pics, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, SFO, Site, Tourism, What stadium

DCC Citifleet, [a] Deloitte report leaked

DCC logo (fraud) 2

WHY WASN’T THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE CALLED IN RIGHT FROM THE VERY START WHEN CR LEE VANDERVIS ALERTED FORMER DCC CHIEF EXECUTIVE PAUL ORDERS TO CAR FRAUD ???

Then too, think of all the people who had access to the Deloitte reports (plural) – more specifically those without access to the digitised data report. That ‘narrows’ the field of leaks to Deloitte itself, NZ Police, private investigators, counsel, privileged council staff, privileged mayor and (some) councillors, those council staff whose lawyers worked on their ‘resignations’ / exit packages….
Who else? A veritable feast.

No-one named in the ODT today hasn’t been mentioned at What if? posts and comments previously – this includes the names of the car companies.

### ODT Online Sat, 4 Jul 2015
Questions still unanswered
By Chris Morris
[…] even after reading Deloitte’s full “Project Lewis” investigation report – the Otago Daily Times was leaked a copy – there are still many unanswered questions … [The report] named members of three Dunedin families who, together, bought dozens of council-owned cars … Those names included Wayne McFadyen, Destry Duff and Shayne Perkins and members of their extended families, who between them bought 42 vehicles, Deloitte found.
Read more

****

Anngow Motors was sold in 2007 to Armstrong Mazda, which was, in turn, sold to Dunedin City Motors in 2009.

### ODT Online Sat, 4 Jul 2015
Long list of car deals
By Chris Morris
Council cars bought and sold within days, and handfuls of cash that disappeared without trace are detailed in Deloitte’s full report into the $1.5 million Citifleet fraud. The report outlines a long list of transactions between former Citifleet team leader Brent Bachop, private buyers and Dunedin car dealers dating back more than a decade.
Read more

****

“Mr Bachop or Mr McFadyen kept a significant proportion of the sale proceeds for these vehicles,” the [Deloitte] report said.

### ODT Online Sat, 4 Jul 2015
Nothing to hide, says car buyer
By Chris Morris
Wayne “Tubby” McFadyen says he has nothing to hide. Instead, the man identified as one of the main buyers of Citifleet vehicles says the Dunedin City Council should be looking “in the mirror” if it wants to point the finger. “If there’s anyone to blame, it all falls on their heads too. They can blame everyone else for buying vehicles and whatever they want to do, but at the end of the day the buck stops with them.”
Read more

█ For more, enter the terms *citifleet*, *conduct* and *vandervis* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

31 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Events, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, SFO, Stadiums

SFO fails to clean up Far North District Council

Council members and employees apparently failed to comply with internal systems and controls.

### ODT Online Thu, 2 Jul 2015
SFO rules out crime at council
By Imran Ali – Northern Advocate
A year-long Serious Fraud Office inquiry into the Far North District Council found some councillors and staff failed to follow rules governing the approval of projects and use of ratepayers’ money, but insufficient evidence to lay criminal charges against anyone. But exactly what the SFO was looking into and who was at fault may never be known, with the office and mayor John Carter unable to discuss the matter further due to restrictions under the SFO Act. NZME
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

1 Comment

Filed under Business, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Politics, Project management, SFO

DCC: 2GP – Notification Pre-Approval #secondgenerationdistrictplan

Tabled at the Dunedin City Council meeting on 29 June 2015:

Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 129.2 KB)
2GP – Notification Pre-Approval

Content:

Council
29 June 2015

2GP – NOTIFICATION PRE-APPROVAL
Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report seeks approval in principle to notify the second generation District Plan (2GP), ahead of the formal decision to notify the 2GP to be considered by the Council meeting scheduled for 21 September 2015.

2. The approval in principle is being sought to enable rates inserts informing ratepayers of the 2GP’s notification, to be printed and included in the first instalment of rates mail-outs scheduled for 31st July 2015. The details of the 2GP will not be released until Council approves notification of the 2GP.

3. Using the rates mail-outs to meet the requirements for public notice as set out in the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), provides a significant cost saving to Council compared with separately sending letters to all ratepayers.

4. The decision to approve notification of the 2GP is primarily a procedural decision to allow the next stage of the Plan’s development to occur, which includes submissions and hearings. It should be based on councillors’ satisfaction that the plan has been developed to date in accordance with section 32 of the RMA.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:
a) Approves the inclusion of rates inserts informing ratepayers of the 2GP’s notification, scheduled for 26 September, based on a programmed date for a formal decision to notify to be considered by the Council meeting scheduled for 21 September 2015. This approval constitutes an approval in principle to notify the second generation District Plan.

BACKGROUND

5. The Dunedin City District Plan was initially notified on 24 July 1995, and revised and re-released on 19 July 1999, and became operative on 3 July 2006. The RMA requires district plans to be reviewed every 10 years. While some parts of the plan have been subject to rolling reviews and changes or were added later as new sections, this is the first full review of the district plan since the RMA. Hence, it is called the second generation district plan or 2GP for short. Relevant previous reports to Council on the 2GP include:

● 8 February 2012 – Planning and Environment Committee – Approval of the initiation of a District Plan review and preparation and notification of subsequent changes to the District Plan to develop a second generation District Plan.
● 4 September 2012 –Planning and Environment Committee -Noting the proposal for 2GP Issues and Options consultation and the information provided with regard to the role of councillors in that process.
● 23 April 2013 – Planning and Environment Committee:
a. Noting completion of the Issues and Options phase of the 2GP and updated programme for the preparation of the 2GP;
b. Approval of the programme, process and more detailed principles for Councillor involvement in the 2GP; and
c. Endorsing the recommendation regarding members of a technical advisory group for the 2GP.
2GP Notification Pre-Approval 1
● 24 July 2014 – Planning and Regulatory Committee – Noting the 2GP programme update.

DISCUSSION

6. The 2GP will be ready to enter its next phase of development – submissions and hearings after September. This phase is focused on providing the public with the opportunity to make formal submissions on the proposed plan (including the opportunity to make submissions on other people’s submissions). Submissions are summarised by staff and considered at hearings (where people can chose to speak to their submission), along with planners’ recommendations on the submissions. Decisions are then made on the submissions by the Hearings Committee.

7. This submissions and hearings phase is a formal consultation phase that follows from the significant community engagement that has taken place as part of the Plan’s development through the Issues and Options and Preferred Options phases, and earlier through the Spatial Plan.

8. The legal requirements for public notification of a proposed District Plan are set out in Schedule 1 to the RMA.

9. Pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 1 to the RMA, not earlier than 60 working days before public notification or later than 10 working days after public notification, all ratepayers must be sent a public notice which details where the 2GP can inspected and how submissions can be made. This could be achieved by mailing letters to ratepayers, or including a rates insert with rate demands.

10. Public notice mail-outs are only one of the legal requirements for public notification in Schedule 1. In addition to the legal requirements for public notice, a broad communication strategy is being developed with the Marketing and Communications team that will use different types of media and a ‘shop front’ to inform people of the Plan and help them understand how to make submissions. Submissions under the RMA are required to be in a prescribed form, which is set out in the RMA (Form 5).

11. The next date for the rates notices mail-outs commences on 31 July 2015, with the printed rates inserts needing to be printed and sent to Christchurch by 23 July 2015. Further mail-outs for the same rating period follow on 7th and 21st August 2015.

12. Including the public notification of the 2GP with rates mail-outs will save approximately $40,000 compared to a separate mail-out.

OPTIONS

13. If approval in principle is not given at this point the options are:
a. Option A: Waiting until after the September meeting and (presuming the decision is to notify and aligning the public notice to the next available rates mail-out timetable. This would mean a notification date of mid-November, which due to Christmas, would not only delay the process significantly but create a much less convenient submission period for the public. It would also mean hearings are very unlikely to be completed prior to the local body elections, which is likely to create cost and logistical problems, as well as inconvenience submitters and delay the Plan becoming operative.
b. Option B: Undertaking a separate mail-out immediately after the 26th of September (presuming the decision is to notify), which would require approximately $40,000 in additional budget for the 2GP.
c. Option C: Delaying the decision to notify until after September which would have the disadvantages of Option A and potentially also Option B, depending on the revised timing.

NEXT STEPS

14. Prepare the public notification information for the rates insert, and mail-out to ratepayers.

15. Request approval of notification of the 2GP at the Council meeting scheduled for 21 September 2015.

Signatories
Author/s: Dr Anna Johnson, City Development Manager

Authoriser/s: Nicola Pinfold, Group Manager Community and Planning; Simon Pickford, General Manager Services and Development

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government
This decision relates to providing a regulatory function and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework
[Contributes / Detracts / Not applicable]

Social Wellbeing Strategy [Contributes]
Economic Development Strategy [Contributes]
Environment Strategy [Contributes]
Arts and Culture Strategy [Contributes]
3 Waters Strategy [Contributes]
Spatial Plan [Contributes]
Integrated Transport Strategy [Contributes]
Parks and Recreation Strategy [Contributes]
Other strategic projects/policies/plans [Contributes]
The District Plan manages land use activities throughout Dunedin, and is Council’s principal policy document for enabling land use development envisaged by the various strategies of Council.

Māori Impact Statement
In accordance with Clause 3 of the First Schedule to the RMA, tangata whenua of the area who may be affected have been consulted with.

Sustainability
Sustainable management is a fundamental principle of the RMA, and the 2GP is being developed in accordance with this principle.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy
There are no implications.

Financial considerations
If notification of the 2GP cannot be aligned with rates notices mail-outs, this will add approximately $40,000 in notification costs.

Significance
The decision to approve notification of the 2GP is primarily a procedural decision to allow the next stage of the Plan’s development to occur, which includes submissions and hearings. It should be based on councillors consideration that the plan has been developed to date in accordance with section 32 of the RMA.

Engagement – internal
No but consultation with internal departments on the 2GP has been significant and is ongoing.

Engagement – external
No but there has been significant consultation as part of the development of the 2GP, starting from initial consultation on RMA-related issues through the ‘Your City, Our Future’ and Spatial Plan consultation; continuing through the ‘Issues and Options’, ‘Preferred Options’ phases, including a separate process for natural hazards provisions consultation. Consultation with key stakeholders through reference groups and individual discussion has been on-going. Specific consultation with individuals with more significant proposed changes in planning provisions has also occurred.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety / Conflict of Interest etc.
There are no legal, health and safety, or conflict of interest risks associated with making this decision.

Community Boards
The Community Boards have been consulted with as the 2GP has developed, and will be given briefings ahead of public notification.

[ends]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

1 Comment

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

NZTA non-green spend, noted by Murray Grimwood

NZTA (our dear Mr Jim Harland, ex DCC Chief Executive….) yesterday confirmed there would be a $408 million spend in Otago over the next three years through its National Land Transport programme.

New Zealand Transport Agency: Southern Region – Media Release
$400 million plus investment in the Otago transport system

Updated: 30 Jun 2015 01:00pm
The NZ Transport Agency has announced details of a programme with a provisional total of $406 million to be invested in Otago’s transport system over the next three years, through the 2015-18 National Land Transport programme. Link

Re $19.9 million safety improvements to Portobello and Harington Point roads:
(comment at ODT Online)

So, let me get this right
Submitted by murray grimwood on Wed, 01/07/2015 – 9:23am.

We are going to fill in yet more of the harbour, altering flows and flushing. We are going to use rock from Blackhead to do it. We are going to do this using 100% fossil fuels. We are – it goes without saying – not going to offset the carbon involved (nor the carbon involved in spending the wages/profits earned).
And all this to a road at a level where high-tide and a bit of wind already puts salt water on the pavement? What happens with more powerful storm events atop a 50cm higher sea?
Don’t call this a Long Term Plan; call it short-term, short-sighted and short on thinking.

NZTA highlights (via ODT Online)

● $36m with Otago Regional Council for public transport, including a new bus hub in Dunedin.
● $10m for cycling and walking network in Dunedin, including $3.5m for urban cycleways.
● $2.6m for seal extension on the Nuggets Rd, near Kaka Point.
● Finishing more sections of Harington Point to Dunedin cycleway [$19.9 million safety improvements to Portobello and Harington Point roads].
● Completing final stage of SH88 shared cycling and walking path between Dunedin and Port Chalmers [to be completed in three years].
● Completion of Dunedin’s one-way system cycleway [to be completed in three years].
● Completion of the four-lane section of the Caversham Highway.
● New two-lane Kawarau Falls Bridge.
● SH1 bypass at Edendale.
● Route improvements throughout region for freight vehicles.
● Widening the Kakaho Creek Bridge at Hampden.
● Investigations into improved route resilience on SH1 between Dunedin and Glenavy.

Related Posts and Comments:
10.4.15 DCC cycleways propaganda continues #SpendSpendSpend
20.3.15 DCC Shame: First, John Wilson Dr … now Portobello Rd cycleway
11.2.15 Dunedin Cycleways: Pet project staff, ‘entitlement’? #irony
3.12.14 Cycling at Dunedin —boring debate, network spending continues #DUD
22.5.14 DCC Transportation Planning —ANOTHER consultation disaster
6.5.14 Roading network screwed by council staff
14.2.14 DCC: Broadband AND bicycles #fraudband speed
14.1.14 DCC: Hospital area parking changes #cyclelanes
5.1.14 Norman Foster: SkyCycling utopia above London railways #ThinkBig
24.12.13 Daaave’s $47 million Christmas present to Jinty. We’re paying.
4.12.13 Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten greeted by DCC silence
17.11.13 Dunedin cycleways: Calvin Oaten’s alternative route
17.11.13 Cull and MacTavish… “Have you fixed the debt crisis?”
14.11.13 Cycle lane explosions and puncture kits (SPOKES grenades launch)
8.11.13 Dunedin Separated Cycle Lane Proposal [how to make a submission]
29.10.13 DCC (EDU) invents new job! [GigatownDunedin]
19.10.13 Cycle lobby games and media tilts
24.9.13 Mediocrity and lack of critical awareness at DCC [council reports]
8.7.13 Bloody $tupid cycleways and Cull’s electioneering . . . [route maps]
28.3.13 DCC DAP 2013/14: Portobello Harington Point Road Improvements
26.2.13 DCC binge spending alert: Proposed South Dunedin cycle network
22.2.13 DCC: Council meeting agenda and reports for 25 February 2013
31.1.13 Who? 2010 electioneering
21.11.12 Safe cycling -Cr Fliss Butcher
5.11.12 DCC, NZTA: Cycle lanes controversy

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

6 Comments

Filed under Stadiums