From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 5:41 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissionsAttention:
Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive, Dunedin City CouncilDear Sue
RE Extension for submissions on Proposed 2GP
I note the closing date for public submissions has been set as Tuesday, 24 November 2015.
Due to the length (1600 pages) and comprehensive nature of the planning document (by ePlan), in that it no longer resembles the current Dunedin City District Plan at all, I request that the closing date for public submissions is extended into the 2016 new year.
This will allow the community to consult itself, the city council, and experts where need, more fairly and comprehensively than has been possible in the time since notification on Saturday, 26 September 2015.
It’s of collective mutual interest to enhance and facilitate the public’s understanding of the document and its likely effect(s) on physical, cultural and political determinants for sustainable management of our environment and resources. This means allowing more time for initial submissions.
Sincere regards
Elizabeth Kerr
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
█ The public has until November 24 to make submissions.
█ Proposed Second Generation District Plan (2GP)
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html
—
Related Posts and Comments:
● 9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
● 2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
Following on from my earlier post, Elizabeth. You say the process of ‘cross-submissions’ is required by law. But can you clarify whether the DCC originally intended to use this process. I think not. And have they as yet given any assurance that they will use it? Again, I think not.
I just want to clarify the ‘cross submission’ process so readers are clear about it. This is a two step process.
First step: People make their submissions and have a certain time period to complete this. Once the closing date for this first lot of submissions has arrived, the council collates all the submissions and then makes them public.
Second step: People have a certain time period to look at all the submissions received and now have a second time period to put in a submission in support or opposing any other submission.
This second stage is much easier for you to do (if you are not a professional planner and most people aren’t!). Because you don’t have to think up ideas or words to express them – you can just look at what other people have written and decide whether you think these are good ideas or not.
This process gives Dunedin residents the best chance to get the new Plan to reflect the kind of city they want in the future. I don’t know exactly how long it will be before we have another District Plan Review but I think it has been about 25 years since the introduction of the current (operative) Plan and it could be another 20 years before we have another Review.
So the outcome of the present process will be very important for this city for a very long time – and some of the actions taken under it are likely to be permanent and undo-able.
Would be pleased if you could confirm or clarify further, Elizabeth.
The further submission process was always intended because it’s a requirement – simply, usefully too, it also feeds into the mediation process between various parties and DCC.
The further submission process should not be confused with CROSS-EXAMINATION. This is not allowed. Yes you can support or oppose others’ submissions but you can also introduce any new information that may clarify or concisely extend your first submission, or pick up on typos or errors of fact in the Proposed 2GP or in other submissions etc etc – all of which serves as a fair and reasonable part of how you support or oppose a submission(s).
As with all submissions the hearings panel can ignore any information that is not cogent to the process as they see fit.
We discussed further submissions briefly during Q&A at the heritage workshop led by Glen and Emma in October.
The further submissions process has been used by DCC for notified plan changes to date eg Harbourside and Stadium plan changes.
See the Public Notice for the 2GP it says:
Submissions must be lodged before 5pm, Tuesday, 24 November 2015.
After submissions have closed, the DCC will prepare a summary of submissions and publicly notify the availability of that summary.
There will be an opportunity for:
◦ any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest;
◦ any person that has an interest that is greater than that of the general public; and
◦ the DCC
to make a further submission either supporting or opposing a submission or submissions already made.
If any person making a submission asks to be heard in support of his or her submission, a hearing must be held.
https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/public-notices/public-notices/public-notification-of-proposed-second-generation-dunedin-city-district-plan
Thanks for that. Good to know that it’s going to happen. I hope EVERYONE knows about it though.
Hmm, I’ll still go to the Economic Development Committee meeting Public Forum and ask for an extension of the first step. And ask them to make sure that the second step is well-publicized.
But am I right supposing that this cross-submission process hasn’t been used here in Dunedin in a Plan consultation process for about 30 years? So it is normally used only for 1) the introduction of a Plan and 2) for a Plan Review? And those are the only two times when it is a legal requirement?
Great, Diane. Hopefully I can make it to both council standing committee meetings.
Given we’re talking about “30 years” then we’re maybe talking about passing of the RMA into legislation (1991)… I was only out of Auckland for two years then and wasn’t free (from paid work) to follow DCC doings!
Suggest you look at http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/plan-steps/submissions/submissions-and-further-submissions
The ORC’s Regional Policy Statement (RPS) consultation included a round of further submissions. At present they are hearing spoken submissions and then they will begin what appear to be secret (non-public) deliberations.
District and regional councils need to give effect to the RPS when making district or regional plans, or making decisions about resource consents
http://www.orc.govt.nz/Publications-and-Reports/Regional-Policies-and-Plans/Regional-Policy-Statement/Otago-Regional-Policy-Statement-Review/
Thanks Jimmy Jones. Have been following ORC’s RPS but not bothering to give updates, sorry about that. No time to do a submission on it, have in the past for heritage but that’s about it. The 2GP potentially has a far greater effect on the central city where I live, is my only excuse.
Okay and I’ll call it a ‘further submission ‘ process from now on.
Okay. This is good too. “….but you can also introduce any new information that extends your first submission, or pick up on errors in the Proposed 2GP or in other submissions etc etc.”
It gives people two bites at the cherry – after they have had a chance to become familiar with what is going on and what is important and what other people have indicated is important to them.
—
Diane, extended my earlier comment, see italics there – in view of the Quality Planning advice and how the submission process has been experienced to date. QP is an excellent resource for planners, RMA practitioners and lay people. Elizabeth (editor)
And then….
Haha! You can add more information to your written and or oral submission to hearing.
So many bites at cherry, so long as your initial submission clearly indicates your exact areas of interest and it doesn’t have to be more than a bullet point list (of 2GP concerns, issues, clauses, sections, whatever) be they in support or opposed to the proposed 2GP itself (the ePlan).
Well Done Diane – two bites at the Dinosaur
I did go to the Committee Meetings today (Economic Development and Finance Committee) and, to my surprise, there was a meeting of the full Council immediately after which was not an Extraordinary Meeting. So I will have to check the DCC website more often because I assumed one ordinary meeting of the full Council per meeting round. But not so. Governance staff told me that the Economic Development Committee did not have the power to address the question of extending the consultation period for the DCC District Plan Review. (2GP). It later appeared it was quite a puzzle as to who actually did. It seems to be the Hearings Panel which at this stage hadn’t been confirmed. But they allowed me to speak at a Public Forum to the subsequent meeting of the full Council.
I think they would like to extend the first submission period (the one which ends on 24 Nov) but they are not sure whether legally they can. The issue of hard copy maps not being available wen consultation opened was raised, not just by me but also by Cr Vandervis. Not everyone has access to a computer, the maps didn’t work well on iPad and were hard to understand how to view to begin with, even for some planner, I think. So there was a question as to whether people had actually lost abut a week of that first consultation period by not easily being able to access the maps. There was also the issue of 2GP being based on the Spatial Plan which received only about 350 written submissions. So that consultation could have been argued not to have been a great success. Also no real strategic overview in 2GP. Cr Vandervis said he had asked for this to no avail. Cr Calvert asked me questions about this. She seemed to think the fundamental questions about city development should have been spelled out in an introduction or something. And given references so people could easily submit on them.
However the thing which concerns me most is that the FURTHER SUBMISSION PROCESS does not seem to be anything like as accessible as you suggested, Elizabeth. I don’t know whether the law has been changed. But both Cr Wilson and planner Anna Johnson were trying to explain to me its limitations. Claiming you are ‘further submitting’ in the public interest seems to be interpreted by the DCC in quite a restricted way. Chair (Mayor Cull) and the meeting gave me a very fair hearing. But, as usual, Crs Vandervis and Calvert were the ones who asked the searching questions, seemed to really understand the concerns and at least to some extent, share them themselves.
Diane thanks. Completely missed notice of this meeting. Will update the post at Home page.
Last minute Public Forum speaker at Economic Development Comittee, Ian ? (not in agenda and I didn’t get last name). Seems a dynamic guy, Trying to put a ticket under them re economic development. Said a test of every major expenditure they made would be to ask, ‘Is this going to create jobs for the young people of the city and keep them home and bring them home.’ Said he had been a cyclist when younger but now too old. And said to use this test in the cycleway project. Bet that won’t get reported in ODT! This guy said he had travelled a lot. I could see his frustration with the DCC but trying to get any enthusiasm or action from them was like trying to revive the dead. Like shooting elephants with a pea shooter. Which got me thinking. You don’t have to live in a city to stand for its council – you just have to be nominated by two people who do. And councillors can now participate in meetings by video link. How about a ticket were the best possible candidates throughout NZ are sought, and when they get in they use video link? Then Dunedin might ditch horribly AMATEUR local government as a feature of its past dark ages.
No, that should have been ‘trying to PUT A ROCKET UNDER THEM! ‘ But actually a ticket to put a rocket under them is not a bad idea.
Ah, so that’s who it was – Ian Taylor.
Diane, the Further Submission process is accessible to you and every first submitter. You have an interest in the process greater than the interest that the general public has by virtue of the fact that you have read the 2GP or because you have written a first submission or because you are sufficiently interested to write a further submission or whatever. I have never been asked to justify my interest, so just tick the box or write something like this: “Diane Yeldon has an interest in the proposal greater than the interest that the general public has.”
All of the first round of submissions will be available and you are asked to support/oppose matters raised by those that interest you. In doing this you can raise new material and present new evidence. I presume you can support your own first submission. For everything that you write, make it clear what decision that you want the panel to make. If you write something that doesn’t relate to a decision, then it won’t be considered.
Well, a DCC planner, Anna Johnson, was trying to explain to me at the meeting that that was not the case. I’d like the DCC to have a public meeting about this issue to explain to submitters and potential FURTHER SUBMITTERS not just what the law says but how it is being interpreted. I am pretty sure Key’s government is trying to ‘expedite’ planning – in other words, council should not do it taking as long as it takes but be doing it faster, So we end up with a Clayton’s RMA. Wonder if there are Department of Internal Affairs ‘guidelines’ telling (directing?) councils about how to interpret ‘in the public interest’. We all know about the test for notification and what a masterpiece of double speak that is – to warrant notification anticipated adverse effects must be of ‘more than minor significance’. And very little is, according to councils. Maybe very little is in the public interest by their standards either. I’d have thought ANY submission not clearly motivated by trade competition or malice is in the public interest. Just to participate in the process is in the public interest.
Oh, dear, I didn’t even notice that your interest has to be GREATER than the public interest. Now I’m pretty sure that is a law change to prevent members of the public from making this process too difficult for the authorities by PARTICIPATING. In the democratic process. They can’t have too many of them doing this or it might actually work!