DCC extends 2GP further submissions period

Dunedin City Council has extended the Further Submissions period for the second generation district plan (2GP) to Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 5pm.

All members of the public are eligible to make submissions on the Summary of Decisions Requested to the proposed 2GP.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

DCC 2GP Update 17.2.16 - Further submissions period extended to 3 March 2016

██ DCC 2GP Index Page at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

██ Have Your Say at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/submissions.html

██ Search for Summaries of Decisions Requested and Submissions at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/submit/PublicSubmissionSearch.aspx

Related Posts and Comments:
● 16.2.16 DCC: 2GP further submissions [consultation software with bug?]
8.2.16 DCC 2GP further submissions [update]
4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome before hearings…
3.2.16 DCC 2GP Hearings Panel
22.12.15 DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’
9.12.15 Otago Regional Council hammers DCC’s proposed 2GP
19.11.15 DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)
19.11.15 DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content
16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
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

Advertisements

13 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Infrastructure, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design

13 responses to “DCC extends 2GP further submissions period

  1. Gurglars

    No-one has caused these stuff ups. No-one has determined the right time to end submissions. No-one has been responsible for the inability of staff to get something as vague and esoteric as scheduling, despite the CEO earning $350k+, and many of her henchmen and henchwomen? earning over $200,000.

    Just what expectations of ability and efficiency form part of their employment brief?

    Monkeys can get it wrong and they will work for bananas, peanuts are an overkill.

  2. Diane Yeldon

    Thinking about writing a further submission for this and found a couple of websites of interest. The London Plan. A notable difference is the emphasis on the social and cultural (including heritage) aspects of the city, and plenty of clear prose on the intended goals and measures to be used to achieve them. I think 2GP is lacking in info abut social and cultural impact and that both of these topics must be fully considered and ‘taken into account’ by a District Plan by law, ie a legal requirement. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land

    Then this interesting discussion on the size of a living space: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house

    Yes, as everything becomes more expensive, smaller houses which utilise space better can be a good idea. But we need to avoid ‘pod city’ which doesn’t ‘accommodate’ housing poverty but aids and abets its exploitation, like this: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11588777 where, in Auckland central city, a bunk underneath someone else is being offered as accommodation. I think 2GP’s quantifier of residential density in terms of ‘habitable rooms’ is a mistake. People do not stay in their bedrooms all the time. I think percentage of total built area would be a better measurement of residential density and I don’t see why it should be any higher in the central city than in outer suburbs. If it is does this mean that a lower quality of life or amenity value is acceptable in the inner city? Would be interested to hear other people’s views on this. Am worried that the proposed 2GP, as it stands, is inadvertently planning for Dunedin’s inner city slums of the future.

  3. Diane Yeldon

    I just made a further submission to the Dunedin City District Plan Review (2GP). Further submissions deadline is tomorrow.

    Anyone interested in heritage values (and other things) I urge you to at least make a further submission in support of someone else’s original submission arguing this case. I made mine supporting E J Kerr’s, in its entirety (which the website did not give me the option of doing, demanding specific points, stupid thing, but I did it anyway!) I had to answer a question as to why I claimed I was representing the public interest and so I said I could say this because I have had a long-term interest in local government matters in Dunedin. I think this online ‘option’ is pretty user-unfriendly. I went round in circles quite a few times until I was reasonably satisfied that I had made as close to the further submission I wanted to make.

    The good thing about it is that it is quick. But I think it is conceptually wrong in construction. Because it requires the submitter to express themselves in planning-speak whereas I believe it is the council planners’ job to translate ordinary language into planning-speak. Any set up which required ordinary citizens to express themselves in terms of chapter and verse of the proposed plan is not going to achieve much public participation. I wonder whether the DCC did any ‘user testing’ of this further submission process before unleashing it on the unsuspecting public. I very much doubt it.

    I am reasonably familiar with planning processes and have most of a level 3 National Certificate in Computing and I certainly found it hard to understand. The time involved in going through the specifics of other people’s submissions and trying to figure out whether you want to support or oppose and which parts and then having to let the original submitters know (even by email) is far more than most people would be willing or able to sacrifice.

    • Elizabeth

      Thanks Diane.
      The formatting of my initial submission, a table, was user-unfriendly to anyone making further submissions – but then I was totally frustrated by the cruel online formatting of DCC’s proposed ePlan. A table was all that I could possibly respond with on reading the whole of their disabling ‘plan’ within a day and a half before initial submissions were due. There was no way I had more time to spend on such an uncomfortable and unholy piece of crap that DCC has come up with. And that was just the formatting, the CONTENT of the dratted 2GP requires a lot of legal time and money to knock into shape. I hope some submitters can afford to lawyer up to battle bits of it nearer to their ‘hearts’ or direct property concerns. (the greater city is ours, not the play-asset of DCC’s green goblins directed by the lovely duo Jinty and Dave)

      2GP Dave green monsters

      • Diane Yeldon

        I am hoping that oral submissions might influence the hearing panel. Because I have no idea how submitters speaking to their submissions or further submissions (especially when referring to other people’s submissions) will be judged to be on or off topic. What part of what they say would the hearing panel be allowed to ‘take into account’ and what part not and how will the submitter and the hearing panel members and anyone else know? Unfortunately we seem to have provisions having legal force but being so woolly and vague that no-one can really be sure what they are (!). And what is the extent of the hearing panel’s jurisdiction to move away from the proposed plan? – which is actually nothing more than a draft by planners, despite the claims that the subject matter had been ‘widely consulted on’ during the Spatial Plan process. There were only about 300 formal written submissions to the Spatial Plan so I think it was actually a consultation non-event. Anyway, consultation on the Spatial Plan cannot be counted as consultation on the District Plan. The whole process seems to me to be hugely stacked in favour of the planners’s draft becoming planning law. This draft has already become a kind of ‘status quo’ with enormous inertia against any significant change. Not so bad if the planners are basically right in fundamental concepts but disastrous if they are wrong. And in this case I think they ARE wrong. Possibly have been listening to too much slick lobbying from landlords.

        • Elizabeth

          Diane, you only have a short time as an individual submitter to present to hearing – followed by questions from the panel if you’re lucky. Thus you write a submission for hearing (any length you desire but important not to repeat anything that is already covered by your initial submission or further submission because you must assume the panellists have already read those) – your job is to elaborate or reinforce your views by further analysis, materials, examples or expert witnesses etc …and or pick up any points raised by others at hearing that you support or oppose. The oral you deliver may précis your written submission to the hearing panel or pick up specific point(s) of your choice and priority. You’ll have fun. Panel considers behind closed doors what it will treat as relevant to make recommendations upon or not.

  4. Hype O'Thermia

    Diane, “Any set up which required ordinary citizens to express themselves in terms of chapter and verse of the proposed plan is not going to achieve much public participation. I wonder whether the DCC did any ‘user testing’ of this further submission process before unleashing it on the unsuspecting public.”
    Do they WANT public participation, or is it something they are obliged to ask for? If the latter – and even if those who will have to deal with the grubby proletariate and their picky attempts to alter “experts'” plans begrudge the time it takes – I think you may be wrong when you go on to say: “I very much doubt it.”
    I’m sure they have in their extensive training had advice on plain communication, importance of.

  5. Rob Hamlin

    I have to make a further submission. After a good deal of mucking around and not liking the degree to which you could not see.check what you were actually putting in, I opted for a hard copy to customer services tomorrow.

    It’s also very worth noting that you have to serve a copy of your secondary submission on the primary submitter within five days of tomorrow’s deadline or within five days of making the submission. Given that this can be used as a way of disqualifying one’s efforts, I am going to use recorded delivery or for that. E-mail might work too, but one has to consider the chances of the originator saying “I never got nuffin Guv’nor”, and the burden of proof being moved onto you.

    {Email copy to the primary submitter is legally acceptable and proof of send including time of send should be retained by the sender. -Eds}

  6. Elizabeth

    Further to Rob’s comment, what? um er, ohhhhhh……

    DCC has missed at least two initial submissions from the publicly notified Summary of Decisions Requested. A submission from Horticulture New Zealand, and one from the Catholic Diocese of Dunedin.

    This lack of due process….
    means the two submissions will need to be publicly notified with deadlines for further submission on just those two items, DCC tells me.

    Apparently, according to DCC, the submissions went to “a different part of the computer system”………….

    There will be people, and I will likely be one of them, baying for independent investigation/audit of the DCC’s 2GP consultation process.

    Are there other submissions missing that have not been picked up ?

    The integrity of the process is somewhat cast in doubt, again.
    Not good enough DCC Bidrose, Pickford and Johnson.

    The tomorrow deadline (3 March) remains for all submitters on the Summary of Decisions Requested as notified to date.

    What a god awful mess.
    Prior to launch, was the eplan and associated data collection and management systems not rigorously tested.

    • Diane Yeldon

      Bet the question of whether or not doing it using computers is better or not won’t even come up. I think any computer use should be ‘back end’ ie what the planners do with the data after they have collected it from the submitters who are allowed in the first place to write and talk in plain everyday language. If I think of an analogy of what the DCC has done with its 2GP consultation then asking people to participate in writing a novel comes to mind. But people would not be allowed to say things like: “Well, I think it should be an adventure story about an orphan with blue eyes who can do magic …” Instead, they would have to read a novel the DCC has already written and say something like: “Page 43, paragraph 6, line 2 should have ‘not’ inserted.” Takes all the fun out of it. And probably most of the meaning and understanding as well. Actually, it’s more like a library of different, cross-referenced novels the way the DCC planners have collated and organised the material – which makes the difficulties even worse. Definitely more than ‘nudge’ going on here. More like stringent constraints on the permissible behaviour of submitters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory

    • Hype O'Thermia

      ‘Apparently, according to DCC, the submissions went to “a different part of the computer system”………….’ Is this their way of saying someone screwed up the filters?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s