DCC overlooks due process and Environment Court rulings for Mosgiel road hierarchy

Taieri Times / Otago Daily Times fails to understand or elaborate (no research!) the issues raised by local resident and business owner Brian Miller in his submission to the Transportation section of the proposed 2GP.


Mr Miller and his family have lived on Riccarton Rd for the last thirty years. In that time, variously, DCC have planned – and carried out supporting construction works – to enable Hagart-Alexander Dr (HAD) as an arterial route taking heavy vehicles ‘safely’; DCC have been to Environment Court on the matter, receiving clear rulings and sets of conditions bringing about these construction works; since then, however, DCC have formed the view – contrary to the Court rulings and agreed structure plans – that the arterial route should be Riccarton Rd, not HAD. Former city councillor and deputy mayor Sydney Brown has a residential subdivision to HAD.

Who is pulling whose chain here ?
DCC, in changing your minds, where is the due (fair and proper) process of public consultation ?

Are flicks of the pen all that DCC does now.

The Sin : City Planning, in its 2GP recommendations for the Taieri roading hierarchy fails to acknowledge legal determinations of the Environment Court of New Zealand and insodoing the council may be seen as INJUDICIOUS. Court rulings cannot be ignored holus-bolus to suit DCC fairyland futures for the Taieri.

[Sources at Dunedin say this is not the only case of DCC’s recent lack of regard for the Court.]

Further, to underline…. during the ‘Revised Planner’s Recommendations’ on February 10, the city planner was heard to say they regarded information presented in submission(s) as “old” – the strong inference being that Environment Court rulings do not count; or worse, that they had no idea any matters had, in fact, been to court. The City thus appears sunk on a problem of integrity, lawful or otherwise.

This situation simply would not arise if greater supervision and TRAINING was provided to salaried council underlings involved in 2GP processes. They must be fully cognisant of the history and implications of relevant legal rulings made in respect of council activities. That way they could see the trees for the wood when the likes of ex staff appear for ‘advice’ to hearing in trite bouncy-rat mode.

[The implications of contempt should perhaps be underscored instead of multiple teabreaks culture at the Civic Centre.]

Lastly, in god we trust…. the independent commissioners Messrs Collins and Rae are NO FOOLS.

We The People will see you in Court.



2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation
Hearing dates: February 1, 2, 3, 8
Revised Planner’s Recommendations: February 10 [● DCC to upload]
Commissioners: David Collins (Chair), Gary Rae, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson

THE SUBMISSION | Statement tabled at hearing

Note: Brian Miller gave his family trust’s 28-page submission (plus attachments) on the 2GP Transportation topic in the hearing of independent commissioners David Collins and Gary Rae, only. To avoid conflicts of interest, at Mr Miller’s request and with the Chair’s agreement, no councillor commissioners were present for the submission.

H180-421 BJ & AJ Miller family trust (PDF format)

In an email to Elizabeth Kerr (6.2.17), Brian Miller said: “Probably the most important part of our submission is point 3.3, pages 20 to 22.” :

[click to enlarge]


[click to enlarge]
data-map-2gp-land-information-for-mosgiel-roads2GP Data Map (Roads)

zone-map-2gp-mosgiel2GP Zone Map


2GP Hearing Topic: Transportation Link

Council Evidence (PDF format)
Section 42A Report
Appendix 1 DCC Operative Plan Road Hierarchy
Appendix 2 Road DCC submission – road classification hierarchy corrections
Appendix 3 Christchurch District Plan Replacement abstract
Appendix 4 Transportation figures
Appendix 5 2GP Section 6 – Transportation
Statement of Evidence of Ian Clark
Statement of evidence – Grant Fisher
Amendment to Section 42a Report Transportation

Statement tabled at hearing (PDF format)
Transport Advice from Sarah Connolly – Principal Consultant Transport Planning – MWH

Related Posts and Comments:
5.2.17 Maurice Prendergast : Defence of 60 year old arterial corridor #2GP
30.5.16 Non-arterial Riccarton Road : Brian Miller stirred by community board
5.6.14 DCC Transport Strategy and Riccarton Road
24.4.14 DCC promotes Riccarton Rd as sole heavy traffic bypass

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.


Filed under Agriculture, Business, Construction, Corruption, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Transportation, Travesty

5 responses to “DCC overlooks due process and Environment Court rulings for Mosgiel road hierarchy

  1. Brian Miller

    Whatiffers should scroll down to the bottom of the post above, and you will see just what DCC is prepared to deliver to the 2GP hearing as rebuttal evidence against our submission. It appears that DCC don’t really care what they present. Just as long as it suits their story.

    You will find the heading “2GP Heading Topic Transportation”, scroll down further to “Statement tabled at hearing” : Sarah Connolly.

    See the bottom of Page 9 of Connolly’s evidence:
    Point 3.6.2 [Riccarton Road] – “….and work has been completed on widening sections of Riccarton Road to improve safety. Information will be available from the Council’s Transport Department.”

    Having lived on Riccarton Rd for about thirty years I have yet to see any activity on widening the road, let alone the widening being “completed”.

    The readers of What if? can make their own judgement on the standard of council’s ‘advice received’ to the 2GP if this is an example of what they present.

  2. However……due to an ex councillor building so much down Hagart-Alexander it is not suitable now. In fact it’s a bloody mess just trying to drive a car down it never mind a truck.

  3. Concerned Dunedin Resident

    What a well researched and revealing document Mr Miller has presented to the new District Plan hearing. I would recommend to viewers to read the Miller trust submission. We should all be very concerned how the council has treated residents of Riccarton Rd, and especially the Millers in such an appalling way.
    It would appear that all is not well out in Mosgiel when it comes to transportation matters. Transportation plans appear to have been developed to suit individuals, and one in particular rather than for the community.
    One only has to read the Miller submission (page 14) point 2.1.2.
    It would appear that the present developer when purchasing property in 1982, has signed a legal document for a proposed arterial road. That has now been developed as Hagart-Alexander Drive. It would appear that this route to a new industrial area to be developed, had been decided by agreement with other councils of the time. Well before amalgamation with the DCC.
    See points 2.1.13 through to point 2.1.17. The structure plan for Mosgiel East and North of East A, signed and sealed in the Environment Court by the DCC and others, appears in part to have been completely ignored by the DCC, and could be in breach of the Environment Court ruling. It would appear that DCC has no intention of adhering to legal documents, and consider themselves to be above the law.
    I would encourage viewers to read the Miller Trust submission. It may give you some insight of just who the new Mosgiel Transport section of the District plan is being designed for. It is certainly not for the community.

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 )

Connecting to %s