Category Archives: OAG

Stupid ORC Bus Hub : DCC notifies requirement for designation #Dunedin

Proposed ORC Bus Hub, Great King St – concept image [supplied]

CALL FOR PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

DIS-2017-1 – Central City Bus Hub
Open for submissions. Closes 5pm 18 August 2017

Public notice of requirement for a designation
Sections 168 and 169 of the Resource Management Act 1991

The Dunedin City Council has received notice of a requirement for a new designation from the Otago Regional Council.

Notice of Requirement No: DIS-2017-1

The requirement is for: A Central City Bus Hub for Dunedin’s transport network, and includes all buildings, structures and associated facilities and activities for the carrying out of the public transport system by the Otago Regional Council. With the exception of no public parking, the designation will not prevent the use of Great King Street, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street, being used as a public road.

The designation is to provide for the establishment, operation, maintenance and upgrading of the Central City Bus Hub for Dunedin public transport service purposes and will provide public transport services described in the Otago Regional Council’s Public Transport Plan, and to provide for any site works, buildings or structures, integral and ancillary to the Dunedin public transport system, including but not limited to: Bus shelters and seating; timetable and information displays; bus stops; public amenities, including toilets; landscaping including structures; pedestrian footpaths and accessways; drainage; technology; lighting; security; vehicle priority; signage; passenger comfort initiatives and facilities; passenger information facilities; and all other structures and facilities associated with, or incidental to, a comprehensive facility for the performances of functions of the Central City Bus Hub and support of the Dunedin Public Transport Network for the Otago Regional Council.

The nature of the functions is that these activities will initially occur from approximately 05:30am to 12:30am, 7 days a week, year-round.

The sites to which the requirement applies are as follows:
● Great King Street Road Reserve, between Moray Place and St Andrew Street, Dunedin;
● Moray Place Road Reserve (part of);
● 12.4m² (approx.) within 157 St Andrew Street, legally described as Lot 1 DP 486801;
● Two areas within the Countdown car park adjoining Great King Street – one comprising 58.8m² and the second comprising 50.4m² (approx.) legally described as Lots 2 and 3, DP 6552 and Section 29, Town of Dunedin.
● 19.5m² (approx.) within the Countdown car park adjoining Moray Place, legally described as part Sections 27 and 28, Block XVI, Town Survey District;
● 63m² (approx.) within the Community House car park at 301 Moray Place, legally described as part Town Section 26, Block XVI, Town of Dunedin; and
● 60.8m² (approx.) within the Wilsons car park at 30-36 Great King Street, legally described as Lot 2 DP 338932.

The Notice of Requirement, plans showing the extent of the requirement, and the assessment of environmental effects may be inspected at the following locations:
● City Planning Enquiries, Customer Services Centre, Ground Floor, Civic Centre, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin
● The Dunedin Central Public Library
● The Mosgiel Service Centre
Online

Please contact Paul Freeland on 477 4000 if you have any questions about the Notice of Requirement.

█ Go to this DCC webpage for all the information pertaining to the Notice of Requirement (NoR):
DIS-2017-1 – Central City Bus Hub
Closing date for submissions: Friday 18 August 2017 at 5pm.
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/district-plan/district-plan-changes/dis-2017-1-central-city-bus-hub

****

█ Supplementary Reading
From the ‘RMA Quality Planning Resource’ (NZ):

Notices of requirement and requiring authorities

To begin the process of designating land, a requiring authority must serve a notice of requirement on the relevant territorial authority (s168 of the RMA) or lodge it with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (s145(3)).  A notice of requirement is a proposal for a designation. 

The notice of requirement has an interim effect, in that it protects the land for the designated purpose until the designation is confirmed and included in an operative district plan (s178).  If the designation is confirmed it overrides the provisions of the district plan so the project or the works may be implemented by the requiring authority in accordance with that designation and any conditions attached to it.  However, the underlying plan provisions continue to apply if the land is used for a purpose other than the designated purpose.

When processing a notice of requirement Part 8 of the RMA requires the territorial authority to consider the requirement and any submissions received (if the requirement was notified), and then make a recommendation to the requiring authority. The territorial authority is only able to make a recommendation to the requiring authority and the requiring authority has the final decision on the matter. Refer to the flowchart for steps in the new designation process.

An alternative process is available under Part 6AA of the RMA for notices of requirement that are for proposals of national significance. Sections 198A – 198M of the RMA also provide for the direct referral of notices of requirement to the Environment Court for a decision.  The direct referral provisions under the RMA allow for requiring authorities to request that notified notices of requirement be directly referred to the Environment Court for a decision, instead of a recommendation by a territorial authority and a decision by a requiring authority.

The designation provides for the long-term ‘approval’ of the work. Because details of the work may not be known at the time of lodging the notice of requirement, s176A provides for further detail or subsequent changes and updates to the work through an outline plan. An outline plan is required to be submitted to the territorial authority, showing details of the work or project to be constructed on the designated land.

As for the notice of requirement process, the territorial authority only has a recommendation role for outline plans. The territorial authority is only able to request changes of the requiring authority and cannot turn down an outline plan. 

A notice of requirement and an outline plan describing the works proposed can be served/submitted at the same time. This approach can be helpful to allow the territorial authority to understand the designation, and can speed up the overall process allowing works to begin sooner. Alternatively, the requirement for an outline plan can be waived by the territorial authority if sufficient information was submitted with the notice of requirement.

Read more: http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/plan-development-components/designations/overview/notices-of-requirements

****

All we want is …. [possibly?]

No highly coloured tarseal or paving materials not in keeping with Dunedin’s built environment.

NO Bus Hub in Great King St.

And….
smaller more frequent shuttle buses, suburban areas properly serviced with well-spaced bus stops and shelters, easy transfer cards, on-board EFTPOS card top-ups ($5 minimum), digital readouts for next bus at all stops, wifi buses, direct pick-up drop-off in George and Princes streets, well serviced peak hours and school runs, bus inspectors, highly trained drivers, mechanically well serviced buses, plenty of mobility access for all comers.

Or to just call an affordable version of Uber or Lyft.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

[whatifdunedin]

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Health & Safety, Heritage, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORC, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

DCC v LGNZ : questions about junkets and 2x dipping

Should Dunedin ratepayers and residents be worried about lack of performance at home.

****

Message received.
Sat, 5 Aug 2017 at 8:04 p.m.

[begins]
Ratepayers of Dunedin must have mixed feelings now that their Mayor has been elected to the position of President of Local Government New Zealand. Mixed, as some estimates of the time necessary to undertake this onerous role seem to indicate about 3 days a week. Representing more than 70 local authorities certainly would seem to take that time at least, and much of that time will be out of Dunedin in lobbying central government. Some of the ratepayers may think that it might not be a bad thing to have the Mayor paying attention to matters out of Dunedin, but some may be thinking that he should be in Dunedin as much as possible to undertake what has been, and should be, a full-time role.  It’s not that there aren’t pressing matters to deal with. The crumbled Aurora network and the resultant huge borrowing by the DCC company to bring the network up to an acceptable standard, the sad state of much of the infrastructure which now includes the Taieri Plain, the problems of not having dividend payments from DCHL, the prospect of another ratepayer funded swimming pool at Mosgiel when the private funding dissipates, the issue of the hospital – the list goes on and on and on.

Many mayors of much smaller local governments view their role as a full-time one and some may even wonder if the previous President of Local Government, Lawrence Yule, had been paying a bit more attention to local matters then the horrific situation whereby his local ratepayers were supplied with dangerous drinking water could have been avoided. Who knows, but we do know that Mr Yule not only had the Presidency of Local Government in his mind, but he was also eyeing up ending up in central government as the local National Party member.

All those things aside some practical questions arise.

If the Mayor is now also working as a President of LGNZ for say, 3 days a week, does his remuneration as Mayor of the DCC get reduced on a pro-rata basis? Does the position of President of LGNZ also attract an honorarium?  If so, should a pro rata proportion of that be paid to the DCC to offset the lack of availability of the Mayor to attend to his DCC duties? Or does the Mayor simply add any honorarium of the LGNZ role to his income as Mayor? And what of the role of the Deputy Mayor of the DCC? Does increased responsibilities to this role because of the absence of the Mayor lead to an increased honorarium?

I do note that the Mayor intends embarking on a national road show/tour to introduce himself to the 70+ local government authorities that he now heads up. Let us hope that this showcasing of the Mayor’s profile is done at a time when it is convenient and appropriate to those that are paying his wages. And I wonder what advice and guidance he will be giving to Mayor Dalziel now that the pro-rugby lobby is winding up to provide a covered stadium in Christchurch? What interesting times we live in.

[ends]

****

The Dunedin City Council Annual Plan 2017/18 indicates the Council will borrow an extra $100M during the next LTP period; this debt borrowing is fully separate to the Aurora Energy debt borrowing – and is not at all explained to the Ratepayers.

It was Cr Lee Vandervis who highlighted this massive extra borrowing at the full council meeting on 27 June 2017, when the council signed off (item 20) the 2017/18 Annual Plan. This query received No credible response from the mayor and councillors; or examination by the ODT reporter present.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

5 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Hot air, LGNZ, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, Politics, Public interest, Travesty, What stadium

Delta #EpicFail and Metiria Turei : How Could This Be?

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 at 11:44 p.m.

Readers, I can hear the rumblings already – is your correspondent so bereft of new information that he has to tailgate the exploding Turei benefit scandal to catch some attention ? Is this the equivalent of Sérgio Mendes & Brasil ’66, who started well but could only survive by making instrumental covers of Beatles’ hits? (I admit, Day Tripper is a particular favourite…)

Get in behind, readers. Have yourselves a draught of Bells, and let me untangle the web that starts with the inexplicable antics of Ms Turei.

Any sentient citizen must be, by now, aware that Ms Turei attempted to make political capital out of her long term benefit fraud last week to assist in marketing the Green Party’s new welfare policy. Sadly for Ms Turei, a thing called the internet means that her previous fictions about the circumstances around her early solo parent years are all easily discoverable, and the Whale Oil blog has done a telling summary of Ms Turei’s various mendacities. (Thanks Cameron).

Overwhelmingly, the Kiwiblog and other commentariat have excoriated Ms Turei’s inexplicable move, but again, Whale Oil offered the most penetrating analysis (and no, I am not a Whale Oil subscriber, or have ever been in contact with Cameron Slater…). Mr Slater made the interesting points, repeated by Barry Soper and others, that not only was Ms Turei guilty of benefit fraud, but also received a study grant as well. Ms Turei refused to name the father of her baby to WINZ, who has now been subsequently revealed as Paul Hartley, son of Ann Hartley, former Mayor of North Shore. Consequently, no child support has ever been received from Mr Hartley. Ms Turei confirmed that “Grandma” (Ms Hartley) provided support – very likely including financial support, which undoubtedly has not been declared.

One of the unfortunate unintended effects of the whole affair is that this will be red meat to many right wing types of a particular gender and particular demographic to start a predictable chorus of “Welfare Queens” abusing the system. Middle aged guys, this was old (and not true) even when Ronald Reagan used it to get elected in 1980. As noted in the comments below, the amount of white collar fraud that goes unprosecuted is about 30 times the estimated amount of benefit fraud, so to the white collar industries of accounting and law that seek to advise on the fine line between tax “minimisation” and tax “avoidance” : let those without sin cast the first stone.  

While all this is very interesting and will lead to the certain demise of Metiria Turei after the election, if not before as the Green’s poll numbers continue to stagnate or decline, the commentariat has missed the bigger issue which is “What Did The Law Society Know and What Did They Do About It ?”.

Ms Turei initially declined to say if the fraud was disclosed to the Law Society in her 1999 interview to determine if she was “a fit and proper person” to be admitted to the bar, but then decided immediately afterward that refusing to comment would put her on a par with Jonathan Coleman and Todd McLay, so confirmed on July 26 that she had been “upfront” to the Law Society, and there had been a “long conversation” about it.

What is fascinating about this, and an extreme concern for anyone who has had to rely on or transact with lawyers, is that the Law Society, the body tasked with determining who is a fit and proper person to become a lawyer – to uphold the law – then on Ms Turei’s version of events confirmed to Ms Turei that this dishonesty did not matter.  

Readers, I too spilt Bells all over the sofa when I read that the Law Society had known about this for nearly 20 years and been complicit in Ms Turei’s dishonesty. How could it be that the profession dedicated to upholding the law could decide that some didn’t apply to them ? Following on from this if the Law Society did not think it was relevant or significant that a prospective lawyer had engaged in several years’ worth of benefit fraud, then what is the situation regarding her first employer, Simpson Grierson (one of the largest law firms in the country). Either they were lied to about the fraud, or they also had a relaxed attitude towards employing law graduates indulging in benefit fraud.

As we have often remarked in the Delta Epic Fraud series, truth is indeed stranger than fiction, and the facts of the matter are that the Law Society have previously allowed struck-off lawyers with convictions resulting from dishonesty to be reinstated to the bar.

One such lawyer is one Chris Gilbert, upon whom the fortunes of the Christchurch City Council (and indirectly, the DCC), rest in terms of the liability for the Yaldhurst Noble subdivision debacle, in the latest litigation. In reinstating Mr Gilbert to the bar, the Law Society ignored the opposition of three lawyers and two branches of the Law Society, including the Otago branch, who said the gravity of the offending made him unsuitable for reinstatement. Mr Gilbert “misappropriated” $44,000 of client funds in 1987 and 1988. Compounding this, a few years later, Mr Gilbert appeared to think that the Society’s rules were all overrated anyway and proceeded to sign legal documents on the fiction that he was still in fact a lawyer ! Brandishing a wet bus ticket, the Law Society warned Mr Gilbert “there would be no third chances !”.

Readers, like you I regard law firms as a bunch of parasitic sharks, and yes there are plenty of law firms with lawyers you would cross the street to avoid. But Mr Gilbert is not one of those. Mr Gilbert….is the legal services manager at the Christchurch City Council and was offered a job by the CCC with full knowledge of his dishonesty. NZ Herald (2004)

Readers, two hands on the cup : The Christchurch City Council actually said that Mr Gilbert “was the best candidate for the job”. This was rather against the advice of the Waikato Law Society, where Mr Gilbert committed his first fraud: they said in an affidavit Mr Gilbert was not a “fit and proper person” to be a lawyer.

Now place the cup down – you won’t cope with this : The Law Society gave Mr Gilbert his “third chance” on the basis that he could only work for the CCC. In other words, he wasn’t allowed to act for private individuals who had the choice to take or leave his services and make complaints if warranted. Instead he could be responsible for issues involving huge amounts of ratepayer funds, because the Law Society appeared to think that position required a much lower standard of integrity.

Readers, why would the Christchurch City Council employ Mr Gilbert ? Readers, feel free to draw your own conclusions. The most incredible fact of this rather incredible tale is that Mr Gilbert was no short-term stopgap to tide the CCC over a tight staffing spot. Mr Gilbert has been the team leader of legal services at CCC for 13 years. He seems to be part of the institutional furniture, and appears to be indispensable.

Your correspondent is advised that in relation to the Noble Yaldhurst litigation, Mr Gilbert is not surprising the plaintiffs with bursts of even-handedness.  

This perhaps is one reason why the pace of the Christchurch rebuild is glacial – Minister Brownlee and the Government would be fully justified in having serious reservations about the competence of the Christchurch City Council, and not just in the building control division.

Readers, tonight’s conclusion is surprising – we as Dunedin ratepayers can look with relief at Mr Gilbert and know that within the DCC itself (although NOT Delta and Aurora) this would never occur under the present management.

[ends]  

****

Welfare fraud targeted more than tax evasion
White collar criminals get a better deal than welfare fraudsters because the system is biased before they even get to the courts, a lawyer says. Research by Victoria University shows 10 times more welfare fraudsters were prosecuted than tax evaders even though tax evasion costs the economy 33 times more. The research shows tax evasion amounts to at least $1 billion a year compared with $30 million for welfare fraud, but the courts are much harsher in their treatment of welfare fraudsters. RNZ News (2016)

Disclaimer: The site owner is not responsible for the currency or accuracy of content of contributed comments; and the inclusion of the information provided does not imply endorsement by the site owner.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

 

26 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Commerce Commission, Construction, DCHL, Delta, Democracy, Economics, Finance, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, SFO, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty

Christchurch City Council : Highly Dubious Entity #YaldhurstSubdivision

Subject: Ongoing Property Dispute at Yaldhurst Subdivision

Christchurch City Council held a full council meeting on 27 July 2017.

Readers, the CCC meeting video of Agenda item 26, about Yaldhurst Subdivision, is recommended viewing/listening.

Legal advice to Council is given by Rob Goldsbury, CCC Head of Legal Services – an atrociously lacklustre, unjust and obstructive performance.

The Council stupidly steps itself into (again!) the Constructive Fraud Action being progressed at the Christchurch High Court by Residents/Caveators of the Yaldhurst Subdivision. Although, we see that Councillors supposedly have no idea they’re already in it up to their eyeballs through the actions of Council staff and issues of non-compliance. Interesting.

Christchurch City Council Published on Jul 26, 2017
Christchurch City Council VIDEO
27.07.17 – Item 26 – Yaldhurst Village Subdivision – Dedication of Road – Sir John McKenzie Avenue

The video continues at about 1:26 after a preliminary silence [muted blue screen] – keep watching. The quality of picture is poor throughout. The discomfort of those seen in the public gallery is most perceptible.

Meeting Agenda and Unconfirmed Minutes follow here below – minus Attachment A, Yaldhurst Village Lots 601,613 Plan.

The Council did not vote unanimously.

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board motion was lost.

With the second motion, in short, the Council resolved that Lots 601 (residential) and 613 (commercial) on LT 448725 will be dedicated under Section 349 of the Local Government Act 1974 as a road, in order for the road to vest.

The resolution goes against the Residents’ private property rights.

See the previous post to refresh on the Residents’ situation.

Note, by the votes for, the dishonesty and incompetence present.

Note, by the votes against, the integrity of those supporting the Community Board and members of their community: the private property owners (the Residents), in their protracted, brave and courageous fight against an unjust malevolent council staff working in cahoots with unscrupulous developers.

Vicki Buck is a class act.
Rob Goldsbury, an utterly shameful man.

****

Christchurch City Council
Agenda

Notice of Meeting:
An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

Date: Thursday 27 July 2017
Time: 10.05am
Venue: Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

….

[agenda item]
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26. Yaldhurst Village Subdivision – Dedication of Road – Sir John McKenzie Avenue ………. [page] 529

[the report]
Council
27 July 2017

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 13 June 2017
 
26. Yaldhurst Village Subdivision – Dedication of Road – Sir John McKenzie Avenue

Reference: 17/733313
Contact: Richard Holland richard.holland@ccc.govt.nz 941 8690
 
Note that this report was left to lie on the table at the Council meeting on 6 July 2017.
 
1. Staff Recommendations
 
That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend to the Council:

1. That Lots 601 (residential) and 613 (commercial) on LT 448725 will be dedicated under Section 349 of the Local Government Act 1974 as a road, in order for the road to vest.

2. Note that a Deed of Indemnity will be executed by Infinity Yaldhurst Limited which will indemnify and keep indemnified the Council from all actions, proceedings and claims made by any land owner in relation to the Council accepting the dedication of Lots 601 and 613 on LT 448725, as road.

3. Also note that the Council shall not be required to issue a Section 224(c) Certificate under the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect to Lots 601 and 613 on LT 448725 until all the safety audit requirements as specified by the Council, and included in the Variations of the subdivision consent, have been physically built to the Council’s satisfaction.

4. That the General Manager City Services be delegated authority to negotiate and enter into on behalf of the Council, such documentation required to implement the dedication.
 
2. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council
 
Part A

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend to the Council:

1. Option 2 of the staff report, namely, That the Council not agree to a dedication process and inform Infinity Yaldhurst Limited to pursue the matter through the Courts in accordance with the Property Law Act.
 
2. That the Council agree to meet with the adjoining property owners to discuss options on a way forward regarding the Yaldhurst Village Subdivision.
 
Vicki Buck and Anne Galloway requested that their votes against the above decision, be recorded.
 
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Continue reading

26 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, DCHL, Delta, District Plan, Events, Finance, Housing, Infrastructure, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, SFO, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty

Cats —or, Infrastructure spending, Council debt, and Disenfranchisement of Ratepayers

Council cat squad checking rego fees [supplied]

After the great floods, the common affliction amongst leaders, “water on the brain”.

█ The ‘thinking’ – DCC cat control remit for LGNZ AGM

****

At Twitter:

****

“There may be issues with cats but they also serve a useful purpose in controlling pests. The cat population doubled to two at my place last year, and we have more tui and bellbirds around than ever, as well as visits by kereru and eastern rosellas and fantails and waxeyes. The cats occasionally catch a bird but most often it is a sparrow or a thrush. But it looks like the Dunedin council and some others are keen on requiring the herding of cats. They kept as quiet as they could on cats during the local body elections, and now mid term they try to foist it on the public. Devious.” –Pete George at YourNZ

****

Councils will now lobby the government to finish its National Cat Management strategy.

### radionz.co.nz 6:05 pm on 25 July 2017
RNZ News
Councils seek greater powers to control cats
By Michael Cropp – Wellington Local Government Reporter
The country’s councils are calling on the government to give them extra powers to protect wildlife from cats including microchipping, de-sexing and registration. Local bodies have the power to control dogs and their behaviour, but they only have jurisdiction over cats when they become a health risk. While the remit presented by Dunedin City Council at the meeting acknowledged the companion role of animals, it noted cats are a danger to wildlife. […] The controversial remit scraped through with just 51 percent of the vote at the Local Government New Zealand annual general meeting.
….Auckland mayor Phil Goff said his council abstained from the vote because it was not sure what it would mean for the 500,000 cats in the country’s largest city. “We are in favour of practical measures to protect native birdlife …. We’re not in favour of bureaucratic measures that might involve millions of dollars of council time and energy but doesn’t achieve the objectives that we set out to achieve,” Mr Goff said.
Read more

****

More about ‘LGNZ The Blight’:

Local Government New Zealand – Media Release
Local government to debate four remits and elect new President at AGM
News type: National news | Published: 21 July 2017
The local government sector will voted on four issues when it gathers for its annual AGM in Auckland on Tuesday 25 July. There is a focus on litter legislation, local government funding, cat management and health in this year’s remits. The AGM follows this year’s LGNZ Conference, when over 600 delegates from local government and its stakeholders, industry and community will gather in Auckland for the two day event [23-25 July]. The theme of this year’s conference is Creating pathways to 2050: Liveable spaces and loveable places. Remits are voted on in a secret ballot and if passed will become official policy and be actioned by Local Government New Zealand. Local government will also be voting for a new LGNZ President to replace Lawrence Yule, who steps down after nine years in the role.
….National legislation to manage cats
The third remit was proposed by Dunedin City Council and asks that LGNZ lobby the Government to take legislative action as a matter of urgency to develop national legislation includes provision for cost recovery for cat management.
Throughout New Zealand councils are tasked with trying to promote responsible cat ownership and reduce their environmental impact on wildlife, including native birds and geckos.  Yet, territorial authority’s powers for cats are for minimising the impact on people’s health and wellbeing, and regional councils’ powers are restricted to destruction of feral cats as pests.  The remit seeks the protection of our wildlife and native species by seeking regulatory powers for cat control, including cat identification, cat de-sexing and responsible cat ownership.
….The LGNZ AGM is open to members only. Following the meeting, LGNZ will advise of the outcomes of all votes.
Read more

****

Cat rangers and collars with bells on are some of the ideas Dunedin City Council wants to lobby Government for.

### Stuff.co.nz Last updated at 14:28, July 10 2017
Cat control: many Kiwi councils ready to lobby for national rules
By Libby Wilson
Councils around the country are looking to band together to rein in roaming moggies. Dunedin City Council has suggested its colleagues help it push the Government for national rules that could include cat rangers and shutting cats in overnight. Seven other councils around the country have given the idea, and its environmental focus, their backing ahead of a July vote at the Local Government New Zealand annual meeting.
Read more

****

‘Vacuum of cat management policy and services in Dunedin’, local submission says.

### nzherald.co.nz 29 Jun, 2017 7:02am
Dunedin council proposes registration of cats in New Zealand
A Dunedin proposal that could result in the registration of cats in New Zealand will be discussed nationally. The proposal from the Dunedin City Council, in consultation with seven other councils, will next month go to a Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) vote. If it is successful, LGNZ would make it a policy, and begin lobbying the Government to have it made law. The proposal could see the Government called upon to develop legislation for cats similar to the Dog Control Act. It already has the support of the Otago Regional Council, one of 78 councils which will vote on the idea.
Read more

****

### ODT Online Wed, 17 May 2017
DCC seeks support for cat control
The Dunedin City Council will seek support from other New Zealand councils to gain greater control of cat management. If additional support from councils was gained, a remit would ask Local Government New Zealand to call upon the Government to give councils statutory power to control cats. The DCC was researching a Wellington City Council bylaw on microchipping cats. However, the current bylaw could not be enforced by non-compliance fees. Cat management would focus on the control of wild cats.
Link

****

S T O P ● P R E S S

At Facebook:

Related Posts and Comments:
26.7.17 RNZ Morning Report : Guyon Espiner sticks claws in Cat Cull & Curfews
25.7.17 To borrow from Stevie Smith : ‘the truth is I think he was already stuck’
22.7.17 Regional state of emergency lifted in Otago (incl Dunedin & Waitaki)
21.7.17 Rainy Day reading —The Spinoff : Ministry of Transport fraud case
21.7.17 DCC ORC : Heavy rain warnings preparations #PublicNotice
1.7.17 LGNZ, don’t wish ‘his lordship’ on New Zealand #VoteRachelReese
3.6.17 ODT updates mayoral vehicle serious injury crash information
24.4.17 LGOIMA vehicle (DCC) : Hyundai Santa Fe (2016) written off Jan 2017
10.12.16 Oh christ ! [LGNZ bureaucratic dopefest]
21.7.15 Dunedin to host LGNZ 2016 conference —FFS TIME TO TAKE IT OUT
21.5.15 DCC and LGNZ, total losers
2.2.15 LGNZ run by Mad Rooster Yule, end of story
10.10.14 Cull consorts with losers at LGNZ
26.6.14 LGNZ #blaggardliars

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

24 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, DCC, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, LGNZ, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Public interest, Travesty, What stadium

Rainy Day reading —The Spinoff : Ministry of Transport fraud case

The ever-deepening storm centred on the Joanne Harrison fraud case just became a hurricane. Yesterday’s State Services Commission investigation report is likely to trigger a new chain of events that could extend well beyond embattled Auditor General Martin Matthews, writes Peter Newport

### thespinoff.co.nz July 21, 2017
Politics
The Ministry of Transport fraud case: Why the rot goes deeper than Joanne Harrison
By Peter Newport | Contributing writer
The State Services Commission investigation, published yesterday, makes one thing very clear: Joanne Harrison influenced the exit of four fellow Ministry of Transport employees who tried to tell their bosses that she was a fraudster. She managed to hire friends and steal over $700,000 from the ministry despite numerous staff attempting to call attention to her actions. This all happened while she was reporting directly to then-chief executive Martin Matthews, who is now our auditor general – albeit on temporary leave. The Commission has now apologised and is offering compensation to those former staff members. Its report also highlights many other issues at the Ministry, arguing that the 17-year-old legislation that covers whistleblowers needs to be changed and improved.

A second investigation, into whether Martin Matthews is a suitable person to continue as auditor general, is due from Sir Maarten Wevers in the coming days. Matthews is currently constructing his response to the unpublished, but complete, Wevers investigation. He has been given until the end of this week to complete it.

The Harrison case has some similar dynamics to the Todd Barclay drama. It’s become less about the initial problem than how it was handled. Who told the truth and who tried to obscure or even bury the truth. The difference with the Harrison situation is that she is now in jail and the truth is coming out – fast.

The Spinoff has been looking at exactly who did what, and when. That job has been made easier by a new, recent MOT whistle-blower who has produced and provided to us a detailed timeline noting all the evidence, which we publish here, utilising material released by the Ministry of Transport and available to view here. The same whistle-blower has shared a bizarre insight into Martin Matthews’ statements during his time at the Ministry of Transport.

But first, a quick tour of the jigsaw puzzle of documents that reveal a picture of Martin Matthews being given not clues, or hints, but what appear to be multiple solid facts that highlighted Joanne Harrison as a Grade A con artist and thief.
Read more

Founded in 2014, The Spinoff is New Zealand’s fastest growing media startup, amassing a monthly New Zealand audience of over 500,000 in less than three years.
We’ve assembled a team of agenda-setting journalists and critics, working across text, audio and video to create a true 21st century media brand. In just two years, The Spinoff has been nominated for 24 Canon awards, winning six. Our growth has been driven by a creative editorial style and innovative business model, emphasising long-term relationships with like-minded brands and a close connection with a young, educated and urban audience. Duncan Greive won both NZ Marketing Magazine‘s Editor of the Year as well as the People’s Choice title for Editor and Media Visionary in their media issue, July 2017. The Spinoff also claimed the title for Digital Media Brand of the Year as well as the People’s Choice title for the same award.

****

Comment received from russandbev
2017/07/21 at 10:52 am

The recent revelations about what happened to the whistleblowers in the Ministry of Transport have, I’d suggest, application in Dunedin. Think of the parallels. In the MoT case a manipulative person with a barely-hidden track record of fraud and vindictiveness as well as a well developed sense of entitlement goes about systematically defrauding a government department of close on 3/4 million dollars. Not through some incredibly complex fraud, but one of simply creating business that didn’t exist and creating invoices from them for services that were never provided. Not exactly something that would take a lot to investigate.

Whistleblowers blow the alarm whistles to their managers and nothing happens and the further up the chain the questions were asked, the more dismissive the denials became. Meantime the fraudster moves against the whistleblowers. The Head of the Ministry moves on to even more wondrous things as Auditor General (is that ironic or is that ironic?) and the Minister dismisses all suggestions of wrong-doing. Even the Speaker of the House who employs the Auditor General doesn’t want to get involved.

Now found that the whistleblowers were entirely vindicated by their concerns and they get private and public apologies and a confidential settlement to, in part, recompense them for their treatment by both a fraudster and by management and governance failures. The Protected Disclosures Act [2000] is supposed to protect whistleblowers in BOTH public and private sectors.

Now, I don’t think anyone is suggesting fraud in the case of Aurora/Delta and that should be made plain. However look at the track record of these companies. A fearful record of stupid property speculation costing many many millions which is still going on thanks to Yaldhurst. A willingness to go along with borrowing to supply dividends to the DCHL and the DCC. Decades of ignoring maintenance on the Aurora network closely linked to the governance requirements to minimise costs, maximise profits and supply dividends to build vanity projects by the owners and now the spendup of northwards of 3/4 billion dollars on urgent maintenance bought about these years of neglect.

And then think of the years and layers of denials that these things happened over. When Richard Healey found he could no longer keep working in the company because of all that was being hidden, he gets vilified by EVERYONE that should have listened. EVERYONE is in denial including his past Managers who continued to receive their grossly inflated salaries and those in governance – many of whom refused to even sit down with him and discuss his concerns.

Am I the only one to see the parallels in how a Ministry or a City company deals with whistleblowers? I wonder if we will ever see similar end results in the case of Richard Healey?

{Link added. -Eds}

Reply from Elizabeth
2017/07/21 at 1:02 pm

Not involving Aurora:

Charges of Constructive Fraud have been brought, by joinder, against Delta Utility Services Ltd in the Christchurch High Court by the caveators (original property owners of the Noble Subdivision) at Yaldhurst. The case proceeds.

****

[decisionmaker.co.nz] formatted by whatifdunedin

Transparency International New Zealand
http://www.transparency.org.nz/

Related Posts and Comments:
19.7.17 Southern Police : Nothing changed since Tom Lewis wrote Coverups & Copouts
18.7.17 Delta | Infinity | CCC staff collude to defeat Yaldhurst residents (again)
23.5.17 Topical debates on Corruption in New Zealand
22.2.17 Some Councils/CCOs get cleanup from FRAUD and CORRUPTION #NotAll
9.12.16 Auckland corruption charges proved —ring any bells? #South
28.1.16 New Zealand local government T-shirt #haze #corruption
20.9.15 Corruption serious threat to New Zealand #CAANZ
14.9.15 Screening tonight: Paradigm Episode 2! Local Government Corruption in NZ #Sky #YouTube
23.7.15 Publicise: laudafinem.org
13.5.14 Stuff: Colin Espiner usefully defines Corruption

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

1 Comment

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Commerce Commission, Construction, Corruption, Crime, Delta, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, SFO, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

Delta | Infinity | CCC staff collude to defeat Yaldhurst residents (again)

Yaldhurst Subdivision (former Noble Subdivision)

S T A T E ● O F ● P L A Y

Christchurch City Council is failing to ensure compliance with the subdivision consent and is then assisting the developer Noble/Delta – Infinity/Delta, to screw the Yaldhurst residents.

[click to enlarge]

****

About five of the affected Yaldhurst residents gave deputations to the full meeting of the Christchurch City Council on Thursday, 6 July 2017.

Prior to the meeting, the Infinity Joint Venture of which Delta is a majority partner (with its $13m gift investment from Dunedin City Council) had convinced CCC staff to sway Christchurch City councillors to vote for the dedication of private roads as opposed to vesting ownership in the Council. This in the attempt to first defeat land covenants the affected residents have over the property registered in 2003 to protect their inclusion in any subdivision. However, Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) cannot accept roads vesting in ownership with the Council when there are any encumbrances on the land – such as the residents’ covenants.

For the residents, Colin Stokes, at the council meeting, distributed to councillors a review of what CCC staff have done over the years.

Of course, as the facts flow they continue to entwine around Delta.

The residents are fighting to protect and enforce their rights in the subdivision consent; and to halt Delta and their Southern associates’ onslaught against them.

****

Received from Colin Stokes (Yaldhurst resident and caveator)
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 9:16 a.m.

Thanks for your ongoing support Elizabeth

Chris Hutching’s piece (The Press 10.7.17) is weak and void of facts that present our case.

● We have Land Covenants registered over all the land in 2003 to protect our inclusion in any subdivision – our specific Access Lot road has to be formed and vested to Christchurch City Council standards with CCC as a term of extinguishment of the covenants.
● The encumbrance on the land prevent vesting of roads as LINZ won’t allow roads to vest with the council with them on.
● Infinity/Delta behind closed doors with CCC staff came up with a scheme to dedicate the roads under old rules (not compliant with the RMA and the subdivision consent) so as to circumvent our covenant protection.
● The real story is that CCC is breaking rules and NOT requiring compliance with the subdivision consent so as to cheat the residents of their protection and their interests protected by that protection so as CCC and the developer can cut them out of the subdivision.
● CCC and the developer Noble/Delta – Infinity/Delta have taken conditions out of the consent, varied the consent, and permitted non-complying undersized infrastructure that makes our part of the subdivision impossible – specifically stormwater pipes and basins required on the lower lying developers’ land which is where the consent (and physical topography and site layout) requires our stormwater to go.
● CCC failing to enforce the conditions of the consent as the law requires means our Access Lot road cannot be formed, meaning we can not subdivide.
● Delta with the misuse of mortgagee powers passed the property to itself, or at least part of the property ($13.4m of an $18.35m “sale” = 73% of which $12.5m was left in the property in passing it to Infinity in the orchestrated “sale”).

[ends]

****

Prepared Summary and Review with subdivision plans as tabled at Christchurch City Council’s meeting (6 July), to assist understanding:

███ D 2017 07 04 Summary and Review of Circumvention of Covenants for Councillors Yaldhurst (16 pages)

1 Plan RMA92009135

2 Plan RMA92009135 hlite

The coloured plan shows the residents’ Access Lot between green lines going from Yaldhurst Rd and then dog-legging east to west. What is inside the yellow border is what is within the Subdivision Consent (note there is an internal yellow small 2 sites that are NOT in the consent – and 3 other of the residents’ lots in common ownership on the NS leg are not included in the consent).

It is this east west leg of the Access Lot that requires widened roading to enable the Lots each side to be subdivided pursuant to:-
– 2002 Agreements for sale and purchase (and 2008 further agreement)
– 2003 Registered Land Covenant Protection [see Summary and Review, page 1 para 2 for terms of extinguishment]
– 2009 Subdivision Consent (Condition 5 and stormwater Conditions for it 9.) [see Summary and Review, page 5 para 12]

The problem is
– the Security Sharing Joint Venture (Noble/Delta/Gold Band) SSJV designed and constructed their part of the subdivision such that it made the East West Access Lot owners (residents) parts of the subdivision impossible AND that the Council permitted this.

– Undersized stormwater infrastructure was corruptly installed without consent to NOT include the residents’ subdivisions (all the while falsely assuring residents it did).

– The stormwater is required to be on land the residents transferred to the developer in return for this stormwater and other provisions. It is required to be there for numerous reasons including physical and legal reasons;
* Residents transferred the land in return for this provision
* 2003 Land Covenants protect this land for that provision (required for the Access Lot Road to be formed and vested)
* 2009 The Subdivision Consent requires it to be on the developers’ land (Condition 9.5 which “disappeared”) [see Summary and Review, page 5 para 12 and page 10 email 16 Feb 2010]
* Residents that are part of that subdivision consent have the legal rights to the stormwater (s134 RMA) – the Council is refusing to enforce the conditions of the consent; and permitted the developer to NOT comply with the conditions.
* Land topography and layout physically requires it to go there. The land slopes High NWest to SEast Low

– Delta went ahead and constructed the infrastructure without legal consent – [see Summary and Review, page 10 email 22 Aug 2012]
* This is akin to a builder building a house without consent.
* Council failed to issue an abatement notice for works being complete without consent, and to non-complying standards.

For all the Council staff failings, and the consent holders and JV partners’ failings and corruption of making the residents parts of the subdivision impossible:-
– Delta/Infinity and Council staff are recommending to the Elected Council to vote to circumvent the residents’ Land Covenants so:-
* the residents roading and subdivisions will no longer be protected and will be impossible;
* the JV Infinity/Delta will make more profit by not having to comply with the conditions of the consent that requires the residents’ roading and inclusion (as above)
* Council staff “mistakes” and wrongdoing of permitting non-complying works and not enforcing the conditions of the consent (as required by law) will be covered up.

– Delta and DCC was the facilitator of transferring the property from the Delta/Gold Band/Noble Joint Venture to the Delta/Infinity Joint Venture.
– Delta (illegally) owned 67.5% of the 1st mortgage and controlled Gold Band through their Security Sharing JV.
– Delta’s assurances it had nothing to do with the mortgagee sale is a lie.
– Delta refused to allow Gold Band to accept offers to redeem the 1st mortgage (illegal under s102 & s103 Property Law Act).
– DCC refused to allow redemption of the 1st mortgage.
– DCC (and Delta) refused to accept assignment of the 1st mortgage when Colin Stokes and another (as parties with interests in the land entitled to redeem) offered it to them
* had they done, Delta could have registered about an additional $16m in agreements to mortgage they were sitting on
* all that was required in return was “our little road” which is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT of the subdivision consent in any event.

[ends]

As reported by The Press, the eight-year dispute involving the stalled Yaldhurst subdivision has now gone to mediation between the property owners and the developers.
The dispute has been aired in several High Court cases between the private landowners and the developers, which are continuing.

Related Post and Comments:
11.7.17 Delta has deep fingers into 8-year subdivision dispute at Yaldhurst

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *aurora*, *grady*, *luggate*, *jacks point*, *dchl*, *auditor-general*, *noble*, *yaldhurst* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

17 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, Corruption, DCC, DCHL, Delta, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium