Tag Archives: Designations

SH88 realignment: decision to Environment Court?

Updated Post 3.9.13 at 1:30pm

SH88 realignment [ODT Graphic]### ODT Online Mon, 2 Sep 2013
Decision on SH88 looms
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council has until Friday to determine whether it will make a decision on the controversial designation of land for the realignment of State Highway 88 near Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium – or hand the responsibility for the decision to the Environment Court.
To opt for the latter would be a first for the council, which is both the authority requesting the land be designated, and the authority that would require it to be designated. It publicly notified the requirement for the land last month, after a previous non-notified designation was quashed by the court following the council’s admission it had not followed the proper consultation process. The new road has been built, but final measures including traffic lights have been in limbo while the designation issue is resolved.

Mr Hall has already indicated publicly he would ”fight” the proposed designation as notified because it still did not provide safe access to his property.

Doug Hall 1One of the affected landowners, Doug Hall, who is running for the DCC, took the council to court to argue the original designation was illegal because he was not notified as an affected party, and sought an injunction stopping the traffic lights from being switched on until the resolution of safety issues at that intersection and around access to his property as a result of the realigned road. Affected parties, including Mr Hall, were consulted on the new designation late last year, and again earlier this year after the notification of the requirement was delayed while negotiations with Mr Hall continued.
The council had received 13 submissions by Friday, the end of the submission period. Submitters included the University of Otago, Port Otago Ltd, the NZ Transport Agency, the Otago Regional Council and several heavy transport companies among others, but not Mr Hall, or his representatives.
Read more

ODT Correction 3.9.13 (page 3):

Submissions from companies owned by Doug Hall, one of the parties affected by the realignment of State Highway 88 in Dunedin, were received by the Dunedin City Council within the statutory timeframe and will be included in the process for designating the land for realignment. The submissions from Anzide Properties Ltd, Hall Brothers Transport Ltd, and Dunedin Crane Hire (2005) Ltd were received by deadline on Friday, but were not processed until yesterday.

Related Posts and Comments:
3.8.13 SH88 notice of requirement [more maps]
30.4.13 DCC governance = management ?
20.11.12 DCC vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”
27.5.12 SH88 realignment – information
25.5.12 SH88 realignment costs (injunction)
27.2.12 Bringing DCC, related entities and individuals to account…
23.8.11 Stadium project tangles
4.11.10 SH88 realignment for stadium disrupts traffic
21.7.10 SH88 realignment – update
7.7.10 Goodbye to great store buildings in Parry St
21.4.10 SH88 realignment – update
31.3.10 SH88 realignment
24.2.10 SH88 realignment: Are ratepayers buying the land twice?
20.11.09 Interesting. SH88 realignment.
2.9.09 SH88 realignment past stadium

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

45 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

SH88 notice of requirement

DIS-2013-1 Location Map 1

DIS-2013-1 Fredrick St - Ravensbourne Rd (detail)Affected Party: Anzide Properties Ltd

Doug Hall, who was informed about the designation process on Thursday, said he was going to fight the issue. ”I have no choice. It is a safety issue. Someone is going to get killed on that road.”

### ODT Online Sat, 3 Aug 2013
Hall to oppose designation
By Hamish McNeilly
Dunedin businessman Doug Hall remains defiant after the Dunedin City Council confirmed it was revisiting the designation process for an affected area of State Highway 88. Yesterday, the council announced it had lodged a notice of requirement to restart the designation process, after negotiations stalled following a botched handling of the original process.
DCC general manager infrastructure and networks Tony Avery said the section of road had not been legally designated and the council acknowledged it had made process mistakes when trying to designate it earlier.
Last year, the Otago Daily Times reported the council had spent $485,000 over 18 months to try to find a solution, and it was too early to say how much the designation process would add to the final tally.
Read more

● Submissions on the notice of requirement, which is publicly notified today, close on August 30.

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Designation Process for Part of State Highway 88

This item was published on 02 Aug 2013.

The Dunedin City Council has lodged a Notice of Requirement to start afresh the designation process for the section of State Highway 88 near Anzac Avenue.
The Notice of Requirement is a formal process to have land designated as road. It will be publicly notified tomorrow.
DCC General Manager Infrastructure and Networks Tony Avery says the new section of SH88 has been in use since July 2011, but has not been legally designated. The DCC has previously acknowledged that it made process mistakes during an earlier attempt to designate the road.
Temporary traffic controls have been in place since the new section of road was opened, while the DCC negotiated with an adjacent landowner over access arrangements.
“Those negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful, despite the best intentions of all parties, so we are now proceeding with the formal legal process to have the road designated.”
Once the designation proposed is approved, traffic lights at the intersection of Anzac Avenue and Frederick Street would be activated, and the Ward Street bridge ramp would be re-opened to provide much-needed access to the Harbourside area, Mr Avery says. Access to the adjacent properties is to be provided as well, consistent with acceptable standards and in a safe manner.
The DCC is confident the changes are in the best interests of the public.
Submissions on the Notice of Requirement will close on 30 August.

Contact General Manager Infrastructure and Networks on 477 4000.
DCC Link

DIS-2013-1 Layout PlanDIS-2013-1 Fredrick St – Ravensbourne Rd Layout Plan

Territorial Authority’s Requirement for Two Designations
DIS-2013-1 Fredrick Street – Ravensbourne Road

The requirement is for:
The Notice of Requirement seeks to designate two areas of land. Designation 1 is for part of the Dunedin Harbourside Arterial and will link Anzac Avenue (D465) with Ravensbourne Road (D845) to the south of Parry Street West. Designation 2 is for the Dunedin Harbourside Arterial – Access Road which will provide access from the Designation 1 area to the site at 80 Anzac Avenue.
Read more + Official Documents/Maps

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 18:04 20/11/2012
Dunedin City Council fined for road botch up
By Wilma McCorkindale – DScene
A High Court decision has slammed Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) handling of a roading realignment in the city, ordering the cash -strapped authority to pay affected parties more than $185,000 in costs. Justice Alan Mackenzie indicated in a written decision the legality of the stretch of State Highways 1 and 88 through the city remained in question because of the council’s botch up.
Read more

Judgment-221310 (PDF, 109 KB)

Related Post and Comments:
30.4.13 DCC governance = management ?
20.11.12 DCC vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”
27.5.12 SH88 realignment – information
25.5.12 SH88 realignment costs (injunction)
27.2.12 Bringing DCC, related entities and individuals to account…
23.8.11 Stadium project tangles
4.11.10 SH88 realignment for stadium disrupts traffic
21.7.10 SH88 realignment – update
7.7.10 Goodbye to great store buildings in Parry St
21.4.10 SH88 realignment – update
31.3.10 SH88 realignment
24.2.10 SH88 realignment: Are ratepayers buying the land twice?
20.11.09 Interesting. SH88 realignment.
2.9.09 SH88 realignment past stadium

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

If to Environment Court

Stop The Stadium President Bev Butler has confirmed the organisation has lodged a letter of appeal to the Environment Court seeking to prevent the Harbour Arterial Link project – this joins the proposed harbourside arterial with State Highway 88 by skirting the site for the Awatea St stadium.

Loss of the Harbour Arterial Link would place the proposed stadium project in jeopardy. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/42373/environment-court-stadium-appeal

******

What is the role of the Environment Court?

Ministry for Environment web pages cleanly state (http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/court-guide/html/page2.html):

“The Environment Court is a specialist court operating under the Resource Management Act (RMA). The Environment Court has the same powers as the District Court and considers appeals on council decisions about:

* resource consents
* abatement notices
* proposed district and regional plans
* proposed regional policy statements.”

Among other things, the Environment Court can consider appeals on designations.

“The Environment Court has the power to:

* direct councils to make changes to their policy statements or plans
* confirm, amend or cancel decisions on applications for resource consents and designations
* stay or confirm abatement notices
* make or decline to make declarations and make or refuse to make enforcement orders
* award costs in favour of one or other of the parties involved.”

The Environment Court holds sittings as required throughout the country. These are usually held as close as possible to the site that the proceeding is concerned with.

Always google “Environment Court” or “RMA” to pick up useful explanatory guides, definitions and descriptions of planning processes, court processes, procedural matters and participation. Most of these are phrased for easy comprehension by lay people and practitioners, and general query solving. Plenty of cross links are given for consistency and elaboration.

******

Last year, Ms Butler expressed concerns when she discovered the Dunedin City Council had pushed for early Environment Court slots for expected appeals blocking the Awatea St stadium proposal. She considered this application to the Court to be highly unusual. Via media reporting – and, as underlined to Ms Butler by the Commissioners at the stadium plan change hearings – this was shown to be standard practice. Forward scheduling allows the Court to allocate personnel and resources to see to upcoming business. Appeal hearings have been sought for April or May 2009.

******

Case Management

One of the objectives of case management by the Environment Court is to “efficiently use available judicial, legal, and administrative resources, and achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act (where that is the relevant controlling legislation)”.

Cases such as statutory plan appeals, appeals concerning a major development proposal (and matters referred to the Court by the Minister for the Environment under s141B(l)(b)) which require individual management are “assigned to a complex track, and are managed through mechanisms such as timetabling of procedural steps and progress reporting to the Court, judicial conferencing, and formal pre-hearing directions or rulings”.

To find out more about the Court’s case management system, go to:
http://www.courts.govt.nz/environment/procedure/case-management.asp
http://www.courts.govt.nz/environment/legislation-and-resources/practice-notes.asp?inline=case-management.asp

Designations

Unsure of the term ‘designation’ as it applies to local authority planning processes? What does it mean?

Areas of land can be designated for use by requiring authorities as network utilities or public works, for example, roads. This means that works can be carried out without the subsequent need to comply with district plan rules. The process for designating land is similar to a resource consent application and provides for public submissions.

“[A designation] gives providers of network utilities and public facilities certainty and the ability to plan ahead. It gives them control over activities on the site to prevent anything that may compromise future works, even if the site remains in private ownership.”

In effect, the designation “creates a special zone within the district plan where the specified activity becomes a permitted activity”.

To note: “Tensions can develop between the community’s desire to achieve a good environmental outcome, and the necessity to provide public utilities such as a road or a wastewater treatment plant, within a designated area.”

Use the following links to view the full context of these excerpts:
http://www.rmalink.org.nz/view-subprocess.php?id=4
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/designations/index.html
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/public/designations/index.html

Sections 166-186 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) deal with designations. These are searchable online.

Notified Decision

The Council notifies the decision of the requiring authority (Dunedin City Council, in this case) to all submitters and affected landowners/occupiers.

Planning hearing commissioners Roger Tasker, John Lumsden and John Matthews confirmed a notice of requirement for the new Harbour Arterial Link, subject to a list of conditions, on 9 January 2009.

STS, as a submitter, didn’t like the notified decision and has appealed to the Environment Court by the due date set down in the decision (2 February 2009).

ODT reports (go to link at top of page), “Among Stop the Stadium’s reasons for appealing to annul the Dunedin City Council’s “notice of requirement” – the process by which a designated authority gives notice it is seeking to designate land – were that the planned new infrastructure duplicated existing infrastructure; it was contrary to various objectives and policies of the Dunedin district plan and Otago’s regional policy statements and objectives because it failed to recognise available transportation alternatives and to reduce the use of fossil fuels and production of harmful emissions; and it made more appropriate technology less likely in the future. The new route would isolate the harbour area from the rest of Dunedin and make access to the harbour area more problematic…Ms Butler noted the commissioners had conceded a shorter arterial route through fewer private properties than would be needed to go around the proposed Otago Stadium site would be preferable.”

If you hold concerns similar to these about an RMA decision, initially you might consult the following guidelines, Resolving Resource Management Act Concerns and Your Guide to the Environment Court:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/concerns/index.html
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/court-guide/index.html

Better, directly consult a lawyer for advice and to know your options, and or an experienced RMA practitioner.

The Resource Management Act

The Ministry for Environment provides a gateway to information about the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), New Zealand’s main piece of legislation that sets out how we should manage our environment. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/

The approach to environmental management under the RMA is centred on the concepts of sustainable and integrated management of resources. Other principles of national and lesser importance are set out in the Act.

The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) also provides a community guide to the RMA: http://www.rmaguide.org.nz/rma/introduction.cfm

In 2005, the RMA was amended – and shortly, it will be again.

The Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 changed Environment Court procedure. “Rather than the ‘de novo’ hearing, the Court must now consider the decision made by the consent authority, and the evidence that was presented at it. This provision avoids the need to re-hear entire cases, and will speed up Court proceedings. However, there has been a corresponding increase in the documentation that consent authorities are required to make for consent hearings.” http://www.rmalink.org.nz/view-subprocess.php?id=3

Quality Planning is another RMA resource, providing valuable information on a range of planning topics (including conduct at hearings), as well as best practice guidance and relevant case law. http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/

******

Pending the Dunedin City Council’s decision on the stadium project tomorrow, will StS continue with its appeal? It’s understood Chalmers Properties Ltd (CPL) has also appealed the decision for the notice of requirement.

More soon.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Postscript, from ODT Online

Comment submitted by andy73 on Sat, 07/02/2009 – 11:31am.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/42373/environment-court-stadium-appeal#comment-2338
“Although I don’t particularly think that the ‘Stop the Stadium’ group is the best to represent the vast majority of Dunedin’s residents that are against the stadium, I am pleased that they are at least doing something about it. Dunedinite’s apathy is the reason we have ended up with such an out of touch council in the first place. I would hope that Stop the Stadium is also looking at legal ways of having this council removed from office due to a ‘vote of no confidence’ from the people. I really believe that the problem has got that bad!”

2 Comments

Filed under Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, Politics, Site, Stadiums, STS, Town planning