Dunedin’s second generation district plan (2GP) —notes on Natural Hazards

Received from Neil Johnstone
Wed, 3 May 2017 at 7:19 p.m.

Message: Last Thursday (27 April) I presented the remainder of my submission on Natural Hazards. Notes attached in case they might help anybody’s further efforts.

{The notes from Mr Johnstone are public domain by virtue of the consultative 2GP hearing process. -Eds}

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: LANDSLIDES
Neil Johnstone

I have no property interest in any landslide hazard area (although I did previously), nor in the Water of Leith catchment, nor in South Dunedin. My main purpose in appearing at this stage is to bring to the panel’s attention that the expert (so-called) opinions received from Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) natural hazard analysts are often deficient to the detriment of the 2GP process and the city’s residents.

I am a long-term resident of Dunedin and am highly experienced in flood control issues and solutions. I am appearing here on my own behalf, therefore not strictly as an Expert Witness in this instance, although I have done so in past years both in both the High Court and the Environment Court. I also acted as lead technical advisor to the NZ Govt investigation into the massive 1999 Clutha flood. My detailed investigations have ranged from simple issues such as the Water of Leith (as Investigations Engineer at Otago Catchment Board and ORC) to the entire Clutha catchment (in varying roles). These investigations have often incorporated the construction and operation of accurate, properly verified models.

I am now semi-retired MIPENZ, but still running my own consultancy on a reduced basis. I am a highly experienced expert in flood issues, I am much less so wrt landslide identification and mitigation (but I know a nonsensical report when I read one). ORC hazard analysts responsible for the landslide buffer zones originally imposed across my former property (and many others) need to accept that their approach was seriously flawed, and far from expert. Paul Freeland has mentioned to me in a recent phone conversation that Dunedin City Council (DCC) should be able to have confidence that ORC hazard analysts are expert. I have no strong criticism of Mr Freeland, but those days have passed – in this region at least – when expertise was based on proven performance, and not on a position’s title. A property previously owned by my wife and me in Porterfield Street, Macandrew Bay was quite ridiculously misrepresented in ORC’s landslide report of September 2015. The landslide hazard zone on that property has apparently now been removed, but uncaring damage has been done to us, and no doubt to many others. The Hazard 2 zone was reportedly imposed without site inspection, or without anybody properly reviewing output or checking accuracy of references.

[Reason for submitting: Natural Hazards section of 2GP dominated (undermined) by ORC hazards staff input and DCC failure to verify/review; DCC presumption that ORC “experts” do/should have appropriate expertise. We appear to be witnessing a proliferation of Hazard Analysts in NZ Local Government with little relevant experience or skill.]

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: SOUTH DUNEDIN
Neil Johnstone

The comments re South Dunedin flood hazard contained in my original written submission were written prior to DCC’s producing its inaccurate flood reports in respect of the South Dunedin flooding of early June 2015 in which high groundwater levels were held to blame. These DCC reports were eventually released in late November 2015 and April 2016 respectively. My analyses (well after my original submission) demonstrated that the prime cause of widespread flooding in South Dunedin was DCC’s failure (in order of probable significance) to utilise the bypass facility at Tahuna Wastewater Treatment Plant, to fully utilise its stormwater pumping capacity at Portobello Road, and to maintain its stormwater infrastructure (mudtanks etc). Inflow of “foreign” water from the St Clair catchment added to the depth of inundation in some areas. All these can be remedied by a diligent Council. Some have already been remedied, as positively demonstrated in the admittedly rather over-hyped rain event of the subtropical cyclone remnant around this past Easter.

ORC natural hazard analysts were probably responsible for the origin of the groundwater myth as a cause of the South Dunedin flooding in their Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 report. Reference was made there to “elevated” ground water levels. They followed up with a contentious report (The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin, July 2016). This opens by stating that the June 2015 flooding was caused by heavy rainfall and high groundwater levels, with no mention of mudtanks, or pumping failures (plural). Such reporting cannot be treated as balanced, nor its authors credible. Elsewhere, ORC essentially conceded the groundwater myth in Rebecca Macfie’s excellent NZ Listener article entitled Flood Fiasco (June 11, 2016).

Shortly after, however, ORC produced the aforementioned South Dunedin Hazards report (backed up by an embarrassingly inaccurate video presentation) that seems to reflect a desire to preach doom rather than convey a balanced defendable scientific analysis of South Dunedin realities and solutions where needed.

One of the worst features of the report and subsequent video was the depiction of projected permanently inundated areas of South Dunedin based on ORC modelling of rising sea level effects. These depictions made front page news in the Otago Daily Times with flow-on reporting nationally. The mapped areas of inundation are actually taken from an earlier ORC report entitled The South Dunedin Coastal Aquifer and Effect of Sea Level Fluctuations (October 2012). The modelling was based on limited information, and the findings would therefore be expected to be of limited reliability. The 2012 report essentially confirms this, noting that modelling of existing conditions overestimates actual groundwater levels (by the order of half a metre in places). Figure 2 (Scenario 0) of that report shows significant permanent ponding for current conditions. None exists in reality. Almost lost (in Section 3.8) are the following (abbreviated, and amongst other) concessions:

• Uncertainty of input data
• Potential inaccuracy of model predictions
• High level of uncertainty
• Groundwater system is poorly to moderately well characterised
• Aquifer properties are poorly understood or quantified
• Each of these uncertainties could have the effect of overestimating the groundwater ponding in the current setting.

The reader is advised to read the full Section 3.8 to ensure contextual accuracy. In my view (as an experienced modeller), a study that cannot even replicate known existing relationships is imperfectly calibrated and unverified. It cannot therefore be relied on. Strictly speaking, it does not qualify as a model. The relationship between possible sea level rise and consequent groundwater impact remains highly uncertain.

Unfortunately, the 2016 ORC South Dunedin Hazards report (and video) chose to reproduce the 2012 ponding predictions using more recent data (but without any better appreciation of aquifer characteristics), but the predictions are similar. It is noted that no Scenario 0 mapping is included in the latter report, nor are the model’s inherent weaknesses described. No admission of the potential modelling inaccuracies is presented other than the following note in Section 4.1: “Further discussion of the original model parameters, model calibration and potential pitfalls is included in the ORC (2012a) report, which can be accessed on the ORC website”. I believe that all parties were entitled to know unequivocally that the modelling was unreliable and unverified.

The 2016 report also makes reference to the fact that dry-weather ground water levels at the Culling Park recorder are at or below mean sea level. This is attributed by the authors to leakage of ground water into the stormwater and wastewater sewers. If that is correct (I would reserve judgement as to whether there may be other factors), then we are witnessing just one example of how an engineered solution could be utilised to dissipate increasing depth of groundwater. Such solutions are canvassed in the BECA report commissioned by DCC several years back.

To summarise, South Dunedin’s exposure to flood (current or future) is poorly described by ORC hazard analysts. The 2GP process seems to have seen these analysts “adopted” by DCC planners as their experts. I consider that to be an inappropriate approach to the detriment of our citizens.

The proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. The proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empts the currently-planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise solutions.

Requiring relocatable houses will likely simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably insufficient money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal to require relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

With respect to ground water issues across South Dunedin, the 2016 Hazard Report presents –

The reason for my pointing out these facts is to encourage Commissioners to take a step back from the current hysteria surrounding South Dunedin. Had the 2015 flooding extent been restricted (as it should have been) to that which occurred in a slightly larger rainfall event in March 1968, the event would have already been forgotten. Seemingly, at least partly as a result of that hysteria, the proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. Just as ORC floodplain mapping contradicts its in-place flood protection philosophy, so does the proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empt the currently planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise.

Requiring relocatable houses will simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably no money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal for relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

****

2GP PRESENTATION: URBAN STREAM HAZARDS
Neil Johnstone

Urban Stream Comment re Leith and Lindsay Streams:

ORC’s mapping is said to be of residual flooding (post-flood protection works of the past 80-plus years), but actually represents what might have been envisaged many decades back in something considerably greater than the record 1929 flood with none of the very significant channel works of the 1930s, 1940s and 1960s; or even those lesser improvement of the 2010s in place. The ORC 2GP mapping includes areas that didn’t get flooded in 1923 or 1929. I agree with some potential dangers of stream blockage (especially in Lindsay Creek, and to a lesser extent at Clyde Street and Rockside Road), but one can only consider locations of feasible blockage in today’s conditions. Furthermore, accepted professional practice for flood plain mapping requires detailed hydrology, probability analyses, climate change allowance, hydrograph routing, in-channel modelling (allowing for stream capacity variability), and overland flow modelling. ORC’s flood mapping incorporates none of these fundamentals; instead, it reads as little more than a colouring-in exercise, when a professionally researched technical document is required. In short, ORC’s hazard analysts have carried out no fit-for-purpose analysis for a District Plan process.

Interestingly, the concerns expressed by ORC hazard analysts re channel blockage are entirely inconsistent with ORC’s own design philosophy and consent application evidence for the recent Flood protection scheme (so called). Design Philosophy minimises the issue.

Very briefly, the mapping is challenged for the following reasons (inter alia):

No descriptions of the effective flood protection initiatives (OHB -1920s and 1930s, DCC -1940s, OCB -1960s) are included. These works have ensured that overtopping is practically impossible in the George Street to Cumberland Street reach, the Clock Tower reach and Forth Street to Harbour reaches. Flood protection in these areas are all built to a much higher hydraulic standard than the so-called ORC scheme of the past decade, and to a far, far higher standard than existed pre-1929.

It is further noted that ORC’s own Design Philosophy Report (OPUS for ORC, 2005) for the proposed Leith/Lindsay flood protection scheme is adamant that debris traps recently (then) constructed at Malvern Street and Bethunes Gully would further mitigate any debris problems. Refer paras 7.7 and 10.6 of that document.

Ponding is mapped where water couldn’t even reach in 1929 (peak flood currently estimated at 220 cumecs, and predating flood protection measures) in the wider CBD area. Flows along George Street in the 1920s only occurred south as far as about Howe Street, then re-entered the river. Nowadays, the accelerating weir above George Street and the structural high velocity channel immediately downstream provide much more clearance than existed in 1929. [Most outflow then from the river occurred much further downstream.] In those downstream reaches, many of the bridges have been replaced or upgraded. Possible remaining points of interest are the hydraulically insignificant extension (circa 2015) of the St David Street footbridge, the historic Union Street arch footbridge, and the widened (circa 2012) Clyde Street road bridge. The flimsy St David Street bridge would not survive any hydraulic heading up so there would likely be of little flood consequence, and backing up upstream of Union St would be largely inconsequential because of the height of the Clock Tower reach banks immediately upstream. The Clyde Street bridge is acknowledged as being lower than optimum, but it has not created any issues in its half century existence. Any overtopping there could only impact on a limited area between the bridge and the railway line.

Overland lows beyond (east of) the rail line remain highly improbable because of the ongoing blocking effect of road and rail embankments. Flows as far as the railway station to the west of the rail line are also highly improbable nowadays as only the Clyde Street area could conceivably contribute.

The 1923 photograph showing ponding along Harrow Street is presented by ORC with an unfortunate caption stating that the water is sourced from the Leith. Some undoubtedly was, but the whole of the city was subject to “internal” stormwater flooding from Caversham tunnel, across South Dunedin to the CBD and beyond. To illustrate further, a NIWA April 1923 flood summary (accessible online) provides a summary of some of the information more fully described in technical reports and newspaper accounts, including:

• Portions of Caversham, South Dunedin, St Kilda, the lower portions of central and northern areas of the City and North East Valley were completely inundated.
• Water in South Dunedin was waist deep.
• The Water of Leith rose considerably and burst its banks in many places, causing extensive damage along its banks and flooding low-lying areas.

Today’s stormwater infrastructure is rather more extensive and effective (when maintained), and DCC has a continuing legal obligation to provide to maintain that service.

The levels plotted across Lindsay Creek seem highly pessimistic. Levels are shown to be of the order of 2 metres above North Road in some locations at least. I have [no] knowledge of any such levels ever having been approached. Care must be taken not to include unfloodable areas in the mapping. I don’t however discount localised channel blockage, and the channel capacity is substandard in many areas. The valley slope ensures that overland flow will achieve damaging velocities. Such velocities are noted in the NIWA summary.

Of greater concern to me, however, is that ORC’s mapping appears to have seriously underestimated the significance of potential Woodhaugh flood issues:-

The river channel through here is both steep and confined. The influences of Pine Hill Creek (immediately upstream) and Ross Creek (immediately downstream) add to turbulence and bank attack. The area was ravaged in 1923 and 1929, and there have been evacuations in some much lesser events in later decades. These areas are at considerable risk in a 50- to 100-year plus event. Hardin Street, Malvern Street had houses evacuated in the 1960s flood. High velocity, rock laden flows and mudslides can all be anticipated, and difficult to counter. Area below camping ground / Woodhaugh was overwhelmed in floods of the 1920s – a focus for flooding depth and velocity.

If the 2GP process is to include urban flood maps, these should be diligently derived, based on historical record and appropriate modelling. The mapping should reflect the real flood risks (including likelihood, velocity and depth). The decreasing flood risk from Woodhaugh (potentially high impact) through North East Valley (moderate impact) through to the main urban area south of the Leith waterway (localised and of little-to-zero impact) should be reflected in the mapping.

[ends]

—

█ 2GP Hearing Topic: Natural Hazards
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/hearings-schedule/natural-hazards.html

█ For more, enter the terms *johnstone*, *flood* and *south dunedin* in the search box at right.

Related Posts and Comments
6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood
10.6.16 “Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article

—

[DCC Map differs from what was notified]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Cracking the truth : June 2015 South Dunedin flood

OPINION received from Neil Johnstone
Sat, 10 Sep 2016 at 12:42 a.m.

Richard Stedman produces (below) a succinct review of the causes of, and failures after, the South Dunedin flood of June 2015. His frustrations appear to match those of Hilary Calvert that were published a few hours earlier. My reviews previously published on What if? Dunedin commencing back around February give more detail.

For your readers’ further consideration, Richard has highlighted the ‘200mm increase’ in flood level as a result of Portobello Road pumping station failures. The figure was derived by me, and appears in my review of the first DCC flood report. To my knowledge the only clear comparable DCC concessions have come from chief executive Sue Bidrose who admitted the figure publicly at the 20 June 2016 (yes, 2016) South Dunedin Action Group-organised public meeting, and subsequently.

The first DCC flood report (30 Nov 2015) is adamant that high groundwater was the cause of the flooding, and enough Councillors bought right into that excuse at the following Infrastructure Services Committee meeting. Just go back and view the video, if you’ve forgotten.

Dunedin City Council Published on Dec 7, 2015
Dunedin City Council – Council Meeting – November 30 2015
Discussion of the report starts at 1:09:52

The second (mudtank) DCC report of 26 April this year states: “Although Portobello Road’s performance did explain some of the length of time flooding was evident, much of the flooded area was below road level…” (para 31). No mention of increased depth of flooding there either, you will note.
[View report at Infrastructure Services Committee: Agenda & Reports 26 April (Part A, Item 5) pp 6-27.]

Neither DCC report mentions the additional depth of flooding caused by inaction at the Musselburgh pumping station.

History and ongoing design may rely on written commentaries. For the wellbeing of South Dunedin people, we must therefore continue to counter the misinformation contained in DCC reports, and in the more recent ORC (DCC-backed) South Dunedin “hazards” report. Even if ODT has switched off.

—

Related Posts at What if? Dunedin
8.3.16 [Review 1] Johnstone independent review of DCC report
19.5.16 [Review 2] Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report

Correspondence supplied
7.3.16 Letter, Chief Executive Sue Bidrose to Neil Johnstone
10.3.16 Response from Neil Johnstone to CE Bidrose

Sue Bidrose at ORC/DCC hazards presentation [radionz.co.nz]

****

OPINION received from Richard Stedman
Fri, 9 Sept 2016 at 8:24 p.m.

The ODT editorial department is peopled by closed minds, a number of whom subscribe to the climate change/rising sea level mantra and therefore manipulate their content to support their distorted view of the world. Mr Morris is captured by the former/present regime at city hall, a fate which befalls every reporter assigned to that round once they get their feet under the table.

Two weeks ago I prepared an opinion piece re the election and South Dunedin, outlining some of the issues as I see them in the hope that it might be published. I thought it was honestly held opinion, but it was rejected because it added “nothing new” to the debate, yet they run to Cull at every turn and run column after column of repetitive nonsense.

The following is my submission submitted on 24/8 and rejected the same day in this message: “Thanks for this submission, but we have had a “deluge” of flood letters and op eds from all sides so I don’t feel the need to highlight the issue again at the moment – certainly if there’s not anything new in it, as such”.

I have seen little evidence of the cited “deluge”.

The South Dunedin flood of June 2015 may be a tipping point during next month’s local body election. Many voters will look at the burgeoning candidates list for the Dunedin City Council and ask “who will provide the cornerstone elements of responsibility, accountability and integrity?”

Residents and business owners in South Dunedin have been sorely tested in recent times through the failure of the DCC to maintain its infrastructure. Among those adversely affected were elderly residents at Radius Fulton Home, including a number of dementia patients, the most vulnerable in our community, who were subjected to floodwaters containing sewage and transferred from the safety of their home in a crisis beyond acceptance. Some were accommodated as far away as Balclutha and Oamaru and three months passed before the facility was re-opened.

Following the flood, obfuscation clouded the failures that led to the inundation of homes and businesses and the investigation and report into the affair was 12 months in gestation. Officials and councillors, captured by the twin mantras of climate change and rising sea level, avoided any suggestion of culpability to limit the likelihood of litigation, and offered no solace that might have been construed as admission of liability.

The mayor and others were quick to blame rising sea level causing increased groundwater, combined with an “extreme weather event”, the result of climate change, and went so far as suggesting that a planned retreat from South Dunedin may be necessary in the future. The rainfall was described as a one-in-100-year event then gradually downgraded, but none of these pretexts are realistic. Questions arise over who is responsible for what, and how serious are the threats of rising sea level, more frequent adverse weather caused by climate change, and the “sinking of South Dunedin”, not to mention “retreat”.

Dunedin and environs have been subjected to much larger weather events in the past. Flooding of the entire city is well recorded and in particular photographs of the 1923 flood depict rowing in floodwaters in the city as well as inundation in South Dunedin. During a storm in 1898 large tracts of St Clair Esplanade were destroyed by the sea which damaged many houses, leaving some partly suspended. More recently, the storms of 1968 were greater than last year’s, delivering 10% more rainfall. In 1968 there were 90 properties invaded by floodwater, whereas last year some 1200 properties were flooded and many contaminated with effluent. Clearly last year’s event was exceptional only for the damage created and lives disrupted.

At a public meeting in South Dunedin on June 20, more than 12 months after the event, those affected had an opportunity to hear an explanation in the hope that someone might take responsibility for the extent of the damage. Despite a good representation of councillors there was no empathy and no likelihood of accountability. What the meeting heard was a long explanation of how the three-waters system works, or doesn’t work, as the case may be, and of failure at the pumping station from chief executive, Dr Sue Bidrose and other staff. The question is “when did the city’s councillors abdicate?”

South Dunedin June 2015 [radionz.co.nz]

It can be argued that the damage and distress was the result of neglect, but the DCC says problems at the pumping station added only 200mm to the flooding which would have occurred anyway. Which 200mm was it? Maybe the first 200mm flowed across the ground, reached blocked drains then deepened throughout the area, or perhaps the last 200mm increased the depth and entered homes and business premises carrying undesirable flotsam. Without the extra 200mm would the water have stopped at the thresholds rather than flowing inside?

What of the rising sea level threat? Is it as urgent and as devastating as the commissioner for the environment, some DCC councillors and the Green Party say? The Greens proffer that the Government should help to pay for the reconfiguration of South Dunedin. Why? There has been no disaster on the scale of the Canterbury earthquakes and there is no immediate danger condemning South Dunedin, for if sea level were to rise according to some projections, north Dunedin and other areas are also in jeopardy meaning protection on the coast is futile because the flat land would be inundated from the harbour.

Could it be that models of sea level rise around New Zealand are exaggerated and distorted by the multiplier effect have been grossly over stated? And do the $7 million apartment complex at the Esplanade to be completed next year and the DCC’s belated discussion on a South Dunedin hub indicate mixed messages on the subject?

There is no doubt that the infrastructure must be maintained to the highest level and upgrading implemented with haste. The seafront calls for a level-headed approach to protect the sandhills which shelter the city from the ocean. In the past a network of groynes captured the sand, maintaining a broad beach to dissipate the energy of the waves. The network succeeded for nearly 100 years, but without maintenance fell victim to the ocean, so is it time to reinstate a similar system and then plan carefully for the next 100 to 200 years?

Council says that infrastructure will require “tens of millions of dollars” we cannot afford, but plans to spend some $37 million on George Street and the Octagon, followed by development of the harbourside. These “tens of millions” surely must be re-allocated to South Dunedin for infrastructure, to build a second pumping station, and provide realistic coastal protection.

Dunedin needs new councillors who will make hard decisions, reduce spending on fripperies and attend to basics; people who are prepared to drill deep into reports and costings and who are not afraid to make unpalatable decisions when needed rather than govern with slogans and platitudes.

Declaration: Conrad Stedman is my nephew.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Johnstone on ORC report : ‘The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin’ (July 2016)

█ The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin – July 2016 [read online]
Otago Regional Council
ISBN: 978-0-908324-35-4
Report writers:
Michael Goldsmith, ORC Natural Hazards Manager
Sharon Hornblow, ORC Natural Hazards Analyst
Reviewed by: Gavin Palmer, ORC Director Engineering, Hazards and Science
External review by: David Barrell, Simon Cox, GNS Science, Dunedin

—

Received from Neil Johnstone
Sun, 29 Aug 2016 at 8:17 p.m.

Message: Misinformation on the causes of the June 2015 South Dunedin flood have abounded since the event. As if the victimised residents haven’t suffered enough from others’ inactions (before and during the event), they are now being subjected to a hazards discovery process whose vigour appears to be exceeded only by its own recklessness. Following are a commentary of the hazards approach adopted by the Otago Regional Council (ORC), and a summary of my investigations into the flood event that I commenced after the publication of Dunedin City Council’s first flood report back in November 2015.

You can download Neil Johnstone’s report or read it below (formatted slightly differently to suit the WordPress template).

█ Download: A REVIEW OF ORC REPORT THE NATURAL HAZARDS OF SOUTH DUNEDIN (1) (PDF, 587 KB)

—

AN APPRAISAL OF RECENT REPORTING OF SOUTH DUNEDIN HAZARDS

N.P JOHNSTONE, BEng (Civil), MIPENZ

1. Introduction

There is some irony that DCC and ORC should be planning “drop in” sessions for residents in respect of South Dunedin hazard issues during September 2016, some 15 months after the major flood. The prime cause of flooding in June 2015 was DCC’s failure to maintain its infrastructure (not just mudtanks), and its failure to operate its pump stations to their intended capacities. The subsequent spread of misconceptions (i.e. groundwater levels, rainfall significance etc) surrounding the flood causes was at least partly due to inaccurate ORC analyses and reporting.

Repetitive and new doubtful information emanating from ORC via its latest report has been noted. Presentations and an over-simplistic video production have been observed. A footnote covering these observations is included at the end of this appraisal.

Long-delayed DCC reports on causes of the South Dunedin flooding have already been strongly criticised by the author. Specifically discredited are misrepresentations of sea level, groundwater and rainfall ranking. Accepted now by DCC as factors (somewhat grudgingly, and depending on the audience) are mudtank blockage and Portobello Road pump station failures (plural); still to be fully acknowledged are the failures at Musselburgh Pumping Station.

Attention is now turned to significant parts of hazard reports produced by the Otago Regional Council and utilised by DCC.

2. Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 (ORC, published October 2015)

This report deals with a wider area than South Dunedin. It is apparent that ORC staff never visited the flooding areas of South Dunedin on 3 June, but took advantage of fine weather to take some water level readings the following day. The opportunity for useful progressive surface water level recording was thus lost. Levels were collected at some 150 points on 4 June. ORC’s main conclusion was that “localised variations in topography were probably the main driver of flood depth”. Or, put another way, water depth was deepest where the ground was lowest. This seems hardly surprising, and even trivial. No attempt was made to explain the photographic images presented of extensive ponding remaining well after the rains had ceased. The phenomena of blocked mudtanks and unutilised pumping capacity went seemingly unnoticed.

The report does usefully reference ORC’s four borehole recorders of groundwater, but makes the somewhat misleading assessment that groundwater levels were “elevated” prior to the rainstorm. This misinformation was seized upon by agencies such as DCC and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to highlight climate change impacts.

Having obtained the actual groundwater level data from ORC via the LGOIMA process, the author was able to reveal this “groundwater fallacy” in reviews from February 2016, but it was not until the publication of NZ Listener’s article (June 11-17, 2016) entitled ‘FLOOD FIASCO’ that ORC admitted that pre-flood groundwater levels were in fact “just a little bit above average”. ORC now seems intent on resurrecting this fallacy.

The ORC report fails to address the real and key issues of pumping station failures (Portobello Road and Musselburgh), or comparisons with much lesser flood impacts in the larger rainfall event of March 8/9 1968.

The report states that the 2015 24-hour rainfall was the largest since 1923. This was patently incorrect, but again was utilised by DCC to divert blame from their role in the disaster.

3. The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin (ORC, published July 2016)

The report states unambiguously in its Opening Summary that the major flooding of June 2015 was “a result of heavy rainfall, surface runoff, and a corresponding rise in groundwater”. By now, most people are aware that the causes of the flooding’s disastrous impact were failure to optimally operate pumping stations, failure to clear mudtanks, and failure to deploy staff to key areas during the event. Again, none of these factors is addressed in ORC’s report.

The report presents a table on its second page entitled “Factors Which Can Influence Flood Hazard”. Examples of exaggerated negativity include:

1. Heavy Rainfall:
– Many recorded instances of rainfall leading to surface flooding.
– Heavy rainfall events have occurred frequently over the last decade.

Comment: These conclusions do not appear to be supported by the report’s text, and are vague, factually challengeable and alarmist. Prior to 2015, no major flooding had occurred in South Dunedin since 1968, and even that was minor by comparison.

2. Sea Level:
– Groundwater level fluctuates (by up to 0.5m near the coast) on a twice-daily cycle in response to normal ocean tides.

Comment: All of South Dunedin is near the coast; most of the area does not experience such large fluctuations. This should have been made clear by the inclusion of groundwater data from all 4 ORC sites across the plain, not just from Kennedy Street.

3. Seismic:
– Large earthquakes could result in increased flood hazard on the South Dunedin plain, due to liquefaction-related land subsidence or direct, sudden, changes in land elevation relative to sea level.

Comment: All areas of NZ have some susceptibility to earthquake damage. Dunedin is amongst the areas at lowest risk; no incidences of even minor liquefaction have ever been reported in South Dunedin, and little or no clearly liquefiable materials have been identified (Refer GNS, 2014*).

Labour messing with South Dunedin, like Cull, unbidden

Not Listening [octavehighereast.com]

—

There is little or no RISING GROUNDWATER at South Dunedin – this is an attack on the local community by Anthropogenic Global Warming (manmade climate change) believers like Curran, Clark, and Cull.

So-called ‘authorities’ are running their Politics over the top of the local Community, Failing to canvass the views of the local residents, property owners, service providers and businesses through agreed consultation methods Before pronouncing upon the area. This is disrespectful, dangerous behaviour. Unwarranted.

A lot of us will remember Labour MP David Clark’s importune speech on climate change at the public meeting held at South Dunedin on 20 June. He completely didn’t register the mood and understandings of the local audience.

Greenie Cull and the Labour Party are deliberately or inadvertently using South Dunedin as a Political Football. There are few votes to be earned from bullying and interference, thank god.

Listening —what is that.

—

Speaking after the tour, Mr Little said the area was a “prime candidate” for urban renewal under the party’s proposed Affordable Housing Authority.

### ODT Online Tue, 26 Jul 2016
Labour timeline for South renewal
By Timothy Brown
South Dunedin’s renewal will be showing “good progress” within six years of electing a Labour government, party leader Andrew Little says. Mr Little toured South Dunedin with Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, Dunedin South MP Clare Curran, Dunedin North MP Dr David Clark and list MP David Parker after the area was earmarked by the Opposition as one urgently needing urban renewal. The group walked from Bathgate Park School, in Macandrew Rd, down Loyalty St into Nicholson St and on to Nelson St before returning to the school. They were accompanied by members of various social groups from South Dunedin.
Read more

****

### Dunedintv.co.nz Mon, 25 July 2016
Labour leader tours South Dunedin
Labour Leader Andrew Little has visited South Dunedin today, alongside a contingent of MPs and social service agency stakeholders. The group wandered around the areas hardest hit by last year’s floods, looking at the handful of houses still empty more than a year on. And Little took the opportunity to offer up his party’s plan to fix some of the issues.
Ch39 Link

Channel 39 Published on Jul 24, 2016
Labour leader tours South Dunedin

—

DUNEDIN – JUNKET CITY FOR LGNZ
“How do we Efficiently capture NZ Ratepayers’ Money for our Comfy Salaries”

### Dunedintv.co.nz Mon, 25 July 2016
Local government conference kicks off
The country’s annual Local Government conference is back in Dunedin for the first time in almost a decade. More than 560 delegates have piled into the Town Hall to discuss how to make New Zealand a better place to live and work. But it’s also serving as a way to address the tension between local and central governments.
Ch39 Video

LAWRENCE YULE GO HOME

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes*, *listener* or *lgnz* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: mrhudyma.com – Listening | linkedin.com – Larry King, Listen

Johnstone disputes Opus review #SouthDunedinFlood

### ODT Online Thu, 7 Jul 2016
Flood review clears DCC staff findings
Dunedin City Council staff have been vindicated by peer reviews which backed their findings over the cause of last June’s devastating floods. The reviews, carried out by infrastructure consultancy firm Opus, backed the council’s findings South Dunedin and other parts of the city would have been flooded even if the city’s stormwater system was running at full capacity.
Read more

Opus peer reviews of DCC flood reports received (same day) following a LGOIMA request made on 7 July 2016:

DCC Nov2015 rpt review-final (PDF, 395 KB)

DCC Apr2016 rpt review-final (PDF, 329 KB)

****

A truly independent inquiry into the council’s performance around last year’s South Dunedin floods remains long overdue, writes Dunedin engineer Neil Johnstone.

### ODT Online Thu, 14 Jul 2016
Opinion: Report skims surface of South Dunedin flood saga
By Neil Johnstone
OPINION Readers of the Dunedin City Council-funded independent peer review of its post-flood reporting (ODT, 7.7.16) should be wary. The council’s delight with the review may prove short-lived. In brief, the Opus review:

● Recognises the 1968 rainfall event was bigger than that of June 2015 (contrary to repeated council claims).
● Fails to explore the reasons why the 2015 flood was a disaster, and the 1968 event was not.
● Makes assumptions about groundwater levels without referencing the actual data.
● Appears to consider the council’s assumption of zero ground infiltration has merit (note: the data disproves this).
● Believes mud-tank blockage impacts of the flood were “localised” (too bad if you were a local), but fails to consider the likely widespread impacts on South Dunedin of blocked mud-tanks in the St Clair catchment.
● States council reviews “suggest” its failures at the Portobello Rd pumping station caused an increase in flood levels of about 200mm.
● In fact, the first council review leaves the reader with no more than an opportunity to infer this, while the second council review only states that the failures may have influenced “the length of time flooding was evident”.
● I do not recall the council actually publicly admitting the 200mm figure before the South Dunedin Action Group meeting of June 21.
● Fails to address the flood impacts of the council’s total failure to operate its Musselburgh pumps for stormwater relief.
● Makes general statements to the effect that “primary” flooding would have occurred under any circumstance. South Dunedin residents know that “overwhelming” of stormwater infrastructure was not the concern; the avoidable flooding of our people’s houses and businesses was.

For all of the above reasons, and more, the Opus finding the council report’s conclusions were “robust” is concerning. A truly independent inquiry into the council’s performance pre, during and post-flood, at staff and political levels, is long overdue. ODT Link

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 7.7.16 Where is the unreserved DCC apology to … South Dunedin ?
● 4.7.16 Presentations available —a) 4 July USA —b) 20 June SDAG
● 28.6.16 The Star and RNZ on raised flood levels #SouthDunedin
● 27.6.16 CULL commingled #AGWbullsfeatherartists
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *opus*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

The Star and RNZ on raised flood levels #SouthDunedin

The Star 23.6.16 (page 9)

[click to enlarge]

### radionz.co.nz 8:45 am on 21 June 2016
RNZ News
Dunedin council concedes flood worsened by faulty pumping station
By Ian Telfer in South Dunedin
Dunedin City Council has admitted a faulty pumping station made last year’s South Dunedin flood 20cm deeper than it would have otherwise been. The Council made the admission at a rowdy public meeting at the Nations Church last night about the flooding a year ago which damaged 1200 homes and businesses. Chief executive Sue Bidrose […] made a major concession, saying the council now accepted a key pumping station was blocked, adding an extra 20cm of water to the area. […] Shortly after the flooding, Mr Cull linked the event to climate change and warned South Dunedin may have to beat a managed retreat. Local woman Kathinka Nordal Stene said she was shocked Mr Cull undermined the community at the time when it most needed his support. She said the future of South Dunedin had become a major election issue, on which Mr Cull would be judged. Mr Cull was not at the meeting because he was visiting China. […] Leaders of the newly formed South Dunedin Action Group accused the council and its leaders of having a secret plan to abandon the suburb and blame it on climate change.
RNZ Link

23.6.16 Ch39: Candidates using flooding for political gain (+ Video)
21.6.15 ODT: Anger about South Dunedin’s future

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 23.6.16 Sa pièce de résistance @ #DUD
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Sa pièce de résistance @ #DUD

Monday, 20 June 2016
South Dunedin’s Future : It’s in your hands
Public meeting called by South Dunedin Action Group

au Sud Dunedin

Mock turtles on a Monday, and [a moment of meeting remembrance]
mon Dieu! Voix, la sienne! (my God! Voices, hers!) pronouncing la séparation des “poos” et “wees” —wastewater (grey water) from drinking water and stormwater as la raison d’être pour la stratégie de “Three Waters”……..
méfiez-vous ce qui sort du robinet (beware what comes out of the tap!) ou, était que la bouche (or, was that the mouth)

Flood, The People —inondation, inonderait le peuple
but, DON’T use politics against those “responsable” fr.

Channel 39 Published on Jun 22, 2016

### dunedintv.co.nz Thu, 23 June 2016
Candidates using flooding for political gain
A heated public meeting earlier this week brought last year’s South Dunedin floods back to the fore. The discussion around what to do for those still affected is one that members of the Dunedin City Council’s executive say they’re taking seriously. But there’s concern some involved parties are using the situation for political gain.

Malhereusement! Ceci est du jeu de puissance ineptes, d’elle-même
(Sadly! This is inane power play, of itself)

—

POST FLOODS

WHY WOULDN’T CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN FOR A BETTER COUNCIL TO SERVE AND REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH DUNEDIN AND ALL CITY RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS

CANDIDATES THAT IF ELECTED CAN KNUCKLE CIVIC CENTRE OPERATIONALS TO RESTORE POSITIVE TEAMWORK AND ENGINEERING EXPERTISE

Huh ?

This is THE time for Dunedin Politics and Examination of Dunedin City Council down to the last foul or stormwater, sewer.

Hourra !

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin

Follows:
Mayor David Cull’s ten-page speech for last night’s public meeting called by the South Dunedin Action Group.

Mayoral apology: At China on “DCC business”.

Acting Mayor Cr Andrew Noone orated the Mayoral Statement.
Dated: Monday, 20 June 2016

[excerpt, from pages 1-2]

Readers may involve themselves with the full statement.

█ Download: Mayor Speech Meeting 20 June 2016 SD (PDF, 1 MB)

****

ODT Online Tue, 21 Jun 2016
Anger about South Dunedin’s future
By Vaughan Elder
Unanswered questions about the long-term future of South Dunedin and the city’s response to climate change loomed large at a heated public meeting last night. Residents concerned about the risk of flooding during future rain events were among about 170 people who packed the Nations Church for the meeting organised by the South Dunedin Action Group (SDAG) and attended by councillors and senior staff members. Attendees heard about the short-term measures the council had taken or was about to take to ensure South Dunedin’s infrastructure would run at full capacity should there be a repeat of last June’s devastating flood.
Read more

****

Oh hurrah. What the council has been doing in planning annual expenditure on pet projects in the interests of some private groups, not Core 3-Waters Infrastructure for South Dunedin:

“She said next year the council would invest $5m in South Dunedin’s community hub, $500,000 in a local hockey turf and more money to buy buildings to expand the area’s Gasworks Museum.” (via RNZ)

### radionz.co.nz 8:45 am Tue, 21 Jun 2016
RNZ News
Dunedin council concedes flood worsened by faulty pumping station
By Ian Telfer in South Dunedin
Dunedin City Council has admitted a faulty pumping station made last year’s South Dunedin flood 20cm deeper than it would have otherwise been. The Council made the admission at a rowdy public meeting at the Nations Church last night about the flooding a year ago which damaged 1200 homes and businesses. South Dunedin residents have been waiting for a year for its council to front up for the flooding – and last night it did so en masse. At least eight city councillors, the chief executive and her two deputies were quizzed by 200 locals about what happened last June, and what will stop it happening again. […] But it will take more than [the chief executive’s] words to sort out the ill feeling with residents, who said they felt neglected and betrayed by the council, and especially by Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull. Shortly after the flooding, Mr Cull linked the event to climate change and warned South Dunedin may have to beat a managed retreat. Leaders of the newly formed South Dunedin Action Group accused the council and its leaders of having a secret plan to abandon the suburb and blame it on climate change.
Read more

Tue, 21 Jun 2016 RNZ: Morning Report
Council admits it made South Dunedin floods 20cm worse
The Dunedin city council has admitted it made last year’s South Dunedin flood 20 centimetres worse.
█ Audio | Download: Ogg  MP3 (3′37″) –listen to local voices!

****

Tue, 21 Jun 2016
ODT: ‘Significant benefits’ for city in pipeline
DCC Asset and Commercial Manager Tom Osborn says old cracked earthenware wastewater pipes, mostly laid in the 1900s, have been allowing groundwater to enter the wastewater system, leading to flooding after heavy rain, resulting in overflows. “This also adds to flooding in areas such as the northwest corner of South Dunedin, when pipe flows coming from Kaikorai Valley meet flows from other parts of the city and flatten out, creating a bottleneck effect.”

DCC media release: Kaikorai Valley works enter new phase

█ Facebook: South Dunedin Action Group

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points show comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

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 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

DCC: 2GP further submissions [consultation software with bug?]

Copy of DCC internal correspondence received.
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 at 7:01 a.m.

—

On 12/02/16 4:53 pm, “Simon Pickford” wrote:

Good afternoon,

A quick update on the 2GP: we have found a technical issue with the reports that were produced in response to the submissions on the 2GP. As a result the reports need to be reissued and this means that we are outside the 10 day minimum statutory period of the current consultation and will have to re-notify.

We are assessing whether there will be an impact on the timing of the 2GP hearings and the remaining consultation process, but it will require us to re-advertise our consultation period. We are updating the website and making sure the necessary adverts are in place.

Regards

Simon

Simon Pickford
General Manager Services and Development
Dunedin City Council

****

I forwarded this yesterday without knowledge of Mr Pickford’s email:

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Monday, 15 February 2016 10:51 p.m.
To: Simon Pickford; Sandy Graham; Sue Bidrose
Subject: FW: Public Notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested

Dear All

I received the below DCC email on 5 February, and was prepared to make a further submission before the closing date of 26 February 2016.

Today, confusion at the DCC website with regards to further submissions – given two updates provided.

The first said, in effect, that the closing date for further submissions would be put back [because of an internal stuff up] and the new closing date was going to be publicly notified. [I didn’t make a screenshot of the message]

This was followed by another, replacing the first, which said:

Error in Summary of Decisions Requested reports
12/02/2016
The Summary of Decisions Requested reports have been temporarily withdrawn from the website due to a technical error in exporting data. In the interim please use the search function on the Search the Submissions page to view the correct Summary of Decisions Requested. Updated Summary of Decisions Requested reports will be distributed online and to libraries as soon as practically possible.

This last made no reference to public notification of an extended closing date for further submissions.

Given the date of issue was 12/02/2016 this suggests that by now all submitters should have been emailed individually about something having gone wrong with the process and to await further information from DCC.

I hope the technical error which affects all those making further submissions is properly recognised and a public notice will be issued that extends the closing date for submissions.

Otherwise I imagine the Council will leave itself open to challenge.

Please could someone clarify how the process is to presume, and accurately.

Kind regards

Elizabeth Kerr

—

From: Teresa Gutteridge
Sent: Friday, 5 February 2016 3:28 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Public Notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested

Dear Elizabeth Kerr
Dear Submitter,
Please see the public notice for the Summary of Decisions Requested for the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan below.
It would be appreciated if you contacted the 2GP Team at the times and through the options laid out in the public notice rather than by responding to this email.
Yours Sincerely

Anna Johnson
City Development Manager

[ends]

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

—

Related Posts and Comments:
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

DCC 2GP further submissions [update]

Updated post
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 at 5:36 p.m. Last updated 10:59 p.m.

Two updates were issued today by DCC on the 2GP further submission process.

In the first, DCC said it had withdrawn the 2GP Summary of Decisions, and the closing date for further submissions would be put back and publicly notified.

The second update made no reference to the closing date or public notification:

DCC says: Error in Summary of Decisions Requested reports
12/02/2016
The Summary of Decisions Requested reports have been temporarily withdrawn from the website due to a technical error in exporting data. In the interim please use the search function on the Search the Submissions page to view the correct Summary of Decisions Requested. Updated Summary of Decisions Requested reports will be distributed online and to libraries as soon as practically possible.

Awaiting clarification and advice from DCC.

—

Have your say
IGNORE THIS DATE – The Further submission period is open from Wednesday, 10 February to Friday, 26 February.

What can a further submission cover?
A further submission can only be made in support or opposition to a point raised in an original submission on the 2GP.

Who can make a further submission?
The RMA limits who can make further submissions to:
● any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest
● any person that has an interest in the proposed plan greater than the interest that the general public has
● the local authority (the Dunedin City Council).

It provides an opportunity for people who may be affected by an original submission to have their views considered. You do not have to have made an original submission to participate. If you have made an original submission you do not need to repeat submission points made in that submission as they will already be considered.

Summary of decisions requested
The Summaries of Decisions Requested are a concise summary of the decisions requested in the submissions on the 2GP which closed on 24 November 2015. It is not the full or exact content of submissions. It is prepared to enable the further submission process which is set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA.

█ The Summary of Decisions Requested and copies of all submissions will be available from midday Tuesday, 9 February.

Hard copies of the Summary of Decisions Requested reports will also be available for inspection at:
● 2GP drop-in centre, 11 George Street, Dunedin, 10am to 3pm, Monday to Friday
● public libraries and/or service centres at Dunedin, Middlemarch, Mosgiel, Port Chalmers, Blueskin Bay (Waitati) and Waikouaiti.

Submissions Map
The submissions map indicates the spatial location of submissions seeking a change to the proposed zoning (management zones only not overlay zones), new heritage precincts, or changes to scheduled items. It reflects the information in the submission point address field of the Summary of Decisions Requested reports. Through pop-ups, the map provides links to relevant submissions.

DISCLAIMER: This map has been prepared as an aid for people wanting to understand the scope of submissions related to an area. The accuracy and completeness of this information is not guaranteed and people should read original submissions. In some cases, the information contained in submissions was not detailed enough to accurately map the scope of the submission. In these cases, the mapping has been either omitted or approximated where possible.

How do I make a further submission?

Online submissions
The RMA requires further submissions to be in a prescribed form (Form 6). An easy way to make a submission is using the 2GP on-line submission system, which ensures submissions are in the prescribed form and allows you to link to specific submission points

Other ways to make a submission
Hard copies of the submission form and submission guidelines can be downloaded below or paper copies can be picked up at the 2GP drop-in centre or from the DCC Customer Services Agency located on the ground floor of the Civic Centre at 50 The Octagon, Dunedin.

For written submissions
Post to: Further submission on Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan, Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9058

Deliver to: Customer Services Agency, Dunedin City Council, Ground Floor, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin

Email to: districtplan @ dcc.govt.nz

Serving a copy of further submissions on submitters
IMPORTANT: Any person making a further submission must serve a copy of that further submission on the person who made the original submission no later than five working days after lodging the further submission with the DCC. A copy of the addresses for service for all submitters is provided in the Submitter Details Report.

● DCC 2GP Have Your Say Page
● DCC 2GP Index Page

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

█ For more at What if? Dunedin, enter the term *2gp* in the search box at right.

DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’

ODT Online 9.12.15 [screenshot] Link

ODT 21.12.15 (page 8)

—

RECENT CORRESPONDENCE

From: Simon Pickford
Sent: Friday, 18 December 2015 5:40 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: RE: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Hello Elizabeth,

Sue has asked me to email you with regard to the eplan format concerns you raise below. Apologies for the delay – we thought a response had already been sent to you have realised now this is not the case.

The eplan is effectively no different from a plan produced in word processing software (like Microsoft Word which was used for the current District Plan). It has the same ability to be printed and annotated by users.. While we do not offer print out of the whole plan, we are providing hard copies of sections on request.

The strength of the eplan format is making it easier to allow cross linking between plan provisions to locational information (e.g. search plan from property address), which will be added after the plan is finalised. It does not diminish its usability in print form.

The software used to produce our 2GP in the same system that has been used for the Auckland and Christchurch plans and is being used other councils who are currently working on their 2GPs. It is the new ‘norm’ for plan writing in New Zealand.

We have reviewed other District Plans and have found the 2GP is not longer than average. For example, Queenstown’s Residential Section has 68 pages, Christchurch’s has 180 and Dunedin’s has 87.

Much of the increased length from the current district plan is due to better cross-referencing between sections. The plan easier to use because it reduces the need to search through the whole plan to see what is relevant to a particular proposal in a particular location (which has involved more repetition of content rather than new content). This means that most people will need to look at fewer parts of the plan.

We have received positive feedback from planning professionals who work across several Council’s plans. The feedback is that the 2GP is well structured and easy to use. However, we accept it does take some time to get used to.

In additional to providing detailed help information on the website (see guide to the structure of the plan and how to videos) we provide one –on-one assistance to people to help them understand the new plan and most people seem very pleased with the level of help we are offering. We have helped over 1100 people in this way (often with multiple contacts). We invite you to come and see us for more help if you still require it.

Regards

Simon

[Simon Pickford, DCC General Manager Services and Development]

———————————————

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2015 5:12 p.m.
To: Vivienne Harvey; Simon Pickford; Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: FW: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Dear Vivienne, Simon and Sue

Thanks for reply in advance of the public notice at the DCC website today, also appearing Saturday in the local newspaper.

For your information I’m not representing anyone other than myself in addressing letters to the Chief Executive on matters to do with the Proposed 2GP. In my letter (below) I reference need for extension as would apply to “the community” (meaning interested public) as a whole.

The RMA does not mention an ePlan.

The DCC ePLan (1600 pages) launched at us, as we’re well aware, is a horror to deal with for many.

In this regard the RMA requirement of 40 working days scarcely seems fair or practical. Months ahead of ‘back and forth’ through appeals with some parties will, I suggest, place ‘workability’ in sharper relief for the city council. I look forward to what unfolds.

I appreciate your clarification provided for submitters around extensions. This is proactive.

Sincere regards

Elizabeth Kerr

———————————————

From: Vivienne Harvey
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2015 3:32 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: RE: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Dear Elizabeth

Please find attached a response to your email to the CEO.

Regards
Vivienne

Vivienne Harvey
PA to the Chief Executive Officer
Dunedin City Council

———————————————

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: 11 November 2015 5:41 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Attention:

Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive, Dunedin City Council

Dear 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

█ For more enter the term *2gp* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Otago Regional Council hammers DCC’s proposed 2GP

Congratulations Dunedin! You made over ONE THOUSAND submissions on Dunedin City Council’s proposed second generation district plan (2GP).

Amongst these is a cracker from ORC, can’t wait to read.

—

### dunedintv.co.nz Wed, 9 Dec 2015
Council discord over district plan
The Otago Regional Council is taking aim at its district counterpart, by opposing a draft plan for the wider city area. The ORC has prepared two submissions on the Dunedin City Council’s second generation district plan. As a landowner, the ORC says the plan doesn’t represent sound resource management practice. It says the plan won’t promote efficient use or development of local resources, and is contrary to parts of the relevant government legislation. The ORC’s submission as an authority includes almost 50 separate requests for changes. But it also highlights the ORC’s support for other sections of the plan.
The DCC has received over 1000 submissions on its draft plan.
Ch39 Link

39 Dunedin Television Published on Dec 8, 2015
Council discord over district plan

****

But flawed consultation can be worse than no consultation at all.

### ODT Online Wed, 9 Dec 2015
Sharing fair and expert information among all
By Hilary Calvert
OPINION Consultation has grown like topsy in New Zealand for the best of reasons – a choice of governance once every three years will clearly not on its own provide democracy. […] If we (the council members) get it wrong, consultation can leave people disenchanted and disenfranchised, with a sense of outrage that their time was wasted involving themselves in a process which did not provide fair and accurate feedback.
Read more

—

To The Councillor

Y E S ● I’ M ● A N G R Y

You’re too fricking late – where were you Cr Hilary Calvert when the 2GP was being formulated, formatted and its timeline set, ie well before 24 November this year ??? Where were your ideas and protests then ???
NOT TO BE SEEN. Other than fences….
As for your behaviour lately – in “consultation” – when serving as a commissioner for the Jetty Street restricted access application…. you remain unrepentant. GOD SAVE US.

Nup, don’t do the johnny-come-lately ACT with us.
Con? Look in the mirror why not. And sharpen up at council meetings, learn to speak con-cise plain English when putting a question. Raise your game, but not after everyone’s gone home and you have your pen out to the editor. Talent means timing.

Related Posts and Comments:
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

*Image: 2GP Dave green monsters – whatifdunedin

DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)

Received.
Thu, 19 Nov 2015 at 3:32 p.m.

—

Downloads:
█ Letter from Simon Pickford 19.11.15
█ 2GP Close of Submissions ODT CL 18 x 4

████ DCC Public Notice
Submissions on the Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) close at 5pm, Tuesday 24 November.

—

REPLY

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2015 5:13 p.m.
To: Vivienne Harvey; Simon Pickford; Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Dear Vivienne, Simon and Sue

Thanks for reply in advance of the public notice at the DCC website today, also appearing Saturday in the local newspaper.

For your information I’m not representing anyone other than myself in addressing letters to the Chief Executive on matters to do with the Proposed 2GP. In my letter (below) I reference need for extension as would apply to “the community” (meaning interested public) as a whole.

The RMA does not mention an ePlan.

The DCC ePLan (1600 pages) launched at us, as we’re well aware, is a horror to deal with for many.

In this regard the RMA requirement of 40 working days scarcely seems fair or practical. Months ahead of ‘back and forth’ through appeals with some parties will, I suggest, place ‘workability’ in sharper relief for the city council. I look forward to what unfolds.

I appreciate your clarification provided for submitters around extensions. This is proactive.

Sincere regards

Elizabeth Kerr

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 5:41 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Attention:
Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive, Dunedin City Council

Dear 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

█ Proposed Second Generation District Plan (2GP)
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 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

DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content

An OVERWHELMING observation….

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2015 4:14 a.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – difficulty with ePlan document tracking

Attention:
Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive, Dunedin City Council

Dear Sue

RE Proposed 2GP – difficulty with ePlan document tracking

In thinking through the public’s approach to carrying through on their submissions, further submissions, and within mediation and hearing processes, or indeed formal appeal processes via Environment Court – how will individual and group submitters and their experts contend with ePlan document tracking in these settings.

● Not all members of the public have access to laptop computers or the ability to use them efficiently in a formal meeting or hearing setting;
● In any case, participants will be disadvantaged if there are inadequate numbers of chairs and tables provided to facilitate safe (ergonomic) use of laptop computers – this also applies for those actively listening from the public gallery;
● Due to the unwieldy size of the (draft) ePlan at 1600 pages it is highly unlikely individuals will want to request print editions in order to ‘keep up’ with business in whichever forum.

This perceived lack of accessibility and usability of the 1600-page ePlan in the delivery of written and oral submissions as well as the giving of expert evidence raises serious questions around fairness and justness – ultimately, a concern to all Dunedin ratepayers and residents, and the city council.

● I have absolutely no idea how submitters, experts, news media, council staff or commissioners will technically follow specific mention of ePlan sections and references, or achieve cross referencing swiftly and successfully, be it with or without laptops or printed copy.

Here looms a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare for all.

To be frank, I see no ready solution.

However, I invite council explanation if through media statement(s) or council website guides that might practically assist or calm the resolve of the interested public wanting to critically engage with the proposed second generation district plan in the coming months.

I look forward to your reply by email.

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

—

Watch your property values drop….
ODT 18.11.15 (page 14)

As for the notional concept of growth….
ODT 17.11.15 (page 6)

Further to Calvin Oaten’s mention of school rolls dropping….

Roll figures for 2015 show the city’s secondary schools have capacity for 9252 pupils, but 1513 spaces are not used in Dunedin – the equivalent of two secondary school rolls. ODT 18.11.15

—

Related posts and Comments:

● 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

Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions (2GP)

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 5:41 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Proposed 2GP – closing date for submissions

Attention:
Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive, Dunedin City Council

Dear 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

Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel

From: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015 4:58 p.m.
To: Sue Bidrose
Subject: Proposed 2GP – hearings panel appointments

Attention:
Sue Bidrose
Chief Executive, Dunedin City Council

Dear Sue

RE Independence of the 2GP Hearings Panel

It came to my attention on Friday, 2 October 2015, via the ODT article, Green perceptions spark row
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/357922/green-perceptions-spark-row

that the makeup of the panel selected to hear public submissions on the proposed second generation district plan (2GP) lacks independence due to both the number and selection of city councillors “with appropriate Resource Management Act training” – namely, Kate Wilson, David Benson-Pope, Jinty MacTavish and Aaron Hawkins;

and further,

the lack of independence still pertains given the ‘internal’ appointments will be accompanied by selection and appointment of up to three Only external independent commissioners – see DCC’s advertisement at ODT 3.10.15 (page 5): 2GP Hearings Panel – Expressions of Interest Sought. The notice is no longer available online at the DCC website; I attach a photograph.

39 Dunedin Television also featured an item (12.10.15), Outsiders sought for DCC’s district plan hearings panel
http://www.dunedintv.co.nz/news/outsiders-sought-dccs-district-plan-hearings-panel

Given these numbers, there is potential for the ‘councillor-commissioners’ to vote in a bloc should they choose.

I strongly believe public submitters on the Proposed 2GP should be able to trust in a just and fair process; a process without bias and political taint.

I don’t believe this is possible under current arrangements and selections for the hearings panel.

Furthermore,

One or more of the ‘councillor-commissioners’ – or indeed the external commissioners – may have previously ruled on resource consent applications, notices of requirement (for a designation), proposed plan changes and the like within the greater Dunedin area, which may have significant bearing on how they receive, decide and recommend on the content of public submissions in regards to the Proposed 2GP and the resulting plan document, whether or not sections are formally appealed to the Court(s).

It is simply not enough for Mayor Dave Cull to deny bias (or perception of bias) in panel choices, as he has done through the media, see ODT (3.10.15): Cull denies bias in panel choices
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/358051/cull-denies-bias-panel-choices

In my opinion, for a fair and just process all those appointed to the 2GP hearings panel should not be city councillors; they should all be experienced independent commissioners sourced from outside Dunedin City Council’s geographic boundary area.

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:
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

DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’

THREATS TO YOUR PROPERTY, NEIGHBOURHOOD OR DISTRICT CONTAINED IN PROPOSED 2GP (Second Generation District Plan)

Natural hazards ● Medium density zones ● Heritage ● Rural zones ● Transition zones ● Warehouse precinct —and much much more.

Composite no-go image | whatifdunedin

### ODT Online Sat, 24 Oct 2015
Planning for the city’s future (Part I)
By Chris Morris
Property owners face new rules but the city’s heritage is in for a boost, as the Dunedin City Council pushes ahead with a new district plan for the city. Thousands of properties across Dunedin will be covered by new rules designed to protect against natural hazards. But, according to Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, the city needs to face up to the threats. Doing nothing is not an option. […] The [proposed] plan has already ruffled feathers from the Taieri to the inner city, amid concerns about the impact on property prices, insurance premiums and future development plans.
Read more

█ The public has until November 24 to make submissions.

█ Proposed Second Generation District Plan (2GP)
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

—

‘2GP’ feeds Cull’s fairytale of doom, with help from Coldplay

Coldplay Official Uploaded on May 30, 2011
Coldplay – Strawberry Swing (Google Play • iTunes)

Coldplay Official Uploaded on May 30, 2011
Coldplay – Trouble (Google Play • iTunes)

Coldplay Official Uploaded on May 27, 2011
Coldplay – In My Place (Google Play • iTunes)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
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

DCC: Natural Hazards

Mass movement (landslide) hazard, Abbotsford 1979 (GNS Science, Dunedin)

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Natural Hazards Approach Being Revised

This item was published on 10 Apr 2015

The Dunedin City Council is responding to community concerns and revising its planned approach to managing natural hazards such as landslides, flooding and sea level rise.

Following public feedback from consultation carried out from June to September last year, the planned approach now has greater provision for flexible case-by-case assessment. This would apply where the level of risk is more uncertain or variable. In areas where risk is lower, there would also be opportunities to manage risk through measures such as minimum floor levels.

A technical assessment of the risks posed by natural hazards was prepared by the Otago Regional Council. DCC staff used this to develop a proposed approach for managing land use and development in at-risk areas. This approach, or preferred option, sees natural hazards managed through a set of hazard overlay zones.

Rules attached to the hazard overlays set out what activities and development would be permitted, the standards for some types of development and what may be assessed on a case-by-case basis through resource consent. Under the original proposal, approximately 8600 of Dunedin’s about 46,600 houses in residential zones were affected in one way or another by the proposed overlay zones.

DCC City Development Policy Planner Sally Dicey says the preferred option is still to manage natural hazards through hazard overlay zones. However, following submissions from 184 individuals and organisations, a peer review of a flood risk assessment and discussions with experts in the natural hazards and risk management fields, a revised approach is being developed.

Feedback highlighted the difficulties in limiting development where there was uncertainty around assessments of natural hazard risk, due to limited data, variations in and changes to topography, and site specific factors.

“Allowing for more case-by-case assessment provides greater opportunities to take site specific factors into account. Where the risk from a natural hazard is lower, mitigation measures will be required. These are likely to include higher floor levels for houses or requiring homes to be relocatable.”
–Sally Dicey, City Development Policy Planner

Developed areas within dune systems have been removed from what was originally proposed to be the extreme hazard overlay. This is because there is a lack of information about how erosion might occur over the next 100 years along our coastline. These areas are likely to be the subject of future studies and may be included in mapped hazard areas in the future. A strict management approach has been limited to areas where there is a high degree of certainty about the risk from natural hazards. Prohibited areas are no longer proposed.

“This is a sensible and practical response to balancing the known risks we all face and the concerns of the community. Staff should be congratulated both for the thorough way they have researched and prepared these documents and for responding in this way to the matters raised at public meetings and in submissions.”
–Cr David Benson-Pope, Planning and Regulatory Committee

Ms Dicey says it’s important to remember the proposed changes mainly affect new development. In general, existing activities will carry on as usual.

Hazard overlay zones are proposed for floodplains, low-lying coastal communities and hills prone to landslides. This includes areas such as Brighton, Karitane, Macandrew Bay, Waikouaiti, Waitati and parts of the Taieri Plain.

The Dunedin City Council is preparing a new District Plan, the second generation District Plan (2GP). The ultimate goal of the Plan is the sustainable management of Dunedin’s natural and physical resources. Under the Resource Management Act, the DCC is responsible for managing land use to avoid or mitigate the effects of natural hazards. The DCC is also required to consider the effects of climate change and keep a record of natural hazards. The District Plan is scheduled to be publicly notified in September. The revised approach to natural hazards will be released as part of that consultation process. That will give people an opportunity to raise any remaining issues or concerns on the revised approach.

█ A report summarising the feedback received last year on the preferred approach to natural hazards is available at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp

Contact Sally Dicey, Policy Planner on 03 477 4000. DCC Link

—

Related Post and Comments:
10.12.13 ORC restructures directorates
30.7.12 ORC on hazard risks and land use controls
24.8.09 1. STS response – appeal. 2. Coastal protection – comments

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr