Calder Stewart playing games at Carisbrook

S H I F T I N G ● T H E ● G O A L ● P O S T S

█ Site zoned industrial under district plan and proposed 2GP.

█ Company lobbying to evade set condition for 10.5m setback —for own commercial gain.

### ODT Online Mon, 15 Aug 2016
Old stadium site ruling questioned
By David Loughrey
The company that owns the former Carisbrook Stadium site in South Dunedin is calling on the Dunedin City Council to scrap a 10.5m setback suggested for its Burns St frontage. Calder Stewart says the setback will cover 1963sq m of land worth about $600,000, and will not provide the benefits suggested in the second generation district plan (2GP). The company took its concerns to the 2GP hearings last week, as a hearings committee considered what the next district plan will look like. […] Research undertaken by the University of Otago had shown South Dunedin had a low population of native birds because of a lack of habitat, and planting of native or exotic trees there would provide a valuable habitat resource.
Read more

[click to enlarge]
Dunedin Jan 2003. Image: flyinn.co.nz

Carisbrook May 2013. Image: Rob Hamlin

DCC Webmap – Carisbrook, South Dunedin JanFeb 2013

—

C A R I S B R O O K

Source: Wikipedia

Broke ground 1881 | Opened 1883 | Closed 2011 | Demolition starting 2013

Former Tenants:
Otago Rugby Football Union | Highlanders (Super 14) (1996–2011)

Carisbrook was a major sporting venue in Dunedin, New Zealand. The city’s main domestic and international rugby union venue, it was also used for other sports such as cricket, football, rugby league and motocross. Carisbrook also hosted a Joe Cocker concert and frequently hosted pre-game concerts before rugby matches in the 1990s. In 2011 Carisbrook was closed, and was replaced by Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza in North Dunedin.
Floodlit since the 1990s, it could cater for both day and night fixtures. Known locally simply as “The Brook”, it has been branded with the name “The House of Pain”, due to its reputation as a difficult venue for visiting teams.
Located at the foot of The Glen, a steep valley, the ground was flanked by the South Island Main Trunk Railway and the Hillside Railway Workshops, two miles southwest of Dunedin city centre in the suburb of Caversham. State Highway 1 also ran close to the northern perimeter of the ground.
Carisbrook was named after the estate of early colonial settler James Macandrew (itself named after a castle on the Isle of Wight). Developed during the 1870s, it was first used for international cricket in 1883, when Otago hosted a team from Tasmania. It hosted rugby union internationals since 1908 and full cricket internationals since 1955.
The stadium was home to both the Highlanders in Super Rugby and Otago in the ITM Cup through each side’s respective 2011 season. It is also the former home of Otago cricket, which moved to the University Oval at Logan Park in the north of the city after the redevelopment in the early 2000s, and also of Otago United Football team in the New Zealand Football Championship, which moved to the lower-capacity Sunnyvale Park for the 2008–09 season.
█ Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carisbrook

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

Planning for South Dunedin, but wait….

Received from Malcolm McQueen
Wed, 20 Apr 2016 at 8:44 p.m.

█ Planning for South Dunedin in the face of the rising sea level
20/4/2016

The floods last year in South Dunedin have provoked discussion as to what are appropriate policies that Dunedin should adopt regarding planning for this area.
Concern that rising sea levels as a result of global warming brings urgency to consider this problem.
The area is low lying and even a modest rise in sea level may make the frequency of flooding a serious problem at some time in the future, possibly to the extent that the area becomes unviable as a residential area. A rise of 300mm may increase the danger of severe flooding to an unacceptable level.
A timely but not precipitate response is required. The cost of the response may be huge in both financial and social costs for the city if a solution such as “a retreat from the sea” is undertaken.

But predictions are predictions, they are not yet actual.

We are fortunate in Dunedin to have an accurate and reliable record of sea level. Indeed the safety record of our port attests to this. This record indicates that the sea level in Dunedin is rising at the rate of 130mm per century. Figure 1 shows the sea level as measured at Port Chalmers taken from the “PSMSL Data Explorer” http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.html. And note that there is no observable increase in the rate of rise over time.
At this rate it will be 230 years before a 300mm limit is reached, well beyond our planning horizon, say 2100.

Figure 1. [click to enlarge]

However, claims are made that the rate will greatly increase and so pose a threat that we must consider immediately. But note that in order to reach a 300mm rise before 2100 the rate of sea level rise would have to increase by a factor of 270% above that currently observed.
It would be irresponsible in the extreme to undertake extreme action without carefully examining the validity of the claims.
We must consider if and when a response is required. What reasons do we have to expect such a catastrophic rise?

I address four points as to why I do not consider the predictions of catastrophic sea level rise to be well founded.

Validity of predictions

1) As discussed above, the available sea level data gives no indication of an impending catastrophic sea level rise.

2) Rising sea levels are a claimed consequence of rising temperatures. Thus for the prediction of rising sea levels a precondition is that temperatures should be rising. That this should be so is confidently accorded to by the IPCC. However, reality is not quite so simple.
Figure 2 shows the average temperature as recorded at the Musselburgh Pumping station by NIWA in its CliFlo database. http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/

Figure 2. [click to enlarge]

Although this is a local measurement and rising sea levels are claimed to be a consequence of rising global temperature, the absence of significant warming and no evidence for any increase in the rate of warming must cast doubt on predictions of imminent catastrophic sea level rise.

3) The track record of predictions regarding climate change does not give rise to confidence in the validity of those predictions.
For instance in 2007 the Australian Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery, claimed that Sydney was “facing extreme difficulties with water”, in 2008 that: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.“ and others regarding an endless Australian drought.
These claims were influential in the decision to construct desalination plants in Australian seaboard cities at a cost of about $10 billion. His predictions have not come true, the drought broke and the plants have not been needed. This expense is probably not a complete waste as the plants do provide insurance against future droughts which are sure to occur.
Other predictions that have been made:
– from the UN in 2005, “50 million climate refugees by 2010”
– from Dr David Viner, of University of East Anglia, who confidently asserted that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
– and many others too numerous and many too silly to comment on.
All these predictions have failed to eventuate.
I suggest that we should not take at face value the predictions of claimed experts without corroborating evidence such as trends in the historic record or the success of previous predictions.

4) Sea level rise is largely due to melting of continental ice sheets exceeding their gain from snowfall. This is not an easy measurement to make accurately. It has been assumed that melting exceeds accumulation thus contributing to sea level rise. However, recent satellite measurements by NASA cast this in doubt. In fact they indicate that the opposite is the case.
Ref. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greaterthan-losses

Conclusion

It is critical that we should have a high degree of confidence in the predictions of sea level rise before committing ourselves to very expensive and socially destructive remedial or mitigation policies.
The issue at hand is not one of the reality or otherwise of global warming, we need make no commitment on that issue before deciding the fate of South Dunedin. The climate has changed over the millennia and will continue to do so. The issue is the making of a timely and appropriate response to its flooding problems.
The points I make above are intended to show that the confidence in alarmist predictions is misplaced and are insufficient in themselves to provide a sound basis for planning.
It is clearly unnecessary to address this problem immediately but continued attention is required so that appropriate actions can be taken if the situation is observed to change.

Fortunately in New Zealand the data relevant for making decisions such as that posed by planning for South Dunedin’s future is publicly available and of high quality. Citizens should avail themselves of this the opportunity of consulting the data themselves to draw their own conclusions rather than rely on second hand interpretations.

“You don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows” Bob Dylan.

[ends]

█ For more, enter the term *flood* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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.

Infrastructure ‘open to facile misinterpretation’…. or local ignore

Academic Paper/Article via Academia.edu
December 24, 2015

Paradoxical Infrastructures: Ruin, Retrofit and Risk
Cymene Howe – Rice University, Anthropology, Faculty Member
Corresponding Author

Co-Authors: Cymene Howe, Jessica Lockrem, Hannah Appel, Edward Hackett, Dominic Boyer, Randal Hall, Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, Albert Pope, Akhil Gupta, Elizabeth Rodwell, Andrea Ballestero, Trevor Durbin, Farès el-Dahdah, Elizabeth Long, and Cyrus Mody

ABSTRACT
In recent years, a dramatic increase in the study of infrastructure has occurred in the social sciences and humanities, following upon foundational work in the physical sciences, architecture, planning, information science, and engineering. This article, authored by a multidisciplinary group of scholars, probes the generative potential of infrastructure at this historical juncture. Accounting for the conceptual and material capacities of infrastructure, the article argues for the importance of paradox in understanding infrastructure. Thematically the article is organized around three key points that speak to the study of infrastructure: ruin, retrofit, and risk. The first paradox of infrastructure, ruin, suggests that even as infrastructure is generative, it degenerates. A second paradox is found in retrofit, an apparent ontological oxymoron that attempts to bridge temporality from the present to the future and yet ultimately reveals that infrastructural solidity, in material and symbolic terms, is more apparent than actual. Finally, a third paradox of infrastructure, risk, demonstrates that while a key purpose of infrastructure is to mitigate risk, it also involves new risks as it comes to fruition. The article concludes with a series of suggestions and provocations to view the study of infrastructure in more contingent and paradoxical forms.

Introduction
Breakdowns and blackouts, pipeline politics, and new demands upon energy and resources have surfaced infrastructure in surprising ways, igniting conversation about social and material arrangements that are often left submerged, invisible, and assumed. In recent years, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in the study of infrastructure in the social sciences and humanities, following upon foundational work in the physical sciences, architecture, planning, information science, and engineering. While the popular imagination might recognize infrastructure as the mundane mechanisms within, beneath, and supporting the maintenance of quotidian life, many scholars have foregrounded the agency, performativity, and dynamism of infrastructure.

Infrastructure is not inert but rather infused with social meanings and reflective of larger priorities and attentions. To further engage these novel lines of inquiry, a group of scholars gathered at Rice University’s Center for Energy and Environmental Research in the Human Sciences for an extended roundtable discussion. We came from a variety of academic institutions and positions in the academy (ranging from senior scholars to PhD candidates), and our group reflected a diverse range of disciplinary backgrounds (American studies, anthropology, architecture, history, science and technology studies, and sociology). Our objective was to break down some of the scaffolding that upholds disciplinary boundaries. To embrace a starkly infrastructural metaphor, we were interested in “bridgework”, not just to move from point A to point B, but to hold us in suspension for a time so that we might inspect the mechanisms that drive our intellectual work and scholarship.

Infrastructure, which epitomizes the conjunction of material forms, expertise, social priorities, cultural expectations, aesthetics, and economic investments, seemed to us to be the ideal rubric through which to enrich our thinking, as well as a social object that necessitates a multidisciplinary approach. A collaborative conversation would help us to disentangle theories, concepts, and methods from their usual paradigms, permitting them to “recombine” in novel ways (Hackett and Parker 2014, 12). Our conversation was animated, in part, by other “turns” in the humanities and social sciences, including new materialisms, posthumanisms, and ontological approaches. Walking through the dynamic scholarship on infrastructure that is being published in the human sciences, we were struck with the definitional capacity of the term itself. Infrastructure is material (roads, pipes, sewers, and grids); it is social (institutions, economic systems, and media forms); and it is philosophical (intellectual trajectories: dreamt up by human ingenuity and nailed down in concrete forms).

Infrastructure has a capaciousness and scope that makes it both an infinitely useful concept and a concept that is open to facile misinterpretation or to being encumbered by overuse.

Our purpose was not to produce yet another definition of infrastructure (although at the end of this essay we do offer a few potential classifications). Instead we gave our attention to questions such as “What is generative about thinking with and through infrastructures at this historical juncture?” And “How can the multiple and diverse understandings of infrastructure across the human sciences mutually inform and enhance one another?” Simply put, we wanted to unravel “why now?” and “where do we go from here?” Our hope was to work toward “explication” (Latour 1993; Sloterdijk 2009), knowing that infrastructure has moved from the background to the foreground, while remaining intent on questioning why that is so. This collective essay gathers the themes and insights that echoed throughour conversation. These issues were resonant points of return because they revealed the relational and ambiguous elements of infrastructure to produce contradictions and unevenly felt consequences in the lives and places they contact. We have codified these apparent paradoxes, broadly, into topical domains of ruins, retrofit, and risk.

To read this article and other academic papers subscribe to Academia.edu (Weekly Digest).

[floodofideas.org.au]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image (top): openspaceconsult.com – infrastructure development [tweaked by whatifdunedin]

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

Uglies: Black-tie at 715 George

715 George St, corner Regent Rd, Dunedin

█ Clan Construction Commercial Ltd
http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/4013678

—

### ODT Online Thu, 10 Dec 2015
Student apartments going up
Construction has begun on six new student apartments at the corner of George St and Regent Rd, Dunedin. The 962sq m triangular-shaped site is owned by Straits International Ltd, and was the site of a service station for about 80 years. The Dunedin City Council has given resource consent for the company to construct four residential units in a two-storey building (block 1) and two residential units in a three-storey building (block 2), thereby creating 22 habitable rooms. Construction is expected to be completed next year.
ODT Link

—

Comments at ODT Online:

Student apartments
Submitted by Barnaby on Thu, 10/12/2015 – 6:35pm.

No! This was not a service station site for 80 years. There was a beautiful two-storey substantial brick heritage house on this site until about the 1970s. This is just another step in the incremental loss of North End heritage. This shows very poor planning from DCC, making this part of town, and the main street in this case, an ever expanding precinct of badly designed cheaply built high density housing. These will add to the stock of other similar structures forming “North Dunedin’s slums of the future”. Ratepayers’ will probably end up funding the future purchase of such cheap accomodation to mitigate associated social problems and the appalling visual amenity. Very poor city planning indeed.

Habitable room disasters
Submitted by ej kerr on Fri, 11/12/2015 – 12:43pm.

Prominent George St corner sites are being trashed by the banal. More habitable rooms – No emphasis on good contemporary design, no flair.
This one’s built right to the footpath on the main street, with little modulation and no hint of garden or vertical planting possible, except something to the corner part-screened by the witless bus shelter shoved on its concrete pad.
Given the rich inheritance, where has Dunedin street architecture gone? Where are the design professions? Why so much visual erosion? Where is the NZ Institute of Architects? Why no City Architect Office and independent Urban Design Panel to uphold design values for Dunedin residents and ratepayers?
Ugh! DCC planning fail. DCC urban design fail. DCC district plan fail. When will DCC grow up – to promote sympathetic edgy contemporary architecture and design for major city axials, at the very least. A step up from turning Dunedin into bog city with tawdry gateway approaches.

Related Posts and Comments:
[distasteful]
6.1.14 George Street: Two new uglies (thanks DCC, no City Architect…)

[sensitive]
9.1.14 Facadism: 3%, 10%, 50%, 75%, 99.9% (how much is enough) | University of Otago warps Castle Street

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: misted lettered tweaked by whatifdunedin

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 Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY

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

—

ODT hasn’t treated the following “Opinion piece” with due deference, it’s something to miss —no link at ODT Online. Mr Pickford probably forgot to ask that his propaganda be broadcast. Ah well.

ODT 12.10.15 (page 7)

The PROPOSED 2GP at 1600 pages is the biggest TURN OFF in Dunedin Planning History, ever.

—

The 2GP is the second generation district plan; and YOU, THE COMMUNITY, OWN this regulatory document once it is fully operational. Unfortunately, City Planning thinks THEY own it for your own good. Forget that. Eyeball the bastards and be prepared to defend your realms. Expect to meet with senior management of DCC, get past the desk staff. Most important —go straight to the top: group and general managers, and the chief executive. Avoid lower pond life. Cut to the chase.

Make no mistake, your property if it lies in the City Rise will be GREATLY AFFECTED. There’s very serious stuff going on if you live in a natural hazards zone. But what about your business, read very carefully. Buy a Resource Management specialist if you want to truly defend your property, its use and its value – or if you seek something different, time to stop writing invective just DEAL to the 1600 pages before the submission deadline in November. Write further submissions. Appeal the 2GP to Glory at Environment Court. Go to the High Court if you must. Etc. Etc.

Start your submission with the fact that the hearings panel is not INDEPENDENT and you protest this – councillors should not be sitting on the panel – at the moment Cull’s followers have a voting majority to push their green agendas through. STOP THE ROT. Already, you haven’t been served natural justice. Demand experienced independent commissioners from out of district that DCC hasn’t got to.

The DANGER is, if you’re a Ratepayer and you think you can deal with the 2GP through a DCC-produced summary you are BARKING MAD, you will sign your life away immediately. Wise up.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
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: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”

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

—

If you’re struggling with the Proposed 2GP webpages and how they tie together, whatifdunedin STRONGLY ADVISES you sight a paper copy of the full document at the DCC 2GP drop-in centre (11 George Street), DCC service centres or public libraries before setting out to write your individual or group submissions. Note you may also submit further submissions in discovery, utilise this opportunity fully.

DCC in providing the online Proposed 2GP “eplan” is depending on you The Public to ‘give up’ on the district plan document – to drive through the DEVELOPMENT CHANGE in effect, unopposed. Nothing could be clearer. Don’t let this happen. Talk to family, friends, colleagues, lawyers, planners, RMA professionals, anyone (!!) and hard grill the DCC chief executive, group and general managers, and City Planning officers as soon as possible to help frame your response(s).

Received.

Diane Yeldon
Submitted on 2015/10/03 at 6:54 pm

I have come to the sad conclusion that city planning is now just broken and unfixable. 2GP depends conceptually on the Spatial Plan and here are the Strategic Directions from the Spatial Plan (quoting):

The Spatial Plan is based on six key Strategic Directions: 1) A liveable city and 2) An environmentally sustainable and resilient city, (which) are supported by four strategic directions: 3) A memorable and distinctive city; 4) A vibrant and exciting city; 5) An accessible and connected city; and 6) A city that enables a prosperous and diverse economy. (ends)

Just as people say about using computers: GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), if you start a plan with GARBAGE, you can’t possibly end up with anything but garbage. 2GP just lifts this ‘vibrant’ and ‘exciting’ woolliness from the Spatial Plan and will give specific Rules supposedly derived from it the force of law in the new District Plan.

And no longer are explanations for District Plan Policies and, more critically, Rules required by law. So the local authority doesn’t have to justify the existence of a Rule at all, let alone in any accountable way. Rules can now exist just because they say so. (Definitely more authoritarian.)

If anyone wanted to understand what kind of city 2GP is likely to result in when operative, then a useful approach might be to work backwards from the Rules. I am quite certain that the Rules will not result in these green Utopian, ‘affluence and fun-for-all’ Strategic Directions becoming anything like a reality. Especially when you take into account how little money is likely to be around in both the private and public sectors to make some of these wish-list items happen.

More likely, there will be plenty of business for planning professionals and lawyers to try to clarify and argue how Rules etc might be applied to a specific site and proposed use. All trying to make sense (for a fee!) of what will appear to the vast majority of people as a chaotic and incomprehensible mess.

[ends]

█ For related posts and comments on the Proposed 2GP enter the term *2gp* in the search box at right.

—

Dunedin City Council
Public Notification of Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan

This item was published on 26 Sep 2015

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires the Dunedin City Council (DCC) to prepare a district plan to manage Dunedin’s natural and physical resources to meet the needs of Dunedin’s current and future generations and to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. The DCC has prepared the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP), which is proposed to replace the current and operative Dunedin City District Plan. The DCC is now notifying the Proposed 2GP for public submission pursuant to clause 5, schedule 1 of the RMA.

█ Submissions must be lodged before 5pm on Tuesday, 24 November 2015.

There are many differences between the current District Plan and the Proposed 2GP. The Proposed 2GP affects all properties in the DCC area and may change what you and your neighbours can do with your properties. We encourage you to take a look to see what it means for you.

In summary, here are some of the key changes. The Proposed 2GP:
● includes a new strategic directions section that sets out key issues for the city, ‘big picture’ outcomes to be achieved, and sets up the plan’s zoning and other methods
● includes new hazard management areas, where it is proposed to manage development to better protect people and property from natural hazard events
● identifies some new coastal and other landscape management areas where limitations on new buildings are proposed
● strengthens the rules for indigenous vegetation clearance
● increases the number of rural and rural residential zones, and increases the minimum site size for subdivision in most of the rural zones
● includes nine new medium density areas, where development density can be increased
● proposes a more enabling approach to earthquake strengthening and additions and alterations necessary for the re-use of heritage buildings
● includes two new residential heritage precincts (Queen Street and Arthur Street areas) and a reduction in the area of commercial heritage precincts
● makes it easier to build family flats in most zones to provide more housing options for extended families, particularly in response to an ageing population
● includes new rules related to public amenities and temporary activities, to enable smaller events to be held, and some public amenities to be built, without the need for resource consent
● manages the height of fences along the boundaries with roads and reserves to maintain a visual connection with these spaces, to improve safety and maintain amenity values
● reduces some on-site car parking requirements for residential properties and other activities to enable people to have more choice in deciding how much car parking is needed
● allows garages and carports to be built in the front yards of houses, with some limitations, rather than always requiring a resource consent.

—

█ WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION

To understand in more detail how the Proposed 2GP affects you, we encourage you to check out the full version. The Proposed 2GP has been prepared as an electronic plan (eplan) and is most easily viewed online at http://www.2gp.dunedin.govt.nz.

A list of the material incorporated in the Proposed 2GP by reference, and details of where this material can be purchased, are also available at http://www.2gp.dunedin.govt.nz and form part of this public notice. This material is available for inspection at the 2GP drop-in centre, 11 George Street, Dunedin.

Printed copies of the Proposed 2GP and reports prepared under section 32 of the RMA are available for inspection until 5pm, Tuesday 24 November at:
● the 2GP drop-in centre, 11 George Street, Dunedin, 8.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday.
● public libraries and service centres at Dunedin, Middlemarch, Mosgiel, Port Chalmers, Blueskin Bay (Waitati) and Waikouaiti.

At our drop-in centre, DCC staff will be available to answer questions about the Proposed 2GP and help you understand how to make a submission. Alternatively, you can call 477 4000.

█ Community presentations will also be held as follows:

MOSGIEL: Tuesday, 13 October, 7 – 9pm
Lounge Room, Mosgiel Coronation Hall, 97 Gordon Road

MIDDLEMARCH: Thursday, 15 October, 7 – 9pm
Strath Taieri Community Centre, 11 Swansea Street, Middlemarch

PORTOBELLO: Tuesday, 20 October, 7 – 9pm
Portobello Hall, Portobello Road (Latham Park)

PORT CHALMERS: Thursday, 22 October, 7 – 9pm
Port Chalmers Town Hall, Grey Street

BRIGHTON: Tuesday, 27 October, 7 – 9pm
Ocean View Hall, 812 Brighton Road, Dunedin

WAIKOUAITI: Thursday, 29 October, 7-9pm
East Otago Events Centre, Main Road, Waikouaiti.

—

█ LEGAL EFFECT

The Environment Court has ordered that the rules listed in Table 1 below have immediate legal effect from notification of this proposed plan ([2015] NZEnvC 165). As part of this order the Court has stated that any person affected by it may apply to the Environment Court to have this order set aside in respect of part or all of any of the rules in Table 1. Any application to have the order set aside is required by the Environment Court to be supported by a full explanatory affidavit and sent to the Environment Court in Christchurch and to the DCC.

Table 1: Rules that have immediate legal effect (RMA s86D)
[click to enlarge]

There are some rules that the RMA deems to have legal effect when the proposed plan is notified (s86B(3)). These rules protect or relate to water, air, or soil (for soil conservation); or protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation; or protect areas of significant habitats of indigenous fauna; or protect historic heritage; or provide for or relate to aquaculture activities. The Council has resolved that they will only have legal effect once the Proposed 2GP is made operative. The rules are listed at http://www.2gp.dunedin.govt.nz and form part of this public notice. The rules are also identified in the 2GP. The remainder of the rules in the Proposed 2GP will not have legal effect when the plan is notified. These rules will have legal effect when decisions have been made on submissions, unless the RMA deems any rules to be operative earlier.

—

█ SUBMISSIONS

Any person may make a submission on the Proposed 2GP (subject to clause 6(4), schedule 1 of the RMA, which limits submissions relating to trade competition).

To make a submission please go to http://www.2gp.dunedin.govt.nz. We encourage you to make an online submission using the form and guidelines on the website. Submissions may also be made in hard copy. Submissions must be made in the prescribed form (see Form 5, Schedule 1 RMA (Forms, Fees and Procedure) Regulations 2003) and state whether or not you wish to be heard. Submission forms can be downloaded, filled out and submitted at the above website or picked up in hard copy from the drop-in centre.

For written submissions:

POST TO: Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin 9058 – Attention Submission on 2GP

DELIVER TO: DCC Customer Services Agency, Ground floor, Civic Centre, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin – Attention Submission on Proposed 2GP

EMAIL TO: planning @dcc.govt.nz

█ Submissions must be lodged before 5pm, Tuesday, 24 November 2015.

After submissions have closed, the DCC will prepare a summary of submissions and publicly notify the availability of that summary.

There will be an opportunity for:
● any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest;
● any person that has an interest that is greater than that of the general public; and
● the DCC

to make a further submission either supporting or opposing a submission or submissions already made.

If any person making a submission asks to be heard in support of his or her submission, a hearing must be held.

The Council will give its decision on the Proposed 2GP (including its reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions). People that have made a submission on a provision have the right to appeal any decision related to that provision, except for if a submission seeks to withdraw the whole proposed plan.

Public Notice (PDF, 39.5 KB)
A copy of the public notice as a pdf document

Contact DCC on 477 4000.
DCC Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation

Received from Douglas Field
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 at 8:57 p.m.

Related Posts and Comments:
2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
1.10.15 Dunedin mayoralty —tiny debate, no quality prospects as yet
30.9.15 DCC liability? South Dunedin Flood (June 2015) #LGOIMA
30.9.15 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…
1.7.15 DCC: 2GP – Notification Pre-Approval #secondgenerationdistrictplan

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

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE

This is a legal matter.
Not merely an RMA matter, this is about Ratepayers’ equity.

█ The membership of the Draft 2GP hearings panel should not include ANY Councillors. NONE.

All on the Draft 2GP hearings panel should be sage experienced Independent Commissioners – this is possible to achieve !!

█ All Councillors have direct (real and perceived) conflicts of interest where the Draft 2GP is concerned.

In the public interest, Dunedin City Council should be legally challenged on the selection process for, and the membership of the Draft 2GP hearings panel.

The Council has an exceptionally glowing reputation for fraud and corruption. It is very far from being squeaky clean – and now, an inappropriate relationship at Council is distorting democracy.

You were warned.

—

### ODT Online Fri, 2 Oct 2015
Green perceptions spark row
By Chris Morris
Claims a panel that will shape the future of Dunedin has been stacked with a “green tinge” have sparked a political row within the Dunedin City Council. The criticism came from Crs Andrew Whiley, Hilary Calvert and Lee Vandervis yesterday, as they attacked the makeup of the panel selected to hear public submissions on the second generation district plan (2GP). Their views have been blasted by other councillors, who accused them of failing to raise any objections during a council debate on the panel’s membership.
Read more

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

—

Related Posts and Comments:
1.10.15 Dunedin mayoralty —tiny debate, no quality prospects as yet
30.9.15 DCC liability? South Dunedin Flood (June 2015) #LGOIMA
30.9.15 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…
1.7.15 DCC: 2GP – Notification Pre-Approval #secondgenerationdistrictplan

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)

TWO MONTHS FOR CONSULTATION WAS NEVER ENOUGH FOR THIS MUCH CHANGE, FORFEIT AND IMPOSITION

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

—

Received from Anonymous [not a city councillor]

█ Message: It looks like they have pushed the panic button.

—

From: Simon Pickford
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2015 11:54 a.m.
To: Council 2013-2016 (Elected Members); Community Board – Chalmers 2013-2016; Community Board – Mosgiel Taieri 2013-2016; Community Board – Otago Peninsula 2013-2016; Community Board – Saddle Hill 2013-2016; Community Board – Strath Taieri 2013-2016; Community Board – Waikouaiti Coast 2013-2016
Cc: Executive Leadership Team (ELT); Anna Johnson; Nicola Pinfold
Subject: 2GP update

Dear Councillors and Community Board members,

I just wanted to give you a brief update on the 2GP and public enquiries. As of the end of day 2 since the 2GP was notified we have had approximately 100 people through the drop-in centre on George Street whom we have answered questions for. We have also had just over 80 phone enquiries, and many emails. Staff are working overtime to return phone calls and get back to people as quickly as possible. However, with a small team of planners and a few on long overdue leave, some calls may take a day or 2 to clear. We have also received a large number of people through the DCC libraries and service centres.

Any District Plan is a difficult document for people to get their heads around and many people will need assistance. We are working hard to provide first class customer service on this project, but the first few days are always the most challenging as both the public and the planners work through this process.

We estimate around 90% of calls are related to natural hazards provisions. The natural hazard questions have related to both what the 2GP provisions are and also questions related to how things have been mapped which we have referred to the Otago Regional Council where appropriate, as they (and their consultants) undertook the scientific analysis.

We hope to get to you a list of frequently asked questions and their answers in the next couple of days so you know what people are asking and what the answers are.

We would really appreciate your support in helping your communities to be involved in this process, by encouraging people to seek advice and get involved but also help them to understand that the first few days may require some patience with the flood of enquiries and as we learn better what people are interested in so we can streamline and provide additional information around those questions.

Please also encourage them to come to the community meetings. Some suggestions provided by you that staff are responding to are trying to resource a staff member to go to the Mosgiel service centre to help with enquiries and to provide people with another option than the George Street centre. They will also look to add an additional meeting at Macandrew Bay. If you have any other suggestions or concerns please contact Anna Johnson directly so she can look to improve our service where we can.

Thank you for your support.

Best regards

Simon

Simon Pickford
General Manager Services and Development
Dunedin City Council

—

Related Post:
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

Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation and lack of printed maps

THEY ARE (today, already) RAISING THEIR HANDS IN DESPAIR AND WALKING AWAY

Council service centres have no printed maps for people to view.

Not all people are computer literate or have a computer that allows easy viewing – given their properties and districts may have (in MANY cases) substantial zoning change – GET MULTIPLE COPIES OF THE COLOUR MAPS PRINTED AND DISTRIBUTED

…. and stop obfuscating.

Otherwise, Democracy and Natural Justice are not being served.

And you, DCC, know what that means.
A mother of a clean up exercise on your heads.

D for DCC = Dunce

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

—

Related Post:
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: cliparts.co – dunce

DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

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

—

DCC wrote the PROPOSED 2GP for rob-the-poor DEVELOPERS, so TAKE THE COUNCIL TO COURT —doesn’t get more simple than this.

At last Monday’s Council meeting Mayor Cull said the [PROPOSED] 2GP had “acceptance” —given the document hadn’t been publicly notified at that date (September 21) WHY WAS HE LYING ?!

—

### dunedintv.co.nz Fri, 25 Sep 2015
DCC’s next generation plan to have significant repercussions
The Dunedin City Council is tackling some contentious issues as part of its next generation plan. The plan will have significant repercussions for land owners and developers. But before any decisions are made, staff are keen to hear from the public.
Ch39 Link

And now an advertising message from an old BDSM expert:

39 Dunedin Television Published on Sep 25, 2015
DCC’s next generation plan to have significant repercussions

—

Two videos, in case (DCC thinks) your children want to make a submission:

Dunedin City Council Uploaded on Jul 28, 2015
What is a District Plan?

Dunedin City Council Uploaded on Jul 28, 2015
How might the 2GP affect my House?
—

The following has been annotated.

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
[PROPOSED] 2GP released for public submissions

This item was published on 25 Sep 2015

A framework for the sustainable management of Dunedin’s natural and physical resources is out for public feedback. For the past three years, the Dunedin City Council has been working on a review of the District Plan. This review has produced the PROPOSED Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP), which has a new set of zones and rules for the city. These proposed new rules for what you can do on your land and how it can be developed have been released today for public submissions.

[NOTE, DCC does not say in the PROPOSED 2GP how your land and property holdings can be “sustainably managed” and how their values and significance – including heritage significance – can be retained and enhanced for future generations in the Heritage City and Rural Districts. No, DCC says “developed” and that is the very brunt of the “1600 pages of rules, policies and supporting information” wrought by motherfucker overpaid deskhugger policy planners and stipend-stealing unemployable political no-hopers that sit on the present council. “Let’s do property speculation,” they say – because they don’t know of any other way to boost the domestic economy – certainly not through IP, product and service development For Export, they’re way too thick for that. Their only skill has been, and is, to steal from ratepayers —thereby placing ratepayers (the aging population) into extreme debt to the three big banks. The house of cards what blows itself down.]

Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull says the community has been involved in preparing the [PROPOSED] 2GP and there has already been a lot of discussion with residents about what the new plan should contain. The process of community engagement began as part of developing the Spatial Plan for Dunedin, which was adopted in September 2012. “This is a crucial document which aims to encourage appropriate development in the right locations while protecting the features and amenities that residents hold dear. With the [PROPOSED] 2GP we aim to produce a more streamlined document which is easier to use and gives greater clarity and certainty about what activities and development can be carried out and where that can happen. Where possible, we want to reduce the need for resource consents and minimise the costs of the consent process.”

[Roll on the non-notified consents which fail to fairly identify and notify all affected parties and interested parties (COMMUNITY RIGHTS) to resource consent applications that could irreversibly change those parties’ lives and the consequent value of their assets, not in a good way.]

[The PROPOSED 2GP is not about Sustainable Management and Protection. Should we tell DCC how many Court Appeals are about to slap it in the face: unsustainably for DCC.]

Mr Cull says the [PROPOSED] 2GP also strengthens strategic policies, which look at aspects such as spatial planning and city-wide issues. It also improves how effective rules are and responds to emerging issues such as natural hazards and households wanting on-site energy generation.

[BDSM expert] DCC Planning and Regulatory Committee Chair …. says, “I really encourage people to get involved and give us their feedback. If you have questions about what the proposed changes mean, or want to get accurate information [What planet is the BDSM expert on ?] or check out what you may have heard, staff at our [PROPOSED] 2GP drop-in centre will be able to help.”

[One of Jim Harland’s ‘darlings’] DCC City Development Manager …. says the ultimate goal of the [PROPOSED] 2GP is the sustainable management of Dunedin’s natural and physical resources. “The [PROPOSED] 2GP has been prepared over several phases. At each step we have asked stakeholders [A LARGE NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS HAVE NOT BEEN TREATED AS, OR TRUSTED AS, STAKEHOLDERS, DCC – THESE PEOPLE YOU DELIBERATELY DECIDED TO ALIENATE AND AVOID] and the wider community [DITTO, DCC] to identify issues and consider options.”

There have also been two main community consultations as part of the development of the [PROPOSED] 2GP:
● Issues and Options (November 2012 – March 2013)
● Preferred Options (August 2013 – September 2013 and June 2014 – September 2014 for natural hazard provisions).

“As part of the process, we have worked with reference groups and held informal consultation with key stakeholders, organisations and individuals [DCC, YOU HAVE PICKED OFF THE WEAK AND GULLIBLE AND THOSE YOU WANTED TO MANIPULATE OR SERVE FINANCIALLY; YOU HAVE DELIBERATELY MISSED CONSULTATION WITH CERTAIN OTHERS WHO ARE, WOOPS, PERCEIVED AS TROUBLE]. We are now at the notification and submissions stage where the process moves to formal consultation.” [Rather, this is where the process moves to private Legal Action, to protect citizen rights]

█ The [PROPOSED] 2GP is open for public submissions from Saturday, 26 September until 5pm, Tuesday, 24 November. [Two months, NOT LONG – HEAR THE BULLDOZERS COMING]

█ The [PROPOSED] 2GP, which has about 1600 pages of rules, policies and supporting information, has been prepared as an electronic plan and is most easily viewed online at www.2gp.dunedin.govt.nz. Printed copies will also be available for inspection at the [PROPOSED] 2GP drop-in centre at 11 George Street, Dunedin and at Dunedin Public Libraries and Service Centres.

█ At the drop-in centre, staff will be available from Monday to Friday to answer questions about the [PROPOSED] 2GP and show you how to make a submission. Community workshops will also be held.

The DCC is required to follow a formal process in terms of submissions and the next steps, such as hearings. More information on this is available on the [PROPOSED] 2GP website. How long it takes to fully replace the current District Plan depends on the number and nature of appeals. The first set of changes could be in place by mid 2016 if there are no opposing submissions.

In summary, here are some of the key proposed changes.

The [PROPOSED] 2GP:
● [THINK BIG, oh noes] includes a new strategic directions section that sets out key issues for the city, ‘big picture’ outcomes to be achieved, and sets up the plan’s zoning and other methods
● makes it easier to carry out earthquake strengthening of heritage buildings and easier to add and alter heritage buildings [Danger Danger AVOID Best Practice Conservation Practice – turn everything into Disneyland and fake facades] so they can be re-used
● [THIS IS FUCKING CRIMINAL] includes two new residential heritage precincts (Queen Street and Arthur Street areas) and a reduction in the area of commercial heritage precincts
● [THIS DESTROYS THE BALANCE OF GREEN SPACE IN OLDER RESIDENTIAL SUBURBS AND THERE ARE NO HERITAGE GUIDELINES OR DESIGN GUIDELINES TO GUARD EXISTING CHARACTER AND HERITAGE VALUES] makes it easier to build family flats in most zones to provide more housing options for extended families, particularly in response to an ageing population
● [MORE NEGLIGENCE] includes new rules to enable smaller events to be held, and many public amenities to be built, without the need for resource consent
● [THIS DESTROYS THE BALANCE OF GREEN SPACE IN OLDER RESIDENTIAL SUBURBS AND THERE ARE NO HERITAGE GUIDELINES OR DESIGN GUIDELINES TO GUARD EXISTING CHARACTER AND HERITAGE VALUES] includes nine new medium density areas (of 24 in total), where development density can be increased (changing from the current restriction of one dwelling per 500m2 site to enabling more than one residential unit per site over 400m2 at a density of one bedroom per 45m2)
● changes to fence height rules along boundaries with roads and reserves to maintain a visual connection with these spaces to improve safety and maintain amenity values
● reduces some on-site car parking requirements for residential properties and other activities so people have more choice in how much car parking is needed
● [THIS DESTROYS THE BALANCE OF GREEN SPACE IN OLDER RESIDENTIAL SUBURBS AND THERE ARE NO HERITAGE GUIDELINES OR DESIGN GUIDELINES TO GUARD EXISTING CHARACTER AND HERITAGE VALUES] allows garages and carports to be built in the front yards of houses, with some limitations, rather than always requiring a resource consent
● identifies some new coastal and other landscape management areas where there would be limits around the new buildings that can be constructed
● [DCC HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE RESIDENTS OF SOUTH DUNEDIN, DCC IS PATRONISING] includes new hazard management areas, where it is proposed to manage development to better protect people and property from natural hazard events.

Contact City Development Manager [Anna Johnson] [deliver a complete earful, then sue] on 477 4000.

DCC Link

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: 2GP – Notification Pre-Approval #secondgenerationdistrictplan

Tabled at the Dunedin City Council meeting on 29 June 2015:

Report – Council – 29/06/2015 (PDF, 129.2 KB)
2GP – Notification Pre-Approval

Content:

Council
29 June 2015

2GP – NOTIFICATION PRE-APPROVAL
Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report seeks approval in principle to notify the second generation District Plan (2GP), ahead of the formal decision to notify the 2GP to be considered by the Council meeting scheduled for 21 September 2015.

2. The approval in principle is being sought to enable rates inserts informing ratepayers of the 2GP’s notification, to be printed and included in the first instalment of rates mail-outs scheduled for 31st July 2015. The details of the 2GP will not be released until Council approves notification of the 2GP.

3. Using the rates mail-outs to meet the requirements for public notice as set out in the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), provides a significant cost saving to Council compared with separately sending letters to all ratepayers.

4. The decision to approve notification of the 2GP is primarily a procedural decision to allow the next stage of the Plan’s development to occur, which includes submissions and hearings. It should be based on councillors’ satisfaction that the plan has been developed to date in accordance with section 32 of the RMA.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:
a) Approves the inclusion of rates inserts informing ratepayers of the 2GP’s notification, scheduled for 26 September, based on a programmed date for a formal decision to notify to be considered by the Council meeting scheduled for 21 September 2015. This approval constitutes an approval in principle to notify the second generation District Plan.

BACKGROUND

5. The Dunedin City District Plan was initially notified on 24 July 1995, and revised and re-released on 19 July 1999, and became operative on 3 July 2006. The RMA requires district plans to be reviewed every 10 years. While some parts of the plan have been subject to rolling reviews and changes or were added later as new sections, this is the first full review of the district plan since the RMA. Hence, it is called the second generation district plan or 2GP for short. Relevant previous reports to Council on the 2GP include:

● 8 February 2012 – Planning and Environment Committee – Approval of the initiation of a District Plan review and preparation and notification of subsequent changes to the District Plan to develop a second generation District Plan.
● 4 September 2012 –Planning and Environment Committee -Noting the proposal for 2GP Issues and Options consultation and the information provided with regard to the role of councillors in that process.
● 23 April 2013 – Planning and Environment Committee:
a. Noting completion of the Issues and Options phase of the 2GP and updated programme for the preparation of the 2GP;
b. Approval of the programme, process and more detailed principles for Councillor involvement in the 2GP; and
c. Endorsing the recommendation regarding members of a technical advisory group for the 2GP.
2GP Notification Pre-Approval 1
● 24 July 2014 – Planning and Regulatory Committee – Noting the 2GP programme update.

DISCUSSION

6. The 2GP will be ready to enter its next phase of development – submissions and hearings after September. This phase is focused on providing the public with the opportunity to make formal submissions on the proposed plan (including the opportunity to make submissions on other people’s submissions). Submissions are summarised by staff and considered at hearings (where people can chose to speak to their submission), along with planners’ recommendations on the submissions. Decisions are then made on the submissions by the Hearings Committee.

7. This submissions and hearings phase is a formal consultation phase that follows from the significant community engagement that has taken place as part of the Plan’s development through the Issues and Options and Preferred Options phases, and earlier through the Spatial Plan.

8. The legal requirements for public notification of a proposed District Plan are set out in Schedule 1 to the RMA.

9. Pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 1 to the RMA, not earlier than 60 working days before public notification or later than 10 working days after public notification, all ratepayers must be sent a public notice which details where the 2GP can inspected and how submissions can be made. This could be achieved by mailing letters to ratepayers, or including a rates insert with rate demands.

10. Public notice mail-outs are only one of the legal requirements for public notification in Schedule 1. In addition to the legal requirements for public notice, a broad communication strategy is being developed with the Marketing and Communications team that will use different types of media and a ‘shop front’ to inform people of the Plan and help them understand how to make submissions. Submissions under the RMA are required to be in a prescribed form, which is set out in the RMA (Form 5).

11. The next date for the rates notices mail-outs commences on 31 July 2015, with the printed rates inserts needing to be printed and sent to Christchurch by 23 July 2015. Further mail-outs for the same rating period follow on 7th and 21st August 2015.

12. Including the public notification of the 2GP with rates mail-outs will save approximately $40,000 compared to a separate mail-out.

OPTIONS

13. If approval in principle is not given at this point the options are:
a. Option A: Waiting until after the September meeting and (presuming the decision is to notify and aligning the public notice to the next available rates mail-out timetable. This would mean a notification date of mid-November, which due to Christmas, would not only delay the process significantly but create a much less convenient submission period for the public. It would also mean hearings are very unlikely to be completed prior to the local body elections, which is likely to create cost and logistical problems, as well as inconvenience submitters and delay the Plan becoming operative.
b. Option B: Undertaking a separate mail-out immediately after the 26th of September (presuming the decision is to notify), which would require approximately $40,000 in additional budget for the 2GP.
c. Option C: Delaying the decision to notify until after September which would have the disadvantages of Option A and potentially also Option B, depending on the revised timing.

NEXT STEPS

14. Prepare the public notification information for the rates insert, and mail-out to ratepayers.

15. Request approval of notification of the 2GP at the Council meeting scheduled for 21 September 2015.

Signatories
Author/s: Dr Anna Johnson, City Development Manager

Authoriser/s: Nicola Pinfold, Group Manager Community and Planning; Simon Pickford, General Manager Services and Development

—

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government
This decision relates to providing a regulatory function and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework
[Contributes / Detracts / Not applicable]

Social Wellbeing Strategy [Contributes]
Economic Development Strategy [Contributes]
Environment Strategy [Contributes]
Arts and Culture Strategy [Contributes]
3 Waters Strategy [Contributes]
Spatial Plan [Contributes]
Integrated Transport Strategy [Contributes]
Parks and Recreation Strategy [Contributes]
Other strategic projects/policies/plans [Contributes]
The District Plan manages land use activities throughout Dunedin, and is Council’s principal policy document for enabling land use development envisaged by the various strategies of Council.

Māori Impact Statement
In accordance with Clause 3 of the First Schedule to the RMA, tangata whenua of the area who may be affected have been consulted with.

Sustainability
Sustainable management is a fundamental principle of the RMA, and the 2GP is being developed in accordance with this principle.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy
There are no implications.

Financial considerations
If notification of the 2GP cannot be aligned with rates notices mail-outs, this will add approximately $40,000 in notification costs.

Significance
The decision to approve notification of the 2GP is primarily a procedural decision to allow the next stage of the Plan’s development to occur, which includes submissions and hearings. It should be based on councillors consideration that the plan has been developed to date in accordance with section 32 of the RMA.

Engagement – internal
No but consultation with internal departments on the 2GP has been significant and is ongoing.

Engagement – external
No but there has been significant consultation as part of the development of the 2GP, starting from initial consultation on RMA-related issues through the ‘Your City, Our Future’ and Spatial Plan consultation; continuing through the ‘Issues and Options’, ‘Preferred Options’ phases, including a separate process for natural hazards provisions consultation. Consultation with key stakeholders through reference groups and individual discussion has been on-going. Specific consultation with individuals with more significant proposed changes in planning provisions has also occurred.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety / Conflict of Interest etc.
There are no legal, health and safety, or conflict of interest risks associated with making this decision.

Community Boards
The Community Boards have been consulted with as the 2GP has developed, and will be given briefings ahead of public notification.

[ends]

—

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

Traffic lights: Anzac Avenue/Frederick Street intersection

Four questions put to DCC Transportation Planning today:

● What work is needed to activate the traffic lights at Anzac/Frederick?
● Why it is requiring remediation?
● How much it will cost?
● Why weren’t the lights just switched on as planned in early December immediately after the site [Hall Brothers yard – Anzide Properties Ltd] was cleared?

The argument goes like this: there was a break made in a fibre optic cable during site clearance at Hall Bros yard. Chorus billed the property owner for the breakage. The property owner didn’t know the cable existed or that it had been attached to one of their buildings on site.

Meanwhile, DCC says the cable issue isn’t connected to the traffic lights not working.

So back to those questions:

DCC says new medians and yellow-dot pads are being added at crossings, and ‘green boxes’ for cyclists are being re-scoped — for improved traffic management, and cycle and pedestrian safety; the 5-way intersection is being turned to a *4-way* intersection (with the access way formerly used by Hall Bros being removed) — simplifying the intersection and lights control of it.

DCC says all work to cost circa $100,000.

Timelines as such around the holiday break meant the traffic lights weren’t turned on earlier [in December, immediately following site clearance by Hall Bros].

DCC says Tony Avery will likely handle media statements on completion of the project.
(why is Mr Avery still at DCC, he’s retained until the new GM arrives in February)

The real story?

Hall Bros had to clear their site by a certain date in December 2014. They did.
Chorus turned up the next day saying the property owner had broken the cable.
Chorus had no easement. The cable should not have been there.

The irony of the lights not working because they were connected illegally to a building on the land that had to be cleared because the lights were illegally installed, is THE ANSWER.

Remember, DCC says the cable issue isn’t connected to the traffic lights not working.

Ye Gods of Irony, please do not explode.

DCC Webmap – Anzac Avenue/Frederick Street [click to enlarge]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr —with thanks to correspondents for their wording, collaged

*Image: Tony Avery – tweaked by whatifdunedin

Dunedin North care less filthy slum

—– Original Message —–
From: Jeff Dickie
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:45 PM
Subject: Sunday in the slums of North Dunedin

Hi Elizabeth, your comments re the new hotel [“Cull’s Cockup”, the new “Farry’s Folly”] are very good and congratulations on the National Radio coverage.

In the next day or so I’d like to post something on your Whatif site regarding the implications of the DCC neglecting core business and services. We’ve watched as the North End has transformed from an integrated community combining residents and students to an intensely populated and filthy slum. Largely as a result of poor planning by the DCC and University. I took these photos on Sunday, 16 March.

While Dave preens himself in front of the mirror and is distracted by the latest snake oil salesmen, there are some very serious social issues developing.

Regards, Jeff

—

George Street

Castle Street

—

Related Post and Comments:
19.3.14 Dunedin North drunks
15.2.14 University of Otago: Starter questions for Harlene
10.2.14 University of Otago major sponsor for Highlanders
25.3.13 University of Otago: NEGATIVE PRESS: Weekly disorder…
20.2.12 University of Otago student orientation
17.12.11 Stadium + Cull love = University of Otago + OUSA party
23.11.11 Judge Oke Blaikie finally said it

For more, enter *university* or *campus* in the search box at right.