Tag Archives: Public consultation

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 Update 17.2.16 - Further submissions period extended to 3 March 2016

██ 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

13 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Infrastructure, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design

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

DCC Summary of Decisions Requested 5.2.16 Public Notice

[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

7 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design

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.

2GP logo 2Have 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.

10 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Climate change, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Infrastructure, New Zealand, NZTA, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design

DCC LTAP 2016/17 budget discussion #ultrahelpfulhints

ODT 19.1.16 (page 6)

ODT 19.1.16 To the point McCutcheon p6 FrameScrollCornerJPRfinished red

Comment at ODT Online:

Still on about ‘rising ground water’
Submitted by flatout on Thu, 21/01/2016 – 8:05am.

When will you…Dave…and the council admit it was a lack of mainenance that caused the flooding in Dunedin? Stop blaming climate change and rising ground water. Stop talking about high cost plans of moving South Dunedin and buying properties. Stop your endless council staff meetings about the issue of ‘what to do with South Dunedin’. Do maintenance on the stormwater. Do invest in South Dunedin to keep it a place to live and work in. All you need to do is clear drains and stormwater system that has coped with worse floods in the past…1968 for example.

REMOVE THE IRRITANT
Dave framed [FrameScrollCornerJPRfinished] 2

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

62 Comments

Filed under Business, Cycle network, DCC, Delta, Democracy, Dunedin, DVML, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’

ODT Online 9.12.15 [screenshot] Link

Hilary Calvert - Sharing fair and expert information among all (ODT 9.12.15)

ODT 21.12.15 (page 8)

ODT 21.12.15 Letter to editor Pope p8 (1)

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

2 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Infrastructure, LGNZ, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

DCC report: Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision

█ Full Council Meeting Monday 30 November 2015 at 1:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon

Agenda – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 39.6 KB)

Other Reports to be tabled.

Item 16

Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 7.1 MB)
Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision

[Extract]

Council 30 November 2015
MOSGIEL POOL FUTURE AQUATIC PROVISION
Department: Parks, Recreation and Aquatics

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This report presents high level concept design options and associated capital and operating costs for a new aquatic facility in Mosgiel. A decision is required on which, if any option should be progressed to developed design stage to enable more detailed operating costs, capital costs and whole of life cost options to be developed.

2. Staff have conducted a robust process, assisted by aquatic facility development and operation experts, using architects and quantity surveyors with substantial aquatic experience (including Selwyn) and with the input of Sport New Zealand. Despite this, and whilst reaching agreement on a preferred site, there is a fundamental difference between the staff position and that of the Taieri Community Facilities Trust (the Trust).

3. Council staff consider they can deliver a high quality aquatic facility containing two bodies of water that provide for casual recreation (leisure), casual fitness (lap swimming) and learn to swim that will be valued by the Mosgiel community. The Trust does not agree.

4. The estimated total capital cost for this option is approximately $14.4m, based on benchmarking, which can be refined and reduced through developed design, value management and procurement processes.

5. The Trust position is that for the same amount of money, ie approximately $14.4m, a four-pool proposal, as presented in 2014, can be delivered. The staff assessment of this position is that the capital cost is more likely to be approximately $18-20m, based on feedback from Sport New Zealand and the quantity surveyor.

RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Decides that Site A, located adjacent to the existing Mosgiel Pool is the preferred site for the development of a new aquatic facility.

b) Directs officers to progress the option of two bodies of water, delivering leisure, lap and learn to swim activities through to developed design including further refinement of capital costs, operating costs, and the development of whole of life facility costs, and report back to Council in May 2016.

c) Notes the estimated capital cost of the current concept for two bodies of water is $10,458,000 (buildings, siteworks and infrastructure) plus $2,379,500 (fees, consents, furniture and equipment) plus $1,567,000 (project contingency and ground improvement provision); a total of $14,404,500.

d) Notes that the estimated capital cost excludes an escalation provision, currently estimated at 2.8% per annum for the three years until the Council funding is available.

e) Acknowledges the continued commitment of the Taieri Community Facilities Trust to the project, through their participation in the steering group and input into the concept design process.

Author: Jendi Paterson, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager
Authoriser(s): Richard Saunders, Group Manager, Parks, Recreation and Aquatics; Ruth Stokes, General Manager, Infrastructure and Networks

DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED TAIERI AQUATIC CENTRE – MOSGIEL
19 October 2015
Feedback on Taieri Community Facilities Trust Feasibility Study (November 2014), Warren & Mahoney Architects (WAM) and Barnes Beagley Doherr (BBD) Master Plan and Cost Estimate (September 2015).

[Extracts]

1. General observations – There is universal acceptance that the existing Mosgiel Community Pool is an asset at the end of its usefulness and fit with existing and future community needs. The Taieri Community Facilities Trusts (the Trust) Feasibility correctly establishes that historical reports, information and recommendations along with DCC support this view. What is unclear or fully evidenced in the study is:
– What needs assessment and demand are evident and directly related to the size, scale and component mix for the facility required? E.g. need for a FINA certified 10 lane competition pool.
– Confirmation of the likely and sustainable catchment that the centre will serve?
– The impact of the proposed facility on the existing aquatic network?
– What is the projects full capital cost and whole of life affordability for the community?

3. Site and location – It is agreed that Memorial Park is the preferred site for the development of a new aquatic centre. The Feasibility Study promotes the use of a site that impacts significantly the existing Memorial Park Gardens. This option seems unnecessary given the other options available at the park to DCC. Of the subsequent locations within the park proposed by Warren and Mahoney Architects (20.09.15) those sites favoured are those that enable the existing pool to operate during any development period, impact adjacent residents the least, provides multiple points of entry, maximises existing car parking and allows for future expansion should be considered. In this context Site A and Site B are favoured. Site A may offer the opportunity to upgrade and integrate the Caravan Park operation into the new facility, management model and provide a positive revenue stream for the centre.

6. Funding Strategy – the expectation placed on the Trust to raise 50% ($7.5m) of the capital cost of the project is considered unrealistic and unfair. Despite the optimism of the Trust would be unachievable by the second half of 2016 as identified in the Trusts timeline for achieving the pledged funding target. Undoubtedly, this would place extreme pressure of exiting funding agencies and fundraising organisations delivering alternative community outcomes and services for some time. One needs to ask the question – is the same expectation places on communities of interest to raise 50% of funding for developments of public libraries, community halls, sport parks and other public amenities?

Conclusion, the size scale and complexity of the proposed aquatic centre seems to address the wants rather than the needs of the community. Justification of the overall component mix, the need for 10 v’s 8 lanes, competitive aquatic sport needs v’s wider community recreation, wellness and entertainment (youth and older adults) would benefit from closer consideration given the significant level of investment under consideration. The size and extent of the projected catchment population may be inflated and with minimal consideration given to the impact of the new centre on the existing aquatic network of facilities and in its current form designed to compete rather than compliment Moana Pool. The assessment of capital cost seems consistent based on similar south island projects and assessment of construction rates without due consideration to those costs currently excluded. The projected operating budget is not inclusive of all relevant costs (debt repayments and depreciation) nor does it consider the whole of life costs for the assets which will require the need for an ongoing level of operational subsidy.

[screenshots – click to enlarge]

Mosgiel Pool - Trust selected sites

Mosgiel Pool - Sites Analysed by Architects

Mosgiel Pool - Site Option A

Mosgiel Pool - Brief Matrix

Mosgiel Pool - Brief Study 2B

Mosgiel Pool - Brief Study 3B

Mosgiel Pool - Brief Study 4B

Related Posts and Comments:
16.9.15 DCC Please Explain —Mosgiel pool design to Warren & Mahoney
● 7.8.15 MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility #MosgielPool
● 24.7.15 Hands off Mosgiel Memorial Gardens
● 23.7.15 Dunedin ratepayers —Green Island best site for city pool users…
● 22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
● 19.5.15 Mosgiel pool trust conflicts of interest #bigfishsmallpond
18.5.15 NEWSFLASH —Mosgiel pool, tracking [PONT] . . . .
17.5.15 Cr Vandervis on DCC project budgets
● 4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
● 7.5.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16-2024/25 —public submissions online
● 12.4.15 Mosgiel pool trust calls on Dunedin ratepayers to fund distant complex
1.4.15 ‘Pooling Together’ (TCFT) loses chairman, resigns [see Wanaka pool]
28.3.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16 to 2024/25 —CONSULTATION OPEN
25.3.15 DCC Long Term Plan: Green-dyed chickens home to roost
11.3.15 Mosgiel pool trust PLAINLY hasn’t got ‘$7.5M community support’
● 6.3.15 Propaganda from trust for Taieri pool project #Mosgiel
● 2.3.15 DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow) [renders]
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.15 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
14.1.15 DCC Draft Long Term Plan: more inanity from Cull’s crew pending
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

34 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

DCC: Full Council meeting Tue, 27 Oct 2015 at 1pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon

Agenda – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 51.3 KB)

Public Forum
a) Legal High Retail Location Policy – Carl Lapham, Cupid Shop
b) Work Opportunities within the Council – Anneloes de Groot
c) Oil and Gas Block Offers – Siana Fitzjohn, Annabeth Cohen, Rosemary Penwarden – Oil Free Otago
d) Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and Council’s Previous Resolution – Jenny Olsen
e) Safety of Roads – Neil Burrow

Item of interest on the main agenda, apart from annual reports:

● 25 Delegations to Officers to mediate on the 2GP Dunedin District Plan
Report from Corporate Services. Refer to pages 25.1 – 25.5.

The general public should be wary of Proposed 2GP mediation processes and how they are to be conducted. Mediation processes could segment (playing to like interests) planning direction and rules to such an extent the public will lose the ‘big picture’ which includes, if needed, having the Proposed 2GP set aside and sections fully redrafted (!!) for community ownership; and, of course, the public not recognising or becoming oblivious to cumulative adverse effects promoted within the Proposed 2GP, and these not being dealt to with sufficient weight.
If in doubt at mediation, positively strive to be heard at hearing – slow the process down until you have individual clarity as a submitter. Do not be pressured by DCC staff and management to agree anything without your taking time and effort to carefully deliberate potential cumulative adverse and knock-on effects.
The current district plan took YEARS to become operational —note well, there is NO RUSH to settle the Proposed 2GP if it is inequitable.

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 255.8 KB)
Block Offer 2016 Submission

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 613.2 KB)
Legal High Retail Location Policy

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 224.8 KB)
Regional Policy Statement Further Submission

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 2.7 MB)
Dunedin City Council 2015 Annual Report

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 66.0 KB)
2015 Annual Reports of Dunedin City Holdings Limited, its Subsidiaries and Associate Companies

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 63.9 KB)
2015 Annual Reports from Dunedin Venues Management Limited and Dunedin Venues Limited

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 391.9 KB)
Waipori Fund – Report for Quarter Ending September 2015

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 540.7 KB)
Review of the Food Safety Bylaw

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 139.5 KB)
Boundary Backflow Prevention

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 97.0 KB)
Delegations to Officers to Mediate on the 2GP Dunedin District Plan

Report – Council – 27/10/2015 (PDF, 86.7 KB)
Theomin Gallery Management Committee – Appointment of Committee Members

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

48 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, Democracy, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Stadiums, Town planning, What stadium