Tag Archives: Public notification

DCC consents subdivisions without full consultation on stormwater & drainage

Guidelines on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Introduction to sections 27(1) to 27(3): The right to justice Link

Introduction to sections 27(1) to 27(3): The right to justice
Section 27(1) The right to the observance of the principles of natural justice
Section 27(2) The right to a judicial review of determinations
Section 27(3) Proceedings involving the Crown same as proceedings between individuals

█ RE: COUNCIL LIABILITY AND RISK | COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND RATEPAYERS —Non-notified v Notified Resource Consents

GUILTY PARTIES:
Mayor and Councillors, Hearings Committee, Chair of Infrastructure Services Committee, Chief Executive, General Manager Infrastructure and Networks, General Manager Services and Development, Group Manager Water and Waste, City Planning, City Development Team, Resource Consents Team et al.

ODT 12.9.15 (page 30)

ODT 12.9.15 Letters to editor Baldwin Lewis Poole p30

Related Posts and Comments:
27.8.15 DCC: Non-notified … consent Leith Valley 19-lot subdivision #ULCA
7.6.12 Dunedin stormwater: more differences between ORC and DCC
[240 Portobello Road and more]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

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

DCC: Non-notified resource consent Leith Valley 19-lot subdivision #ULCA

259 Malvern Street Dunedin (LUC-2014-631)
This consent was an application to/for earthworks to form building platforms for 19-lot residential subdivision at 259 Malvern Street Dunedin. This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 1 January 2008.

DCC Non-notified Consent Decisions (2015) LUC-2014-631 [page 8 as at 26.8.15]
Source: DCC Non-notified Consent Decisions, page 8 as at 26.8.15

DCC Webmap - 259 Malvern Street (JanFeb 2015)DCC Webmap – 259 Malvern Street (Jan/Feb 2013)

Received from Jeff Dickie (Woodhaugh)
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 at 10:10 a.m.

Subject: dodgy valuations

There’s a 19-lot subdivision underway in Malvern Street, just past the bridge after Patmos Avenue. What makes this odd is that it was granted non-notified consent.

There is a ground swell of anger that this has been allowed. None of the residents knew anything about it until it was through.

It also appears to be within Dunedin’s Leith Valley Urban Landscape Conservation Area [ULCA24], that incidentally was foisted on me. I spent $25,000 fighting this including appealing to the Environment Court. I employed a QC, a barrister and an Environmental Planner. In summary, the Judge said I had a right to feel aggrieved. However, he was reluctant to make a ruling that could potentially open the floodgates to other cases against a local authority [DCC].

It meant people like me, and all the other affected re-zoned owners were privately funding a public visual amenity, a de facto reserve.

The reason I felt so aggrieved is that it has happened to me before with an eight and a half acre section directly opposite Millbrook in Queenstown. My partners and I have owned this for about 26 years and have been obstructed for that entire time. Surrounding us everywhere is quite intensive development and ours remains an island of undeveloped land. Our intentions had been for very restrained use, unlike our more successful neighbours, who are clearly “better connected” than us!

The Leith Valley case is odd. The ULCA was supposed to protect the rocky escarpment and bush area and the latest development doesn’t do that.

I’m not certain, but I’ve been told the developer is John Dunckley, a valuer.
He used to live on-site but now lives in Motueka. Ironically, he objected to a neighbour’s subdivision on the grounds of spoiling his view. One has to wonder how on earth this was granted by the DCC. A reward for favours past?

John Dunckley is the ‘stadium valuer’. He put the eye-watering $225M value on the just completed well over budget stadium. That in effect validated the cost overruns.

[ends]

It appears the developer Dunckley has chosen to push through with subdivision prior to public consultation of the proposed 2GP this year. Very possibly, the existing overlay of ULCA24 should have been one of the factors necessitating full public notification of the application for (land use) consent. The decision should be investigated or challenged due to the number of potentially affected / interested parties not made formally aware of the land owner’s or indeed the city council’s (covert) process and intentions.

DCC Rates Book - 259 Malvern Street - Three Hills Limited

Ratepayer: Three Hills Limited

NZ Companies Register:
THREE HILLS LIMITED 5547070
Incorporation Date: 23 Dec 2014
Company Status: Registered
Registered Office: 147b Redwood Valley Road, Rd 1, Richmond 7081
Address for service: 147b Redwood Valley Road, Rd 1, Richmond 7081

Directors (1 of 1):
John DUNCKLEY – 259 Malvern Street, Glenleith, Dunedin 9010

Total Number of Shares: 100
Shareholders in Allocation:
Allocation 1: 100 shares (100.00%)
John DUNCKLEY – 259 Malvern Street, Glenleith, Dunedin 9010
Ellen Jane DUNCKLEY – 259 Malvern Street, Glenleith, Dunedin 9010
Stuart James MCLAUCHLAN – 3 Walsh Lane, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010

Subject Site at Leith Valley [screenshot]
DCC Compare Existing and Second Generation District Plans [259 Malvern Street + ULCA24]

█ For interactive comparative maps, go to District Plan Maps

Definition (Dunedin City District Plan):
Urban Landscape Conservation Areas – means those areas addressed in the Townscape Section and identified on the District Plan Maps which provide a landscape setting for the urban areas.

Dunedin City District Plan Volume 1
District Plan – Section 3: Definitions
District Plan – Section 13: Townscape

Dunedin City District Plan 13.8 ULCA

Source: Townscape, page 13:47 [screenshot]

█ The 2GP appears to reduce Dunedin City’s biodiversity in residential areas due to Dunedin City Council’s unconstrained support for private speculator/developers to subdivide property holdings and intensify/densify construction, resulting in the removal of existing ULCAs from significant and potentially regenerative conservational environments.

DCC on Natural Environment and Biodiversity
– in reference to the proposed second generation district plan (2GP)

Review of Urban Landscape Conservation Areas
A review of Urban Landscape Conservation Areas (ULCA) has determined that it has been applied in most cases to public reserves. A large number of these reserves are sports grounds with limited vegetation cover and do not meet the intent of a ULCA. Instead the ULCA Zone has functioned as a default reserves zone. The preferred approach in the new Plan [2GP] is to zone large reserves as part of a new Recreation Zone which will better recognise the values of reserves (refer to Q&A: Community and Recreation Activities). This will reduce the need to include such areas as a ULCA.

The approach to be taken with reserves in the 2GP provides an opportunity to reconsider the remaining ULCA areas and whether there are alternative approaches. Some large reserves, such as the Dunedin Town Belt contain extensive areas of vegetative cover that play a significant role in providing corridors for biodiversity and these values need to be recognised with a method that manages biodiversity. The ULCA also includes areas of private land, generally the vegetated steep sides of valleys or gullies, such as the Leith Valley, that provide biodiversity corridors. It is proposed to recognise their values in any method that manages biodiversity.
DCC Link

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

18 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

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

1 Comment

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium