WE have the information, unreasonable delay providing it #LGOIMA

Contrary to DCC Bylaw 23 no camping restriction applied over summer

DCC’s delay in providing official information on freedom camping numbers (Which Is Available) appears to equate with what happened over LGOIMA requests lodged after the South Dunedin Flood of June 2015. Delay, derferment, and obfuscation occurred then as now. There is no reason to believe anything has changed internally, magnified by today’s ‘official response’.

[redacted screenshot – click to enlarge]

****

DCC now has a laborious text response as first acknowledgement of the LGOIMA requests it receives. An associate has been working on improvements to the below on suggestion back to the system. The short information request is highlighted by whatifdunedin:

From: officialinformation @dcc.govt.nz
Sent: Monday, 13 March 2017 7:55 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Confirmation of receipt of LGOIMA request – 577864

Dear Elizabeth

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 13 Mar 2017 7:55am

We support public access to official information. Our obligation under the Local Government Official Information Act 1987 (the Act) is to provide you the information requested as soon as reasonably practicable unless there is a good reason for withholding it.

We will process information requests as below:

1. We will let you know as soon as we can (and in any case within 20 working days) whether your request will be granted or declined, and if the request is declined why we have declined it.

1. In some cases it may be necessary for our decision to be made after 20 working days. When this occurs we will advise you the anticipated delivery date together with the reason why it is necessary to extend that time within the 20 working days.

1. If your request is complex or requires a large amount of collation and research, we may contact you with a view to either refining your request or discussing the possibility of charging for aspects of your request in line with the DCC charging policy.

1. If we decide to release the information, we aim to provide it at the same time as we give our decision. If this is not possible we will provide the information as soon as reasonably practicable.

If you need to contact us about your request, please email officialinformation@dcc.govt.nz or call 03 477 4000. Please quote reference number: 577864

The timeliness of our decisions and the reasons for them are reviewable by the Office of the Ombudsman. You can view the Ombudsman’s guidelines for the processing of information requests at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by calling freephone: 0800 802 602.

Yours sincerely,

Official Information Request Service

Below are the details of the request

Your request:

New information request – Warrington Domain

I have been informed that DCC recently ran a survey of the freedom campers at Warrington Domain, asking (in no particular order here):

1. where they were from
2. their age
3. how much they were spending
4. what activities they were doing in Dunedin, and
5. what type of vehicle they were in.

I’m told the survey ran for two weeks; and that it was conducted by Ashley Reid.

I request a full copy of the survey results (with names of campers redacted for privacy), to be received by email at earliest convenience.

I note hearings for the Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw will be held this week. Prompt receipt of the survey information would be enabling. Thanks.

File attachment
No file uploaded

[ends]

*****

Points:

1. The Reserves and Beaches Bylaw review that had hearings this week did not include a review of freedom camping; freedom camping is specifically excluded from this bylaw review. The freedom camping bylaw review is heralded to take place in about a month’s time.

2. The point numbering error in the response of 13 March above is the DCC’s.

3. The running foot, or footer, italicised in red (“Dance like no one is watching; Email like it may one day be read aloud in a deposition.”) in the redacted screenshot above, has been raised with senior staff this afternoon and has since been sorted.

4. The LGOIMA response received today must be seen in light of a response to another request I made for information about Warrington Domain lodged on 22.1.17 [ref no. 570874]:

[excerpt; my underlining]

14. How many freedom campers have been staying at Warrington Domain nightly from 1 July 2016 to 15 January 2017? (please state number of vehicles; and number of individuals if known)

15. What is the average length of stay per vehicle at the Domain?

DCC response (28.2.17):

14) We do not perform a count of freedom campers at each site daily. An estimate may be available as a result of a recent survey that was conducted across camping sites within the city. Please advise if you wish to refine your request to include an estimate of numbers.

15) See the answer to question (14) above.

****

whatifdunedin’s ‘amateur’ response and translation:

WE have the information —WE are going to control it. Let’s play cat and mouse, if it turns out the information is ‘maybe’ awkward or not in OUR political favour [before a Bylaw review]. Besides, WE need processing time to [‘line up ducks’] before the information, analysed…… hits the iPads of elected representatives. Micromanaging is GOOD. Vive la DCC Operatives !!

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 15.2.17 Warrington : DCC dictates loss of community’s grassed recreation reserve to freeloaders
8.2.17 Hands Off Enjoyment of OUR Beaches #DCC
● 6.2.17 Uncontrolled freedom camping at Warrington Domain this weekend —DCC ‘hell model’ [no enforcement]
● 1.2.17 “Fake news” from DCC boffins & Community Board re freedom camping at Warrington Domain #TheBlight
10.2.16 Dunedin freedom camping #DCC #enforcement
16.12.14 DCC: Freedom Camping issues
7.12.09 Coastal protection zones

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: warrington domain, cropped detail of supplied colour photograph taken 14.2.17

Significant tree: 28 Argyle Street Mosgiel – LUC-2015-296

As a community board member and a businessman-resident, Martin Dillon, it seems, has set a precedent for removal of (District Plan listed) Significant Trees from the streets of Mosgiel township. Not only this, his community board supports the destruction of many community-established trees at Mosgiel’s Memorial Gardens – to make way for a new swimming pool complex. Earlier this year the community board was ultimately responsible for destruction of the community’s beautification scheme at Gladstone Road (railway corridor).
That’s one hell of a lot of greenery you’ve seen wiped off the planet, Mr Dillon.
SHAME ON YOU

—

ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL – A COPPER BEECH THIS TIME
The tree is prettier than the freaking house beside it.

Significant tree – 28 Argyle Street Mosgiel – LUC-2015-296
Closes: 28/08/2015
Notification of Application for a Resource Consent – Under Section 93(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
The Dunedin City Council has received the following application for Resource Consent:

Application description
To remove a tree that is listed in the Dunedin City District Plan under Schedule 25.3 as T151 (Copper Beech).

Application documents
● LUC-2015-296 – Public notice (PDF, 34.6 KB)
This document is the Public Notice for Resource Consent application LUC-2015-296

● LUC-2015-296 – Submission 13 form (PDF, 78.2 KB)
This document can be used to make a submission regarding Resource Consent application LUC-2015-296

● LUC-2015-296 – Application (PDF, 530.0 KB)
This document is a scanned copy of the application for resource consent LUC-2015-296

Notified resource consent details
Closing date: 28/08/2015
Consent number: Significant tree – 28 Argyle Street Mosgiel – LUC-2015-296

Name of applicant: M J Sproule & J A Maxwell

Location of site: 28 Argyle Street, Mosgiel, being that land legally described as Lot 3 Deposited Plan, 470637 held in Computer Freehold Register 636380

Address for service: M J Sproule & J A Maxwell, 34A Ayr Street, Mosgiel 9024

Online submissions: Online submission form

█ http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/notified-resource-consents/current-consultation/significant-tree-28-argyle-street-Mosgiel

—

LUC-2015-296 [excerpts from application]

█ DCC on Significant Trees
█ Dunedin City District Plan — Schedule 25.3 Significant Trees (PDF, 275.6 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
24.7.15 Hands off Mosgiel Memorial Gardens
20.3.15 DESTROYED, beautification project —Railway corridor, Gladstone Road
14.12.14 Significant Tree: 23 Church St, Mosgiel [Applicant: M L & M C Dillon]
15.5.14 Significant Tree: 28A Heriot Row
22.2.13 DCC: Significant Trees

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Dunedin Amenities Society on district plan review

Received by email today.

The Dunedin Amenities Society have held strong concerns over aspects of the District Plan for some time, particularly over the way the Plan is integrated with management of public open space and reserves. Sites like the Town Belt are actually being hampered in their management by the imposition of the Urban Landscape Conservation Area rules, which fails to have regard for its status under the Reserves act 1977. The Minister of Conservation approved a management plan for the Town Belt in 2007, but what is the point if the District Plan overrides its principles.

The Society urges all members and people of Dunedin to consider how the reserve conservation areas that we have in Dunedin should be managed and how the District Plan should complement their management rather than impede it.

● The Dunedin Amenities Society established in 1888 is New Zealand’s oldest environmental society.

Visit their website at www.dunedin-amenities-society.org.nz
Follow the Society on Twitter
Visit the Society on Facebook

—

Here is the latest update from the Society’s website:

A Conservation Conundrum
By daseditor

The Dunedin City Council is presently undertaking a review of the District Plan and that review will mean that the Dunedin Amenities Society will also be looking at the implications of those changes. The review includes looking at creating a new open space, reserves and recreation zone which would “reflect the different types of open space and recreation areas”. The current District Plan does not recognise reserve, conservation or recreation areas as distinct entities, but rather classifies them within the zone of the surrounding land. The problem with that approach is that the activities and land use that is associated with reserve, conservation or recreation sites is often quite distinct to the surrounding land use zones. Reserve sites such as the Town Belt are often over-arched with a wider zone classification such as the “Urban Landscape Conservation Area”. Thus the rules of the District Plan override the legal protection status of the reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 without fully understanding the nature of the reserve or its values. This creates inherent problems for reserves like the Town Belt when dealing with very real conservation management issues.
In one example the current District Plan actually hampers the ability of the Council to manage areas of high conservation significance. The rules (13.8.2) associated with the management of bush within Urban Landscape Conservation Areas have inadvertently protected the highly invasive Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). Vegetation removal in these zones is a discretionary activity, which is infinitely sensible as it protects flora and fauna on private land. However, under the District Plan the rule “does not apply where the plants to be removed are listed in any Regional Pest Plant Management Strategy applying to the district of Dunedin City”. Here lies the conservation conundrum because sycamore is not included in the Otago Regional Council’s Pest Plant Management Strategy (that’s a whole other post at a later time). Which means that under the current Urban Landscape Conservation Area rules sycamore becomes classified as “bush” and the removal of individual mature seed bearing sycamore cannot be undertaken without resource consent.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Coastal protection zones

### ODT Online Mon, 7 Dec 2009
Public to have say on coastal reserves
By Chris Morris
Members of the public have until mid-January* to have their say on a new management plan for coastal reserves around Dunedin. Dunedin City Council staff have identified 11 coastal reserves across the city – including at Brighton, Karitane, Long Beach, Ocean View, Waikouaiti and Warrington – to be reclassified under the council’s draft coastal dune reserve management plan.
Read more

*There is no way the closing date for submissions would be mid-January.
DCC will need to correct press statements in accordance with its website information.

The Dunedin City Council website entry says:

Draft Coastal Dune Reserves Management Plan
Consultation Starts 25/11/2009
Closes* 12/03/2010

—

Proposal

The Dunedin City Council has prepared a draft management plan for those reserves that are located in the coastal dune environment.

The Draft Management Plan includes the following reserves that are vested in the Dunedin City Council:

* Brighton Reserve
* Island Park Reserve
* Karitane Esplanade Reserves
* Karitane Spit
* Kuri Bush Reserve
* Long Beach reserve
* Ocean Grove Reserve
* Ocean View Reserve
* Te Rauone Reserve
* Waikouaiti Domain (Beachfront area)
* Warrington Reserve

Interested parties are invited to lodge written submissions on the draft Plan. Submissions must be received by the Dunedin City Council before 5pm Friday 12 March 2010. For further information please contact the Dunedin City Council by phoning 477 4000.

Consultation documents

The reports and documents are available here in .PDF format.

Draft Coastal Management Plan (PDF, 821.9 kb, new window)
The Draft Management Plan includes the reserves that are vested in the Dunedin City Council:

Submission Form (PDF, 13.3 kb, new window)
Use this form to lodge your submission

Appendices to the Plan (PDF, 2.6 mb, new window)
Appendices

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr