Tag Archives: Resource Management Act

OPINIONS : Otago Southland regional tourism

– Southland regional strategy pumps for another 10,000 residents
– Central Otago looking at healthy linkages – Chinese gold mining trail
– Queenstown Lakes means ‘business’, flourishing! [infrastructure demands]
– Quelle surprise, Dunedin City Council criticised on visitor strategy (what tourism plan ?)….

Broadcast from RNZ’s Dunedin studio
### radionz.co.nz 5 Jan 2017 at 5:12 pm
Outspoken: The Future of the Deep South Link
In this Outspoken, a panel chaired by RNZ’s Otago/Southland reporter, Ian Telfer, looks at the deep south of the country – what is the future for the country’s most southern region and how successful is the push to get more people to shift there?
Audio | Download: Ogg MP3 (27′22″)

● Virginia Nicholls, CEO, Otago Southland Employers Association
● Norcombe Barker, Director of Larnach Castle, tourism leader and board member of Dunedin Host
● Tim Cadogan, Mayor of Central Otago (speaking by phone)

****

Just a tiny amount of what we know, from the Interior, in no geographical order whatsoever…. click on photo for source or go to Comments for credits.

queenstown-airport-day-aerial-photo-queenstown-airportss-earnslaw-engine-room-realjourneys-co-nzss-earnslaw-engine-room-real-journeys-shuttlerock-cdn-comcromwell-uniquelynz-comthe-nevis-bungy-aj-hackett-bungy-new-zealand-bungy-co-nzgrays-mining-earnscleugh-infomine-comabandoned-farm-homestead-becks-by-shellie-evans-flyingkiwigirl-at-flickr-comvulcan-hotel-aatravel-co-nzblue-lake-st-bathans-by-mclennan-outsideonline-comhayes-engineering-works-homestead-dbijapkm3o6fj-cloudfront-nethayes-engineering-shed-interior-otagocentralrail-trail-co-nzhayes-engineering-at-night-oturehua-by-simon-east-heritage-org-nzgibbston-central-otago-valli-vineyard-winetoursnz-comqueenstown-queenstownnz-co-nzqueenstown-the-mall-powderhounds-comskippers-canyon-adventurestoday-orgqueenstown-canyoning-canyoning-co-nzqueenstown-white-water-rafting-somekindofwanderlust-comclyde-dam-nzgeo-comdrybread-cemetery-omakau-otagocentralrailtrail-co-nzhyde-central-otago-talltalestravelblog-files-wordpress-compoolburn-viaduct-otago-central-rail-trail-by-m-hammel-ibike-dkqueenstown-par-3-in-the-sky-helicopter-golf-twistedsifter-files-wordpress-comthe-hills-clubhouse1-thehills-co-nzthe-hills-clubhouse-architect-pattersons-comhydro-attack-trover-queenstown-trover-comss-earnslaw-airnz-comair-new-zealand-queenstown-legacypartners-co-nz

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

2 Comments

Filed under Business, Central Otago, DCC, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Hotel, Infrastructure, Inspiration, Media, Museums, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, Resource management, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, What stadium

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 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

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.

2GP Dave green monsters

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

1 Comment

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORC, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design

DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)

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

Letter from Simon Pickford 19.11.15 - 2GP extensions

DCC Public Notice 2GP extensions 19.11.15

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

2GP extension (1)

█ 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

11 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hotel, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Site, Structural engineering, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

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.

2GP banner

█ 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)

ODT 18.11.15 Letter to editor Vandervis p14 (1)

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

ODT 17.11.15 Letter to editor Oaten p6

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

27 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, LGNZ, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

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.

2GP banner

█ 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

19 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

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.

20151003_184533

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.
voting bloc

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.

2GP banner

█ 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

16 Comments

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

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.

Proposed 2GP graphic [ODT files - tweaked by whatifdunedin]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.

2GP banner

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

38 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Resource management

DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY

2GP banner

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)

ODT 12.10.15 Opinion Pickford p7 (1)

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

54 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, Otago Polytechnic, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”

2GP banner

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).

Useful 3.10.15 banner 2

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)
Proposed 2GP - 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

14 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, LGNZ, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, SFO, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation

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

DCC appointees to district plan [Douglas Field]

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

2GP banner

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

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

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

2GP banner

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

9 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Media, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)

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

2GP banner

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

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.

Dunce = DCC [via cliparts.co]
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
2GP banner

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

26 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, SFO, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

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

2GP banner

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

8 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Dunedin Amenities Society, Economics, Geography, Heritage, LGNZ, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, OAG, Ombudsman, Otago Polytechnic, People, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Resource management, SFO, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Structural engineering, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design

DCC: Natural Hazards

Abbotsford landslide 1979 (GNS Science, Dunedin) via ORCMass 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

14 Comments

Filed under #eqnz, Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Geography, New Zealand, ORC, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Housing affordability in this country is “just hopeless” –Hugh Pavletich

Housing Minister Nick Smith and Auckland Mayor Len Brown announcing special housing Sept 2014 [radionz.co.nz]

September 2014. Another 17 Special Housing Areas were revealed in Auckland, under the plan to accelerate new home building – only two of them outside the suburbs. Housing Minister Nick Smith and Auckland Mayor Len Brown announcing the special housing. Link Photo: Radio New Zealand

### NZ Herald Online 9:15 AM Monday Jan 19, 2015
Property: Mad truths on home prices in Auckland
Auckland housing affordability has worsened and it remains one of the 10 least affordable big cities in the world. Auckland’s surging housing market is now only slightly cheaper than London but pricier than Los Angeles, Toronto, New York, Perth, Brisbane and Boston.

█ The latest Demographia survey (1.74 MB), released today, compares prices with incomes in 378 cities, including 86 with more than one million people.

Auckland is one of the most unaffordable places due to its high house prices and low incomes. […] Now, the median house price has climbed to $613,000 and income to $75,100, giving a multiple of 8.2 and maintaining Auckland’s top 10 spot for unaffordable major cities.
Property Council chief Connal Townsend blamed Auckland Council’s planning regulations. “We’ve got houses more expensive than LA. How is this possible? A dump in Pt Chevalier demands a million dollars, which gets you a mansion in Beverly Hills. We’ve reached the point of madness.”
Survey authors Hugh Pavletich of Christchurch and Wendell Cox of the United States criticised the Government and Auckland Council for failing to ease affordability by vastly increasing housing supply via the Housing Accord and its 80 Special Housing Areas, but said the situation was bad in other areas too.

█ Building and Housing Minister Nick Smith said housing affordability problems went back 25 years but the Government was planning additional reforms this year, particularly around the Resource Management Act.

Analysis: So … what can be done?
Auckland is extraordinarily expensive relative to incomes and rents but the solutions need to be broader than what Demographia argues on land supply, writes Shamubeel Eaqub, principal economist at the NZIER.
Read more

Auckland Housing Accord (2014)
Under the terms of the accord approved between the Government and the Auckland Council, a total of 39,000 new homes/sections are targeted for approval over the next three years. Not all of those 39,000 have to be found specifically through the accord, as the figure includes all developments that might be approved in Auckland during that period. Link

Special housing areas - expected supply. Auckland 2014-2026 [interest.co.nz]Graphic via interest.co.nz [click to enlarge]

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 09:18, January 19 2015
Auckland in world top ten for housing unaffordability: report
By Laura Walters
The co-author of a survey which found Auckland house prices exceeded those in Los Angeles says housing affordability in this country is “just hopeless”. The 11th annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey classified Auckland as the ninth least affordable major city in the world. Auckland is the 14th least affordable city out of all 378 cities surveyed, and has been rated as “severely unaffordable” in 11 surveys done – less affordable than Los Angeles and the Gold Coast. “It’s just not on, is it? The social injustice of the whole thing’s just dreadful. It’s screwing up people’s lives big time,” said Christchurch-based Hugh Pavletich. When the cost of housing exceeded three times people’s incomes it showed there was a “massive problem” with infrastructure financing and land supply, he said.

NZ HOUSING AFFORDABILITY DROPS
While Auckland’s house prices were extremely high, Tauranga-Western Bay of Plenty, Christchurch and Wellington were also seen in the survey as “severely unaffordable”. Palmerston North-Manawatu and Hamilton-Waikato were “seriously unaffordable”. There were no moderately affordable or affordable markets in New Zealand, according to the survey. “Housing affordability has declined materially in New Zealand’s three largest markets over the last decade.”

Westpac chief economist Dominick Stephens said the high prices of New Zealand houses had a lot to do with the tax regime being favourable to home ownership and property investment compared with other forms of saving or investment.
Read more

Tephra Boulevard and Stonefields housing development, Mt Wellington, Auckland Feb 2012

Todd Property Group with Fletcher Residential – Stonefields is a 110 hectare development at Mt Wellington, located, only 8km from the Auckland Central Business District and next to the established eastern suburbs of Ellerslie, Meadowbank and St Johns. Photo: panoramio.com

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

47 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

John Wickliffe House, 265 Princes Street LUC-2014-203 | Decision

Received by mail this morning, the Decision for the resource consent application (LUC-2014-203) to paint John Wickliffe House in The Exchange.

Phil Page (legal counsel) represented the applicant, Nick Baker of Baker Garden Architects, consulting architect and agent for the Plaza Property Trust.

Declined.

Decision
The final consideration of the application, which took into account all information presented at the Hearing, was held during the public-excluded portion of the Hearing. The Committee reached the following decision after considering the application under the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991. In addition, a site visit was undertaken during the public-excluded portion of the Hearing. The Committee inspected the site and some other buildings referred to during the hearing and this added physical reality to the Committee’s considerations.

That, pursuant to Sections 34A and 104C and after having regard to Part II matters and Section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991, The Dunedin City Council declines consent to the restricted discretionary activity to paint John Wickliffe House on the site at 265 Princes Street, Dunedin, being that land legally described as Section 6 Block XLIV Town of Dunedin held in Computer Freehold Register OT 18A/1024.

Right of Appeal — In accordance with Section 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the applicant and/or any submitter may appeal to the Environment Court against the whole or any part of this decision within 15 working days of the notice of this decision being received.

█ Download: John Wickliffe House LUC-2014-203 Decision 12 11 14

John Wickliffe House - Baker Garden Architects _1JW House exisiting [deltapsych.co.nz]

Acknowledgements

Related Post and Comments:
17.7.14 John Wickliffe House – application to paint exterior

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: Baker Garden Architects – proposed paint scheme; deltapsych.co.nz – John Wickliffe House, existing surfaces

34 Comments

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

John Wickliffe House – application to paint exterior

Updated post 25.12.14

John Wickliffe House - Baker Garden Architects _1LUC-2014-203 Repair and exterior painting 265 Princes Street
Closes: 18/07/2014

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:
Resource consent is sought for a restricted discretionary activity, being the repair and exterior painting of the John Wickliffe House at 265 Princes Street within the North Princes Street/Moray Place/Exchange Townscape Precinct (TH03). The paint will cover the existing precast concrete, the soffit and vertical concrete fins and the steel window frames.

An assessment of effects is provided with the application.

LUC-2014-203 DCC Planner’s Report (PDF, 4.78 MB)

John Wickliffe House proposed paint colours (1)

John Wickliffe House - 'Assessment of effects' Baker Garden Architects [click to enlarge]

John Wickliffe House [primecommercial.co.nz] 1

Related Post and Comments:
13.11.14 John Wickliffe House, 265 Princes Street LUC-2014-203 | Decision

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: Baker Garden Architects (via DCC) – extracts from Application; primecommercial.co.nz – John Wickliffe House

32 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Heritage, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Urban design

Dunedin Harbourside: English Heritage on portside development

By properly and logically establishing the significance of a historic port, plans can be laid that enhance and build on that significance and that incorporate difficult heritage buildings and structures.
–Simon Thurley, English Heritage

Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust registered the Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area on 4 April 2008 (List No. 7767). The historic area takes in properties at 25, 31-33 Thomas Burns Street, Birch Street, Fryatt Street, Fish Street, Willis Street, Cresswell Street, Tewsley Street, Wharf Street, Roberts Street and Mason Street.

nzhpt-dunedin-harbourside-historic-area-2 copyImage: Heritage New Zealand

The Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area is made up of the core of the port operations and associated businesses surrounding the steamer basin at the Upper Harbour in Dunedin which had developed by the first decades of the twentieth century. It includes a major portion of the land in Rattray, Willis and Cresswell Streets which was reclaimed by the end of the nineteenth century. It also includes the Fryatt Street and Cross Wharves, including the wharf sheds on Fryatt Street Wharf, as well as the former Otago Harbour Board Administration Building at the Junction of Birch Street and Cross Wharves, the former British Sailors’ Society Seafarers’ Centre, and the former Briscoe’s Wharf Store and Works on the corner of Birch, Wharf and Roberts Streets [since lost to fire], and the walls and bridge abutment on Roberts Street which are the remnants of the bridge which linked that Street to the city.
Read Registration report here.

Dunedin City Council has refused to list the Dunedin Harbourside Historic Area in the District Plan.

Harbour Basin aerialImage: ODT [screenshot]

### ODT Online Sat, 15 Mar 2014
‘Potential new harbourside developments ‘exciting’
By Chris Morris
Excitement is growing about the potential for fresh development of Dunedin’s harbourside, including a new marine science institute featuring a public aquarium being considered by the University of Otago. The Otago Daily Times understands university staff have already held preliminary talks with Dunedin City Council staff about a possible new marine science institute in the harbourside zone, on the south side of steamer basin. The Otago Regional Council has also met Betterways Advisory Ltd, which wants to build a waterfront hotel in the city, to discuss the ORC’s vacant waterfront site, it has been confirmed.
Read more

Potential for contemporary reuse – Fryatt Street wharfsheds
Dunedin wharf sheds [4.bp.blogspot.com] 1Dunedin wharf sheds [m1.behance.net] 1Images: 4.bp.blogspot.com; m1.behance.net

Historic ports are places that need intelligent interrogation before we start to reinvent them for the future: understanding their heritage significance is the first step.

On the waterfront: culture, heritage and regeneration of port cities

HERITAGE IN REGENERATION: INSPIRATION OR IRRELEVANCE?
By Dr Simon Thurley, Chief Executive, English Heritage

I had better come clean at the start. I live in a port. As it happens, it is a port which was, in its time, and on a different scale, as successful as Liverpool was in its heyday. But that time is rather a long time ago now, in fact over four hundred years. In 1600 my home town of King’s Lynn was amongst Britain’s leading ports, bigger than Bristol in numbers of ships and with trading tentacles reaching into the Baltic and far into the Mediterranean. Lynn’s position as a port was destroyed by the railways and although it still has working docks today the tonnage that passes through is very small. Yet anyone visiting it can instantly see that this was once a port; the customs house, the old quays, the merchants houses, the big market places and the fishermen’s houses all add immeasurably to Lynn’s sense of place.

We not only ask developers to build new structures that respect the old, but we also require them to incorporate old ones that have value.

It is this sense of place, this character, that we at English Heritage will always say that needs to be understood. For us the first and most important thing is that any developer and the relevant local authority should have a full understanding of the place in which major change is are planned. Various tools have been invented over the years to try and help that process. These include characterisation, historical studies, view studies, urban analysis and more. But does this actually make any difference? What happens to the richly illustrated historical reports produced by consultants? Are they handed to architects who then use them as their bible? Are they taken up by the planners and turned into supplementary planning guidance? Or do they just get put on a shelf?

There can be a broad consensus about what constitutes successful development that preserves aesthetic values. The trick for planning authorities is finding a way to capture it.

The answer is that normally it just gets forgotten because for most developers and many local authorities heritage is just a hindrance. If a report on heritage is commissioned they will have ticked off a process that they need to say they have done, but once completed it can be set aside and everyone can get on with the business of making money. Ipswich is an example of this. Like many ports, it has refocused its commercial hub away from the historic centre leaving a lot of land in the historic trading heart for regeneration. The city decided to prepare what it called an Area Action Plan for the redevelopment of the historic port. This included some work on the history, archaeology and development of the area: all very useful. The process was then to take this forward to create a series of planning briefs and master plans to inform individual developments. This would reinforce general points in the action plan about storey heights, vistas and through routes as well as issues about historic character. Regrettably, this latter part was not done and what Ipswich got was lots of poorly designed high-rise flats built on a budget. And they got it with the heritage studies still sitting on a shelf.
Read more

Tobacco Warehouse, Stanley Dock, Liverpool (1903) 1Image: English Heritage – Tobacco Warehouse 1903, Stanley Dock LP

Liverpool World Heritage Site
Liverpool was inscribed as a World Heritage Site as the supreme example of a maritime city and its docks are testimony to that claim. Jesse Hartley’s Albert Dock, opened in 1845, is the finest example of a nineteenth century wet dock in the world while the nearby Canning Graving Docks and Waterloo and Wapping Warehouses are also of note. North of Pier Head with its magnificent ‘Three Graces’, Stanley Dock, Victoria Clock Tower and Salisbury Dock lie derelict, awaiting re-use. Link

Contemporary development — Shed 10 and The Cloud, Queens Wharf, Auckland
Queens Wharf - The Cloud Shed [conventionsnz.co.nz] 1Shed 10, Auckland [queens-wharf.co.nz] 1The Cloud Auckland CBD [queens-wharf.co.nz] 1The Cloud Auckland CBD June 2012 [upload.wikimedia.org] 2Images: (from top) conventionsnz.co.nz; queens_wharf.co.nz; queens_wharf.co.nz; upload.wikimedia.org

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile* or *harbourside* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

23 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hotel, Innovation, Inspiration, Name, New Zealand, NZHPT, ORC, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design

Hotel MOU: DCC #fail

dcc-betterways-mou-detail1

Hotel Memorandum of Understanding (PDF, 297 KB)

Comment received from Rob Hamlin
Submitted on 2014/03/11 at 10:54 am

Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this is the precedent that it sets. The MOU essentially commits the Council to make it happen by whatever means and by whatever council costs are necessary. The ludicrous conflict of interest that this sets up between the Council as developer regulator and Council as developer agent is breezily dismissed early on. If the DCC fails to deliver what the developer wants, then they (we) get to pay all the developer’s costs too. Thereby setting up a situation with considerable motive for the developer to increase the toxicity of this regulatory ‘poison pill’ by inflating these costs a la Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust.

There is nothing in this document that indicates why it is a special case or anything that defines it as a ‘one off’. This means that the next time a large developer wants to carve up rural zoned land on the Taieri or build an exclusive shooting resort next to the Albatross Colony all they have to do is download the .pdf of this MOU from McPravda’s website, replace Jing Song’s name with their own and present it to Cull and Bidrose with a request to ‘please sign this forthwith’. I can see no legal grounds on the basis of equity of treatment of development proposals by the territorial authority upon which Cull and Bidrose could reasonably refuse to do so. Refusal would therefore promptly lead to court action.

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
10.3.14 Hotel: DCC and COC sell out Dunedin community to Chinese trojans
26.2.14 Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

16 Comments

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

Hotel: DCC and COC sell out Dunedin community to Chinese trojans

‘Perceived’ Conflict of Interest:
Dave Cull (also Mayor of Dunedin) has used Steve Rodgers (partner in Rodgers Law; also a director of Betterways Advisory Ltd) as his personal solicitor in recent times. The mayor is welcome to confirm or deny this in order to set the record straight.

Dunedin Hotel proposed [via newstalkzb.co.nz]Dunedin’s Old-Boy CARGO CULT is disabling your City

ODT 21-12-12 screenshotODT Online 21.12.12 (screenshot)

DCC Betterways MOU (detail)

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Next Step for Waterfront Hotel Proposal

This item was published on 10 Mar 2014

Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull and Betterways Advisory Limited have today announced the signing of an agreement to work together to try to achieve the construction of a five-star hotel for Dunedin.

The parties have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that establishes a framework and a process to address issues raised by an earlier resource consent application.

Betterways’ application to build a 27-storey, five-star hotel at 41 Wharf Street was declined resource consent in June last year.

Mr Cull says, “Since that time, the DCC has worked extensively with Betterways to find whether a hotel can be constructed on this site that both realises Betterways’ investment ambitions and benefits the city.”

The DCC and Betterways agree that connectivity issues are a major focus going forward and have committed to work together to seek solutions.

If solutions can be found, the DCC will set up an urban design panel to provide independent design review and subsequent advice. Their focus will be on sustainable development and the creation of a design that contributes to a safe, healthy and attractive urban environment.

The panel will encourage best practice approaches to development, specific to the hotel’s site. This process provides an independent peer review from leaders in a variety of relevant professional institutes, including the development sector, practitioners and academics.

“Urban design panels are widely used in other centres. We’re really delighted to have an opportunity to use this successful formula here in Dunedin, and on such an important project for the city,” Mr Cull says.

Once the design panel and DCC staff members were satisfied the new hotel proposal had resolved the issues, the DCC would initiate a District Plan Change process to change the zoning of the Wharf Street site from industrial so a panel-approved design could be built on the site.

Any development proposal would still be subject to the Resource Management Act.

One of Betterways’ owners, Jing Song, says, “After a very challenging two years, we are delighted that the Council has shown a commitment to our investment in this beautiful city. We know our hotel plans are exciting for Dunedin and we are very pleased to have established a framework to deliver a hotel that meets the desires of the local community.”

The Council agreed to sign the MoU during the non-public part of its meeting on 24 February.

Betterways will make a decision about whether to pursue its appeal when the process agreed through the MoU has advanced enough to show that the proposal will be supported by the Council.

Hotel MOU (PDF, 297 KB)

Contact Mayor of Dunedin on 03 477 4000.

DCC Link

Related Posts and Comments:
26.2.14 Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212
14.2.14 Hotel: The height of arrogance
25.6.13 Hotel/Apartment Tower decision to be appealed

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

ODT 10.3.14: Agreement signed over waterfront hotel

Ch39 Cull Rodgers 10.3.14 (2)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

48 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORC, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium