Tag Archives: Resource management

Dairying, Housing : More on Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

Water resource management [lincoln.ac.nz] 1Irrigation [lincoln.ac.nz]

█ Interpretation of the existing RMA has led to dairy intensification destroying waterways and threatening public health and welfare, in large measure.
A bit of a tour….

### Stuff.co.nz Last updated 14:29, March 23 2016
Canterbury rumbly-gut outbreak linked to dairying
By Pat Deavoll
An outbreak of “rumbly-gut” among communities in Canterbury has Waikato veterinarian and agri-ecology consultant Alison Dewes concerned. She thinks the outbreak is the result of dairy intensification and irrigation contaminating public drinking water. Thirty per cent of the region’s shallow wells have already experienced an increase in nitrogen and pathogen levels after 10-15 years of irrigation on shallow lighter soils, she says. “We have the highest rates of ecoli diseases in the world, and the highest rate of campylobacter, cryptosporidia and giardia in communities in the Hinds region. We have the highest rates of zoonoses (disease spread from animals to humans) in the world in some of the irrigated/dairy catchments like Selwyn and Hinds and the government is promoting a further 40,000ha of irrigation in an already allocated and at risk catchment. Economics and dairy intensification are trumping public health and welfare.”
Read more

****

### NZ Herald Online 8:42 AM Wednesday Mar 9, 2016
40pc of farms fail to lodge consents
By Zaryd Wilson – Wanganui Chronicle
Forty per cent of dairy farms required to lodge a resource consent application with Horizons Regional Council have not done so. A total of 229 dairy operations were required to have lodged an application by January 1 this year under the regional council’s One Plan, which aims to limit nitrogen pollution of waterways. The One Plan – adopted by the council in 2014 – limits nitrogen leaching by intensive farm operations, namely dairy, commercial horticulture, cropping and intensive sheep and beef farming. Figures released to the Chronicle under the Official Information Act reveal that only 137 of the 229 dairy operations which came under new rules have lodged consent applications. The new rules took effect on July 1 last year, and farms had six months – up until January 1 – to apply.
Read more

****

Wetland copy-header [nzarm.org.nz] 1Wetlands [nzarm.org.nz]

26.11.15 NZH: Resource Management Act reforms to be introduced
The Government will introduce its long awaited Resource Management Act reforms to Parliament next week after securing the support of the Maori Party. The reforms to the country’s main planning document stalled two years ago when National’s support partners refused to back them because of their potential impact on the environment.

Ministry for the Environment

About the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
This page has information on the amendments proposed in 2015 to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill [New Zealand Legislation website]
The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (the Bill) was introduced to Parliament on 26 November 2015.

****

Leading New Zealand law firm Chapman Tripp say:
OPINION Most of the provisions in the Bill have been telegraphed in advance so there is little to surprise. If passed as drafted, it has the capacity to reduce costs and speed up planning processes – but probably only at the margins. For more radical and meaningful change we may have to await the results of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into urban planning (see Chapman Tripp’s commentary here, dated 2.11.15).

RMA Reform Bill – busy with change but less than National wanted
Chapman Tripp 26 November 2015
OPINION The ‘phase two’ RMA reforms, initially to have been passed in 2014, have now finally been introduced to Parliament as the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. The Bill is a busy piece of legislation running to more than 200 pages, and aims to help streamline planning and consenting processes. But National has had to abandon its proposals to remove the “hierarchy” some saw as enshrined in the existing Part 2 of the RMA, promoting environmental values ahead of economic development in sections six and seven. After the loss of the Northland seat to Winston Peters in March, it does not have the votes to get the wider and more far-reaching changes through. We look at the Bill:
Major changes
● Requiring councils to follow national planning templates (once such templates are available) with standardised provisions across the country.
● A range of measures aimed at producing faster, more flexible planning processes. These include: tighter timelines for plan production and the introduction of two new tracks – a collaborative track and a streamlined track.
● Reduced requirements for consents – allowing councils discretion not to require a resource consent for minor changes, creating a new 10 day fast-track for simple consents and eliminating the need for an RMA consent when consenting is provided for in other legislation.
● Stronger national direction – especially in relation to hot-button issues like providing for new housing or addressing dairy stock in rivers.
Read more

Blue skies review for urban planning – the take-off
Chapman Tripp 15 January 2016
OPINION The blue skies review into urban planning has now left the runway, with the release by the Productivity Commission before Christmas of an issues paper seeking feedback on possible directions for change.

Continue reading

7 Comments

Filed under Agriculture, Architecture, Business, Construction, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design

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 confidential report on Industrial Land (March 2004)

Received today.

This leak in regards to DCC’s establishment of a new industrial zone bordered by Dukes Road (Industrial Variation 9B)…. is an unsubtle reminder of the number of Council-issued claims over the years about the extent (or lack of) industrially zoned land at Dunedin, particularly for argument in evidence (or was it lies and hearsay) at very significant plan change hearings.

Interpretations please!

[click each page to enlarge]

DCC Confidential Report INDUSTRIAL LAND Peter Brown 29 March 2004 p1DCC Confidential Report INDUSTRIAL LAND Peter Brown 29 March 2004 p2DCC Confidential Report INDUSTRIAL LAND Peter Brown 29 March 2004 p3DCC Confidential Report INDUSTRIAL LAND Peter Brown 29 March 2004 p4

█ Download: DCC Confidential Report – Industrial Land 29 March 2004
(PDF, 1 MB)

Related ODT stories:

### ODT Online Mon, 12 Oct 2015
Property sales loss $1.07m
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council has spent $5.6 million buying up houses, and even a farm, to smooth the path for industrial development on the Taieri. The purchases were detailed in documents released to the Otago Daily Times, which also showed the council has lost $1.07 million after on selling many of the properties for significantly smaller sums.
Read more

### ODT Online Mon, 12 Oct 2015
Council’s treatment of couple criticised
By Chris Morris
A retired couple forced to fight for five years to sell their farm to the Dunedin City Council were left with “a noose around their necks”, Cr Kate Wilson says. William and Fiona Smeaton owned the 15 ha farm sold to the council for $1.725 million in December last year.
Read more

ODT got led down the garden path by this couple, it appears. It’s out that they don’t have to meet the rates increase while they’re farming – only on conversion to industrial use would the land owner pay $10,000 pa, you say? The poor things had to work more jobs to meet the rates demand, yeah right – TUI.

A quick look at DCC Webmaps for 91 Dukes Road shows (linked to the rates account) the land use as “12 Rural Industry : Stock Finishing”, Total Annual Rates $4,596.60…. tsk tsk.

More at this thread: DCC considers sale of “149 properties”

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

20 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

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

Chris Trotter on National’s “developers’ charter” #RMA reforms

John Key PM + Nick Smith at Hobsonville housing development 24.8.14 [Hannah Peters - Getty Images AsiaPac]

The Never-Ending Suburban Dream: Dr Nick Smith’s purported determination to make housing more affordable by “reforming” the Resource Management Act has been widely derided as little more than a National Party recommitment to the urban development model of the 1950s and 60s. In short, to quote Peter Dunne, “a developers’ charter”.

Chris Trotter [radiolive.co.nz]### bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz
Friday, 23 January 2015 at 08:53
New Zealand Doesn’t Need A “Developers’ Charter”
By Chris Trotter
THE LAWYERS and the environmental lobbyists are already gnawing at Dr Nick Smith’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA). Forewarned by the National-led Government’s first, abortive, foray into environmental law reform back in 2013, a forearmed Opposition has this week re-joined the battle with renewed energy.
The United Future leader, Peter Dunne, has warned against turning the RMA into a “Developers’ Charter” – a potent political riff upon which his parliamentary colleagues have been only-too-happy to extemporise.
Has the Prime Minister, rubbing shoulders with 1 percent of 1 percent of the 1 Percent at Davos, given equal heed to the venerable Member for Ohariu? Given that few politicians’ appreciation of middle-class New Zealanders’ tics and tells is stronger than Mr Dunne’s, if John Key isn’t paying attention to him, then he should – and soon.
Not that, in the brutal numbers game that determines whether a piece of legislation succeeds or fails, Mr Key needs the endorsement of Mr Dunne. The parliamentary arithmetic of environmental law reform requires no complicated figuring. The Act Party’s grace-and-favour MP for Epsom, David Seymour, has already signalled (well in advance of any actual shouts of “Division called for!”) that he will be supplying Dr Smith with the single vote necessary (in addition to National’s 60 votes) to ensure the passage of the Government’s environmental reforms.
Which is, when you think about it, extraordinary. With sixty MPs, National’s current parliamentary caucus is, by historical standards, a large one. It is also slavishly obedient.
[…] It has been a very long time indeed since a National Party politician “crossed the floor” in any kind of procedurally meaningful context. For many years now absolute caucus discipline has not only been assumed – it has prevailed.
Such robotic compliance is not good for the health of National’s caucus; the wider National Party organisation; nor, ultimately, for that of parliamentary democracy itself. Voters need to believe that there are at least some MPs whose definitive allegiance is to values and principles more enduring than the arguments of their Party Whip. On matters crucial to both the social and the natural environments, the practice of representative democracy should rise above the crude calculations of purely partisan arithmetic. It should be about reason and science; about being persuaded by the evidence and securing the greatest good for the greatest number.
Replacing New Zealand’s much admired RMA with a “Developers’ Charter” would be about none of those things.
Read more

█ This essay was originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 23 January 2015.

Related Posts and Comments:
19.1.15 Housing affordability in this country is “just hopeless” –Hugh Pavletich
17.1.15 Ian Athfield dies #architecture
31.12.14 New building laws —happy new year!
9.11.14 Dunedin: Housing upgrade and “rearrangement”
24.10.14 DCC 2GP (district plan): Residential parking + Medium density housing
16.5.14 Dunedin housing
19.3.14 State Housing matters
2.3.14 Dunedin’s social housing need —they built a bastard stadium
12.2.14 DCC: Growth v development contributions
12.6.13 Dunedin housing: building up or Brown-like sprawl #intensification…
30.7.12 National Govt puts champagne and stadium before shelter housing
14.4.12 How perverse is the New Zealand housing market?
8.12.11 interest.co heats NZ housing debate – listen up
13.3.11 Foster on Christchurch rebuild – typical architect… #eqnz
26.12.10 New Zealand housing, a sorry tale

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: (top) Hannah Peters/Getty Images AsiaPac – John Key PM and Nick Smith at Hobsonville housing development (August 2014); radiolive.co.nz – Chris Trotter tweaked by whatifdunedin

10 Comments

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

Southern Region, serving itself —or professional rugby (and Sky TV)

### ODT Online Tue, 1 Jul 2014
Opinion
Fresh thinking needed in local government
By Ciaran Keogh
Perhaps it is time to look at a far-reaching reform of the way local government functions at both local and regional level. There are substantial efficiencies to be gained from integrating many council functions across the councils within the region. More than 10 years ago I did away with all IT functions at the Clutha District Council and merged these with Invercargill City. This model would work for all of the councils across all of Otago and Southland for little more than it currently costs Dunedin City Council to run its IT services.
Some fresh thinking needs also to be applied to the stadium and the first of these should be the monopoly that rugby has over it and the grass surface.
Read more

● Ciaran Keogh is a former chief executive of the Clutha District Council, Wakool Shire in the Riverina region of New South Wales, and Environment Southland. He now lives in Dunedin.

****

Crowds had been down right across the five New Zealand franchises but that was a worldwide trend, with fewer people attending events.

### ODT Online Tue, 1 Jul 2014
Rugby: Crowds can’t fall any further – Clark
By Steve Hepburn
The Highlanders met budget for crowds this year but have warned they cannot dip any lower if the franchise is to remain viable. In the eight games the Highlanders hosted at Forsyth Barr Stadium this year, 98,326 people came through the gate, an average crowd of 12,291 per game. […] A crowd of 11,070 attended the last home game, the win over the Chiefs, a figure that did not exactly delight Highlanders general manager Roger Clark.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, DCC, DVML, Economics, Events, Highlanders, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORC, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Queenstown Lakes, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Hotel: Rosemary McQueen on consent decision LUC 2012-212 (41 Wharf St)

41 Wharf Street, Dunedin 1 (DCC WebMap)41 Wharf Street, Dunedin (DCC WebMap)

Copy supplied.
Also published at Otago Daily Times (page 17).

### ODT Online Wed, 26 Feb 2014
Opinion
Hotel decision was legal, not political
By Rosemary McQueen
Two related misapprehensions run through nearly all the comment on the application to build a 27-storey residential building in the industrial zone.

The first is that the reason the development was rejected was that a minority of noisy nay-sayers objected to the proposal. Yet, had 500 supporters put in submissions and only 4 or 5 naysayers, the decision would have been the same. The decision was not made on the basis of counting heads (though no doubt the planners were gratified that the District Plan’s provisions were so whole-heartedly supported by the populace) but on the basis of law. The developers want to build their accommodation block in an industrial area. Residential activity is specifically excluded from this area and only allowed at the discretion of the court hearing the application. Discretionary treatment can only be accorded if the effects of the variation to what is allowed are minor and the general intention accords with the aims and objectives of the district plan. The applicants’ arguments to this effect were rejected at law – not by counting heads. Until that decision is found to be wrong, or those aspects of the proposal change, it can not proceed.

There is also a view that the the city council could and should have found a way of overturning – or at least of getting round – the planning committee’s decision. This is a misapprehension because the decision is a legal one that can only be overturned by a higher court and the council is not a court. The negotiations that have been taking place have been around trying to find a site and design that complies with the city’s district plan and the developers’ needs. By describing the setback to the development as “red tape” the ODT implied that the development’s lack of progress since being rejected by the planning committee is caused by overweening bureaucracy. But Ms Song has made clear that the site and design are not negotiable. How can the lack of progress be the fault of red tape when the impediment is so clearly the developers’ intransigence, despite having had their application for that site and design turned down because it doesn’t meet the law?

By insisting the proposal is non-negotiable during their discussion with the city, the developers appear to believe that overturning the planning decision is on the discussion’s agenda and within the council’s power. Instead of dismissing any such suggestion, the ODT and the Chamber of Commerce have encouraged them in the view that the council can change or flout the law in order to allow the development to go ahead. Fostering these misapprehensions has led to unnecessary division in the city. It’s time to stop accusing bureaucrats and antis of holding up progress and start explaining why changes to our built environment are not effected by political whim, but are, and need to be, conducted by rule of law that has undergone full democratic process.

ODT Link

Related Posts and Comments:
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

18 Comments

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

DCC governance = management ?

QUESTIONS
Mayor & Councillors | City Property | City Planning | Strategy and Development Team | Council-owned Companies | Consenting Processes | Conflicts

On selling council-owned property…. [public notification restricted]

[Mr McLaren] told the Otago Daily Times he was not consulted about the proposal, in part because he was a commercial rival. However, he was also a resident living in a house that overlooked the proposed development site from Braeview Cres….

### ODT Online Tue, 30 Apr 2013
Anger over motor caravan park plan
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council will consider allowing a new motor caravan park to be developed near Woodhaugh Gardens, just metres away from a rival camping spot. […] The New Zealand Motor Caravan Association has applied to the council for consent to establish the park at 51, 55 and 57 Woodhaugh St, on a vacant residential site next to houses and the Leith Stream. […] The proposal was deemed non-complying under the district plan, but attracted only four submissions – three of them opposed – after public notification was restricted to surrounding neighbours deemed to be affected.
Read more

****

Only yesterday . . . [heading to non-notified consent]

### ODT Online Mon, 29 Apr 2013
New supermarket plan hailed
By Chris Morris
A planned multimillion-dollar supermarket development in Green Island could bring jobs and investment and trigger wider improvements in the area, a Dunedin city councillor says. Progressive Enterprises is in talks with the Dunedin City Council aimed at developing a Fresh Choice supermarket on land between Main South Rd and Shand St.
Read more

Related Post and Comments:
29.4.13 Green Island activity centre

****

Last year . . . [non-notified application, loss of oldest brewery building on site]

### ODT Online Fri, 17 Aug 2012
Speight’s demolition to make way for expansion
By Chris Morris
Part of the Speight’s Brewery in Dunedin will be demolished to make room for the $29 million expansion of its operation. […] The company announced its intention to redevelop the brewery last year, after earthquake damage to the Canterbury Brewery, and began by relocating its Maltexo production plant to Dunedin in May this year.
Read more

### ODT Online Sat, 18 Aug 2012
Questions over consent for Speight’s
By Chris Morris
Heritage advocates are questioning why the public was not given a say about the demolition of a protected part of Speight’s Brewery in Dunedin.
Read more

****

Property acquisition for the stadium and SH88 developments . . .
[the hornet’s nest]

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 18:04 20/11/2012
Dunedin City Council fined for road botch up
By Wilma McCorkindale – DScene
A High Court decision has slammed Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) handling of a roading realignment in the city, ordering the cash -strapped authority to pay affected parties more than $185,000 in costs. Justice Alan Mackenzie indicated in a written decision the legality of the stretch of State Highways 1 and 88 through the city remained in question because of the council’s botch up.
Read more

Judgment-221310 (PDF, 109 KB)

Related Post and Comments:
20.11.12 Dunedin City Council vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”

****

Then there was Delta . . . [property acquisition at Jacks Point and Luggate, which names in common]

### ODT Online Thu, 25 Apr 2013
Delta investigation ‘major’
By Chris Morris
The Office of the Auditor-general considers its investigation into land purchases by Dunedin City Council-owned company Delta to be one of its major inquiries for the coming year. Results of the investigation might not be made public for some months, at the earliest. The OAG’s draft annual plan for the 2013-14 year, published last week, detailed work planned for the 12 months from July 1. The plan listed the Delta investigation as one of the “major inquiries” to be reported on during the year. The investigation into Delta’s $14.12 million land purchases in 2008 and 2009 at Luggate, near Wanaka, and Jacks Point, near Queenstown, was confirmed last November.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

22 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, Design, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Media, Name, NZHPT, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design

Fresh veggies, a holiday mystery

As many will know, I take a keen interest in who deals in fresh market produce around the city.

Years ago, a tiny group of us set up Otago Farmers Market at Dunedin Railway Station (opened March 2003) to ensure local market gardeners and food producers had at least a fighting chance to survive against the duopoly supermarkets trucking in old (no longer fresh) fruit and vegetables from the North Island; and to provide a market alternative to export given the high compliance costs besetting small orchards.

Otago Farmers Market logo download(1)We aimed to get the city’s ‘urbanistas’ to talk to Otago’s rural folk by adopting a Saturday market ritual – prior to opening we researched our business model to death (given the exact nature of Dunedin food retailing and the customer base, and the availability of suitable vendors) in the attempt to keep overheads down so small local producers could make the real profits. And that is what happened.

The farmers market has spawned new businesses and new employment. We always envisioned the market as a business incubator. We also hoped our hard work – in just a couple of years it became a multimillion dollar enterprise (for the vendors) – would eventually spur other small independent farmers markets to set up in the region to give vendors more chances of selling – and so they have, with varying degrees of success and failure.

While we know Otago Farmers Market has the numbers, the solid customer base at Dunedin – there is absolutely no room for organiser complacency. Some of that, I believe, and a lack of strategic business thinking, timing and network connections on the part of the organisers was responsible for the failure of the trial market venue in South Dunedin. They may have misread the location as much as the trading climate, more diligence was required.

At the Railway Station we saw every trick in the book committed by vendors (not the majority of vendors, I note) to earn cash by means not covered in the vendor contract they sign. That is the nature of a cash economy, the cowboys and cowgirls try it on. Behind scenes, we met mid-week with our accountant to look over business and enforce contracts, measuring these against what happened on site on Saturdays – we attended all Saturday markets checking the ‘pump’ as well as greeting customers at the gate, year in year out, rain hail or shine. Were we over-possessive? – No. We were learning the whole dynamic, firming systems for the avoidance of kinks. A farmers market will never be perfect, but it has to try!

Those who now run Otago Farmers Market continue to be vigilant – the need to focus on quality control was never more relevant – this is what we the initiators and founding trustees set great store by (to use a phrase), we rigorously policed things as the market evolved. When we each handed over to new management on pursuit of other projects about town we expected our long-view objectives to be followed and maintained as best business practice.

http://www.otagofarmersmarket.org.nz/

I called into Veggie Boys in Albany Street before Christmas, it’s near where I live, fresh flowers posed at the door for sale is a bonanza for the apartment dweller. The ‘boys’ Barry Gazeley and Marty Hay opened a store in Cumberland St in late 2011; their Albany St store opened in July 2012. They claim they’re meeting a gap in the market for locally grown produce (Otago Southland). Good on them I thought, after reading this profile: Dream comes true for Veggie Boys (ODT 26.4.12).

Google tells me Anderson & Co Resource Management has worked on planning matters for Veggie Boys.

http://www.facebook.com/veggieboys

After much delay I finally got out to Wal’s Plant Land at Mosgiel, run by Clive Wallis, to check into the new Topiary Cafe there. We’ve been great fans of Richard and Michelle Denhardt’s last venture, ‘No. 8 Cafe w Herbs’ at Outram (now closed); the two of us were keen to sample their food and coffee, again.

We spent a pleasant couple of hours at Wal’s, and had a good look around the site – it’s a really nice place to visit. There were couples and families about. We were surprised to see a new Veggie Boys outlet. Their third outlet? They must be doing well. We made some plant purchases, and left feeling very pleased with ourselves.

When we got back to town I was a bit curious. Towards the end of last year I was in and out of DCC’s online consents records following progress on Outram subdivisions and what not, I hadn’t noticed an application for Veggie Boys (109 Bush Road). Anything commercial in the rural zone sparks my interest, being a country girl averse to life-stylers carving up the countryside. Bane of the earth!

Anyway, I checked non-notified decisions, public notices and notified decisions. I might’ve missed something, I couldn’t find a resource consent for Veggie Boys to trade from Wal’s site.

I’m mystified – when I think about it, given all the activities going on at Wal’s, and what I can’t see on the council record, online at least, there appears to be more to look into consents-wise. I don’t know if anyone else has noticed. Maybe council staff have overlooked loading up the website. I’ll have to check the paperwork at City Planning when I get time.

Nurseryman turns dreams into reality (ODT 3.11.12)
Veggie Boys profile picture

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

62 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Fun, Media, Name, People, Project management, Property, Site, Town planning

City planner’s report recommends against consent for hotel

UPDATED 21.11.12

See comments at this thread:

Ro https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/dunedin-hotel-41-wharf-street-luc-2012-212/#comment-29089

Elizabeth https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/dunedin-hotel-41-wharf-street-luc-2012-212/#comment-29090

“What Heydary found came as a shock, especially to some buyers who readily admit they were so blinded by the flash and cash of Donald Trump that they didn’t do proper due diligence: Buyers weren’t purchasing so much a condo as a share in a high-end hotel that, so far at least, is losing money.”

Trump Tower developer suing 7 disgruntled investors to close deals they now regret

Anonymous provided this edifying read. It ‘trumps’ what happened with the first tower built at Orewa, and the Spencer on Byron at Takapuna (referred to elsewhere at What if?, or google) – as far as 41 Wharf Street, Dunedin is concerned the tower-scam model is the same. So here we are, naive and wide open to the wiles of our own ‘good old boys’ and their unsavoury quest for a share of dirty-quick money from fickle overseas ‘connections’, and your life savings too.

### ODT Online Wed, 21 Nov 2012
DCC report opposes city hotel
By Chris Morris
Plans for a 28-storey waterfront hotel towering over Dunedin have been dealt a blow by a Dunedin City Council report that criticises the design and recommends resource consent be declined. The report by council planner Lianne Darby, made public yesterday, identified the hotel’s height and dominant appearance as among areas of concern. A host of technical worries also raised doubts, ranging from traffic problems and shading to a lack of information about wind gusts magnified by the tower’s height. Ms Darby’s report left the door ajar by including a list of detailed conditions to impose if consent were granted, despite her recommendation.
Read more

Source: ODT Files

Note to graphic: Under the Resource Management Act (RMA) the commissioners to hear the application cannot consider the economic viability of the proposed hotel project – the matters with a red cross, at right, fall within the scope of the Act. The applicant is required to show the adverse effects of the proposed development are no more than minor.

Read Post Application Information at DCC website

‘New information’ about the hypothetical footbridge cannot be considered at hearing since it was NOT included in the notified application.

### ODT Online Tue, 20 Nov 2012
Hotel developer unveils link bridge proposal
By Chris Morris
The man promoting Dunedin’s proposed 28-storey hotel has unveiled plans for a “world class” pedestrian and cyclist bridge that could provide a missing link to the city’s waterfront. However, the idea is only the “starting point for a discussion”, with key details – including how much the sweeping structure would cost and who would pay for it – yet to be confirmed, Betterways Advisory Ltd director Steve Rodgers said.
Read more

Source: Ignite Architects Ltd (via ODT)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

15 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Design, Economics, Heritage, Media, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design