Category: Politics

The Politics behind the issue or of the day

The Next Steps for the Unitary Plan – All That Feedback and What Happens

·

A Series on this Round of the Unitary Plan before it goes to Formal Notification

Part Three: What happens to all that feedback?

 

The question actually is how do the planners, Local Board and Auckland Plan Committee members (the Councillors) wade through 22,700 pieces of Unitary Plan feedback.

I have not been to Level 22 of the Council building where the planners are busy trudging through all that feedback we sent in and either codifying our replies or sending the more “technical” stuff off for a further look. But, from what I have heard and been briefed on the task is a major undertaking and one I would not envy in a hurry.

As a recap from Part One of this series this is what essentially happens with your feedback:

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE FEEDBACK?

In short three things can happen depending on what you sent in.

If it was pro-forma (and there was 6,500 pieces from 35 groups that did this) it is essentially tallied up and totals assigned to set “topics.” Stuff done on an Excel sheet.

If you wrote an individual submission it can land in one of two places in the codifying exercise. All individual submissions are collated, summarised and codified according to “topic” and will be sent for political direction – usually the Auckland Plan Committee. If in your individual submission you decided to go highly technical (and some did) then your piece is worked over by senior planners and topic experts at a finer level. Your technical points will then be “addressed” accordingly.

To make the point clear; it can be taken that for individual submissions that are collated will be presented and reviewed at direction setting workshops via The Auckland Plan Committee. Collated information is divided by topic and will be worked over by experts who will flesh out the concepts from the submissions and again presented for direction setting at the Committee. I do wish them luck trying to codify and collate my 104 page monster with it covering I think 10 different issues.

…

 

Now Council have pointed out that not all submissions (especially those pro-forma’s) will be raising unique points (hence how the top 5 themes are deduced). Because of this the Council is able to effectively and efficiently build a summary analysis of that particular group of feedback (a theme) which is then fed back to the workshops and Committee.

This codifying and summary analysis (as well as working on the technical and unique material (Manukau as a Second CBD is deemed a unique point)) allows for staggering the discussions of the Unitary Plan with high priority issues going first (currently height and centres). At each workshop the Committee and Local Board (chairs at the moment) have access to the relevant summary analysis material which guides their decision-making and recommendations for direction setting by the Auckland Plan Committee.

Meaning? Lots and lots and LOTS of meetings around tables drinking filter coffee and eating a pile of scones. It also means in reporting the Auckland Plan Committee meetings as they happen I am going to get a numb backside for sitting on a chair for six hours and me hating the cursed air conditioning in Town Hall which plays havoc with my eyes.

So that is basically this is what is happening with your feedback at the moment. I am getting snippets from Local Board Chairs after the workshops some issues that are cropping up. While the debate is robust and Councillors are behaving themselves, the most common issue I am getting is that the summary analysis on the feedback is lacking. That is the codifying has not advanced enough to get anything meaningful from our feedback to the Local Board Chairs so they can work on our points raised with the committee. An issue that will need to be looked at.

 

A Brief Insight to the Inner Workings?

A thought had come to  mind and I am going to email this to the Council tomorrow. Maybe the media could take a guided tour of the process from: those people codifying on Level 22 (some has seen it already but others not), to a snippet of a workshop (say 30 mins of the workshop in action and nothing confidential being discussed at that particular moment) then the Auckland Plan Committee (which is open any how) where the decisions are finalised up.

Why such a guided tour?

To get a snap shot on what goes behind out of the public sight (but not our minds) might go a small way in improving Council’s “comm’s” effort after its C rating by our Deputy Mayor this week. Also the snap shot would keep the city in the loop outside of media releases and help give a better understanding what is happening out of our sight and more to the point why.

Yes we know workshops should be full and frank discussions but for just a 30 minute glimmer the city might be able to just appreciate that little bit more the inner workings of an apparatus that consumes our money.

As I said I’ll email council and give it a crack. Can’t promise much though but one can try.

 

In Part Four of this series I shall take a look at the zoning changes (which is the number one theme in the Unitary Plan right now) as well as the Southern Rural Urban Boundary/

TALKING AUCKLAND

Talking Auckland: Blog of TotaRim Consultancy Limited

TotaRim Consultancy
Bringing Well Managed Progress to Auckland and The Unitary Plan

Auckland: 2013 – YOUR CITY, YOUR CALL

 

 

Looking at Mayoral Candidates

·

First Look at John Palino

 

As we approach October 12 – the Local Government Elections where we vote for Mayor, Councillors, Local Board members and the District Health Boards; Talking Auckland will be keeping an eye on the run up to the day and providing commentary of the hot button issues.

Today we take our first look at mayoral candidate competing again the incumbent Len Brown; John Palino.

First his new networking card that has come off the printers and is now doing the rounds:

You can see on the orange (not red folks) back some basic policy narratives coming into play. Now I did quip when someone asked about hard policy that you can not fit a 7,000 page Unitary Plan style manifesto onto a business card. But, you can start getting people to talk and the card has already done that – so success there.

Let’s take a look at that talking point:

  • Nick Kearney Completely the wrong colour!! That’s bloody Labour’s colour!! What is he thinking. And this “Sorting out traffic congestion” is just pointless. People have promised that for 30years and still look where we are.
    • Ben Ross Now now Nick – go read my blog posts on why Williamson got trumped. Old Labour vs National, C&R vs City Vision is disappearing if not gone from Super City elections. Playing the blue on one side and red on the other would illustrate bi-partisan and easy traversing between the divide – something I do and did with the UP with extreme ease  

      Plus hey – the “pointless” point worked if it has you talking. Effective Political Marketing (like advertising) 101

 

As we move into the formal campaign period starting July 12 followed by the six week “final” campaign “proper” the heavy policy stuff will come out for people to run over with their fine tooth combs. But right now it is the introductions, the how are you, creating talking points and then talking to the people – the voters. The people or as I like to say our 1.5 million “experts” all have something to say and that something to say on how the feel about their city, their home. And from that you get an insight into what they want to see for a Better Auckland – A Better Home.

 

I have asked John for a short sharp “introduction” piece of himself and what he wants to bring if he is elected as Mayor of Auckland. Mayor Len Brown will also be “asked” as for an introduction piece as well. In a way it will also be telling if I get both introductions as it will also tell who does care for the little people, the individuals and citizens of Auckland.

As we also approach October 12 I will shine the light onto those seeking the Ward Council vote. As it is our Councillors that have the power either supporting or opposing the Mayor’s policy direction.

 

In the meantime Talking Auckland wants to know what you would like to see for a Better Auckland. Whether it be general or specific share your thoughts in the comment box below. If you are not quite sure on a talking point then check John’s talking points above and take it from there. We have 1.5 million people living in Auckland thus 1.5 million experts.

Just remember for comments to be tactful and respectful. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best choice and shows a greater level of maturity between the two participants.

 

Rethink the Housing Accord says Auckland 2040

·

Rethink or NIMBY‘s Striking Again?

 

Auckland 2040 released a press statement on Monday about the Housing Accord. This will be due to that Auckland Council is giving their submission to the Accord today after deliberations yesterday at the Auckland Plan Committee that I sat in and observed.

This is the press release from Auckland 2040

Rethink the Housing Accord says Auckland 2040

Monday, 10 June, 2013 – 11:41

Auckland 2040 says linking the Auckland Housing Accord to the notification of the draft Unitary Plan (DUP) will put pressure on the Council to ‘fast track’ the plan ignoring around 14,000 submissions.

The coalition has written to Housing Minister Nick Smith requesting that he reconsider tying the Accord to the DUP notification and providing an alternative solution. It’s concerned that Aucklanders have just had their first look at the DUP, invested considerable time in preparing submissions and that the planners won’t have the time to read, consider or adopt the suggestions.

Auckland 2040 spokesperson and planner Richard Burton says there are serious shortcomings in the DUP and it’s important that the Council is not forced to notify the Plan before it is ready.

“We do not believe that Auckland Council has the time or the resources to consider the large number of submissions received, to rethink the Unitary Plan and rectify the problems by the target notification date of 1 September. Much more time is needed to prepare a quality Plan.

“There’s also an easy solution that will take the pressure off the planners and make sure Aucklanders have not wasted their time making submissions. We suggest Council identify Special Housing Areas (SHAs) and then prepare Structure Plans. These will also ensure better quality housing,” said Richard.

The current Auckland Housing Accord makes no mention of requiring Structure Plans for SHAs which Auckland 2040 argues is a serious omission. It says that structure plans will avoid haphazard unplanned development by matching the level of development intensity to infrastructure capacity, including roads, waste water and other services. It would also integrate residential development with reserves, community facilities and schools. Community consultation is another component of a Structure Plan and would allow greater consideration of the interface between SHA’s and adjoining communities. Qualifying SHA Developments would then have to comply with the Structure Plan.

“Requiring Structure Plans in the Accord legislation doesn’t need to be overly time-consuming. Auckland Council could quickly identify a number of SHAs and then commence planning. The other advantage of this approach is that neighbours and affected parties will have a say in the process. Without meaningful consultation and a right of appeal, the potential for abuse is high,” says Richard.

Auckland 2040 is a coalition of local non-political groups passionately concerned about the long- term implications of the draft Unitary Plan (DUP). It wants Auckland Council to ‘ReThink’ the Plan in order to balance intensification with infrastructure capability and urban character values. The group opposes random high density multi-story apartments haphazardly scattered throughout Auckland, poor planning and provision for infrastructure, and inadequate community involvement in the Plan. For more information go to http://auckland2040.org.nz/.

—–

 

All seems good doesn’t it? On paper it does look good what Auckland 2040 is suggesting with Special Housing Areas and these Structure Plans. These Structure Plans could end up similar to my proposed Semi-Liberal Planned Districts for greenfield areas and Centralised Master Community Plans for brownfield areas.

However, there is a catch. My SLPD and CMCP’s take effect when the Unitary Plan is in operation. Meaning it has been thrashed out and the Rural Urban Boundary options firmed up after research and further consultation.

Auckland 2040’s idea would take effect once the Accord was in operation which would not bother me per say. But, in knowing Auckland 2040 they would clam up in any Brownfield Special Housing Areas being put forward (especially on the Isthmus and North Shore) and dump the entire lot in the Greenfield areas out in the south.

In Auckland 2040 would like to suggest a Brownfield area on the Isthmus and North Shore that would have significant development then let me know in the comments box your location choice below. Otherwise your subsequent silence would imply pro-sprawl behaviour down here in the south. Of which I believe the NIMBY term applies.

 

What is wrong with lugging significant developments in the greenfield areas now? We of the south are still going through the Rural Urban Boundary processes at the moment. Currently in the Unitary Plan feedback process that closed last month we got to choose one of three options we would think best for Greenfield development under the UP. Council is now considering this and hopefully are doing capacity and infrastructure studies on the options. Once done it is meant to be reported back and a more informed selection can be made by us in the formal notification stage at the end of the year.

What Auckland 2040 are doing is effectively short circuiting the RUB process away from Southern Auckland. It can also be implied through some of the NIMBY aspects of Auckland 2040 that they would want the bulk of the SHA’s in the greenfield zones.

I’d rather have the RUB processes done fully and properly first. As I have mentioned before if the wrong section of land is opened up down here in the South the unintended consequences are large. That being the Karaka-Weymouth Bridge which has upset a lot of people here.

 

So what do we do now?

Sit and wait for the council to finish the southern RUB work. Lets see how many houses we can get, what infrastructure is needed and at what cost, and what employment centre bases will also be needed as well. Suggesting SHA’s down here now would be beyond pointless when we and the area are simply not ready.

The RUB Addendum 1/2

The RUB Addendum 2/2

 

Council Submission on the Housing Accord

·

What Council thought on the Housing Accord

 

I am no fan of the Much-Ado-About-Nothing (aka the Housing) Accord as it short cuts the Rural Urban Boundary processes we are going through right now, and it also impinges on Council Sovereignty. I have made mention of this last month while the Unitary Plan was open for the first round of discussion.

Auckland Council, some Local Boards and the Independent Maori Statutory Board have written draft submissions on the Accord which is due to go before Select Committee in Wellington.

I am still reading the submission Council has written myself and will comment on it on Monday. In the mean time some light reading for you and if you are inclined leave your thoughts in the comments below.

The Submission (Starting page 7) to the Housing Accord

 

Message to Governor General

·

For the Integrity of the Parliament and the Citizens of NZ

 

To the Governor General of New Zealand
Representing our Sovereign and Head of State – Queen Elizabeth the Second.

For the integrity of the New Zealand House of Representatives, the citizens of New Zealand, and to allowed continued confidence of the Queen to our Parliament where there can be possibly none right now, I ask that you dissolve the current Parliament and order fresh elections in six weeks.

While leaks do happen from and within our Parliament and the State apparatus, leaks that come from the Government Communication Security Bureau that was had concerns to 88 New Zealand citizens being spied upon without their knowledge by the GCSB is a very serious situation.

For a Minister of the Crown (that operates in the name of the Queen) to leak such serious information where our citizens are affected is beyond reprehension. Beyond reprehension as it damages the very integrity of being a Minister of the Crown (operating in the name of the Queen) who we trust with our confidence in such sensitive matters like the GCSB affair. The breach by now former Minister Peter Dunne damages the confidence of the citizens towards the state apparatus and the Executive Wing of our Parliament – the highest authority in our land (as it can effectively over rule our courts). For Peter Dunne to remain as an MP in this parliament after such a reprehensible breach in my opinion brings the House now into disrepute.

Thus I would call on the Governor General to dissolve this Parliament and seek a fresh election. This fresh election would allow a new mandate and Parliament to occur. This would also allow the nation to put behind a very sorry mess that has occurred. To not call for a fresh mandate belittles our faith in the Parliament and would cause loss of confidence from the Sovereign against the Parliament as well.

——

Of note in that message above I have noticed a small number of National Party members through social media effectively lashing out and acting like near sycophants in this matter. The questions are quite simple:

  • How did Peters claim a scalp but you can not claim his
  • Can you blame for 5.4% of the population for voting NZ First. This is a democracy not an autocracy or plutocracy just because someone voted the way you did not want them too
  • Does that artillery piece with the phrase “aim to the far left John” do the Party any favours or does your behaviour also bring the party into disrepute with no only members but the wider public. There is a difference between Satire and disturbed behaviour, that photo being the latter of the two especially on a serious day like this
  • And what would you have done to Dunne with him so implicated in the report on leaking security information that had concerns in regards to 88 citizens being spied on unknowingly. Probably nothing so long as you get to stay in power…

——

This message was written as a concerned citizen seeing Parliament being effectively brought into disrepute and upsetting the governance of this country. Honesty and Transparency should be held at the utmost. Lets start afresh and get on with the job as the people want.

Money for a Church but No Money for a Death Trap

· 5 Comments ·

Council’s Funding Priorities Wrong Again

 

I noticed this morning (well actually yesterday) that the Council Strategy and Finance Committee approved on a vote of 10-6 to give $3m of our ratepayer’s money to the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Parnell so it can get an “upgrade.”

This is while Auckland Transport struggles to find $27m for a grade separation of the Walters Road rail crossing in Takanini and most likely the same amount for grade separating the Morningside Drive rail crossing that nearly killed a woman in a wheelchair earlier this year.

So would the councillors like to explain their logic in supporting $3m to the second biggest church in NZ (the biggest being the Catholic Church) that is exempt from most of our tax and human rights laws yet not give money to a death trap that nearly killed someone in Morningside where they had a human right for authorities to maintain a public crossing in such a way that the accident should have never happened.

And yes I know the crossing has Kiwi Rail responsibility to it as well but it is a shared responsibility with Auckland Transport thus Auckland Council. After the incident at Morningside, the council should have either stumped up the cash entirely or loaned Kiwi Rail a proportion of the money needed to remove the that death trap through a grade separation. But no it goes through the bureaucracy again and again and again and won’t be done for at least five years.

Yet at a drop of the hat Council approves money for a church (where we are meant to exercise absolute separation from Church and State) on the grounds of community facilities needs. Umm if it is for community facilities how about than dumping the money to Local Boards so they can maintain their own community facilities if the money won’t be going elsewhere.

Shame on the every single councillor who voted in giving money for the church while we have a live death trap still floating around (and a few more entering the category as we move to electrification and more frequent trains).

Shows where some have their priorities that need some readjusting in this upcoming election.

 

The MSM Struggling with the Auckland Elections

·

What the MSM and I see as credible candidates for Auckland Mayor must be two different things

 

In my “To the Local Elections 2013” post on June 1, I mentioned this about our Main Stream Media:

“Seems the Main Stream Media have been caught stumbling and hedging their “contracts” wrong with Williamson out of the race and them now scrambling to find out who John Palino is – #twits”

After watching The Nation on TV3 and Q&A on TV1 over the weekend, my quoted comment was only reinforced. Although putting a bit of a disclaimer here first; I have never watched either program despite the “hype” by junkies on Twitter. After watching both over Queen’s Birthday weekend though, I am not going to be watching them again any time soon. The interviewers for both shows were wooden, unimaginative and basically don’t know how to conduct an interview; while the Mayor just trotted out his PR lines twice in two days. At that rate I be better reading his PR fluff on the council website.

Wooden interviews and PR spin aside, what has me interested is the MSM still stumbling over themselves with Williamson no longer running for mayor.

The Nation made no mention of the mayoral race while Q&A’s panel might need to be a bit more clued up. A bit disturbing that a former lecturer of mine – Dr Raymond Miller made a comment that no one was challenging Len. For a very well-known NZ politics guru you might think Dr Miller was keeping an eye on the mayoral elections in Auckland.

Brian Rudman from the NZ Herald seems to be stepping up though. Before he went on his two-week holiday he did write a piece looking at money being an influence on running for Auckland mayor.

From Rudman and the NZH:

Money talks in race for mayoralty

Second term likely for Brown as cost of campaign makes removing the incumbent a rich person’s sport

 

Millionaire John Palino plans to run for mayor. Photo / APN

Millionaire John Palino plans to run for mayor. Photo / APN

Maurice Williamson‘s brief flirtation with fame is officially over. Dithering cost him his chance to become an international gay icon and common sense has persuaded him, and more to the point his financial backers, to abandon any bid for the Auckland mayoralty.

On Friday, the Minister for Statistics, Building and Construction issued a statement saying “after much thought and in-depth analysis, including looking at personal, political, funding and other circumstances, I have decided not to contest the mayoralty.” He wanted to “remain focused on serving his Pakuranga constituents and fulfilling ministerial responsibilities.”

It was a wise decision, though I’m surprised it took him much thought or analysis at all. Particularly if he’d caught up with the polling conducted by UMR Research on May 13.

Using its experimental online panel, which is carefully balanced to reflect the demographics of the Auckland electorate, potential voters were asked, “While it is still early days, would you be more likely to vote for Len Brown or Maurice Williamson in an Auckland Mayoral election?”

Incumbent Mayor Brown stormed in with 43 per cent of the vote. Mr Williamson scored just 17 per cent, while 13 per cent said “neither” and another 26 per cent were “unsure”.

 

Fair enough analysis from Rudman there – especially when one sees those kind of poll numbers. However, Rudman does fall down in the latter half of his piece:

Again from the NZH

Having seen off Mr Williamson without as much as a boo, Mr Brown seems set for an untroubled stroll into a second term as the Super City mayor. If the last election is any guide, already declared leftish gadflies like John Minto and Penny Bright will be struggling to stay afloat in a 22-strong field.

TV restaurateur and millionaire New York emigre John Palino is threatening to spend up to $1 million on a campaign centred on turning Manukau City into Auckland’s new, modern city centre. It’s a cheeky plunge into Mayor Brown’s home turf, but like rapid rail, canals across the isthmus and similar brainstorms from past mayoral hopefuls, seems a plan doomed to the footnotes of history.

On the fringes, the right wing collective of councillors, “Communities and Residents” – formerly known as Citrats – is warming up to fight against Mayor Brown’s Unitary Plan. After their poor showing in 2010, leader Christine Fletcher admitted her team had failed to connect with Aucklanders. She pledged “to address this”. But, without a mayoral candidate to coalesce behind, getting their message across, whatever that might be, will be tough.

Even if the polling for Mr Williamson had offered more hope, funding a campaign would have been a major hurdle. Mr Palino’s talk of needing a campaign fund of between $500,000 to $1 million is the reality of a Super City mayoral campaign.

Last September, Mayor Brown, who won the 2010 race with a $390,000 campaign chest, cheekily declared the $580,000 spending cap, set by law for Auckland mayoral candidates, was too high. He said it “could mean the election is … bought by a wealthy candidate”.

What he conveniently omitted was the enormous ratepayer-funded advantage he has as incumbent, with a staff of 23 and an annual budget of $3.2 million with which to promote his every word and deed.

Thanks to the presidential-style mayoralty imposed on Auckland by central government, removing the incumbent seems destined to be a rich person’s sport. A game for millionaires, or someone with millionaire backers. With the postage on a standard letter, 70 cents, a single letter alone to each potential voter will devour much of the permitted war chest.

The worry is that voter turn-out would plunge with a one-horse mayoral race.

In 2010, the novelty of the new city structure plus a keenly contested mayoralty had 51 per cent of eligible Aucklanders voting. Poor as that turn-out is, it was a great result compared with the 38 per cent average turn-out of the 2007 Auckland local government poll

 

Is Rudman being dismissive of the mayoral race already. If he is then he would be with the bulk of the MSM and some of the right-wing blogs (Whale Oil being one). This dismissive attitude is going to lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy of “The worry is that voter turn-out would plunge with a one-horse mayoral race.” We could very well see less than 37% of Auckland voting for mayor – and that does not give whoever becomes mayor for the 2014-2016 term much of a “mandate” per-se.

And IF what is highlighted in bold does happen in this year’s elections I would put the blame squarely back onto the MSM for failing in its 4th Estate duties. We have two quality candidates running – both credible (although that could be subjective depending which way one leans). On the left is Mayor Len Brown and on the “right” is John Palino.

Both have their respective visions, both have policy narratives to take to the people, both seem to have political will (for better or for worse), and both have a chance of the mayorship come post-elections.

In saying all this though I have been altered after my initial Elections 2013 post, the NBR have decided to do a Q&A with candidate John Palino I think tomorrow if not then next week. Whether that is because Chris Keall was paying attention to my Twitter account and decided to pull finger or they were going to do it anyhow and the rest is coincidence I will never know. But, after their initial fumbling around it seems some aspects of the MSM are starting to do some investigative journalism and find out what the mayoral race will actually shape up to be.

 

I have noted the cost of running a mayoral race in Auckland. A sad thing but to be expected in this professional day and age. For me personally providing we get good candidates I am not particularly fussed. Although if I was to run for Auckland Mayor it would be a 6-year campaign and fundraising drive before having a crack…

So are the MSM still fumbling around? Yep. Will they ever get round to proper coverage? Probably in September which is then too late…

The Fourth Estate failing again – nothing new here folks 😦

Lets not Play Silly with the Unitary Plan

·

Work with what we have please

I saw this from the much respect Councillor Fletcher this morning in regards to the Unitary Plan (it also has comments on it as well as it comes from Facebook):

The Unitary Plan should be withdrawn and replaced with a carefully staged approach that takes into full account critical infrastructure and the cost of growth. I hope the Mayor and CEO of Auckland Council will be willing to consider this with submissions on the ill conceived plan closing today. It would be throwing good money after bad to keep fiddling with this fundamentally flawed document. Better to scrap it and start again.
  • Matt van Tuinen Hear hear
  • Ben Ross While I hear you Christine have you asked the respective Ministers back in Wellington if such an exercise can be done? You of all people know that the UP is a creature of the Local Government Act (Auckland Governance) 2010 and procedures must be followed set out in that Act (let alone the RMA).

    Yes we might want to restart the UP again but is it “legal” to do so
  • Sharon Stewart I agree with Christine Fletcher the information the public have been asked to submit on has so many mistakes.. The question that needs to be asked is it legal to ask the community to submit on something with so many mistakes. Cameron BrewerDick QuaxGeorge Wood
  • Ben Ross So anyone going to ask the Local Government Minister, the Minister for the Environment and the Attorney General for a legal opinion on all this?
  • Sharon Stewart I am sure this will happen
  • Ben Ross Let me know when it does please 
  • Sharon Stewart Needs to be done before we waste more rate payers money. This is so important for Auckland to get it right.
    • Ben Ross Please do so ASAP. I have a 110 page submission sitting here on the UP as well as Clients’ submissions. None of us want our time (and money wasted) under taking the work we have done only for it to be “pointless” due to a total rewrite ordered
    • Sharon Stewart Better to rewrite and get it right.
    • Ben Ross Waiting
  • Gayatri Jaduram Do we have a legal definition for “Draft, Draft” ! 

 

So a pile of umming and ooo-ing over the Unitary Plan as the 5pm deadline comes and goes today on this feedback round. Thus far the Councillors pushing a rewrite seem non-committal to actually doing what I stated and contacting the relevant Ministers if they seriously want rewrite.

As I said “Please do so (get a rewrite ordered) ASAP. I have a 110 page submission sitting here on the UP as well as Clients’ submissions. None of us want our time (and money wasted) under taking the work we have done only for it to be “pointless” due to a total rewrite ordered”

Having just got my own submission and and helped my clients get theirs in I think we would be rightfully annoyed if a total rewrite was to occur now.

Councillors if they wanted the rewrite should have asked for one on March 16 when the plan was released. Not on May 31 when the first round of feedback is about to close (as I write this).\

I have said the Councillors have been particularly slow in some aspects of the UP. I am wondering if this call for a rewrite is them being slow again.

Not good enough if it is and was…

I and my clients do not appreciate our time being wasted due to slowness from the Governing Body…