Cr Jo Galer pictured when she was a candidate. PHOTO: GREGOR RICHARDSON A claim made by Dunedin City Council by-election victor Jo Galer on social media before the election has been contradicted within a formal bylaw process. Assertions from Cr Russell Lund were also challenged by staff. Their commentary was about consultation requirements relating to cycleways and a draft traffic and parking bylaw, for which there was a hearing yesterday. The agenda for the hearing made particular reference to a May 10 Facebook post stating two bylaw clauses would grant new powers to the council to make roading decisions, such as closing a road or implementing a shared path, via a single resolution without needing to consult the public first. Cr Galer made a post to this effect on May 10, including encouraging people to make submissions. The staff analysis was no new powers would be granted to the council under the clauses cited. All council decisions were already made by passing resolutions. ‘‘Proposed traffic and parking changes go through, and will continue to go through, public consultation where required.’’ The council did not explicitly identify the author of the post, but said 19 submissions were subsequently received on the specific points raised in it. Staff also recommended an explanatory note be added to the bylaw to state decision-making would comply with the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002. Cr Galer yesterday stood by her May 10 post, saying she was raising concerns with the public. ‘‘Is that somehow wrong?’’ Cr Lund was due to make a submission at yesterday’s hearing, but ended up submitting an apology, as he was unable to attend. His written submission included claims such as a new cycleway network would be delivered under the bylaw at massive cost and there could be huge losses of kerbside parking. Cr Russell Lund. PHOTO: ODT FILES Cr Lund continued to put forward the argument yesterday that the council’s significance and engagement policy meant it could pursue some activities without public consultation, particularly if planned changes were considered to be minor. ‘‘The closure of a single component of a network asset is not deemed to be significant, and that means you don’t need to consult the public on it,’’ he said. Staff analysis included that the draft bylaw did not propose a walking and cycling programme of work and it did not propose removing kerbside parking. There were no changes to existing traffic and parking restrictions as a result of the bylaw review, staff said. At the hearing, committee member Cr Lee Vandervis asked a series of searching questions about public consultation requirements. Transport regulations policy analyst Rose Wunrow said there would ‘‘never be legally a scenario where we could simply change or close a road or put in a shared path with zero consultation with the community’’. Transport regulation management team leader Simon Spiers said the council was not giving itself new powers. ‘‘The only times where we wouldn’t necessarily consult is, say we had a landslip or a flooding event or something of that nature,’’ he said. ‘‘This is mostly focused on clarifying what the existing bylaw allows us to do, or doesn’t allow us to do.’’ grant.miller@odt.co.nz
