Advocacy group makes strong bid for council seats

Another key member of a community advocacy group is making a bid for the Selwyn District Council.
Lincoln Voice secretary Denise Carrick will be running for a seat in the Kā Puna Springs Ward.
She is the third committee member of Lincoln Voice to announce they will stand for the district council in the October local body elections.
Chair Tracey Macleod is running for one of the at-large seats and committee member Aaron McGlinchy for a Springs Ward seat.
New councillors-at-large added
Unlike Macleod and McGlinchy who are running as independents, Carrick will be using the Lincoln Voice banner in her campaign.
'I have the blessing of the committee and the founding members to do that,' Carrick said.
Current Springs Ward councillors Malcolm Lyall and Debra Hasson are yet to decide whether they will stand again, while Grant Miller announced on Anzac Day he would not be seeking re-election.
Like Macleod and McGlinchy, a key motivation for standing was Lincoln Voice's fight to stop the huge 2100-home Carter subdivision, Earlsbrook.
Lincoln Voice had appealed the private plan change, which the council approved in the Environment Court.
But before the case was heard, the appeal was made null and void after the subdivision was included in the District Plan, which the council controversially signed off on with only six councillors present. The remaining five and Mayor Sam Broughton were either away or not voting due to a conflict of interest.
Because Lincoln Voice was never involved in the District Plan process, which started a number of years before the group was formed, it had no grounds to appeal the plan.
That prompted questions and criticism from Lincoln Voice as to why the vote was not delayed until more councillors could be present for the vote.
Carrick said if she was elected and a similar big decision was to happen she would want a full council to be present.
'Those sorts of big decisions need to be handled better.'
Carrick said now the subdivision is under construction, she wants to focus on ensuring Lincoln has the infrastructure to cope with the extra homes.
'It is in the background, because what's done is done.
'But the repercussions of it are still becoming very evident with growth in population and the need for infrastructure.'
Carrick is also on the Selwyn Community Patrol committee and works part-time as a teacher aide at Rolleston College.
Macleod owns and operates NTM Consulting, while McGlinchy is a part-time consult operations manager for Eco Index.
In recent years Carrick's focus has been on Lincoln, but she said she can still represent the other Springs Ward townships. This now includes West Melton.
'Each of our townships has got different issues, but we all have quite a lot in common with how quickly we've grown and the issues that brings,' she said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Otago Daily Times

3 days ago

• Otago Daily Times

Wording of campaign draws ire after lack of public consultation

"Together we decided" - that is the catchphrase of a Selwyn District Council campaign to tell people how their rates will be spent. But the word "together" has come under fire because the council bypassed public consultation, relying on the 1500 submissions it received as part of the Long Term Plan just over a year ago. The campaign, which the council spent $8000 advertising, focuses on two taglines: "Together we decided" and "together we're delivering". It was designed to provide an update on projects scheduled for the year ahead. On Wednesday councillors voted to approve the 14.2% average rates increase as part of adopting the 2025-26 Annual Plan. The vote was five to three with Ellesmere Ward councillor Elizabeth Mundt, Springs Ward councillor Grant Miller and Malvern Ward councillor and mayoral candidate Lydia Gliddon voting against the plan. Darfield Residents Association chair Harvey Polglase was not impressed with the campaign and said it was farcical the council did not recognise the need for consultation given the amount rates were increasing. 'We certainly did not decide, we were denied the opportunity to decide,' he said. In November, councillors voted 8-2 not to have a consultation on this year's rates rise. Instead they opted to 'engage and inform', which this campaign is part of. The decision to forgo consultation also meant councillors were unable to make any changes to the wording in the draft annual plan beyond small tweaks. Rolleston Residents Association chair Mark Alexander said he personally did not agree with the campaign. 'We haven't decided anything – except not to consult the community in 2025,' he said. Mayoral candidate and Malvern Ward councillor Lydia Gliddon said the campaign was 'tongue-in-cheek' given there was no consultation on this year's annual plan. 'The wording is not quite right when saying 'together' when we are 'engaging and informing'.' Gliddon, along with Springs Ward councillor Grant Miller, had voted in favour of holding a consultation. Mayor Sam Broughton defended the choice of wording. 'I think we have talked to our community, and it has been very transparent. We had 1500 submissions to the Long Term Plan, which includes what we are delivering this year,' he said. 'So together we did decide to do all of the things we are continuing to deliver for our community.' Broughton said it would be a waste of ratepayers' money to have another consultation just a year after deciding on the Long Term Plan. The last time the council skipped consultation in year two of a long-term plan was in 2019, when rates rose by 6%. Gliddon and Ellesmere Ward councillor Elizabeth Mundt were surprised at the timing of the campaign which started a week ago – before councillors had approved the draft annual plan. Broughton said he had expected the campaign to start tomorrow after the councillors had voted.

The Spinoff

3 days ago

• The Spinoff

Windbag: The little decisions that make a big impact

Two overlooked votes on obscure council policies could make a significant difference to new housing in Wellington. It's no secret that council rules and processes are arcane. Local government is a bureaucratic minefield of jargon and seemingly pointless minutiae. It's not uncommon for councillors to sit through hours of explanations from council staff, simply to understand the significance of an upcoming vote. Even then, there's often some confusion about what certain amendments mean and how they should vote to get their preferred outcome. Nowhere is that more evident than in Wellington's District Plan. Wellington City Council finalised the major decisions around housing density back in March 2024, but the process didn't end there. For more than a year, the council has continued to vote on increasingly minor and mostly uninteresting points. Last Thursday, the council completed the final touches, bringing the District Plan process to a close and officially adopting it. It was no mere signing ceremony, though; the meeting's agenda ran to 2,568 pages. The decisions made on the day weren't huge headline-grabbers, but two small but important points are worth delving into. The airport conundrum The first was about the airport's Obstacle Limitation Surface, or OLS, an obscure but powerful mechanism that gives Wellington Airport veto power over building heights anywhere near the airport. The airport is proposing a vastly expanded OLS zone, covering most of the city, at heights as low as eight metres. (Read more about the OLS controversy here.) Rebecca Matthews introduced an amendment to change the minimum height to 11 metres, which would ensure all townhouse developments are unaffected, and to exclude areas that are shaded by hills. Tim Brown, a former chair of the airport company, launched a spirited defence of the OLS, emphasising that the airport had never used the veto power. 'There is very clear evidence that the OLS has had no impact on densification. We effectively have a situation of international safety standards versus a very hypothetical concern about people's ability to undertake development,' he said. Matthews said she felt she was being asked to reconcile two contradictory ideas: 'that a massive increase in powers is essential to their operation and that it will never be used. I can't hold both of those ideas in my head at once.' A majority of councillors supported Matthews' amendment. However, the council doesn't have the power to change the OLS unilaterally. Essentially, all the council can do is write to the airport and ask them very nicely to change the OLS. If the airport doesn't agree, the matter could end up in the Environment Court. The e-bike apartment question Wellington City Council has made a significant investment – both financially and politically – in bike lanes and other infrastructure to encourage more low-carbon transport and lifestyles. If more people are going to take up cycling, especially if that means going car-free, they need the ability to store their bikes in their homes. To address this, council staff proposed a bike parking minimum for new apartments. It was a well-intentioned policy, but it went too far. It would have required developers to set aside 2.5 square metres of space, with access to electricity, for every unit. It provided enough space for every apartment dweller to store a large electric cargo bike. Large apartment developers would have had to set aside an entire floor for bike parking. That would increase the build cost for developers, which would increase the price they would need to sell units for to make their margins work. That either means apartments will be more expensive, or they won't be built at all. Exactly how much more expensive is hard to calculate – estimates from developer Stratum claimed as much as $58,000 extra per unit. Those numbers seem a bit too high to be credible, but it's inarguable that the policy would add some additional cost. The independent hearings panel, which oversaw the District Plan process, recommended reducing the requirement to one e-bike parking space per four units. But that number was plucked out of thin air and didn't make anyone happy. Ben McNulty introduced an amendment to remove the bike parking requirement. 'As we allow developers to make their own decisions on car parks, gyms, pool and laundry, so we should on e-bikes and micro-mobility,' he said. Iona Pannett saw it differently: 'Developers are like small children, they need to be told what to do. If we just let them do what they like, they will not provide enough.' The debate has echoes of a 2021 decision by then-transport minister Phil Twyford to ban councils from requiring a minimum number of car parks in new developments – a policy that won international praise in urbanist circles for enabling lower housing costs for people who don't need or want a car. The same financial argument could be made for mandatory bike parking, but bikes also have wider social benefits for dense urban areas. A majority of councillors voted in favour of McNulty's amendment, but some Green councillors were uncomfortable with how it might discourage cycling uptake, so they tasked council staff with finding an alternative solution. The final twist in this tale is that the new work may all be for nothing. Housing minister Chris Bishop was watching the process play out – and tweeting about it. He doesn't like bike parking minimums any more than Twyford liked car parking minimums, and there is growing speculation that he will ban them under his upcoming RMA reforms.

Scoop

12-06-2025

• Scoop

Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1 – It's Back

Press Release – Primary Land Users Group With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election, says Andy Loader, P.L.U.G. Plan Change One (PC1) INTERIM DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT is now ready for Council input and consideration. (813) Farming in Whangamarino Wetland catchment is a Restricted Discretionary Activity in both the Decisions Version and WRC's Final Proposal and effects on the Whangamarino Wetland is a matter over which WRC restricts its discretion in both cases. Rule 3.11.4.6 5.v in WRC's Final Proposal reinforces this by requiring FEPs to provide evidence that the significance and sensitivity of the Whangamarino Wetland has been considered in development of the FEP. Does this mean that farmers in the large Whangamarino Catchment will have to apply for a Restricted Discretionary Consent which may impact adversely on their decision-making ability? In the years since PC1 was first proposed up to the present time, farmers in the Waikato Region have continued making improvements to their management practices. Evidence of this can be seen in the requirements dairy farmers now face just to supply milk to the Milk Companies and that dry stock farmers must meet to supply stock to processors. Many of the proposed PC1 requirements are already being complied with by farmers, to enable them to meet their supplier requirements. For instance, stream fencing on dairy farms is mandatory practice, nutrient management, e.g. Fertiliser is strategically used with increased use of speciality mixes designed to limit runoff. Dry stock farmers have not been stationary either with much planting along stream banks; ensuring that cattle are kept well away from critical source areas, and managing stocking rates to suit land type while vegetable growers too have had to meet stringently imposed market audits. In the Whangamarino catchment it appears that farming will be a Restricted Discretionary Consent activity, which will require the use of Farm Environment Plans to ensure compliance. The hope is that these will not require expensive external audit requirements, particularly given the improvements to farming practices that are ongoing and in light of the current economic climate. The imposition of restrictive regulatory burdens and expensive compliance costs for farmers in this catchment will most likely lead to increased loss of productive land eventually resulting in upward costs of food produced within the catchment which is one of the country's main vegetable production areas and provides most of the fresh vegetable production for the Auckland population. This is nearly a quarter of the total NZ population. The proposed rules would appear to add to production costs rather than add to measurable outcomes. This is particularly true when you read the interim report from the Environment Court and find that there is no mention anywhere in the report of controlling/eradicating koi carp- the number one enemy. When it comes to making a discernible impact on improving water quality in the catchment then the effects from Koi Carp must be taken into consideration. The true fact is that without an achievable eradication/control plan for Koi Carp then reduction in sediment and erosion effects will never be realised and in fact the levels of both sedimentation and erosion of the waterways and watercourses will only get worse. Failure to control or eradicate Koi Carp will also lead to a reduction in the levels of indigenous flora and fauna and over time will more than likely lead to mass extinction of native species of both flora and fauna in, and on the margins of, the waterways. The eventual outcome will be that the deleterious effects from Koi Carp will far outweigh any benefits that may be gained from the farming sectors under these new rules. Local Government New Zealand commissioned a report on the impact of their proposed new rules (which are very similar to PC1) on the Waikato region and the end result of the implementation according to that report was that 68% of Sheep & Beef farmers and 13% of Dairy farmers would leave the agricultural sector. WRC in their initial costing of the implementation of PC1 which has virtually the same rules, predicted that the cost to the agricultural sector in the Waikato region alone would be $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation. The worst part of this whole debate around the costs of the implementation of these new rules is that all of the costs are non-productive and will only serve to increase the size of the non-productive bureaucracy. It is claimed that the new rules will result in improved human health from better quality water, reduced sediment and less erosion, but what is not being said is that they could cost rural jobs and community services and the uncertainty is already causing increased mental health issues among farmers. It has also been claimed that the significant and lasting benefits of the policy will, over the long term, exceed the costs of transition and implementation, but this claim is just not supported in any way by the facts. The proposed PCI rules even stop agriculture making sensible decisions such as changing land use to better suit the needs of the region. In relation to improved water quality in the lower Waikato and Waipa catchments, the overall levels of sediment and erosion will never be controlled or even reduced until the noxious pest fish, Koi Carp, is eradicated/controlled. Koi Carp must be addressed as they have a huge effect on the waterways and along with Catfish they are one of the most rapidly multiplying invasive pests that have been released into the New Zealand environment. In this post Covid economy NZ is looking to strategies to improve the nation's economy and the main way that this is going to be possible is through export earnings from agricultural production. The last thing that we need is an accelerated implementation of the new rules that is going to negatively impact on the productive agricultural sector which provides a means of income and also security of food supply for our country. A responsible approach would I believe see Council recommending 'Permitted Status' as at present to continue and alongside this status, Council should increase support for Catchment led groups who do make a measurable difference. Many excellent examples are springing up within our region, where measurable impacts are documented. New Zealand farmers are World leaders in picking up and embracing new technology that leads to better long-term sustainability but will not do so if held down with unnecessary regulatory burdens. With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election.