Gisborne housing plan change: 35 of 859 submission points misclassified

A proposal to relax rules for medium-density housing has partially reopened for limited submissions after the Gisborne District Council found errors in its original summary of decisions.

The council's proposed Urban Plan Change 6 (PC6) would allow for townhouses and duplexes to be built without resource consent in proposed medium-density residential zones, provided they meet council requirements.

An initial engagement period from March to May received 140 submissions.

In July, the council invited further feedback from original submitters and people with a greater interest in PC6 than the general public. It resulted in 24 more submissions.

Points raised could only support or oppose matters raised in other submissions, listed in a document summarising decisions requested by original submitters.

A council spokesperson said a review of the summary document and further submissions revealed 35 of 859 submission points had been allocated to an incorrect or unrelated section of PC6, contained incomplete information in the summaries, or were not clearly identified.

The affected points, and two submissions made outside the original submission period, were republished with clarification for a limited further submission period from September 22 until noon on October 7.

The original and previous further submissions remain valid, and further submitters can submit again on the affected points.

The council encouraged people to check eligibility and read the relevant original submissions, available at the H.B. Williams Memorial Library and council offices.

All original and further submissions will form part of a public hearing process later this year, after which the council will notify the public of its decision on PC6.

A ratepayer who submitted on the plan told Local Democracy Reporting the mistake was not surprising because the process had been "complex" and "unfriendly", almost causing them to abandon their submission.

The ratepayer, who wanted to be anonymous for privacy reasons, said the categorisation of summarised points meant complex subjects were sometimes ineffectively summarised or difficult to understand.

They appreciated the council had to follow legislative requirements, but said simpler options like pen-and-paper submissions still had value and could encourage engagement.

They suggested simpler feedback processes would be more cost-effective than online participation pages, which the ratepayer had issues with previously.

The council spokesperson said staff had worked on the original summary document between May 25 and July 28.

Letter notifications, advertising and public engagement for the plan change cost about $22,360.

The council said the plan change process was designed to allow affected people to have their say under the Resource Management Act.

It had issued multiple notifications for engagement in the feedback process, as it may not have been familiar to the public.

Council staff provided drop-in sessions, information webinars, phone assistance and allowed a longer submission period than required for in-depth reviews.