From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Friday, 19 June 2026 at 8:11 PM
To: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: Sophie Barker <Sophie.Barker@dcc.govt.nz>; Council 2025-2028 (Elected Members) <council.2025-2028@dcc.govt.nz>; Scott MacLean <Scott.MacLean@dcc.govt.nz>; David Ward <David.Ward@dcc.govt.nz>; Ruby Shaw <ruby.shaw@alliedmedia.co.nz>; Grant Miller <Grant.miller@odt.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Railroading of Council decisions by DCC Staff using 26/06/26 Agenda

Dear CEO Graham,

You have misrepresented the Local Government Act sections 77 and 78 below with your false claim that ” The public won’t be limited in what they can provide feedback on.”

You and your staff have severely limited what is available for the public to provide feedback on because of your 264 pages of 3 South Dunedin Futures proposals all 3 of which propose 1,000 plus homes being ‘relocated’, Billion dollar cost, with some additionally proposing unaffordable new canals and land-raising at scale.

It is not the public’s job to identify all reasonably practicable options and “to assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages;”

 – it is your job to do this as the LGA2002 s77 (a) and (b) makes clear.

You should be aware of the recent relevant Court of Appeal decision  https://www.franksogilvie.co.nz/news/case-brief-thorndon-quay-collective-inc-v-wellington-city-council-2024-nzca-316  where “Thorndon Quay Collective Incorporated(“TQC“) successfully secured a declaration that Wellington City Council (“WCC“) failed to properly consider all reasonable options when making a decision to reconfigure angle parking to parallel parking on Thorndon Quay, as required by the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”).” 

You have also failed to address the other railroading issues of a 973 page agenda so large that due consideration of many decisions will not be possible for many Councillors, an absurd Future 5 land-raising proposal that could never be afforded, and the lack of consideration of  LGA section 78 (1) “give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter.”

If you and Mayor Barker insist on proceeding with this unacceptable Supplementary Agenda of 3 South Dunedin Futures as it is, both of you will bear the consequences.

Regards,

Cr. Vandervis

From: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Friday, 19 June 2026 at 5:47 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: Sophie Barker <Sophie.Barker@dcc.govt.nz>; Council 2025-2028 (Elected Members) <council.2025-2028@dcc.govt.nz>; Scott MacLean <Scott.MacLean@dcc.govt.nz>; David Ward <David.Ward@dcc.govt.nz>; Ruby Shaw <ruby.shaw@alliedmedia.co.nz>; Grant Miller <Grant.miller@odt.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Railroading of Council decisions by DCC Staff using 26/06/26 Agenda

Good evening Councillors

Thank you all for the email. 

Following a discussion with the Mayor, I will not be withdrawing the paper from the agenda as I am satisfied that it does meet the requirements of the LGA. 

The three choices Councillors are being given are:

1. do you want to consult the community on the 3 proposed options and the status quo? or

2. do you want to defer consultation and undertake further work? or

3. Do you want to do something else?

The choices being presented (if Council decides to consult) will give the community the opportunity to consider all options and provide feedback to Council. The public won’t be limited in what they can provide feedback on. Council will then consider that feedback and decide what it wishes to do.

Note I have cc’ed all recipients of the original email including the media, given the time.

Regards

Sandy 

Chief Executive

Dunedin City Council



Dear CEO Graham and Mayor Barker,

The DCC Council Agenda just received requiring Elected Representative decisions to be made next Thursday is unacceptable for many reasons, and the Supplementary Agenda in particular which has been added to the main Public Agenda fails to meet the mandatory requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

The Local Government Act Section 77 is as follows:

“77 Requirements in relation to decisions

(1)

A local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,—

(a)

seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

(b)

assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages;”

The Supplementary Agenda Item 7 South Dunedin Future – 3 Proposed Adaptation Futures fails to detail reasonably practical futures, and instead proposes unaffordable impractical futures including large scale relocation, billion dollar costs and land-raising at scale!

There is no detailed Baseline Proposal, a South Dunedin Future as an assessed option including advantages and disadvantages of the currently budgeted $29.2 million pipes and pumps plan, or any other reasonably practicable options as required under the LGA 2002 section 77.

I have complained about the railroading of these 3 Future proposals to senior DCC Managers Dave Ward and Scott McLean saying that this Supplementary Agenda only proposes 3 Adaptation Futures scenarios, all of which propose the forced acquisition and destruction of between 1,100 and 1,700 South Dunedin homes.

Both Managers claimed that Councillors have the option of voting against all 3 of the proposed futures provided, but this claim does not address the issue of all 3 detailed Adaptation Futures proposed requiring ‘relocation’ and that there are no assessed alternatives provided.

Other South Dunedin Futures practicable options have not been assessed in item 7 in terms of advantages and disadvantages as required under 77 (1) (b).

Having just 3 Futures all of which propose similar forced acquisition and destruction of over 1,000 South Dunedin homes effectively railroads decision-making towards these 3 South Dunedin Futures.

Further railroading is evident in proposing the Future 5 which includes land-raising as well as a home destroying future that the PWC report writes off as totally unaffordable, recommending in polite terms “avoidance of large‑scale land raising, which PWC identifies as the most commercially challenging intervention.” 

In my view all 3 South Dunedin Futures Billion$ scenarios involving mass-relocations, new canals and land-raising at scale are beyond being financially or rationally challenging.

The Supplementary Agenda in proposing only forced acquisition options also fails to meet the LGA2002 requirement “78 Community views in relation to decisions

(1)

A local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process in relation to a matter, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter.

”

By proposing no other options that do not require forced acquisition of over 1,000 South Dunedin homes, staff have failed to meet this mandatory requirement to give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected. 

Howls of protest from many such affected persons have already been received in all my feedback channels. 

These South Dunedin residents will not only be affected when forced acquisition drives them from their homes and immediate community, but are affected already now and in future as their homes’ values and insurance costs are impacted.   

Further railroading of these 3 South Dunedin Futures has been further affected by adding this non-urgent 264 page Supplementary Agenda to an already overfull 709 page agenda that contains many significant and contentious decision requirements that most Elected Representatives will simply not have time to read, consider and do justice to in debate.

This total 973 pages of agenda information for a single scheduled Council meeting with deficient options and lack of assumptions information is the worst example I have experienced of staff railroading DCC decisions since 2017, when CEO Bidrose refused for over two years to action my unanimously voted for motion that staff provide a Report on the Pros and Cons of a Unitary Council.

My proposed solution to you both is to agree to defer and rewrite the Supplementary Agenda Item 7 South Dunedin Future – 3 Proposed Adaptation Futures to include practical options, and to exclude the unaffordable suggestions of mass relocation, new canals and land raising at scale.

A revised Supplementary Agenda requires a Baseline, with listed and quantified fundamental assumptions about South Dunedin’s future instead of the ‘climate change and flooding effects will increase’ rhetoric that makes up much of the 246 pages of climate alarmism along with indulging Maori representative aversion to mechanical pumping of water on spiritual grounds.

What is needed is an urgent public response from both of you admitting that the impact of the 3 Proposed Adaptation Futures document on South Dunedin residents was not properly considered and that the entire South Dunedin Futures Supplementary Agenda has been withdrawn to be rewritten and presented at a later date.

In the public interest:

Crs. Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall, Jo Galer Russell Lund and Andrew Simms.