Dear Queenstown-Lakes District Council,

On the 24th of August 2017 you replied by email that I'd receive a decision on my request for official information within 20 working days. You've exceeded that time period. When can I expect a decision on whether you'll answer the following questions please.
---
The residents at 9 Boyes Crescent, Frankton breached the District Plan Rules and brought +/- 400 cubic meters of fill onto their section without a resource consent and without seeking affected person approval from me. Did they receive an infringement fee from QLDC Enforcement and if so for how much?

In addition they created an unformed vehicle crossing on road reserve that is accessed over a public footpath. This is not consented. Have they received an infringement fee from QLDC Enforcement? Will they be required to apply for a consent?

Their Planner provided false information on their resource consent application. Did he or his company or the residents at 9 Boyes Crescent receive any disciplinary action from QLDC Enforcement and if so what was it?

The then Resource Consenting Manager did not divulge his personal association with the residents at 9 Boyes Crescent or the Planner by declaring a conflict of interest. Was he subject to any disciplinary action from QLDC Enforcement and if so what was it?

If none of the above wrong doing has been enforced by QLDC then I would like to know the reasons why not.

I would also like to know why the residents of Wilmot Ave are exempt from the new parking restrictions imposed on residents of Boyes Crescent.

Yours faithfully,

Annie Weston

Dear Queenstown-Lakes District Council,

I'm yet to receive a reply to my request for official information. Please can you let me know when I can expect it.

Yours faithfully,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

Thank you for your reply noted below.

The purpose of QLDC’s Conflict of Interest Policy is to ensure decisions made on QLDC’s behalf are fair and free of bias or perceived bias.

A conflict of interest exists when an employee could be perceived as being affected by a personal or private interest whilst carrying out their duties. A personal or private interest is one that can bring benefit to others whom the employee may wish to benefit.

A perceived conflict of interest exists where it’s likely to be perceived by external parties that an employee’s private interest could improperly influence the performance of their duties.

I perceive that a conflict of interest exists for two reasons:

1) Eryn Cutler (Applicant), Blair Devlin (QLDC employee & then Resource Consenting Manager) and Nick Geddes (CFMA Planner who submitted the application) attended the same faculty at the same university at the same time. And by Tony Avery’s admission Eryn Cutler and Blair Devlin know each other.

2) While you state that Council does not permit resource consent applicants to breach their resource consent conditions that is precisely what has happened.

Do you acknowledge that these facts point to an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest?

Did Kirsty & Eryn Cutler receive any disciplinary action for breaching their resource consent and the District Plan Rules?

Will they be required to apply for a consent for their currently un-consented unformed vehicle crossing on road reserve that is accessed over a public footpath?

I have an email from a Senior Planner at QLDC stating that the Cutlers are in breach of their resource consent and require an earthworks consent because no earthworks were contemplated in the application. I have a surveyor's report, posted on this site, stating that they brought 400m3 onto their section. In light of these facts how can you say Council is not aware of any false information being provided on their resource consent application.

Yours faithfully, Annie Weston

---

From: Barbara East <[email address]>
Date: Monday, 18 December 2017 at 4:49 PM
To: Annie Weston <[email address]>
Subject: Attn: Enforcement Authority [#35CD3K]

Hi Annie
Your queries about earthworks at 9 Boyes Crescent and possible conflicts of interest were responded to in emails from Blair Devlin on 5 November2014 (attached) and Tony Avery on 26 July 2016. We are not aware of any false information being provided on the Cutler’s resource consent application.
As the site previously had a vehicle crossing, we are not aware of any issues with it.

Regards
Barbara

Dear Tony Avery,

Please explain how Council can be satisfied that the Cutlers were truthful on their resource consent application, that they did not breach their resource consent conditions, that there is no breach to the District Plan Rules when I have an INDEPENDENT SURVEYOR’S REPORT stating that they brought 400 CUBIC METRES OF FILL onto their property when the limit was 100 cubic metres.

WHY WAS MY AFFECTED PERSON APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED for this breach of the District Plan Rules.

Why did Enforcement state that they would give the Cutlers a consent anyway so they didn’t need to apply for one. HOW CAN COUNCIL DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF A RESOURCE CONSENT HEARING?

If it is not nepotism then WHY DID COUNCIL DISREGARD MY RIGHTS AND ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE RMA IN FAVOUR OF LAW BREAKERS.

Why is the Cutler's breach and exemption from the law NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBIC TO VIEW ON E-DOCS?

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Tony Avery,

It's been 20 working days since your holiday. When can I expect an answer to my questions please.

Yours faithfully,

Annie Weston

Dear Tony Avery,

Had my neighbours followed due process then the following would have occurred:

They would not have lied on their resource consent application.
They would have provided accurate plans.
They would have revealed all the breaches to the District Plan Rules on the APA form.
Consequently I would not have signed and it would have gone to a resource consent hearing.

Instead they and their Planner conned me into signing an APA, breached their resource consent conditions and dumped four times the amount of allowed fill in my lake view.

Council arbitrarily decided this doesn’t adversely affect me.
Council could have reviewed the decision under Section 129 of the RMA when I revealed their deception.
Council could require that they follow due process like everyone else is expected to.
Council doesn’t allow people to breach their resource consents.
Council doesn’t view this as precedent setting.
Council is not allowing public access to this information.

If it is not nepotism, nor government policy to condone this behaviour, then why is Council using their power to favour and protect these people in particular, and to such an extent.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Tony Avery,

I parked temporarily on the verge outside my house to unload heavy equipment. I was fined for damaging an ornamental grass plot, which I've mowed for Council for more than 17 years as part of my civic responsibility.

My neighbours have damaged their ornamental grass plot by using it as an unformed un-consented driveway and not received any disciplinary action. Nor have they received any disciplinary action for defrauding Council and me during their resource consent process. Nor have they received any disciplinary action for dumping four times the amount of fill allowed in my lake view.

Please can you tell me why Council is using it's power to favour and protect them.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Tony Avery,

You maintain earlier in this thread that I gave my OVERALL approval for my neighbour's development when I signed the affected person approval form.

Yet the Planner lied on the resource consent, their plans were inaccrate and only one out of their seven breaches to the District Plan Rules at that time were listed on the APA form.

Why did Council not investigate under Section 129 of the RMA when I pointed out that these inaccuracies materially affected my decision ie: I wouldn’t have signed the APA form and therefore a hearing would have been required.

Council maintain they would have given them a resource consent anyway. How can Council determine the outcome of a resource consent hearing.

Why does Council not require accurate resource consent applications. Does this apply to everyone or just these people in particular.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Anthony Hall & Tony Avery,

The infringement notice number is 714521 / Enforcement Authority #35CD3K. I was fined for damaging an ornamental grass plot which I've mowed FOC for the last 18 years as part of my civic responsibility. I've had numerous correspondence with your department regarding this and no resolution so far.

You have not replied to my last question --

By Council’s own admission I was not given all relevant information pertaining to the neighbour’s development.

In light of this how can Council maintain that I gave my approval for the overall build. Why did you not investigate further when I pointed out the inaccuracies in their APA form and resource consent application.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Tony Avery,

You have not replied within the 21 working days allowed under LGOIMA so I gather you cannot account for the decision Blair Devlin made in favour of my neighbours.

Please could you tell me whether Blair Devlin knew my neighbour or associated with him in any way while they attended either high school or university.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Tony Avery,

Please could you tell me whether Blair Devlin knew my neighbour or associated with him in any way while they attended either high school or university.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Tony Avery,

I have a right under the OIA to access the information that you're withholding from me. If you answered my questions without obfuscation then I wouldn’t need to continue to ask them.

I know that the planner who lied on the resource consent, the resource consenting manager and my neighbour attended the same faculty at the same university at the same time. I’m not asking for that information.

I know they colluded to deceive me and negate my affected person rights. I know Council allowed this old boy’s cronyism. I know that you interviewed Blair Devlin about his conflict of interest and that that information is classified as official information. I know that his conflict of interest is not recorded in the register.

What I am asking you requires a simple direct answer that Blair Devlin would have confirmed when you interviewed him.

Did Blair Devlin know my neighbour or associate with him in any way while they attended either high school or university.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Tony Avery,

Could you tell me please - did Blair Devlin attend my neighbour's wedding?

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Tony Avery,

After I accused Blair Devlin of nepotism in an official complaint to Council all connections on social media between him, my neighbour and the planner were hidden or disabled.

Why would a Council employee divulge information contained in a confidential complaint if he wasn’t concerned about public knowledge of his personal associations.

There is 800m3 of fill under the buildings alone on my neighbour’s section. Council have a fill certification report showing testing on the engineered fill was done to 1.6m. The CFMA planner who submitted the resource consent application stipulated earthworks were not applicable.

Can you tell me please does Blair Devlin have a personal association with the planner who submitted the fraudulent application.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Tony Avery,

It's been more than 20 working days since I asked whether Blair Devlin has a personal association with the CFMA Planner who submitted the fraudulent application in order to gain a resource consent.

This is a direct question pertaining to information you received directly from Blair Devlin in July 2016.

When can I expect an answer please.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston