Dear Queenstown-Lakes District Council,

Please could I have a copy of the conflict of interest register of Blair Devlin, Resource Consenting Manager.

Many thanks.

Yours faithfully,
Annie Weston

Hi Barbara,

I just need the details please of any conflicts of interest that Blair Devlin himself may have declared.

Kind regards,
Annie Weston

Dear Queenstown-Lakes District Council,

When can I expect your reply to my request please?

The due date was today, 21st December 2015.

Thanks,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara,

Could you tell me please what the relationship is between Blair Devlin and the six people you are protecting.

Kind regards,
Annie Weston

Hi Barbara,

Thank you for this. I look forward to your reply with Blair Devlin's reasons for his declared conflicts of interest.

Kind regards,
Annie Weston

Dear Barbara,

Are you able to tell me please if Council managed any declared conflicts of interest in relation to RC130501.

Kind regards,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara,

Thank you for your reply.
Are you able to tell me please if Council managed any conflicts of interest in relation to RM060388 or RM140984.

Kind regards,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

Blair Devlin told a close relative of the applicant of RM140984 that he was unable to help with her enquiries due to a conflict of interest.

He has a similar relationship with the applicant of RM130501.

How did Council manage these conflicts of interest if they were not declared?

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

The wall retaining the development of RM130501 is 500mm higher than its 2500mm consent. According to Blair Devlin the earth moved and exposed more wall. Please could I view the official information on which he bases his reasoning. This information is not available on e-Docs.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

Please see one of the two emails in which Blair Devlin refers to the earth moving. I can forward the other one as well if you need more information.
-----
From: "[email address]" <[email address]>
Date: Sunday, 9 November 2014 8:04 am
To: Annie Weston <[email address]>, Adonica Giborees <[email address]>
Cc: Adam Feeley <[email address]>, Vanessa van Uden <[email address]>, Marc Bretherton <[email address]>
Subject: RE: RM 990663 & RM 130501

Hi Annie,

(1) It is possible to get a code of compliance under the Building Act separate to the Resource Management Act. They are not dependent one on the other. As noted below, the retaining wall is considered to be in accordance with the resource consent from 1999. It appears to me that some changes to the ground level on the Council side of the retaining wall have exposed more of the wall, particularly in one spot. This dos not change the effect of the retaining wall on your property.
(2) I consider the earthworks that placed the dwelling on the site to be completed. A surveyors certificate confirmed the dwelling was placed at exactly the consented level, leading me to conclude the earthworks did not raise the height of the land. The landscaping of the site, including spreading of topsoil, is not completed.

You are accusing me of nepotism below – an accusation I take extremely seriously and deny. At all times our repeated responses to your enquiries have been both timely and professional. The fact you disagree with the result of our investigations and decision not to pursue enforcement action is noted.

Kind regards
Blair
-----
Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

Thank you for your quick reply.

QLDC Planning determined that the applicants of RM130501 breached the conditions of their resource consent and require an earthworks consent. QLDC Enforcement determined that it would not be expedient to take enforcement action and require the applicants to apply for an earthworks consent.

Since the consent of RM130501 in 2013, please can you tell me how many applicants of consents managed by Blair Devlin, have been permitted to breach their resource consent conditions, without consequence?

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

The District Plan Rules stipulate that total volume of earthworks does not exceed 100m³ per site (within a 12 month period). QLDC's definition of earthworks includes the following; blading, contouring, ripping, moving, removing, placing, replacing, excavation, cutting and filling.

I have a surveyor's report that shows the applicants of RM130501 have undertaken earthworks with a total volume of approximately 33m² cut and 400m³ fill, raising the height of their section by up to 1m.

Blair Devlin considers this to be landscaping that does not materially alter the ground levels.

Please explain why Blair Devlin's definition of earthworks differs from QLDC’s.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

There is no surveyor's report on eDocs as Enforcement exempted the applicants of RM130501 from the need to apply for an earthworks consent that would have required such a report.

Please see below email from an independent surveyor asked to present expert evidence for a side agreement dispute.
---
From: "[email address]" <[email address]>
Date: Thursday, 19 May 2016 11:12 am
To: Renata Davis <[email address]>
Cc: Christine McMillan <[email address]>, Boyd Wilson <[email address]>, Johnathan Hodson <[email address]>, Annie Weston <[email address]>
Subject: 6094 - (ADDRESS DELETED)

Hello Renata,
Thanks for coming in to discuss this job.
1. As requested I have tidied up the plan showing the areas which are over 1.52m above the 2010 surface.
2. The volume of material has been calculated using the 2010 surface and BCL surface. Note that there are some inaccuracies because our surface is only indicative under the building and between the building and garage. The volume is calculated as approximately 4m² cut and 800m³ fill.
The volume of material has been calculated using the 2013 CFMaA surface and BCL surface. Note that there are some inaccuracies because our surface is only indicative under the building and between the building and garage. The volume is calculated as approximately 33m² cut and 400m³ fill.
3. The attached diagram shows compares the section from the (NAME DELETED) plans showing Original Ground Level. We can confirm that this is generally the 2010 surface.

Regards

Chris Walker
Licensed Cadastral Surveyor
Phone 03 218 2546Facsimile 03 214 4285
Extension 213Cell Phone (NUMBER DELETED)
Freephone0800 802 546
19 The Crescent, PO Box 1262,
Invercargill 9840, New Zealand
[email address]
Webwww.bonischconsultants.co.nz
BC-Logo-Sm
subdivision |engineering| resource management| project management| surveying|land development
---
I formally request that this be posted on eDocs so there is an official record of the breaches to the District Plan Rules allowed by QLDC. I'm happy to email you a full report but I can't attach it via this forum.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

In QLDC’s Enforcement Strategy and Prosecution Policy the Enforcement Matrix shows various enforcement tools to ensure compliance. The applicants of RM130501 breached the volume of earthworks allowed under the District Plan Rules by more than four times the amount and breached their resource consent conditions.

QLDC is able to use the full force of the law to ensure compliance of these activities including prosecution, license suspension or cancellation, fines and pecuniary penalties.

Please can you tell me what tools QLDC used to ensure compliance from the applicants of RM130501?

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

Blair Devlin could have reviewed the consent of RM130501 under Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991 when I pointed out to him that it contained inaccuracies that materially affected the decision i.e.: they would not have received my affected person's approval had I known about the 33m² cut and 400m³ fill.

Please can you tell me how many consents Blair Devlin has reviewed under Section 128 in his role as Resource Consenting Manager.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

The applicants of RM130501 planted ~12 trees and erected a berm on public reserve without QLDC permission in my view corridor.

How many times has QLDC allowed residents to commit offences under the Reserves Act 1977 with impunity?

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

According to QLDC’s Conflict of Interest Policy --

Answering “no” to the following question should be a signal to an employee to disclose their interest:
If I participate in assessment or decision-making on this particular matter, would I be happy for my colleagues and the public to be aware of any personal interest, association or connection that I have in the matter?

Blair Devlin has not disclosed his interest so he must be happy for the public to be made aware of his personal association with the applicant of RM130501. This is a public forum so please can you confirm the nature of their personal association.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

What is the process please for ensuring information is made official?

Through non-enforcement QLDC has allowed the applicants of RM130501 to get away with:
- A non-compliant retaining wall
- Inaccuracies on their resource consent application
- Inaccurate plans attached to the resource consent
- A breach of their resource consent
- A breach of the District Plan Rules
- Offences under the Reserves Act

This could be rectified by requiring them to apply for an earthworks resource consent like everyone else.

If there is no conflict of interest and the applicants of RM130501 have not received special treatment then it stands to reason that all developers must be allowed the same dispensations.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

I have emails from a QLDC Senior Planner, Blair Devlin - then Resource Consenting Manager, Enforcement and the CEO explaining why QLDC has exempted the applicants of RM130501 from their legal obligations and the need to consider my affected person rights. I would like these uploaded to eDocs so every other developer may do the same with impunity from enforcement and any applicable punitive damages.

I have photos and reports to substantiate the QLDC evidence if you require these as well.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

As QLDC Records Advisor are you able yet to advise which relevant department at QLDC updates official records?

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

On eDocs under RM130501 in the Monitoring section there is no record of the site visit undertaken by Adonica Giborees (see below), or the outcome. Why are there no records of this information?

There are records of their second breach of the consent which is also the subject of a complaint.

What is the difference please? Do you only upload information on consents you enforce?
---
From: Adonica Giborees <[email address]>
Date: Tuesday, 11 March 2014 8:50 am
To: Graeme Todd <[email address]>, Annie Weston <[email address]>, "GTODD LAW ([email address])" <[email address]>
Cc: "[email address]" <[email address]>
Subject: RE: RM 130501- E & K Cutler - My Client Ms A Weston id=2366

Hi Graeme,

I visited the site last week to follow up on your query in relation to the captioned resource consent application. I advise as follows:

· No information has been provided to Council in order to satisfy Condition 3(a) of resource consent RM130501.

· The resource consent anticipates that the ground would be raised, but as you note, no earthworks were contemplated in the application. Whilst on site, it was apparent that the earthworks undertaken on the site would exceed that permitted under the District Plan. We have also asked the applicant to ensure they apply for an earthworks resource consent.

In light of the two bullet points above, we have contacted the applicant and advised they are in breach of their resource consent, and require an earthworks consent. We have also passed the matter on to our enforcement team this morning.

Kind Regards,

Adonica Giborees | Senior Planner | Planning & Development
Queenstown Lakes District Council
DD: +64 3 450 0338 P: +64 3 441 0499
E: [email address]
---
Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

What is the reason please that Blair Devlin, then Resource Consenting Manager, did not upload, or authorise the upload of, any information pertaining to the applicants of RM130501 being in breach of their resource consent and requiring an earthworks consent?

While the omission of this information from official records may mean that you are unable to access it digitally, the information will be known to and held in the memory of Blair Devlin, who is an employee of QLDC, and therefore LGOIMA applies.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston

Dear Barbara East,

Tony Avery, General Manager Planning and Development, recently asked Blair Devlin whether he has a personal relationship with the applicants of RM130501. Now that the question has been asked, could you please confirm that his reply (as per below) constitutes official information?

Blair Devlin “did not have a personal relationship with the applicants. He knew who they were slightly as their children went to the same kindergarten”.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Weston