| Submission point number/s: | S71.001 S71.003 S71.004 S71.006 |
Click on each heading to view the submission details
-
Submitter and address for service details
Reference: 808025
Name Andrew Rutherford Organisation (if applicable) Contact person/agent (if different to submitter) Postal address (address for service)
107 Hall Road Sawyers Bay Port Chalmers 9023 Email address: rutan668@yahoo.com Contact phone number: 0274126335 -
Hearings
Do you wish to speak in support of your submission at a hearing Yes If others make a similar submission, would you consider presenting a joint case at a hearing No -
Trade competition
I could gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission No My submission relates to an effect that I am directly affected by and that: a. adversely affects the environment; and b. does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. -
Submission
Variation 2 change ID Provision name and number, or address and map layer name Rejected Zoning change to part of Hall Road Sawyers Bay from rural residential to some form of residential My/our submission seeks the following decision from the Council: Multiple submission points/decisions outlined below Details Part of the end of Hall Road, Sawyers Bay should be rezoned to allow a greater density of residential development. Reasons for these views As a submission Planning for Housing survey in 2019 I put forward an area of Sawyers Bay adjacent to the existing residential area for more intensive housing. I was told that the reason this area was rejected was because of 3 waters believing that the sewage system couldn’t handle extra capacity in Sawyers Bay. However since then the 3 waters has begun upgrading the system in Sawyers Bay, so I thought this might make a difference. Also I was told by the council planners that I could apply for the area to be a larger lot residential zone that is an unserviced area where septic tanks can be employed. So I would like the area to be reconsidered on that basis. I also have the following comments on the rest of the variation: 1. Increasing sites from residential 1 to residential 2. I don’t have a problem with this in principle, however I think that it is important to retain the character of Dunedin and I believe that there is the potential that where the number of dwellings possible on a particular site increases it is more likely that existing buildings will be demolished and a number of different buildings put in their place. Therefore I believe the best area to increase density is areas where there are no such heritage buildings and this could be large areas of Dunedin such as where state housing was put in in the 20th century. 2. Certain green fields sites near motorways. In the variation I noticed that certain greenfield areas near the southern motorway have been zoned residential. Some of these areas are actually in an original greenbelt that was left between residential and industrial areas. My concern is that where the district plan has an aim of housing areas being fit for purpose as such and not subject to reverse sensitivities, putting housing areas right by the motorway means that such sensitivities are build into the system. Put simply housing by the motorway is not going to be very desirable housing and since there are plenty of other places to have housing in Dunedin, those areas should be zoned instead. 3. General thoughts about housing availability in Dunedin. There is potentially a lot of areas available for housing in Dunedin. Rather than focus on roads intensification could occur along the rail corridor, that way if the roads become more congested in Dunedin in future rail could be used to move people around without having to build more infrastructure. This is especially the case where rail makes the journey into the city quicker, such as where rail tunnels exist. I also believe that hight limits for housing could be increased, especially in gully areas. Attached are some documents so that you will know where the area I am referring to is located.
Submission documents
Submission that have been deemed to have 'Out of scope' submission points have had a pdf attached showing the Out-of-scope points highlighted.