| Submission point number/s: | S130.001 |
Click on each heading to view the submission details
-
Submitter and address for service details
Reference: 808402
Name Ben Mackey Organisation (if applicable) Contact person/agent (if different to submitter) Postal address (address for service)
Email address: huntamac@gmail.com Contact phone number: -
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 F2-7 Provision name and number, or address and map layer name Map IN03 My/our submission seeks the following decision from the Council: Accept the change with amendments outlined below Details Reasons for these views I live in Green Island on a quarter acre section which I understand is proposed to be rezoned to GR2 (area IN03), and also attracts a Stormwater constraint mapped area. I can generally appreciate why this area would be considered appropriate for a change of zoning given the assessment in Appendix 6.16. of the Section 32 report. Our property would at first glance be suitable for densification and or subdivision. However there is a Stormwater main crossing the property, which, as I understand it, would prevent any building within a set distance of the pipe. Looking at DCC water infrastructure maps, this is a common occurrence in this area with many lots crossed by parts of the drainage network. I make the following comments and suggestions about Rule F2-7 – stormwater constraint mapped area proposal: • As it stands, potentially the primary handbrake on development within existing neighbourhoods such as Green Island is the capacity and location of DCC owned infrastructure. • If the stormwater network had sufficient capacity to accommodate the (relatively modest) amount of proposed new housing, I assume the stormwater constraint would not apply. • Stormwater constraints are possibly due to legacy stormwater networks which were designed for much fewer houses, and have common maintenance issues due to poor construction, age, or tree damage. I have heard there can be few locatable construction records or as-built plans due to the age of the original suburbs, or historic amalgamation of various Borough Councils to form the DCC. • A cursory inspection of the DCC water network map of the proposed IN03 area in Green Island reveals large sections of the storm and wastewater infrastructure transects private property with little regard to property boundaries. This affects the ability to develop many lots, as there are stormwater or sewer pipes running across sections. I understand the DCC requires no permanent building over or adjacent to network pipes, with setbacks, required for maintenance. • May I suggest strategically upgrading/relocating some key parts of the stormwater (or sewer main) network. This could involve routing infrastructure down roads / footpaths or closer to property boundaries, to a modern construction standard with sufficient capacity for increased housing, changing rainfall patterns etc. • This will have a two-fold effect. First it will diminish the need for the stormwater constraint mapped area as the stormwater network will have the capacity to convey increased loading from the reduction in permeable area. This will also potentially apply to sewer networks. Second, it will open up many residential lots for development and increased density that currently are traversed by stormwater or sewer infrastructure and can’t be developed despite the potential in every other regard. • I appreciate relocating or upgrading drainage infrastructure will be very expensive and there may be topographic or practical constraints in some locations that mean parts of the network can not be relocated. However it may warrant investigation, as the benefits would be: 1) reduced future maintenance costs on undersized, aging, and sometimes poorly constructed infrastructure, 2) increased capacity for more housing across the area generally due to greater network capacity, and 3) allowing development of lots which are currently traversed by pipes.
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.
No associated documents with this submission.