| Submission point number/s: | S128.001 S128.002 S128.004 S128.005 S128.006 S128.007 S128.008 S128.009 S128.010 S128.011 |
Click on each heading to view the submission details
-
Submitter and address for service details
Reference: 808407
Name Mark Geddes Organisation (if applicable) Contact person/agent (if different to submitter) Postal address (address for service)
77 Halfway Bush Road Dunedin Dunedin 9054 Email address: mprgeddes@hotmail.com Contact phone number: 0220331890 -
Hearings
Do you wish to speak in support of your submission at a hearing No If others make a similar submission, would you consider presenting a joint case at a hearing Yes -
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 A1, A2, A3, B1, B3, B4, B6, C1, D4, D6, D7 Provision name and number, or address and map layer name My/our submission seeks the following decision from the Council: Accept the change with amendments outlined below Details A1 - accept the change in full A2 - accept the change but subdivision consent of duplex sites should not happen until a code of compliance is issued for the building. A3 - accept what is in Variation 2 fully but could go further to include more land with development potential for Gen Res 2. B1 - accept in full B3 - accept the change B4 - accept the change B6 - accept the change in full C1 - accept in full D4 - accept in the change D6 - accept the change Transport provisions - reject the change and amend D7 - accept but use appropriate professional advice Reasons for these views A1 - this is a positive change to a 2GP rule that was limiting residential living options due to the family nature of the rule. A2 - this would reduce the risk of sites being subdivided for duplex developments but then on-sold separately where a detached buildings could potentially be built on either new lot. Please add the need for a code of compliance as both a policy and a rule. A3 - I think the changes to Gen Residential 1 and 2 are positive and the council should be commended on these moves in the areas outlined on the maps. I do, however, feel that the extent of the mapping falls short. Medium sized potential developments in areas to remain general residential 1 often have better infrastructure than those included in the variation 2 mapping. Given the capacity of some of the city's infrastructure is in question, I think it is best to explore medium sized development options 4-10 lots where good servicing exists and building platforms could be more readily developed. I believe the scope of 'Variation 2' is at fault here. A2 - accept but I suggest that a code of compliance should be gained for the new duplex building prior to subdivision resource consent being granted. B1 - should be accepted in full as the potential to consider topographical features and vegetation and the practical space within an allotment is broader with this rule in place. B6 - this is a sensible change that is consistent with much of the public's expectation that a house can be built on a freehold title where the effects are known and expected. C1 - in short, we need social housing so I see this as a proactive move from the DCC. I would, however, say that this should be open to all and not just registered housing providers D6 - greater need for consideration of indigenous biodiversity is required in greenfields developments. This should assist in that. D7 - if this assists in getting more appropriate planting and public amenities in greenfields subdivision, then that is very positive. I do however feel that landscape architects should have more input that urban planners in this regard due to their skill base and practical experience. Transport provisions - the need to have a legal road for housing developments over 12 lots is does not consider site layout, in-fill subdivision or topography and seems quite random. I think a better solution is to put different width requirements in place for private access ways of greater than 12 lots. I do not see a reason to limit the number of users if the road is of adequate width and a purchaser has bought a site knowing the maintenance requirements and potential traffic flows for their private road.
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.