| Submission point number/s: | S175.001 |
Click on each heading to view the submission details
-
Submitter and address for service details
Reference: 808672
Name Philippa Youard Organisation (if applicable) Contact person/agent (if different to submitter) Postal address (address for service)
2 Pleasant Place North East Valley Dunedin 9010 Email address: youardpjy@gmail.com Contact phone number: 021-058-1378 -
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 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 GF12 Provision name and number, or address and map layer name Change No.GF.12 Rezoning from Rural to Large Lot Residential 1, 233 Signal Hill Rd, Mapping layer 12. My/our submission seeks the following decision from the Council: If the change is not rejected, amend as outlined below Details The current Rezoning Assessment Sheet (pages 40-43 of Appendix 6.11 of 2GP District Plan Appendices, February 2021, Section 1.6 Site Assessments) concerning the proposed zoning change to 233 Signal Hill Rd significantly understates the impact of the proposed change. It thus creates a misleading picture of the area under consideration and therefore should be altered or the area reassessed and described accurately. Reasons for these views I will list the issues apparent in the Assessment Sheet in the order in which they are stated on the Assessment Sheet: 1. Proximity to public Transport: this is misleadingly stated as both "Good" and as 400 metres. It is difficult to see how this figure was obtained, unless it refers to a direct helicopter flight. Reaching the bus terminal on Signal Hill Rd would involve movement up very steep terrain ( acknowledged as too steep for roading) and crossing private property. To reach any of the bus stops on North Rd would involve movement down through an un-formed and heavily gorse-covered paper road, Thurlstone Rd, then a winding descent down Pleasant Place, then down Birchfield Rd all of which involves considerably more distance than 400 metres. It is totally inaccurate to describe access to public transport via either of these choices as "Good" , let alone as involving only a distance of 400meters. This assessment is also at odds with the later assessment of Transport Effects(local) as "Significant" which acknowledges that there is no satisfactory means of accessing North Rd by any adjoining existing roads such as Pleasant Place. Clambering uphill across private property to Signal Hill Rd or bush-wacking down to Pleasant Place should not be described as "Good" access to public transport. 2. Impact on Productive land: the assessment indicates"some issues" but states that only 3% of high class soils would be removed from the mapped area. However looking at Map12 ( page 290 of February 2GP) , the area shaded as representing such soils appears considerably larger. The soils under consideration also appear squashed in one corner of the map in an area unlikely to form a building platform. This hardly squares with the proposal to allow 6 substantial homes to be built on the lot. This description of soil loss appears to be misleading and needs clarification and amendment. 3. Natural Hazards: The impacts are described as "Low" in part and "Medium" for the remainder due to slope instability and storm-water run-off. The areas are not described on any map so it is impossible to judge the respective size of the Low vs Medium risk areas. Very significant storm-water issues, including land movement have occurred to properties below 233 Signal Hill, namely properties on Pleasant Place and Birchfield Ave as a result of existing land topography and alteration of storm-water flows when adverse heavy weather events have occurred and also when land clearance has occurred. The area is also well known for hidden springs, as many local home builders have discovered to their cost once excavation of their building platforms has begun. The water table in this area is notoriously difficult to assess. Submissions, including video evidence , were made to council concerning these very issues a few years ago when proposals were made by the Court family to extend Pleasant Place across Thurlstone Rd to allow subdivision on what is now 233 Signal Hill Rd. Additionally, there does not appear to be any requirements for reforestation of this area to mitigate these existing natural hazards. 4. Potable Water supply: The issues are considered "Significant but manageable", requiring homes here to be completely self-sufficient with potable water supply, and sewerage. However there is no mention of water supply for fire fighting. As fire appliances cannot connect to water mains, by what feasible means is fire control expected to occur. There is no mention of mandatory reservoirs of water for this purpose and given the siting of homes amidst gorse and wilding pines this could be a fatal oversight. The Assessment needs to address this important aspect of water supply. 5. Storm-water Management: This section is very skimpy in its description of the issues for the Lot and surrounding area, stating "some issues but manageable". No consideration seems to have been given to the wealth of relevant concerns formally recorded a few years ago as submissions to council concerning storm-water and the development of Pleasant Place, including for existing properties at the top of Pleasant Place for whom run-off from 233 Signal Hill is highly relevant. Furthermore the storm-water issues directly relating to subdivision in this area still have not been rectified for the property most badly impacted by the changes ( 28 Birchfield Ave). Given the subdivision proposed at 233 Signal Hill Rd will involve steeper terrain and an increased number of homes, future negative impacts are highly probable for those living downhill of any subdivision. These difficulties are not reflected in the current Assessment Sheet, but should have been taken into consideration. 6. Transport: Issues regarding access to the sites are described as "Significant". I accept this description but would like to strengthen the description of the problems associated with any potential access via Birchfield Ave and Pleasant Place. Significant damage occurred to local properties, and the surface of Birchfield Ave during the recent formation of Pleasant Place by Clearwater Construction on contract to the DCC. Vibration damage to interiors and collapse of retaining walls occurred, together with significant flooding events for No.28 Birchfield Ave in particular. Neither road is suited to large vehicle movements, particularly the heavy vehicles needed for road construction and site clearances. The narrowness of these roads, together with lack of parking means that emergency vehicle access is often difficult and in fact was impossible during the road development of Pleasant Place. The current Assessment sheet for 233 Signal Hill Rd does not seem to sufficiently address the severity of the difficulties around transport access in this area. 7. Issues: There is no mention of electricity supply to the proposed subdivision or the issues for network utility operators such as broadband or internet providers. This more general category should also address Emergency Vehicle Access but fails to do so: The specific difficulties of access for fire and ambulance vehicles are significant and not addressed by the current Assessment. Additionally, given any proposed dwellings would have to be self-sufficient for potable water, no consideration of issues for fire fighting are stated. Where is such water supposed to come from? Given the increases in dry weather currently happening and expected to continue to occur with climate change the proposed subdivision significantly lacks resilience. It is placed in an area with large tracts of combustible material, namely gorse and wilding pines. It must surely be considered a high fire-risk zone, and indeed during the lands previous ownership by the Court family several large fires did occur on Mt Mera that proved very challenging for local fire services to control and involved evacuation of nearby streets. Placing multiple residences in this area, with poor site access seems a highly risky proposal. The issues in Central Otago concerning belated recognition of fire risk to homes on Mt Iron in Wanaka has a strong parallel here. The assessment of this Lot should give clear recognition of the risks and management of them, especially regarding fire. We do not want a Lake Ohau type event to occur here.
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.