| Submission point number/s: | S165.001 |
Click on each heading to view the submission details
-
Submitter and address for service details
Reference: 808689
Name Susan Davies Organisation (if applicable) Contact person/agent (if different to submitter) Postal address (address for service)
346 Portobello Rd Challis Dunedin 9077 Email address: dunedindavies@gmail.com Contact phone number: 021 140-4535 -
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. No
-
Submission
Variation 2 change ID GF14 Provision name and number, or address and map layer name 336 & 336A Portobello Rd (in part) My/our submission seeks the following decision from the Council: Reject the change Details Reasons for these views 10 Reasons to reject GF14 proposal to rezone 1. There is a “significant issue” with the steepness of the site slope. Both “instability” and “geotechnical assessment required” are mentioned in appendix 6.12 of the Section 32 document. Previous slipping has occurred onto Weller St at No.332. This environment is already unstable. Development, if rezoning occurs, will exacerbate this. 2. Potable water connection requires either “significant network extensions” (appendix 6.12) if connected to the Portobello Rd system and at least something superior to the current use of ground surface garden hose connections (as several residents have at present) if connecting up to the Highcliff Rd system. Development, if rezoning occurs, will exacerbate this. 3. Wastewater removal is identified as an issue and “requires detailed investigation” for a “downstream upgrade” (appendix 6.12). A further upgrade will certainly be necessary if extra connections are made to it. 4. Stormwater culverts “likely need to be upgraded for capacity and erosion protection” (appendix 6.12). Surface storm water is already a regular issue for some residents (at No.342 and 343). Development, if rezoning occurs, will exacerbate this. Stormwater erosion of the cliff face is already a regular occurrence along Portobello Rd. 5. The road network into Dunedin that Portobello Rd connects to will have its “current under-performance further exacerbated” (appendix 6.12). Weller St will also have its current inadequacy (width, surface, single lane) further exacerbated if development occurs as a result of rezoning. 6. A “feasible capacity of 5 dwellings” (appendix 6.12) neither specifies nor limits what a developer may later apply to implement. Any number at all will proportionally increase all 5 of the issues already referred to above, already being experienced by existing residents. This environment cannot support the number of dwellings that a developer would potentially need to construct to cover the associated infrastructure costs. 7. Organisations such as The Coalition Preservation Trust and Save The Otago Peninsula (STOP) are both already involved in appeal and mediation processes (respectively) to “extend the significant natural landscape” over such rural sites as this one. This is the opposite to rezoning the site to Township and Settlement. Extending the natural landscape is preferable to extending the Town and Settlement zone for existing residents. 8. DCC has not provided, either in the Section 32 report appendices or in any other form, how any development following the proposed rezoning might affect infrastructure for the existing nine residences. Appendix 6.12 does refer to improving the intersection with Portobello Rd being given “consideration at subdivision stage”. This implies that there will be no consideration given if such sub-division does not occur and it does not even refer to any other aspect of infrastructure requirements. The non-availability (requested 16th Feb) of a recent report on Weller St to DCC Transportation Dept is of concern as anticipated planning for our local environment is not being shared with us. 9. DCC has not shown any awareness in appendix 6.12 of such issues as Weller St’s current close proximity to houses (at No.338), to retaining walls (at No.333), to a neighbouring shared driveway (to No.330, 332 and 333) and to the gum trees at the bottom end of Weller St (which are valued by the community both as character landmarks and as stabilisers of the bank down to Portobello Rd). All of these are preventing (or seriously affecting) the widening needed for improved access from Portobello Rd that is to be “considered at subdivision stage” (appendix 6.12). Perhaps these factors are in the report we cannot access, but we currently do not know how much DCC is aware of these specific aspects of our environment. 10. With regard to Weller Street, we need to know that DCC knows where any improvements to Weller St such as road widening would be applied? We need to know what other infrastructure improvement (like footpaths, gutters, stormwater drains, street lighting, 2-way vehicle access or visitor parking) are planned? We cannot support a rezone leading to more development without this information.
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.