| Submission point number/s: | S243.001 S243.002 |
Click on each heading to view the submission details
-
Submitter and address for service details
Reference: 809072
Name Bruce & Denise Todd Organisation (if applicable) Contact person/agent (if different to submitter) Postal address (address for service)
189 Wakari Road Helensburgh Dunedin 9010 Email address: brucetodd50@gmail.com Contact phone number: -
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 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 Lot 1 DP 10300 2.9340 CT 17C/596 My/our submission seeks the following decision from the Council: Multiple submission points/decisions outlined below Details Reject the change from Rural Residential 2 to General Residential 1 Amend the wording to be a change from " Rural Residential 2" to "Large Lot Residential 1. Reasons for these views Any development would need be to be sensitive to the greater surrounding natural landscape, i.e Flagstaff and the neighbouring upland hills. The creation of grass areas (or berms) between houses and the access road would help maintain the current rural ambience currently appreciated by residents and visitors to the area. A development of density and scale, similar to those currently nearing completion in the Silverstream area of Mosgiel, would simply be a "blight upon the natural landscape". There are several areas currently being considered for intensive development in the great Dunedin area. Lot 1 DP 10300 is better suited for "Large Lot Residential 1" (sections 2000 square metres minimum). The 15-20 metre (green belt) encumbrance registered against title 6568 running adjacent to the rear boundaries of properties 165-205 be considered for the creation of an earth berm planted with native species of low or medium height trees/shrubs. As a signatory to the letter (14th Feb 2000) to the then Acting Manager of Community and Recreational Planning, and subsequent reply on the 23rd June 2000 confirming the appropriate registered encumbrance, I will point out that it explicitly prohibits any structure. Any suggestions this could now be a road would be in breach of the agreement established in good faith, between council, residents and the Bain family. It should be remembered that at that time, surviving members of the Bain family asked for the return of the gifted land but were refused on a legal technicality. With consideration of establishing a berm, it should be noted that several residents have garages or carports accessed via the existing "Right of Way". This right of way is narrow, and turning in or out a garage or carport requires the whole width of the sealed area. An adjacent berm on the green belt, would provide additional temporary width to be used, for example, when backing a trailer, wood deliveries, emergency services and a safe route for foot traffic, especially children who access the park.
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.