| Submission point number/s: | S302.001 S302.002 S302.003 S302.004 S302.005 |
Click on each heading to view the submission details
-
Submitter and address for service details
Reference: 809220
Name Alan David Geeves, Nicola Jane Algie, David Eric Geeves Alan David Geeves, Nicola Jane Algie, David Eric Geeves Organisation (if applicable) Contact person/agent (if different to submitter) C/- Paterson Pitts Group Postal address (address for service)
PO Box 5933 Moray Place Dunedin 9058 Email address: andrew.robinson@ppgroup.co.nz 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 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 Site ID #14 - Rejected Sites -Schedule 4 Provision name and number, or address and map layer name 55 McMeakin Road My/our submission seeks the following decision from the Council: Reject the change Details Our property is one of several that were assessed for transition to the General Reidential 1 zoning in the Abbotsford / North Taieri area. This location is proving popular, with recent residential developments selling well. The locality enjoys a micro-climate as a result of the surrounding geography and provides a pleasant outlook for residents despite having strong transport and trunk utility infrastructure. "Site 14" is a relatively large area (70ha), contained in multiple ownerships and exhibiting a wide variety of geological characteristics and gradients. Site 14 was rejected because of "Significant natural hazard risks identified", particularly in relation to Slope Angles, Mine Sites, Recorded Instabilities in the wider area, ponding and risk of sediment deposit. Reasons for these views Generally, the hazards identified in the Stantech are not present on our site or on land immediately adjacent to our property. The gradient is generally less than 12 degrees, with a significant site area being flatter than this. Our property is within "Area 3" of the Becca / Property Economics report. Once again, it considers the area as a whole, which reduces the applicability of the findings, to our site. However, it does correctly identify that the majority of these nominally "Greenfields Sites" are not actually used in primary production and identifies little scope to improve this. The loss of primary production is consequentially minimal. The report quite correctly identifies long-term risks associated with the inappropriate development of sensitive parts of the area, and on landscape. However, these observations have limited relevance to our property, given its location and geography. Their case for the social benefits (economics definition) of developing the area is compelling. The "reverse sensitivity" argument is of little relevance, given the distance between our site and the quarry and railway. Therefore, we request that our property be reconsidered for residential rezoning with respect to the topography and geology that is present on the subject site, rather than making the decision based on issues identified a considerable distance away. We believe that our property fits the required criteria, and that realising the properties development potential would result in relatively low negative effects on the receiving environment and many positive effects as correctly identified in the Becca report.
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.