| Submission point number/s: | S281.001 |
Click on each heading to view the submission details
-
Submitter and address for service details
Reference: 809298
Name Steve Ross Organisation (if applicable) Nash and Ross Ltd 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 42 Lambert Street, Abbotsford 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, including one that backs on to our property. 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 report are not present on our site or on land immediately adjacent to our property. The gradient is less than 12 degrees, with a significant part of the 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 Stantech findings, to our site. However, it does correctly identify that the majority of these nominally "Greenfields Sites" are not actually used in primary production (as is the case with our property) and identifies little scope to improve this. The loss of long term primary production is consequentially considered to be nil. The report quite correctly identifies long-term risks associated with the inappropriate development of sensitive parts of the wider 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 that residential development located adjacent to the railway is a dominant (and well liked) part of the character of the Abbotsford locality. The effects of sand quarrying are minimal, as the volumes extracted are modest, no blasting occurs and the active area isn't readily visible from my property. The Becca report forecast that 617 dwellings could be developed across the wider area (Area 3 in their report, Area 14 on the data map) which is a relatively low yield for an area in excess of 70ha under the GR1 zoning. Presumably, generous provision for excluding areas that are subject to specific hazards, has been made. We feel that a respectable number of dwellings could be established on our property and adjacent properties with a favourable hazard profile; whilst managing impacts on primary production and the receiving environment. 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 on sites located a considerable distance away. We believe that our property fits the required criteria, and that realizing 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.
No associated documents with this submission.