| Submission point number/s: | S274.001 |
Click on each heading to view the submission details
-
Submitter and address for service details
Reference: 809312
Name Michael & Michelle Wallace 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. No
-
Submission
Variation 2 change ID Site ID #167 - Rejected Sites - Schedule 4 Provision name and number, or address and map layer name 50 & 60 Brinsdon Road My/our submission seeks the following decision from the Council: Reject the change Details Our property was assessed for transition to the General Residential 1 zoning. Schedule 4 records that "The site has been developed as a Rural Residential area. It is also detached from existing residential area and relatively distant from services, therefore fails to support the compact form/city policies." Council's reporting is correct regarding the locality having been developed as a Rural-Residential area. However, a key difference in the character of this location to those of other Rural-Residential areas, is that it is influenced by the infrastructure associated with the Mount Grand Water Treatment Plant and the prevalence of housing located close to Brinsdon Road on narrow frontages. These attributes give the locality a less "rural" character than that normally found in rural-residential areas. 50 Brinsdon Road is 850m from a high-frequency bus route, close to large parks and amenity areas, 1.1km to the shops (including a pharmacy, grocery store and Fish and Chip Shop). A Kindergarten and Primary School are located 1.2km from the subject site, meaning that distances between the site and these community services are shorter than those associated with a number of sites that have found favour for rezoning. The amenities in Brockville appear to be under-utilised and sustainability may be marginal if the number of residents within their catchment isn't allowed to expand. No specific Natural Hazards appear to have been mapped against the subject properties. We feel that developing our property in a manner that maintains open-space amenity whilst expanding urban capacity is advantageous to the wider area. Our properties are located relatively close to the existing Brockville residential area. Reasons for these views It is disappointing that council's assessment of our property is so sparse in terms of detail, as it makes it difficult to respond to concerns that council may have about the proposal that haven't been identified in their reporting. However, we are confident that a sustainable development can be created on our property, to allow additional residential capacity to be created; whilst maintaining the character of the locality. No difficulty appears to have been encountered by residents of the subject or adjacent properties, in terms of transport, utilities or proximity to the town center, schools or other services. Therefore, we request that our property be reconsidered for residential rezoning.
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.