​​​​​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​



​​Clear Filters​​

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Summary
Decision Requested
  
DPR-0494Julia Banks & Alastair HerremanFS001GRUZDPR-0481Graeme and Virginia Adams001Support

Those of us living in Greendale do so because we chose to live in a rural area and want it to remain rural. As a lifestyle block owner we purchased here for the rural outlook and small, close community Greendale is known for and to support the character of the different areas. We chose our children to attend the local school because we value it’s country style environment. Our children develop close friendships and empowerment from being a strong contributor to their environment where small class sizes mean confident, happy children. The school has already identified space issues and teacher shortages which will only snowball if more land is to be subdivided to smaller residential blocks. It is also imperative we maintain the urban-rural boundary to support our food production and support our local farmers. This could be compromised should this proposal go ahead as the population increases, productive farmland diminishes and less support to local farming is shown by new residents who object to farming practices.

Retain the provision that no further rural land is rezoned to residential or be able to be subdivided smaller than 4ha
DPR-0494 FSub
DPR-0495Jeremy ThomasFS001REZONINGDPR-0020Roger & Gwenda Smithies001Support
The council should allow 1-acre sections for all neighbouring lifestyle properties to the town infrastructure boundary.

​Not specified

DPR-0495 FSub
DPR-0496BHL TrustFS001REZONINGDPR-0136Lynn & Malcolm Stewart, Lynn & Carol Townsend & Rick Fraser001Oppose

Opposes the proposed rezoning because existing Barton Field residential section (Lot 16 or 17) is used for an access point. Barton Field Subdivision Consented Plans did not have this as a future link into this block. The proposed rezoning would be a breach of the landowners covenants. ​

Do not allow a link/connection through Barton Fields Subdivision through an existing residential section which is being proposed. As it is a breach of the landowners covenant on this Lot.
DPR-0496 FSub
DPR-0498Gordon HamiltonFS001SETZDPR-0100Annette Shankie004Oppose In Part

Supports allowing non family members in flats but the council must also take into consideration problems of vehicle movements and parking where infill is in back sections with limited or narrow road access and limited parking. There is no need for intense infill in small rural townships like Lincoln, this is not the CBD.

The amendment should only be allowed for larger sections where road access is not an issue. If off street parking is not available there must be on street parking on the section frontage.

DPR-0498 FSub
DPR-0498Gordon HamiltonFS002RESZDPR-0051Prateek Sharma004Oppose

Does not support the removal of the requirement that only family members may live in a family flat in residential areas. Removing this requirement simply turns a house and flat into a block of flats resulting in increased traffic and noise for neighboring properties. There is no benefit to the neighboring properties.

Supports flats on larger rural sections but opposes non-family flats in smaller sections in residential areas.

DPR-0498 FSub
DPR-0499Phillip LongFS001REZONINGDPR-0136Lynn & Malcolm Stewart, Lynn & Carol Townsend & Rick Fraser001Support In Part
I'd like my bordering 10 acres to be considered for rezoning as well
As my land boarders housing now on 2 sides I'd like it to be rezoned for potential development as well.
DPR-0499 FSub
DPR-0500Catherine BarnettFS001Support

Seeks that more thought be put into how house sites will be landscaped in terms how the backyard will be accessed. Suggests a minimum of 1.2 metres for a side gate thus allowing machinery in to do the landscape jobs and any other work a home owner may wish to do in their backyard in the future.

Set a minimum entrance to backyards to 1.2 metres

DPR-0500 FSub
DPR-0501Susan HudsonFS001REZONINGDPR-0136Lynn & Malcolm Stewart, Lynn & Carol Townsend & Rick Fraser001Support
Allow the rezoning and development to provide sustainable housing growth. Would like my land included in this rezoning.
Support in full
DPR-0501 FSub
DPR-0502Jennifer McLaughlinFS001REZONINGDPR-0136Lynn & Malcolm Stewart, Lynn & Carol Townsend & Rick Fraser001Support
Adjoining Land Rezoning and Development
Allowed
DPR-0502 FSub
DPR-0391Castle Hill Adventure Tours LimitedFS006NFLDPR-0207Selwyn District Council107Support

We agree that the Grasmere zone be carved out of the ONL Overlay

To remove the ONL Overlay from the GRAZ zone at Grasmere

DPR-0391 FSub
DPR-0391Castle Hill Adventure Tours LimitedFS007GRZDPR-0207Selwyn District Council067Support

We support the deleting of the item iv. "coloured correlated metal sheeting" from GRZ-REQ16

Delete iv. coloured corrugated metal sheeting from GRZ-REQ16.

DPR-0391 FSub
DPR-0391Castle Hill Adventure Tours LimitedFS008GRZDPR-0271Pete & Sonia Wakefield005Oppose

We support the status quo for Castle Hill Village

Delete iv. coloured corrugated metal sheeting from GRZ-REQ16.

DPR-0391 FSub
DPR-0391Castle Hill Adventure Tours LimitedFS009GRZDPR-0271Pete & Sonia Wakefield003Support

We support the original roof pitch of 30degrees being reinstated in Castle Hill Village

Amend roof pitch to 30 degrees over 70% of roof area of buildings.

DPR-0391 FSub
DPR-0391Castle Hill Adventure Tours LimitedFS010GRZDPR-0442Castle Hill Community Association Inc.014 Support

We support the reflectivity rule and would like it tone recognised as covering all exterior pipework, chimney flues and heat pumps.

Clarify the rule to cover all exterior pipework, chimney flues and heat pumps

DPR-0391 FSub
DPR-0391Castle Hill Adventure Tours LimitedFS012GRZDPR-0442Castle Hill Community Association Inc.010 Support

We support the rule allowing no more than 20% of the building cladding to be metal sheeting.

Retain the existing rules relating to the percentage of cladding that can be other than timber and stone.

DPR-0391 FSub
DPR-0391Castle Hill Adventure Tours LimitedFS014REZONINGDPR-0442Castle Hill Community Association Inc.001Oppose

Resource Consent has been granted to the Holiday Park so development of the village will occur on the eastern side of the highway.

Delete any reference to subdivision and development being restricted to the West of SH73.

DPR-0391 FSub
DPR-0391Castle Hill Adventure Tours LimitedFS015GRUZDPR-0483Castle Hill Property Investment Ltd001Oppose In Part

The flat area overlooking the reserve on Luge Loop opposite the area of LCZ identified as Lots 105,106 & 107 being Lots 1-5 should remain LCZ

Retaining Lots 1 - 5 as LCZ.

DPR-0391 FSub
DPR-0055Kathryn TaylorFS001REZONINGDPR-0416Alistair John Dugald Cameron001Oppose In Part
The original submitter has submitted to rezone LLRZ designated land to LRZ land based on a high level of connectivity and appropriate serviceability in the area. They have shown proposals to use existing roading infrastructure (Cridges Rd and Bangor Rd) to service accessibility into their proposed rezoning/subdivision. As a resident on Cridges Rd directly opposite this proposed rezoning parcel of land, I oppose this rezoning in part because I do not believe there is the roading and pedestrian infrastructure in place to service a higher density area without significant upgrades. Cridges Rd is a single lane bitumen road with no pedestrian access, and poor safety features that is already a major concern. If the area was rezoned to LRZ, it would require pedestrian thoroughfare, as well as roading infrastructure upgrades. It would also be an anomaly to the surrounding LLRZ lifestyle areas, and without substantial rezoning to surrounding LLRZ areas, would be incongruous with the current landscape and lifestyle aesthetic.​
I wish the submission point to be disallowed in part unless roading and pedestrian infrastructure is significantly considered and resolved prior/concurrently to development. Consideration should be given to the surrounding character of rural and lifestyle areas​
DPR-0055 FSub
DPR-0504Henry McKayFS001REZONINGDPR-0036Tony Edney002Oppose
Considers that a diverse range of architecture should be allowed for as, while most existing structures date to the 1960s, many different styles have been employed. 
Also considers that existing bachs have floor areas of up to 100m2 and a maximum floor area 60m2 is too restrictive.
Disallowed in part.
Do not place restrictions on the style of architecture and, if a maximum floor area is to be specified, suggest 100m2.
DPR-0504 FSub
DPR-0505Samantha Gifford-MooreFS001REZONINGDPR-0284Zoran Rakovic002Support

Considers that having large lots within an already built up subdivision is not an efficient use of land; rather a large lot buffer around a subdivision achieves the intent of a rural interface. It is good urban design to have a dense centre and a lower dense perimeter and that internal larger lots do not generally add to the spaciousness from the street.

Rezoning the LLRZ to GRZ would be more prudent use of existing resources (land, roads, infrastructure) and is in line with RMA and Government’s drive to generate more housing and the proposed zoning in West Melton is an anomaly, and not in line with other similar areas in Selwyn. 

Amend the LLRZ with the bounds of the Preston downs subdivision to GRZ

DPR-0505 FSub
DPR-0435Daire Limited, Alistair KingFS001REZONINGDPR-0438Robert Barker001Support
The land is suitable for LLRZ zoning, and is the most efficient use of the site.
Allow the submission and rezone the site.
DPR-0435 FSub
DPR-0191Alastair KingFS001REZONINGDPR-0435Daire Limited, Alistair King001Support
Agrees that the site is suitable for the zoning and is seeking to rezone 405 Lincoln Tai Tapu Road and 719 Ellesmere Road to LLRZ. 

Allowed in full. Please rezone the site to LLRZ.
DPR-0191 FSub
DPR-0435Daire Limited, Alistair KingFS002REZONINGDPR-0191Alastair King001Support
The land is suitable for LLRZ zoning, and is the most efficient use of the site
Allow the submission and rezone the site.
DPR-0435 FSub
DPR-0191Alastair KingFS002REZONINGDPR-0438Robert Barker001Support
Agrees that the site is suitable for the zoning and is seeking to rezone 405 Lincoln Tai Tapu Road and 719 Ellesmere Road to LLRZ.

Allowed in full. Please rezone the site to LLRZ.
DPR-0191 FSub
DPR-0506M & X BentleyFS001REZONINGDPR-0392CSI Property Limited 008Oppose

Opposes the rezoning to GIZ would negatively impact the rural character of the area. The rezoning would contradict the proposed District Plan GIZ-O2 and the RMA Section 7 (c). ​

Disallowed in full
DPR-0506 FSub
DPR-0506M & X BentleyFS002REZONINGDPR-0493Gallina Nominees Ltd & Heinz-Wattie Ltd Pension Plan001Oppose

Opposes the rezoning because it contradicts the proposed District Plan SD-UFD-01. Additionally, the rezoning land puts additional traffic on Dunns Crossing Road and intersection of SH1 and Dunns Cross Road that are already struggling to upkeep the traffic thus increasing safety issues. Furthermore, rezoning land would negatively impact the rural character and noise level. Refer to the original further submission for full reason. ​
​​

Disallowed in full
DPR-0506 FSub
DPR-0506M & X BentleyFS003REZONINGDPR-0358Rolleston West Residential Limited (RWRL)001Oppose

Opposes the rezoning because it specifically contradicts the proposed district plan DEV-RO7 and District Plan SD-UFD-01. Additionally, it adds more traffic on Dunns Crossing Road and intersection with SH1 and Dunns Crossing Road which is already busy. Furthermore, it would negatively impact on the rural character and noise level. Adding a new commercial block is unnecessary because there is an existing commercial blocks with a dairy and some empty shops. ​

Disallowed in full
DPR-0506 FSub
DPR-0506M & X BentleyFS004REZONINGDPR-0358Rolleston West Residential Limited (RWRL)002Oppose

Opposes the rezoning because it specifically contradicts the proposed district plan DEV-RO7 and District Plan SD-UFD-01. Additionally, it adds more traffic on Dunns Crossing Road and intersection with SH1 and Dunns Crossing Road which is already busy. Furthermore, it would negatively impact on the rural character and noise level. Adding a new commercial block is unnecessary because there is an existing commercial blocks with a dairy and some empty shops. Refer to the original further submission for full reason.​

Disallowed in full
DPR-0506 FSub
DPR-0171Eliot SinclairFS001DEFDPR-0353Horticulture New Zealand065Support

Agee with their submission point. The NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health does not specify potentially contaminated land and provides direction on when investigations are to be undertaken. The District Plan has to give effect to the NESCS, so a definition of potentially contaminated should not be included as it is inconsistent with the NESCS.

Allow submission point in full.

DPR-0171 FSub
DPR-0171Eliot SinclairFS002DEFDPR-0422Federated Farmers of New Zealand - North Canterbury072Support

Agee with their submission point. The NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health does not specify potentially contaminated land and provides direction on when investigations are to be undertaken. The District Plan has to give effect to the NESCS, so a definition of potentially contaminated should not be included as it is inconsistent with the NESCS.

Allow submission point in full.

DPR-0171 FSub
1 - 30Next