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.
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.
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.
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.
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
We agree that the Grasmere zone be carved out of the ONL Overlay
To remove the ONL Overlay from the GRAZ zone at Grasmere
We support the deleting of the item iv. "coloured
correlated metal sheeting" from GRZ-REQ16
Delete iv. coloured corrugated metal sheeting
We support the status quo for Castle Hill Village
Delete iv. coloured corrugated metal sheeting
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.