DPR-0449 SUBMISSION ON THE PROPOSED SELWYN DISTRICT PLAN in accordance with Clause 6 of the Schedule 1 of the TO: Selwyn District Council PO Box 90, Rolleston 7643 [email protected] 1. Submitter Details Submitters name: Bealey Developments Ltd Address For Service: c\- Davie Lovell-Smith Ltd PO Box 679, Christchurch 8140 Contact person: Julie Comfort [email protected] Phone: 03-379-0793 2. Trade Competition: We could gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission: ☐ Yes No If Yes to above, then: We are directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of the submissions that: (a) adversely affects the environment; and (b) does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition ☐ Yes ☐ No 3. Hearing options: Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? If you choose yes, you can choose not to speak when the hearing date is advertised. Yes ☐ No If others are making a similar submission would you consider presenting a joint case with them at the hearing? You can change your mind once the hearing has been advertised. ☐ Yes No Submission of Bealey Developments Ltd 1 4. Submission Details Yes , I am enclosing further supporting information to this submission form Provision to which My position on this The reasons for my/our submission are: The decision I/we want Council to make: my/our submission provision is: (Please give details, eg I think this should be non-complying because we don’t want this to occur in our town centre) (Please specify if you want the provision to be retained, amended or deleted, eg Amend – change the activity status to non-complying) relates: (Select one option) (Please specify the Objective, Policy, Rule, Rule Requirement, Assessment Matter, Mapping feature or other reference your submission relates to, eg TCZ-R12 Visitor Accommodation) Planning Maps Providing for more intensive development of land identified within the Rezone Lots 46 and 1002 DP 489829 from ☐ Oppose in part existing township boundaries of Kirwee results in a more sustainable use of Large Lot Residential to Settlement, as ☐ Oppose in full the land. shown in the plan contained in the attached information. Support in part Please see the attached for more information. ☐ Support in full Development Areas Including the ODP will ensure that the future development of this land will Add the attached Development Plan to ☐ Oppose in part occur in an appropriate manner. Part 3 - Area Specific Matters - ☐ Oppose in full Development Areas Please see the attached for more information. Support in part ☐ Support in full Subdivision Rule The submitter supports the 1000m2 minimum average net site area for Retain the 1000m2 minimum average net ☐ Oppose in part Requirements allotments within the Settlement Zone set out in Table SUB-1 – Minimum site area for allotments within the SUB-REQ1 - Site Area ☐ Oppose in full average net site area. Settlement Zone as set out in Table SUB-1 Table SUB-1 – Minimum average net site area ☐ Support in part Support in full Submission of Bealey Developments Ltd 2 Provision to which My position on this The reasons for my/our submission are: The decision I/we want Council to make: my/our submission provision is: (Please give details, eg I think this should be non-complying because we don’t want this to occur in our town centre) (Please specify if you want the provision to be retained, amended or deleted, eg Amend – change the activity status to non-complying) relates: (Select one option) (Please specify the Objective, Policy, Rule, Rule Requirement, Assessment Matter, Mapping feature or other reference your submission relates to, eg TCZ-R12 Visitor Accommodation) Subdivision Rule The submitter supports the 800m2 minimum net area requirements for Retain the 800m2 minimum net area ☐ Oppose in part Requirements allotments within the Settlement Zone set out in Table SUB-2 – requirements for allotments within the SUB-REQ1 - Site Area ☐ Oppose in full Minimum net site area, Residential Zones. Settlement Zone set out in Table SUB-2 – Minimum net site area, Residential Zones ☐ Support in part Support in full Settlement Zone Rules It is appropriate in these small towns where there is only one zone to Retain the permitted status for commercial ☐ Oppose in part SETZ-R16 Commercial provide for a wide range of permitted activities, including commercial activities within the Settlement Zone. Activity activities where they will support the local community. ☐ Oppose in full ☐ Support in part Support in full Settlement Rule Oppose in part It is considered that the requirement to have a 4m setback from any reserve Delete the word ‘reserve’ from Rule Requirements boundary is too onerous and could result in sites not being of able to be Requirement SET-REQ5 (1)(a), so it reads: ☐ Oppose in full SETZ-REQ5 - Setback of utilised properly by future owners. In many instances the boundary with the 1. Any residential unit or principal Buildings ‘reserve’ is an access reserve providing pedestrian and cycle access between building shall be setback a minimum of: ☐ Support in part two roads. These can often be on an eastern or southern boundary against a. 4m from any road boundary, shared which a dwelling is usually placed so the property can maximum its western accessway, or reserve; and ☐ Support in full or northern aspects. In addition, it is often likely that a property can have a b. 2m from any internal road or access boundary and two reserve boundaries. A 4m setback for a boundary, unless the residential unit dwelling from three boundaries could make it impractical to build a house or other principal building has been on the such sites. designed to share a common wall It is also unclear why there needs to be a 4m setback from a shared access is along an internal boundary. necessary, particularly if this is a secondary boundary. A similar situation to that discussed above in relation to a reserve can occur within many developments, where a site has an internal boundary to a shared access and a reserve, and this rule requirement would require a 4m setback on 3 sides. Submission of Bealey Developments Ltd 3 Provision to which My position on this The reasons for my/our submission are: The decision I/we want Council to make: my/our submission provision is: (Please give details, eg I think this should be non-complying because we don’t want this to occur in our town centre) (Please specify if you want the provision to be retained, amended or deleted, eg Amend – change the activity status to non-complying) relates: (Select one option) (Please specify the Objective, Policy, Rule, Rule Requirement, Assessment Matter, Mapping feature or other reference your submission relates to, eg TCZ-R12 Visitor Accommodation) Settlement Rule Oppose in part Point 1(d) of this Rule Requirement SETZ-REQ9 restricts the location of the Delete clause 1(d) from Rule Requirement Requirement outdoor living space for a property. This clause requires that any area SETZ-REQ9. ☐ Oppose in full SETZ-REQ9 - Outdoor identified as outdoor living space is not to be located between the road and Living Space the residential units. For some sites, particularly corner sites and those that ☐ Support in part may be of an irregular shape, this is just not achievable. Lots where the road frontage is to the north or west is going to necessitate having outdoor living ☐ Support in full between the road and the house, as these areas need to have an appropriate access to sunlight. Corner lots are particularly bad in these orientations. This requirement also appears to be a little contrary to some of other requirements where the Plan appears to be trying to encourage passive surveillance over public realm. This proposed clause in fact achieves the opposite and should be deleted. Settlement Rule Oppose in part Rule GRZ-R6 has removed the ability for a corner site to have a solid 1.8m (a) Reinstate to Rule SETZ-R6 Fencing the SETZ-R6 - Fencing high fence on its secondary road frontage. This removes the ability for ability for a fence on the secondary ☐ Oppose in full corner sites to have a private outdoor living space, particularly for those boundary of a corner site to be a solid sites where one of the road boundary’s is on the northern or western side of 1.8m fence. ☐ Support in part the dwelling. This ability to have a private outdoor space by having one road (b) Increase the fence height for fencing boundary fence at 1.8m solid should be reinstated. on a road boundary or reserve ☐ Support in full Rule GRZ-R6 has also decreased the height a solid fence can be on a shared boundary to 1.2m. boundary with a reserve. It is unclear why this has changed. This should be reinstated back to 1.2m, and the road fencing requirement should be similarly increased. ………………………………………. 11 December 2020 Signature of person authorised to sign on behalf of submitter Submission of Bealey Developments Ltd 4 Resource Management Act 1991 Selwyn District Council Proposed Selwyn District Plan Submission of Bealey Developments Limited TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2 2 The Environment ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 The Site .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 The Surrounding Environment .........................................................................................