Subdivision plan angers neighbours

Potential neighbours of a proposed 118-lot residential development in Mosgiel have come out in force against the plan, angry their "semi-rural" suburb could make way for more intensive development.

Of 33 submissions to a resource consent hearing, expected early next year, 25 have opposed the plan, with seven neutral and none in support.

An example was Gill and Michael Hormann, who, in their submission, opposed a proposal to make some of the properties smaller than allowed in the city's district plan, in what they described as "a very pleasant semi-rural environment".

"It will effectively destroy the environment we specifically sought in the purchase of our own section."

Resource consent has been requested by Allan and Martin Dippie, of Otago Business Park Ltd, for subdivision of land off Gladstone Rd North, to be developed in three stages, on land zoned residential 6.

The minimum size for sections in the standard residential 1 zone throughout the city is 500sq m.

Under residential 6 zoning, sites must be no less than 1000sq m, but the proposal asked for 44 of the sites to be smaller than that, with the smallest dwelling site 680sq m.

Their consent also requested smaller yards for the sites than the minimum 9m for front yards and 6m for rear and sides.

Preserving the semi-rural nature of the suburb was the main concern of many of the submitters, 17 of whom wish to speak at the hearing.

Other concerns included the future of oak trees near the entrance to the subdivision, and the effect of more residents on traffic in the area.

The Otago Regional Council raised concerns about what it considered insufficient investigation into possible instability issues on steeper parts of the area, and opposed the application unless that work was done.

Ms Hormann, who owns a property on Gladstone Rd North, said last week it was difficult to locate a house on larger sections with the boundary restrictions, and with smaller sections the houses would be "very close together".

The Dippies could not be contacted for comment last night, but Allan Dippie said last month for some people, a 1000sq m property was too big, and he wanted to provide more choice in the properties available, both in size and cost.

His application said the large yard setbacks required promoted poor design and ineffective development by restricting the buildable area to long, narrow areas in the middle of the site.

david.loughrey@odt.co.nz