A proposal to expand an Outram subdivision to 41 lots on the site of a former market garden has been rejected by a Dunedin City Council hearings committee.
Balmoral Developments Ltd’s application for resource consent to build a 15-lot residential development on rural zoned land at 94 Holyhead Rd in Outram, has been declined.
The hearings committee of commissioners, chairman Matthew McCallum-Clark, Rosalind Day-Cleavin and Cr Andrew Whiley found the resource consent application was not consistent with the council’s district plan after a hearing was held last month.
In May, the company was granted consent for a 26-lot subdivision next to the proposed development.
Originally about half of the 2.17ha was to be used as a community wastewater scheme for the neighbouring subdivision but it was replaced by a more modern septic tank system.
The land has been owned the Ferguson family— Catherine and Neville Ferguson were the applicants — since 1947.
It had been used as a market garden until about 15 years ago.
The Fergusons did not want to comment on the decision when contacted yesterday.
Under the council’s district plan, residential development on sites less than 15ha is a non-complying activity.
A submission has been lodged by Balmoral Developments to the council’s second generation plan, expected to be completed next year, to have the land rezoned.
In their written decision, the commissioners said the proposal was not a sustainable use of high-class soils.
Nether the district plan nor the proposed second generation plan provided for land such as the Holyhead Rd site to be used for housing to the extent proposed.
The effect the development would have on the rural character of the area would have been more more than minor, the commissioners said.
They were also concerned with the insufficient detail provided on which to determine what impact the development would have on surface flooding in the immediate area.
The Otago Regional Council had opposed the entire application on similar grounds.There were eight submissions on the application: four opposed, three in support and one, from the NZ Transport Agency, neutral.
The applicants now had 15 working days to file an appeal against the decision. to the Environment Court.
