/images/crumbDivide.gif)
Comments, suggestions and queries related to the District Plan and the District Plan Review Process are welcomed. All posts require approval so there will be a delay before your contribution appears on this page.
A name is required but an email address does not have to be provided unless you would like to receive email updates about the District Plan Review.
Wilding pine trees are still being planted in our area, which is totally unsatisfactory, especially for any
neighbours to these menacing wildings.
The District Plan should identify the Character for new development
The township size has by default prawled, so recognise this and extend to suit.
No need for a commercial precinct, too hard on close neighbours.
The 1.9m hight restriction on plants is not working and is in fact not able to be enforced. Where on the continuum does a plant reach this size. I was not aware there was such a byelaw, so remove it, it's nopt effective.
Questions 1 to 5 I hold no clear or firm views
Questions 6
reqquiring new forestry plantations and shelter belts, in rural general zone, to have a consent, is crazy. It needs to be permitted, provided they are not wilding.
HOWEVER;
your list of wilding species is inconsistant with reality. I farm radiata, niagra, fur, lupins, and various eucalyptus. These have had ample opportunity (and fifty years) to spread, but havent. narrow this list up to be better target those with real potential to spread.
Property owners (incl public bodies) harboring wilding trees need to be 'encouraged' to erradicate them are (just like farmers are requried to keep control of thier rabbits).
regards,
sam
1. No need to identify amenity and character for new development - the current building regulations are sufficient. Remove this reference from Objective 1
2. Yes the township zone should be extended. As part of the 2020 planning consultation back in 2003 this was clearly identified by the local community. Move the existing township zone sotuhwards to the north side of Cemetery Road and change the current zoning of this land from rural residential to township.
3. Yes I think a small commercial precinct should be established, if possible. It makes sense to create this around the existing commercial area i.e. hotel, shop etc. But if this is not possible then somewhere in the new township zoning i.e. Cemetery Road seems logical.
4. Boundary planting / fencing heights can create problems. The current rules probably need to be looked at and then agreed upon. Once this has happened, then enforcement is essential to ensure the rules are complied with.
I feel that the township would also benefit from a designated commercial area it would greatly promote growth and also gives residents more options and would save travel into Wanaka.
1. No need to identify specific character constraints. Lake Hawea should be able to develop its own character, as it has done in the past.
2. Yes the township should be allowed to grow and thus the zone needs to be extended.
3. If the township is to grow, there needs to be commercial development to support it. Hence provision needs to be made for a commercial precinct.
4. The existing rule regarding planting restriction is totally unrealistic. There are many breaches of this rule and it is the height of plantings on the boundary that helps contribute to the special character of Lake Hawea township. New developments shouldn't be unreasonably constrained by this rule, so that with time, their properties can fit in with the existing character of the township.
The provisions regarding amenity and character should be retained and strengthened. Increasing housing density and smaller sections will destroy the relatively low density and open space that attracts many people to the township.
A commercial precinct may be beneficial provided all commercial activity, without any exception, is restricted to the precinct.
While the intent of boundary planting restriction was good, trees grow and "legal" plantings can have the same adverse effects. Most boundary plantings are intended to provide wind breaks and privacy. Plantings are more in keeping with the amenity values being promoted than, eg, wooden fences. The restriction should be removed.
I favour rezoning the area north of Cemetery Rd to allow for higher density building. This would 1) help maintain the towns boundaries for longer 2) be better usage of land. The present acre with a house in the middle surrounded by under utilised and poor quality land is better suited to houses.
I would like to see better connections and through-ways between the lakefront area and the southern part of the town.
I would favour designating limited commercial activity, such as retail outlets, near the existing shop/cafe, to cater for the increasing numbers of tourists and visitors using the cycle tracks.
The towns unique restrictions on plantings should be removed.
The south side of Brownston Street, from Helwick to Dungarvon Sts.,is becoming de facto commercial.We pay commercial rates without any of the benefits of commercial zoning.Thought should be given to changing the current low density residential zoning to commercial.
Amenity/Character: No need to change or specify
Township Zone: Given the amount of property presently available for development within the relevant zones, and new subdivisions with approval ie/Timsfield stage 2(?)there is no need for the forseeable 10 years to provide for rezoning or increasing existing density.
Planting heights: Retain existing rule, no change. If not READILY enforceable then at the least it may discourage excessive growth which can compromise the wonderful views this town is reputed for.
Commercial Precinct: No. The magic of Lake Hawea is the 'small town' feel and permanent residents (and I guessholiday home owners) are more than happy to drive to Wanaka for their shopping. There are currently not the population requirements or needs to support a commercial Precinct at Lake Hawea for the forseeable 10 years.
I believe that loss of sun and therefore amenity values is a major factor of wilding tree spread in QLDC area and is missing from the list of major problems and determinants.
Dealing with DOC is impossible even after well meaning consultation is initiated and conducted between parties.
A rule is required stating clear rules about height above natural landform which would administer a reasonable compromise for Doc excuses in regard to erosion etc.
I suggest that 7 meters which complies with residential building heights would allow DOC a rule to easily determine within the residential land DOC administers within the QLDC residential Zone and comply with reasonable shading concerns of residents.
The Queenstown Gardens will require a special rule to allow and plan for thinning of existing trees where shade and wind protection issues require time to complete protection and establishment of other species.
thanks to everyone for posting- yes the Policy team reads these!
cheers
Scott
- Glenorchy minimum roof pitch rule.
I do not believe that the Council should be an arbiter of aesthetics. Any rules pertaining
to roof pitch should be purely for engineering reasons regarding issues such as snow
weight and shedding. Glenorchy does not have an Alpine character; it has the simple
pleasant feel of a relatively unspoiled country town in a superb setting.
In my view, therefore, the minimum pitch rule should be removed.
Should two-storied houses be allowed? Issues of view and sun are raised in this
consideration; there should certainly be a height limit, and if, with the roof pitch
rule being abandoned a two storied building fits within the maximum building height
allowable, then so be it.
-Recession planes
Following from above, I believe that the Three Parks recession plane rules should be
adopted for Glenorchy. However, I would take issue with the maximum height
in the Three Parks Rule; a height of 8 metres would be inappropriate for Glenorchy.
The maximum height should be at most 6 metres.
-Clarifying flood level and maximum building height
Simplification of rules is to be commended. I would therefore vote in favour of the
production of a simplified table of heights, the point of conjecture being the allowable
height. The suggested 5.5m is probably a reasonable compromise in consideration of
sun and views for neighbouring properties.
-Amenity and character
As with my comments above regarding roof pitch, I do not believe that it is the place
of the council to dictate development character or type. I therefore believe that the
phrase "Recognition of the particular character, build environment and range of uses
existing in the individual townships." should be removed.
-Is the current commercial precinct in Glenorchy adequate?
Adequacy or lack thereof will be communicated by demand not satisfied by current
arrangements. Expansion of commercial activity should, in my view, be best
contained within a precinct rather than being allowed scattered development. The
most appropriate location for further development would therefore be by expansion
of the existing town centre.
Thank you for the opportunity to air my opinion on changes to the District Plan
Thanks for joining the debate. We have a Community Association meeting this week and I'll ensure your comments are taken on board.
We live in one of the most beautiful places on earth, and our challenge is to promote a streetscape that adds, rather than detracts from that. Glenorchy is now a cheap place to buy land and it's likely that we'll see a lot more building in the coming years.
The question to answer is - are we happy to end up as another disjointed Lake Hayes Estate hotch potch of houses or are there other outcomes that the community would like to see?
No easy answer and we need to avoid adding $ to build costs. No one here sets out to be the arbiter of taste and design, but might it not be a bad thing to have an underlying feel to the town?
For Glenorchy the District Plan is fine the way it is. The biggest problem is that the Council do not follow it and allow all sorts of exemptions often without even consulting neighbours or the Glenorchy Community Association.
I like the Alpine Village feel of Glenorchy and this should be retained. I don't think the recession planes or the minimum roof pitch rule should change. Clarifying the flood level and the maximum building height as suggested 5.5m above 312.8masl whichever is highest is a good idea.
Views in Glenorchy need to be protected, and sun is very important in such a cold climate. Its a beautiful place, lets keep it that way.
Trish
Given there have been issues where planners have not been clear or have interpreted rules differently there clearly needs to be clarification. the 52 page section 29 report is clear. The district plan is not. Whatever the plan finishes up as, it must be workshopped with lawyers and planners to ensure it can only be interpreted one way and that must match with the section 52 report or equivalent.
Sewerage treatment
Glenorchy has seen much less relative investment than Queenstown both residentially and commerically. If a sewerage treatment plant is in the too hard basket, that decision should be made and businesses and residents should be able to invest in a treatment system without being required to pay again for the development of a township plant. This is holding up possibilities for the town for the future.
Commerical zone
the natural flow of town is down towards the lake with two additional Commercial sites added past the GYC cafe. I believe there should be the option for both sides of Mull street to be commercial all the way down to the lake with additional parking carrying on to the left hand corner of Mull street facing the lake.
A light industrial area should be considered as well as a special area for ' inspirational office space' where we can attract multinational creatives who work in a broadband connected world and choose to creat online in our wonderful area. E.g. A Google or Apple office....
whatever happens, thank you for the forum
Yes, define new zones to reflect Albert town as an urban settlement.
No, DP should not promote a particular character, no rules about building styles.
Yes the commercial zone should be enlarged. If the area across the road from the tavern
is not already zoned commercial, then it should be. Or along alison ave near the tavern.
Yes please do introduce tree planting rules for Albert town, as there are in other districts.
Yes create a list of banned wilding tree species for entire district.
Yes please prepare guidelines for property owners to use and comply to when they landscape their residential properties. Guidelines will help to ensure the rules adhered to.
I agree that Albert Town is more of urban character than rural. I would like further discussion on 'defining new zones ... to provide for a range of densities including the current Rural Residential and Township zonings'.
Relating to this I would oppose that the district plan 'promote a particular character in Albert Town', I feel this is stifling the evolution of Albert Town's character.
With the ever increasing size of Albert Town the commercial area should also be increased.
Trees are fabulous; we should support the planting of them. On the other hand boundary planting rules should be introduced into Albert Town, but only where the tree could be deemed a 'nuisance'. Where the tree is not affecting anyone, then a tree higher than 1.9m can be planted at the owner’s discretion and with the caveat that it will be removed at the land owner’s expense if it does ‘nuisance’. I also support the development of guidelines for property owners to provide advice about what should and should not be planted. This should be available to every home, in every gardening store in town and addition information/training provided for salespeople, landscape designers and other business people whom these rules might affect.
As for 'wilding' trees I think QLDC needs to be very careful about the proposed ‘ban’ list. Some of these species could become a valuable asset for the future of the region (both as intentional plantings and wilding) to provide fast growing sources of wood for both construction and firewood. Wanaka residents currently use an estimated 110 hectares of wood per year, approximately 1/8th of the entire area of Queenstown Lakes District. I do not have the data for where majority of our wood currently comes from but I would not be surprised if it is increasingly imported from outside the region. The Council must consider the impact these rules may have on the future availability of wood in the district.
Thank you.
Ella Lawton.
However I think wilding species should be restricted which is a completely different problem.
The answer depends on which zone you are in, if you are in the Rural Genral zone (95% of the district) then planting of Douglas Firs does require a resource consent so that the risk of wilding spred can be assessed. In other zones there are no rules. I have a neat table listing all the 'wilding rules' per zone which I can send you if you like. We are reviewing all of the rules around planting trees as part of the District Plan Review. blair.devlin@qldc.govt.nz.
In the lake Hayes area is that we currently, in a wet summer, are already
on water restriction. Is there really the infrastructure to support this growth?
QLDC would be better advised to consider sensible growth in Arrowtown rather than put a blanket restrictive covenant against further expansion. Drawing a line around Arrowtown to say "STOP" is complete nonsense. As this daft initiative has yet to become a by law, there is still time for commons sense to prevail.
Just get on and make a decision.
Just to stop the nay sayers from wasting their time. yes I am in real estate in Arrowtown and I am the one who has to say to prospective new home buyers that a new section will cost over $400,000 when those potential buyers have a budget of $500,000.
In Arrowtown buyers spend a disproportional amount on land verses the money spent on a home.
Pembroke park: we need to protect this park from ANY future structural devlopment. Skateboard Park needs to be relocated before it grows into a concrete jungle.Ideally turn park into a botanical garden with a tea house, close off lakeside road and bring park to the lake edge. Relocate parking underground and extend if required-userpays.
Noise:Create a noise free zone over the bay outside the town:ie; motor boats access only(5km) to Beacon Pt.Airspace also noise free over the same area. ay commercial development to be limited to existing operstors and relocate future enterprises to waterfall creek.
Bullock Creek: zone for commercial devlopment with a board walk along both sides from Browston st to ardmore St. Shops abd cafes can front on to the board walk -car free.
Traffic: Direct all traffic down Brownston St from Brownston St/Ardmore inersection.One way to lake from this point to Lake.Other half of road mix of parking and footpath reserve/seating/cafe tables.
Time to develop wanaka into a true alpine resort, better architecture controls in retail area, less cars. Convert Helwick St from lake to paperplus corner to pesdestrian zone.
look forward to progressive balanced development Think 100 years ahead!
there is so much
soundproofing
No one likes to be told that they can't have a drink with their meal outside or that they can't smoke and drink together outside after 10pm on a beautiful summers night, or enjoy the warmth of an open fire during the winter months.
Extending the outside drinking hours will not increase the amount of people drinking in Wanaka at any one time, it just merely gives them the freedom to drink outside within a supervised area. With current restrictions on outside music any increase in noise would only be that of people talking which is already present due to the national law requiring people to smoke outside.
There appears to be a misconception that there is a ban due to a bylaw. The current restrictions on the use of outdoor bar areas after 10pm actually arise from the night noise limits in the town centres. Activities wishing to exceed the noise limits can apply for a resource consent to do so. This enables consideration of whether anyone would be disturbed by the different hours of operation, additional noise etc. The current night time noise limits are relatively low and a group of people drinking and talking can exceed them. However, this is a two sided issue with residential activities and visitor accommodation providers seeking to maintain amenity by maintaining lower night time noise levels.