|
SID: |
Submitter |
RID |
S/O |
Request |
Reason |
|
1 |
A. W Design |
1 |
O |
Extend area of STAZ to include proposed Res 2 area. (Refer attached plan) |
Support the introduction of a Special Travellers Accommodation Zone.
Support the camping ground being a permitted activity.
Do not support the location and intent of the zoning around the present camping ground.
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Extend area of STAZ back into Mt John hillside. (Refer attached plan) |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Remove Res 2 zoning in this area completely. |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Restrict building construction in the Recreation P zone to amenity building only. |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Restrict building construction in the Recreation A zone to amenity in association with sporting activities only. |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Height restrictions need to be more in keeping with the land form. A minimum of 12 metres height restriction with additional rules in certain areas of STAZ. |
Do not support the intent of the policies and rules for this new zone. |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Site coverage in STAZ to be 65% |
|
2 |
John and Yvonne Bamford |
1 |
O |
That the rezoning and renegotiated lease of the camping ground include the following:
1. That the total number of powered sites at the camp remains.
2. There be a selected removal of some trees at the northern end of the camping ground.
3. The redevelopment of the powered sites and subsequent landscaping be fully completed prior to the removal of the existing powered sites.
4. The need to replace the existing toilet/shower block. |
This will provide for long-term users of the camp. |
|
3 |
Brian Banks |
1 |
O |
Leave the total camping ground area as is. |
The rezoning would reduce the area for campers who choose camping because of costs and ease of access. |
|
4 |
Dearwin and Lloyd Bonniface |
1 |
O |
Retain the current location of the camping ground. |
It is impractical to relocate the camping ground from the current level area. The new location will need to be leveled and will interfere with the current walking track to Mt John. |
|
5 |
Canterbury Regional Council |
1 |
S |
That Plan Change 4 be incorporated into the Mackenzie District Plan. |
The proposed changes are broadly consistent with the Lake Tekapo Development Plan, a non-statutory document that is the product of extensive community consultation. |
|
6 |
Sally Dickson |
1 |
O |
Revise 8.4.1c Building Height in STAZ to 5 metres maximum |
Two storey buildings are not low density and visually unobtrusive buildings, which is the intention for the zone. |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Revise 8.4.1e Building coverage to 15% maximum. |
STAZ should provide for large open and forested spaces. 25% coverage is too dense for this purpose. |
|
7 |
Nigel and Lynne Frost |
1 |
O |
Maximum height of 5 metres for all buildings around the lakeshore. |
Oppose 10 metres maximum height, buildings within the lakeshore and lake areas should be kept to 1 storey. |
|
8 |
Alan Gordon |
1 |
O |
That the western end of the proposed Res 2 zone not encroach on th existing eastern end of the camping ground. |
Moving the camping ground further to the west will result in the removal of tress and will detract from the high country/alpine theme. It is also a colder part of the camping ground and less attractive to campers. |
|
9 |
Lake Tekapo Community Board |
1 |
S |
Rec A zone immediately in front of VC 1 and VC 2 should be Rec P. |
Rec A is too permissive. Rec P provides greater protection of this valuable asset. |
|
|
|
2 |
|
STAZ zone should extend further to the east (to the road that runs up to the motel units above the camping ground office) |
Res 2 is too dense for this area. The camping ground sub-zone should have the STAZ on its eastern boundary. |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Buildings height in STAZ zone should be reduced to 8 metres. |
10 metres is out of keeping with the low-density chalet type development promoted in the zone. Lake Tekapo Design Guide is contradictory viii height states single storey is preferred but permits 12m. |
|
|
|
4 |
|
The camping ground sub zone should not be less than the area currently used by the Lessee. |
The zoning map is unclear and unsure if the re-zoned camp ground is equivalent in size to the existing camping terrace. |
|
|
|
5 |
|
MDC needs to develop a clear timeline schedule for the western extension for the camping ground. |
This needs to be established with some urgency and the board asks to be kept informed with this process. |
|
10 |
Lake Tekapo Enterprises Limited |
1 |
O |
That the Camp Ground Sub Zone be removed and the Special Travellers Accommodation Zone is condensed to the east. (Refer attached plan) |
The Camp Ground Sub Zone encroaches on the passive/open space values of northwest end of Tekapo Township. The STAZ is too large. |
|
|
|
|
|
The STAZ height limit should be 6 metres. |
The height and building coverage is excessive and will not promote the desired cabin development. |
|
|
|
|
|
The STAZ building coverage should be 15%. |
|
11 |
Peter and Gillian Maxwell |
1 |
O |
The Rec A land in front of the VC 1 area to be rezoned to Rec P. |
All recreational land between the VC zone and the Lake should be preserved in its current state. |
|
12 |
Zilla McCready |
1 |
O |
The portion of Domain land between the Godley Hotel and the Rec P lakeside area be rezoned Rec P. |
This area is clear space where the only view is of the church plus lake and mountains. This should be retained. |
|
13 |
Meridian Energy Ltd |
1 |
O |
Amend Recreation Objective 2 Lakeside Open Space Lake Tekapo to recognise existing utility features and the necessity for their continued operation. |
Objective 2 does not acknowledge the existence of the intake control shed as an existing feature of the waterfront and fails to provide for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
That the rezoning of this land to Recreational P be withdrawn.
OR
That the rules for Rec P zone specifically provide for the continued operation, maintenance and upgrading as necessary of the Tekapo Intake Structure, as a permitted activity on this land OR
That the Utility rules be amended to provide for the use, maintenance and upgrading as necessary of the Tekapo Intake Structure and Tekapo Intake Control/Communication Shed, as a permitted activity within the Rec P Zone. |
Rezoning of this land would not provide for the existing Intake Control/Communications Shed and would mean that any necessary alterations/upgrading to this structure would become a non-complying activity. |
|
14 |
Margaret Munro |
1 |
O |
Maximum of 10m onto reserve. |
The Village Green area is special area and needs to be preserved. |
|
15 |
Peter Munro |
1 |
O |
Reduce the 60m extension in the Village Centre zone into the reserve to 10m. |
This area is an asset and needs to be preserved. |
|
16 |
Michael Midgley |
1 |
O |
Do not extend camping ground further west or northwest. |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Restrict height to below SH8 level. |
|
|
17 |
Ian Satterthwaite |
1 |
O |
Do not proceed with the proposed rezoning. |
There should be no commercial development Lakeside of the present walkway. |
|
18 |
Brett Shand |
1 |
O |
Confine Res 2 to present lease on west |
The proposed Res 2 zone is too extensive to the north and west |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Keep more of the camping ground at the left of entrance up the hill. |
Relocating part of the camping ground to colder areas is questionable. |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Protect easement for skating rink water pipe |
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
More trees for protection of bay |
The value of shelter to this bay is very important and there are a lack of trees. |
|
19 |
Karen Simpson |
1 |
O |
Rec A to be extended around the Mt John walkway entrance back to the rock on the road. |
This area should be Rec A so it is used for passive recreation and is kept as a place of community interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should STAZ require more land, why not extend it back to the rural zone? |
|
20 |
Tekapo Holdings Ltd |
1 |
O |
The area directly behind the Camp Ground Sub Zone currently proposed for STAZ be changed to Res 2 zone. (Refer attached plan) |
STAZ is designed to be low density with buildings situated amongst trees. However, the trees in this area have reached maturity and are to be felled for safety reasons and therefore negates the effects STAZ will have on the area. It should be rezoned Res 2 like the rest of Lakeside Drive. |
|
22 |
Tekapo Holdings Ltd |
1 |
S |
Support the increase land designated Camping Ground and consider it should be extended further to the west. (Refer attached plan) |
This would future proof further development of the camping ground over the next 15 years. |
|
23 |
Transit New Zealand |
1 |
S |
Amend Rec P zone rule 4.5.1c as follows
Buildings and Structures associated with passive recreation with footprints of no more than 100m in area. |
Support in part, but needs to be clear that it is only buildings and structures associated with passive recreation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Retain Rec P zone rule 4.5.2a |
Support this rule requiring a minimum seatback of 6m from road boundaries and a maximum building height of 5m. Both these rules ensure that there is no shading of the state highway. |
|
|
|
|
|
Retain Rec P zone rule 4.5.2d |
|
|
|
|
|
Amend Rec P zone rule 4.5.2f(i) as follows
All fixed exterior lighting shall be directed away from adjacent sites, roads and public spaces in order to minimise the amount of light spill and avoid glare. |
Support in part. Glare has a greater effect than light spill and seeks that glare also be directed away from adjacent roads as part of this rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
Either delete or amend Rec P zone rule 4.5.2h, so that is relates only to the upgrading of existing accessways or expansion of existing car park areas. If the rule is amended, add the following sentence
No shading of the state highway carriageway shall occur between the hours of 10am and 2pm on the shortest day of the year. |
Oppose in part. Needs clarification that is relates to existing access and parking areas and to ensure that any landscaping of these areas does not result in shading of the state highway. |
|
|
|
|
|
Retain rule Rec P zone 4.6.3 |
Support the discretionary activity status. |
|
|
|
|
|
Insert the following new assessment matters to Section 4.8
Whether the location of any new vehicle access or car park is such that access is to a collector or local road and whether direct access to nay arterial road is avoided.
Whether the location of any new vehicle access or car park area has the potential to affect the primary function of the state highway which is a strategic through route. |
This assessment matter to ensure access and car park areas are located appropriately and not onto the state highway. |
|
|
|
|
|
Add a new standard to Standard 8.41j of the STAZ
iv All vehicular access to the Special Travellers Accommodation Zone shall be via Lakeside Drive. |
Transit wishes to signal that it would not support a new intersection in the location shown and all access to the new zone should be via Lakeside Drive. |
|
24 |
Wilhelmina van den Bosch |
1 |
O |
Preserve all area not yet developed for passive use. |
Redevelop only the areas where there are buildings (footprint) now. Definitely no STAZ. |