Heathcote Valley Online

[Editor: In response to the proposed hillside building plans, Bridle Path Road residents Sandie and James Chamberlain have made this appeal. This is what they feel:

We would like to only see development occur on the lower slopes. However, we are horrified at the idea of ‘high density’ development and think that a lower density of 80-100 houses is essential. We ask that the remaining land above the development be acquired by the council to be designated Reserve area.

Tell them what you think if they come knocking on your door looking for support. Even better, let the council know by emailing them or filling out the form on their webpage here . More details at http://www.ccc.govt.nz/areaplans/bridlepath .]

Time is flying by and if we all want to have a say in how the inevitable development of the valley is shaped, then we need to get our skates on. 16 May is the deadline for our feedback on the Draft Bridle Path Road Area Plan. We hope our thoughts will be a starting point for you to put together your own feedback and have your say. If you do go to the effort of compiling your feedback, why not get your neighbours to co-sign it? They may be busy or not have heard about the plans. Please help to get everyone involved and make your own feedback count.

As residents of Bridle Path Road, my husband James and I have looked at the plan in detail and I have written this as our own opinion as local residents who will be closely affected. We also write with the knowledge and experience of having worked in the construction industry for many years. James has been a carpenter and joiner for over 22 years and before starting a family I worked as a working foreman/site manager on high-value residential building sites.

These are the options that have been presented

These options have been presented to us by the council. They are not final and according to the council's Principal Planning Advisor, Ivan Thomson, can be changed if enough of us make a submission.

Option 1 – no further development

We think this is the best option for those who live in the valley and would like it to remain ‘semi-rural’ but, not the best for the landowners. Consequently, it’s pretty much a given that it is not feasible for us to try and push for this option.

Option 2 – development within the low hazard area only (higher density)

This is the council’s preferred option, but at the village meeting last week there was a general consensus that the ‘higher density’ reference was definitely the biggest downside for the valley residents present. James and I can see both advantages and disadvantages. I have outlined them below.

Advantages of Option 2

1. No development on the hillside that is visible from the valley floor.
2. Green hillside will remain intact and potentially be bought by CCC to make reserve (no guarantee on this so you must put this as feedback if this is really important to you).
3. Provision of a new reserve and access to higher slopes in area around existing pylons.

Disadvantages of Option 2 

1. 100-135 new houses to be built on the Eastern side of Bridle Path Road.
2. Loss of green areas along Bridle Path Road
3. Approx. 200 more cars traveling down Bridle Path Road and through the valley.
4. Small 450-550 sections proposed along Bridle Path Road and expected to be of a ‘town-house’ nature (as told to us by the Council representative, Ivan Thomson).

We feel this, in itself, harbours some problems:

• Preference from Council to deal with only one developer for whole development – our understanding of this is that a row of small characterless boxes could potentially line the road.
• This smaller size of section is contrary to the Living Hills Area zone standards that are currently enforced.
• On such small sections, the houses would be close to a busy road. The noise from the road on that elevated side is quite obvious. Therefore, a row of soundproofing fences etc may be an inevitable consequence.
• It is common sense (and well-researched) to come to the conclusion that high density development, on a hillside running into a valley prone to flooding, would potentially cause faster water run-off and therefore add to the flood problem. This would then be exacerbated as hard concrete patios, driveways, sheds with concrete foundations etc are constructed within the development. Furthermore, development often means the removal of the top-soil, which is vital in slowing down water run-off and trapping excess water. It also appears that the ground underneath is mainly clay. Clay prevents water from penetrating the ground below.

Option 3 – development within low and minor hazard areas (higher density)

This option has all the disadvantages of Option 2 and none of the benefits and the development would creep up the higher slopes taking away the green hillside. No, no, no!

Option 4 – development within low and minor hazard areas (lower density)

This appears not the best option as it takes the higher, more visible slopes into the development.

It does have some advantages:

1. Section sizes would be no smaller than 700m2, which leaves more space for planting and setting properties back from Bridle Path road.
2. There would be a total of 116 houses, fewer than in Option 2, a much lower density option, better for storm water run-off, visual impact etc .
3. Fewer extra cars travelling in the area.

One big disadvantage:

There would need to be more roading built further up the hill than is shown on the council's draft plan. This would likely cause quite a scar across the higher slopes.

What we think…(Option 2 with a few significant alterations)

We would like to only see development occur on the lower slopes which, takes us back to Option 2. However, we are horrified at the idea of ‘high density’ development and think that a lower density of 80-100 houses is essential.

We prefer:

1. The development as a whole to look much like, and flow on from, that in Morgans Valley, which is a pretty decent looking development in our view.
2. A minimum section size of 750m2 and larger sections at the back of the development so there will be plenty of ‘spare’ land around the new houses for planting.
3. Significant land area set aside for reserve/recreation area (probably near/beside the pylons, next to the required access path for the pylons), and access to the higher slopes. 
4. A lower density development, as it is more likely to attract a wide variety of building types and shapes which would be the best strategy to maintain the character of the existing valley housing.
5. We can ask that the remaining land above the development be acquired by the CCC to be designated Reserve area – that way we can preserve the upper slopes for birds, trees and walkways. 

Bridle Path Road widening

Although this will affect us directly as our front garden could be taken, we knew that when we bought the property and I do not consider that to be the biggest negative with the potential widening. Our main concern is that cars already tear down the road at terribly fast speeds. The wider and straighter the road, the faster cars are likely to go. Although it may seem a good idea to make more room for cyclists etc, I know as a cyclist myself, that I would rather be hit by a driver slowing down to navigate cyclists, pedestrians and parked cars etc than by a car hurtling down the road a 60-70kms because the driver thinks there is a clear road. There is currently plenty of room for everyone, if vehicle drivers abide by the speed limit. We would prefer a traffic calming solution rather than road widening. Please think about this and include your thoughts in your feedback.

Other things to consider

• Can the school cope with the extra residents?
• We can mention that we would like to see a wide variety of housing rather than a hillside full of clones. It is possible to describe the type of colours, fencing, style we would prefer.
• Consider the historical importance of the area. The Bridle Path was trodden by over 30,000 pioneers and the area is frequented by overseas tourists for those reasons. It would be better to keep the area as natural as possible for these reasons as well.

This is your home, this is your valley. We welcome differing opinions so please feel free to discuss our views with us. Our phone number is 376 5563.

Sandie and James Chamberlain