FAQs about rural density

During the assessment of the existing character of the Outer Plains, we identified that the character within this area varies considerably. The north western (upper) area of the Outer Plains was identified as having lower densities of residential dwellings and larger land parcels, whereas the south eastern (lower) Outer Plains was more consistent with the current 20 ha density and lot size rules.

Given this, we’re considering splitting the Outer Plains into two parts, to better reflect the existing character of the area. At present the location of this split hasn’t been assessed in detail, but it’s considered that the boundary would be south along State Highway 1 to the general Dunsandel area where it would then move east towards Leeston and Southbridge, finishing at the Rakaia River as illustrated in the below figure.

We would like to hear your thoughts on whether we should split the Outer Plains, and if so where should the boundary be located.

For more information about the Council’s preferred option for draft changes to rural density and all the work done to date as part of the review visit Council website where all the reports developed for the District Plan Review are kept.

We’re considering the potential realignment of the Inner Plains/Outer Plains boundary to better represent the existing character of the area. This amendment will only take into consideration areas which are already developed to an Inner Plains character, ie areas of land, next to Inner Plains which have already been subdivided to four hectare land parcels.

The actual location of the Inner Plains/Outer Plains boundary realignment hasn’t been decided yet and we would like to know your thoughts on any particular areas where you think this should occur.

We are looking at making amendments to the current density and minimum lot size rules to protect the character of the Rural Zone, and to enable primary production with this Zone.

Current policies don’t have sufficient weight to protect these areas from inappropriate development, and in some areas the minimum lot area sizes used don’t accurately represent the surrounding environment.

There would be no effect on owners of existing undeveloped land parcels which meet the existing standards. This is because the ‘grandfather’ clause would apply to these situations, which would give the owner of the property 10 years to develop their land.

This clause would not, however, apply to subdivision rights, meaning that this proposed option would potentially restrict the ability of some landowners to subdivide their property in the future, even if they currently meet minimum lot size requirements. However, some properties may benefit from these changes by making it more permissive to either develop or subdivide their property.

It’s important to note that current draft changes will need further work to gauge the exact effect on individual properties, but from preliminary assessments to date few properties will have their development rights adversely affected.

We want to hear from the public and potentially affected landowners about their views on these draft changes and how they think the changes would affect rural character, and potential development opportunities (subdivision and land use).