Rezoning hearing comes to sudden halt

Warwick Goldsmith.
Warwick Goldsmith.
A last-minute submission on behalf of four companies alleging a developer did not own land it sought to rezone, brought a scheduled four-day resource consent hearing to a premature close in Queenstown yesterday.

The hearing for Private Plan Change 44 - Hanley Downs was scheduled to have run until Thursday.

RCL Queenstown PTY Ltd, sought a change in zoning to land near the Jacks Point Zone, to provide a more consolidated pattern of future urban growth than was allowed.

Present zoning enabled between 850 and 1300 houses and the proposed PC44 zoning would have increased that to between 1250 and 2028 houses.

However, at the outset of yesterday's hearing, Warwick Goldsmith, of Anderson Lloyd Lawyers, submitted on behalf of Henley Downs Farm Holdings Ltd, Henley Downs Land Holdings Ltd, Henley Downs Farms Ltd and Jacks Point Management Ltd.

He told commissioners David Whitney, Ian Munro and Cath Gilmour the submitters believed the vast majority of the land subject to the plan change was not owned by RCL.

While his clients supported ''in principle'' PC44 and agreed with the ''fundamental premise'', they held ''strong concerns'' about the proposal and issues relating to ''changes in circumstance affecting land ownership and control of the land'' subject to the plan change.

The original PC44 request stated nine lots, which covered most of the site, were controlled by RCL, exercised through a mortgage, development agreement and/or sale purchase agreements and that RCL held the authority and approval to pursue the plan change.

Mr Goldsmith said while that statement was ''largely true'' when the plan change was lodged, the position had changed and ''other financial arrangements'' had been entered into.

He contended the only land RCL owned was lot 5, containing the proposed ''Village Lot''.

Following yesterday's hearing, Mr Goldsmith said the remainder of the land, owned by Arith Holdings Ltd and the Henley Downs companies, totalled about 611ha.

Arith Holdings owned and controlled six lots, but ''complex financial arrangements in place'' meant RCL ''could probably gain control'' of those lots, the submission said.

The vast majority of the site - four lots totalling 467ha - was variously owned by the Henley Downs companies.

Following the termination of the contractual arrangements, RCL ''no longer has any ability to acquire control of the Henley Downs Farms Lots, other than by negotiating their purchase on a voluntary basis''.

Mr Goldsmith said before the commencement of the plan change, Henley companies were working with RCL towards an ''agreed outcome''.

Contractual obligations at the time of notification included ''non-object'' provisions.

''Following the collapse of virtually [all] of the contractual arrangements ... my clients are now very concerned about the complete lack of consultation with them as owners of part of the land subject to PC44.''

Further, Jacks Point Management Ltd, the controlling member of the Jacks Point Residents and Owners Association, had concerns about the delivery of infrastructure, in particular wastewater and stormwater disposal and the provision of a potable water supply.

There were concerns RCL did not have the ability to manage, control or require land where wastewater was to be disposed; it had no ability to acquire control of land subject to stormwater disposal; and the original potable water supply for Jacks Point was planned to accommodate that zone.

Given PC44 envisaged a ''significant increase'' in the extent of development, there may be implications for the potable water supply system.

RCL Queenstown Ltd counsel Mike Holm, of Morgan Slyfield, immediately sought an adjournment. After about 45 minutes he told commissioners RCL wished to defer the hearing for two to three months.

''The submission of Mr Goldsmith creates sufficient uncertainty and doubt around there being a coherent developer of this plan change that it would be far more sensible to defer the hearing.

''It is not a decision that's been taken lightly.

''It's unfortunate, perhaps, but on my instructions ... RCL simply felt it has not choice but to seek a deferral.''

Add a Comment

 

Advertisement