Court backs council refusal of development

A residential subdivision planned for Queenstown, which ''clearly flies in the face'' of the district plan, has been slammed by the Environment Court.

HIL Ltd directors William and Peter Hodgson, of Tucker Beach Rd, appealed a Queenstown Lakes District Council decision which rejected a five-lot subdivision on the open slopes of Ferry Hill.

The land was described as a ''transition area'', between a visual amenity landscape (VAL) and an outstanding natural landscape (ONL), in the district plan.

At present, a corridor of development was in the Ferry Hill rural residential sub zone, comprising more than 30 properties and another 25 consented but unbuilt sites.

HIL's site was at the end of that corridor of development.

While the applicant believed the site constituted a ''gap'' in rural living zones around the lower slopes of Ferry Hill and its development would not change the nature of the landscape, the Environment Court disagreed.

In his written decision on August 10, released this week, Judge Brian Dwyer said the overall effects of the proposal were ''more than minor and in many cases they are significant'', regardless of whether the site was considered to be in an ONL or VAL.

The proposal was inconsistent and contrary to the ''overall thrust'' of objectives and policies of the district plan.

Judge Dwyer said the slopes of Ferry Hill had ''little capacity to absorb change by use of topography''.

While it was necessary to have regard to existing and consented environment, the proposal was not a minor extension of that and could not be readily absorbed into the environment.

HIL's case was a ''classic example'' of a ''resource consent creep'', where the presence of one consented development provided the basis for approval of further extension.

''We conclude that in this case existing and permitted development have reached such a level that they represent a threshold in capacity of Ferry Hill ... to absorb further development without significant loss of its remaining natural character and landscape quality.''

The development would constitute ''sprawl'' of built development and he rejected the proposition existing and consented development supported ongoing expansion.

Judge Dwyer said there were ''significant actual and potential adverse effects'', not just on the landscape but on neighbouring properties.

Council commissioners had declined the proposal, identifying four primary issues, including adverse effects on landscape character and rural amenity and whether the proposal was contrary to the objectives and policies of the district plan.

The Environment Court largely agreed with the council's conclusion and said the application did not pass either of the required conditions.

Costs were reserved.

Add a Comment

 

Advertisement