The developers behind a proposed retirement complex on the site of the Shiel Hill Tavern sank thousands of dollars into providing additional information to the Dunedin City Council, yet its planner remains opposed to the proposal.
Dunedin planner Don Anderson, representing the developers, said almost $20,000 was spent providing additional information to the council about the proposed 25-apartment retirement complex.
The proposed village will be marketed as an "alternative residential option'' targeting those aged 65 and older, who could still live independently.
The self-contained apartments would be built over two storeys and the bar would act as a clubroom for residents.
The proposal drew opposition from neighbours and council planner Melissa Shipman.
The council hearings committee adjourned the resource consent hearing of the proposal in March and called for further information.
The three-day hearing became heated at times. One of the developers claimed his integrity was being questioned by the council and Mr Anderson labelled elements of Ms Shipman's opinion "nonsense''.
Following the receipt of the additional information, Ms Shipman stood by her initial assessment.
"The revisions made to the proposal have not changed the scale of the development or the site coverage proposed,'' her report said.
"I recommend again that the application in its current form be declined.''
Council staff had raised concerns about the effects the initial proposal would have on traffic and its safety.
"I note that while the transportation concerns are now addressed, in order to recommend approval of the proposal a revised proposal would need to provide a greater level of on-site amenity,'' Ms Shipman said.
For that amenity to be achieved the proposal would need to be scaled down, either in terms of the number of apartments or by abandoning an internal atrium, she said.
Mr Anderson yesterday told the Otago Daily Times the developers would continue to argue for consent to build the complex.
"The applicants are disappointed that, having spent up to $20,000 to provide the additional information, the recommendation from the planner was for the application to be declined,'' he said.
He believed the application was declined "based on the perception of the living arrangements for the future residents''.
However, the alternative would be building several household units which could hold "four or five people per household'' and would not address the housing needs of an ageing population, he said.
Since the hearing was adjourned, the tavern had reopened as a bar and would continue to operate as such until the matter was resolved, Mr Anderson said.
The hearings committee, consisting of Crs Andrew Noone, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley, will reconvene the hearing on June 21.
