The proposed project included building a dwelling on one of the lots beside Lake Hawea and a farm building on another.
Independent commissioners Jane Taylor and Sally Middleton said in their decision released on June 17 some environmental effects associated with access, traffic generation, effluent disposal, stormwater and earthworks would be less than minor.
But environmental effects on visual amenity and landscape character were more than minor.
Mr Mead had told the commissioners at a recent hearing the subdivision was "just one part of the ongoing plan to enable Dingleburn ownership to pass on to the next generation of the family".
Mr Mead said the proposal would "provide a means for us to release some of the equity in the property and allow us the opportunity to achieve our family's objectives and our needs for farm succession".
However the commissioners said farm succession issues did not justify permitting adverse effects on the environment.
There was a substantial body of case law on this point. Further, the district plan did not allow the commissioners to consider the personal circumstances of farming families in the rural general zone. To do so would give priority to farming family circumstances over wider community interests.
The commissioners preferred the evidence provided by Upper Clutha Environmental Society president Julian Haworth that the open character and naturalness of the site would be compromised by the intrusion of non-farming domestication.
There was some force in Mr Haworth's submission that the dwelling would be visible notwithstanding screen planting. The Environment Court had noted the presence of screening plants did not make an inappropriate site an appropriate one, they said.
The Meads had tried to minimise visible effects but there was a real risk the effects would be more than minor, particularly as the future purchaser of the site was not known and the commissioners could not be satisfied that person would have the same regard for the sensitivity of the site as the Meads.
Further, the commissioners were not satisfied about the provision of a private reticulated power plant and the lack of telecommunication services.
There were no designs for the dwelling and no details of the generation proposal (whether hydro, solar, diesel or a combination) to assess.
Although the commissioners received advice regarding the confinement of noise from a diesel generator after the hearing, "this does not assist us to evaluate any effects on visibility or landscape that may be associated with other forms of power generation," they said.
The commissioners were concerned cellphone reception was not available at the site.
Considerable conservation gains from protecting kanuka tree stands did not outweigh potentially significant adverse effects on the landscape and visual amenity, the commissioners said.
The commissioners felt uncomfortable about approving a subdivision that - notwithstanding potential purchasers would be given notice of the lack of services - could impose liability on the council for the costs of services normally provided by a subdivider.
