A legal appeal to overturn a declined resource consent preventing Wanaka landowner John Roberts from subdividing his property has been argued at an Environment Court hearing in Wanaka.
Mr Roberts applied for consent in 2008 to subdivide his 6.1ha property on State Highway 6 near the Wanaka airport into two allotments of 1.55ha and 4.55ha.
Queenstown Lakes commissioners did not grant consent for the proposal, which also identified a building platform on the 1.5ha site, despite the decision being contrary to the advice of the council's expert landscape architect and planner from Lakes Environmental.
Commissioner Michael Parker said the proposed development would reduce the pastoral character of the landscape as viewed from SH6.
Views of "naturalness" across the countryside and to the mountains beyond would also be diminished by a proposed additional dwelling and its plantings.
A contract helicopter pilot, Mr Roberts has modified the original proposal, halving the area of a desired building platform from 1000sq m to 500sq m, and also offering a 10-page list of consent conditions to the court.
Counsel for Mr Roberts, Wanaka lawyer Jan Caunter, said the QLDC decision to deny consent was light in both length and reasoning.
"Natural or arcadian pastoral" characteristics were a theme of visual amenity landscapes and any adverse effects arising from subdivision and development were capable of being "managed" by mitigation, she said.
"Human elements" such as houses and trees were often incorporated into the pastoral landscape.
A dwelling on the 1.5ha site would be adequately mitigated by trees planted to screen the building, and both elements were envisaged as part of the visual amenity landscape, Ms Caunter said.
Wanaka landscape architect Sarah Steven said there was some contention that tree plantings were inherently unnatural and created adverse effects on the landscape.
However, such plantings were already present in many pastoral landscapes in the form of shelter belts, she said.
Judge Fred McElrea questioned whether existing shelter belts or lines of trees "which were not needed" for any purpose might be removed to enhance the openness of the site.
Retaining open views from the highway through the countryside and to the mountains beyond was a considered element in the consent decision.
Improving those views by way of removing existing trees could be a compensatory element the appellant might consider offering, Judge McElrea said.
The hearing was adjourned.
