Consent for Mt Barker residents Bill and Raelene Jelley's recently approved two-lot Mt Barker subdivision is to be appealed in the Environment Court.Consent for Mt Barker residents Bill and Raelene Jelley's recently approved two-lot Mt Barker subdivision is to be appealed in the Environment Court.
The appeal is being brought by their neighbour, Michael Spackman, as sole trustee of the Miro Trust.
The trust has already made several unsuccessful applications to superior courts to try to stop or alter the Jelleys' development plans.
The trust owns the 840ha Criffel Deer Farm, which it purchased in 2005 from the Wallis family.
The principal beneficiary is Wellington lawyer, Mike Garnham, Mr Spackman's son-in-law.
The Jelleys own about 11ha of land nearby, the majority of which is zoned rural lifestyle.
In 2005, the Jelleys obtained consent for three lots, which was reduced to two lots after the trust sought a High Court judicial review.
In October, Queenstown Lakes District Council commissioners John Matthews and Lou Alfeld gave consent for a further two-lot subdivision of an 8ha lot created in 2005.
One of the new lots would be about 1.2ha and is close to the trust's house (the former Wallis family home).
The commissioners also granted retrospective consent for a building platform that had already been formed there.
The hearing was not publicly notified because it was considered to be an application for a controlled activity.
However, Mr Spackman was served a notice.
Mr Spackman's lawyer, Phil Page, said at the hearing the 2ha average lot-size rule would be breached, the subdivision should have been publicly notified and the building platform was so close to the rural general boundary it would overlook the trust's house and outdoor living areas.
During the course of the hearing, the Jelleys agreed with the commissioners' suggestion to move the platform to the east, rotate it slightly clockwise and reduce its size.
The Jelleys called landscape architect Anne Stevens to give evidence, but the trust did not call its own expert witness.
The commissioners decided the adverse effects of the modified proposal were no greater than minor and granted consent, subject to conditions including landscaping and design constraints.
In making their decision, the commissioners said the High Court had put the trust on notice in 2007 of three issues (including landscaping) the consent authority had to consider if a new application came forward.
The trust had been very aware of the High Court's observations and had elected not to present professional evidence, they said.
"Aspects of the approach taken by Mr Garnham to the attempts by the applicants to subdivide their property, which we remind ourselves is in a zone where that is to be expected, have already been the subject of relatively trenchant criticism in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
"That said, however, our task is to weigh up the evidence and make determinations…
"That is exactly what we have done," the commissioners said.
The court hearing is not expected until next year.
