On the first day of the hearing into the Queenstown Lakes District Council's Plan Change 24, Affordable and Community Housing, QLDC Housing senior policy analyst Scott Figenshow told independent commissioner and chairman of the hearing David Clarke, commissioner Christine Kelly and Cr Lex Perkins that Queenstown should aim to move from a "short-stay, low-spending visitor to a long-stay, high-spend visitor.
"When you look at the labour market, in order to make that shift, you're going to need a workforce of people who are resident in the community. Part of the tourist experience is an experience from a local, delivered by a local who's been here more than two weeks.
"I don't think we're going to achieve that as part of our workforce if our workforce has to drive every day from a point south of Kingston, Hawea or Cromwell."
Mr Figenshow said the "affordable" housing issue was not a new one for the community - Queenstown hotels used to be required to meet the housing needs of their workers, but the current district plan did not include such a requirement, even though the problem had got worse.
Mr Figenshow told the hearing that of 39 submissions received on the plan change, all said there were housing affordability issues in the district.
The hearing is set down for three days, with seven verbal submissions to be given on behalf of 14 parties, including Infinity Investment Group, Jacks Point Ltd, Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd, Willowridge Developments Ltd and Remarkables Park Ltd.
The proposed plan change, which began with the Housing Our People in Our Environment (Hope) strategy in 2005, aims to introduce affordable housing into the district plan.
The change requires developers to assess if there will be an affordable housing impact that should be mitigated.
New developments would need an Affordable Housing Impact and Mitigation Statement to determine the extent of affordable housing demands generated by the new development or subdivision and the mitigation action needed.
Jacks Point Ltd said in its written submission that while it acknowledged the "inadequate supply of affordable housing" was "a significant issue", Plan Change 24 was "fundamentally flawed . . . uncertain [and] contrary to the purposes and principles of the Resource Management Act".
It said the premise of the plan change was the assumption development was the promoter of growth and development, and per se created an adverse effect on the environment in terms of the lack of affordability.
"This assumption is not founded on proven research."
Jacks Point Ltd submitted either Plan Change 24 should be withdrawn or cancelled, or the District Plan should be amended.
