Councillors expressed varying degrees of support for the controversial urban intensification variation at their full meeting yesterday, but several expressed fears it could provoke court appeals by residential homeowners and property developers.
They were considering a report and recommendations on the variation by an independent panel, which held public hearings over three weeks in Arrowtown, Queenstown and Wanaka last July and August.
The variation was required to implement a policy within the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, which directs councils around the country to enable more building height and density in certain locations.
The council had to approve the panel’s recommendations in full, without amendments, or start the variation process from scratch.
Cr Cody Tucker said the part of the community most exercised about the variation were people who already owned homes and were concerned about their neighbourhood’s character.
However, he was ‘‘excited’’ about the variation because it would give residents who were not yet on the property ladder more housing options in the future.
‘‘We live in a district that has the least affordable housing in the country.’’
Cr Matt Wong said many residents were probably feeling frustrated by the variation, and believed the council had been driving it.
He wanted to make it clear the variation was a ‘‘national directive’’, and the council’s role had been to influence ‘‘how that intensification happens to us’’.
Cr John Mitchell said the variation would be ‘‘significantly less of an imposition’’ on the district plan because of the well-articulated public submissions and the council’s input.
He supported the panel’s recommendations, which gave the council some control over how the district’s urban areas developed — ‘‘growing up and not so much growing out’’.
‘‘It is, if you like, smart growth.’’
Cr Melissa White said the panel had recommended the Arrowtown design guidelines be removed from the district plan, despite there being no submissions calling for that.
The guidelines were the product of more than 20 years’ community input, and represented an ‘‘authoritative, consulted framework for understanding, protecting and enhancing Arrowtown’s character’’.
She expected the Friends of Arrowtown Village group would appeal that part of the variation in the Environment Court.
In her report for councillors, resource management policy principal planner Amy Bowbyes said the changes were likely to ‘‘generate community concern’’ about the loss of neighbourhood character or amenity in some places, and higher density could strain infrastructure until upgrades were done.
Despite concerns the variation could have seen taller, multi-storey buildings creeping into the district’s residential areas, the panel’s report had favoured more homes on sites rather than taller buildings in most suburbs, favouring two-storey development over extra height, Ms Bowbyes said.
New medium- and high-density zones would apply in and around central Queenstown, allowing taller buildings and higher densities than standard residential areas, but areas such as Arrowtown and Arthurs Point would keep lower heights to protect their character.
