The chairman of a hearing to determine the fate of one of Wakatipu's special housing areas yesterday questioned if the application would have been successful outside the SHA process.
On the second day of a consent hearing for the Queenstown Country Club, commissioner David Mead said if the retirement village, proposed across two tracts of land including one bordering State Highway 6 at Ladies Mile, was subject to a standard resource consent process, ''there would be red lights flashing all over the place''.
That was because of adverse effects of the proposal, pegged for rural general land and partly located in a visual amenity landscape and an outstanding natural landscape (ONL).
Landscape architect James Bentley, of Boffa Miskell Ltd, said there would be a ''high degree of adverse effects'' in respect of rural character if the development proceeded.
However, a proposed 75m setback from Ladies Mile combined with structural and orchard planting meant a ''semblance'' of rural character would remain.
Small clusters of buildings, including the clubhouse, would be set within orchard trees.
Mr Bentley said the developers wanted to celebrate the architecture, not ''hide everything away''.
''We're not trying to screen everything; we're not trying to put a shelter belt up. Just because you can see something doesn't necessarily mean it's an adverse effect that's created.
''There is general agreement ... there's going to be a change in character - the rural area will change to a more urban area.''
Mr Mead said while Sanderson Group had plans to mitigate the adverse effects ''to an extent'', the development still signalled a change in land use and environment.
''[If] you step back [from the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act (Hashaa)] ... under the normal course of events, that would still seem to be quite a high hurdle to go over.
''If you set aside Hashaa, [is] the extent of mitigation that's been offered ... sufficient to deal with the visual landscape amenity?''
Mr Bentley replied: ''Absolutely. I am of the opinion even if this was not an SHA, that this proposal is still appropriate in this landscape.''
Commissioner Jan Caunter raised several issues, in particular where the developer had placed the ONL boundary on the southern end of the site.
Mr Bentley's evidence said he and Queenstown Lakes District Council consultant landscape architect Nikki Smetham had ''agreed'' an ONL boundary as it was understood the boundary within neither the operative district plan or proposed district plan had been ''checked on the ground''.
''Due to this, neither line made any sense on the ground in relation to the site.
''The alignment of the ... 'agreed' line between Ms Smetham and myself, adjacent to the Boat Shed Cafe and Onslow Rd East, was carefully considered to ensure that the line made sense on the ground.''
However, Ms Caunter said that legally, the commissioners could not factor that line into their decision and they had ''no ability at the moment'' to assess how the development related to the existing ONL boundary.
She also had concerns about the proposed Boat Shed Cafe being open to the public and the effects of that on elderly residents.
''Imagine you're an 85-year-old woman living down the street ... where all of this traffic is going to come. Your understanding is that you're living in a retirement village - it doesn't actually have public roads through it.''
But Mr Bentley said vehicles would not travel fast and those who bought properties on the road leading to the cafe would be aware of its existence.
Further, some elderly residents enjoyed the ''human activity'' along street frontages, which also gave them a level of security.
''They're not shoved at the back of a development where very few people go.''
The hearing continues today.
