A Queenstown Lakes district planning consultant is recommending rejection of a plan change enabling the expansion of Wanaka's Peninsula Bay subdivision northwards.
A panel consisting of David Mead (chairman), Andrew Henderson and Cr Mel Gazzard is due to begin hearing on Monday the plan change application (plan change 51) from Infinity Group's Peninsula Village Ltd and Wanaka Bay Ltd, owned by Murray Frost, of Wanaka.
The application seeks to rezone as low density residential 6ha of land, partly zoned "open space''.
Twenty-six residential sections are proposed for the land.
In a 262-page report prepared for the hearing, consultant Victoria Sian Jones gave five reasons why she concluded the plan change should be rejected "in its entirety'':
The effects on the landscape and visual amenity would be "significant'' and could not be sufficiently mitigated.
There would be ecological "losses'' rather than "gains''.
Recreational amenity would be "irreversibly compromised''.
The long-term effects of developing the land outweighed the short-term "and relatively minor'' benefits.
The uncertainty of the future use of the open space zone and the effectiveness of the proposed rules.
Ms Jones said she did not consider the plan change would "maintain and enhance'' the values of the site, or meet the requirements of the Otago regional policy statement.
She noted part of the land was in an outstanding natural landscape and "as such any effects from rezoning this part of the site ... is a matter of national importance''.
A total of 207 written submissions were made, covering 216 points, and Ms Jones said that apart from four, all sought the "complete and unconditional rejection'' of the plan change.
"All of those that are in total opposition to the rezoning cite the development of the open space [and or] loss of recreational land as a reason.''
Many were also concerned about landscape and ecological effects.
Ms Jones' report contained alternative recommendations for consideration by the panel if it did not reject the plan change.
In their report, planners for the developers, Mitchell Partnerships Ltd, considered the proposal would result in a "positive ecological outcome'', with new planting to replace vegetation removed.
They concluded the landscape effects of the plan change were "localised'' and "for the most part will be visually negligible to sight''.
