A "very fine line" existed between granting or refusing consent for an amusement park on land opposite the Wanaka Airport, Environment Court Judge Jon Jackson said yesterday.
"I can tell you now from our discussion in chambers this is a very tight case."
Judge Jackson's comments came as he adjourned a five-day hearing considering an application by the Ross and Judy Young Family Trust to build an entertainment facility with karts, bumper boats, 10-pin bowling and a cafe on the corner of State Highway 6 and Mt Barker Rd.
The development, proposed for the rural general zone, gained resource consent in 2010 but was appealed to the Environment Court by Mt Barker Rd residents the Staufenberg Family Trust and Jeffrey and Margaret Feint over concerns about loss of rural amenity and visibility of the development.
Ulrich Staufenberg's planning consultant, Vicki Jones, told the court on Friday she was concerned the amusement park would encourage sprawl down State Highway 6, similar to what had occurred on Cardrona Valley Rd where there was "no hard urban edge".
There was "a lot of land within close proximity of Wanaka" where the development could be more appropriately sited, such as the Three Parks Zone, she said.
Yesterday, the applicant's planning consultant, Carey Vivian, said the Three Parks zoning had more complex consent requirements than the proposed location near the airport, which he maintained was "the best site in the Upper Clutha" for the development.
Landscape architect Rebecca Lucas, also appearing for the Youngs, said the site could absorb the development because of the amusement park's placement in the corner of the block closest to the airport and the existing Have a Shot recreational facility.
"It's a little triangular section of the site that has a low amenity value within the surrounding context of commercial development," she said.
Mr Staufenberg's counsel, Vanessa Robb, said a proposed covenant over the 83% of the Youngs' site which would not be used for the amusement park did not require the land to be retained as open pasture as the court had originally understood.
Instead, the covenant allowed for farm buildings and farm activities - including horticulture and viticulture - and could be lifted if the land was rezoned in the future.
Judge Jackson said if the covenant was not the "permanent document" he had initially perceived it to be, it did not give the appellants and their descendants "any protection at all".
The applicant's counsel, Jan Caunter, said her client had not wanted to be left in a situation where development was permitted around them if changes to the zoning occurred while they were restricted by a covenant.
"There's a short cliche for that isn't there and it's called having your cake and eating it, too," Judge Jackson said.
"Sitting on the fence and keeping your options open either way might not wash with this application."
He said the covenant addressed "important issues" such as precedent setting and urban creep, and he advised Ms Caunter to review its wording in her reply submissions following the hearing.
