Neighbours of the development, which sets out to deliver 250 homes and other amenities at the base of Mt Iron, voiced opposition to the development in its current form in submissions to the fast-track process.
They raised concerns for the impact of the development on privacy and on the amenity value of their properties and surrounding area.
Many of the submissions said they would accept development on the land in question, but opposed the number, density and heights of many of the properties proposed on land zoned as rural.
One submission highlighted a previously proposed housing development for the site involving a lower intensity of development was found ‘‘likely to be jarring in its presentation of urban development in the setting of predominantly rural characteristics’’.
Another stated what the development proposed to do was ‘‘turn the base of Mt Iron into an industrialised hellscape’’.
In correspondence with the developer, the expert panel said it considered the impacts on the neighbours to be a key issue.
The panel said it was not clear what would be required in the event it agreed with the comments provided by the development’s neighbours, but it might require a setback from the boundary of 3m-4m, in addition to a dense hedge about 4m-6m in mature height, to screen the development from the view of neighbours at ground level.
The panel noted the ‘‘scale and linearity of vegetation would not be uncommon or inappropriate in rural or semi-rural environments ... and could potentially address at least some of the key concerns expressed to the panel’’.
When approached for comment, one of the site’s developers, Wānaka local Steve Schikker, acknowledged there would be effects on Old Racecourse Rd neighbours and the plans had been modified ‘‘to help mitigate these effects’’.
‘‘These changes are with the panel for their consideration.’’
In addition to the impact on neighbours, the impact of the development on transport was raised as a key issue by the expert panel.
In a submission to the expert panel, NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) said the proposed development would have a tangible impact on the existing roundabout, particularly in peak traffic, leading to queues of up to 207 vehicles and seven-minute delays for drivers.
The panel acknowledged the developer had proposed making a financial contribution to upgrade the roundabout, but said it had ‘‘no understanding of where such a contribution would go, or how or even if it would be used for a roundabout upgrade or in what timeframe’’.
It directed NZTA to engage in meaningful discussions with the developer on the subject of how any contribution could be used to achieve the desired outcome.
The panel also sought greater certainty on cycling and pedestrian infrastructure linking the development to town.
In the event it decided to grant consent to the development subject to conditions requiring pedestrian and cycling routes into town, it would not have sufficient information to create conditions that were ‘‘clear, certain and justifiable’’.
The panel requested the developer consult with the council, regional council and NZTA to develop conditions, including the confirmation of standards such as width, surface and lighting, as well as in-principle comments from relevant land and asset owners confirming they would be agreeable to undertaking upgrades in a ‘‘timeframe related to the occupation of dwellings on the site’’.
Mr Schikker said the transport issues were ‘‘a district-wide problem’’.
‘‘Part of the conditions of consent are to create viable, safe, practical active transport links to and from the development into Wānaka.’’
