The consent hearing to decide whether Tekapo businessman Anthony Tosswill can build his hotel and apartment tower concluded yesterday, after hearing submissions and complex legal arguments for and against the project.
And while Phil Page, the lawyer acting for Mr Tosswill, took a final swipe at the "hysterical" criticism levelled at the project, independent planner Nigel Bryce urged the panel to reject the development.
Mr Page said trying to reach agreement on the hotel’s architecture was "akin to litigating the existence of God".
Mr Tosswill was prepared to go beyond the revised plans presented last week and further reduce the hotel’s height, by dropping another storey, flattening the roof, removing the top of the lift core and the ring feature on top.
That would have to be offset by slightly widening the building, by 4m, achieved in part by straightening the hotel’s angled walls, Mr Page said.
But earlier recommendations that at least four storeys would have to be removed, before consent could be granted, went too far, he said.
"[Mr Tosswill] cannot make that work," Mr Page said.
Mr Page also criticised submitters who suggested their harbour views would be lost completely, when photographic montages showed their claims were exaggerated.
Such "hysterical allegations" were "just absurd", but meant it was no surprise the project had faced "an avalanche of complaints", he said.
However, Misbeary Holdings Ltd’s opposition to the hotel went further, and should be thrown out on the grounds of trade competition, Mr Page argued.
The company listed Lani Hagaman, of the Scenic Circle Group, which owned Scenic Circle Dunedin’s hotels, as a director.
Misbeary also owned a residential property near the hotel site, but had made no case for any negative impact on the property, Mr Page said.
Instead, Misbeary was acting either as a direct trade competitor, or a surrogate for one, both of which were prohibited by the Resource Management Act, Mr Page said.
The panel was yet to rule on the issue, or on a complex legal argument from Mr Page to have the hotel’s various breaches of district plan rules "unbundled" and assessed individually.
The project would face an easier road to consent if he was successful, but Mr Bryce, advising the panel, continued to oppose the project.
Mr Bryce acknowledged the hotel would generate positive economic benefits, including 130 full-time jobs, but he was not convinced those benefits outweighed the hotel’s negative impacts.
That included the loss of some midwinter sun in the Octagon, and the shading of the neighbouring Kingsgate Hotel, as well as a "key issue" of degraded views of the Municipal Chambers and St Paul’s Cathedral from the Octagon.
There were also unanswered questions about the disruption caused by earthworks and construction, particularly now the design had changed, and a lack of information about wind and glare from the tower, he said.
Draft conditions of consent presented to the panel attempted to address those issues, including requiring wind tunnel testing to find out how much wind the building would funnel into surrounding streets.
But independent commissioner Stephen Daysh questioned whether the panel would be "negligent" in granting consent without knowing the results first, which would show if wind problems could be addressed.
"Doesn’t that put us in an impossible position?"
Mr Bryce said the issue should be weighed against other evidence, but Mr Page said the $100,000 cost of the tests made it prohibitive to do them before a consent was granted.
In the meantime, Mr Page downplayed the limited midwinter shading in the Octagon, and rebuked those who argued the city’s heritage buildings should be the focus for developers of a five-star hotel.
"Good luck to them. No-one is stopping them. But then no-one is doing it either.
"It’s a perfectly acceptable, or expected ... element of a city that is marketing itself in relation to heritage tourism that we should also have contemporary infrastructure in the city to accommodate those tourists," Mr Page said.
The hearing went into non-public session late yesterday and was then adjourned.
The timeline to issue a decision was extended to 30 working days.
