Wanaka's sensitive landscapes are in the spotlight again, with the Minty family this week making a second attempt to obtain subdivision consent for a 137ha property beside Lake Wanaka with a rating value of $12.7 million.
There has been ongoing conflict between landowners' desire to develop farmland in areas of outstanding natural landscapes along the western reaches of Lake Wanaka and the high level of protection given to that land in the district plan.
In 2002, the Sharpridge Trust obtained resource consent for six lots about 5km west of Wanaka on Mt Aspiring Rd, but this decision was thrown out by the Environment Court in 2004 after the Upper Clutha Environmental Society appealed.
This year the trust applied for four lots with a residential building platform on each of lots 1, 2 and 3. The fourth lot is to be amalgamated with lot 1.
The environmental society supports a house on lot 1 and opposes the other two platforms.
Lakes Environmental's consultant planner Andrew Henderson recommended the Queenstown Lakes District Council approve platforms on lots 1 and 3 but not on lot 2, unless it was amended.
The applicant has reduced the size of the platform and offered further conditions.
Sharpridge trustee Straun Minty, in written evidence, said the farm was now uneconomic. No-one in the family had envisaged the problems that would be caused by the development of the lakeside Millennium Track. There were pest-control problems, gates left open, people roaming at will, dogs bothering sheep and freedom-camping issues.
"If the property is environmentally untenable for farming or some other reasonable use, then council or Government should be obliged to buy it back at fair market valuation for public use," Mr Minty said.
Farmers Tim Burdon and Randall Aspinall supported the Mintys and asked the commissioners to take into account the contribution farming made to the district's economy.
Three houses could be hidden from view from Mt Aspiring Rd. Their visibility from the lake was acceptable, Mr Burdon said.
Mr Aspinall said people wanted to live on rural residential lots and many track walkers were not offended by seeing houses in rural settings.
"The Mintys are a family trying to gain some benefits from a non-economic farm unit that I am sure is rated far higher than its agricultural capabilities reflect," Mr Aspinall said.
The applicant offered not to build two consented farm buildings if the dwellings were granted.
Upper Clutha Environmental Society spokesman Julian Haworth and landscape architect Anne Steven said a house on Lot 1 was enough. A new district plan rule prevented landowners trading farm buildings for houses, Mr Haworth said.
The introduction of a row of residential buildings in a highly valued landscape had adverse effects on the environment and the covenants and conditions did not go far enough to offset them, he said.
Mrs Steven said the site contained important natural features, was part of a publicly appreciated landscape from several perspectives and openness was pivotal to its values.
The landscape was close to its development threshold and the proposal would not protect the outstanding natural landscape or preserve the natural character of the lake and its margins, Mrs Steven said.
A decision is expected in about a month.
