A two-day hearing wound up yesterday in Cromwell for the 24-lot subdivision.
The Central Otago District Council had appointed independent commissioners Rosalind Day-Cleavin (chairwoman) and Gary Rae to oversee the hearing.
D J Jones and N R Searell Family Trust have applied for consent for the subdivision on Terrace St in Bannockburn.
Of the 24 lots, 20 would be residential.
The proposal attracted nearly 40 submissions, more than 80% opposed to the development.
The development had originally started as 35 lots but was withdrawn in 2021 after more than 70 opposing submissions were received.
It had come back to the council scaled down but still drew the ire of many.
The development covered just over 17ha and was immediately west of the Bannockburn Inlet. Of the 20 lots, 12 were said by submitters to be inside the building line restriction (BLR). The BLR was first introduced in 1987 and remains in place to make sure Bannockburn settlement could not be seen from the Cromwell Basin.
Fire Emergency New Zealand and Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou were both neutral on the proposal.
Most submitters who spoke over the two days pointed to the BLR and its control over development, the impact of an additional 20 houses on traffic and the amenity values changing if permission is given.
The applicant’s counsel Chris Fowler said in his right of reply there was a lot of contrasting views between the applicant and the submitters.
Many submitters believed the BLR did not allow any buildings inside the line but Mr Fowler disagreed with that.
"The plan’s view is that it [BLR] does not preclude development. However, it does require that any development is carefully monitored."
He said the planning evidence presented by the council and the applicant aligned with this view.
The applicant had offered tight rules around the skyline and colours.
Many submitters talked about the line restriction which came from work done by the Vincent County Council in 1987.
But Mr Fowler questioned the weight which should be given to the rule instigated by the council, all those years ago.
Mr Fowler said many submitters were worried about a precedent being set if the development was allowed and would open up land owned by the applicant nearby.
But that would not be the case.
He said the neighbouring land had different proportions in terms of elevation, prominence and heritage values and it would require quite different analysis than the current application.
"It is not going to be a Trojan horse leading to multiple applications . . . this proposal would be quite difficult to replicate."
Ms Day-Cleavin said the commissioners would review the evidence and write to Mr Fowler with questions. He would then write another right of reply before the decision.
