A six-house development proposal for Damper Bay, criticised by the Wanaka Residents Association last year for its "industrial scale", has been refused by two Queenstown Lakes District Council commissioners.
The development by rich-list businessmen Trevor Farmer and Craig Heatley, of Auckland, and Mark Taylor, of Queenstown, was opposed by 113 submitters in September 2010.
Commissioners Trevor Shiels and Leigh Overton conducted a hearing in December and released a written decision yesterday stating the Damper Bay site "certainly is not capable of absorbing a development of anything close to the scale proposed".
Wanaka Residents Association chairman Graham Dickson said yesterday he was pleased.
"We got what we asked for. We are satisfied," he said.
Upper Clutha Environmental Society Julian Haworth said the decision was "sensible".
"That one sentence says it all," Mr Haworth said of the commissioner's conclusion.
Damper Bay Estates Ltd spokesman Mark Taylor could not be contacted yesterday for comment.
The company has until February 28 to lodge an Environment Court appeal.
Both Mr Haworth and Mr Dickson said their organisations would support the Queenstown Lakes District Council if it had to defend the commissioners' decision.
Mr Dickson said whether the association would take an active role in any future court action would have to be discussed with members first, but Mr Haworth was more committed.
"We will fight them in the trenches," Mr Haworth said.
Mr Dickson reiterated yesterday the proposal would have permitted very large compounds such as might be seen in Auckland.
"These are people with a lot of money behind them. I am sure they won't stop. These houses they were proposing are 1000 square metres ... They are gross," Mr Dickson said.
Mr Haworth said the resource consent decision highlighted the need for a consistent approach by decision-making authorities regarding development in outstanding natural landscape.
"If property like this near the lake can nowhere near absorb six houses, how can Parkins Bay, which we will be hearing about next week, absorb 42 houses?
We must have consistency.
As far as the society is concerned, we can see no hope for anywhere near 42 houses being granted consent at Parkins Bay next week," he said.
The developer-initiated Parkins Bay golf course development appeal is being heard by the Environment Court.
Mr Dickson said he was not sure what effect the Damper Bay decision would have on other developments along the western shores of Lake Wanaka but said "it does tend to set a standard".
Damper Bay development
Refused: An application to subdivide a 193ha property into three lots and build two houses on each lot.
Where: Damper Bay, 8km from Wanaka, on Wanaka-Mt Aspiring Rd.
The site: Rural general, outstanding natural landscape, pastoral farmlandOffered: Destocking, ecological restoration, landscaping, other land management controls, wetland restoration, surrender of an existing consent for one dwelling.
Millennium Track: The hearing was delayed for a year because of the developers' concerns about the alignment of the track from Waterfall Creek to Glendhu Bay and its impact on visibility. This was resolved last year in a memorandum of understanding with the Otago Regional Council and Queenstown Lakes District Council. The agreed realignment did not convince the council's consultant planner Andrew Henderson to alter his earlier recommendation that consent be refused.
Who gave evidence: Upper Clutha Environmental Society, the Wanaka Residents Association and the Environment Defence Society opposed; the Upper Clutha Tracks Trust neither supported nor opposed but sought conditions; former landowner Don McRae gave evidence for various parties regarding land management; the applicant called evidence from the architect of Te Papa (Museum of New Zealand) Pete Bossley, of Auckland, landscape architect Frank Boffa and others.
The commissioners' decision:
• Their main concern was visibility from the Millennium Track and the lake. They noted five dwellings would be visible simultaneously from the track and six from one point in the bay.
• They concluded the site was already at the threshold of its ability to absorb change. An additional five residences clearly exceeded the threshold.
• The application did not protect outstanding natural landscape or maintain amenity.
