The Upper Clutha Environmental Society backs a recommendation by Queenstown Lakes District Council consultant planner Jenny Carter that resource consent be declined because of the inappropriate, prominent location in an outstanding natural landscape.
In an unusual twist, Ms Carter disagreed with the council's consultant landscape architect, Dr Marion Read, who said positive effects from design and planting controls could balance the adverse and cumulative effects arising from the proposal.
The couple's lawyer, Graeme Todd, told commissioners David Whitney and Leigh Overton at a resource consent hearing in Wanaka yesterday they should consider focusing on the merits of the case and landscape issues.
"This is not a virgin piece of outstanding natural landscape.
This is in an enclave of residential development at Dublin Bay." The Auckland-based couple bought the 8.7ha block in 1995. It was part of a three-lot 1993 subdivision of Crosshill Farm.
Two of those lots now have large houses on them.
Mr Todd said the building site was identified during subdivision, giving his clients "a reasonable expectation" they could build there.
In 1999, they received a conditional consent for a cottage on a lower site closer to the lake and consents in 2002 for a storage shed on the original site and a driveway to the shed, but built a shed that did not comply with the consent.
It was bigger, clad in macrocarpa weatherboards instead of coloursteel, and had windows in each elevation instead of just one.
They applied to convert the shed to a dwelling in 2009, but the Environment Court turned it down. Their High Court appeal has not been heard.
Yesterday's hearing was for a fresh consent, amending the 2009 proposal and seeking a larger building footprint. Dwelling details would be revealed in a future application.
Mr Todd said the couple accepted the shed was non-complying and they were grateful the council had not taken enforcement action.
Upper Clutha Environmental Society spokesman Julian Haworth yesterday criticised the couple for having "a blatant disregard" for the shed consent.
"This raises the issue as to whether the applicant can be trusted to develop ... in a manner consistent with its consent, should this be granted," Mr Haworth said.
The society's landscape architect, Anne Steven, said a residential development would be easily visible and prominent from public viewpoints and, in cumulative effects, further detract from outstanding natural landscape values.
Ms Carter, of Lakes Environmental, said the building platform was in an inappropriate location on a prominent slope, giving rise to adverse effects on amenity and landscape.
Ms Carter did not agree with some aspects of Dr Read's evidence, which Mr Todd contested. He said he was taking the rare step of adopting Dr Read's evidence to support his client's case.
"[Ms Carter] is not a landscape expert. I can't recall, in my experience, ever, another case where a planner has sought advice from another staff member, an independent expert ... and has then ignored it and argued against it ... And she says Dr Read's got it wrong in places. Quite frankly, I don't think that's right in law," Mr Todd said.
The hearing was adjourned and a decision will be released in about three weeks.
