Queenstown Lakes district ratepayers have stumped up almost $755,000 in legal costs in court battles concerning Frankton Flats in the past four years alone.
The Otago Daily Times lodged an Official Information Act request with the Queenstown Lakes District Council more than a month ago for information about the costs to the council of litigation associated with the Frankton Flats and Arrowtown South plan changes.
The total cost of $754,848.11 revealed by the council this week is made up of costs accumulated over four years, resulting from appeals and judicial proceedings instigated by other parties.
The legal and expert witness costs for plan change 19 (Frankton Flats) as a result of nine appeals starting from November 2009 is $510,369.65.
The costs incurred by the council over the Five Mile consent since Shotover Park lodged judicial review proceedings and up to withdrawal of that judicial review amount to $9727.27.
In the case of the Pak'n Save supermarket proposed by Foodstuffs South Island Ltd for Frankton Flats, the consent was first heard by council commissioners, then appealed to the Environment Court. Council costs are from the lodgement of Environment Court appeals and High Court costs.
The council spent $76,850.43 on the High Court appeal against Foodstuffs. Witnesses cost $52,554 and legal costs amounted to $24,296.43.
In the case of Mitre 10 Mega, proposed by Cross Roads Properties, a property subsidiary of department store chain H&J Smith, the application was heard directly by the Environment Court.
The council spent a further $157,900.76 on a High Court appeal against Cross Roads. Witnesses cost $17,848.12 and legal costs amounted to $140,052.64.
The ODT asked the total cost, including legal costs to the council over the proposed plan change 39 (Arrowtown South) since the lodgement of appeals in January 2011.
The cost to the council was $15,235.01.
When the strategy committee was updated on progress with all plan changes this week, Queenstown Lakes district councillor Simon Stamers-Smith voiced exasperation over the cost to ratepayers for court proceedings related to plan change 19 and proposed the council withdraw from court proceedings.
The council instigated plan change 19 with the aim of rezoning rural general land within the Frankton area to enable commercial, residential and industrial development.
Cr Stamers-Smith said plan change 19 litigation was ''an argument between two commercial people and some sideliners, which really doesn't concern us''.
However, council planning and development general manager Marc Bretherton said it was appropriate the council be involved as it was a plan change.
''There's still very much a role for council to promote what we believe to be the best resource management outcomes,'' Mr Bretherton said.
Cr Cath Gilmour said Frankton Flats ''is too much of an important chunk of land for us to leave to developers to decide''.
''It should have the public's perspective as the major overlay.''
