However, a group of Wanaka residents has criticised developer Crescent Investments Ltd, because residents say section sizes at the proposed Kirimoko Block subdivision are too small and would conflict with the town's existing residential set-up.
Crescent directors John May, of Wanaka, and Don Church, of Ashburton, want consent for the first stage of a proposed three-stage development on an 11ha site contained within Kirimoko Cres, Wanaka.
The developers explained their "integrated development programme" to commissioners Jane Taylor, of Queenstown, and Leigh Overton, of Wanaka, during a two-day hearing in Wanaka which finished yesterday.
"Those who criticise us for promoting smaller sites out of some commercial imperative fail to grasp what we are doing or the complexity of the project," Mr May said.
The first stage of Crescent's Kirimoko development comprises 51 allotments, with 38 sections set aside for residential purposes, with the remainder to be used for stormwater, drainage, and reserve land purposes.
The average lot size is about 576sq m, which does not comply with the Queenstown Lakes District Plan's low-density residential zone prescriptions for minimum 700sq m sections.
Opponents of the proposal, including Loris King and Graham Dickson from the Wanaka Residents Association, say the small sections will compromise family living standards.
"There is a difference in opinion between what is professionally touted and what the public want ... You must consider the worst-case scenario as well," Mr Dickson told the commissioners.
The developers had undertaken a "massively complex" project of designing the interaction of each lot by assessing ground contours and fitting building platforms within the site's landscape to guarantee view-shafts and sunlight planes, Mr May said.
Council regulatory staff from Lakes Environmental commended the approach of Mr May and Mr Church's proposal - despite it being a non-complying activity under district plan rules.
Lakes Environmental principal planner Michelle Grinlinton-Hancock said the proposal was consistent with the principles of sustainable development envisaged by the council's district plan.
"There are some results when breaking rules that can permit better outcomes," she said.
District plan rules do not ensure that property owners are not compromised by what neighbours might do at a later date, she said when recommending to the commissioners for the proposal to be approved.
The commissioners reserved their decision.
