On the final day of a hearing discussing a proposed plan change to help with affordable community housing in the Lakes District, Remarkables Park Ltd (RPL) counsel John Young said his client opposed the plan change on the basis of "jurisdictional, economic and planning grounds".
Mr Young said on Friday RPL considered housing affordability was a complex social policy issue, outside the scope and purpose of the Resource Management Act and the proposed plan change had "fundamental flaws".
RPL had already made a private plan change request to rezone land to enable large-format retail activities and intended to provide staff accommodation as part of that plan change "without the intervention proposed by Plan Change 24".
Given it was beyond the scope and purpose of the RMA, the plan change could not be "the most appropriate" way for the council to achieve its objectives.
RPL also submitted the plan change was flawed because it addressed "alleged effects" which could not be "solely attributed" to the activities it sought to regulate; it sought to impose "a de facto financial contribution" in a manner contrary to the RMA; it was not comprehensive or integrated; and it captured discretionary activities.
"Plan change 24 is founded on the premise that plan changes and resource consent applications - discretionary and non-complying - enabling commercial, residential and visitor accommodation activities, generate demand for affordable housing.
"That premise is flawed because development both drives and responds to growth.
"Further, there are other activities that influence demand for affordable housing."
Also appearing for RPL was Market Economics Ltd principal Dr James Fairgray who said the plan change sought to address an important issue, but believed it did not differentiate between the provision of affordable housing for the community at large - an economic and social wellbeing issue - and the need for affordable housing to accommodate workers in the commercial and accommodation sectors.
"While those objectives are related, they are not identical and I believe the plan change as currently structured confuses the community and workforce components . . . which is likely to result in cross-subsidy, double-dipping and inequitable outcomes."
In a statement to the Otago Daily Times, RPL director Alastair Porter said affordable housing was a "very complex and difficult issue". While the company might not agree with the proposed plan change, it commended the council for investigating the problem.
Mr Porter said the key issues which needed to be resolved included to what extent affordable housing was an RMA issue, in terms of cause and effect and developer-employee responsibilities; to what extent it was a social issue - for example the desirability of retaining more families in Queenstown; and was there a role for both private and public sector affordable housing solutions.
"RPL considers that at a developer level the solution can, and should, be private-sector financed and managed, as currently happens with some employers who already own and provide staff accommodation in Queenstown.
"At a broader community level, it is obviously also desirable to have a community-owned public structure that can leverage public funding opportunities.
"Remarkables Park is proposing to provide some employee accommodation in conjunction with its large format retail centre.
"This would at least make a start with a major private-sector employee housing initiative . . . and provide valuable experience for employers and council.
