However, what that correct height should be is open to debate.
Commissioners John Matthews and Cath Gilmour heard evidence which indicated 4.5m-high trees were an effective screen of the proposed multimillion-dollar luxury visitor lodge and 10 cottages.
But Mr van Brandenburg submitted Meadow 3's overall mitigation measures were inadequate.
It might take 10 or 20 years for the proposed replacement trees to reach maturity and effectively screen the development, as per the 2004 consent order, he said.
Mr van Brandenburg opposed the subdivision consent mainly because he submitted the building platforms on lots 15 to 19 were too close together and there would not be enough space for screen planting.
The revised cottage positions on lot 21 were too large and would be seen as "a wall of houses" when viewed from the Lake Hayes side, he said.
"Looking from Lake Hayes, this is one of the most photographed landscapes in New Zealand... The trees and homestead are seen as the centrepiece of the scene.
"This is a visual amenity landscape category [and] a landscape that needs special care to preserve its character."
He had concerns about the land-use application, partly because he claimed the proposed plantings were too few and the wrong species to screen the building platforms.
The 90sq m cottages were too large and should be reduced to 45sq m, he said.
Development should only occur when trees had reached an adequate height to screen the cottages and the future dwellings on lots 10 to 13 behind the cottages, as seen from Lake Hayes.
He said the manager's cottage, built in the 1930s, should not be allowed to be moved, as was proposed.
Mr van Brandenburg submitted mounds should be 1.8m at the east of the car park to mitigate car headlights and sunlight glinting on windscreens.
He had not assessed the adaptive application to reuse the woolshed as a day spa, but he was not in favour because "it is yet another aspect of domestication never envisaged in the consent order".
Mr Matthews and Ms Gilmour will use Mr van Brandenburg's approximate 1:500 model of the property when deliberating, but said they would not draw major conclusions from it.
Landscape architect Ralf Kruger said the model should be used in comparison with the submitted photograph simulations, which meant the commissioners should view between 2.5m to 6m away from the model.
The hearing was adjourned yesterday.
