The Queenstown Lakes District Council’s so-called ‘‘section 32’’ report is scathing of the district’s existing subdivision rules.
The report on the proposed district plan describes them as "complicated and unwieldy" and "overly complex and convoluted".
The existing, or operative, plan is technical in nature, has unnecessary repetition and falls short of encouraging good subdivision design, it argues.
Developers conform with the "perceived lowest class" of resource consent.
Moving to a fully discretionary regime is a significant change, the unsigned report admits.
But it predicts few applications would be declined, in line with present practice.
The New Zealand Productivity Commission has warned discretionary regimes slow the release of land.
But the report dismisses that, saying the commission’s account was considered "simplistic and not entirely accurate".
Without changes, the report warns there is a risk the new district plan "would fall short of fulfilling its functions".
Well, that was then.
Now, some of the district’s biggest landowners, such as Frankton’s Remarkables Park, Kelvin Peninsula’s Frank Mee, and the Shotover Country developing Stalker family, have weighed in on the recommendation.
Tourism heavyweights Trojan Holdings and Skyline Enterprises warn of significant uncertainty and "cost and time delays".
Property owners argue establishing the discretionary framework would hamper the purpose of the Resource Management Act and say the council has not adequately assessed alternatives.
That has prompted a suggested change.
Consultant planner Nigel Bryce, of Dunedin, tells the council: "I do not consider that the section 32 analysis has demonstrated that a discretionary activity regime is necessarily the best mechanism to respond to subdivision in all zones.
"Rural-residential and rural-lifestyle and in urban areas do not require ‘the full spectrum of consideration’," he says.
In his "section 42a" report, Mr Bryce takes a middle ground, recommending what is known as "partial discretionary".
That means the council has grounds to refuse consent on certain restricted grounds.
Mr Bryce says this would more effectively provide good subdivision design guidance, appropriate infrastructure and servicing and, consequently, "appropriate" environmental outcomes.
In other recommendations, Mr Bryce says areas with a "spatial or structure" plan, like Millbrook or Jacks Point, can remain controlled because they are "unlikely to be substandard".
And there should be controlled status for boundary adjustments, he suggests.
However, he supports a discretionary regime in the rural general zone.
The council’s section 32 report panned partial discretionary as "less effective" but Mr Bryce does not agree.
"I consider that by removing existing assessment criteria and introducing a restricted discretionary activity rule framework that provides a more targeted response to subdivision activity with the district’s rural living and urban areas, the plan efficiency issues are still able to be achieved," he said.
