In 2003, Mr Marler's family trust, the Matukituki Trust, wanted to build on a prominent knob near the tip of the northwestern arm of the peninsula with views in all directions.
Recently, the trust stepped down from that position and negotiated an agreement with the council and neighbouring landowner John May, of Just One Life, to put the house in a saddle between two knobs, with views in most directions.
But the Upper Clutha Environmental Society (UCES) is keen for the trust to go lower still, on a site closer to Mr May's house and the lake, but still with fantastic views of West Wanaka.
Queenstown Lakes District Council independent commissioners Peter Salmon QC, of Auckland, and Jane Taylor, of Queenstown, yesterday reserved their decision after a four-day hearing.
The resource consent application is the latest in a lengthy procession of hearings and court cases focusing on Mr Marler's plans for his 108ha peninsula site, ecological restoration programme, farm buildings, and his dream house.
UCES president Julian Haworth said this week the society was completely opposed to the saddle site.
He has indicated that if the commissioners grant consent for that site, Mr Marler faces yet another Environment Court appeal.
What Mr Marler wants is a house with a 48m glass frontage and turf roof, almost completely dug into the ground, and even hidden behind an artificially built mound, if the commissioners deemed it necessary.
He contends that even without a bund, the house would be reasonably difficult to see.
The house would have a 537sq m footprint.
When combined with a garage, storage area and access to the storage area, the area would total 900sq m.
He and his lawyer accept the saddle site is an exceptional position.
His lawyer, Christian Whata, argued yesterday the new proposal removes four of five key elements that did not find favour with the Environment Court when it considered the previous house site.
The offending elements that have been removed are a road on a sensitive, visible slope, a large predator-proof fence, modifications to alpine tarns and a lakeside accessway.
"In reality, also, the saddle site does not require the level of engineering required to establish a house on the upper plateau site. It has a much higher ability to absorb the change," Mr Whata said.
In his closing submissions, Mr Whata attacked the UCES evidence, describing it as "coarse, unproven assertions", "generalised claims", "hyperbolic" and without rigour.
"What all of this reveals is that there is a lack of balance at the core of the UCES submission," Mr Whata said.
The environmental compensation being provided by Mr Marler through the ecological restoration programme was "exemplary and unprecedented" in the district, Mr Whata said.
Mr Haworth said the saddle site was inappropriate and would have significant adverse effects.
Among things he objected to were the extent of the curtilage around the house, the size of the residence, the level of track upgrading that would be needed, the extension of chimneys above the ridgeline, and that there was no pattern of development that would support building a house on top of an outstanding natural feature.
"Essentially, my position on this matter is now similar to the applicant's.
"We both accept that a single residential complex could be permitted on the site and we both agree that the ecological restoration programme is the overriding condition to be attached," he said.
But he had a caveat regarding the ecological restoration: "Nothing will buy a site for me for a house on the top site . . . but coupled with a house on the lower site, it gets away with it," he said.
The dispute was where the house should go so the environmental effects were minor, Mr Haworth said.
The Resource Management Act provides commissioners with 15 working days to make their decision from the date they close a hearing. That can be extended if certain circumstances apply.
• What is the case about?
Roys Peninsula is an outstanding natural feature and the toughest planning rules apply
Greg Marler says his house and an artificial bund in front of it meets the "reasonably difficult to see" test, he has consent for farm buildings and an access track for farm purposes, the ecological restoration programme is an important mitigating factor and is feasible; he could farm the land instead, with far worse environmental effects than building his house. These permitted works include pastoral burning, buildings, regrassing and fences. He has agreed to a condition removing telecommunication masts from the land.
Julian Haworth says the site is vulnerable to degradation and has limited capacity to absorb change. As well as having adverse visual effects, the house would set a precedent for building on the top of other outstanding natural feature sites. A carefully planned house on a lower site could have less than minor effects, or close to minor effects when taking into account positive effects from ecological restoration.
