A compromise may have been reached over future subdivisions in the Queenstown lakes district. Queenstown editor David Williams reports.
Beyond the spotlight, in hired hotel rooms in Queenstown and Wanaka, the future of subdivisions in the district is being thrashed out.
To the crinkling of mints being freed from tiny plastic wrappers, a high-powered meeting of lawyers, planners, council managers, consultants, as well as the odd layperson, is convened.
The air comes alive with planning jargon and acronyms.
It is a place where much delight is taken in chewing over the use and meaning of words like "objective" and "while".
Reams of paper are churned through in pre-hearing submissions and expert evidence.
Few members of the public attend and little is reported.
But these dry, technical discussions will rewrite the rule book for building in the Queenstown Lakes district.
It is the battleground, some might say, between the district’s outstanding natural landscapes and rapid population growth.
Right now, under permissive planning rules, subdivisions on land that is appropriately zoned have to be approved by the district council if they meet certain "controls".
These are things like minimum section sizes, road layout, provision for open spaces and a diversity of building designs.
In other words, there is a guaranteed right to subdivide.
There were suggestions of a move to a tougher, discretionary regime, giving the council more power to decline applications.
But now a middle ground appears to have emerged — a "partial discretionary" regime.
"The change from controlled to fully discretionary in the notified plan created huge uncertainty," planning lawyer Warwick Goldsmith says.
At the moment in the so-called low-density residential zone there is a minimum of one house per 300sq m, meaning you can subdivide sections at a minimum of 600sq m.
"If it’s fully discretionary you don’t know you can subdivide to 600sqm because the council might say no."
Many submissions opposed such a significant change, which, Mr Goldsmith says, would create uncertainty over the ability to use land and even value it.
Slipping back to restricted discretionary is a move in the right direction, he says.
"But landowners are still pushing to go back to the original controlled activity regime."
The council has been quite permissive, signalling its intention to work with developers rather than decline consents.
But there is a fear of what might happen under tighter planning rules.
"The difficulty is that what might happen depends entirely on attitude of future councils and opinions of future council planners — so the past isn’t necessarily a guide," Mr Goldsmith says.
"What the landowners are saying is the current regime has worked very well for the last 15 years, it hasn’t caused any identified problems, so if it ain’t broke, why fix it?"
Planning consultant Dan Wells says there is a belief that changing the regime will improve the quality of subdivision.
In suggesting a move to a restricted discretionary regime, Dunedin consultant planner Nigel Bryce relied on a Boffa Miskell report on subdivisions written in 2010.
Mr Wells says many at the hearing argue it was not a scathing criticism.
"It gave a bit of a mixed review. So there are some people questioning does this really provide the evidence base to suggest that we really need to change.
"They’re obviously concerned about the move to a discretionary or a restricted discretionary regime.’’How does he view restricted discretionary recommendation?
"It raises some interesting and valid issues but I do have some reservations around whether the evidence has really been produced by council to make the changes that they seek."
Which raises the spectre of appeals.
"It is highly likely there will be appeals on the district plan, generally, and it is also likely there will be some appeals on the subdivision part of the plan," Mr Wells says.
You might want to round up that chance of appeals to 100%.
"We will appeal this district plan, there’s no doubt," Upper Clutha Environmental Society’s Julian Haworth says.
"We’re saving every penny we’ve got, which is not that much."
His hardcore group of about 25 members is the loudest environmental voice at the hearings.
Mr Haworth, a retired former hostel operator from Wanaka, says the society does not like the proposed shift to a restricted discretionary regime.
But its main aim is to make residential development in outstanding natural landscapes non-complying.
"The district plan that we have now is not protecting the landscapes in the Wakatipu Basin and Upper Clutha Basin very well at all now, either — we need more stringent rules, more directive rules in those basins."
The council is "slamming in" special housing areas that are not needed, he says — given there is room for 55,000 extra people on land already zoned for urban development.
"They need to get the landbankers to open up their land, not stick intrusive special housing areas in."
Plan review timeline
August 2015: First stage notified
October 2015: Submissions close, with 837 received. A "significant number" seek rezoning of rural land.
December 2015: Further submissions close.
March: Hearings begin — and are expected to last until at least mid-next-year.
July: Hearings panel calls for detailed study of the Wakatipu Basin’s landscapes.
