Alpine resort challenges district plan
CARDRONA Alpine Resort Ltd, owned by Real Journeys Ltd, is taking the Queenstown Lakes District Council to the Environment Court over its proposed district plan.
Because of the resort’s development of summer activities, it wants a zone with its own name — ‘‘Cardrona Alpine Resort’’ — rather than the current ‘‘ski area subzone’’.
‘‘The renaming is requested to more accurately reflect the current and future activities that are anticipated on the site are not restricted to traditional winter skiarea activities,’’ the company’s planning consultant, Ben Farrell, says in the notice of appeal.
The company also wants included in the zone the road to the skifield, as well as ruralzone land below the skifield not at present owned by Cardrona.
‘‘The purpose of the extension is to enable the land to be administered as if it were part of the resort,’’ Mr Farrell said. ‘‘It is not efficient or effective to retain the subject land as rural zoning.’’
The zone change would effectively create a corridor from the skifield to Cardrona Valley Rd.
Resort general manager Bridget Legnavsky would not be drawn on whether that was intended to pave the way for a gondola.
‘‘There is no plan in place for anything like that,’’ she told the Otago Daily Times yesterday.
‘‘All we are trying to do is make sure that we prepare the whole place the best for what the future could actually look like. And what we are trying to do is make sure the options remain open.
‘‘It really is a longterm future look for Cardrona.’’
Ms Legnavsky said the land might be necessary for any num ber of purposes, including car parking.
‘‘Obviously, our space on top of the hill is reasonably limited, so we need to look at all sorts of options.’’
Under the section headed ‘‘relief sought’’, Mr Farrell lists a number of other matters relating to access to the resort via road and air, ‘‘and to facilitate the growth of and investment into the resort to provide four season visitor attractions’’.
It is seeking to have all ‘‘noncomplying’’ activity status provisions applying to land use activities and development changed to ‘‘discretionary’’.
And it is seeking a new rule: ‘‘that no activity is noncomplying or prohibited in the Cardrona Alpine Resort’’.
It suggests the wording: ‘‘Within the Cardrona Alpine Resort ski area sub zone any activity that is not specifically provided for as a permitted, controlled, or restricted discretionary activity is a restricted discretionary activity.’’
It then lists nine points the discretion should be restricted to, including the location, design and appearance in respect of landscape and visual amenity effects.
It also wants new rules or standards ‘‘so that earthworks and vegetation clearance is permitted unless it does not conform to (certain standards) when it should be managed as a ‘‘controlled activity’’.
Those standards, it suggests, are that earthworks are undertaken so they do not affect natural waterways, roads or neighbouring properties. TWIZEL
OTEMATATA RANFURLY OAMARU PALMERSTON