Council accused of ‘witness shopping’ over lodge proposal GUY WILLIAMS
FOR the second time in two months, the Queenstown Lakes District Council has been accused of ‘‘witness shopping’’ after dropping its opposition to a contentious luxury lodge proposal.
In March, the Longview Environmental Trust levelled the accusation over the council’s aboutface on United States billionaire Peter Thiel’s plans for a luxury lodge near Wanaka. ¯
A similar argument was made yesterday in another Environment Court appeal hearing, this time concerned with Sydney businessman Andrew McIntosh’s proposal for 20 greenroofed villas he wants to operate as a luxury lodge complex in Bobs Cove near Queenstown. The lawyer for a group of residents fighting the proposal, Graeme Todd, asked senior council planner Alana Standish why she had been given the job of reviewing the application instead of two consultant planners who had previously been closely associated with the proposal.
‘‘Effectively what the council was doing was shopping for a witness . . . to agree with its position,’’ Mr Todd said. ‘‘There was no independence, was there?’’
Ms Standish said when she was asked in February to review the application, the council’s stance was ‘‘an opinion, not a decision’’, and she had worked diligently to make her own, independent assessment.
‘‘I needed to be certain it was an application that could be granted.’’
Mr McIntosh applied for consent in 2021 to build the lodge complex on a 1.8ha site overlooking the picturesque bay, which is 15 minutes’ drive from central Queenstown.
The site is bordered by the GlenTui residential subdivision on one side, and Department of Conservation recreation reserve on the other. Independent commissioners turned down the application in 2022, and after courtassisted mediation proved unsuccessful, Mr McIntosh’s company, Waimarino Queenstown Ltd, appealed to the Environment Court.
Council lawyer Mary Davenport strongly defended what she called the ‘‘contentious’’ change of position during the hearing’s third day yesterday.
Despite its initial planning report opposing the application, the council had subsequently reached the view there was a ‘‘pathway to consent’’, Ms Davenport said.
The applicant had made a series of changes to the proposal in response to the commissioners’ decision, the mediation and subsequent informal discussions, and evidence provided by the residents in opposition.
Although parts of the application might remain inconsistent or contrary to the district plan, it was appropriate for the council to work with the applicant ‘‘with a view to finding a solution’’, she said. In considering the appeal, it had a duty to consider its likelihood of success and the financial impact on ratepayers of ‘‘defending a decision it can no longer defend’’.
The hearing is expected to conclude today.