Rural values on proposed subdivision site already compromised, hearing told

BARELY any rural values remained on the site of a proposed 173lot residential subdivision in Cromwell and the project would not clash with the Central Otago district plan, a Commissioner’s Hearing Panel has heard.

Commissioners Andrew Henderson and John Lane yesterday presided over the first day of the Cromwell hearing into CHP Development Ltd’s application to establish 173 subdivisions on 13ha of land occupied by the Cromwell Top 10 Holiday Park.

The land is zoned rural resource area, and the Central Otago District Council’s (CODC) planning consultant David Whitney has recommended the application be declined, saying the subdivision’s effects on the environment would be sig nificant and it would set a precedent for other residential subdivision applications in rural resource areas.

The proposed sections were too small, therefore did not comply with the district plan, Mr Whitney said. The ‘‘appropriate mechanism’’ for such a proposal would be a plan change.

The sections range from 250sq m to 2057sq m. Only one section is larger than 2000sq m and another 36 are between 600sq m and 1007sq m. Most are less than 600sq m, including 31 sections mostly between 250sq m and 320sq m on which semidetached homes or rows of units could be built.

Legal counsel for the applicant, Bridget Irving, said landscape architect Tony Milne had assessed the proposed subdivision site as demonstrating ‘‘little, if any rural character as a result of the existing holiday park development on the site. He describes it as parklike rather than rural’’.

The proposal would not have adverse effects on the ‘‘wider rural landscape character’’, and the site appeared ‘‘to fit within the perceived urban boundary of Cromwell’’, Mrs Irving said.

‘‘Landscape and amenity values at the site and the surrounding area are not characteristic of the Central Otago rural environment . . . the site . . . more closely resembles an urban park with the residential character of the adjoining residential developments . . . when considering the effects on the value of the rural zone I submit that you [commissioners] need to ask yourself whether the rural values exist on the site.’’

Mr Lane said he acknowledged the site had no real rural aspect, but asked Mrs Irving to address the ‘‘white elephant’’ in the room — why the applicant had not sought a plan change to alter the site’s zoning.

Mrs Irving said the decision not to pursue a plan change was partly because of the time such an application could take to process, as the applicant wanted to progress the development ‘‘sooner rather than later’’.

But the applicant also did not think a plan change was necessary, and thought conditions for a consent would provide a suitable framework.

Mr Lane also said the concerns of some submitters about the small section size were ‘‘probably a fair comment’’.

Mrs Irving disagreed, and said the higher density of the subdivision would be ‘‘internalised’’, with the smaller sections inside and larger ones around the subdivision’s boundary.

Twentytwo submissions have been received. Thirteen support it; four oppose it; four either support it in part and oppose it in part, or neither support nor oppose it; and one supports it subject to certain conditions.

Some of the submitters’ concerns were about infrastructure, traffic, compatibility of the subdivision with surrounding developments, links from the subdivision to the nearby Dunes subdivision and Freeway Orchard, and the development devaluing property prices within the surrounding residential areas.

Mrs Irving said amenity values were likely to be enhanced from the development.

Professional engineer Andrew Carr said the new subdivision would produce only about the same amount of traffic as the existing holiday park.

Mrs Irving said approving the application would not set a precedent, and the proposal did not ‘‘irreconcilably clash’’ with the CODC’s district plan.

The hearing concludes today.