‘Astounded’ highdensity development allowed
A GROUP of Cromwell residents are ‘‘astounded’’ by the Central Otago District Council’s decision to allow highdensity development of the Wooing Tree vineyard.
Bill Dunbar led a submission on behalf of 26 residents in Lakefield Estate, directly north of the vineyard, against the development.
In the submission, he said the proposal was ‘‘at complete odds with the district plan . . . and would result in one of the most densely built residential developments in all of the Cromwell area’’.
The decision, which was released this week, did not satisfy the neighbours’ concerns, he said.
‘‘We regard the development . . . as totally unacceptable and totally contrary to the district plan.’’
One of the biggest concerns was the size of the sections.
In 2005, the Lakefield Estate subdivision, then known as Olive Branch, was approved by the Environment Court after the council declined it.
That permitted the land to be subdivided into 20 residential allotments, varying between 916sq m and 1095sq m.
The court’s decision from 2005 acknowledged that a similar proposal in the area could be made in the future.
For this to happen, the proposal would need to meet a number of conditions, most notably allowing for sites averaging no less than 2500sq m.
Council planning team manager Ann Rodgers said the Wooing Tree development would allow three residential zones and a total of 210 allotments.
One part would have a minimum allotment size of 1000sq m with a maximum of 100 allotments, while another would have a minimum size of 400sq m and a maximum of 60 allotments.
No maximum size was given. The third area would have a minimum allotment size of 250sq m and a maximum of 350sq m, and a maximum of 50 allotments.
‘‘We ask: why have the commissioners and council totally ignored a decision of the Environment Court?’’ Mr Dunbar said.
They also understood in the decision that ratepayers would be paying for an underpass from the Wooing Tree area to the Cromwell township.
‘‘That will come as a surprise to everyone in Cromwell.’’
He and his neighbours had not yet decided on their next steps.
They could appeal to the Environment Court but that would involve a ‘‘considerable cost’’, Mr Dunbar said.
They believed the cost should be borne by the applicant and council rather than the neighbourhood because most were retired.
Wooing Tree Vineyard coowner Geoff Bews said he was ‘‘elated’’ by the decision.
Mr Bews said he and the other owners had the idea for a residential and commercial area when they bought the property in 2001.
‘‘It’s been a long time coming . . . We didn’t expect it to happen so soon.’’
The next step for Wooing Tree management was to complete the layout and consider resource consents, he said.