FORM 5
SUMBMISSION ON PROPOSED QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT PLAN
Clause 6 of Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991
To:
Queenstown Lakes District Council
Submitter Details:
Name of submitter:
Dan Egerton
Address for Service:
Dan Egerton
51 Jeffreys Road
Fendalton
Christchurch
Attention: Dan Egerton
d.egerton@me.com
021 94 25 24
1.
This is a submission on the Proposed Queenstown Lakes District Plan
2.
Trade Competition
The submitter could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this
submission.
3.
Omitted
4.
Dan Egerton ("the submitter") submission is that:
Jillian Clair Egerton ("the submitter") owns land legally described as Lot 1 DP 327817
("the site"). The site is located at 9 Orchard Hill, Road, Millbrook, Arrowtown. The area
of the site is 0.7906 hectares. This submission relates to the site and the land legally
described as Lot 1 DP 327817 ("the land").
Under the Operative District Plan, the land is contained within the Rural General Zone.
In terms of the Proposed District Plan ("PDP"), the land is contained in the Rural Zone.
The submitter in part supports the PDP to the following extent:
4.1
Objective 3.2.2.1 which seeks to ensure urban development occurs in a
logical manner and thus promoting a compact, well designed and integrated
urban form.
4.2
Policy 3.2.2.1.6 whereby
zoning enables effective market competition
through the distribution of potential housing supply across a large number and
range of ownerships, to reduce the incentive for land banking in order to
address housing supply and affordability.
4.3
Objective 3.2.3.1 and in particular Policy 3.2.3.1.1 which seeks to ensure
development responds to the character of its site, the street, open space and
surrounding area, whilst acknowledging the necessity of increased densities
and some change in character in certain location.
4.4
Policy 4.2.1.5 which states that urban development is contained within or
immediately adjacent to existing settlements.
The submitter in part opposes the PDP to the following extent:
4.5
Objective 3.2.2.1 and Policies 3.2.2.1.1 and 3.2.2.1.2 in relation to applying
Urban Growth Boundaries ("UGBs") and constraining urban development to
within UGBs, to the effect that urban residential development is avoided
and/or restricted on the land.
4.6
The application of Strategic Direction Goal 3.2.5 together with the supporting
objectives and policies to the land.
4.7
The application of Objectives 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.5 (and supporting
policies) where such seek to avoid and/or restrict urban residential
development on the land.
4.8
The application of Objectives 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.5 (and supporting policies)
where such seek to avoid and/or restrict urban residential development on the
land.
4.9
The imposition of the Objectives, Policies and Rules as they relate to the
Rural Zone on the land, and in particular the application of Objectives 21.2.2
and 21.2.8 and supporting policies where such seek to avoid and/or restrict
urban residential development on the land.
4.10
The PDP objectives, policies, rules, the QLDC Land Development and
Subdivision Code of Practice and the QLDC Subdivision Design Guidelines
that informs and supports Rule 27.4.1 making all subdivision activities
discretionary.
4.11
If the land remains within the Rural Zone, the submitter opposes the following
PDP provisions:

Objective 3.2.5.2 which seeks to minimise the adverse landscape
effects of subdivision, use or development in specified Rural
Landscapes. This objective should provide the flexibility of avoiding,
remedying or mitigating adverse effects in the specified Rural
Landscapes.

Objective 3.2.5.4 which seeks to recognise there is a finite capacity
for residential activity in rural areas if the qualities of our landscape
are to be maintained. This objective is very broad and difficult to
quantify.

Objective 6.3.1 which states that the District contains and values
Outstanding Natural Features, Outstanding Natural Landscapes, and
Rural Landscapes that require protection from inappropriate
subdivision and development. This objective should provide the
flexibility of avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects in all
landscapes.

Objective 6.3.2 and the policies that give effect to this objective,
when dealing with cumulative effects.

Policy 6.3.5.2 which seeks to avoid adverse effects from subdivision
and development.
This policy should be amended so there is
flexibility of avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects in the
specified Rural Landscapes.

Policy 6.3.5.4 which seeks to avoid planting and screening,
particularly along roads and boundaries, which in turn could degrade
openness where such openness is an important part of the
landscape quality or character. Planting and screening is often an
effective mitigation method that avoids adverse effects of subdivision
and development within the rural zone.

Policy 6.3.5.6 which states that regard should be had to the adverse
effects from subdivision and development on the open landscape
character where it is open at present. This policy in effect is seeking
to maintain open space in the rural zone, irrespective of the
landscape classification.
Without derogating from the generality of the above, the submitter further state
that:
4.12
In the view of the submitter, the land should be included in an expanded
Millbrook Resort Zone, as opposed to being contained in the Rural Zone in
terms of the PDP.
4.13
The land is surrounded by the Millbrook Resort Zone on three sides (north,
west and south). A private property is to the east of the land, and the
Arrowtown-Lake Hayes Road is located further to the east of the land. As
shown on the plan enclosed within. Access is via Millbrook zone, water,
sewage, and other utilities are via Millbrook zone.
4.14
The Millbrook Resort Zone under the PDP locates three Residential Activity
Areas in close proximity to the land. These Residential Activity Areas are
labelled R1 to R3 on the Millbrook Resort Zone Structure Plan as contained in
the PDP.
Surrounding these Residential Activity Areas on the Millbrook
Structure Plan is the ‘Golf/Open Space Activity Area (Activity Area G).
4.15
The residential allotment sizes within Residential Activity Areas R1 to R3
vary, with R1 providing allotments ranging just over 1000m², R2 providing
allotments below 200m², and R3 providing allotments roughly around 500m².
The vast majority of the residential allotments within Residential Activity Areas
R1 to R3 contain established residential dwellings.
4.16
As outlined above, the submitter considers that the land should be included in
an expanded Millbrook Resort Zone because the land has the ability to
absorb discrete and integrated urban residential development (subject to the
limitations below), whilst at the same time providing an appropriate expansion
of the nearby Residential Activity Areas within the Millbrook Resort Zone.
4.17
The submitter considers that the Millbrook Resort Zone within the PDP can be
applied to the land, subject to the following amendments:

The expansion of the Millbrook Resort Zone Structure Plan by
including a Residential Activity Area located over the land – such an
area will provide for residential subdivision and development.

By providing a reference to the proposed Residential Activity Area
(i.e. R19) to distinguish which rules in the Millbrook Resort Zone that
apply to the land.

By including the new Residential Activity Area in Rule 43.4.3 (i.e.
controlled activity consent for all residential buildings).

By amending Rule 43.5.2 to state that the maximum number of
residential units within the Millbrook Resort Zone does not apply to
the land.

By amending Rule 43.5.9 to state that the maximum building
coverage of 5% within the Millbrook Resort Zone does not apply to
the land.

By amending Rule 27.5.1 to state that the minimum allotment size
within the land shall be 1000m² at the time of subdivision.
4.18
The submitter considers the Section 32 analysis that accompanies Chapter
27 Subdivision & Development provides no evidence that monitoring of the
operative provisions and the controlled activities status for subdivisions within
the Millbrook Resort Zone has been ineffective or inefficient. The benefits
and costs of the effects of the proposed provisions referred to above have not
been appropriately assessed or quantified in accordance with section 32, nor
have they been assessed with regards to their suitability for giving effect to
the relevant objectives and policies. The submitter consider the proposed
discretionary regime for subdivision will impose significant uncertainty and
costs on development without any justifiable benefits.
5.
The submitter seeks the following decision from the Queenstown Lakes District
Council:
5.1
The PDP is amended so that the land is contained in an expanded Millbrook
Resort Zone (and specifically within a Residential Activity Area).
5.2
That the amendments to the Millbrook Resort Zone in the PDP are amended
as requested in Point 4.16.
5.3
That subdivision in the Millbrook Resort Zone (including the extended
Millbrook Resort Zone on the land) should continue to be a controlled activity
as per the Operative District Plan provisions.
5.4
Any consequential relief or alternative amendments to objectives and
provisions to give effect to the matters raised in this submission.
5.5
If the aforementioned relief sought by the submitter in this submission is not
granted, the submitter opposes any extension of the operative Millbrook
Resort Zone, specifically in a westerly direction as proposed under the PDP.
6.
The submitter wishes to be heard in support of their submission.
7.
If others make a similar submission the submitter will consider presenting a joint
case with them at a hearing.
Signature
(Dan Egerton)
Date: 22 October 2015