• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL FOR THE QUEENSTOWN LAKES PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of Hearing Stream 13 – Queenstown Mapping Annotations and Rezoning Requests SUPPLEMENTARY REPLY OF ROBERT BRUCE BUXTON ON BEHALF OF QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL GROUP 2 RURAL 11 October 2017 Barristers & Solicitors S J Scott / H L Baillie Telephone: +64-3-968 4018 Facsimile: +64-3-379 5023 Email: [email protected] PO Box 874 SOLICITORS CHRISTCHURCH 8140 29838889_3.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2. GRANT HYLTON HENSMAN, SHARYN HENSMAN & BRUCE HERBERT ROBERTSON, SCOPE RESOURCES LTD, GRANT HYLTON HENSMAN & NOEL THOMAS VAN WICHEN, TROJAN HOLDINGS LTD (361) ......................... 2 3. GIBBSTON VALLEY STATION LIMITED (827) ....................................................... 3 4. QUEENSTOWN PARK LIMITED (806) AND REMARKABLES PARK LIMITED (807) ........................................................................................................................... 5 APPENDIX 1: UPDATED LIST OF SUBMISSIONS FOR GROUP 2 29838889_3.docx 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 My full name is Robert Bruce Buxton. I prepared a statement of evidence in chief, rebuttal evidence, supplementary rebuttal evidence, a summary of evidence, an updated summary of evidence, and reply evidence for the Queenstown Mapping Hearing Stream 13. My qualifications and experience are listed in my evidence in chief dated 24 May 2017. 1.2 The purpose of this supplementary reply evidence is to specifically respond to matters raised by the following submitters during the course of the hearing: (a) Grant Hylton Hensman, Sharyn Hensman & Bruce Herbert Robertson, Scope Resources Ltd, Grant Hylton Hensman & Noel Thomas van Wichen, Trojan Holdings Ltd (Hensman, 361); (b) Gibbston Valley Station Limited (Gibbston, 827); and (c) Queenstown Park Limited (QPL, 806). 1.3 I have also responded to two matters in the Hearing Panel (Panel) Minute of 15 September 2017 regarding the activity status of “golf courses” (addressed in section 3 below) and the practicality of standards controlling grazing by cattle (addressed in section 4 below). 1.4 The Panel directed the Council to file its reply evidence in relation to the above three submissions on 11 October 2017.1 My reply evidence on other submissions in Group 2 – Rural was filed on 6 October 2017. 1.5 I have attached an updated Table of recommendations to Group 2 submissions as Appendix 1.2 1 Oral directions at hearing. Memorandum of Counsel for Queenstown Lakes District Council seeking an extension of time to file planning reply in relation to Gibbston Valley Station Limited (827) dated 29 September 2017; Panel Minute concerning Council request to extend time to file reply dated 29 September 2017. 2 This supersedes Appendix 1 attached to my reply evidence filed on 6 October 2017. 1 29838889_3.docx 2. GRANT HYLTON HENSMAN, SHARYN HENSMAN & BRUCE HERBERT ROBERTSON, SCOPE RESOURCES LTD, GRANT HYLTON HENSMAN & NOEL THOMAS VAN WICHEN, TROJAN HOLDINGS LTD (361) 2.1 I participated in expert conferencing with Ms Alyson Hutton, the outcomes of which are recorded in the planning expert conferencing statement dated 15 September 2017.3 This conferencing statement primarily confirmed agreed refinements to the package of proposed provisions for the new zone sought by Hensman. Although I agreed that those provisions, as refined through the conferencing statement, would be appropriate if the Panel decided to prefer the submitter’s position on the areas of disagreement and accept the submission, I remain concerned that Hensman has not provided sufficient information or assessment on the following matters that allows me and therefore also the Panel, to examine the potential effects of the proposed zone including questions as to whether the duties under s32 of the RMA have been fulfilled: (a) an up-to date report on the natural hazards both on and above the site has not been provided; and (b) the effect of the proposed height control has not been adequately assessed, including a visual impression of the development that could be expected to be achieved under the height control provisions. Dr Read also remains concerned about the visibility of the development. Dr Read’s concerns are not with the close views of the site (that is, the 2.5km of SH6 that visibility mapping4 was undertaken from) but instead with the more distant and oblique views which have not been modelled. 2.2 The above two matters are recorded as "matters of disagreement" in the conferencing statement.5 3 Subsequent to signing the conferencing statement, I note that the reference in (iii) on the front page, should be to s 32AA of the RMA, rather than s 42AA. 4 Memorandum of submitter’s counsel to the Panel on 19 June 2017. 5 I have been advised by Mr Mander that the Summary Evidence of Mr Bartlett contains an error in the second sentence of paragraph 9 where Mr Bartlett refers to “The maximum delay for this manoeuvre is 43 seconds which is a level of service E.” whereas from the data provided in Appendix C of the Summary Evidence this should have referred to the “The average delay …”. This error does not change the Level of Service, but should be noted. 2 29838889_3.docx 2.3 Overall I retain my recommendation that the submission be rejected. 3. GIBBSTON VALLEY STATION LIMITED (827) 3.1 I participated in expert conferencing with Mr Brett Giddens6 on 6 - 9 October 2017 and signed a joint conferencing statement on 9 October 2017. This statement primarily confirms a refined set of provisions for the proposed zone. Although I agreed that those provisions, as refined through the conferencing statement, would be appropriate if the Panel decided to prefer the submitter’s position on the areas of disagreement and accept the submission, I remain concerned about the following matters: (a) the proposed subzone provides for a density of development that goes beyond being complementary to the character and viability/productivity of the zone and will create development where the rural landscape, including the viticulture, will become significantly less dominant and possibly the lesser element within the subzone; and (b) the submitter’s amendments that move the emphasis from visitor accommodation (as currently consented) to residential activity within AA3, AA5 and AA6, which introduces activities that do not “provide for viticulture and commercial activities with an affiliation to viticulture” and further erodes the GCZ. 3.2 Dr Read has provided comment on the artist’s impression of the possible view of the development, which showed stone walls, hedges and vineyards screening the built development. Dr Read was concerned that the impression only showed the vineyard in leaf, but was also concerned about the loss of wide open views that characterise the Gibbston Valley. While I agree with her concerns, the existing Gibbston Character Zone (GCZ) does not control hedges or landscaping, and I consider it would be difficult to control fencing and hedges. 6 This expert conferencing was directed by the Panel Minute dated 29 September 2017. No expert conferencing had occurred prior to 6 October 2017. 3 29838889_3.docx 3.3 Overall I retain my recommendation that the submission be rejected. 3.4 The Panel’s Minute of 15 September 2017 requested the Council to address whether it is correct that a golf course is a permitted activity in the GCZ as they amount to commercial recreation and involve groups of less than 10 persons. The Minute asked the Council to address what activity status would apply to a golf course in the GCZ, if the assertion that it is permitted is incorrect. 3.5 “Commercial recreational activities” are defined as follows:7 Means the commercial guiding, training, instructing, transportation or provision of recreation facilities to clients for recreational purposes including the use of any building or land associated with the activity, excluding ski area activities. 3.6 Under Rule 23.4.15, commercial recreation activities are permitted, provided they meet the standards in Table 3. Relevantly, this includes Standard 23.5.9 “Commercial recreation activity undertaken outdoors and involving not more than 10 persons in any one group” (noting that the other standards in Table 3 relate to retail sales of goods produced onsite and home occupation, and are not relevant to the activity status of golf courses). Non-compliance with Standard 23.5.9 results in a discretionary activity status. 3.7 I consider that a golf course clearly fits the definition of a commercial recreational activity, being the commercial provision of recreation facilities. However, it is not as clear whether a golf course meets the permitted activity standard of involving no more than ten persons in any one group. 3.8 I acknowledge that an interpretation of “in any one group” could refer to each group of golfers teeing off at one time, which is unlikely to involve ten or more people and is more likely to be a foursome or a pair. The alternative interpretation is that the “group” is the total 7 Chapter 2 (Definitions) attached to Right of Reply of Ms Amanda Leith dated 27 March 2017, Hearing Stream 10. 4 29838889_3.docx number of people likely to be on the golf course at any one time, which I consider to be the appropriate interpretation. I consider that it would not be logical to apply the former interpretation to groups within a large recreational facility such as a golf course as this could result in an absurd interpretation. Taken to its extreme, it could be argued that individual riders on a luge are a group less than 10, and therefore a luge facility catering overall for larger numbers (for example, 100 persons) would be a permitted activity within the GVZ (or the Rural zone for that matter). In my view “10 persons in any one group” is a limit that will be exceeded when the commercial recreation facility caters for more than 10 persons at a time.

Load more

  15

Copy Link