Queenstown Property and Real Estate – Your Comprehensive Resource.

Exit This Story

Exit This Story

BATTLE FOR QUEENSTOWN LUXURY LODGE

printgraphic Print Page

March, 2023

The next round in a fight over a planned luxury lodge near
Queenstown will be heard in the Environment Court.
Just before Christmas, independent commissioners Ian Munro and
Jan Caunter rejected B Property Groups proposal for the
Waimarino Luxury Lodge, on a 1.8-hectare site overlooking Bobs
Cove, to comprise 24 luxury villas on Tui Drive land.
Chief executive Andrew McIntosh is also proposing a restaurant,
sauna, yoga studio and distillery, all for residents use, within the
Bobs Cove sub-zone.
Queenstown landscape expert Nathan OConnell initially
recommended consent be refused for several reasons, including
the increased use of Tui Dr, and visual amenity affects.
But following a hearing, held in three parts between October and
November last year, OConnell changed his mind, given many
matters of concerns could be addressed through consent
conditions.
The commissioners didnt agree, in part because there was no
written approval from the Tui Dr owners to seal and widen the
access road and a proposed condition of some financial
compensatory arrangement to confirm access wasnt
satisfactorily workable or administrable, finding site access an
insurmountable barrier.
B Propertys subsequently appealed their decision.
On the access issue, lawyer Joshua Leckie submits Queenstowns
councils adopted an incorrect legal interpretation of the
instrument providing for access to the site.
The decision wrongly identifies the payment mechanism
provided for within the right-of-way instrument as a mechanism to
confirm access.
The appellant is not relying on a proposed financial
compensatory arrangement to confirm access.
Access is already legally enabled in favour of the appellant by
the right-of-way instrument.
Further, he says the councils erred in concluding the proposal will
be contrary to the transport objectives and policies within the
proposed
district plan, due to site access not being provided.
This incorrect conclusion flows from the respondents inaccurate
conclusion that the easement does not provide access to the site.
This was a fundamental error given that all other transport
effects were identified as being appropriately addressed.
Other issues include the relevance of underlying consents and
assessment of landscape and visual effects.
B Propertys seeking for the commissioners decision to be
cancelled, consent granted and costs.

Source: Mountain Scene

 

+64 27 444 1104
©2018 Queenstown Property New Zealand. Privacy