The Queenstown Lakes district is an area of unparalleled natural beauty and a booming economy driven by tourism, outdoor recreation, and a burgeoning property market. As one of the most sought-after areas to live in New Zealand, it faces a pressing challenge:

How do we manage urban growth sustainably, while maintaining the very environment that makes this region so attractive?

In the face of this challenge, recent amendments to the government’s Fast-Track Approvals Bill have further complicated the question of where growth should occur. The Fast-Track process bypasses standard spatial planning, allowing developers to push through large-scale projects with no community input or oversight.

While the intention may be to speed up housing development to address the national housing supply issue, it risks sidelining the very people who will be most affected by the consequences.

The future of where we live is at the mercy of the developers who put forward these plans. These Fast-Track applications are already in the final stage and there is nothing the community, local and regional councils, or environmental groups can do if the plans are approved by the Government appointed Advisory Panel.

The ‘Coronet Village’ Fast-Track proposal: A case in point

The Coronet Village proposal is a case in point. Coronet Village is fronted by high-profile businessman Rod Drury together with landowner Bernard Cleary and developer Ben Farrell. The project proposes a gondola over land covenanted to QE II, a 780-home subdivision with some dwellings over five storeys high.

It is essentially a new town with a commercial centre, private schools, and parking facilities for at least 600 cars. Yet, it is being proposed in an area zoned Rural Amenity and Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL), raising serious concerns about the appropriateness of the location for such large-scale urbanisation.

Malaghans Valley Protection Society (MVPS) has been set up to try and protect this rural landscape and fragile ecosystem from this large-scale development.

In a recent Mountain Scene article (19 Sept 2024), even Rod Drury himself acknowledged that the project is "probably too intense" when pressed about MVPS’s concerns. While this admission is a step in the right direction, the real question we must ask is: is this the right place for such intense development in the first place?

1. A fragile ecosystem under threat

The proposed location at the foot of Coronet Peak, between Arrowtown and Arthurs Point, is not just a rural expanse. It plays a vital role in protecting the Lake Hayes ecosystem.

The area is within the upper catchment of Lake Hayes, a lake already under immense strain due to sediment runoff from previous developments. Many locals, including environmental groups such as Friends of Lake Hayes, have long advocated for the protection of the Lake Hayes catchment.

By placing such a large development in this sensitive area, the proposal runs counter to these efforts to "fix the catchment and fix the lake" and threatens to undo years of work aimed at improving water quality in the region.

The proposed township has extensive infrastructure demands including wastewater discharge and stormwater management. The effects on the catchment and water quality would be extremely difficult to offset and would very likely exacerbate the issue.

2. Lack of infrastructure for a large-scale development

One of the most glaring issues with the Coronet Village proposal is the lack of existing infrastructure to support a development of this magnitude:

There is no sewerage infrastructure in place or even close to the area, meaning township waste would be discharged into the ground, potentially affecting the aquifers and tributaries feeding Lake Hayes.

In addition to the wastewater and stormwater and drinking water shortfalls, the area also lacks sufficient power and roading capacity, raising concerns about how the increased demand will be met without further impacting the surrounding environment.

It would be yet another village without sufficient services meaning that people would need to drive everywhere on small roads.

The project's proponents argue that the development is necessary to ease the region’s housing pressures. However, they fail to address why this location (with its obvious environmental and infrastructural challenges) is more suitable than other areas already zoned for urban growth that QLDC and our rates have been working towards for years.

There are already considerable housing developments planned or underway across the region. If you combine Silver Creek, Waipuna Rise, Homestead Bay, Park Ridge, Kingston Village and Ladies Mile, that adds up to approximately 6,800 new homes (Colliers Market Review & Outlook, September 2024).

The proponents also argue that having a gondola over land covenanted to QEII land up to the Kiosk will somehow take traffic off the road, yet the gondola alone has car parks for 600 vehicles. The proposal will instead exacerbate traffic and shuffle it about creating further pinch points in the already strained local roading network. In addition to this, the gondola in itself does not need to be linked to a housing estate of 780 residences.

3. Alternatives exist for a housing development

As mentioned above, there are already considerable housing developments planned or underway across the region. These are in locations already zoned for development and are infrastructure-ready, and therefore better suited to handle the increased demand for housing and services.

This includes areas such as the southern corridor near Frankton, Remarkables Park, and Kingston. Each is closer to existing urban centres, meaning less strain on infrastructure and better access to public amenities. In relation to the southern corridor, QLDC has already signalled that they are working on a structure plan to house future urban development (QLDC Update on the Te Tapuae Southern Corridor Structure Plan process, 5 September 2024).

The Malaghans Valley, on the other hand, has been intentionally preserved in the District Plan as a "breathing space" between Arrowtown and Arthurs Point—a space where rural and natural landscapes take precedence and urban development is avoided to ensure that sprawl does not eventually bring the two townships together.

To fill in this rural space between Arrowtown and Arthurs Point with a new township undermines the long-term planning goals of QLDC and contradicts the District Plan. It would also likely begin the process of creeping boundaries and urban sprawl.

The Environment Court also ratified that the Malaghans Valley has a low capacity to absorb development, resulting in a density of one dwelling per 80 hectares being the benchmark.

4. The Fast-Track process: A flawed approach

The Fast-Track Approvals Bill, while designed to expedite housing developments, is a flawed process when applied to sensitive and large-scale projects like Coronet Village.

Despite assurances from the developers, there is no mandate to consult the community. There could be some face-saving tinkering around the edges but large-scale changes will not be on the table. Remember, the public would not have known about Coronet Village if it was left to the developers.

Once it is known if Coronet Village is accepted under Fast-Track Schedule 2A, the community is getting this development whether they like it or not.

MVPS has received professional advice which states that if this development were to follow the conventional planning process it would be publicly notified, allowing full community engagement and decision-makers formally taking community views into account.

As part of the Fast-Track process though, consultation is limited to just 10 days and the developers do not need to accept this input. The process significantly reduces the ability for local councils, environmental groups and residents to have their voices and concerns heard. While the government may make further refinements to the process, fundamental changes are unlikely.

Fast-Track is not just an issue for those living near Coronet Peak; it’s a challenge for all of Queenstown and New Zealand as a whole. Allowing developments to bypass rigorous spatial planning and public engagement sets a dangerous precedent.

Queenstown has long relied on careful planning to balance growth with environmental stewardship. The Fast-Track process threatens to upend this balance, forcing through projects that may not align with the community's vision for its future.

Moving forward: A call for meaningful engagement

Urban growth is inevitable, and Queenstown must accommodate this growth in a way that benefits all residents while preserving the environment that defines the district. But this growth must be carefully managed, and avoided in some locations, with full community engagement and thorough consideration of the environmental impacts.

As it stands, the Coronet Village proposal represents a misguided attempt to circumvent these critical planning processes. We call on the developers to withdraw the fast-track application and engage in meaningful discussions with the community and local councils.

Queenstown deserves a say in where and how it grows. This is not about opposing development for the sake of it—this is about ensuring that growth happens in the right places, with the right infrastructure, and with the input of those who call this region home. Let’s work together to ensure that Queenstown’s growth is both sustainable and inclusive.

And so, as Chaiman of MVPS, I sign off with a question and a challenge to Rod Drury, Bernard Cleary and the consortium:

If you truly believe in community involvement and partnership, why don’t you do the right thing and withdraw your Fast-Track application and lodge a publicly notified application that allows for community involvement?

Signed,
James Hall
MVPS Chairman

© Scoop Media