The Wanaka family, who applied under the name “Nature Conservation Trust”, were stunned by the resource permission that was denied and are now considering its legal options.
Commissioners Bob Nixon and Jane Sinclair rejected the application by the trust in a written decision submitted to Queenstown Lakes District Council last Sunday.
The commissioners said the design of the most eastern part of the above-ground part of the proposed mostly underground house, known as “The Sanctuary” would have adverse visual effects, which could not be overcome by the extensive conditions, innovative design and an extensive planting scheme offered by the family.
Trust attorney Janice Hughes, said “the Nature Conservation Trust represents a NZ family that has been in the Wanaka residents for many years.”
“They spent a lot of time creating a design that is in sympathy with the environment.” It was their overarching focus in rebuilding their home, so they were surprised by the decision and will now take time to consider the details. before deciding on next steps, ” Ms Hughes said.
Ms Hughes did not want to identify her client.
The Queenstown Lakes District Plan’s “fairly difficult to see” test for developments in Wanaka’s outstanding natural landscape was a key issue discussed during a public hearing in May.
The proposed site for “The Sanctuary” is on rural land on the western outskirts of Wanaka, near Waterfall Creek.
The trust proposed demolishing a 650-square-foot mansion built by former aviation identity Ray Hanna in the late 1990s and building a 2,027-square-foot home and a 453.96-square-foot garage. , with 66.9% of the house underground.
If viewed from public routes and the lake, the easternmost part of the three-story, 7.8m structure will protrude above the skyline, commissioners said.
It will not be adequately screened and will appear even more dominant than the existing two-storey house.
Replacing the existing home with a much larger one was not the main issue, they said.
The commissioners advised that the part of the house that stretched closest to the shores of the lake, combined with its height, resulted in a form of development that was inconsistent with the protection of the outstanding natural landscape against inappropriate development. not.
The application was opposed by the Upper Clutha Environmental Society, citing adverse visual effects.
Three neighbors opposed it because they were concerned about the volume of earthworks (41,600 m3) and the years it would take to complete the construction.