Proposals by Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) to consider the value of landscapes when making resource consent decisions will now progress to the next stage following an Environment Court decision in its favour.

An application by Dr John Cossens requesting that QLDC cease community consultation on its proposed landscape schedules was struck out by the Court on Tuesday.

QLDC General Manager Planning and Development Tony Avery confirmed that, following the decision, public hearings will be held shortly. These will enable anyone who made a submission during the eight-week consultation period to have further input on publicly notifying landscape schedules as a variation to the Proposed District Plan.

“Landscape schedules set out the various values of different areas including those classified as outstanding natural features, outstanding natural landscapes and rural character landscapes,” he said.

“They establish the elements which people care about most. These could be how the landscape looks, the quality and quantity of its vegetation and wildlife, the impact it has on your sense of wellbeing, its historic or cultural significance, and the recreational benefits we enjoy from it.”

Mr Avery said the reason for including landscape schedules in the District Plan was to ensure these values were managed and protected when assessing resource consent applications.

“The Court’s decision vindicates our approach and allows us to continue with the confidence that we are acting for the long-term good of our community and the environment in which we live.”

“It unequivocally rejects the application and also refutes a number of accusations, made in the media and in private correspondence with various parties, that the Council’s approach has been flawed or that it was not acting in the community’s best interests.”

Mr Avery said Tuesday’s findings follow a previous Court decision on 29 June to decline Dr Cossens’ application for an enforcement order to prohibit QLDC from notifying or processing the Proposed Landscape Variation until the Court had made its decision on the substantive matter.

The original submissions period closed on 26 August with 203 submissions received.

© Scoop Media