As summed up by one of the supporting submitters whom was specifically asked to speak last. "Sometimes the Process got in the way".
Perhaps the real reason is they really don't want you to understand the true WHY?
The reason the resource consent had to be notified was due to 'Camp Glenorchy' applying to obtain permission to do things outside the Vision Plan and outside the District Plan.
I don't believe there is one person who is a complete 'anti' - most people realise that there is no stopping a project when there is provision for future growth in zoning for the progress of the town. There is a great framework to be very creative in the Vision plan and District plan - i.e. the framework decided through proper process as to the way Glenorchy can be developed. Equally 'Camp Glenorchy' can apply to go outside these plans and equally people can object through the submission process.
If at this point you want to put this blog into context here are some links:
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown-lakes/323451/oio-consent-missing-purchase
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11410084
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/66628780/Glenorchy-rift-ripping-the-town-apart
Glenorchy Entrance changes - Why the opposing submitters have raised their concerns.
Can you imagine the entrance to Glenorchy. Our current vision plan included the planting of trees to make a true entranceway to Glenorchy. These were duly planted and have 10 years growth on them. This picture is Milbrook - can you imagine cutting out a large section of these trees and putting in natives where the equivalent of Camp Glenorchy will be.
Now think about setbacks - there is a 10 metre building setback on the plans which was agreed to in the original subdivision - this is to keep the look of the entrance into town. 'Camp Glenorchy have said that this does not apply to them on a legal interpretation of poorly drafted rules.
Imagine now that you have the back area of cabins built right up to 5 metres from the road. How does the entrance-way to Glenorchy feel now? Would 10 metres that is in the plans feel better? Now imagine where cars will naturally want to park if the back of the place they are staying is right by the road even if there is a carpark for them on the site. Add the footpath along the road behind these accommodation facilities.
Building Heights - Why are there objections to 7.5 metres
There was a meeting in 2012 with Scott Figgenshow from council with regards to the Glenorchy township section of the next district plan. No-one could agree on anything except for the building height remaining at 5.5 metres. So how did that suddenly change? Don't try and read the minutes of the GCA meeting this changed in, ask someone that was at the meeting how this really was decided on. Ask if it was on the agenda, ask how many paid up members voted on the item that was not on the agenda? Was any process followed let alone the Glenorchy Community Association constitution? There were lots of people at that meeting - the majority attached to 'Camp Glenorchy' in some way. If process isn't followed, how is any decision legitimate? Has everyone in town had a chance to speak to the motion or even consider it? How can they if they don't have this on the agenda? How can they plan to be there if the agenda itself is not out till just before the meeting.
The lawyers in the hearing were first saying that the Camp Glenorchy height breech didn't set a precedent and then next pointing out the trees and other buildings in town that already breech the 5.5 metre height limit. Personally I would love to be able to build to 7.5 metres in Glenorchy township, as well as probably every commercial operator in town. Does the township really think it is okay for Camp Glenorchy and no-one else. Does this cause commercial disadvantage to the other operators in town when another commercial establishment is allowed to be a nearly 50% higher?
Impact of Camp Glenorchy 'Scale' - Why objections to the scale?
Extract from the District Plan for Glenorchy:-“the purpose of the Township Zones is to maintain low density residential character
interspersed [scattered among or between things; placed here and there]with a
number of non-residential activities”
Why have the submitters got concerns with the scale?
Will the numbers in visitor accommodation in the township exceed the residents?
Is there any planning for these sort of visitor numbers let alone the extra numbers of day visitors as a result? Has the GCA made a submission for the new district plan on how this is to be managed?
Have the GCA really thought about this before sending in a submission saying everyone is totally for this? Have the GCA members read and understood the resource consent application?
Is this staged incremental low density growth when you compare it to the township of Glenorchy?
The submitters posing these questions are not against progress, not against Glenorchy and they are not star struck by the promise of the positive aspects of the plan. The submitters are realists looking for the best for Glenorchy just like everyone else. By people seeing the submissions for what they are:- i.e. as dialogue towards the best outcome, hopefully we all be a few steps closer to what is best for Glenorchy as a home, a workplace, a town and a place for all our visitors.
