Taking a stand on urban sprawl

Businessman Dennis Thorn defeated land development proposals around Wanaka.

Ask Dennis Thorn if he is the "Sam Neill" of Wanaka and he scoffs.

"No, not at all, not at all. I am taking a stand on development issues. People say they don't want Wanaka looking like Queenstown. Nobody does.

"But you've actually got to do something otherwise the council and developers will run amok."

That stand has cost the Aucklander $100,000, and this week stopped in its tracks a 400-lot Wanaka development that could have made its developers well over $100 million.

The Environment Court has accepted Mr Thorn's arguments and cancelled a zone variation introduced by the Queenstown Lakes District Council to allow a 75ha residential development on rural land.

And in a ruling that has delighted local environmentalist Julian Howarth, the court also said the Peninsula Bay project would not have sufficiently protected the natural character of Lake Wanaka - which it said was an outstanding natural feature and landscape - from inappropriate development.

Local mayor Clive Geddes said the decision should be examined by anyone who owns rural-zoned land and by councils, especially those trying to manage urban sprawl.

The decision has raised ethical questions about developments where sections are sold before resource or planning consents are cemented.

In a 2003 marketing extravaganza, described on local property websites as a "section frenzy", 75 Peninsula Bay sections were sold for $34 million at auction. The top section sold for more than $1 million.

Buyers put down a $1000 deposit, which they may now get back - depending on whether the council or Infinity Group Ltd and its partners decide to appeal to the High Court.

Those decisions are due within a fortnight.

Mr Thorn, meanwhile, is readying an application for costs to cover the six-figure bill he incurred by objecting to the zone variation.

The former Auckland and New Zealand Universities rugby flanker has become something of a headache for the local council - he has objected to other developments as well - and comparisons with actor Sam Neill's crusade over the hill in the Wakatipu Basin are inevitable.

Mr Thorn, like Neill, is a part-time resident in Central Otago - living most of his time in Australia or Auckland - but has made it his business to keep an eye on planning decisions since buying a holiday house down there four years ago.

He says he is not anti-development, but he is determined that Wanaka will not end up like Queenstown, which critics like Neill argue has been ruined by a decade of helterskelter speculation.

Mr Thorn's view of the supposed jewel in New Zealand's tourism crown is harsh.

"I go over there and I vomit most of the time. It's a tragedy for New Zealand. It's the ugliest place in the world, just about."

Mr Thorn's gripe is not so much with Bob Robertson's Infinity Group but with the council and its 1995 decision to contract out its resource consent and planning services to private provider CivicCorp.

That, says the former lawyer and 1980s property developer, creates an environment for conflicts of interest and could weaken the council's Resource Management Act responsibilities to protect the landscape.

"I know I've come in for a bit of criticism , and they're saying, 'Well, who the hell is this guy?' But if you're going to take a stand, there's a lot of 'doleros' involved. The regular person doesn't have the wherewithal, either in skills, knowledge or finances, to do anything about this."

That Mr Thorn does not live in Wanaka all year provokes a "So what?" reaction from English-born Mr Howarth.

The president of the local environmental society says development is a hot topic in the community.

"If you stuff our landscape, you stuff our tourist industry," he said.

There is cynicism about the sudden increase in the number of sections in the Peninsula Bay proposal - from 240 to 400 (some suggest it was to keep local speculators happy) - and division over whether urban development should remain centralised or spread around the lake.

Mr Howarth said that according to council data, there was already an oversupply of residential land available in Wanaka so there was no need for rural land to be rezoned.

Infinity chief executive Mr Robertson was in Dubai this week, and the company is declining to comment before an appeal decision, expected next week.

But Mr Geddes, who replaced former Cabinet minister Warren Cooper as mayor, denies there is any potential for CivicCorp to be anything other than professional in its planning work for the council.

Having said that, he says, the council has decided that contracting out the work has not delivered either the benefits or cost-savings expected, and the system is under review.

That is perhaps just as well; Mr Thorn is not going anywhere.

He is planning how to formalise his activities as a planning watchdog, partly because he has money to do it and environmental groups don't.

"This fight will go on. I'm still alive for another 20 to 30 years, but what about thereafter?" he said.

And in case anyone thinks he is a member of the Nimby ("not in my backyard") community, his Wanaka home is not lakeside, and does not border Peninsula Bay.

"I've got a regular house. I've hardly got any view at all."

Mr Thorn described Wanaka as a paradise. "But developers will destroy it for their own profit, without a shadow of a doubt ... because people on councils are not strong enough to stop them".

WHAT WAS PENINSULA BAY?

* Infinity Group Ltd owner Bob Robertson and a "silent" partner, thought to be a Dunedin accountant, wanted to develop 75ha of rural land on Beacon Pt Peninsula at Wanaka.

* The Queenstown Lakes District Council changed the land from "rural" to a "special" zone, allowing residential development.

* It also approved an increase in the number of sections, from 240 to 400. So far 109 have been sold.

* Auckland businessman Dennis Thorn objected to the Environment Court.

* He argued the planning decisions had not been transparent, and the development did not protect unique landscapes on the peninsula.

* Other objectors were concerned about lake-edge development at Peninsula Bay.

* The Environment Court ruled against the council and cancelled the zone variation, saying it was not necessary.

* The variation also did not meet the council's legal and district plan responsibilities to protect the landscape, and would not protect the lake, an outstanding natural feature.

* The council and Infinity are seeking legal advice and may appeal.

* Environment Court rulings can now be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.