"Q" (Samuel) Belk
Q1 It is well known that one of the key contributors to the historic issues with Lake Hayes water quality has been from upstream land development. What is your position on intensification in the Lake Hayes catchment area?
Yes, it is well known that the eutrophication of Lake Hayes dates back decades, even to the 1960’s (ref: Dr. Mark Schalenberg limnologist who consults to Friends of Lake Hayes and others). This was due, first, to superphosphate being aggressively applied to upstream farms. It was government policy. This was later augmented by development, which increased the runoff into Lake Hayes, and decreased absorption into the ground. The lake is now starting to recover, in fits and starts. The eutrophic level (dead zone) rises and falls, but is lessening slightly as a result of effluent catchment around the lake, upstream, and along places like Mill Brook. It still is, essentially, a “dead lake” but is recovering. There is no plan in place for the Ladies Mile development to address what will obviously be further runoff into Lake Hayes.
My position: Like the infrastructure deficit (noted later), unless runoff from planned developments can be stopped or treated no further development should proceed. The cleaning up of Lake Hayes takes precedence. We have a dead lake that is slowly recovering due to the efforts of The Friends of Lake Hayes and others. Development without safeguards will reverse that. Lake Hayes will revert (again) to being 100% eutrophic: unswimmable, undrinkable, a veritable sewer.
Q2a Do you consider the current Coronet Village Fast-Track application that includes 780 residences positive or negative?
My position: Fast-track, first, is antidemocratic. (ref comments by Labor, passage of the bill, December, 2024) It takes local decision making away, to favour a national, Wellington-based agenda. It is supposedly “efficient”, “streamlined”, “provides for the delivery … of development projects with significant regional and national benefits”. In fact, it runs roughshod over the RMA. I fail to understand how an “expert panel” of three non-residents would have greater insights than locals. In the case of Coronet Village, it is nothing more than a gift to developers who will build second homes for wealthy and overseas buyers. During construction, it will clog motorways with orange cones. Once built (if built .. it could stall halfway through construction for years like “Hendo’s Hole”, and Lakeview) there is not the roading or sewerage infrastructure to support it. It will further urbanize the Lakes Region.
The fast-track application does not address infrastructure. Were it to go ahead, it would be serviced by a two-lane bridge (Shotover, governed by NZTA) and a one lane bridge (Edith Cavell, QLDC, local road). These are already traffic bottlenecks that are not adequate for existing housing. The proposed development will simply lead to further traffic congestion. Every Lakes Region resident of every political persuasion is disgusted with traffic congestion; it is the #1 complaint. We do not have the infrastructure (roading/bridges, water delivery, sewerage) to service existing homes, further developments should not be considered until there is adequate, robust infrastructure in place.
Aesthetically, it will be terrible. The proposed site is one of the last scenic open spaces near Queenstown. It will remove Highly Productive Land (HPL 3) from production. If we had tax advantaged “conservation easements” so that agricultural land and open space could be sequestered for future generations, there would be less incentive to develop it. We do not have that legislation, there is no incentive for farmers to keep agricultural land open. We need conservation easements and rezoning as is done in Europe.
N.B. I am co-founder and current Chair of FOGCZ (Friends of Gibbston Character Zone). Our goals are similar to those of MVPS. We formed in 2018 to block Graeme Wilkinson’s subdivision at the corner of SH6 and Gibbston Back Road. We have been successful so far (two Environment Court hearings, “consultation”, mediation, et cetera). Our current efforts are focused on opposing the 900 house Fast-track proposal by Greg Hunt and Phil Griffiths of Gibbston Valley Wines/Station. (and to which Mayor Lewers has been employed as a consultant)
Q2b Why do you say that?
Superficially, for developers and the government, there is not the infrastructure to support most of these fast-track proposals. The Lakes Region has a massive “infrastructure deficit” in roading/bridges, water delivery, and sewerage. These fast-track proposals are indefensible purely based on a lack of infrastructure. If we need to “fast-track”, then let’s fast track 1) another two-lane bridge over the Shotover which leads to four lane access to Queenstown for Lake Hayes/Shotover Country residents 2) a locally owned, robust water delivery system, not a remotely controlled CCO 3) a long term solution to sewerage: using the airport as a leech field, moving the treatment plant from a gravel bar at the intersection of the Kawarau and Shotover, stop the “Dilution is the solution to pollution” attitude that permits us to dump twelve million litres of treated sewerage into the Kawarau (which has led to ten abatement notices from the ORC). We are polluting the Kawarau. We must stop.
Personally, I find these proposals to be a continuation of “get-rich-quick” “cheap housing at any cost” philosophy perennially pushed by developers and some councillors. We risk utterly fouling our own nest, as we have been incrementally doing for decades. The Lakes Region will grow, we must do so thoughtfully.
Q3 What infrastructure would you like to see in place to address our traffic and sewerage issues in Queenstown? Please provide specific examples.
Again, per the above:
Traffic: the two-lane bridge over the Kawarau is the bottleneck. We must lobby Wellington for another bridge which will lead to a reduction in traffic jams that rival Tokyo (I lived in Tokyo for 11 years, I know wherefore of what I speak). A second Shotover bridge is just as necessary as a second Auckland Harbor bridge. The question of whether Edith Cavell bridge is sufficient should be explored.
Water delivery: The mayor forced through the CCO, on Thursday, the 31st. I was there. 5 councillors were opposed, 5 were in favour. 75% of submissions were opposed. The mayor cast the deciding vote. Why was this forced through, by the mayor (pounding the table) two months before an election? We MUST decide whether we control our water or give it to a potentially remote, Council Controlled Organization (CCO). We must revisit this decision. Whether we agree with a CCO or a locally controlled entity, the governance, the way the vote was pushed through, was inexcusable.
Sewerage: it is morally indefensible that we are daily dumping twelve million litres of treated sewerage into the Kawarau. Shall we rename it the Ganges? Moving the plant, changing the treatment, will require a long term commitment from residents. It will lead to an increase in rates. We need to get residents, our community, the Lakes Region, to commit to raising long-term, cheap debt, possibly not through the LGFA but through public/private partnerships.
We must commit to building a robust sewerage treatment function that will last for decades. We, and the Council, have so far “done what Councils always do, go for what is ‘cheap and expedient’” (Michael Laws). We must change our thinking. We need to explain to ALL residents that we are at an inflection point where we will choose whether to wreck the Lakes Region through poorly planned overdevelopment, or truly plan (and invest) for the future to preserve and enhance our unique and fragile region.
