Matt Wong
Q1. What is your position on intensification in the Lake Hayes catchment area?
The current spatial plan allows for some future development in the Lake Hayes catchment, but I’d be very cautious about supporting any intensification. Like many local families we used to swim in the lake but haven't done so in about 10 years. The lake remains environmentally fragile, and further development should only proceed if it can clearly demonstrate environmental alignment with freshwater expectations for the lakes ongoing health.
Much of the current Urban Intensification Plan Change is being driven by central government legislation aimed at accelerating housing supply. At a public meeting I attended last week in Queenstown, the Finance Minister made it VERY clear the government intends to enable more housing development in Queenstown lakes district, even where there’s local opposition. That gives some context to the pressure councils are facing from central.
The RMA process constantly pushes plan creep from developments. Even where a council opposes development, the cost of defending that position through appeals falls back on ratepayers and the challenges are relentless. That’s why good planning is essential—because once a proposal is in, the legal options to defend and win can be challenging.
Despite these challenges, any development in the catchment must not undermine the outstanding restoration efforts underway, led by Friends of Lake Hayes, Mana Tahuna, and others. Any consent must clearly address runoff, stormwater, and long-term impacts backed by strong evidence.
Q2a. Do you consider the current Coronet Village Fast-Track application (780 residences) positive or negative?
Negative under its current form.
Q2b. Why do you say that?
The site is well outside the urban growth boundary and isn’t identified in any of QLDC long-term planning documents for development. It’s a large, standalone expansion into a rural and visually sensitive landscape—essentially leapfrogging the orderly, staged growth we’ve been trying to deliver as a district.
Infrastructure is a major challenge. There’s no clear plan for how wastewater, transport, stormwater would be managed at this scale—or how it would be funded. Edith Cavell Bridge would not cope with this sized development (particularly after AF8) and alternative bridge options need built. That creates huge risk for ratepayers and the environment. There are also real concerns about downstream effects on the catchment, rural amenity, and landscape character. All protected under the usual RMA and plan process.
Council is limited in what it can influence. Fast-Track process sidesteps the RMA and councils altogether, further reducing the community’s ability to engage and QLDC to conduct its proper process. Whether or not a fast tracks application has merit, this process is not appropriate for projects considerably outside what would be consented under normal process. But unfortunately that's not local councils decision to make.
Q3. What infrastructure would you like to see in place to address our traffic and sewerage issues in Queenstown?
I’m not an expert in urban planning, traffic, or wastewater—but after a few years in local government I’ve picked up a fair bit.
There’s been some public confusion around Queenstown’s wastewater system, so it’s important to separate what’s working from what still needs to be addressed. The treatment process itself is functioning well—the water leaving the existing modern plant is treated to a much higher standard than the old settlement ponds, which are slowly being decommissioned. This single modern treatment plant, built in 2017, already handles around 80% of Queenstown’s wastewater. A second, identical treatment facility is currently under construction and scheduled to come online by the end of 2025. Together, the two facilities will double current capacity, providing a future-proofed solution to meet expected population growth. As growth demand requires a third facility this can also be budgeted and planed for by future councils.
The issue lies with the treated wastewater discharge method because the disposal field built in 2019 failed shortly after and has never worked. QLDC chose to revert to the pre 2019 solution, which involves discharging treated wastewater into the Shotover River (albeit at a higher quality with the new treatment facility). Theres many more details on this but it’s not a sustainable long-term solution and I wasn't a supporter of this step.
The best option I see would be to pump treated wastewater to a disposal field or underground sink beyond the shotover delta, removing disposal from the river and nearby catchments. But that infrastructure is extreamly costly to build and maintain, and it hasn’t yet been fully scoped, funded, or committed to. Many will say "stop growth" but I've never heard a pragmatic response to how that can be achieved by councils under the current policy and legal framework. This would also no solve the problem of treated water disposal.
On transport, most of our congestion sits on State Highways, which QLDC doesn’t control. Responsibility lies with Waka Kotahi (NZTA), the Otago Regional Council (ORC), and the Minister of Transport along with QLDC. ORC remains largely Dunedin-focused, NZTA delivers only within narrow national budgets, and central government continues to prioritise large urban cities where the greatest population densities exist. That must change—Queenstown deserves stronger support and tailored solutions as it is clearly the highest growing district and has been for some time. What we want and the other key organisations respond to have been worlds apart, I want this to change.
Locally, we must move away from trying to build our way out of congestion because the funding isn’t there. We simple won't have enough money to build highways big enough just to fit more cars. The solution has to be a mix of cars and more enabling of mode shift. That means looking to mass rapid transit solutions, park-and-ride hubs, dedicated bus lanes, and safe connections for micro mobility and other forms of active transport (safe urban cycleways). We also need to build high density housing close to shops, schools, healthcare and workplaces, not in areas without infrastructure and amenities. Encourage rental cars off the road by offering viable alternatives for visitors, or capture revenue from commercial road users for public transport investment (congestion charges). Note policies currently dont exist for council to implement this so we must make the Regional Deal stick.
But who builds and pays for all this infrastructure? Central Govt is not forthcoming with funding and rate payers can't be hit with it all. John Key's PPP Programme coming to fruition perhaps? The Regional Deal could give us a chance to do things differently but we must proceed cautiously. Central Govt has made it very clear there is no cash in regonal deals therefore we must change national policy to enable these ideas to happen and it may mean private public investment and user pays.
