Melissa White
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?
It is well established that Lake Hayes has faced long-term water quality challenges, much of which can be traced to upstream land development and the cumulative impacts of intensified land use. Any consideration of further intensification in the Lake Hayes catchment therefore needs to be approached with extreme caution.
The lake is a sensitive receiving environment, and once additional nutrient loads or contaminants enter the system they are very difficult, and often prohibitively expensive, to reverse. Intensification inevitably increases the risk of sediment runoff, nutrient leaching, and altered hydrology — all of which can exacerbate the legacy issues the lake is already struggling with.
My position is that intensification in the Lake Hayes catchment should only proceed when it is demonstrated that it will not further degrade water quality. That requires robust, independent science, strict land-use controls, and proven mitigation measures in place before development occurs. Even then, we must recognise that Lake Hayes is already in a vulnerable state, and the precautionary principle suggests that protecting and improving its health should take priority over enabling more intensive land use.
In short, intensification should only be contemplated if it contributes positively to lake restoration goals, not if it risks compounding the damage of past development. The community, mana whenua, and regional authorities have invested significantly in understanding and addressing the lake’s problems, we should not jeopardise that work by allowing land use change that undermines it.
Q2a Do you consider the current Coronet Village Fast-Track application that includes 780 residences positive or negative?
I am currently a trained RMA commissioner and have put my name forward to be selected for fast track hearings panels, to ensure there is local representation on these hearings panels. As such I am unable to express a view that the application is either “positive” or “negative,” that could create a perception that I have already formed a conclusion before hearing the evidence. This would then rule me out of being selected for a panel.
Q2b Why do you say that?
As a commissioner, my primary duty is to demonstrate independence, impartiality, and an absence of pre-determination.
By maintaining neutrality, I am demonstrating, that I am open-minded and prepared to weigh the evidence presented by all parties, I uphold natural justice, ensuring all applicants and submitters are given a fair hearing, I will protect the integrity of the process, as both actual and perceived impartiality are critical to public trust and most importantly, I remain eligible for selection, because expressing a predetermined stance could be grounds for being excluded from the panel.
Q3 What infrastructure would you like to see in place to address our traffic and sewerage issues in Queenstown? Please provide specific examples.
Traffic and congestion remain some of the biggest frustrations for locals, and it’s clear that Queenstown cannot simply build its way out of this with more roads. What people are asking for is a serious investment in public transport that is reliable, frequent, and affordable. That means buses that run often enough to be a real alternative to cars, and consideration of solutions such as dedicated bus corridors or offline public transport so that public transport doesn’t get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else. Alongside this, I believe there is merit in looking at targeted road charging for tourist vehicles, so that the cost of maintaining and upgrading infrastructure is more fairly shared, and locals are not carrying the full burden of visitor demand.
On sewerage, I have heard loud and clear from the community that the current discharge of treated wastewater into the Shotover River is unacceptable. People want to see alternative solutions that protect our waterways and reflect our responsibility as kaitiaki of this environment. That means looking seriously at options such as advanced treatment technologies, reuse of treated water where possible, or alternative disposal methods that avoid negative impacts on the river. For me, the priority is clear: infrastructure decisions must not just keep up with growth, but also protect the environment and reflect the values of the community.
