- Your Council
- Council Documents
- Climate Change and Biodiversity
- Operative District Plan
- Proposed District Plan
- National Policy Statement-Urban Development (District Plan Amendments)
- District Plan maps
- A Guide to Plan Changes
- Inclusionary Housing Plan Change
- Variation to Coneburn Industrial Zone
- Arthurs Point Notification
- Landscape Schedules
- Te Pūtahi Ladies Mile Variation
- Elected Members
- Major Projects
- Media Centre
- Meetings & Committees
- Our Vision & Mission
- Privacy and official information requests
- Public Notices
- Sister Cities
On this page you will find background information relevant to the Proposed District Plan. This includes the factsheets and snapshots which are released when each new proposal is notified, as well as glossaries, videos, related studies, and commissioner information.
Factsheets and snapshots
The following factsheets and snapshots were created at the notification stage to provide information about the proposed changes to provisions and chapters. They do not reflect decisions that have since been made by Council.
My Place Pre-Consultation Summaries
The My Place public pre-consultations were held in 2019 for residents to share ideas about housing, climate change, long-term growth and land use. Below are the summaries from the pre-consultation workshops:
Studies and models
The DCM was first created by QLDC in the early 2000s. The tool measures the potential number of dwellings that could potentially be developed under existing zones. The DCM has been used as an important tool to inform our planning over a number of years.
Over time, the DCM has become more sophisticated, and increasingly taken into account a number of factors to create a more ‘realistic’ ( as compared to theoretical capacity).
The DCM was subject to a comprehensive critical review in 2014 and 2015. The review considered that the existing DCM was significantly overstating realistic capacity.
Of particular note, the review has taken into account the recent findings of an expert panel comprising 15 experts in planning, development, economics and demography assembled by the independent panel considering Auckland’s Proposed Unitary Plan. The Panel tested the theoretical capacity enabled by the Proposed Unitary Plan and found that the realistic capacity was only around 26% of the theoretical capacity. Because the realistic capacity is much lower than the previously relied upon theoretical capacity, Auckland Council is facing a major issue in trying to backtrack and substantially increase densities.
The revision to Queenstown’s DCM now means that QLDC considers there is significantly less capacity in our urban areas, especially for infill housing in existing developed areas. This is one of the key reasons why we have looked to relax controls in the High Density Residential zone, and introduced a Medium Density Residential zone.
Importantly, the DCM also helps give us a picture of the composition of dwelling capacity ie. how the capacity is distributed amongst ownerships. Composition of dwelling capacity can be as important as the quantum of dwelling capacity. For example, to take a theoretical example, a town may have a large dwelling capacity of say 20,000 dwellings. But if a large proportion of that capacity, say 80-90%, is held in two ownerships, then ‘landbanking’ or drip feeding of sections and houses to the market may be incentivised, reducing housing supply competitiveness.
So, when reviewing the DCM in our district, we can see that around 82% of capacity is held in only 5 ownerships in the Wakatipu Basin.
The Proposed District Plan provisions will help to reduce this concentration, and allow for a much larger number of landowners to potentially develop their properties. This should help result in housing supply that is more responsive to demand, and also help disincentivise land banking by reducing scarcity.Close
The Wakatipu Basin Land Use Study was completed in March 2017 in response to a minute (dated 1 July 2016) released by the hearings panel for the Proposed District Plan review.
The hearings panel raised concern that the fully discretionary activity regime of the Rural Zone would not achieve the Strategic Direction of the PDP in the Wakatipu Basin. As such they reached the view that a detailed analysis of the Basin was required.
The aims of this analysis were to:
Identify the environmental characteristics and amenity values of the area that should be maintained and enhanced, noting these will vary across the Wakatipu Basin.
Identify areas that are able to absorb development, without adversely impacting the values derived in (a) and without adversely affecting the values associated with the surrounding the Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Outstanding Natural Features.
Identify those areas unable to absorb development.
Determine whether, given the residual development already consented, there is any capacity for further development in the Wakatipu Basin floor and, if there is, where it should be located and what form it should take.
To complete this assessment consultants undertook a detailed investigation from a range of sources of information relating to the Basin.
The Wakatipu Basin Land Use Study area is highlighted in the figure below:
The Wakatipu Basin Land Use Study produced the following conclusions:
The Basin is a special landscape that is critical to retaining the high quality of Queenstown’s environment. The Basin is integral to the visitor and resident experience of Queenstown and plays an important part in the local economy;
Increasing populations from both residents and visitor accommodation is a core driver of the development pressures on the Basin and contribution to cumulative adverse effects on its values;
Protection of the Basin from inappropriate development is the fundamental driver to establishing an appropriate planning regime. The existing rural character of the area is no longer derived solely from farming activities but a mix of rural activities that reflect lifestyle uses of land, with pockets of small scale “hobby farming”. Larger farming blocks that are actively farmed for productive purposes are generally located in the outer ‘peripheral parts’ of the Basin;
Areas within the Basin can be characterised as having High to Very Low capability to absorb additional development. This varying absorption capability commends a range of potential planning strategy responses;
The ‘Discretionary Activity’ planning regime is unlikely to achieve the Strategic Direction of the Proposed District Plan; and
Planning provisions of the Basin should stand alone and be clearly distinguishable from the general zonings that apply to the rest of the District.
The findings of the Wakatipu Basin Land Use Study do not represent Council’s view at this point in time. The report has been publicly released for public information and transparency purposes.
Further investigation is being carried out to determine if the recommendations are appropriate, and if any changes to the plan are required.Close
The proposed areas can be viewed through the GIS web mapping system [link to latest consolidated decisions pdp map].Close
Related studies and materials
We've pulled together a range of related articles if you're keen to get into more detail. They highlight that many other areas have faced similar issues and used similar approaches.
Published in the Sustainability Journal, written by Peter NewmanClose
A report by the National Multi Housing Company, Sierra Club, American Institute of Architects and the Urban Land InstituteClose
A report by Auckland Council Chief Economist, Chris ParkerClose
A report by California Planning Roundtable, California Department of Housing and Community DevelopmentClose
Lee Beattie article for New Zealand HeraldClose
Related monitoring reports
Council has appointed panels of Commissioners to hear, consider and decide on all the submissions. The commissioners appointed to hear submissions on Stage 3 in 2020 are as follows:
Each panel will be chaired by Trevor Robinson and comprise at least one independent commissioner and one commissioner who is an elected member of the Queenstown Lakes District Council (elected member commissioners are yet to be appointed).
Click below to view their profiles.