I want to set out why the general community and ratepayers should be concerned about the decision to allow
a new Catholic school to be built on Speargrass Flat Road.

Eighteen submissions opposing the school were heard by Queenstown Lakes District Council planning commissioners in February. Lakes Environmental recommended the application be denied.

At the end of the hearing, the applicant was allowed time to modify and amend its application. This involved submitters in extra cost by having to prepare further expert evidence and legal opinion.

The commissioners released their decision in late June.

In their report, they stated “the adverse effects have been exaggerated” and concerns were “far-fetched” – this in the face of expert professional evidence of the highest calibre.

The application was approved.

Submitters are committed to appealing the decision in the Environment Court.

We see ourselves as stewards of the natural amenity we enjoy and do not believe this is the right place for a school this size.

We’re not against schools. In fact, a small country school would have been acceptable – but this is not what’s proposed.

There’s not one child from the immediate area who’ll attend this school.

It’s environmentally unsustainable. Planning approval runs roughshod over residents’ objections. It also places an undue burden on parents and pupils.

Not only will the decision cost you, the ratepayer, dear – it will also destroy a beautiful part of the Wakatipu.

Questions need to be asked about the decision and how it was reached – and the effects likely to eventuate should the school be built and the content of the report be implemented.

Effects on immediate neighbours will be severe but these effects are far-reaching and will impact on many people further afield – parents and families of pupils, and ratepayers.

Here are some questions that need answers:

Question: Where would parents of pupils prefer St Joseph’s to be? Answer: Redevelop the present Melbourne Street school site or develop a new school at Frankton, Arthurs Point or Lake Hayes Estate.

Q: Why have the commissioners burdened the ratepayer with paying two-thirds of the cost of widening and upgrading Speargrass Flat Rd to accommodate the school when this kind of development normally has to pay all costs of the effects they cause?

Q: Would the community prefer schools located in townships, near public facilities, where many kids can walk or cycle to school?

Q: Isn’t driving kids out to Speargrass Flat every day and picking them up every afternoon adding extra stress and additional financial burdens to family life?

Q: Why, when the commissioners’ report talks of the need to redesign the landscape plan, is there no stipulation to do so?

Q: Why, when the decision acknowledges adverse noise effects, is there no requirement to mitigate them?

Q: Can we really expect the school roll to be capped at 112 when a school this size is unsustainable?

Q: Can we expect a church to be moved or built on the site, as has happened in Wanaka, some time in the future?

Q: Are Speargrass Flat Rd residents the only ones concerned about upholding community standards and trying to protect the rural nature and amenity of the precious area?

We urge other concerned readers to write to this paper with their views.

Artist Brian Millard is speaking out on behalf of a group of concerned Speargrass Flat Rd residents