QUEENSTOWN OFFICE: Level 3, 36 Shoto"er Street, Queenstown 9300 FRANKTON OFFICE: Levell , Alta House, TerraceJul1ction , Frankton 9300

POSTAL: P.o. Box 124, Queenstown 9348 , NZ

I AvV,{FRS {\., j' J 01ARY 1 Ul~ Ie PHONE: +6~· (3) 44 1 274-3 FAX: +64 (3) 44 1 2976

MOB: +64 (0) 27 433 O'~5 7

12 December 2016

The Registrar Christchurch Environment Court PO Box 2069 Christchurch 8013

Dear Sir

EMAIL: grael11e@gtodcUaw.col11 WEB: \\'\\'w.gtudcUaw.col11

FACEBOOK: IVwwJacebookcol11! gtodcUaw SKYPE: gtodcllaw

TRUST ACCOUNT NUMBER:

ANZ B

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

IN THE MATTER

AND

IN THE MATTER

BETWEEN

AND

ENV-2016-CHC

of the Resource Management Act 1991

of an application for direct referral pursuant to Section 87G(2) of the Act

SKYLINE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

Applicant

QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL

Respondent

NOTICE OF MOTION SEEKING ORDERS

RY PUBU

To The Registrar Environment Court Christchurch

1. SKYLINE ENTERPRISES LIMITED ("Skyline") applies pursuant to Section 87G of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("the Act") for an order that the Court hear its application to the Queenstown Lakes District Council ("Council") for resource consent to undertake a redevelopment of its Gondola and associated facilities at Bob's Peak, Queenstown.

2. The grounds for this application are:

(a) That the Council has accepted Skyline's application for direct referral of the application for resource consent to the Court.

(b) That the history of applications associated with Skyline's facilities on Bob's Peak are complex due to the location of such facilities in relation to Queenstown and given competing interest on Bob's Peak will inevitably result in appeal to the Environment Court or application for Judicial Review to the High Court.

(c) That it is Skyline's view which is supported by the Council that any decision of Council on the application is likely to be appealed to the Environment Court.

3. The following documents are attached:

(a) An affidavit in support of the application from Sean Tristan Dent.

(b) A list of names and addresses of persons to be served with a copy of this notice .

... . ~ ................... . . . . . .. . Signed for and on behalf of SKYLINE ENTERPRISES LIMITED by its Counsel and duly authorised agent BENJAMIN BRETT GRESSON

Dated 12th December 2016

Address for Service of Applicant: C/- of the office of GTODD Law

3,d Floor, 36 Shotover Street (PO Box 124)

Queenstown 9348

Telephone: 034412743

Facsimile: 03441 2976

Email : graeme@gtoddlaw.com;ben@gtoddlaw.com

Contact Person : Graeme Morris Todd/Benjamin Brett Gresson

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

IN THE MATTER

AND

IN THE MATTER

BETWEEN

AND

ENV-2016-CHC

of the Resource Management Act 1991

of an application for direct referral pursuant to Section 87G(2) of the Act

SKYLINE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

Applicant

QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL

Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF SEAN TRISTAN DENT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION

DDIIII LAWYERS & NOTARY PUBLIC

I, SEAN TRISTAN DENT of Cromwell , Resource Management Planner make oath and say as follows:

1. That I am a Resource Management Planner employed by Southern Planning Group Limited ("SPGL") of Queenstown. I have been employed at SPGL in this position since July 2007.

2. SPGL has been engaged by SKYLINE ENTERPRISES LIMITED ("Skyline") to prepare an application for resource consent to undergo a redevelopment of Skyline's Gondola on Bob's Peak near Queenstown. The redevelopment intends to involve a new base terminal in Brecon Street Queenstown, a full replacement of the existing Gondola system (including new support towers and gondola cars) , a significant addition to the top terminal on Bob's Peak together with upgrades of infrastructure and landscaping. The estimated cost of the redevelopment is in excess of $100,000,000.00.

3. I am authorised by Skyline to provide this affidavit.

4. The application for resource consent was filed with the Queenstown Lakes District Council ("the Council") on the 15th July 2016.

5. Following public notification of the application 20 submissions were received . The identity of the submitters and whether they were in support or opposition are included in the schedule to this affidavit attached hereto and marked with the letter "A".

6. On the 12th day of October 2016 Skyl ine through its Counsel filed a request with the Council pursuant to Section 87D of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("the Act") requesting its application for resource consent to be referred directly to the Environment Court. Attached hereto and marked with the letter "B" is a copy of the letter of request.

7. On the 26th day of October 2016 the Council responded to the request granting the same pursuant to Section 87D of the Act. Attached hereto and marked with the letter "c" is a copy of Council 's e-mail communications confirming they had granted the request.

8. I have read the Notice of Motion which this affidavit is in support of and I agree with and support the grounds for the application .

9. SPGL have represented Skyline as its resource management consultants on a number matters since 2008. During this time I have become aware that in terms of any significant applications made relating to Skyline 's gondola business on Bob's Peak pursuant to the Act or the Reserves Act 1977 that they are inevitably contested and have resulted in appeals to the Environment Court. Similarly, where other activities undertaken on Bob's Peak by other parties might interfere with Skyline's interests, these have resulted in proceedings before the High Court.

10. Normally one party that seeks to oppose Skyline's applications is ZJV (NZ) Limited ("Ziptrek") which owns and operates the zip line business known as Ziptrek Ecotours on land that neighbours the land leased by Skyline on Bob's Peak.

11 . Ziptrek have filed a submission in opposition to Skyline's application for resource consent and given the history of litigation between the two parties and the comprehensive submission filed by Ziptrek, I consider it is highly likely that an appeal will be lodged to the Environment Court by either Ziptrek or Skyline dependant on any decision that might be made on the application.

12. Skyline is one of New Zealand's leading tourism companies and its Queenstown Gondola operation is probably the most popular tourism attraction in Queenstown, if not New Zealand. The company is experiencing exceptional growth and the proposed redevelopment is intended to cater to that growth.

13. The proposed redevelopment will be extremely complex given Skyline wish to keep to a minimum the time period with which it has to close its existing operation to enable any redevelopment of facilities including replacing the Gondola.

14. An added potential time constraint is that Skyline cannot proceed to order the new gondola until it obtains final consent. There is then a significant lead time until the new gondola is constructed in Europe and shipped to New Zealand for installation. This all means it could take some three to four years from the placing of the order until the redevelopment is completed ..

15. In light of such it is my view that it is in the best interest of all parties that Skyline's application be heard by the Court and at the earliest possible time.

SWORN by the said SEAN TRISTAN DENT ) at Queenstown this 12th day of December 2016 before me:

, R. So e~en ~ile

9~ Qu,ilCi(or en CIa

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . 'l:I2Ns . fire lOWN

A Solicitor of the f119 -ourt of New Zealand

Submitter Name Support or Oppose

Ally Mondillo (on behalf of concerned locals) Oppose

Brecon Street Partnership Limited Support

Mark Rose Oppose

Kiwi Birdlife Park Oppose

CCR Limited - Leesee of Queenstown Lakeview Holiday Park Oppose

Basil Walker Neutral

Queenstown PreSchool and Nursery Oppose

Queenstown Holiday Park & Motels Oppose

Otago Regional Council Oppose

S Kolff Oppose

Louise Evans Oppose

Ministry of Education Seeks Changes

Georgina Evans Oppose

Kelvin Peninsula Community Association Oppose

ZJV (NZ) Limited Oppose

Frost Foundation Limited Oppose

Robins Road Limited Oppose

Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki Neutral

Te ROnanga 0 Otakou Neutral

Lee Excell (Lomond Lodge) Oppose

This IS th e exhibit marked .. A ", " ""'/.. " C " " annexed aflidavitof SeC

12 October 2016

The Chief Executive Queenstown Lakes District Council Private Bag 50072 Queenstown 9346

Dear Sir

1113"

SKYLINE ENTERPRISES LIMITED - RM 160647

QUEENSTOWN OFFICE: L.'ve! :1 , ~jli Sh

QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to Section 87D of the Act by SKYLINE ENTERPRISES LIMITED in respect of Application for Resource Consents RM 160647

Requester

REQUEST BY SKYLINE ENTERPRISES LIMITED TO HAVE APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENTS RM 160647 REFERRED DIRECTLY TO THE

ENVIRONMENT COURT FOR DETERMINATION

3987 Requesl (or Direct Referral 10 Env Courl

GTODD LAW Level 3, 36 Shotover Street, (PO Box 124 Queenstown 9348) Queenstown 9300 P 03 441 2743 F 03 441 2976 Email : graeme@gtoddlaw.com Counsel acting: G M Todd

To: Queenstown Lakes District Council

1. SKYLINE ENTERPRISES LIMITED request that you allow the following application lodged by it to be determined by the Environment Court instead of you:

I) an application for resource consent being RM 160647

2. The application is for:

II Consent to replace the existing Skyline gondola with a new ten seat gondola;

9 Consent to construct a new lower terminal building;

e Consent to construct a new top terminal building;

(0 Consent to carry out sUbstantial modifications and new construction to the existing top restaurant building; and

Consent for associated earthworks, landscaping, modification to the existing luge tracks and signage.

3. The reason for the request is as follows:

(a) the project contemplates works estimated to cost $100,000,000.00 which is a significant investment by the applicant in infrastructure that will have significant benefits for the tourism sector of the Queenstown economy;

(b) that if the applicant was declined by the Independent Hearings Commissioner appointed by you to hear the application, then it is likely the applicant would appeal the decision to the Environment Court;

(c) the application has been publicly notified and a number of submission in opposition have been filed including a submission containing a number of submission points by ZJV (NZ) Limited ("Ziptrek").

(d) Ziptrek have a history of opposing any development undertaken by the applicant and of appealing decisions granting consents in favour of the applicant. Given such history and the extent and nature of its submission the applicant believes if the Independent Hearings Commissioner appointed by you to hear the application grant the consent then it is highly likely that Ziptrek will appeal such decision.

(e) Any hearing by you and any subsequent appeal to the Environment Court will result in significant delays in any determination of the application and a duplication of significant costs that will be incurred by the applicant, submitters including Ziptrek given the number of experts that will need to be called to address issues raised in the application and in Ziptrek's submission in particular.

3987 Request (or Direct Refe{(a! to Env Court

(f) Given the above, it is submitted that it is in the best interests to the applicant, submitters, the Council and the broader community that the application be finally determined at the earliest possible opportunity whilst minimizing costs incurred by all parties.

Dated at Queenstown this 121h day of October 2016

SKYLINE ERPRISES LIMITED by its solicitor and duly authorised agent Graeme Morris Todd

Address for service of the Requester

SI

1'(, "

Rayssa Santos

From: Sent: To:

Ben Gresson Monday, 12 December 2016 1:08 p.m. Rayssa Santos

Subject: FW: Skyline Direct referral id=3987

From: Rachel Beer Sent: 26 October 2016 9:33 AM Subject: Skyline Enterprises Ltd (RM160647) - Direct Referral to Environment Court

Good morning

By way of background, the applicant (Skyline Enterprise Ltd) made a request to Council for this application to be referred directly to the Environment Court for consideration. This process of 'Direct Referral' to the Environment Court was introduced in the 2009 (Simplifying and Streamlining) amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 and provides an alternative method for processing a notified resource consent application. It essentially means the application is heard by the Environment Court rather than the Council.

This morning Council approved this request and it is therefore anticipated that the application will be determined by the Environment Court instead of through a Council hearing. The resource consent hearing which was to be heard by Council on 6-9 December 2016 is now cancelled.

With respect to the process from here, Council officers are required to prepare a s42a report on the application. This will occur within 20 working days and will be provided to the applicant and all submitters on 21 November 2016. At that point the applicant may advise whether they still wish to proceed to the Environment Court.

1. If the applicant advises they still wish to proceed to Environment Court, they will have 15 working days to lodge a motion with the Court. The applicant is required to serve a copy of this motion to all submitters, meaning that you will receive a copy of that notice. From this point the application will progress under the processes of the Environment Court. Should you wish to remain involved with this case you will at that time be required to file a s274 notice to the Court stating this. The Court has indicated generally that once it receives a motion for a Direct Referral case, it will contact all submitters about the proceedings including advice on the process for becoming a s274 party. You may therefore receive correspondence from the Court in this respect. There is no filing fee to become a s274 party. Below are the postal details for Environment Court:

District Court Building Levell 282 Durham Street CHRISTCHURCH 8013

or

PO Box 2069 CHRISTCHURCH 8013

1

This is the e~lbIt I'I'Il!Irkftd "c. " referred to In the annexedaf!idavitof ~cCv, Trr',StCl,,", Ue. ,.. sworn a~\~ ~re me tho l.. day of De Cr.? r')f\ 6" r ~~ c

2. If the applicant advises they wish to have the application heard by QLDe, we will set another hearing date for the new year and advise all parties.

We trust this email clarifies the process, but if you have any further queries on this process please contact Jane Sinclair on 021 442 370 or email vsinclair@xtra.co.nz

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/RMA/the-direct-referral-process-submitters.pdf

Regards

Rachel Beer

2