Protect the Established Character of Heritage Park and Heritage Village Wānaka
The issue
Protect the Established Character of Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive. Request for urgent review of Medium Density Residential A (MDRAZ) zoning and restoration to Rural General zoning or an equivalent low-density classification
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of Heritage Park, Heritage Village, Mountain View Drive and the surrounding neighbourhood, formally request that Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) review the inclusion of our established residential area within the Medium Density Residential A Zone (MDRAZ) under the Urban Intensification Variation.
We request that Council restore the area's previous Rural General zoning, or apply an equivalent low-density classification that protects the established character of our neighbourhood.
Our concern is that an established low-density residential neighbourhood appears to have been captured within a rezoning approach intended principally for greenfield development in South Wānaka, without many affected residents understanding the proposed changes or the need to make formal submissions.
We support appropriate residential growth in Wānaka. However, intensification must be carefully planned and respect the established character, historical development protections and legitimate expectations of existing communities.
OUR CONCERNS
1. Inconsistency with the Independent Hearing Panel's stated intentions
The Independent Hearing Panel's recommendations described increased residential density in Wānaka as being focused on the "largely greenfield urban areas of Three Parks and Wānaka South", with MDRAZ applying to "generally greenfield land in Wānaka South."
Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive are established residential neighbourhoods, developed over many years with existing homes, substantial gardens, mature landscaping and community open spaces.
We question whether the inclusion of this established residential area and its immediate interfaces within MDRAZ was consistent with the Panel's stated approach, and whether the zoning boundary appropriately distinguishes existing residential neighbourhoods from greenfield growth areas.
While we recognise that the reference to greenfield land may not have been intended as an absolute restriction, we believe QLDC should explain the planning rationale for including our established neighbourhood within MDRAZ.
2. Lack of resident awareness and meaningful participation
Many residents of Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive were unaware that their established low-density neighbourhood was proposed to be included within Medium Density Residential A zoning, or that formal submissions were required to challenge the proposed changes.
Residents reasonably understood their neighbourhood to be an established residential area, rather than part of the greenfield land identified for substantial intensification in South Wānaka.
We understand that the Independent Hearing Panel received few, if any, submissions opposing MDRAZ in this particular area and consequently may not have specifically examined the implications for existing residents.
The absence of submissions should not be mistaken for community support or acceptance of the rezoning.
For many residents, the significant implications only became apparent when intensive development proposals emerged.
We therefore ask QLDC to consider whether affected residents had a meaningful opportunity to understand and respond to the proposed changes, and whether the established character of the neighbourhood received adequate consideration during the planning process.
3. Established low-density character and historical development assurances
Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive were deliberately established as spacious, low-density residential neighbourhoods.
Heritage Park Lane, for example, contains residential sections generally ranging from approximately 4,000 m2 to 6,100 m2 while Mountain View Drive includes established residential properties of approximately 2,000 m2.
The neighbourhood's mature trees, established gardens and open spaces provide valuable habitat for native birdlife, including tūī, kārearea (New Zealand falcon), korimako (bellbird) and pīwakawaka (fantail), contributing to the distinctive natural character of Heritage Park.
Residents purchased properties and invested in their homes on the basis of the planning controls, subdivision arrangements and neighbourhood character that existed at the time.
Importantly, developer correspondence dating back to 2014 expressly anticipated future development and rezoning pressure while recording an intention to:
- Preserve the low-density, landscaped and park-like character of Heritage Park and Heritage Village.
- Provide certainty to existing residents regarding future development.
- Maintain the established residential environment through subdivision and development controls.
These documents demonstrate that the neighbourhood's character was deliberately planned and protected, rather than occurring by chance.
While planning rules can change, we believe these historical assurances and the expectations upon which residents purchased and developed their properties deserve proper consideration.
4. A substantial and inappropriate change in zoning
The area is identified as Rural General under the Operative District Plan, while the Proposed District Plan maps incorporating the Urban Intensification Variation identify it as Medium Density Residential A.
This represents a substantial change in the planning treatment of an established residential neighbourhood.
Other nearby established residential areas have been assigned lower-density classifications, including Large Lot Residential and Rural Residential.
We question why Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive have been treated differently when their existing lot sizes, development patterns and landscaped character are consistent with lower-density residential environments.
We believe the previous Rural General zoning, or an equivalent low-density classification, is more appropriate for this established neighbourhood than MDRAZ.
Such a classification would allow reasonable future development while protecting the spacious sections, landscaped character and residential amenity that define the area.
5. The consequences of the rezoning are already becoming apparent
Two recent resource consent matters demonstrate the potential consequences of applying intensive residential zoning to this established neighbourhood:
- RM260826 - 3 Mountain View Drive: A proposed development of 66 residential units on approximately 10,000 m2, including residential visitor accommodation for up to 365 days per year, raising significant concerns regarding Airbnb accommodation prioritisation over local housing, density, traffic, privacy and neighbourhood character.
- RM260615 - Lot 17: An approved, non-notified subdivision involving the cancellation of historic development restrictions, despite concerns raised by neighbouring residents.
These applications illustrate how the current planning framework may enable development fundamentally at odds with the established character and historical development intentions of Heritage Park and Heritage Village.
They reinforce the need to reconsider whether MDRAZ is an appropriate zoning classification for this established neighbourhood.
6. Transparency and confidence in the planning process
Residents deserve to understand how the MDRAZ boundary was determined, particularly where its application appears inconsistent with the Panel's stated emphasis on generally greenfield growth.
We believe QLDC should clearly explain:
- Whether Heritage Park, Heritage Village and their immediate interfaces were included in the originally notified zoning maps.
- What planning assessments and recommendations supported their inclusion within MDRAZ.
- Whether the established residential character and historical development controls were specifically considered.
- How affected residents were informed of the proposed changes and their opportunity to make submissions.
- Whether the final zoning boundary reflects a deliberate planning decision or an unintended outcome of the broader South Wānaka rezoning.
Given the potentially irreversible consequences of intensive development, this review should be transparent, timely and communicated directly to affected residents.
OUR REQUEST TO QLDC
We respectfully request that Council:
- Formally review the MDRAZ zoning boundary affecting Heritage Park, Heritage Village, Mountain View Drive and their immediate interfaces, including the original notified zoning, submissions, planning assessments, Panel recommendations and final planning maps.
- Determine whether the inclusion of this established residential neighbourhood was consistent with the Independent Hearing Panel's stated approach to focusing increased residential density on generally greenfield land in South Wānaka.
- Review resident awareness and participation during the Urban Intensification Variation, including how affected property owners were informed of the proposed changes and whether the absence of submissions resulted in the neighbourhood's established character receiving insufficient consideration.
- Consider the historical development framework, including the 2014 developer correspondence, subdivision controls and documented intention to preserve the neighbourhood's low-density, park-like character.
- Restore Rural General zoning or an equivalent low-density classification. We request that QLDC identify and pursue an appropriate lawful planning mechanism to restore the area's previous Rural General zoning, or apply an equivalent lower-density classification that preserves the established character, lot sizes and amenity of Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive.
- Engage directly with affected residents and provide a clear written explanation of the review's findings, the available mechanisms for correcting the zoning and the proposed next steps.
OUR POSITION
We are not opposed to Wānaka's growth or appropriate residential development.
We recognise the need for additional resident-focused housing and support well-planned intensification in suitable locations.
However, there is a fundamental difference between greenfield land intended for substantial new residential development and an established low-density neighbourhood deliberately planned and developed with a different character.
Many residents did not understand that their neighbourhood was being considered for such significant intensification and consequently did not participate in the formal submission process.
A lack of objections should not be interpreted as consent to a fundamental change in the character of an established residential community.
Our request is straightforward: restore Rural General zoning or an equivalent low-density classification that reflects the established character of our neighbourhood.
We are not seeking to prevent reasonable future development, but to ensure that development remains consistent with the area's historical planning intentions, spacious residential sections and park-like environment.
We ask QLDC to investigate how this zoning decision was reached, recognise the concerns of affected residents and take appropriate action to protect the long-term character and amenity of Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive.
281
The issue
Protect the Established Character of Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive. Request for urgent review of Medium Density Residential A (MDRAZ) zoning and restoration to Rural General zoning or an equivalent low-density classification
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of Heritage Park, Heritage Village, Mountain View Drive and the surrounding neighbourhood, formally request that Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) review the inclusion of our established residential area within the Medium Density Residential A Zone (MDRAZ) under the Urban Intensification Variation.
We request that Council restore the area's previous Rural General zoning, or apply an equivalent low-density classification that protects the established character of our neighbourhood.
Our concern is that an established low-density residential neighbourhood appears to have been captured within a rezoning approach intended principally for greenfield development in South Wānaka, without many affected residents understanding the proposed changes or the need to make formal submissions.
We support appropriate residential growth in Wānaka. However, intensification must be carefully planned and respect the established character, historical development protections and legitimate expectations of existing communities.
OUR CONCERNS
1. Inconsistency with the Independent Hearing Panel's stated intentions
The Independent Hearing Panel's recommendations described increased residential density in Wānaka as being focused on the "largely greenfield urban areas of Three Parks and Wānaka South", with MDRAZ applying to "generally greenfield land in Wānaka South."
Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive are established residential neighbourhoods, developed over many years with existing homes, substantial gardens, mature landscaping and community open spaces.
We question whether the inclusion of this established residential area and its immediate interfaces within MDRAZ was consistent with the Panel's stated approach, and whether the zoning boundary appropriately distinguishes existing residential neighbourhoods from greenfield growth areas.
While we recognise that the reference to greenfield land may not have been intended as an absolute restriction, we believe QLDC should explain the planning rationale for including our established neighbourhood within MDRAZ.
2. Lack of resident awareness and meaningful participation
Many residents of Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive were unaware that their established low-density neighbourhood was proposed to be included within Medium Density Residential A zoning, or that formal submissions were required to challenge the proposed changes.
Residents reasonably understood their neighbourhood to be an established residential area, rather than part of the greenfield land identified for substantial intensification in South Wānaka.
We understand that the Independent Hearing Panel received few, if any, submissions opposing MDRAZ in this particular area and consequently may not have specifically examined the implications for existing residents.
The absence of submissions should not be mistaken for community support or acceptance of the rezoning.
For many residents, the significant implications only became apparent when intensive development proposals emerged.
We therefore ask QLDC to consider whether affected residents had a meaningful opportunity to understand and respond to the proposed changes, and whether the established character of the neighbourhood received adequate consideration during the planning process.
3. Established low-density character and historical development assurances
Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive were deliberately established as spacious, low-density residential neighbourhoods.
Heritage Park Lane, for example, contains residential sections generally ranging from approximately 4,000 m2 to 6,100 m2 while Mountain View Drive includes established residential properties of approximately 2,000 m2.
The neighbourhood's mature trees, established gardens and open spaces provide valuable habitat for native birdlife, including tūī, kārearea (New Zealand falcon), korimako (bellbird) and pīwakawaka (fantail), contributing to the distinctive natural character of Heritage Park.
Residents purchased properties and invested in their homes on the basis of the planning controls, subdivision arrangements and neighbourhood character that existed at the time.
Importantly, developer correspondence dating back to 2014 expressly anticipated future development and rezoning pressure while recording an intention to:
- Preserve the low-density, landscaped and park-like character of Heritage Park and Heritage Village.
- Provide certainty to existing residents regarding future development.
- Maintain the established residential environment through subdivision and development controls.
These documents demonstrate that the neighbourhood's character was deliberately planned and protected, rather than occurring by chance.
While planning rules can change, we believe these historical assurances and the expectations upon which residents purchased and developed their properties deserve proper consideration.
4. A substantial and inappropriate change in zoning
The area is identified as Rural General under the Operative District Plan, while the Proposed District Plan maps incorporating the Urban Intensification Variation identify it as Medium Density Residential A.
This represents a substantial change in the planning treatment of an established residential neighbourhood.
Other nearby established residential areas have been assigned lower-density classifications, including Large Lot Residential and Rural Residential.
We question why Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive have been treated differently when their existing lot sizes, development patterns and landscaped character are consistent with lower-density residential environments.
We believe the previous Rural General zoning, or an equivalent low-density classification, is more appropriate for this established neighbourhood than MDRAZ.
Such a classification would allow reasonable future development while protecting the spacious sections, landscaped character and residential amenity that define the area.
5. The consequences of the rezoning are already becoming apparent
Two recent resource consent matters demonstrate the potential consequences of applying intensive residential zoning to this established neighbourhood:
- RM260826 - 3 Mountain View Drive: A proposed development of 66 residential units on approximately 10,000 m2, including residential visitor accommodation for up to 365 days per year, raising significant concerns regarding Airbnb accommodation prioritisation over local housing, density, traffic, privacy and neighbourhood character.
- RM260615 - Lot 17: An approved, non-notified subdivision involving the cancellation of historic development restrictions, despite concerns raised by neighbouring residents.
These applications illustrate how the current planning framework may enable development fundamentally at odds with the established character and historical development intentions of Heritage Park and Heritage Village.
They reinforce the need to reconsider whether MDRAZ is an appropriate zoning classification for this established neighbourhood.
6. Transparency and confidence in the planning process
Residents deserve to understand how the MDRAZ boundary was determined, particularly where its application appears inconsistent with the Panel's stated emphasis on generally greenfield growth.
We believe QLDC should clearly explain:
- Whether Heritage Park, Heritage Village and their immediate interfaces were included in the originally notified zoning maps.
- What planning assessments and recommendations supported their inclusion within MDRAZ.
- Whether the established residential character and historical development controls were specifically considered.
- How affected residents were informed of the proposed changes and their opportunity to make submissions.
- Whether the final zoning boundary reflects a deliberate planning decision or an unintended outcome of the broader South Wānaka rezoning.
Given the potentially irreversible consequences of intensive development, this review should be transparent, timely and communicated directly to affected residents.
OUR REQUEST TO QLDC
We respectfully request that Council:
- Formally review the MDRAZ zoning boundary affecting Heritage Park, Heritage Village, Mountain View Drive and their immediate interfaces, including the original notified zoning, submissions, planning assessments, Panel recommendations and final planning maps.
- Determine whether the inclusion of this established residential neighbourhood was consistent with the Independent Hearing Panel's stated approach to focusing increased residential density on generally greenfield land in South Wānaka.
- Review resident awareness and participation during the Urban Intensification Variation, including how affected property owners were informed of the proposed changes and whether the absence of submissions resulted in the neighbourhood's established character receiving insufficient consideration.
- Consider the historical development framework, including the 2014 developer correspondence, subdivision controls and documented intention to preserve the neighbourhood's low-density, park-like character.
- Restore Rural General zoning or an equivalent low-density classification. We request that QLDC identify and pursue an appropriate lawful planning mechanism to restore the area's previous Rural General zoning, or apply an equivalent lower-density classification that preserves the established character, lot sizes and amenity of Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive.
- Engage directly with affected residents and provide a clear written explanation of the review's findings, the available mechanisms for correcting the zoning and the proposed next steps.
OUR POSITION
We are not opposed to Wānaka's growth or appropriate residential development.
We recognise the need for additional resident-focused housing and support well-planned intensification in suitable locations.
However, there is a fundamental difference between greenfield land intended for substantial new residential development and an established low-density neighbourhood deliberately planned and developed with a different character.
Many residents did not understand that their neighbourhood was being considered for such significant intensification and consequently did not participate in the formal submission process.
A lack of objections should not be interpreted as consent to a fundamental change in the character of an established residential community.
Our request is straightforward: restore Rural General zoning or an equivalent low-density classification that reflects the established character of our neighbourhood.
We are not seeking to prevent reasonable future development, but to ensure that development remains consistent with the area's historical planning intentions, spacious residential sections and park-like environment.
We ask QLDC to investigate how this zoning decision was reached, recognise the concerns of affected residents and take appropriate action to protect the long-term character and amenity of Heritage Park, Heritage Village and Mountain View Drive.
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 14 October 2026