A group of Cromwell neighbours met to discuss their concerns about the Central Otago District Council approving a 70-person two-storey workers motel on a single residential section in Cromwell.

A group of Central Otago residents is outraged a 70-person, 19-unit complex has been consented without public notification in their neighbourhood.

The development, which includes provision for 36 car parks and an onsite manager, is proposed for 43 Shortcut Rd – a single residential site in a Residential Resource Area in Cromwell.

Sixteen people, from 11 households in the neighbourhood, with apologies from six other households, gathered on Saturday to discuss their concerns about the proposed development.

Andy Wilkinson said the Central Otago District Council had incorrectly granted approval for "a workers' motel" and allowing the development to go through without notification was a "clear failure".

"This application was not notified and avoided scrutiny and right of review by residents. It is our firm belief this application should not have been approved. This is a workers motel – not residential. It does not fit the description of residential and as a motel comes under Travellers Accommodation. Numerous elements demonstrate this so the definition simply taken from the developers application should clearly have had more scrutiny. Travellers Accommodation is a non-complying activity."

To think the development of a 70-person, 36-car park development on a single residential section in the middle of a single-dwelling, low-density residential subdivision would not adversely affect the amenity values of the neighbours was "nonsense", he said.

"It grossly mis-states the impact on property values, noise, traffic, security and the character of the area. This should have been obvious to the planning department and warranted notification.

"Not only do we feel the council has failed to properly assess and review this application with regard to these specific planning and administrative issues, but we also believe the council has failed both in the way that this approval proceeded, and in the subsequent responses we received, showing a blatant disregard for the impact this development has on the quality of lifestyle that we anticipated in buying property within this Residential Resource Area 6 district."

Approval also opened up the "Pandora's box" of further development of this type on their doorstep, he said.

"The council's responsibility is to its residents and in this instance, it has failed. While as an employer of seasonal workers we understand the need for workers' accommodation in the region, the location of development should not degrade neighbourhoods, fail to meet planning standards and be processed on expediency rather than correctness."

The residents wanted the council to place a moratorium on the development while a "proper" assessment was conducted.

Council planning and environment executive manager Louise van der Voort said the application received was for 19 residential units and the district plan provided for multi-unit residential activity as a discretionary activity.

"This means that council's discretion is restricted to the matters listed, which are about amenity values of neighbours in particular access to sunlight, maintenance of privacy the adverse effects of noise, the character of the streetscape and the safe and efficient operation of the roading network. Effectively this is a low level consent, and if those matters of discretion are satisfied, council must grant consent."

The proposal complied with the performance standards in the District Plan in terms of density, height and yard setbacks so was considered to be an appropriate scale for the zoning, she said.

"The site will be landscaped and the buildings partially screened by an earth bund. The setbacks ensure that shading and privacy of neighbours will not be an issue. Overall it is considered that the site is being developed in a manner anticipated in the district plan."

The development was not for workers' accommodation, but it was likely the units would be occupied by people who were working, she said.

"That is not a matter for council. It is important to note that a daily tariff facility, such as a motel, has not been consented. In the event that an application was made for such activity, this would need to go through a consent process which would require written approvals of affected parties, otherwise it would be publicly notified."

Recent amendments to the Resource Management Act precluded notification of applications for residential activity, she said.

"This is not a non-complying activity. It is a restricted discretionary activity ... The application was given appropriate scrutiny."