Gibbston Vines Ltd v Queenstown Lake District Council

Gibbston Vines Ltd v Queenstown Lake District Council
Thursday 3 October, 2019
The Environment Court considered the effect of a proposed residential subdivision in an outstanding natural landscape area containing several viticulture businesses. The development proposal was for one commercial block (“Lot 1”) to be replanted in grapes and six residential blocks. The proposal was a discretionary activity as the proposed subdivision was located within a special character area under the Proposed District Plan. In considering the proposal, the Court considered the following issues:
Life supporting capacity of the soil
The Court had to decide how to interpret ‘life supporting capacity of soils.’ In doing so, the Court referred to the underlying Policy which was to “avoid the adverse effects of subdivision and development on the life-supporting capacity of soil.” The Court found that once rural land was subdivided for residential purposes, the potential of the soil for growing life-supporting crops was largely irreversibly curtailed. The Court held that the Proposal would result in the loss of life supporting capacity of Melanic soil.
Rural production potential
This Court considered whether the Site would be reasonably capable of making an economic return from viticulture. It found that the economic viability of the Gibbston Valley as an acclaimed wine producing area did not depend on it being the sole source of grapes as it is usual practice for wine growers to source their grapes from a variety of locations. Ultimately, the Court held that the Proposal would not preclude a winegrowing and supply business from Lot 1, as a prudent business would ensure it had reliable grape sources outside the Valley.
Reverse Sensitivity
In considering reverse sensitivity risk, the Court took account of the policy of the Gibbston Valley Character Zone which identified the risk of conflict between the residential development and rural production activities, and prioritised protection of the Zone’s economic viability. The purpose of the policy was to mitigate any adverse effects from residential usage on the economic values of the Zone, in particular, complaints about noise arising from bird scaring and frost protection. The Court concluded that the proposal fell “materially short in its management of the risk of conflict between residential development of the Site and existing and potential viticulture.” The developer had intended to mitigate the risks through placing covenants on the residential titles, but the Court held that these would be ineffective and that an acoustic assessment was necessary to determine whether the aspects of reverse sensitivity are properly managed.
Landscape character or amenity values
The Court decided that it had to use the purpose of the Character Zone to interpret the Zone’s objectives and policies. The Court thought that the overall intention was to maintain and enhance the productive character of the existing landscape and protect it from significant degradation by further residential intensification. The Court found that the residential intensification in the Proposal would degrade the character of the landscape mainly because of the high visual prominence of the proposed building platforms.
Conclusion
This case provides useful guidance on how the Environment Court will approach issues around soils, rural productivity, and reverse sensitivity, as well as looking at how the Court will interpret policies around special Character Zones. However, what is particularly interesting about this case, is that the Court decided that there were only a few distinct problems with the developer’s proposal, so decided to give the developer the opportunity to go away and try to fix the proposal, rather than just declining it. It will be interesting to see whether the Environment Court adopts this approach on a regular basis.
For assistance with questions relating to this article, please contact .
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
