1 of 12

District Plan Hearing Submission

NIGEL & PHILIPPA BROOM

15 OCTOBER 2024

2 of 12

Agenda

Introductions and Aim
Case Study
Submission Points (x3)
Conclusion
Appendix 1 (separate document)

Our aim is to protect the amenity of existing residential activities in the General Rural Zone

3 of 12

1 Introductions and Aim

Kia ora. We are Nigel and Pippa Broom – with support today from our neighbours, Tim and Ruth Barton. We have lived in Martinborough for 23 years in the same home in the Rural Zone.
We want to ensure that the amenity of existing residents is not eroded by the effects which rural produce retail activities might bring e.g. noise, reduced privacy and disruption from traffic and large numbers of people.
Our aim is to ensure that the new District Plan provisions:

- are clearly and accurately drafted to ensure certainty,

- effectively protect the amenity of existing residential activities in the General Rural Zone,

- only permit non-primary production activities that will have no more than minor adverse effects, and

- control the effects of new effect-generating activities through the resource consent process.

This aim is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the GRUZ chapter, in particular GRUZ-O2 & O7, and GRUZ-P2, P3, P6, P7, P8 and P9.

We have lived in the rural (special) zone at 27 Huangarua Road in Martinborough for 23 years. Our neighbours, Tim and Ruth Barton, have lived next door at 35 Huangarua Road for 19 years.

Pippa grew up on a farm just north of Martinborough and we made a conscious decision to live in the rural zone on the edge of town so that we could enjoy all that rural living offers: beautiful rural views, a quiet location, privacy, birdsong and so on. At the same time, we happily accept the noises which come with living beside working vineyards – tractors and other machinery operating, frost fans, vineyard workers picking and pruning etc.

Our recent experience with Council and the application of the current District Plan has been poor, largely because of ambiguities in the drafting of the current plan. We want to ensure that the provisions in the new District Plan are drafted clearly and unambiguously so that existing residents will avoid the stress and costs that we have faced recently trying to protect our amenity and enjoyment of living in the rural zone.

We are representing ourselves today with the support of the Bartons. While we have not engaged him to provide evidence to this hearing, we have received expert planning advice and input on our presentation from Phillip Percy, who is a Principal Planner at Kāhu Environmental.

Mr Percy has provided us with some suggested wording amendments to the new rules, which we have attached as a separate document (Appendix 1). He has also provided some explanatory notes to support the suggested amendments.

4 of 12

2. Case Study – Outdoor wine tasting venue

Proposed activity located on our northern boundary:

Stated purpose – to provide a wine tasting and sales venue
Hours 10am to 7pm Thursday to Monday
2 onsite caravans - Caravan 1 selling food (10.5m2) and Caravan 2 selling wine produced offsite (12.6m2)
1 ablution building (24m2)
Decks, pergolas, grassed areas and seating pods
17 car parks (11 along driveway)
Maximum of 68 patrons
Amplified music
Less than 20m from bedroom on our northern boundary and less than 8m from bedrooms on our western boundary

In May 2022, the neighbours on our northern boundary removed a large block of vines and began developing an outdoor wine tasting venue, involving significant earthworks, landscaping, construction, and the development of carparks along their driveway on our western boundary. Details of the proposed activity are on this slide.

We contacted SWDC to enquire what was going on and were advised that Council had issued a Certificate of Compliance for the proposed activity back in December 2021. We knew nothing about this proposed activity or CoC application until the work began six months later. Following our challenge to the legitimacy of that CoC, the applicant lodged a new CoC for the activity in September 2023 (with some amendments). The second CoC application has been on hold pending further information for 12 months.

Since then, we have spent a considerable amount of our time and money, engaging expert planning and legal advisors to challenge Council’s interpretation of the permitted activity rules in the current DP. Work continues on site, including the construction of a 2m high solid paling boundary fence on our northern border - a fence more akin to urban infrastructure. We have significant concerns about the noise generated by the number of people, traffic and amplified music on site. These sounds are very different to the rural sounds of animals and farm machinery.

We remain convinced that the proposed activity will not meet the permitted activity standards under the current District Plan.

The last two years have been very stressful for us. We have incurred costs for professional advisors of over $16k. We consider that the nature and scale of the proposed activity, and its impact on our amenity and enjoyment as neighbours, should have triggered some kind of resource consent process involving our input.

The reason for describing the development next to our property is to give the Hearing Panel a real-life example of activities that are attempting to be established under permitted activity rules.

Our submissions today seek to improve the new District Plan in order to clarify the provisions relating to non-primary production and non-residential activities (including rural produce retail) in the General Rural Zone, particularly where there are existing neighbouring residential activities, so as to protect the amenity of existing residents living within the General Rural Zone and also ensure that investment in developments can be initiated with confidence.

5 of 12

2.1 Aerial Photos

6 of 12

2.2 Ground Plans

7 of 12

2.3 Video demonstrating the serenity

8 of 12

3.1 Submission Points

Submission Point	Plan change part	Provision	Support / Oppose
S219.1	GRUZ	GRUZ-R11	Support in part

Issue	Solution
The scale of activities is not fully taken into account in determining permitted activities in the General Rural Zone. GRUZ-R11 permits ‘rural produce retail’ in the General Rural Zone but limits performance standards to the number of buildings (1), building heights and floor area. There are no standards relating to the scale of activities, as indicated by number of visitors, carparks, expected traffic, total land area of operation, operating hours etc.	Add additional standards relating to the scale of activities, number of visitors etc that trigger resource consent when activities exceed a certain scale. Refer Appendix 1 for recommended changes to GRUZ-R11 and definition of ‘rural produce retail’.

Our aim is to protect the amenity of existing residential activities in the General Rural Zone

The s42A report at para 418 on page 86 states that GRUZ-R11 and the definition of ‘rural produce retail’ is sufficient to manage the scale of activities. We disagree.

GRUZ-R11 restricts the building ground floor area to 40m²and the definition of ‘rural produce retail’ limits the activity only to produce that is grown or produced on the same site. One key issue with the definition of ‘rural produce retail’ is that it refers to the use of ‘land and/or buildings’, whereas the scale of activity in GRUZ- R11 is controlled only by building floor area. There is no control on the area of land that can be used for the activity. GRUZ-R11 also allows the use of ‘structures’ but does not include any size/area limit on those.

None of these aspects consider any other factors that are relevant to the scale or effects of the activity, such as number of visitors, traffic (cars and bikes), noise, or the total area of the site where the activity operates.

A retail activity may not require a large building footprint but could still involve a significant area of land. A good example of this is the proposed activity next door to us where the “buildings” (two caravans and an ablution block totalling 47.1m²) are only a small portion of the area where the activity will take place (i.e. a larger outdoor venue with decks, pergolas, grassed areas, seating pods etc).

The building footprint alone is not a good proxy for the “scale” of an activity. Other factors such as potential number of visitors, traffic, noise and general nature of the activity should also be considered. We recommend additional standards relevant to the scale of activities be added and, if present, will then trigger the need for a resource consent.

The s42A report recommends amending the definition of ‘rural produce retail’ (page 157). These changes seem to be as requested by Hort NZ. The effect of the changes is it broadens the types of activities that qualify as rural produce retail. The recommended changes will allow products produced/manufactured ‘by the same operation’ elsewhere to be sold from the property, even if those products have not been grown or produced on site. There is no limitation on the type of products that can be sold. The addition of ‘by the same operation’ does not make sense in the context of the definition because there is no prior reference to ‘operation’. For these reasons, we consider that the recommended changes should not be accepted.

We are also concerned that the ambiguous wording of the definition of ‘rural produce retail’ and GRUZ-R11 means that activities that are not genuinely rural produce retail activities will attempt to establish under these rules. In the example of the development occurring next to our property, the activity is claimed to be for the purpose of selling wine, however the primary elements of the activity are entertainment and hospitality. We are very concerned that the drafting of the provisions on the Proposed Plan could be interpreted as allowing activities like this, when more comprehensive scrutiny through a resource consent process is actually required.

Our goal is not to constrain reasonable rural produce retail activities, but to ensure the provisions don’t have unintended outcomes. We therefore recommend the amendments to GRUZ-R11 as set out in Appendix 1 (attached separately).

9 of 12

3.2 Submission Points

Submission Point	Plan change part	Provision	Support / Oppose
S219.3	GRUZ	GRUZ – R11	Amend

Issue	Solution
New activities located close to existing residential properties in the General Rural Zone may have a significant impact on the amenity and enjoyment of residents e.g. noise, privacy etc. There are currently no rules relating to the proximity of proposed non-primary production or non-residential activities (including ‘rural produce retail’) to existing residential activity.	Require a resource consent and minimum setback where non-primary production and non-residential activities are proposed within 100 metres of a dwelling on another property. Refer Appendix 1 for recommended changes to GRUZ-R11.

Our aim is to protect the amenity of existing residential activities in the General Rural Zone

The s42A report does not address this submission point and the GRUZ rules are silent on any criteria of proximity of proposed non-primary production or non-residential activities (including rural produce retail) to existing residential activities.

We consider that the close proximity of proposed non-primary production and non-residential activities, including rural produce retail, to residential activities within the General Rural Zone should allow neighbouring residents to be part of a resource consent process especially where the activities may have a significant impact on amenity and enjoyment.

We recommend an amendment to GRUZ-R11 (as set out in Appendix 1, attached separately) which requires resource consent where non-primary production and non-residential activities (including rural produce retail) are proposed within say 100m of a residential dwelling on another property.

We also recommend that a condition of any such consent include a minimum setback of the proposed activity of 100m from the boundary of any existing residential dwelling/activity.

10 of 12

3.3 Submission Points

Submission Point	Plan change part	Provision	Support / Oppose
S219.2	NOISE	NOISE-S1	Oppose

Issue	Solution
The proposed District Plan permits 5dB higher noise levels (up to 50dBs) during the newly proposed evening period from 7pm to 10pm. Increased night time noise levels may have an adverse effect on residents living in the General Rural Zone. Ambient day and night time noise levels in the General Rural Zone are likely to be very low so any noise from non-primary production/non-residential/rural produce retail activities may have significant potential to impact on residential amenity, sleep and wellbeing.	Make the noise standards more stringent in the General Rural Zone, particularly for non-rural and non-residential activities, including rural produce retail and commercial activities.

Our aim is to protect the amenity of existing residential activities in the General Rural Zone

11 of 12

4. Conclusion

Our proposal serves to:

Protect the amenity of existing residential activities in the General Rural Zone.

Ensure the enjoyment of existing residents is not eroded by the effects which rural produce retail activities might bring including:

noise
reduced privacy
disruption from traffic
impact of large numbers of people

3. Maintain the rural character and generally quiet lifestyle offered in the General Rural Zone.

12 of 12

Thank you | Ngā mihi nui