Is a riding school part of the natural fabric of New Zealand's rural life or is it an activity requiring resource consent from your local council?
A North Canterbury couple have had to take their fight to a council hearing in a bid to operate their riding school and equestrian training facility.
Alastair and Elaine Rutherford own the North Loburn Equestrian Centre, based in an area of mostly lifestyle blocks northwest of Rangiora township.
The couple faced a hearing this week before three Waimakariri District councillors to argue their case for the centre to get a resource consent to operate.
The Rutherfords faced opposition from several neighbours who raised concerns over the noise the operation would generate, visual disturbance, and traffic concerns. They argued it would affect the rural character of the area.
The couple faced the hearing because of the Waimakariri council's view that an equestrian centre, even a small one such as that operated by the Rutherfords, would be covered by its retail rules, which makes it a discretionary activity in the rural zone, not a permitted use.
The council's rule applies in the rural zone to any business offering a good or service directly to the public, where the area used for the retail activity is greater than 20 per cent of the total footprint of all buildings on the site.
In the case of equestrian operations, the council has taken the view that areas used in the care and training of horses - open arenas, tack sheds, stables, yarding and the like - constitute part of the retail area and therefore a resource consent is required.
A report from a council planner recommended consent be granted, but on terms that the Rutherfords said would curtail their ability to operate the business effectively. They said they wanted the right to run their business without unreasonable restrictions.
The Rutherfords told Councillors Dan Gordon, Elaine Cole and Roger Blair that they bought the property on Harpers Road in February 2006 with the intention of setting up an equestrian business. They began operating shortly after.
The business remained low key for a time due to other commitments, but in 2009 they began operating as the North Loburn Equestrian Centre and invested in extra facilities. These included new fencing, pens and yards.
They established a core base of clients and said they generally found their neighbours and local community very supportive.
In May, the council contacted them about an anonymous telephone complaint from a neighbour over traffic generated from a dressage training day.
The Rutherfords said they received a letter from Jamie Woods, from the council, about the complaint.
"Mr Woods wrote again on May 8 informing us that he had considered our equestrian activities in the context of very recent legal advice on the issue of retail activity ... he concluded that it would be very likely that certain elements of our activities would be considered retail ...
"We tried to argue our case with the council and applied for a waiver of consent but this was rejected on the grounds a formal complaint had been made against us and we were left with three options - close our business, legally challenge the council's interpretation of the rules or comply with the request to apply for resource consent.
"We chose to apply for resource consent since we did not have the resources to mount a legal challenge."
The Rutherfords estimated the most number of participants at their property on any one day would be 30, including spectators, for training days. These would be held no more than nine times a year.
Consent bid attracts considerable interest
The bid by the operators of the North Loburn Equestrian Centre to obtain a resource consent has generated considerable interest across the Waimakariri District.
About 80 people turned up to watch proceedings. Most concern centres around precisely how the council is applying its retail rules to equestrian businesses.
District plan manager Victoria Caseley addressed the public before the formal hearing commenced.
Caseley noted that several emails had been circulating about the council's position and she said she wanted to clarify several points.
The council's retail rule applies in the rural zone to any business offering a good or service directly to the public, where the area used for the retail activity is greater than 20 per cent of the total footprint of all buildings on the site. On current council interpretation, this would appear to include open arenas, yards, stables, barns - any area used for the training of riders and care of horses.
Caseley said: "If you had an arena, where you chose to allow your friends to come and use it. That is not retail activity. It is not public use. It is not a public service.
"Those who agist one or two horses for trainers. If you are not advertising [the service], that is not a public use.
"However, if you are publicly advertising for riding lessons or the use of facilities, then under our district plan that is deemed to be a retail activity [that] needs a resource consent."
This, she said, was nothing new, and had been in the district plan since 1998.
Before then, the district was made up of Eyre, Oxford, Rangiora District and Hurunui councils.
"From the early 1980s you always needed a resource consent for horse training establishments and riding schools in Eyre County and Rangiora District."
In Oxford and Hurunui, the likes of racing stables were permitted activities but they were still required to meet certain conditions.
Caseley said she was happy to meet groups to discuss the situation in more detail.
"We are not going out to look for trouble, but I am concerned that the right information is getting out to you."
|
|
The Rutherfords said they accepted many of the findings of council resource management planner Garry Blay, including that noise and traffic effects would be minor and that visual effects could be reduced by planting.
"However, we strongly disagree with Mr Blay's conclusion that we are an intensive activity and that our equestrian business does not sit comfortably with the expected form, function, amenity of character of the area.
"Horses and horse-related businesses are a very strong feature of rural North Canterbury. The Waimakariri District Council has six active pony clubs. Horses and ponies are very popular on the district's many lifestyle blocks."
The Rutherfords argued that Blay's report put too much weight on the submissions of objectors and it highlighted "perceived" adverse effects.
"The report also fails to recognise the significant community benefits that arise from our activity and the considerable level of support we have received from the community."
They said the proposed restrictions imposed on the business to mitigate what Blay described as "uncharacteristic levels of activity" would have serious implications on the business and rule out many aspects of its activities - holiday programmes, clinics and training days.
"In our view the report is biased in terms of the negative effects and overly punitive in terms of the impact of mitigation measures on our business.
"In more general terms, we are very concerned that the council is using our particular case to establish a new regulatory regime on equestrian businesses across the Waimakariri District.
"The council has no knowledge of the scale of the industry and its economic importance in the Waimakariri District.
"The council would appear to have little understanding of the many very positive social and community benefits of horses for sport and recreation, and appears to have had no other complaints regarding equestrian businesses in the district, so this major rural industry has only minor effects on the rural population.
"We are not convinced," the couple contended, "that the council is right in its interpretation of its planning rules and the way it is applying those rules to our business or other equestrian businesses in the future.
"We believe the council has no comprehension of the consequences of its actions on the considerable economic or social and community benefits that sector brings to Waimakariri.
"To us it seems ridiculous that the council's rules are, effectively, that equestrian businesses in rural areas are less appropriate than, say, a small engineering workshop, which could easily be classed as a permitted activity."
Blay, in his report, said the Rutherford's four-hectare property was in the rural zone, with access from Yaxleys Road.
The Rutherfords, he said, had received the signed approval from four households, but three submissions were received in opposition.
"In this case, the site is within a rural zone," he said, "with an associated community expectation of open space an farming-related activities, and this is largely reflected in the existing character and circumstances of the general area.
"While the proposal encompasses an activity consistent with a rural area, the relatively intensive nature of the activity is not typical of a rural area.
"The proposal is to establish and operate, relative to the area in which it is located, a relatively high intensity retail activity ... I consider there is the potential for adverse effects to rural and visual amenity of more than a minor nature."
Blay said he believed these adverse effects could be minimised by restricting participant numbers at training events and limiting the hours of operation.
Blay recommended consent be granted subject to conditions that included 9am-6pm weekday operation and 9am-4pm on Saturdays, with no Sunday or public holiday events permitted. He proposed that no more than five participants be allowed on the site at any one time.
Blay said opponents' submissions were useful in identifying key perceived harmful effects, the general points being that it would affect the area's rural character, would create adverse visual effects for neighbours, and a traffic hazard from roadside parking.
"Submitters generally seem prepared to accept a low-intensity training facility catering for small groups only; particularly if restricted to normal working hours and additional boundary plantings prevent visibility of the activity."
Three submissions were made by neighbours raising concerns about the centre. Geoff and Mandy Horne, Brian Molyneux and Tracey Wathan, and John and Marion Wenmechers attended the hearing to outline their concerns.
Their worries centred around the noise generated by the operation, the visual disturbance the centre would create, and traffic movements to and from the property.
They argued for varying degrees of restrictions on the operation.
Planner Chrisie Sargent, of Eliot Sinclair and Partners, made a submission on behalf of the Rutherfords.
Sargent said the Rutherfords ran a small riding school and horse-training business.
She said the couple had believed it was a permitted activity, a view apparently shared by most, if not all of the equestrian businesses in the area.
Sargent raised questions around the council's current interpretation of the district plan as it applied to retailing in the rural zone. Rider-training is by appointment only, she said, and is not like hiring out equipment, selling stock feed or selling arts and craft.
The council appeared to have adopted a "catch-all" interpretation.
An equestrian business such as that operated by the Rutherfords could only be considered to be of low intensity and would seem a comfortable fit within the rural zone.
She noted that Yaxleys Road, which is where people gained access to the centre, was already used regularly by trucks because of quarrying and logging in the area, and was also in regular use by agricultural machinery.
Sargent argued that there was a lack of clarity around definitions within the council's retail rules and that there was room for a range of interpretations. She argued that permitted-use status would sit more comfortably with riding schools than the current council view that they would be a discretionary activity requiring a resource consent.
The councillors have reserved their decision.
Facebook page
Twitter
HOME SITES 
