Skip to main content Skip to navigation within this section

Proposed Change 60 - Appeals and Consent Orders

Home » My Council » Key documents & plans » Tasman Resource Management Plan » TRMP changes » Operative changes and variations » Change 60: Rural Land Use and Subdivision Policy Review » Proposed Change 60 - Appeals and Consent Orders

This page contains information about the appeals lodged on the Plan Change; the status of the appeals and the consent orders approved by the Environment Court that resolved the appeals.

As at July 2018, all the appeals have been resolved by consent order except for the Mackenzie appeal relating to the scope of the Plan Change (detail below) which awaits a decision of the High Court.

Now that most appeals are resolved, the Plan Change provisions that are not under appeal can be treated as 'effectively operative’.

The proposed provisions still under appeal have legal effect but decision-making processes affected by these provisions take account of the fact that the provisions are under appeal.

Plan Text Affected by Consent Orders

30 metre Setback for Dwellings and Habitable Buildings from Internal Boundaries

The consent order resolved appeal requests submitted by Boomerang Farms Ltd & M V Wratten, M F & L K Manson and R Bradley.

Essentially the rule notified at ‘decisions’ stage remains, except that in the Rural 1 and 2 zones:

  • there is a new, additional matter to guide decision making where a site cannot meet the 30m setback due to shape etc and additional explanation in the reasons for the rules
  • where the boundary is to a site that is less than 2,500sqm, the setback is 5m instead of 30m - the reason for this is that it allows for the clustering of residential activity where it is unnecessary to protect productive opportunity due to the small size of the site.

Consent Order: Boomerang Farm Ltd & Others v TDC

Definition of Rural Character and Management of Reverse Sensitivity

The consent order resolved appeal requests submitted by Horticulture NZ relating to:  

  • the definition of ‘rural character’ and reference to ‘rural character’ in assessment criterion Schedule 16.3A(2)
  • policies 7.2.3.1F and 7.2.3.2 to more clearly protect existing plant and animal production activities from the potential reverse sensitivity effects of new activities.

Consent Order: Horticulture NZ v TDC

Setbacks for Intensive Poultry Farming Activities

The consent order resolved appeal requests submitted by Ewing Poultry Ltd.

The order differentiates between the setback for sheds and enclosures that house poultry and poultry body part/offal processing and composting activity. The setback for sheds and enclosures from farm boundaries was reduced from 170m to 100m.

The appeal and consent order only addressed setbacks for poultry farming activities from farm boundaries in the Rural 1 zone.

Proposed Variation 2 to PC60 proposes to:

  • extend the consent order provisions to the Rural 2 and Rural 3 zones
  • amend the setback for new (off farm) habitable buildings to intensive poultry sheds to reflect the setback for intensive poultry farming sheds from boundaries.

Consent Order: Ewing Poultry v TDC

Management of Heavy Vehicle Use in Rural Zones

The consent order resolved appeal requests submitted by Fulton Hogan Ltd and Boomerang Farms Ltd & M V Wratten.

The consent order amended the rule to:

  • include an additional exception for heavy vehicles directly associated with any temporary construction, maintenance or demolition work  
  • raise the permitted number of heavy vehicles from one to two in the Rural Residential zone
  • include ‘home occupations’ in the list of business activities managed by the rule, but only for the Rural 1 zone.

Consent Order: Fulton Hogan & Another

Variation 2 proposes to extend the addition of ‘home occupation’ to Rural 2 and 3 and the Rural Residential zone.

Plan Text Affected by Appeals

To help understanding of the Plan during this appeal period, below is a link to the parts of the proposed Plan Change affected by the appeals. The proposed provisions that can be ‘treated as effectively’ operative are shown in red, while the proposed provisions that have legal effect but are under appeal are highlighted in yellow.

Note: These documents are for guidance only. Please check with the Environment Court for the latest status of appeals (tel: 04 9188300).

Appeals Received

A list of Plan Change 60 appeals that Council knows about as at 24 February 2017 is listed below.

Please note that this list may be incomplete. Sometimes Council receives copies of the appeals several days after they are filed with the Court and sometimes it does not receive a copy at all. Please check directly with the Environment Court in Wellington to obtain up-to-date and complete information about appeals filed against Plan Change 60 (phone 04 9188300).

Appellant: Boomerang Farms Ltd and M V Wratten

The provisions appealed against are:
(a)  The changes to rules 17.5.3 2(e) and 17.7.3.2(f) which provide for a 30m setback for habitable buildings from internal boundaries in the Rural 1 and Rural 3 zones.  The appellants request that the rules are deleted and a 10m setback is provided for.
(b)  Rule 17.5.2.1(a)(xiv) which limits the parking and storage of more than two heavy vehicles (other than those directly associated with plant and animal production) in the Rural 1 zone. The appellants request that the rule is deleted.

Appellant: Fulton Hogan Ltd

Fulton Hogan Ltd has appealed the provision in condition 17.5.2.1(a)(xiv), the similar provisions in the Rural 2, 3 and Rural Residential zones and the temporary activity provisions in 16.8.2.1A that limits the maintenance, parking or storage of heavy vehicles not associated with plant and animal production activity. The reason for the appeal is that the provisions preclude the temporary storage of vehicles when undertaking works, i.e., what constitutes a “temporary” activity is not specified in the Plan.  

Appellant: Ewing Poultry Ltd

Ewing Poultry Ltd has appealed the provision in condition 17.5.2.1(n) and the equivalent provision in the Rural 2, 3 and Rural Residential zones that states that setbacks for intensive livestock farming that is poultry farming is 170m from site boundaries. The reason for the appeal is that the relevant definitions do not distinguish between small/free-range poultry farming and intensive poultry farming in cages, barns or sheds and it is inappropriate to have a setback of 170m for free-range farming.

Appellant: Horticulture New Zealand

Horticulture NZ has appealed the following provisions and requested in its submission:

  • The proposed definitions of ‘artificial shelter’, ‘building’ and ‘shelter’: That a definition of the term ‘artificial crop protection structures’ and among other things, requested that ‘artificial crop protection structures’ were excluded from the definition of a ‘building’ and included in the definition of ‘rural character’. 
  • Policy 7.1.3.6F: That the proposed policy be amended to specifically refer to the retention of rural character and the avoidance of potential reverse sensitivity effects.
  • Policy 7.2.3.1F: That the proposed policy be amended to "avoid" rather than "discourage" residential activity in rural locations outside the Rural 3 and Rural Residential zone, on land having high productive value in the Rural 1 and 2 zones.
  • Policy 7.2.3.2(d): That the proposed policy be amended to specifically refer to the avoidance of potential reverse sensitivity effects.
  • Schedule 16.3A(2): That the criterion be amended to refer to ‘rural character’ in addition to ‘amenity’.
  • Rule 17.5.3.1(kb), 17.6.3.1(n) and 17.7.3.1(ga): A reason why the rules propose a 5m rather than a 30m setback for habitable buildings in the Rural 3 zone on a site located in a subdivision consented before 30 January 2016 and in the Rural 1 and 2 zones where the boundary is to a Residential, Rural Residential or Rural 3 zone.

Appellant: M F & L K Manson

The Mansons are appealing all the provisions in 17.5.3, 17.6.3, 17 7.3 and 17.8.3 that increase the boundary setback for dwellings/habitable buildings from 5 metres to 30 metres in the Rural 1, 2, 3 and Rural Residential zones.

Appellant: Ralph Bradley

Ralph Bradley is appealing provisions in 17.5.3.1 (kb), 17.5.3.2 (e)(i), and 17.6.3 (n)(i) that increase the boundary setback for dwellings/habitable buildings from 5 metres to 30 metres in the Rural 1 and 2 zones.

Appellant: Catharine Mackenzie (member of Awaroa Inlet Group)

Catherine Mackenzie is appealing that PC 60 did not remove ‘Awaroa’ from the locations referred to in Rule 16.3.8.7 which prohibit subdivision in various locations, including the Awaroa Rural Residential zone.