Last year’s decision by Judge John Hassan rejected the company’s assertion the trees were planted as a farming shelterbelt, and decided the planting was a non-complying activity under the Queenstown Lakes District Council’s proposed district plan and a breach of the Resource Management Act.
Waterfall Park Developments Ltd was responsible for the planting of the 500m-long double row of trees on Ayrburn Farm, beside a stretch of the Queenstown Trail, in 2019 and 2020.
The company owns the 42ha farm as well as the neighbouring Waterfall Park property.
It has a staged development plan for the properties that includes a consented but as yet unbuilt 380-room hotel, although its bid to rezone the property to allow the construction of homes and a retirement village has recently been turned down by the council.
The Environment Court case was brought in 2020 by Speargrass Flat Rd residents James and Rebecca Hadley, who argued the true purpose of the planting was to screen buildings and activities the company was planning as part of its development plan.
At that hearing, Mr Meehan argued the planting was a shelterbelt, and the species chosen were commonly used for that purpose.
If its rezoning bid failed, the company was entitled to plant the trees to make the site attractive for potential buyers wanting to farm the land.
However, in his decision 12 months ago, Judge Hassan said the company’s evidence did not satisfy the "primary purpose" test in the proposed district plan for its future use of the site.
The site did not need a shelterbelt for current farming purposes, and it was "speculative" as to whether a future buyer would find the planting beneficial for farming.
At the appeal hearing in December, the company argued Judge Hassan had erred in deciding the planting was not a permitted farming activity and therefore a non-complying activity.
The suitability of the species for use as a shelterbelt was irrelevant in deciding whether the planting fell within the definition of farming activity.
The judge’s interpretation of that definition had the potential to create "unacceptable uncertainty" about what did or did not constitute farming activity.
In her written decision, released this week, Justice Rachel Dunningham said the Environment Court had not erred in its interpretation of what defined a farming activity.
Evidence about the species planted being unsuitable for use as a shelterbelt was relevant, but the judge’s decision did not rely on their suitability or otherwise anyway.
The court’s interpretation of the "primary purpose" test for farming activity was correct, and where there was a question over whether an activity fell within that interpretation, "the onus falls on the landowner to demonstrate it does".
Justice Dunningham also said the court had not erred in concluding the planting, because it did not qualify as a permitted activity, was therefore a non-complying activity.
She dismissed the appeal and reserved her decision on costs.
