Supreme Court denies Canyon Vineyard's appeal in land subdivision case

The Supreme Court has rejected Canyon Vineyard's appeal in a land subdivision case, involving the issue of "kaitiakitanga", the Māori concept of guardianship and protection.

In Canyon Vineyard Limited v Central Otago District Council [2023] NZSC 108, Bendigo Station Ltd. owns a large farming property in Central Otago. It sought resource consent to subdivide an area of its land. Canyon Vineyard Ltd., which owns neighbouring land and operates a vineyard, restaurant, and function centre, opposed Bendigo's application.

After the Central Otago District Council granted consent for the subdivision, Canyon appealed the decision to the Environment Court. The court upheld the council's decision. Canyon's subsequent appeal to the High Court against the Environment Court's decision was dismissed. Seeking further action, Canyon applied for leave to appeal directly to the court of appeal, which was declined. Despite these previous rejections, Canyon persisted in seeking leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The grounds of Canyon's appeal focused on alleged errors of law, primarily related to the environment court's treatment of evidence on "kaitiakitanga" and the council's plan to "maintain where practical enhance rural amenity values." 

Kaitiakitanga

In its decision declining the application for leave to appeal on this point, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the Environment Court had determined in its interim judgment that the appeal was limited to the visual impacts of the proposed lots and the implications of the effects of the proposal within the framework of the council's plan. The Supreme Court agreed that Canyon's sole director was entitled to express his views on the rural amenities in such context, but these were necessarily objective. The court emphasised that they needed to be objectively tested for reasonableness. The court pointed out that the expert evidence about visual effects was that these were no more than minor.

The Supreme Court noted the Court of Appeal's finding that the evidence had been considered and rejected in the courts below for reasons that were explained and that did not give rise to an error of law.

Rural amenity values

The Environmental Court noted that the rural amenity values are created by the "open space, landscape, natural character and built environment values of the rural environment". It was relevant to the assessment of amenity values that this land was in the Other Rural Landscape (ORL) category and was not an Outstanding Natural Landscape, Significant Amenity Landscape or Significant Natural Area.

The Environment Court accepted the evidence of two experts that the rural amenity values of Canyon's function Centre would be maintained and that the development on Bendigo's land would be compatible with the surrounding environment. The high court upheld this finding. Additionally, the court of appeal also said that Canyon's view that any visible building negatively impacted the rural amenity values on the site reflected a misunderstanding of the plan.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no exceptional circumstances justifying the application for leave to appeal to the highest court, particularly in light of a full and detailed leave judgment from the court of appeal.

In any event, the Supreme Court held that while the issue of the approach to kaitiakitanga and the proper interpretation of plans could be matters of general or public importance, this case rests purely on the particular circumstances of the case. Further, the court found nothing raised by Canyon suggested a risk of a miscarriage of justice. In addition, Canyon's application is out of time.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the case.