Cable Bay Wine Limited, a well-known vineyard and function venue located on Waiheke Island, was sentenced yesterday in the Auckland District Court for breaching noise restrictions imposed under its resource consent. The Judge’s verdict brings the protracted case to a close.
The Court imposed a fine of $50,000, highlighting the company’s failure to manage noise levels and protect the surrounding rural-residential community from excessive noise pollution.
The case stems from a noise complaint received on 23 June 2018, where the venue exceeded permissible noise limits as outlined in the Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands section). The offence was in breach of Section 9 (3) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Auckland Council prosecuted the case, initially seeking a fine of $60,000. However, the defendant argued for a significantly reduced penalty, citing compliance with broader noise limits in the area and requesting either a discharge or a nominal fine of between $500 and $5,000.
In delivering his verdict, Judge David Kirkpatrick stressed the importance of adhering to specific resource consent conditions, particularly in sensitive rural-residential areas where community wellbeing is at stake.
"The Court must hold offenders accountable for harm caused to the community, particularly when they have been made aware of ongoing issues and failed to act. Cable Bay Wine's continued breaches and lack of proactive measures reflect a high degree of culpability,” said Judge Kirkpatrick.
The Court dismissed the defendant’s argument that compliance with general noise limits should mitigate their liability.
"The fact the noise levels may have complied with broader plan limits is irrelevant in this case.
“The prosecution stems from a clear breach of consent conditions, which are tailored to the specific environment and community impact," the Judge emphasised.
The Court’s decision was welcomed by Auckland Council with David Pawson, Team Leader Investigations, highlighting the significance of the ruling in upholding the integrity of the resource consent framework.
"This outcome sends a clear message to businesses operating under resource consents: compliance is not optional.
“Resource consent conditions exist to balance commercial activities with the rights of the community, and breaching those conditions will have consequences," Mr Pawson said.
Mr Pawson also pointed to the history of noise complaints against Cable Bay Wine as evidence of the company’s awareness of the issue.
“Cable Bay Wine’s failure to address ongoing noise complaints and mitigate its impact on neighbours demonstrated a disregard for their obligations.”
Chair of the council’s Regulatory and Safety Committee Councillor Josephine Bartley said she was pleased the Court has recognised the seriousness of this breach and reinforced the importance of protecting community amenity.
“This judgment underscores the need for businesses to balance their commercial operations with community responsibilities and reaffirms Auckland Council’s commitment to ensuring compliance with resource consent conditions,” she said.
While this sentencing resolves one charge, the Court is still considering an application for costs made by Cable Bay Wine Limited in relation to two additional charges. A decision on that matter is expected in the coming weeks.
In concluding remarks, Judge Kirkpatrick reiterated the broader purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 in promoting sustainable development and protecting community interests.
"Businesses must understand that protecting community amenity is a fundamental aspect of sustainable development. Non-compliance will be met with appropriate sanctions to deter future breaches and uphold the integrity of the regulatory system."
