Whitford horse riding centre owners challenge land use notice in District Court

Davis Stables on Trig Rd, Whitford - subject of court action. Photo / Google Maps

Owners of a horse riding centre have challenged Auckland Council enforcement action being taken against them, saying they are not operating illegally.

Davis Stables and sole director and shareholder Stephen Trevor Davis, also known as Davis Davis, went to the District Court at Auckland over the council’s case that the land was not zoned as an equestrian centre so it was operating illegally.

The company and Davis wanted the council’s action turfed out so Justice David Kirkpatrick heard that application and issued his decision last month.

He was satisfied there was alleged offending, that this was ongoing and ”a continuing offence” so he refused the defendants’ application for a dismissal.

The council’s case was that the property at 21 Trig Rd was being used as a horse riding centre yet it was zoned rural countryside living which lists equestrian uses as a discretionary activity, needing a resource consent from the council for that to be allowed.

In 2020, the council issued an abatement notice against the defendants.

In 2023, four charges were subsequently filed in the District Court at Manukau giving the date of the offence as on or about January that year.

However, Davis Stables and Davis argued that the abatement notice issued was invalid because it was directed to a company to cease operating an equestrian activity yet did not specify what the offending activity was, beyond reference to an equestrian centre.

The judge said the case hinged on whether an equestrian centre must be a place used for paid horse riding lessons as well as for training, racing or showing horses competitively.

Davis Stables and Davis applied for charges under the Resource Management Act [RMA] to be dismissed because the use of the land is not an equestrian centre as defined under the Auckland Unitary Plan [AUP].

The abatement notice was invalid and the charges had been laid outside the limitation period under the RMA, Davis Stables and Davis argued.

The council opposed the defendants’ actions in their entirety.

The judge noted that an equestrian centre under the AUP was defined as a facility used for

• Paid lessons in horse riding;
• Training, racing or showing horses competitively;
• Including accessory retail, restaurants and cafes and animal feed lots.

The definition of farming under the AUP included keeping or training horses and facilities to keep or training horses such as arenas, for example for dressage, as well as breeding and stables.

Petrina Stokes, representing the defendants, said equestrian activities were more closely related to rural lifestyle than rural production.

The council had presented sufficient evidence of riding lessons occurring on the property but there was no evidence of “training, racing or showing horses competitively”, she argued.

The council had not presented evidence that any activities of the defendants were open to the public. In particular, she submitted that any evidence of advertising or payments only went so far as to indicate commercial relationships which she said did not amount to being open to the public.

But Auckland Council senior prosecutor Steven Boon submitted a photo taken by an enforcement officer last January showing a whiteboard headed Davis Stables, a website address with a bank account and what appeared to be a list of horses which had work done by a farrier.

Boon also referred to the transcript of an interview with Davis where he acknowledged that riders could use his facilities if they wanted to get their own trainers in.

Boon said that indicated the facility was open to the public and argued it was an equestrian centre.

The judge agreed: “I am satisfied that the nature of the alleged offending in this case, being a use of land or an activity, is of an ongoing nature so as to constitute a continuing offence.”

He noted the case had not gone ahead for a full trial but that he was only dealing with the defendants’ application for a dismissal of charges.

“The defendants’ application for dismissal of the charges is refused,” he said.

Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 24 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.