Oh deer – rental creates a stink with neighbours

Two Richmond neighbours have had a ‘‘gutsful’’ of living next door to a short-term rental property, and want the Tasman District Council to take action.

The neighbours – who live next to and in front of the property, which has been listed on several short-term rental websites, including Airbnb – say they have faced a plethora of problems over the two years it has been used for short-term accommodation.

They say the property was rented for several weeks to deer cullers, who dumped half a dozen deer and goat heads on the lawn, attracting flies and maggots.

The neighbours, who did not want to be named, said they had come home to find men urinating on their shrubs. Rubbish had spilled from the property’s bins on to their front garden.

One of the neighbours said she had been unable to leave her home on several occasions because her car had been blocked in by guests at the property.

Security lights had blazed into one of their bedrooms through the night, they had had washing strung across their fence, and they had put up with loud music and parties.

One neighbour said she came out of her shower to find a child, who was a guest next door with his family, sitting on her bed.

An email to one of the neighbours from the council, which Stuff has seen, told her that the council did not ‘‘routinely enforce rental rules as commercial activity’’.

‘‘This is simply due to the many hundreds of rentals in the district at any given time, and the fact that the environmental impact is no different than a standard residential activity,’’ the email said.

However, the neighbour strongly objects to that reasoning, saying it is hard to deal with problems arising with people who are completely unknown to them.

‘‘You can develop a relationship with your neighbours. You can’t develop a relationship with a company that runs an Airbnb,’’ she said.

She argued that it was one thing to rent a bach in an isolated area, but quite another in a high-density housing neighbourhood.

In a written response to Stuff, the council said a property of this nature was a ‘‘permitted activity, which meant resource consent was not required’’ for up to a maximum of four visitors at any time, and [provided] it was not undertaken on a site located in a cul-de-sac or on shared access or a private way. ‘‘Otherwise a resource consent may be required.’’

One of the neighbours has written to the council, pointing out that the driveway is shared, and at approximately 3m wide would be impossible to divide.

But the council said in response to questions from Stuff that the property was ‘‘not on a shared accessway, and so the exclusion rule for the residential zone regarding shared accessways do[es] not apply’’.

The neighbours who spoke to Stuff said the property was in constant use, and though not all guests had caused problems, it had hosted up to seven guests at a time.

According to council rules, if the dwelling is to be occupied for more than half the year for visitor accommodation staying less than three months at a time, it is a commercial activity not permitted in a residential zone, so a resource consent would be required.

The council confirmed that the property in question did not have resource consent. If a consent was required for a property for any activity, the neighbour would be notified and have the opportunity to respond to the application.

One of the neighbours said the council did not recognise that the activity at the property could have such an impact.

‘‘They’ve just turned a deaf ear to it.’’