There were no apologies.

Pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Chairman called for late items to be accepted.

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the following late item be accepted for discussion.

- N Worker (Concept Plan)

The item was not on the agenda because information had become available after the agenda deadline.

Discussion on the item could not be delayed because consideration needed to be given to the matter before the next meeting.

HC00/7 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

HC00/8 Carmine/Tregidga CARRIED

There were no matters arising.

On the 24^th December 1999 a notice under Section 31(2) of the Dog Control Act (1996) was served on Michelle Donnelly of 18 Johnston Street, Waihi on the basis of sworn evidence attesting to aggressive behaviour by her entire brindle male dog "Judge" on the 21^st December 1999 at 8.00 am.

A hearing was held on 3 February 2000 and was adjourned.

A reconvened hearing commenced at 9.12 am.

Mr Blackburn and Ms Donnelly attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Blackburn advised that the dog "Judge" was still at large and he presumed it was dead. There had been no reports to the Dog Ranger of the dog being found.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager gave a verbal report. He advised that taking the dog off the property after it had been declared dangerous was actually an offence. He outlined the obligations to the owners when a dog was declared dangerous. The hearing would need to be adjourned due to the dog being missing.

Cr Tregidga advised that the hearing would be adjourned due to the dog being missing, however if the dog did re-appear the owner would be required to let the Dog Ranger know.

Mr Blackburn agreed to this.

The hearing was adjourned at 9.20 am.

RESOLVED

THAT the hearing be adjourned sine die.

HC00/ 9 Tregidga/Gordon CARRIED

The applicants, R & AM Duckworth Ltd (Thames Environmental Consultancy on behalf of) have applied for subdivision consent to subdivide their rural property (legally described as being Lot 1 DPS 4075) to create a lifestyle lot.

A detailed report outlining the application was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 9.15 am. The hearing commenced at 9.22 am.

Mr D Sangster (Thames Environmental Consultancy) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Sangster tabled a written submission outlining the application. He advised that it was proposed to create a small rural-residential lot by way of boundary adjustment. He outlined the two scenarios that were described in the application documents.

He advised that the Planning Report recommended that the application be approved subject to certain conditions, which were generally agreed with. However, the issue of a corner splay between State Highway 25 and Pouarua North Road needed careful consideration. He submitted photographs of the area that would be included in a corner splay.

In conclusion Mr Sangster felt that both limbs of section 105(2A) Resource Management Act 1991 were met by the proposal. Nothing in the proposal compromised the objectives and policies of the Plan or Part II or section 104 of the Act, or had adverse effects.

Mr Sangster referred to condition 9 regarding corner splays as commented on by the District Engineer. He commented that he had difficulty understanding the comments made.

Cr Tregidga advised his understanding of Transit New Zealand’s requirements for matters such as provision of corner splays.

Ms van Steenbergen advised that the application had been looked at by planning staff as a surplus house lot, with an amalgamation of other parts of the farm to create a larger productive title and ensure an additional title is not created. The District Land Registrar has however advised that this could not be achieved by a compulsory amalgamation condition.

She advised that lot 2 could be amalgamated to section 33, though separated by another property. It would then also be possible to subdivide the house off section 33 or section 35 and amalgamate section 35, or the balance of section 35, with Lot 2 and section 33, with a maximum of one dwelling per lot. This would fit the policy. The house on Lot 1 DPS 4075 was surplus to farming requirements but not surplus to the piece of land.

Regarding the corner splay, Transit New Zealand as the Roading Control Authority had requested this. It was felt that the need for a corner splay in this instance was unreasonable.

One other concern that Ms van Steenbergen had was that the road was a limited access highway and Transit New Zealand may be able to impose requirements under this status, notwithstanding the conditions imposed by Council.

Mr Sangster agreed with conditions as discussed by the Committee.

The hearing closed at 10.05 am.

The Committee reserved its decision until consideration had been given to the evidence and all other relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 10.05am until 10.20 am.

The applicant-Mangatarata Developments Ltd had applied for consent to develop an existing farm of 100 hectares into a "rural lifestyle residential development" with 21 dwellings and associated facilities.

A detailed report outlining the application was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 9.45 am. The hearing commenced at 10.20 am.

Mr D Sangster (Thames Environmental Consultancy), Mr and Mrs Parker (Mangatarata Developments Ltd - applicant) and Mr B Millar (Consulting Engineer) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Sangster tabled a written submission in support of the application. He advised that the proposal was to create a rural-residential subdivision of 21 houses within an existing farm, with the 21^st house retained as the Farm Manager’s house. He outlined the application and referred to the Planners’ Report, which was agreed with except for proposed condition 7 regarding the house sites to be created on class IV-VI land should not exceed 8 hectares. It was requested that the sites within the Class II and III land be permitted to be up to 4000 m˛ each in area to allow for sufficient curtilage for privacy planting, and amenity features such as swimming pools and tennis courts.

He advised that three submissions had been received. Site meetings had been held with each of the submitters and issues sorted out.

In conclusion Mr Sangster advised that in his opinion both limbs of sections 105(2A) Resource Management Act 1991 were met by the proposal. Nothing in the proposal compromised objectives and policies of the Plan or Part II or section 104 of the Act or had adverse effects.

Mr Millar added that the concept was a good one and provided the best of both worlds, lifestyle lots and the protection of the productivity of the land.

Cr Tregidga agreed.

Comment was made that the existing farm entrance would be retained.

Ms van Steenbergen commented on the areas for the house sites.

She advised that the conditions that had been suggested in the Planner’s Report would cover all the effects regarding roading, visibility etc.

Regarding the objectives and policies the proposal was not contrary to these. She thought it was a good concept for getting more houses in the rural area with out taking away the rural character and productivity of the land.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager commented that the concept was very sound and genuinely innovative in relation to what had occurred in the Hauraki District in the past.

Regarding water supply, there was a bore that supplied the site. Bore water was proposed to be reticulated for non potable purposes. Rainwater would be collected via roofs for the potable water supply.

The issue of passing bays on the internal roadway was discussed but the full details of these would be determined when the engineering plans were presented for approval.

The hearing adjourned at 11.05am until 11.27 am.

Mr Sangster advised that regarding the existing use rights of the farm entrance to SH 2 the applicant was happy to delete the internal road link beyond house site 1 to the farm driveway. House site areas on Lots 1-4, were intended to be a minimum of 2500 m˛ not a maximum.

The hearing closed at 11.35 am.

The Committee reserved its decision until consideration had been given to the evidence and all other relevant matters.

Mr Sangster congratulated the Planners Ms van Steenbergen and Miss Shanks on the high quality of their reports.

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to Section 105 of the Resource Management Act Council grant consent to this non notified non complying activity application to subdivide Lot 1 DPS 4075, located on the corner of State Highway 25 and Pouarua North Road, into two lots, on the grounds that the proposal is in accordance with the objectives and policies of the District Plan in that:

• It involves the subdivision of a dwelling which will be surplus to the applicants’ requirements as there are two existing dwellings located on adjoining land (Sections 33 and 35 Block IV Piako SD) which they will soon own.
• The proposed boundaries can be located to remove the least area from the balance of the farm, ie: the maximum practical area is being retained in the farm.
• The dwelling is existing so there are no additional effects – traffic, amenity, effluent disposal etc. from creating Lot 1.
• The applicant has proposed to amalgamate nearby land, which they will soon own, into one title.

Subject to the following conditions:

1. That Sections 33 and 35 Block IV Piako SD shall be held in one Certificate of Title and shall constitute one lot being one parcel of land with one continuous perimeter boundary.
2. That a maximum of 1 dwelling in total be allowed on each of Lot 1 and Lot 2.

3. That the subdivider shall provide separate telephone connections for Lots 1 and 2 or written confirmation from the appropriate supply authority that these are available at no extra cost, if these are not already existing.

4. That the effluent disposal field line be shortened to finish not less than 1.5m from the boundary of Lot 1, and that the existing disposal line be removed from that point up to the drain into which it now discharges, and that the existing system be upgraded in accordance with the Building Act and the requirements of the Proposed Waikato Regional Plan.

Note: A Building Consent will need to be obtained before carrying out this work.

5. That there be no construction of fences, excluding a standard post and wire farm fence, or plantings above 1.0m within an area bounded by the dimensions of 40m on the State Highway and 15m on Pouarua North Road to ensure that the existing visibility from this intersection is maintained.
6. That a drainage easement be provided along the road frontage of Lot 1 over the existing Council drain in accordance with Section 9.3.20 (Drains) of the District Plan.
7. That Engineering drawings and specifications covering all engineering works shall be submitted to the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services for consideration and approval prior to commencement of any work.
8. That three copies of "as built" plans shall be submitted to Council upon completion of construction showing the details as required by NZS 4404:1981.
9. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Applicant shall pay Council charges for receiving, processing and granting the Resource Consent.
10. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay an administration fee of $60.00 for administration of the consent.
11. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay all Council’s costs for monitoring this consent including all costs associated with the consideration and certification of plans and details associated with the consent as appropriate.

Advisory Notes:

1. Conditions 2 and 5 are ongoing conditions under Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
2. That the subdivider should provide Lots 1 and 2 with separate metered water connections in accordance with NZS 4404:1981 to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
3. That any water pipes that cross from one proposed Lot to another proposed Lot are to be disabled to avoid cross connection.
4. That the peak summer usage of the public water supply shall not exceed 450 litres/ha/day.

5. That the proposed lots may be subject to short duration local flooding at times of storm events in excess of the drainage design standard, and there is a risk of flooding from tidal and river floods in excess of the design standards of the Piako River Scheme.

6. That non domestic effluent disposal on the balance area should be in accordance with Performance Standard 9.3.8 (Non Domestic Effluent Disposal) of the District Plan.
7. That the applicant should upgrade the existing entrance to Lot 1 as per Transit New Zealand’s letter dated 25 January 2000. That is, the entrance is upgraded to an entrance conforming to "Light vehicles on rural State Highways" diagram attached to Transit New Zealand’s letter.
8. Application will need to be made to Transit New Zealand for a notice pursuant to Section 93 of the Transit New Zealand Act 1989. You are advised to make application to Transit New Zealand for this notice by submitting to them two copies of the following:

• Council’s written approval and conditions
• The underlying certificate(s) of title
• The LTS plan including the number
• The numbers of the allocated titles.

Transit New Zealand may require that the entrance in Advisory Note g) be upgraded before they will issue the Section 93 notice.

REASONS FOR CONDITIONS

1. Condition No. 1 is imposed at the request of the applicant.
2. Condition No. 2 is imposed to maintain the rural amenity of the area.
3. Condition No. 3 is imposed to ensure compliance with Performance Standard 9.3.11 (Telecommunications and Power) of the District Plan.
4. Condition No. 4 is imposed at the request of Council’s Consents Inspector.
5. Condition No. 5 is imposed to ensure that the safety of the State Highway 25/Pouarua North Road intersection is retained.
6. Condition No. 6 is imposed at the request of the Council’s District Engineer.
7. Conditions No’s 7 - 11 are imposed as a matter of Council policy.

HC00/10 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to Section 105 of the Resource Management Act Council grant consent to this notified non complying activity application to create 20 house sites on Lot 1 DPS 69060, Section 14 Block III Piako Survey District, Lot 2 DPS 69060, Lot 1 of Section 1 Block III Piako Survey District and Lots 1 and 2 DPS 81269 on the corner of Coxhead Road and State Highway 2, Mangatarata, and the notified discretionary activity application to depart from Performance Standards 9.3.3 and 9.3.19 on the grounds that:

1. The proposal is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the District Plan as,

a)    Despite the number of dwellings proposed, it will take only a minimal area of land out of production

b)    The dwellings are to be sited so as to minimise the reduction in the open rural character of the area and to maintain the amenities of the area.

2. The pond/wetland development, riparian planting, planting of steep hillsides and amenity planting proposed will enhance the natural environment.

Subject to the following conditions:

1. That all activities to which this consent relate shall be undertaken generally in accordance with the information contained in the application document titled "Proposed Subdivision of Section 14 Block III, Piako SD, Lot 1 and 2 DPS 81269, and Lot 1 of Section I Block III Piako SD, into a farm park with 20 lifestyle residential lots, and a balance farm lot including the existing farm house. State Highway 2 and Coxhead Road, Mangatarata. Mangatarata Developments Limited. Assessment Of Effects in Accordance With Resource Management Act 1991 by Sangster Holdings Limited T/A Thames Environmental Consultancy", in support of its application for the consent required for the establishment of the "rural lifestyle residential development" as subsequently confirmed or modified in the evidence presented at the hearing unless otherwise altered by the consent conditions (which shall prevail).

2. That all the land which is the subject of this proposal (Lot 1 DPS 69060, Section 14 Block III Piako Survey District, Lot 2 DPS 69060, Lot 1 of Section 1 Block III Piako Survey District and Lots 1 and 2 DPS 81269) shall be held in one certificate of title and shall constitute one lot being one parcel of land with one continuous perimeter boundary.

3. That the balance of the farm is owned in common by all of the owners of the house sites and that the Body Corporate shall ensure that this balance area continues to be farmed.

4. That a maximum of 20 house sites be created on the land which is the subject of this proposal.

5. That a maximum of one dwelling per house site be permitted.

6. That once the 20 permitted house sites have been established there shall be no further subdivision of the land which is the subject of this proposal.

7. That a maximum of four house sites (in addition to the existing farmhouse) be created on the class I-III land. The total area of the four house sites shall not exceed 2 hectares and the minimum area of the individual house sites shall be 2500m˛.

8. That the total area of the house sites to be created on class IV-VI land shall not exceed 8 hectares and that the minimum area of the individual house sites shall be 2500m˛.

9. That the house sites be reticulated for power and telephone connections

10. That on site sewage and stormwater disposal from the house sites shall be subject to specific design (based on the report titled "Engineering Aspects of Proposed Farm Park – Mangatarata as proposed by Mr C Parker – Preliminary Report by Civil Engineering Services)", submitted with the application.

11. That the length of internal road A between the existing farm house and the driveway to house site 1 shown on the plan by FW Millington Ltd titled "Mangatarata Farm Park Plan showing roads and house sites" shall be deleted and no vehicle access shall be formed from SH 2 to any of house sites 1 to 20.

12. That all the internal roads shall be paved and conform to NZS 4404:1981.

13. That internal roads B and D shall have a minimum paved width of 5.5 metres and internal roads A, C, E and F shall have a minimum paved width of 3.5 metres, with passing bays as indicated in the application.

14. The new bridge crossing the Mangatarata Stream shall be designed and constructed to a Class 1 Standard. The bridge shall be certified by a Registered Engineer to the relevant New Zealand Standard. Note: A Building Consent will need to be obtained for the bridge prior to its construction.

15. The consent holder is to supply and install a Give Way sign and relevant painted delineation lines at the intersection of internal road B and Coxhead Road.

16. The Give Way sign and painted delineation lines shall be maintained by the Body Corporate.

17. That the consent holder upgrade Coxhead Road from the intersection with State Highway 2 to the intersection of internal road B and Coxhead Road, in accordance with the Guide to Geometric Standards for Rural Roads 1985 – sealed width of 6 metres with a carriageway width of 7.5 metres.

18. The intersection of internal road B and Coxhead Road shall be designed and sealed in accordance with NZS 4404:1981 and shall be located a minimum of 50 metres from the intersection of State Highway 2 and Coxhead Road.

19. That Engineering plans and specifications covering all engineering works shall be submitted to the District Engineer for consideration and approval prior to commencement of any work.

20. That three copies of "as built" plans shall be submitted to Council upon completion of construction showing the details as required by NZS 4404:1981.

21. That should any features of archaeological, historical or cultural significance be discovered during any of the works to implement this resource consent, work in the direct area shall be discontinued and the Council, the Historic Places Trust and Tangata Whenua notified. Work in the direct area will not be able to continue until consent is granted to do so by the Council and the Historic Places Trust. Consent by the Council may be granted after the Council has considered an application under section 7.1 of the Operative District Plan.

22. That a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1935.86 plus GST, per house site, be paid to Council for 20 additional house sites (Plains Ward).

23. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Applicant shall pay Council charges for receiving, processing and granting the Resource Consent.

24. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay an administration fee of $60.00 for administration of the consent.

25. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay all Council’s costs for monitoring this consent including all costs associated with the consideration and certification of plans and details associated with the consent as appropriate.

Notes:

1. Conditions 3,5,6,10,16 and 21 are to be ongoing conditions under section 221 of the Resource Management Act.

2. This consent provides the overall approval for the proposed development i.e. erection of 20 additional dwellings and sets out conditions to be complied with. As the final legal basis of tenure has not yet been determined there will be further conditions/resolutions needed, depending on the form of tenure chosen.

The survey plan(s) will therefore need to be submitted as a further resource consent application(s) on which Council can impose any further necessary conditions and in relation to which it can pass any further necessary resolutions.

3. Note, this development may proceed on a staged basis. Compliance with the relevant conditions applying to each stage will be required for the Council to sign off that stage. e.g. the CRFC can be paid in total or for the number of house sites covered by each survey plan.

4. This consent does not authorise the provision of "organised" off road motor vehicle activities on site, as these were not mentioned in the application. Should a track be developed for this purpose a further resource consent shall first be obtained.

HC00/11 Gordon/Tregidga CARRIED

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager thanked Ms van Steenbergen for the high quality of the report.

Ms van Steenbergen advised that following on from previous subdivisions by Mr N Worker, Heard Road, Waihi, he wished to further subdivide two of the lots. Mr Worker had had discussions with Council staff, including during a staff site visit. At this he was advised to submit a concept plan – to allow further consideration of his proposals which were non-complying in relation to the District Plan. The proposal shown departed significantly from the rules in respect of the number and density of the lots to be created. A concept plan of the proposal was tabled.

Guidance was sought on whether or not the application should be notified.

After discussion the Committee agreed that the following options for processing the proposal be given to Mr Worker:

1. That an application is delayed until the outcome of the proposed Plan Change dealing with subdivision in the Rural Zone is known. This is to be publicly notified in April.

2. That an application (non-complying activity resource consent) is made. This would be publicly notified by Council.

3. That Mr Worker apply to Council for a Plan Change to create a specific zoning or set of rules for Lots 4 and 6.

The Committee considered that there were also a number of social issues that would need to be considered, such as rubbish disposal, dogs, affects on farming operations on adjoining properties.

The meeting closed at 12.40 pm.

CONFIRMED

J Tregidga

April 2000