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. There were none.

HC02/40 Carmine/Hayden CARRIED

There were no matters arising.

The applicant, after a request to comply, was seeking an exemption from the installation of a complying fence and gate, to a spa pool, as required by the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 9.05 am. The hearing commenced at 9.10 am.

Mr Hill attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Hill commented that in his original application he had proposed to extend the fence to take in the spa area along with the swimming pool. He had received advice that this would not comply so was now applying for dispensation from the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. The spa pool was on site when the property was purchased. Presently the spa pool was not being used until the fencing/exemption matter was resolved.

Cr Tregidga asked how the spa pool was envisaged to be used if an exemption was granted.

Mr Hill advised that if an exemption were granted the pool would be locked when not in use and if they were to be away from the property for a period of time the spa would be drained. The spa pool was sited on the deck outside the master bedroom.

The existing cover on the spa pool was not a commercially made cover. It is hinged in the middle and weighed approximately 50kg. Mr Hill commented that an adult could remove the cover but it would be too heavy for a child to remove.

Cr Tregidga commented that the difficulty was the spa pool being level with the deck enabling someone to easily fall in.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager advised that the issue for the Committee to consider was whether a lockable lid on the spa pool should be allowed, and an exemption granted, or not.

Mr Linklater commented that in his opinion the existing lid was as good as a commercially built spa pool lid.

Comment was made that a spa pool on top of a deck was more difficult to fall into than one level with the deck. Subsequent owners were also a concern.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager asked that if a fence was not built how could the spa pool be made as safe as an enclosed pool.

The Senior Monitoring Officer commented that if the spa pool was not fenced then the only safe way was for the lid to remain locked and in place, thus preventing the spa pool from being used.

The hearing closed at 9.35 am.

The Chairperson advised that the Committee’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 9.36 am until 9.50 am.

An application for a resource consent (subdivision) has been received from the above. This related to their property – Lot 4 DPS 87456 of 10.65 hectares, in Heard Road, Waihi.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 9.35 am. The hearing commenced at 9.52 am.

Mr D Marshall (Community Relations Officer (Planning) Bay of Plenty Conservancy of the Department of Conservation) and Mr C Summers (Biodiversity Programme Manager Tauranga Office of the Department of Conservation) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Summers tabled a written submission outlining the Orokawa Bay Scenic Reserve.

Points covered in the submission were:

Clarification was asked regarding the walking track. There was also concern about the illegal release of pigs into the reserve and the potential of TB. With the pest control work that has been undertaken kaka numbers are building up and Orokawa Reserve is an important commuting/feeding site for kaka.

Mr Marshall tabled a written submission outlining his opinion as to whether or not the Department of Conservation was an adversely affected party, with regards to the proposed subdivision application by JGD, M & HG Ritchie, and in relation to section 94 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).

Points outlined in the submission were:

In conclusion Mr Marshall commented that Council should consider the proposed subdivision against the tests of section 94 (2) of the RMA. The proposal had more than minor adverse effects on the significant conservation values of Orokawa Bay Scenic Reserve. The Department of Conservation as administrator of that Reserve was adversely affected by the proposal. Therefore, unless the written approval of the Department of Conservation was obtained, the proposal should be processed on a notified basis.

It was asked what the difference would be between the applicants proposing a 5 lots subdivision as opposed to an 8 lot subdivision.

Mr Marshall commented that there would still be affects from a 5 lot subdivision and the Department would still want issues addressed.

Mr Summers commented that DoC had had to fence the reserve to keep livestock out as well as employing someone to eradicate goats.

Miss van Steenbergen advised that a 5 lot subdivision under Plan Change 4 would be allowed, as a controlled activity. The recommendation in the Planner’s report was that the application proceeds on a non notified basis.

General policy was that it was not the actual subdivision that created the affects but the subsequent land use.

The Hearings Committee needed to consider the principle of this application as to whether the consent should be notified or non notified, rather than the details of the proposal on the conditions sought by DoC.

If the application were notified then permission from neighbours and DoC would not be required.

It was asked if the application were for a five lot subdivision would conditions be formulated differently than if the application were for an 8 lot subdivision.

Miss van Steenbergen advised that the conditions probably would be no different for either proposal however the concerns of DoC would need to be taken into account.

Mr Marshall commented that the Department was not trying to stop the subdivision application but was just seeking the right to participate in the process as an adjoining neighbour and that these rights be recognised.

The hearing closed at 10.45 am.

The Chairperson advised that the Committee’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 11.45 am until 10.55 am.

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

That given that the spa pool was level with the deck, the lid not being commercially manufactured and the weight of the lid, the application for exemption be declined.

HC02/41 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

RESOLVED

THAT the application for an 8 lot subdivision by JGD, M & HG Ritchie, Heard Road, Waihi proceed on a notified basis due to the Department of Conservation being an affected party and the sensitive nature of the Orokawa Bay Scenic Reserve.

HC02/42 Carmine/Hayden CARRIED

There were no late items.

The meeting closed at 11.45 am.

CONFIRMED

J Tregidga

November 2002