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.

The applicants own a number of Certificates of Title on Maratoto Road. A number of lots had been subdivided as Stages I & II. Stage Three was a proposal to subdivide two of the titles into two lifestyle lots, a balance rural lot, and an esplanade reserve. The applicants had also applied for a reduction in the required width of the esplanade reserve.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 9.05am. The hearing commenced at 9.12 am.

Mr V Baker (Surveyor) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Submitters in Attendance – Mr E Shaw (Te Runanga O Ngati Pu).

Apologies were received from Te Ruunanga A Iwi O Ngati Tamatera and Fish and Game.

Mr Baker outlined the application and advised that the reason for the hearing was to apply for a reduction in the required width of the esplanade reserve. Mr Baker outlined the reasons for the request for the reduced width required on each of the lots. Mr Baker commented that there would be no advantages as far as the reserve was concerned and disadvantages to the applicant due to loss of land.

The measurement for the esplanade was taken from the title boundary. Along the whole length of the river frontage there had been considerable accretion since 1937 when the title boundary had been surveyed. Some of this accretion was now permanent productive land. Environment Waikato had done planting on the river bank to protect it and it was unlikely that there would be any erosion to the bank. By widening the reserve it would not improve the access to the river. Mr Baker indicated the area of discussion on an aerial photograph.

Mr Shaw presented the submission on behalf of Te Runanga O Ngati Puu Inc, who opposed the application and requested that it be denied except in the event of consent conditions being applied to the satisfaction of Te Runanga O Ngati Puu Inc. Mr Shaw advised that Ngati Puu were Tangata Whenua in Hikutaia and had substantial claims to the land and waterways in their claim to the Waitangi Tribunal Wai355. Ngati Puu at no time ceded their rights to the waterways of Hikutaia and looked upon them as a traditional food source. The Hikutaia and Maratoto Streams hold many places of historical, cultural and spiritual significance to the Hapu, yet it was stated in the consent assessment that no specific sites were known the on the property. Mr Shaw commented that this was right because no consultation had taken place with Ngati Puu as an affected party or as Tangata Whenua by Council or the owner to determine if there were any such places on the property. Mr Shaw further commented that it was seen as being important that the buffer be maintained at 20 metres to allow continuity with adjoining reserves and to allow for future conservation earthworks.

Cr Tregidga asked if submissions had been made to Councils District Plan regarding issues of concern regarding subdivisions.

Mr Shaw commented that there concerns were not with subdivision, but rather with the assumption that Council had that they had covered the necessary requirements regarding there being anything of cultural or historical significance to iwi on the property. The rights of the people were being overlooked.

Cr Tregidga asked if iwi consultation was required on every subdivision application. Generally this was not done.

Mr Shaw commented that consultation was best at the earliest time possible.

A copy of the submission from Ngati Tamatera was tabled at the meeting for consideration.

Miss Davies presented her report. Reasons why the application was notified were given. Three submissions had been received and these were summarized within the report. Miss Davies outlined why the esplanade reserve was required. There was no advantage of providing a 20 metre reserve. Miss Davies had carried out a site inspection and agreed with what was being proposed as this would provide adequate access for the public. The actual and potential effects were outlined. The subdivision would provide an esplanade reserve which would be an advantage to the general public. While the subdivision does not comply with all of the subdivision rules in the District Plan, it was considered that the proposal was generally in accordance with the intentions of Proposed Change No 4 to the District Plan. In addition the proposed esplanade reserve being of less than 20 metres width could still meet the purposes of an esplanade reserve.

The hearing closed at 10.00 am.

The Chairman advised that Councils decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 10.00 am until 10.05 am.

Mr Meyers had lodged an application to subdivide his property, which also involved the vesting of a length of new road. This application was to depart from performance standard 9.3.17 in relation to width of the road formation.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 10.30am. The hearing commenced at the earlier time of 10.05 am with the agreement of all parties.

Mr V Baker (Surveyor) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Baker outlined the application and advised that the road width requirement as per the District Plan of 8 metres was in excess of what was physically required as the road would only be used to service two lots. Existing road width was 6.5, wider than the original formation.

The other issue that needed a decision was that the present services to the workshop were over another property, and proposed to be protected by an easement. Mr Baker asked that these be retained where they were until such time as lot 2 was developed further.

The Roading Manager advised that work had been undertaken on the road and Council had only been aware of this after the road had been sealed etc. Design plans needed to be looked at before this type of development would be approved. Assessment criteria needed to be considered. The Roading Manager outlined the standards required by Council. Long term requirements needed to be considered.

A site visit was suggested and Councillors queried where Coronation Street was on Council’s current roading programme for upgrading.

Miss van Steenbergen commented that regarding the easement request there would be no difficulty in leaving the services as they were.

The hearing adjourned to undertake a site visit at 10.40 am. The meeting reconvened at 11.15 am.

Miss van Steenbergen commented that with the RV Centre’s new entrance onto the new road/right of way and the potential of lot 2 to be further subdivided in future, there would be some difficulty in tying some future owner into contributing if the road upgrade was not undertaken now. It would be more desirable to have the road in Council ownership, rather than creating the extension as a right of way.

The hearing closed at 11.25 am.

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

After considering all the evidence the Committee agreed that the proposed public road (Lot 8) should be created.

1)      A 6.4 metre sealed width is adequate to serve the number of lots proposed.

2)    The very slow rate of development of industrial land in Paeroa means that the creation of additional lots to be served by the road will be unlikely in the foreseeable future.

3)    The 6.4 metres sealed width is in keeping with the seal width of adjoining roads.

4)    The short length, flat topography and straightness of the road will ensure that a traffic hazard is not created by the 6.4 metre seal width.

1)    That the existing legal road and its proposed extension on Lot 8 be formed and sealed to a width of 6.4 metres.

2)    That a stormwater control method is constructed that will ensure:

3) That engineering plans and specifications detailing the road pavement and foundation construction and the method of stormwater control be submitted to Council for consideration and approval.

4) 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.

5) 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.

6) That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay an administration fee of $75.00 for administration of the consent.

7) 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.

HC03/01                                                     Tregidga/Carmine                 CARRIED

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

a)    The area of Class III land involved is relatively small, and is fragmented from the rest of the title and from other Class I – III land in the District.

b)    The purposes of an esplanade reserve can still be achieved by the proposed esplanade reserve.

c)    The reduced-width esplanade reserve provides protection for the water body, observes the apparent course of the stream, provides for limited public access to the stream, and provides a higher level of protection for any waahi tapu or taonga that might exist on the bank of the river as opposed to the existing legal right for the landowner to graze or otherwise use the land.

d)    The proposal does not compromise the objectives and policies of the District Plan.

1.    The subdivision shall be carried out generally in accordance with Vaughan D Baker Scheme Plan ref. 3492, dated August 2002.

2.    That Lot 3 shall be vested in Council as Local Purpose Reserve (Esplanade).

3.    That a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1,529.26 plus GST be paid to Council for the creation of one additional lot (Paeroa Ward).

4.    That Lot 1 hereon and Lots 3 and 4 DP 27025 be held in the same certificate of title.

5.    That pt. Lot 2 DP 27025 (residue CT SA748/13) and Lot 1 DP 30436 (residue CT SA748/12) be held in the same certificate of title.

See Request 112946.

6.    That the subdivider shall provide power and telephone connections, along the road frontage of the subdivision (where the supply lines run along the road) for Lot 1, or written confirmation from the respective supply authorities that these connections are available at the standard connection fee.

7.    That the subdivider draw up a Memorandum of Encumbrance to be registered against the titles of Lot 1 DP 30436 and Lot 2 hereon, to identify the Natural Area of Ecological Significance identified in the District Plan and as indicated on the copy of the scheme plan marked "Indicative Area of Natural Area of Ecological Significance" and to record its protection in accordance with the provisions of the District Plan. The cost of preparing the Memorandum shall be borne by the subdivider.

8.    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.

9.    That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay an administration fee of $75.00 for administration of the consent.

10.    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.

HC03/02 Carmine/Hayden CARRIED

There were no late items.

The meeting closed at 12.00 pm.

CONFIRMED

J Tregidga

February 2003