RESOLVED

HC03/12 Hayden/Carmine CARRIED

Pursuant to Section 46A (7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Chairperson called for late items to be accepted. There were none.

HC03/13 Tregidga/Carmine CARRIED

There were no matters arising.

An application had been received from D & D Sinclair to establish and operate an accommodation park providing tourist cabins and campervan sites at 45 River Road, Karangahake.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 10.00 am. The hearing commenced at 10.05 am.

Murray Kivell (Planning Consultant and Project Co-ordinator for applicant), Peter Beilby (Traffic Engineer), Peter Ireland (Environmental Engineer), Mr D and Mrs D Sinclair (Applicant), Marius Rademeyer (representing submitters) and a number of individual submitters attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

A late submission had been received from B McLeod.

Mr Rademeyer asked for permission for a late submission to be tabled from the River Road Protection Group.

The Chairperson outlined the reasons why a late submission could not be received. There needed to be sufficient time for all parties to be aware of what was in a submission and the applicants consent was required before Council could receive a late submission.

Mr Kivell on behalf of the applicants advised that he had concerns that such a request was made without the courtesy of the applicants being advised in advance and questioned the status of the residents association. He further advised that the applicants did not give their consent.

The Chairperson ruled that the late submission would not be allowed, however if the residents wished the meeting could be adjourned and a legal opinion sought.

The meeting adjourned at 10.20 am to seek legal advice on the acceptance of the late submission.

The meeting reconvened at 10.30 am.

The Chairperson advised that in its own right the submission would not be received and not heard. There were a number of individuals listed in appendix 1 of the submission who had also made individual submissions and as long as what was said in the late submission was an elaboration of what was said in the individual’s submissions then that could be heard. However any areas that were not covered in the individual’s submissions would have to be deleted. The late submission could not be accepted as it was.

Late submission from B McLeod.

HC03/14 Tregidga/Carmine CARRIED

The Chairperson outlined the procedure that the hearing would follow. He commented that the staff report and recommendation were there to guide the Committee only. The Committee would make its decision after hearing from the applicant and the submitters and considering all the evidence.

The Chairperson advised that the report from the Council’s Traffic Engineer did not have to be circulated prior to the meeting but could have been presented on the day. However, Council tried to circulate as much information as it could prior to the hearing.

Mr Kivell introduced and outlined the proposal on behalf of the applicants Mr and Mrs Sinclair.

Mrs Sinclair (applicant) presented her submission in support of the application. Mrs Sinclair outlined the proposal and the history behind the decision to undertake the project.

It was asked what would happen if a caravan arrived at the site. Mrs Sinclair advised that the proposed site did not cater for caravans and they would be advised that they could not stay at the site. Advertising would be directed at the campervan market. When asked about future expansion Mrs Sinclair advised that the site was limited and it had been quite a project to fit the entire proposal onto the site.

Comment was made that the waste disposal issue was primarily one for the Regional Council to consider not for Council.

Concern regarding a turning area for vehicles (non customer vehicles) once they arrived at the end of the road was raised. Mrs Sinclair advised that there was no problem with vehicles entering the property and turning around.

Mr Kivell commented that there was a notice on the property saying "Private Property" but there was space provided for vehicles to reverse and exit the property.

The Chairperson indicated that a visit to the site may be desirable.

Mr Beilby presented evidence on behalf of the applicants addressing the likely traffic effects of the proposal.

The Chairperson commented that the proposal did not intend to cater for large motor homes on the site and he would be interested in the comments from submitters on this. He noted his concern that these large vehicles may travel down River Road then have to turn around once they became aware that they could not stay at the site.

Mr Beilby advised that there were two points for large vehicles to turn before getting to the site, but there was provision at the site for them to reverse.

Mrs Neustroski presented her submission in opposition to the application. Mrs Neustroski commented that she was not aware that the wording had been changed from motorhome to campervan, if she had been aware of this she may have changed some of the concerns in her submission. Concerns were: large type vehicles, safety issues, footpath, streetlighting, campervans traveling in convoy, flooding issues, Bridge Street Access, existing facilities, waste grey water, no allowance for dump station.

Mr Peter Ireland (Environmental Engineer Opus International Consultants Ltd) presented evidence on behalf of the applicants regarding waste management and flooding issues in relation to the proposal.

It was noted that effluent disposal was covered in the report although this issue comes primarily within the responsibility of the Regional Council.

Questions were asked about building site levels and whether vehicles could be moved to a higher site if flooding were to occur. The Hearing was advised that ample warning of a flooding event would be issued as the applicants would be registered with Environment Waikato who issued advance warning of any flooding events.

Mr Morrow presented the submission on behalf of the Karangahake Gorge Promotional Group in support of the application. Supporting factors were: Visitor Industry, Visitor Accommodation, Economic Benefits. The group believed that the proposed accommodation park would be a valuable addition to the attractions already existing in the area and would be of benefit to the community. The group would encourage the consent authority to allow this application to proceed.

The hearing adjourned at 12.35 pm.

The meeting reconvened at 1.10 pm.

Mr Kivell (Director Environmental Services) presented evidence regarding the application on behalf of Mr and Mrs D Sinclair.

Mr Kivell commented on meetings held with Ngati Tamatera regarding wahi tapu sites. He advised that the River to the north of the site was registered as wahi tapu under the NZ Historic Places Act. After research and review of this information it was confirmed the land (site of the proposal) was outside the registered wahi tapu area.

All draft conditions were acceptable to the applicants apart from conditions 3 and 8. Reasons were given for this.

Condition 3 – planting plans, adequate within proposal, presented in adequate detail to allow the site to be developed.

Condition 8 – amended after discussions with Ngati Tamatera to require a representative of the Iwi be onsite at the time of the commencement of the earthworks.

Other suggestions and amendments to conditions were given in the evidence.

Other issues: applicants did not wish to provide a waste dump point on site for campervans; passing bays should be 8m long and achieve an overall sealed road width of 5m, and balance of text following on.

It was noted by the Chairman that a cost sharing basis for passing bays along River Road could not be enforced on any other parties including Council.

Mr Kivell commented that the provision of passing bays would be of benefit to the whole community not just the applicants.

It was asked if agreement had been reached between the applicants and Ngati Tamatera. No correspondence had been received by Council advising of this. The applicants advised that they were meeting with Ngati Tamatera to sign an agreement the following day.

Dr Neville Ritchie presented evidence in support of the application. It was noted that Dr Ritchie was not representing the Department of Conservation at the hearing but was appearing as a technical witness on behalf of the applicant.

Mr Rademeyer presented a submission on behalf of 22 individual submitters to this application. The purpose of the submissions was to respectfully bring local knowledge to the Committee’s attention to ensure that they were fully informed of the facts. Points raised were the effects of the proposal on the amenity of the area and the amenity values dear to the residents and the unsuitability of the site for the proposed development.

Questions were asked regarding permitted baseline, effluent disposal, occupancy of site, dwellings on River Road could have 6 homestayers in them as of right, tourism in the area, foreign elements (buildings).

Mr Rademeyer commented that by a foreign element it was meant that a shed or barn would be acceptable in a rural area, but campervans in a rural area would be a foreign visual element, not something you would expect to see.

The hearing adjourned at 3.00 pm.

The meeting reconvened at 3.15 pm.

Mr Ian Watson presented evidence on behalf of Transit New Zealand on the likely traffic impact on the State Highway, of the proposal. Mr Watson advised that Transit New Zealand did not oppose the application.

The ability of longer vehicles to access the site safely from the state highway was addressed. If vehicles were approaching from the north they should be advised to continue down the road and turn around and access from the south. This would be the best way of managing this situation by the applicants where bookings were made by phone.

Mr Watson commented that what Transit NZ was trying to do was to have some way of policing vehicles, ensure that resource consent requirements were being complied with and safe guard against an influx of longer vehicles to the site. Also, if the site were to change ownership, conditions needed to be clear.

It was suggested that the applicants needed to make sure when possible that 7 m long vehicles would not access the site from the north.

Mr Watson advised that Transit NZ would not approve any signage to the site on the state highway at this stage. Transit NZ did not want to encourage the drive by traveler. No application had been received by Transit NZ, from the applicants, for signage on the State Highway.

Mr Vanderstaak presented his submission in opposition to the application. The main concern was the strength and continued erosion of the River Road river bank. He believes that putting increased heavy traffic on the road will affect its strength. He advised that his other concerns would be addressed by other submitters.

Mrs Yells presented her submission in opposition to the application. She was keen to bring more visitors to the area but had concerns regarding the exploitation of the area. Other concerns were flooding, and episodes of waiting to turn onto the bridge from the state highway, detraction from amenity values, possible decrease in saleability of surrounding properties, ability to comply with the Camping Ground Regulations, potential use of the unformed Bridge Street, effluent disposal. She also addressed the proposal in relation to provisions of the District Plan. Mrs Yells felt that this was a quiet rural area with a lifestyle, not a commercial, focus.

Mr Beach presented his submission. Mr Beach was firmly of the belief that a number of safety issues needed to be addressed prior to the granting of the consent. His concerns were that River Road was only ever built as a one way road. There was a crack approx 10m in length running along the middle of River Road indicating movement and instability of the river bank, however in mid February 2003 the crack was sealed over by roading contractors. Increase in traffic would damage grass road verges. Only access for wheel chair was to wheel along River Road. Concerned that safety factors regarding traffic had not been considered fully enough. Mr Beach submitted photographs in support of his submission.

Mr Beach commented that presently pedestrians had to move out of the way onto the grass verge for vehicles coming along River Road and vehicles approaching each other had to also pull onto the grass verge. The road seal was only 3 meters narrowing down to 1.9 meters in some places. He also expressed concerns about loss of amenity, the water supply, sewage and the State Highway/Bridge intersection.

Mr Grey presented his submission objecting to the application. Concerns were effects on amenities, vehicle movements and the width of seal on road, the State Highway/Bridge intersection, proposed passing bays, vegetation, line of sight, bird life, safety of residents, water supply and signs.

Mrs Grey presented her submission objecting to the application. Her concerns were security and effects on amenities. In addition she addressed the proposal in relation to aspects of the Resource Mangement Act, traffic issues – State Highway/Bridge intersection and River Road; the potential for ponding and flooding of the land; the requirements of the Camping Ground Regulations; and assessed the proposal against the various provisions of the District Plan. Mrs Grey advised that she believes suitable alternatives already exist for overnight stays by campervans. A letter was tabled from the Department of Conservation addressed to Mrs Grey. Mrs Grey submitted photographs in support of her evidence.

The meeting adjourned at 5.25 pm.

The meeting reconvened at 5.40 pm.

Mr Tuohey (Traffic Engineer) presented his report.

Points covered in the report were traffic generation – traffic engineering effects, peak hour flows. At peak occupancy would generally have 8 vehicles per hour, morning - 8 leaving and in evening - 8 arriving, directional flow, out in the mornings, in the evenings. Felt that this could be catered for on River Road.

Regarding submitters’ concerns Mr Tuohey addressed the issues regarding turning at the end of River Road, better signage, ability to turn on the site requiring a reverse manoeuver, SH2/Bridge intersection, the problem of vehicles greater than 7 meters long being unable to turn onto the bridge when approaching from the north.

River Road – Mr Tuohey commented that as River Road was a one way road passing bays would be the appropriate mechanism to deal with this. He outlined the placing of passing bays along the road and the recommended width. The cost of the passing bay would be on the applicant. He did not recommend the widening of River Road as this would take the road closer to the residences.

When asked how many vehicle movements per day would be required before the road should be made a two way road the Traffic Engineer commented that it would need to exceed 250 vehicle movements per day.

Ms van Steenbergen presented her report and addressed concerns raised during the hearing. She advised that the application did fit in with the policies and objectives within the District Plan. Regarding effluent disposal, it was the responsibility of the Regional Council to determine that a system could be designed and would work on the site and of this Council to be satisfied this had happened. In relation to the Karangahake Gorge Scenic Corridor the proposal is in keeping with the objectives and policies and will not detract from the Corridor, which it adjoins. The proposal was a small scale operation in relation to the landscape features of the corridor. Once on the site campervans would not be visible to the residents of River Road. One house on Bridge Street does overlook part of the site. The buildings proposed were of small scale. The effects were minor and conditions would be imposed to mitigate effects. Comment was made that a homestay could be operated in conjunction with the proposal if desired as a permitted activity. Regarding the location of the unformed road (Bridge Street) this would need to be established before camp sites are set out. A condition could be added requiring a management plan for the site: outlining rules for the camp: information for owners of larger vehicles and information regarding public access and roads. Regarding the conditions that were raised by the applicants, i.e. Tamatera members on site for eathworks, Council hadn’t required such a condition in the past but it could be added, floor level condition could also be added.

With landscaping proposed and trees already there, camp sites would not be readily be noticeable from the State Highway.

Mr Kivell gave a right of reply on behalf of the applicants. Mr Beilby spoke on the traffic management aspects and Mr Ireland on the waste disposal and flooding issues.

In conclusion Mr Kivell commented that there would be a change in amenity values but the change would be minimal. The was nothing that protects the views from private property, nothing to stop the Sinclairs from developing the rural part of the property into forest etc. The proposal would be as near to residential and rural as the site could get.

Mr Beilby – commented on traffic issues: Vehicle movements; existing roading network; improvements being made by Council; extent to which applicant should contribute towards passing bays. He believed that the District Council should have responsibility to provide the passing bays.

Mr Ireland – commented on waste disposal and flooding issues. Waste Disposal Site – proposed site flooding discussed. Original proposal was to dispose of the treated effluent on the lower area shown on the application plans. Further consideration had been given to this matter and it was now recommended that the best solution was to irrigate part of landscaped area with the treated effluent.

Flooding from River was commented on – relevant return periods of floods. Major floods occurred in 1981, and 1996.

Comment was made on the photographs tabled by submitters. Mrs Sinclair explained the various photographs tabled during the hearing for the Committee’s clarification.

The paper road (Bridge Street) bisects the site, the applicants acknowledged this and advised they would be happy with a condition that excluded the campervan sites from the paper road.

The Chairperson advised that the Committee would undertake a site visit.

The hearing closed at 6.35 pm.

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

The meeting adjourned at 6.40 pm. The meeting would reconvene at 10.00 am on Friday 6 June 2003.

The meeting reconvened on Friday 6 June 2003 at 10.00 am on site.

The meeting adjourned at 10.30 am.

The meeting reconvened in the Council Chambers, William Street, Paeroa at 11.10 am.

The meeting reconvened after undertaking a visit to the site.

When making its decision the Committee had taken note of concerns regarding the length of the road, lack of barriers on the road, and the need for passing bays. The first two matters would be passed onto the relevant department of Council, for its consideration.

Other issues discussed were, landscaping plan, applicant’s bond, signage, traffic management plan, camp rules.

The Committee acknowledged that the proposed operation’s anticipated use was for campervans and had assessed the application on that basis. A condition would be put in requiring a Traffic Management Plan to address that concern. Comment was made that there was plenty of time for vehicles to be shifted in the case of a flooding event.

The Committee also wished to acknowledge the amount of work undertaken by those that had presented submissions at the hearing.

The proposal is not contrary to the anticipated environmental results, objectives and policies for the Rural and Residential zones which expect and provide for "non rural" and "non residential" activities to establish in those zones, as long as the effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

The scale and nature of the complex, combined with the proposed layout and landscaping of the complex will minimise its effects on the rural amenity and open rural character.

The complex will generate low traffic volumes, with the additional traffic being within the capacity of the local road network and able to be accommodated without creating a hazard or causing congestion on River Road or the bridge across the Ohinemuri River.

The amount of land taken out of primary production is minimal.

That the establishment of the accommodation park i.e. the physical arrangements of the buildings, carparks, access and manoeuvring areas, landscaping, stormwater and effluent treatment systems, shall be generally in accordance with the plans and information submitted with the application, except as amended by any of the following conditions.

Note: No camp sites can be located on or partly on Bridge Street. The boundary of Bridge Street is to be accurately located and marked to allow this to be verified.

That the operation of the accommodation park shall be in accordance with the information submitted with the application and the evidence and information presented at the hearing i.e. the operation shall be limited to:

10 campervan sites

two four berth cabins

one 12 bed lodge

the use of the campervan sites and buildings for short term occupation only, in accordance with the Camping Ground Regulations.

The site shall be landscaped in general accordance with the Landscape proposal submitted with the application and the landscaping shall have as its intent:

a. Screening of the campervan sites from the State Highway

b. Plantings between and around the buildings and campervan sites of sufficient area and height to soften the buildings and provide visual amenity value.

c. Support of the natural environment.

An indicative maintenance program shall be submitted for approval of the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services.

The landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services.

4) Lighting (amenity and security) shall be installed and designed so as to avoid the spill of direct or reflected light on to adjoining properties in excess of 8 lux.

The sign to be placed at the entrance to the site shall be positioned and designed in accordance with the standards of the District Plan.

No other signs shall be placed on site, other than internal signs for the information of guests on the site.

That all on-site carparking and loading spaces, vehicle manoeuvring and access areas shall be laid out in accordance with the requirements of performance standard 9.3.4 and shall be formed, drained and thereafter maintained with an all-weather surface.

That should any features of archaeological, historical or cultural significance be discovered during the construction phase of the accommodation park, work in the direct area shall be discontinued and the Council, the Historic Places Trust and Tangata Whenua (which ever of the latter 2 is relevant) 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.

That the accommodation park be registered in accordance with regulation 3 of the Camping Ground Regulations 1985.

Stormwater runoff from the roadways and parking areas shall be controlled and discharged so as to have no adverse effects on the Ohinemuri River and the wetland.

That a traffic management plan be prepared and submitted to Council for approval by the Manager of Planning and Regulatory Services prior to the operation commencing.

The plan is to include, but shall not be limited to:

the steps to be taken in advising the guests with vehicles in excess of 7 metres in length on the most appropriate access to the site

the steps to be taken in advising guests about walking to other facilities/attractions in the vicinity of the site

the steps to be taken in advising guests of the narrow, low traffic speed nature of River Road.

The consent holders shall construct at their cost passing bays at the intersections of the two unformed roads (at approximate distances 150m and 300m) with River Road.

The passing bays shall be formed to provide a minimum overall carriageway width of 5.5 metres, except that each passing bay shall have a minimum width of 1.5 metres.

Each passing bay shall have a minimum length of 8 metres and shall taper to and from the existing seal at a rate of 1:10.

That a set of "camp rules/information" is prepared and submitted to Council for approval by the Manager of Planning and Regulatory Services.

The rules/information are to include, but shall not be limited to:

flood warning provisions

location of public land, available for use by guests, in Karangahake

hours during which quietness is expected

behaviour while on site

Pursuant to Section 128 (1) (a) (i) and (iii) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council may review the conditions of this consent for the purpose of dealing with any adverse effects on the environment arising from the exercise of the consent:

One year from the commencement of the activity and at two yearly intervals thereafter.

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

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

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.

Note: At the time of Building Consent application, certification from a suitably qualified person will need to be provided to Council that the effluent disposal system to be installed will comply with the Regional Council’s permitted activity rules for on-site wastewater disposal.

HC03/15 Carmine/Hayden CARRIED

There were no late items.

The meeting closed at 12.10 pm.

CONFIRMED

J P Tregidga

July 2003