RESOLVED

THAT the apology of Crs J P Tregidga and M Hayden be received and sustained.

HC04/45 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

There were no late items.

MEETING HELD TUESDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 2004

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Tuesday 14 September 2004 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC04/46 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

LIMITED NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

APPLICATION FOR LAND USE CONSENT TO ERECT TWO BILLBOARD SIGNS AT THE SH2 (PUKE ROAD) / OPATITO ROAD INTERSECTION – AGAD LIMITED (85.001.148) 9; (58KB)

The applicant, Mr Matt Skuse, Operations Director of AGAD Limited, has applied for a land use consent to erect two billboards for the purpose of advertising at the location of SH2 (Puke Road)/Opatito Road, Paeroa.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.15am. The hearing commenced at 9.25am.

Mr Matt Skuse, Operations Director - AGAD Limited (Applicant), Mr Simon Algra and Ms Anja van Schike (Vegetable Shop Operators/Submitters), Ms Tamzin Moore, Principal Planner - Transit NZ, Hamilton (Submitter), Mr Robert Swears, Senior Transportation Engineer - OPUS International Consultants, Hamilton were in attendance at the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

The Chairperson outlined the procedure that the hearing would follow. The Committee would make its decision after hearing from the applicant and the submitters and considering all the evidence.

Mr Skuse spoke in support of his application to erect two billboard signs at the SH2 (Puke Road) / Opatito Road intersection. Mr Skuse presented a report outlining the background of the billboard advertising company which is based in Gisborne. The business has been operating for just over 12 months and is continually expanding to offer advertising space in more provincial regions.

With regard to concerns of road safety, he stated in his view, the signs would not cause adverse effects to traffic safety as the section of road concerned does not have a high density traffic flow in comparison with other sites. He stated that he was agreeable to abide by Transit NZ’s lettering sizes and/or submit proofs of advertisements prior to advertising.

Mr Simon Algra spoke in support of their submission. He stated that he and his partner Ms van Schike are lessees of part of a building which operates as a vegetable shop. The adjoining shop to the north of their business is presently vacant. The billboards are proposed to be mounted to the canopy of the vacant shop. He stated that if the billboards are mounted where the canopy is, the tenant in the premises beside them would not have ample room for signage for themselves. He suggested that non site specific advertising on billboards should be carried out in a specific area approved by the authorities concerned.

He stated that due to the position of where the proposed billboards would be mounted, they would encroach on the space allowed for advertising their produce from the vegetable shop affecting sales significantly. It was also expressed that the proposed material for the construction of the billboards was not sufficiently strong enough to cope with the wind conditions at the location and could create a safety issue.

Cr Gordon asked if Mr Algra had spoken with the owner of the building regarding the proposal to erect the billboards. Mr Algra stated that the owner had not informed him of any plans to erect billboards for advertising.

Ms Tamzin Moore spoke in support of the Transit NZ submission. She stated that the application has the potential to result in an adverse effect on the safety of the land transport system of State Highway 2 due to the billboards adding to the visual clutter on the southern approach to Paeroa. It was considered that allowing this application to go ahead would invite further applications for off site signage on the State highway system increasing the opportunity for distractions to drivers and would also be contrary to the objectives and policies of signage contained in the Hauraki District Plan.

Mr Swears presented a detailed report in support of the objection lodged by Transit NZ to the application. He stated that he considered the adverse effect on traffic safety at the location was the major concern. It was expressed that one of the billboards would be positioned directly behind a stop sign approaching the intersection onto State highway 2. He felt the position of the billboard would affect the driver’s ability to perceive the stop sign and react appropriately. Other points of concern relating to safety were raised. He emphasized that advertising must be a balanced activity that should consider the general traveling public, who have a right to expect that the road controlling authority will ensure that the presence of such signage will not make the driving task more difficult and thus increase the likelihood of an accident.

Mr Swears presented information from research which has been carried out to determine whether advertising signs create a distraction to drivers that may lead to accidents. As a result of this research, he stated that there was sufficient evidence to support that advertising signs are contributing factors in road accidents.

In conclusion, he considered the application to erect the billboards at the location was contrary to the safety of drivers using the State highway.

Ms Gault presented a summary of her report. She stated that the billboards do not comply with the signage acceptable in an industrial zone within the District Plan, emphasizing that as stated in the District Plan, all signs should relate to the activities authorized and shall be located on the site to which they relate. Other signs erected in the vicinity relate to on-site activities which those applied for do not.

She considered the proposal to be detrimental to the existing amenity values of the area as it will result in two large billboard signs on the site which fulfill no purpose other than to provide advertising space. Due to the size of the signs and their prominent position, they will be visible from public spaces and surrounding residential properties, therefore the signs are not considered to maintain or enhance the quality of the environment.

Ms Gault also stated that the clearance under the billboards for access of trucks was restrictive and would create a hazard for trucks entering and exiting the site. It was agreed that as the site is located at a busy area of the state highway, she supported the road safety concerns raised by Transit NZ regarding the proposed signage. They have the potential to create a traffic hazard and impair the safe functioning of the State highway network.

Mr Skuse stated that he was disappointed the owner of the building had not contacted the lessees regarding the proposal to erect the billboards on the building. He advised of large billboards which had been mounted in other areas of highway which he considered had a much higher traffic flow than this section of State Highway 2. He stated that due to the type of area where the billboards would be positioned, the size of the lettering used in the advertisements would be of Transit standard for a 50km speed zone.

Members stated that this was not a site related activity and did not directly promote a business activity at the site therefore the function of the billboards was not soley for information purposes and therefore does not comply with the regulations for signage in an industrial zone outlined in the District Plan.

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

The hearing closed at 10.30am.

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Section 94 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council decline consent to a limited notified, discretionary activity application to erect two billboard signs attached to a building at the corner of State Highway 2 (Puke Road) and Opatito Road, Paeroa legally described as Pt Lot 1 & Lots 2 - 4 DP 1544 for the following reasons:

• The proposal is contrary to the objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria for signage in the District Plan;

• Allowing non-site related signs will potentially create a proliferation of on-site signage;

• The billboards will be detrimental to existing amenity values due to their significant size and prominent position; and

• The proposed signs have the potential to be a traffic hazard and impair the safe functioning of the State Highway network.

HC04/47 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

The meeting closed at 11.05am.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

October 2004