There were no apologies.

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

- Application for Waiver to Section 6 Fencing of Swimming Pool Act – P & D Morgan

The item was not on the agenda because the item was unavailable by the agenda deadline date.

Discussion on the item could not be delayed because a decision on the application was required before the next meeting of the Committee.

HC06/31 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 6 July 2006 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC06/32 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation from the period 1^st June 2006 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters be received.

HC06/33 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

NOTICE UNDER SECTION 33A DOG CONTROL ACT (1996) MENACING DOG

OBJECTION TO MENACING DOG CLASSIFICATION – M R PATON, 10 RUSSELL STREET, WAIHI (63.100.027) (26KB)

On 29 June 2006, a notice under Section 33(A) of the Dog Control Act (1996) Menacing Dog was served on Mr M R Paton on the basis of observed or reported behaviour received on 29 June 2006 attesting to the aggressive behaviour of his dog Tsar and a second dog, Smoke, owned by Mr B Paton of 10 Russell Street, Waihi.

An objection to the classification has been lodged.

A detailed report from the Dog Control Officer was attached.

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

Mr B Paton (Objector) and Mrs M Clark (Complainant) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Paton tabled a written submission and spoke in support of his objection to the classification and provided the background history and character of the two dogs in question. He advised that he is the registered owner of the dog identified as ‘Smoke’ a black Labrador neutered female and that his son, Michael Robert Paton, is the registered owner of the other dog, ‘Tsar’ a male, black and tan German Shepherd. He advised that his dog ‘Smoke’ is not an aggressive dog but is sometimes influenced towards negative behaviour by Tsar if they are together. ‘Tsar’ is temporarily residing at his property in Russell Street while his son has returned to the family home to live. He emphasised that he would not have hesitated to take steps to prevent the dogs leaving the property if he felt they were a danger to the public.

Mrs Clark tabled a written submission and spoke in support of her complaint regarding the aggressive behaviour of the two dogs. Mrs Clarke advised that she resides on Pickett Place which adjoins Russell Street. Her main concern was the aggressive behaviour of the German Shepherd in particular. Mrs Clarke provided an account of the incident which occurred on 29 June 2006, stating that when she was out walking her small dog past Mr Paton’s property in Russell Street, the two dogs ran out and growled aggressively at her. Mrs Clark was asked if she has noticed any change in the behaviour of the dogs since the complaint was lodged. She advised that she had not seen the dogs recently at all since the incident.

Mr Paton advised that the German Shepherd is to be neutered suggesting that this would improve the temperament of the dog.

The Chairperson explained to Mr Paton the requirements of the Dog Control Act pertaining to a menacing classification.

Mr Sexton advised that there have been four complaints received regarding the dogs behaviour in public over previous months. Occupants of the adjoining property to Mr Paton’s property have raised concerns with him about the dog’s behaviour.

A description of the fencing at the property was detailed. A fence 1.2m high, constructed of wire netting exists. Mr Sexton noted that the dogs were able to still exit the property if the gate is left open. Mr Sexton further explained to Mr Paton the rules of the legislation and advised him that if further incidences occur, the dogs will then be classified as dangerous and will be uplifted. Mr Sexton considered Mr Paton was a responsible dog owner but perhaps was negligent in ensuring the dogs were always secure on the property.

The Committee asked Mr Sexton if both dogs are to be classified as menacing. Mr Sexton advised that it has been noted when the dogs are together they have a tendency to be more active but he considered that the menacing behaviour of the German Shepherd was more significant. As both dogs were party to the incident, they both will have to receive the classification.

Mr Paton advised that he agreed to comply with the requirements of the Act pertaining to a menacing classification and would take any action necessary as directed by Council.

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 9.45am

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the Menacing Dog classification of the dogs Tsar and Smoke be upheld.

HC06/34 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

RECONVENED NON NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

The reconvened hearing was scheduled for 10.00am. The hearing commenced at 10.00am.

Staff were requested to advise of the engineer’s investigations.

Mr Eccles addressed the matters of concerned raised at the previous meeting. He advised that all issues relating to entranceways from Kaihere Road have been addressed following further investigation undertaken by Council’s engineering staff. An entrance could be located to the west of that proposed.

The land classification of 1-3 remains an issue. The circumstances of the title date are irrelevant and should not be a consideration.

Mr Brown was asked if he was made aware of the title date issue by the Surveyors at the time of the application. Mr Brown advised that he was not informed of the title date restriction and was only advised of how many sections he could develop.

In relation to the accessways on Kaihere Road, Mr Rogers advised the Committee that Mr Brown intends to use the same crossings as existing.

A general discussion was held to consider the outstanding issue of the land classification for the proposed lots. After further consideration of how to reduce the fragmentation of the high quality (Class I-III) land, it was preferred that only two lots be developed rather than three lots as the requested third lot would compromise the objectives of the District Plan by creating a cluster of small lots. Two lots would allow a lot for a maximum of one extra house.

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 10.10am.

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Section 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council grants consent in part to this non-notified discretionary activity application to subdivide Lot 4 DP 325609 located at 1510 Kaihere Road, Kaihere, for the following reasons:

• Subject to the restriction imposed on the number of lots by condition 1 below, the proposed subdivision is not regarded as contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the Hauraki District Plan which seek to maintain the rural character of the Rural Zone of the District through avoiding clusters of small lots. In this case only one additional lot is being approved, thus only one additional house will be permitted in the area.

• The proposed subdivision will not create more than minor adverse effects on the environment. With regard to visual effects, a restriction has been placed on Lot 1 prohibiting the construction of a dwelling within 90 metres of the boundary with State Highway 27. This will ensure that no dwelling is constructed on the prominent high ground within Lot 1.

• Any work undertaken in the road reserve, including construction of vehicle entrances, will require a street opening permit and traffic management plan to be submitted for approval before work commences. Any enquiries regarding this procedure may be directed to Janet Tee at the Hauraki District Council Paeroa Office, tel 07-862 8609.

• Please note that your street address may change as a result of the subdivision of your property. You will be advised at a later date if this is to be the case. Hauraki District Council follows the Standard New Zealand regulation governing the numbering of all rural and urban properties. This is to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of services and amongst them, emergency services such as Fire, Ambulance and Police etc. Should you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact the Hauraki District Council.

HC06/35 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

LIMITED NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

LAND USE CONSENT APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A DWELLING ON THE RURAL ZONE WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK DISTANCE – K & N BENNY, 116 OPARIA ROAD, TURUA (84.710.105.7) (74KB)

The applicants propose to construct a new dwelling on the currently vacant site at 116 Oparia Road, Turua.

A detailed report from the Consultant Planner and supporting documentation was attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 10.45am. The hearing commenced at 10.45am.

Mr and Mrs Benny (Applicants), Mrs Theodora Ward and Mr Ross Gardner on behalf of Mrs Anthea Ward and themselves (Submitters/Owners of adjoining property) were present for the benefit of the hearing.

The applicants presented a tabled submission which included photographs showing the existing character of the site and spoke in support of their application to construct a single storey house and double garage on their property at 116 Oparia Road, Turua. They provided the background history of their application and the layout of the subject dwelling.

Mrs Benny highlighted the issue of concern raised by the owners of the adjoining property. The proposed dwelling infringes the 6m side yard requirement on both the northern and southern boundaries of the site. In relation to the southern boundary, the encroachment consists of the corner of the garage in which the laundry will be located. It was explained that the submitters have objected to this infringement to allow the dwelling to be built at a reduced distance from the boundary.

The Benny’s were requested to describe the drain and its location in relation to their property. They advised that the drain is not a Council drain but a shared boundary drain adjoining their property on the southern side. There is approximately a 2.3m area to allow for maintenance machinery to access the Benny’s side of the drain when cleaning is required.

Mr Gardner and Mrs Ward presented a tabled submission in support of their objection to the application.

Mr Gardner stated that he considered the Benny’s land is unsuitable for lifestyle purposes. It is an inappropriate application to allow a residence to be built in an area used for intensive farming purposes which they are presently carrying out on their farm adjoining the Benny’s property. He outlined their two main issues of concern were that noise levels from the house would disturb his cattle when the stock yards were in use 30m away and due to the close proximity of the dwelling to the boundary drain and the softness of the soil, the weight could create stress on the bank causing it to subside.

Mrs Ward requested that the land use already existing for the Benny’s property is not changed and requested assurance that the drain will not be affected by the house being positioned as proposed. Mrs Ward raised a concern that a suitable effluent disposal system for the dwelling has not been fully considered. In response, the applicants advised they have had a wastewater disposal system specifically designed for the location.

The Consultant Planner addressed all of the actual and potential adverse effects relevant to the infringement to the 6m side yard requirement as follows:

• The living areas of the house are on the northern side of the lot which are 30-40 metres away from stock yards, and therefore he could see no adverse effect to their current use.

• In relation to maintaining the open rural character of the area, the yard infringement will not affect the objectives and policies of the District Plan.

• There are no affects in relation to day light or shadowing on the submitters adjoining property.

• The title date allows a ‘permitted activity’ in the District Plan for the building of two houses on site.

• The effect of ‘Reverse Sensitivity’ is minimal as the noise generated by normal farming activity is permitted within the Rural zone.

In conclusion, it was commented that the ability for two dwellings to be built on the site has been in existence for some time. In the situation where a farming operation exists beside a lifestyle lot, both parties must compromise.

The Benny’s advised that they are prepared to organise the cleaning of the boundary drain and to jointly contribute towards its maintenance.

To address the issue of concern raised by the submitters regarding the affect noise levels from the house could have on their cattle when the stock yards are in use, the Benny’s advised that the building materials for the house are of a sound-proof standard therefore removing the issue of excessive noise emitted from the dwelling.

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 11.35am.

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT pursuant to Section 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council grant consent to this limited notified discretionary activity application to construct a dwelling within the 6m side yards on Pt Lot 8F DP 18439, 116 Oparia Road, Turua, for the following reasons:

• The potential adverse effects of the yard infringement are no more than minor. The same or greater adverse effects could be generated by activities permitted by the District Plan occurring on the site.

• The potential for reverse sensitivity effects to occur in future would still be generated by the establishment of a dwelling in a manner fully complying with permitted activity standards.

• The proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives, policies and assessment criteria of the Rural Zone that require retention of an open rural landscape, and for dwellings to be designed in a manner that avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on neighbouring properties.

1. That the proposal be established in general accordance with the application submitted by K and N Benny, received on 29 May 2006, and the plans prepared by Aesthetics Architecture Ltd entitled "New Benny Residence", dated 12/2005, Job Number TM02, reference A01, A02 and A03.

2. 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.

3. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the applicant shall pay an administration fee of $85.00 for the administration of the consent.

4. 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.

HC06/36 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

OBJECTION TO CONDITIONS

OBJECTION TO CONDITIONS OF SUBDIVISION CONSENT – A MALONE, 52 MATAURA ROAD, WAIHI (82.695.333) (46KB)

The Applicant has objected to a number of conditions of Stages 1 and 2 of consent granted on 30 May 2006 to subdivide Sections 487 and 488, Town of Waihi located at 52 Mataura Road, Waihi into five residential lots.

A detailed report from the Consultant Planner and supporting documentation was attached.

A hearing has been scheduled for 11.30am. The hearing commenced at 11.30am.

Mr Peter Rogers (Surveyor) and Mr Malone (Applicant) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Rogers tabled a submission which outlined the reasons for the objection to the conditions imposed on Stages 1 and 2 of Mr Malone’s subdivision at 52 Mataura Road, Waihi. He advised that the most significant issue of concern is the conditions requiring financial contributions (urbanisation fee) on Stages 1 and 2 of the subdivision.

Mr Rogers explained that this subdivision is a two staged urban development with the intent to create 5 lots to include one existing dwelling and a sleep out. Land use consent has been granted permitting the use of the Favona road reserve as an access to where a dwelling is presently under construction. The access is to be constructed to half road standards.

Mr Rogers disputed the condition that Mr Malone upgrade the unformed road (Favona Street) to a full road standard (Condition 8) and disagreed that Mr Malone should contribute the $5,270.22 towards the urbanisation fee of Stages 1 and 2 of the Mataura Road subdivision for costs towards kerbing and channelling plus a new footpath.

He advised that the objection to condition was withdrawn.

Mr Eccles advised that the only outstanding issues now are the objection to the urbanisation fees and road formation. He advised that these fees have been calculated through the formula set out in the District Plan and he could see no discrepancy in their calculation.

Mr Eccles advised that the Consultant Engineer assessed the application and imposed the condition on the grounds that Mataura Road is a local road which requires kerb and channelling. In the case where a road is serving more than 20 dwellings, footpaths should be provided on each side of the road.

Using the formula as per the District Plan, the contributions are calculated by the length of road to be upgraded, the daily traffic count and additional traffic generated by the subdivision.

In Stage 1, there are two new lots being created with the remaining lots being part of the Stage 2, therefore a total of $5,270.22 has been calculated which has been split into two contributions of $3513.48 and $1756.74 for Stages 1 and 2.

Mr Eccles explained the requirements of subdivision as they relate to roading. Mr Eccles advised that an ‘unformed road’ has to be constructed to a’ formed road’ standard if you are creating a subdivision. Kerb and channelling is not a requirement of a full road standard the condition includes the option of a nib kerb and swale. He agreed that kerb and channel at this subdivision would look out of place at this stage. Council is required to maintain ‘full road’ standard roads. The subdivider is to pay a contribution only to the upgrading of Mataura Road, rather than the full cost of urbanising the frontage of the subdivision.

Mr Rogers disputed the comment made by Mr Eccles regarding the upgrade of the road. He considered the fees of $5,270.22 were unjustified and questioned the formula used to reach this sum and commented that the amount the Applicant has been requested to pay seems high and inconsistent with other levies on previous subdivisions put forward.

He suggested the formula should remain as it is but the existing volume of traffic should reflect the use the road presently has and the potential increase of road users through future subdivision until the Council expects to upgrade the road. The Applicant should not have to pay if the upgrade is not scheduled within the next 5 years.

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 12.15pm.

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

That pursuant to Section 357 of the Resource Management Act the Hauraki District Council resolves to :

1. dismiss the objection to condition 9 of Stage 1 of the subdivision of Sections 487 and 488 Town of Waihi located at 52 Mataura Road, Waihi.

HC06/37 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

2. uphold the objection to condition 10 of Stage 1 of the subdivision of Sections 487 and 488 Town of Waihi located at 52 Mataura Road, Waihi.
3. uphold the objection to condition 5 of Stage 2 of the subdivision of Sections 487 and 488 Town of Waihi located at 52 Mataura Road, Waihi.
4. uphold the objection to condition 8 of stage 2 of the subdivision of Sections 487 and 488 Town of Waihi located at 52 Mataura Road, Waihi.

HC06/38 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

5. dismiss the objection to condition 9 of Stage 2 of the subdivision of Sections 487 and 488 Town of Waihi located at 52 Mataura Road, Waihi

HC06/39 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

• The proposed subdivision has no adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor;
• The proposal is consistent with the intensity, form and character anticipated for the zone.

Subject to the following conditions:

General

1. The subdivision shall be carried out generally in accordance with Peter Rogers Surveyors Limited Scheme Plan Reference: 1715A Version II dated 20^th February 2006.
2. That a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1,842.94 plus GST be paid to Council for the creation of two additional lots (Waihi Ward).
3. That the garage that straddles the boundary of lots 3 and 4 hereon be removed or relocated to a complying location, where it will not unduly limit construction of a dweling, on any of the new lots.
4. That lot 1(18m²) be vested in Council as road.

Sewer

5. That the subdivider shall provide lots 3,4 and the balance lot shown as lots 2, 5 and 6 on the scheme plan reference 1715A Version II dated 20th February 2006 with separate sewer connections in accordance with NZS 4404:2004 and performance standard 9.3.7 of the District Plan.

Water

NOTE: To enable this subdivision to be reticulated for water (and to provide a connection for Section 489 on which Mr. Malone is currently building a dwelling) the water main in Mataura Road requires upgrading from a 50mm to 100mm main. This required upgrading will be carried out once the contribution required by the condition below has been paid to Council. The contribution required equates to less than the cost of providing a connection across the road from the existing 50mm water main.

6. a. That the subdivision shall be reticulated for water with each of lots 3, 4 and the balance lot being provided with separate metered water connections.

b. A contribution of $1500 Plus GST shall be paid to HDC towards the upgrading of the water main in Mataura Road. Connections for lots 3, 4 and the balance lot are to be made to the upgraded main in Mataura Road.

NOTE: It is recommended that the Council be paid to install all the required connections and meters at the time that payment is made of the contribution. Note that the contribution will need to be paid to Council at least two months prior to application being made for the 224, to allow for the installation of the upgraded main.

The water meters are to be 15mm Kent PSM meters and are to be placed on the road frontage just inside the road reserve, within 0.5m of the property/road reserve boundary. The connection, including water meters, will be installed by the HDC at the cost of the developer. The proposed positioning of the water meters are to be submitted to HDC for approval before installation takes place. no work may be undertaken by private contractors on the public water main.

Stormwater

7. That the stormwater for lot 3 hereon be upgraded to be contained within the lot and roof water discharged to approved soak holes, designed in accordance with the Peter Rogers Soakage report dated 17^th February 2006 or an alternative method designed by a suitably qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code. This is to be carried out under a Building Consent.

REASON: This is due to the location of the down pipes in relation to the boundary between lots 2 and 3.

8. That pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act a consent notice be placed on the title of Lot 4 stating that the storm water is to be disposed of to soakholes as per the design in the report by Peter Rogers Surveyors Ltd dated 17^th February 2006 or an alternative method designed by a suitably qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code

Roading

9. That the subdivider pay a capital contribution towards the urbanisation of Mataura Road (Kerb and channelling) plus a new footpath) of $3513.48 plus GST.

Vehicle Crossing

10. That the balance lot shown as Lots 2, 5 and 6 only shall be served from the existing access to Lot 2 and a Class E (Standard Residential Vehicle Entrance) as specified in Section 9.3.3.3 of the Hauraki District Plan is to be constructed by the applicant to serve lot 3. Note the existing vehicle crossing to Lot 2 is to be upgraded to the relevant District Plan Standard.

Power and Telephone

11. That separate Telephone connections are to be provided to the boundary of both lot 4 and balance lot shown as lots 2, 5 and 6 on the scheme plan reference 1715A Version II dated 20th February 2006, in terms of the HDC District Plan Section 9.3.11.3 and NZS4404:2004, or written confirmation from the appropriate supply authority that these connections are available at no additional cost.
12. That separate Power connections are to be provided to the boundary of both lot 4 and balance lot shown as lots 2, 5 and 6 on the scheme plan reference 1715A dated 20th February 2006, in terms of the HDC District Plan Section 9.3.11.3 and NZS4404:2004.

Consent Notice

13. That pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991 a consent notice shall be placed on the title of Lot 2 advising future owners that Lot 2 shall gain access from Mataura Road only, and that any future entrance to Lot 2 from Favona Street shall result in the owners of Lot 2 upgrading Favona Street to full public road standard.

General

14. That Engineering drawings and specifications covering all engineering works (Sewer, Water, Storm Water, right of way and Vehicle Crossing) shall be submitted to the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of any work. Engineering plans are to include long sections showing grades and ground cover.
15. That three copies of "as built" plans be submitted to Council upon completion of construction. As-built drawings of all works are to comply with NZS 4404: 2004, Schedule 1D, and all normal requirements as per Section 1.5.2. All works are to be presented on a single plan by the Applicant. Attention is drawn to the requirement for co-ordination of all utility surface features.  All co-ordinates are to be presented in New Zealand Transverse Mercator Projection.
16. 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.
17. That pursuant to Section 36(1) (c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay an administration fee of $85.00 for administration of the consent.
18. 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.

• Any work undertaken in the road reserve, including construction of vehicle entrances, will require a street opening permit and traffic management plan be submitted for approval before work commences. Any enquiries regarding this procedure may be directed to Janet Tee at the Paeroa Office, Telephone: 07- 862 8609

• Please note that your street address may change as a result of the subdivision of your property. You will be advised at a later date if this is to be the case. Hauraki District Council follows the Standard New Zealand regulation governing the numbering of all rural and urban properties. This is to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of services and amongst them, emergency services such as Fire, Ambulance and Police etc. Should you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact the Hauraki District Council.

• That a Class F (Standard Residential Vehicle Entrance) as specified in section 9.3.3.3 of the HDC District Plan is to be constructed at the time of Building Consent to serve lot 4 hereon.

• The stormwater for the balance lot shown as lots 2, 5 and 6 should be contained within the lot and roof water should be discharged to approved soak holes, designed in accordance with the Peter Rogers Soakage report dated 17^th February 2006 or an alternative method designed by a suitably qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code. This is to be carried out under a building consent.

B - That pursuant to Section 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council grant consent to this Discretionary activity application to subdivide the balance lot shown as lots 2, 5 and 6 on the scheme plan reference 1571A Version II dated 20th February 2006 subdivision of Sections 487 and 488 Town of Waihi, located at 52 Mataura Road, Waihi into three residential allotments, on the grounds that:

• The proposed subdivision has no adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor;
• The proposal is consistent with the intensity, form and character anticipated for the zone.

Subject to the following conditions:

1. The subdivision shall be carried out generally in accordance with Peter Rogers Surveyors Ltd Scheme Plan ref. 1571A Version II dated 20th February 2006 and amended on the 31 April 2006.
2. That a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1,842.94 plus GST per lot be paid to Council for the creation of two additional lot (Waihi Ward).
3. That the existing sleep out/storeroom on Lot 2 be removed.

NOTE: This is to be carried out under a building consent.

Sewer

4. That lots 2, 5 and 6 be reticulated for wastewater which includes separate connections to all lots in accordance with NZS 4404:2004 and performance standard 9.3.7 of the District Plan.

Water

5. a. The subdivision shall be reticulated for water with each of lots 2, 5 and 6 being provided with separate metered water connections.

b. The connections for lots 5 and 6 shall be from a new 65mm OD main to be installed along Favona Street to the north eastern corner of lot 6 at the consent holder’s cost.

NOTE: It is recommended that the Council be paid to install all the required connections, meters and the new water main. The water meter is to be 15mm Kent PSM meters and are to be placed on the road frontage just inside the road reserve, within 0.5m of the property/road reserve boundary. The connection, including water meter, will be installed by the HDC at the cost of the developer. The proposed positioning of the water meter is to be submitted to HDC for approval before installation takes place. no work may be undertaken by private contractors on the public water main.

Stormwater

6. That pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act a consent notice be placed on the title of Lots 2, 5 and 6 stating that the storm water is to be disposed of to soakholes as per the design in the report by Peter Rogers Surveyors Ltd dated 17^th February 2006 or an alternative method designed by a suitably qualified person in accordance with the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code.

Vehicle Entrances

7. That a Class E (Standard Residential Vehicle Entrance) as specified in section 9.3.3.3 of the HDC District Plan is to be constructed by the applicant to serve the proposed access leg for lot 5.

Roading

8. That the subdivider shall upgrade Favona Street with the following works to be constructed in accordance with NZS4404:2004.

1. That the unformed public road (Favona Street) be formed to "half road" standard from Mataura Road to 10m south of the north eastern corner of Lot 6 hereon. "Half road" standard is defined as being half the width of a new road with a minimum carriageway width of 3.0m. All other aspects of the formation shall be in accordance with the Hauraki District Plan and Part 3 of NZS 4404:2004.

1. That the subdivider pay a capital contribution towards the urbanisation of Mataura Road (Kerb and channelling, plus a new footpath) of $1756.74 plus GST.

Power and Telephone

2. That separate Power connections are to be provided to the boundary of lots 2, 5 and 6 in terms of the HDC District Plan Section 9.3.11.3 and NZS4404:2004.
3. That separate Telephone connections are to be provided to the boundary of lots 2, 5 and 6 in terms of the HDC District Plan Section 9.3.11.3 and NZS4404:2004, or written confirmation from the appropriate supply authority that these connections are available at no additional cost.

Consent Notice

4. That pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991 a consent notice shall be placed on the title of Lots 5 and 6 hereon advising that the owners of those lots shall be responsible for the full maintenance of the "half road" Favona Street formation in perpetuity or until such time as Favona Street is formed to full public road standard.

General

5. That Engineering drawings and specifications covering all engineering works (sewer, water, vehicle crossing, roading and stormwater) shall be submitted to the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of any work. Engineering plans are to include long sections showing grades and ground cover.
6. That three copies of "as built" plans (sewer, water, vehicle crossing, roading and stormwater) be submitted to Council upon completion of construction. As-built drawings of all works are to comply with NZS 4404: 2004, Schedule 1D, and all normal requirements as per Section 1.5.2. All works are to be presented on a single plan by the Applicant. Attention is drawn to the requirement for co-ordination of all utility surface features.  All co-ordinates are to be presented in New Zealand Transverse Mercator Projection.
7. 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.
8. That pursuant to Section 36(1) (c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay an administration fee of $85.00 for administration of the consent.
9. 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.

• Any work undertaken in the road reserve, including construction of vehicle entrances, will require a street opening permit and traffic management plan be submitted for approval before work commences. Any enquiries regarding this procedure may be directed to Janet Tee at the Paeroa Office, Telephone: 07- 862 8609.

• Please note that your street address may change as a result of the subdivision of your property. You will be advised at a later date if this is to be the case. Hauraki District Council follows the Standard New Zealand regulation governing the numbering of all rural and urban properties. This is to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of services and amongst them, emergency services such as Fire, Ambulance and Police etc. Should you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact the Hauraki District Council.

• That a Class E (Standard Residential Vehicle Entrance) as specified in section 9.3.3.3 of the HDC District Plan is to be constructed at the time of Building Consent to serve lot 6 hereon.

An application has been received from Mr and Mrs Morgan seeking an exemption from the fencing of swimming pool requirements.

A detailed report and background information regarding the application including photographs of the pool area on the subject property were attached for the members’ consideration.

The hearing commenced at 1.00pm.

The applicants were not in attendance.

Mr Bierre spoke to his report.

After a general discussion, the Committee agreed that if the applicants agree to comply strictly with the conditions as recommended by the Supervisor - Monitoring, the application for exemption from the requirement of Clauses 8 and 10 of the Schedule to the Act be approved.

The hearing closed at 1.12pm

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Paul and Denise Morgan seeking exemption from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the house into the pool area be fitted with a lock that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years.
2. That the doors with access from the house directly to the pool are to be locked shut when the pool is not in use and under adult supervision.
3. That restrictors are fitted to the windows opening into the pool area.
4. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
5. That an extra layer of protection be installed such as an alarm complying with ASTM F2203 which is capable of detecting unauthorised access from the dwelling into the immediate pool area, and that when activated, emits a sound that can be heard in the dwelling.

HC06/40 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

The meeting closed at 1.14pm.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

September 1006