There were no apologies

There were no late items.

MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 19 DECEMBER 2005

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Monday 19 December 2005 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC06/01 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation from the period 1^st December 2005 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters be received.

HC06/02 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

NON-NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATIONS

The Applicants, J and G Snip of 92 Princes Street, Waikino have applied to subdivide their property into two lots.

A detailed report and supporting documentation was presented.

A hearing was scheduled for 2.15pm. The hearing commenced at 2.15pm.

Mr Graham Harder (Surveyor) on behalf of the applicants was present for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Harder advised the Committee that he had no issues he wished to raise with the staff report. He stated that the issue regarding the stability of the earth dam on the property was the only significant concern he wished to address. He stated that preliminary investigations had shown that there are ‘soft’ spots in the dam. It has yet to be determined if these could affect the stability of the structure. Mr Harder tabled a report detailing the investigation results.

Cr Carmine asked what the issue of concern was with the structure of the dam. Mr Harder stated that the stability of the earth dam located at the northern section of Lot 1 was uncertain. Cr Carmine asked if the dam could be engineered to make it more secure. Mr Harder stated that a chartered Geotechnical Engineer must certify the dam for its stability which would determine whether the dam would need structural work or that it be rebuilt. It if were to be rebuilt, the replacement structure would need to be certified. This certification (as per Condition No.7) must be authorised before the application could then be approved.

Mr Harder added that the causeway over the dam has had heavy traffic over it for some time and commented, as far as he was aware, there had been no issue with its stability in the past.

Ms van Steenbergen stated that the Hearing may be adjourned to allow information in the tabled report to be assessed by engineering staff.

Mr Eccles spoke to his report. He stated that Consent was granted to J and G Snip on 14 September 2000 for a non-complying activity application to subdivide Lot 2 DPS 20307 into three lifestyle lots and a balance lot. That consent authorised the creation of the site that is the subject of this application. The subject site was required at that stage to be held together with the 15ha balance lot of the subdivision.

On 1 August 2001, a further subdivision consent was granted, allowing the 15ha balance lot to be subdivided into four lifestyle lots. The amalgamation condition requiring the site of the current application to be amalgamated with the balance lot was cancelled as part of that subdivision approval. This consent was due to lapse on 1 August 2003 unless the survey plan was submitted for approval prior to that time. A survey plan was submitted on 24 July 2003; however, the plan contained changes for which a new consent was required. Accordingly, the earlier consent lapsed.

On 2 September 2003, Council granted a new consent that approved the creation of the lots on the survey plan submitted on 24 July 2003. That consent replaced the two earlier decisions and allowed for the creation of six new lifestyle lots, including lot 1 being the subject site of this subdivision. As a result of the consent granted on 2 September 2003 title for the subject site was issued on 5 December 2003.

The subject site was originally authorised through the subdivision consent granted on 14 September 2000 which was before the critical date of 26 September 2000. The subject site remained unaltered in the subsequent subdivision in 2001, and was then approved again in unaltered form in the replacement subdivision consent granted in 2003. Had the initial subdivision not been allowed to lapse the site would comply with the title date rule and the current proposal would be a controlled activity.

The reason for the title date/consent date rule is to prevent a multiple stage subdivision of recently subdivided rural properties, which if allowed could compromise the rural character of the area. In this case, the site was initially approved before the critical date, and lifestyle lots are already established in the area. Mr Eccles considered that this proposal will not contribute to a reduction in rural character and would not compromise public confidence in the integrity of the District Plan.

In conclusion, Mr Eccles recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions recommended in his report.

Mr Harder stated that he had no disagreement with the conditions and the requirements stated by the planner and was in agreement that the stability of the dam be certified by a geotechnical engineer.

Ms van Steenbergen advised that either a geotechnical engineer be engaged by the applicant to investigate the stability of the dam before a decision is made on the application or that a decision be made now as the applicants have indicated they are in agreement with Condition No.7, as advised by Mr Harder.

Cr Gordon asked if a traffic management plan and street opening permit would be required prior to any construction work being carried out in the road reserve and to the vehicle entrance. Ms van Steenbergen advised that a traffic management plan would have to put in place for any construction work undertaken on the road reserve. In this case, it appeared that there would be no such work required.

The hearing closed at 2.35pm.

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

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 non-notified discretionary activity application to subdivide Lot 1 DP 327577, located at 92 Princes Street, Waikino into two lots, for the following reasons:

• The proposed subdivision complies with the density and shape standards for lifestyle lot subdivision on Class IV-VI soils in the Rural Zone;
• The proposed subdivision is not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the Hauraki District Plan;
• The proposed subdivision will not create more than minor adverse effects on the environment. With regard to visual effects, while a new dwelling constructed on the building site on Lot 2 will be visible from some public and private viewpoints in the area, it will not create an adverse effect that is more than minor.
• Consent to the proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the integrity of the relevant Hauraki District Plan subdivision rule or public confidence in the consistent administration of the District Plan. The circumstances surrounding the title date of the site are unusual, as the site was initially authorised by subdivision consent prior to 26 September 2000.

1. The subdivision shall be carried out generally in accordance with the Graeme J.D. Harder Scheme Plan ref. 05/55 dated November 2005.

2. That a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1,842.94 plus GST be paid to Council for the creation of one additional lot (Waihi Ward).

3. Schedule of Proposed Easements

HC06/03 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

An application has been received from Mrs Elizabeth Thompson seeking an exemption from the fencing of swimming pool requirements.

A hearing was scheduled for 3.15am. The hearing commenced at 3.15pm.

A detailed report from the Senior Monitoring Officer including the applicant’s letter of application and supporting documents was presented.

The Applicant (Mrs Thompson) and the owner of a neighbouring property were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mrs Thompson tabled a number of photographs of the property detailing the subject site of the pool and spoke in support of her application.

Mrs Thompson informed the Committee that that there are no children under the age of 8 years living on the property and provided a detailed plan of the pool area and plan of the outside area surrounding the house.

In referring to the plan of the pool area which showed a proposed access gate to be constructed on the fence in front of the house, Mrs Thompson stated that following discussions held with Mr Linklater, it was agreed that the proposed gate be removed from the plan to eliminate the risk of someone accessing the pool area without her knowledge.

Cr Gordon asked what the depth of the pool was. Mrs Thompson advised that the size of the pool is 4.8 x 9.5m in width with a depth of 1.8m at the deepest point. Cr Gordon asked if Mrs Thompson’s children are competent swimmers. Mrs Thompson advised that both her children were very competent swimmers and added that the pool cannot be accessed from any other area of the property other than from within the house. The pool is fully fenced. Mrs Thompson stated that she would like to keep the pool as close to the house as possible for convenience reasons and also so she can supervise children swimming more easily.

Cr Gordon stated that it is important that the regulations be adhered to protect children if the property is on-sold in the future.

Cr Bubb asked if the bi-fold doors would be open when children are swimming. Mrs Thompson stated that the doors would be open when the pool is in use. A concern was raised that the pool could be accessed through the rear door located in the garage. Mrs Thompson stated that this door located at the rear of the garage is the only door accessing the rear of the house. The back door access and garage door are the same.

Mr Linklater stated that his main concern was that the house could be accessed through the pool area. He stated that the gate located at the front of the house in the plan originally submitted with the application was not a suitable option. He suggested that the fence be constructed from the driveway beside the pool directly along the line of the deck into the house therefore not allowing any access directly into the pool area from the front of the house.

The hearing closed at 3.40pm.

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

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

1. That an access path be formed to the proposed main entry door at the rear of the garage and be clearly indicated and Gate 1 as shown on the proposed pool plan be deleted so that visitors to the house do not access the dwelling through the pool area.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. That restrictors are to be fitted to the windows opening into the pool area.

HC06/04 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

The meeting closed at 3.50pm.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

March 2006