There were no apologies.

There were no late items.

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation from the period 1^st June 2007 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters be received.

HC07/78 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 19 July 2007 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC07/79 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

The applications listed above have been received seeking an exemption from the fencing of swimming pool requirements. All applications will be heard at the times allocated.

A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer for each application including supporting documents was attached.

Mr N Spargo, 23 Gladstone Road, Waihi - (05030/202.09) (25KB)

The Applicant was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Spargo stated that he considered his pool met the requirements of the Act in 1989.

Mr Spargo was advised that the now the legal requirement is that he must formally apply for a dispensation from Council under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act due to the fact that the windows and doors of his house directly access the pool area, for this reason, there has been a change in the regulations.

The Applicant has a swimming pool on his property which is presently full of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act in part, but there is direct access via doors and windows from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 3^rd July 2007and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the doors and windows opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling.

The doors and windows that open directly into the pool area from the dwelling have securing devices fitted and inhibitors on the windows above the floor which can not be reached or opened greater than 100mm by a child under the age of 6 years old.

Mr East advised that he had an issue with the height of the latch on the gate. The latch has a positive return and latches back to a secure latched position from 1.5m and is caged to prevent easy operation of the latch. However, there is no provision in the Act to allow the latch to be below 1.5m on the outside of the pool gate. Alternatively, it would not be an unreasonable request from Council to make the latch on the gate compliant.

In conclusion, Mr East and the Committee agreed; as the latch on the gate is caged, making it difficult for a young child to access it, and the fact that the latch position is minimally below the 1.5m compliant height, that the gate be approved.

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

Mr N Spargo, 23 Gladstone Road, Waihi - (05030/202.09)

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the request from Mr Spargo seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable for the access to the pool from the house to comply with the Act. In contrast it would not be unreasonable for the Committee to request that Mr Spargo comply with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 in relation to the non-compliant latch height at the pool gate. Clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act allows for this specific situation on condition that the doors are fitted with a lock that, when properly operated, prevents the door from being opened by children under 6 years of age. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
3. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/80 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

Mr Lenihan & Mrs Berridge, 10 Harris Place, Ngatea - (04771/603.00) (25KB)

The Applicants were not in attendance.

The Applicants have a swimming pool on their property which is presently full of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies in part with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via doors and windows from the dwelling into the pool area. In addition, there is a side gate that does not meet the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming pools Act 1987. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 9^th July 2007and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the doors and windows opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling and no waiver in place for the non-compliant gate.

The doors and windows that open directly into the pool area from the dwelling have securing devices and inhibitors fitted above the floor which cannot be reached or opened greater than 100mm by a child under the age of 6 years old. The securing devices are capable of being locked.

Mr East had issue with the side gate as it is the only access to the back yard. On inspection, the gate was found to be securely padlocked in place. When speaking to Mr Lenihan, he advised that the gate is used for practical reasons to gain access to the back yard. The boundary fence makes up the greater proportion of the pool fencing although the property in question. There is enough room to fence the immediate pool area and avoid the exemption for the gate but it would not be an unreasonable to request he make the side gate compliant.

Mr East considered that the only issue of concern is with the side gate accessing the back yard. It requires the installation of a ‘return spring’ latch to make the gate self shut.

In conclusion, it was agreed that the applicants install a self shutting latch to the side gate accessing the back yard.

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

Mr Lenihan & Mrs Berridge, 10 Harris Place, Ngatea - (04771/603.00)

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the request from Mr Lenihan & Mrs Berridge seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable for the access to the pool from the house to comply with the Act. In contrast the request to allow the side gate should not be granted on the grounds that it is not an unreasonable request to make the gate compliant to the Act. Clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act allows for this specific situation on condition that the doors are fitted with a lock and the windows with inhibitors that, when properly operated, prevents the doors and windows from being opened by children under 6 years of age. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the doors from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
3. That the side gate is made compliant to The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 as this is achievable and is not an unreasonable request.
4. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
5. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/81 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

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

Mrs Elliott, 1 Mahana Road, Ngatea - (04771/203.00) (24KB)

The Applicant was not in attendance.

The Applicant has a swimming pool on her property which is presently full of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via doors and windows from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 9^th July 2007 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the doors and windows opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling.

The doors and windows that open directly into the pool area from the dwelling have securing devices and inhibitors fitted above the floor which can not be reached or opened greater than 100mm by a child under the age of 6 years old. The securing devices are capable of being locked.

Mr East advised that Mrs Elliott has now met compliancy, and there are no further issues with the pool fencing requirements.

Mrs Elliott, 1 Mahana Road, Ngatea - (04771/203.00)

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the request from Mrs Elliott seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable for the access to the pool from the house to comply with the Act. Clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act allows for this specific situation on condition that the doors are fitted with a lock and the windows with inhibitors that, when properly operated, prevents the doors and windows from being opened by children under 6 years of age. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the doors from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
3. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/82 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

Mr & Mrs Bing, 31 Russell Street, Waihi - (05020/199.01) (25KB)

The Applicants were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

The Applicants spoke of their opposition to the request of the Monitoring Officer that they install mesh material to the top of their concrete solar wall located by the entrance gate to the pool. Mr Bing considered it was a ‘feature’ wall and mesh would detract from the aesthetic value of the wall. Mr Bing presented a drawing and explained this option he had considered to prevent children climbing over the wall. The plan consisted of the installation of a polycarbonate sheet which would cover the wall.

Mr East advised that the wall in its present form does not meet the requirements of the Act, in that, a child under six years of age could quite easily climb over this type of fence directly accessing the pool. He advised the Committee that the option to install mesh on top of the wall was one option considered and to be less costly and would act as a deterrent for children to climb over it.

Mr East considered that the polycarbonate sheeting is not the most suitable material for this purpose, as it would tend to break down due to the effects of heat because of where it is positioned and suggested that the addition of mesh would be the better option. Whatever alteration is made to the structure of the fence, it would have to comply with the Building Act 2004.

Mr and Mrs Bing agreed that if they choose not to apply mesh to the wall and instead decide to make structural changes to it, they would ensure compliancy with the Building Act 2004.

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

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the request from Mr & Mrs Bing seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 1 to 7 of the Schedule to the Act be declined on the grounds that it would not be impossible nor unreasonable to require the applicant to make the block wall compliant with the schedule to the Act.. Clause 6 of the Schedule to the Act allows for 50mm maximum dimension mesh, netting or perforated material to be used and the fence height must be a minimum of 1.8m. If this was implemented the wall would be compliant.

HC07/83 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

NON-NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

LANDUSE CONSENT APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT : KOWHAI VILLAS DEVELOPMENT LTD, TAYLOR AVENUE, PAEROA (85.002.001) (73KB)

The Applicants seek consent to establish a 21 unit comprehensive residential development on the site.

The detailed report from the Consultant Planner was available.

A hearing has been scheduled for 10.00am. The hearing commenced at 10.20am.

The Applicants, Ms Nicola Beauchamp, Mr Carl St George and Mr Doug Gerrand - authorised representatives of the applicant company and Mr J J Cutler, Planning Manager, Northern Region Office of Harrison Grierson Consultants Ltd, Albany (on behalf of) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Cutler presented a Statement of Evidence and provided a detailed overview of the subject site and its immediate surrounds. The subject site is approx. rectangular in shape is of flat contour. The site is currently a grassed area. The site contains a total land area of 7,842m2 and is zoned Residential under the Hauraki District Plan. The site is accessed from Taylor Avenue and is approx 1.2km from the Paeroa town centre. The overall facility will be administered by a body corporate and a manager will live on-site in one of the units.

A locality diagram and aerial photograph of the site was attached for the member’s information.

Mr Cutler advised that since receiving various concerns from Council officers, outlined in the Consultant Planner’s report, the applicant has amended the scheme, which has resulted in a reduction in the proposed number of units on the site from 21 to 19. The amended scheme plan was attached.

The Applicants advised they are agreeable to the Consultant Planner’s recommendation to conditions of consent with the exception of conditions:

2. That a maximum of 18 units be developed.

3. That a revised site plan showing an area of communal open space on the site and taking account of condition 2 of this consent shall be submitted to the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of any work.

6 That the consent holder shall reticulate the development for water. The development as a whole shall be provided with a bulk metered water connection at the boundary of the site with Taylor Avenue in accordance with NZS 4404:2004 and Performance Standard 9.3.9 of the Hauraki District Plan.

Mr Cutler addressed issues of concern relating to the development, as follows:

Planning analysis, effects and neighbours consultation

Consultation with all neighbouring properties has been undertaken and no issues have been advised.

Density

Considered all issues of density at the site have been addressed with the deletion of two units.

Truck and Car Manoeuvring

Addressed.

Car Parking

Not considered an issue as it is envisaged there will not be a great number of vehicle owners residing at the development as the average age of residents would be between 70-80 years of age.

Communal open space and pedestrian facilities

Addressed.

Traffic Calming Measures

Addressed.

Community Recreation Facility Contribution

Agreed.

Density

Cr Gordon requested that a revised landscape plan showing 19 units instead of the original 21 be submitted for the consideration of the Committee and staff.

How would enforcement of age limit be undertaken? Mr St George advised that the body corporate would have a ruling that no one younger than 50 years of age can reside there. He considered the majority of residents would be between approx. 70 - 80 years of age therefore it was likely that there would be fewer cars at the development, than in the case for "standard" residential sections.

It was asked if the design of the units has maximised sunlight. Mr St George advised they have maximised sunlight to all units as much as possible.

Mr Eccles outlined the layout of the development. Each unit only has two bedrooms. The living court is 60m2.

Landscape Plan

The plan with the application is based on the original scheme plan, an amended landscape plan will need to be provided which will show plantings and trellis screening based on the amended layout and number of dwellings.

It was advised that the complying number of units would be 18, and not 21.

There are two infringements regarding the accessway, as follows:

1. 6m minimum width requirement for ROW’s.
2. Access way length - infringement - if exceeds 40m in length. ROW must be formed to allow access to Council pump station.

Concern was raised regarding the density of development in that there is a lack of communal open space which did not enhance the amenity value of the site.

It was considered the developer’s Planner has addressed issues of concern raised in relation to the conditions of consent

Mr Eccles expressed the view that only 18 units should be allowed and added that a further unit may need to be dispensed with.

The site is suitable, but he considered the density of development was inappropriate.

Bulk metering would be applied. Services within the site would not be vested in Council.

Condition 12 - The access to the pump station must be formed to Councils ROW standards.

Condition 5 - requirement that the outdoor living courts of all units shall be screened to achieve privacy.

Control of construction noise levels.

CRFC (Community Recreational Facilities Contribution) i.e. libraries, bowling greens etc. Contributions - open space provided at the site will be for residents.

18 units are a complying density for this site. Mr Eccles recommended there should be no waiver of CRFC fees on that basis.

Application has been recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined.

Density - net site area (taking out accessway) allows 18 units, not 21 to comply with the site density rule.

Engineering staff would need to review the revised plan.

Mr Cutler agreed with Mr Eccles comments regarding the CRFC fees that the development would be required to comply with this condition.

In reference to density, Mr Cutler considered the applicants have addressed issues of spill over parking, footpath access, communal outdoor space and resident car parking. He considered that the revised plan meets all the issues raised. The net site area does not include accessways.

Mr Cutler stated that if the Committee does not agree to 19 units, the applicants were agreeable to the deletion of one unit.

The Chairperson requested the hearing be adjourned and reconvened on Thursday, 6 September 2007 to allow Councils engineering officers to consider and comment on the revised plans of the development site.

The hearing adjourned at 11.20am until Thursday, 6^th of September 2007.

RESOLVED

THAT Cr Gordon be appointed as Chairperson for the hearing of the following appeal from Ms J Carmichael to a Menacing Dog classification.

HC07/84 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

APPEAL TO MENACING DOG CLASSIFICATION - MS J CARMICHAEL, 14 VICTORIA STREET, WAIHI (63.100.027) (18KB)

An appeal has been lodged.

A detailed report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents was available.

A hearing was scheduled for 12.30pm. The hearing commenced at 12.30pm.

The applicant and complainant were not in attendance.

Mr Adams presented a report on the incident and the history of the dog in question.

It was advised that Council has received 3 complaints from different complainants concerning Ms Carmichael’s two dogs ‘Manny’ a brown female German Shepherd and ‘Chevy’ a Tan male Boxer Cross (neutered), both of whom reside at 14 Victoria Street, Waihi and are registered in Ms Carmichael’s name. These complaints are dated 5 June 2007, 26 June 2007 and 13 July 2007 all relate to the dogs acting aggressively to members of the public, while walking in Victoria Street.

On June 26^th 2007 as a result of complaints the dog ‘Manny’ was classified as menacing. Investigations revealed this dog was the principal offender and the second dog Chevy was also present. On the 13^th July, a third complaint was received which resulted in the other dog Chevy being classified as menacing. This was a result of a complaint received from a woman who stated when she and her children and their dog (who was leashed) were walking past the 14 Victoria Street address, a brown and tan dog came running from the driveway of number 14 barking and snarling. The complainant stopped and the dog returned up the drive. As the complainant moved off, both dogs returned out onto the street barking and the complainant retreated across the street towards Edwards Transport. The two dogs then returned up the drive at 14 Victoria Street.

Ms Carmichael has previously received verbal warnings over the lack of control of her dogs including one infringement notice.

Mr Adams advised when he parked outside the property to speak with Ms Carmichael; the dogs came out and acted aggressively forcing him to stay in his vehicle.

‘Manny’ has had a muzzled requirement issued by Auckland City Council prior to the dog coming into the Hauraki District.

The issue of concern is that Ms Carmichael does not control her dogs as required under the Act and therefore recommended the classification be upheld.

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

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the Menacing Dog Classification be upheld.

HC07/85 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

The hearing closed 12.44pm.

APPEAL TO MENACING DOG CLASSIFICATION - K & H GUPTILL, 10 THOMAS PLACE, WAIHI (63.100.027) (18KB)

An appeal has been lodged.

A detailed report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents was available.

A hearing has been scheduled for 1.00pm. The hearing commenced at 1.00pm.

The applicant and complainant were not attendance.

Mr Adams presented a report on the incident and the history of the dog in question.

The dog is a neutered female Border Collie named ‘Jill’ who is approximately 10 years of age. Mr Adams advised that no previous complaints have been received regarding the dogs behaviour.

On 1^st August 2007 Council received a complaint regarding Jill’s behaviour. The complainant stated while she was along side 8 Thomas Place, Waihi talking to a friend, a black and while Border Collie ran through an open gate and attacked her dog, grabbing her dog behind the neck. The complainant’s dog was wearing a choker chain at the time which prevented further injury to her dog. The complainant stated that the occupants for 8 Adams Street witnessed the incident.

When Mr Adams and Mr Sexton called at 8 Thomas Place, to advise the Guptill’s of this complaint the front gate was open and they were met on the street by the dog. They spoke with Mr Guptill who appeared unconcerned about the incident. Mr Guptill told them that the dog was not aggressive and is friendly towards children and was used to family being around the property.

Mr Adams advised that an entering the property the Border Collie ran behind them and barked. He had no doubt that the incident did occur. Although, this incident was on a minor scale, he stated the safety of the community comes first.

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

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the Menacing Dog Classification be upheld.

HC07/86 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

The hearing closed at 1.10pm.

The meeting closed 1.15pm.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

6 September 2007