There were no apologies.

A detailed report and supporting documents were attached.

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

Mr Brent Trail, Surveying Services (on behalf of) and Mr Russell Evans, Director of Penrhys Limited (Applicant) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Trail provided a brief overview of the application.

The property is located on the Back Miranda Road, a short distance from Miranda and Miranda Hot Pools. The application is based on the current lifestyle rules, the surplus house rule and the Protection of Significant Heritage and Environmental Features rule.

Mr Trail explained that the proposal has come about from a purchase of the property by the adjoining owners who want to increase the size and manageability of their current farm. The applicant currently owns the adjoining farm to the north on the western side of the road and Mr Evans parents own the land to South and to the north on the eastern side of the road. The owners intend to continue farming as long as it is economical.

The Applicants proposes to develop the land in three stages:

Stage 1 – Lot 11 (road to vest), Lots 1 – 5, Lot 12 and Lot 13

Stage 2 - Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 (including the shed removal within Lot 12)

Stage 3 – Lot 10

The proposal retains the rear of the hill section in farming and facilities movement of stock between the original two farms that are managed as one.

Mr Trail provided a scheme plan of the proposed subdivision of the existing farm which highlighted, in particular, location of accessways, proposed dwelling sites and right-of-ways.

Mr Trail considered that the location of the house sites will fit within the objectives of the District Plan. The applicants have separated the house sites significantly and have proposed design covenants on colour and height on the higher elevated house sites. They have proposed substantial native planting around all sites to reduce aesthetic impact on the open rural character of the land.

Resulting from engineering investigations into wastewater and stability of the land, septic tanks for onsite disposal is provided for. Stability of house sites has been investigated; the Engineer advises that no slipping should occur.

Applicants generally are satisfied with the conditions set by Council but have requested approval be given to a 10 year statutory time period for completion of subdivision instead of the usual 5 years and sought clarification of some aspects of the conditions.

To mitigate affects of subdivision, a 5 year period to complete landscaping has been stipulated. The applicants ask if the Committee would consider a 2 year period for this.

Applicants requested that the condition relating to the bond required by Council to be no less than 150% of the estimated cost of landscape works for a five year period be reviewed.

Other queries with conditions:

Condition 39(e) - reason for inclusion of Lot 2 - has no identified area on it.

Condition 32(c) - the lack of consistency between the Stage 1 and 2 requirements - Conditions B39(b) and D32(c) respectively.

A member requested that Conditions B10 and D10 be changed from a 3 month period to a 6 month period for grassing following major earthworks. The planting should be undertaken in the best growing season to allow a satisfactory cover of grass to be established. Six months would provide a wider period of suitable weather in which to sow grass seed.

Committee member raised concern that traffic would travel through the property of Lot 6. Mr Trail advised that the house site will sit above the road which looks out over bush and a pond and would therefore not create any issue to traffic or the proposed dwelling. All bush planted will be fenced to prevent stock from entering and to generally protect the vegetation.

In response to a question, Ms van Steenbergen advised that a survey plan would be prepared for each stage of the subdivision. Each stage of development would be signed off at completion (full compliance with conditions of that stage),

Mr de Laborde advised that a preliminary design has been drawn up to show how acceptable sight distance could be obtained from the proposed road.

Issues of farming beside lifestyle lots - Cr Gordon requested consideration be given to conditions that protect the lifestyle lots from the existing farm operation, e.g. moving stock on the new road and rights of way used by lifestyle lots owners. Mr Trail considered that all issues concerning effects of farming operation with the lifestyle properties have been fully considered, and that farming use of the new road and rights of way would be minimal.

Mr de Laborde advised that the construction phase will be monitored until completion stage when it will be formally signed off.

The members raised concern that there was limited room for shoulder of right of way going through lot 6. Mr Trail advised that sufficient room (as per width requirement) has been allowed for passing vehicles. Traffic using this right of way would very rarely need to pass another vehicle.

Cr Bubb requested what has been considered about the archaeological sites noted on the plan (pits). Has consultation with Iwi resolved any concerns? Mr Trail advised that the Iwi and the Historic Places Trust have been consulted. The developer has agreed to protect the pits in Lot 7.

Mr Baldwin highlighted the changes that had been made to the scheme plan by the applicants to address issues he had found during his processing of it. These involved keeping the farmable land in one lot - Lot 5, which would assist with weed control and general maintenance of Lots 5, 7 and 8. The steepest areas of the latter two would largely be planted.

With regard to concerns of maintenance and stability of sloping land of the higher lots of (7 and 8), it was emphasised that a re-vegetation proposal has been set out to stabilise this steeper land and to reduce the need for machine weed control.

Access to Lot 6 - agreed with the reconfiguration of the location of the house site from original plan.

The steeper lots of 6, 7 and 8 that do not meet the 5,000m2 of residential area rule are to be addressed by native plantings to improve amenity of lots and neighbouring lots and no farming would be carried out on these lots. Proposed Lots 5 and 9, however, are considered to provide a larger area of land which can be used for small scale "farming" operations.

Mr Baldwin recommended that the application be considered on a non-notified basis, for the reasons:

Mr Baldwin recommended that as long as the recommended conditions as amended above are adhered to, the application should be approved, for the reasons that:

Adverse affects of subdivision would be no more than minor, achieving a favourable environment and sustainable use of existing resources.

Sufficient geotechnical investigation has been carried out to show that the lots are suitable for development. Purchasers of individual lots will need to have the foundations of their specific dwellings designed.

If the recommended conditions are imposed, the consent holders being responsible for the maintenance of plantings for 5 years, will need to ensure they have mechanisms in place to allow access to the lots for this purpose.

Council must receive verification that landscaping and maintenance is being carried out within the time period stipulated. Monitoring would also be carried out by Council staff to ensure planting is being carried out and maintained as well as monitoring of other conditions as relevant to ensure planting is being undertaken as per the conditions.

Mr Baldwin advised that the conditions recommended make the landowner responsible for maintenance of plantings for 5 years, then after that time, the lot owner becomes responsible for their ongoing maintenance.

Mr Trail considered all areas of concern have been addressed and wished to add no further comment.

The hearing closed at 10.40am.

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:

HC07/104 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

Extension of time – Decision

It is recommended that Council resolves to REFUSE THE EXTENSION OF TIME for a period of 10 years for the application to subdivide the property into thirteen (13) allotments at 271 Back Miranda Road, Miranda, on the land legally described as Waitakaruru 1A2C, for the following reasons:

Reasons for the Decision:

1. The Hauraki District Plan is currently in the process of being reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991. The review process may result in the subdivision provisions being changed which may result in the subdivision proposal having different assessment criteria or even a different activity status.

2. The Resource Management Act also provides for the consent holder to apply for an extension of time pursuant to section 125. It is considered that these provisions give the consent holder adequate time, being five years, to give effect to the consent and apply for an extension of time as and when required.

3. It is considered that the default five year period for subdivision is appropriate for this decision.

HC07/105 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

7. That any soil spilled or tracked onto any public road shall be removed from the road immediately so as not to create a nuisance.

8. That the applicant shall take measures to ensure that there is no objectionable dust nuisance beyond the boundary of the site. For the purpose of this condition, the dust nuisance shall be considered objectionable if a Council officer considers it so, having regard to the frequency, intensity, and duration of the effects, and any complaints from a member of the public that the effect of the dust was objectionable.

9. The consent holder shall ensure that all earthworks are carried out in accordance with Environment Waikato’s "Erosion and Sediment Control – Guidelines for Soil Disturbing Activities 2003" or as otherwise specified by any relevant consents issued by Environment Waikato.

10. The consent holder shall, within 6 months of the completion of earthworks, re-grass or hydro seed all exposed earthworks to achieve a minimum 80% grass strike.

11. Where earthworks are proposed then the consent holder shall ensure appropriate silt retention devices as necessary are in place to protect waterways, as approved by the District Engineer, HDC or as otherwise specified by any relevant consents issued by Environment Waikato. This is required over the duration of the entire earthwork phase. These must be installed prior to any earthwork operation, maintained regularly and dismantled / removed once all bare ground surfaces have been stabilised by vegetation.

Road Design (Lot 11)

12. That the new public road (Lot 11) be designed and constructed generally in accordance with the requirements of NZS 4404:2004, with the exception of those items set out in clause 11.5 of document number 265610 (The application for subdivision consent received by Council on 12 December 2006) attached as Appendix One.  This shall include the retaining wall required adjacent to Lot 1.    

13. That the consent holder shall commission a comprehensive geotechnical report of the road site, by a Chartered Professional Engineer. The pavement design shall be based on the recommendations contained in this report, as approved by the District Engineer. This report shall also address the on going slope stability of the proposed cuts, and provide a design for the retaining wall required adjacent to the pool and dwelling etc on Lot 1.      

14. A cul de sac turning head shall be constructed within the new road reserve, in accordance with NZS 4404:2004, located at the end of this new road.

15. Grass berms and swale drains located within the road reserve shall be installed (contoured, topsoiled and grassed) to the satisfaction of the District Engineer, Hauraki DC.

16. That the consent holder shall evenly match the proposed road extension into the Back Miranda Rd to the satisfaction of the District Engineer, HDC. This includes modifications to the existing drainage and the excavation of sight benches as appropriate.

17. The consent holder must suitably armour the proposed road edges on longitudinal gradients greater than 5% to prevent scour and erosion as approved by the District Engineer, HDC.

18. Pursuant to section 108(2) (b) and 108A of the Resource Management Act 1991; the consent holder is to enter into the following bonds in favour of the Council:

18.1  A bond:

(a) In the sum of 5% of the total project cost for the construction of Lot 11 (as agreed with the Council by its district engineer or other officer) at the time of the section 224 certificate application;

(b) For a period of 12 months from the date that the Stage 1 subdivision work is completed (such period being the "maintenance period" required for stage 1);

(c) not earlier than two months prior to the expiry of the maintenance period, the consent holder may request the Council to inspect the works and advise the consent holder of any remedial work to be undertaken;

(d) Following inspection, the Council may either:

(i) Require the consent holder to carry out the remedial work prior to the release of the bond; or

(ii) the Council may call in the bond and repair any defective work from the proceeds of the bond, the balance of which will be refunded to the consent holder or the guarantor of the bond and in the event of a shortfall will be a debt due and owing by the consent holder to the Council payable on demand;

(e) on completion of any remedial works by the consent holder, and any further remedial works required by the Council, on the expiry of the maintenance period the provisions of the bond having otherwise been complied with, the Council will discharge the bond.

18.2 The bond is to be prepared by the Council's solicitors at the cost of the consent holder and will contain such further or other terms as the Council may reasonably require and shall have either a cash surety to be deposited with the Council (with interest to accrue to the Council) or a guarantee from a New Zealand registered trading bank.

7. That any soil spilled or tracked onto any public road shall be removed from the road immediately so as not to create a nuisance.

8. That the applicant shall take measures to ensure that there is no objectionable dust nuisance beyond the boundary of the site. For the purpose of this condition, the dust nuisance shall be considered objectionable if a Council officer considers it so, having regard to the frequency, intensity, and duration of the effects, and any complaints from a member of the public that the effect of the dust was objectionable.

9. The consent holder shall ensure that all earthworks are carried out in accordance with Environment Waikato’s "Erosion and Sediment Control – Guidelines for Soil Disturbing Activities 2003" or as otherwise specified by any relevant consents issued by Environment Waikato.

10. The consent holder shall, within 6 months of the completion of earthworks, re-grass or hydro seed all exposed earthworks to achieve a minimum 80% grass strike.

11. Where earthworks are proposed then the consent holder shall ensure appropriate silt retention devices as necessary are in place to protect waterways, as approved by the District Engineer, HDC or as otherwise specified by any relevant consents issued by Environment Waikato. This is required over the duration of the entire earthwork phase. These must be installed prior to any earthwork operation, maintained regularly and dismantled / removed once all bare ground surfaces have been stabilised by vegetation.

12. All existing grass berms and swale drains located within the road reserve, on all ROWs and proposed access tracks shall be reinstated (contoured, topsoiled and grassed) to the satisfactory of the District Engineer, Hauraki DC.

13. The consent holder shall remove the shed within Lot 12.

14. That the consent holder shall commission a comprehensive geotechnical report of the right of way site, by a Chartered Professional Engineer. The pavement design shall be based on the recommendations contained in this report, as approved by the District Engineer. This report shall also address the on going slope stability of the proposed cuts.      

16. That ROW’s A, B, C and D shall be constructed by the consent holder in accordance with the appropriate standard as specified in Rule 9.3.19.3 of the District Plan. The appropriate standard is that for a right of way between 250 and 500 metres in length, serving 3-4 lots in the Rural zone. This includes a minimum easement width of 12m. This shall comprise of a 5m sealed width and a 1.5m unsealed carriageway on the western side.

17. That curb and channel or approved alternative be constructed on the proposed eastern seal edge over the full length of ROW B. Note that this is to control the runoff from the proposed sealed access track and to combat potential scour of erosion prone existing soils located within the proposed ROW. Curb and channel sumps or approved alternative, shall be placed at regular intervals with outlet pipes extended down the existing steep slopes, as required, and discharge into the existing open drain/ watercourses/ gullies. Discharge outlets shall have approved energy dissipation devices. Appropriate drainage easements are required where the stormwater reticulation encroaches onto an adjoining Lot.

18. That ROW A be matched evenly into the approved crossing at the existing cul de sac formed at stage 1.