There were no apologies.

There were no late items.

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

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters be received.

HC07/93 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

MEETING HELD THURSDAY 6 SEPTEMBER 2007

The minutes of the Hearings Committee meeting held on Thursday 6 September 2007 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC07/94 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

LAND USE CONSENT: TO ERECT AND OPERATE A STORAGE SHED FACILITY OF 31 UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED WASHDOWN AREA, CARPARKS, TOILET, SECURITY FENCING AND LANDSCAPING : P & P HENDERSON, 232 TRIG ROAD SOUTH, WAIHI (85.051.062.20) (88KB)  

The applicants propose to establish 31 storage units on the site for the commercial storage of boats and general storage.

A detailed report and supporting documents were attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 1.15pm. The hearing commenced at 1.15pm.

In attendance for the benefit of the hearing were:

Ms Karen Page - Senior Resource Planner, Connell Wagner (on behalf of)

Mr Dallas Banks, Traffic Engineer, Connell Wagner (on behalf of)

Mr and Mrs P & P Henderson (Applicants)

Mr K McCowatt and Ms G Jacques and Mr and Mrs P & T McCowatt (Submitters)

Mr T & Mrs C McCowatt were in attendance as observers and took no part in the hearing.

Mr Buttimore advised that he had received additional correspondence in the form of facsimile from P & P Pepper Ltd who advised they have recently purchased the lot subdivided off the original lot, being part of the farm owned by Mr and Mrs Henderson. The submitter advises that they are seeking legal advice due to the fact they were not notified of the proposal to establish the storage units on the adjoining land owned by Mr and Mrs Henderson prior to signing an agreement for sale and purchase in March 2007.

In response to this additional information, Ms Page stated that in her professional opinion, the Committee could not accept this correspondence because it was received outside of the initial submission deadline requirement of 20 working days following notification of consent, and that the further submission deadline of a further 20 working days had also expired. Ms Page therefore considered the submission was invalid and stated that it should be considered outside of the hearing process.

The Chairperson requested that the hearing adjourn to allow the Committee to seek advice on Councils legal position in light of the additional submission received.

The hearing adjourned at 1.30pm.

The hearing reconvened at 1.40pm

The Chairperson advised that the Committee required an adjournment of the hearing to allow further legal advice to be received before any further consideration could take place regarding the application.

The hearing adjourned at 1.45pm.

D & M R Gollings, 102 Savage Road, Waihi - 05050/031.30 (21KB) 

The applicants are seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was presented by the Regulatory Services Manager.

The hearing was scheduled for 3.00pm. The hearing commenced at 2.30pm.

Mr Gollings (Applicant) was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Gollings advised that he has an above-ground spa pool set onto a concrete slab which has a lockable lid. The house is set back from the road along a long driveway which is to have a more substantial gate constructed once he and his wife relocate from Auckland. No children under the age of six years will be residing at the property. The spa pool is located behind trellis fencing and is not easily visible from adjoining properties and the road. Photographs were available.

The members advised that they were satisfied that Mr Gollings has complied with the conditions of the act in securing his spa pool and gave their approval that the application be granted subject to all conditions of compliancy being met as per the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act.

The hearing closed at 2.40pm.

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

D & M R Gollings, 102 Savage Road, Waihi - 05050/031.30

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

1. That a lockable cover be fitted and used in strict accordance with the plans, specifications as stated in the NZS8500:2006 and letter submitted with the application
2. That the cover is locked in place when the Spa Pool is not under adult supervision or when the property is vacant.
3. That the lockable cover is maintained to a standard acceptable under the NZS8500:2006
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/95 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

Mr & Mrs Torr, 97 Pouarua North Road, R D 6, Thames - 04680/282.00 (23KB)

The applicants are seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was presented by the Regulatory Services Manager.

A hearing was scheduled for 3.10pm. The hearing commenced at 2.45pm

Mr & Mrs Torr have a spa pool on their property at 97 Pouarua North Road, RD6 Thames, which is presently full of water. The pool area has no pool fencing however the Spa has a lockable lid that when properly operated is safe for the minimisation of young children entering the pool and drowning. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 20^th August 2007and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the lockable lid. An application has been received from the Torr’s seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the lockable lid is in place. Photographs were available.

The members considered that as the spa pool is not a permanent structure and can be relocated, it was agreed that the condition which requires the decision be entered onto the title of the property be deleted.

The hearing closed at 2.55pm.

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

Mr & Mrs Torr, 97 Pouarua North Road, R D 6, Thames - 04680/282.00

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

1. That a lockable cover be fitted and used in strict accordance with the plans, specifications as stated in the NZS8500:2006 and letter submitted with the application
2. That the cover is locked in place when the Spa Pool is not under adult supervision or when the property is vacant.
3. That the lockable cover is maintained to a standard acceptable under the NZS8500:2006
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/96 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

Mr & Mrs Aislabie, 53 Hayward Road, Ngatea - 04771/527.00(24KB)

The applicants are seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was presented by the Regulatory Services Manager.

A hearing was scheduled for 3.20pm. The hearing commenced at 2.50pm.

Mr & Mrs Aislabie have a swimming pool on their property at 53 Hayward Road, Ngatea, 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 windows from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 13^th August 2007 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the windows opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr & Mrs Aislabie seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the windows from the dwelling open into the pool area. Photographs were available.

The hearing closed at 3.00pm.

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

Mr & Mrs Aislabie, 53 Hayward Road, Ngatea - 04771/527.00

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mr & Mrs Aislabie 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 windows are fitted with an inhibitor that, when properly operated, prevents the windows from being opened by children under 6 years of age greater than 100mm. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

1. That all windows with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with an inhibitor that when properly operated prevents the windows from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years old greater than 100mm.
2. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
3. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/97 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

OBJECTION TO MENACING DOG CLASSIFICATION - A REIHANA, 10 CONNELL STREET, WAIHI (63.100.027)(18KB)

An appeal has been lodged.

A detailed report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents were presented.

The hearing was scheduled for 3.45pm. The hearing commenced at 3.10pm.

Ms A Reihana (Applicant) was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Ms Reihana attested that her dog ‘Seth’ is not a Pit Bull Terrier and took issue that he be classified as Menacing on the grounds of breed. She advised that no complaints have been received as to Seth’s behaviour from any neighbours.

Ms Reihana stated that Seth does roam across the road but no further than that. He is not aggressive by nature. The rear of the section is full fenced. There was an area of the fence he could access but that has now been closed up.

Mr Sexton presented the report in Mr Adam’s absence.

Mr Sexton advised that the dog in question is not being classified by way of its behaviour but its breed.

The issue has arisen following receipt of a complaint laid about the behaviour of another dog residing at the address. It was found that when visiting the property in response to this complaint, Mr Adams observed that another dog residing on the property, ‘Seth’, the dog in question had the appearance of a banned breed, namely a Pitbull Terrier. Mr Sexton advised that legislation requires that the breed of the dog be determined and that confirmation be provided as to whether the dog is a full blooded breed of Pitbull or not. Mr Adams has advised that he considers the breed of Seth to be predominantly Pitbull but could not confirm this.

Mr Sexton advised that if a dog is found to be cross bred with a banned breed, it automatically receives a Menacing Classification which requires the dog to be muzzled, microchipped and desexed.

The members asked if there was any way the exact breed of Seth could be confirmed. Mr Adams has advised that veterinary services staff he had spoken with stated they cannot confirm the exact breed of the dog. It is only the opinion of someone as to what breed the dog is, whether wholly or predominantly a certain breed.

Mr Sexton advised that presently Ms Reihana muzzles her dog when out in public and the dog was found to be restrained on the property when Mr Adams visited the address.

The hearing closed at 3.25pm.

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:

HC07/98 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

The meeting closed at 3.30pm

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

10 October 2007