RESOLVED

THAT the apology of Cr B A Gordon be received and sustained.

HC08/11 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

There were no late items.

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 13^th December 2007 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC08/12 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 7^th February 2008 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC08/13 Leonard/Carmine CARRIED

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

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

Phillip Green – Chartered Professional Surveyor (on behalf of)

Marilyn Dodds – Planner (on behalf of)

Grant Crook – Geotechnical Engineer (on behalf of)

Malcolm Davison (Director/Shareholder – North View Estate Ltd)

Alistair Buchanan (Director/Shareholder – North View Estate Ltd)

Cliff Pett (Director/Shareholder – North View Estate Ltd)

Don Roberts (Director/Shareholder – North View Estate Ltd)

Mr Alistair Sharpe – Submitter

Mr Green provided a brief overview of the application, explaining the layout and design of the subdivision and of stage 6 in particular. He commented on engineering matters raised in the planner’s report and in the submissions received to the application.

Mr Roberts presented his submission on behalf of North View Estate Limited. He advised how and why the overall development was initiated. The development group, of which he is a member, considered that there was a need for residential growth in the Paeroa Township following research of supply and demand undertaken by group. The shareholders of North View Estate consist of 18 members who are all from or connected to the Paeroa area. The residential development will consist of housing of a high standard. They consider the development will achieve growth for Paeroa by attracting more people into the area.

Mr Green presented his statement of evidence.

Mr Green explained plans of the subdivision and in particular the plan of the drainage proposed for the subdivision. He advised that Mr Grant Crook was engaged to investigate the site for building purposes.

Mr Green explained the settlement process of the soil discussed in the geotechnical report.

Storm water reticulation system is existing. Storm water will be drained to existing Council system.

Mr Green expressed the view that the land is unsuitable for any rural economic productive use.

A total of three submissions were received to the application.

Mr Green addressed these submissions as follows:

Environment Waikato has issued a Resource Consent for the filling of the land.

Ngati Tamatera have been consulted with and are now satisfied with the application and have withdrawn their submission. They have requested that if any objects of archaeological interest are found when earthworks are being undertaken they be notified.

Mr Alistair Sharpe has put forward a written submission addressing his concerns regarding reverse sensitivity which is still current. Mr Sharpe has requested that a 1.8m high wooden paling fence be constructed between his farm and the subdivision development. Mr Green advised that the applicants do not wish to fence the boundary of the subdivision with a fence as high as he is proposing but are agreeable to a lower height of fence. He considered a high fence will detract from the amenity value of the development.

Mr Green considered there have been a small number of submissions. All residents from existing subdivision have shown no objection.

Cr Carmine asked Mr Green to advise why he considered this land is unproductive.

Mr Green stated that the land is below flood level which is a problem in farming the land. The Agricultural consultant’s assessment advised that the landuse capability is limited for productive farming.

With reference to the location of the deep drain which runs through the site in a north-south direction, Cr Leonard asked why this drain was not moved due to its unsuitable location within the development. Mr Green stated that he saw no reason for the drain to be relocated as he considered it was not necessary.

Mr Crook presented his Statement of Evidence. He advised that the main issue concerning the application was that the land is low lying. The land consists of an extensive area of soft silt clays which are typical of the Hauraki Plains. It is proposed that the sections will require to be developed above the flood level. Mr Crook advised that the issue is with the soft ground conditions at the site which will require ‘fill’ and will need to be preloaded. The preload process involves placing material on top of the land.

Probes have been used in the soft material to calculate settlement which is a common engineering practice. A 1.5m level of preload material is applied which will compress the clay material underneath by 90% before building is allowed and settlement is achieved. The preloading is required to get settlement out. Pipes can then be laid once settlement is complete.

Cr Bubb asked what additional cost will be incurred by home builders to avoid issue of subsoil movement. Mr Crook advised that house designs will need to have raised floor levels. There are extra costs to homeowners for this reason.

Mr Crook advised that after 12 months - 90% consolidation of subsoil is reached. The houses are not affected by movement as they are construction onto piles.

Ms Dodds presented her statement of evidence. Ms Dodds emphasised the point that the land is not viable for farming and does not create a reduction in the rural character of the land. The subdivision is a discretionary activity.

Cr Carmine asked why a plan change was not applied for by the applicants.

Mr Green stated there was a possibility that it would be rezoned in future but it was advised by Council staff that rezoning was unlikely due to the land being low lying and prone to flooding. The applicants decided to forward the application with the view that the application would be considered on its own merits.

Mr Sharpe spoke to his submission highlighting a number of concerns he had with the subdivision.

Mr Sharpe sought protection for his business which is a farming operation raising bulls. He considered that the change of landuse was not justified as he considered the demand for residential land in Paeroa was not considerable. The land is unsuitable for residential development due to the low lying level of the land.

Mr Sharpe had an issue with the building waste coming onto his property from construction sites at the subdivision. He insisted that a fence of 1.8m was necessary to be constructed between his land and the subdivision. The fence would screen out movement, reduce noise from the subdivision which could unsettle his cattle and discourage dumping of rubbish on his land. During construction, windblown litter is an issue and a fence would also contain any litter created from the building sites onto his property.

Mr Eccles presented his report. He agreed that this application is a discretionary activity which should be addressed as such. Two submissions have been received in opposition. The submission from Ngati Tamatera has not been withdrawn. Ngati Tamatera advised they would not be attending the Hearing and it therefore they still have appeal rights.

Environment Waikato submitted raising issues with regard to the flood ponding capacity of the site. They are now satisfied that concerns have been addressed. They raised a concern regarding contamination from stormwater discharge. This issue has also been satisfied and is not a significant issue.

In relation to Mr Sharpe’s submission regarding the issue of reverse sensitivity, the effects of the existing subdivision cannot now be addressed. The issue now concerns this new subdivision proposal. He suggested that a fence along the boundary of the two residential lots immediately adjoining rural farm blocks would mitigate affects of subdivision concerning reverse sensitivity. The large balance lot is sufficiently large enough not to be a problem.

The land is Class 2-3 which he considered was suitable for rural productive activity.

Mr Eccles advised that the proposal is inconsistent with the Section 5(i), 6 and 7 of the Act.

In reference to Section 106 of the Resource Management Act, Mr Eccles stated there is no reason the issues cannot be addressed through geotechnical report. The site requires deep pile foundations. This is not an issue of concern. Other areas of the district have the same issue and have been subdivided.

With reference to effluent disposal, the subdivision would be connected to Councils’ existing reticulation system. Technical subdivision issues can be overcome.

The fundamental issue against the subdivision is the rural zone of the land. This can be elaborated as:

The development will move the urban zone into the rural zone which is inappropriate. This is an inefficient use of rural land and he recommended that the application be declined.

To address Ms Dodds statement that the application is not contrary to the policies and objectives of the District Plan, he stated he was not in agreement. This land does not warrant rezoning as it does not meet the assessment criteria for residential zoning. Residential development of this density on a rural zoned site, despite its proximity to the residential zone, is not consistent with the policies and objectives of the District Plan.

The Chairperson stated that as the low lying level of the land is a significant issue affecting the development of the site, the Committee must determine if its development is viable.

Ms Dodds stated that by the time settlement has occurred; the land may have been rezoned through the District Plan review.

Discretionary Activity status, allows Council the right to approve or refuse consent. There are no affected parties and mitigation of affects can be achieved.

Mr Sharpe is the only submitter with an issue regarding reverse sensitivity. The developers do not want a high fence constructed on the boundary adjoining his property.

Mr Green stated that the visual characteristics of the site will not be affected. In addressing Mr Eccles comment of fragmenting the Class I-III land, he stated that balance lot will still retain its productive capacity.

Solid waste issue can be addressed during construction of the site. Members of North View Estate Ltd are policing the issue of ‘litter’ during construction of dwellings but stated that waste is a fact of building activity.

There are no adverse affects on land that are not mitigated. Mr Green advised he considered the land suitable for residential development. Lots have existing road frontage.

This is a two year project to completion. Should Council approve application, purchasers would require landuse consent to build on the lots. Council has the discretion to grant or refuse consent to these applications.

In conclusion, they considered the proposal is not repugnant to the objectives and policies of the District Plan and should be approved for the reasons outlined in the evidence presented.

Consideration of attendance at the NZ Planning Institute Conference to be held 3- 5 April 2008 was considered. Copies of the conference brochure were distributed for the member’s information.

It was agreed that bookings be made for two people to attend, either Crs Gordon or Carmine.

CONFIRMED