There were no apologies.

Pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Chairperson called for late items to be accepted.

RESOLVED

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 21 February 2008 were tabled.

LAND USE CONSENT: TO ERECT AND OPERATE A STORAGE SHED FACILITY OF 31 UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED WASHDOWN AREA, CARPARKS, TOILET, SECURITY FENCING AND LANDSCAPING : 232 TRIG ROAD SOUTH, WAIHI (FRONTAGE ONTO WAIHI BEACH ROAD  - P & P HENDERSON  (363823) (88KB)

The applicant proposes to establish 31 storage units on the site for the commercial storage of boats and general storage to be located at 232 Trig Road South, Waihi.

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

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

In attendance:

(On behalf of Applicants) - Mr Aaron Collier, Planning Manager, Connell Wagner (Tauranga Office)

(On behalf of Applicants) - Mr Dallas Banks, Banks Engineering Consultancy 2004 Ltd

(Applicants) – Mr P and Mrs P Henderson

(On behalf of Submitters) - Mr Mark Dyer (Consultant Planner & Surveyor, Canmap Hawley Ltd, Rotorua)

(Submitters) - Ms G Jaques and Mr K McCowatt

Cr Gordon asked Mr Henderson what time would the facility be open for business. Mr Henderson replied that the facility is proposed to be open between 7.00am-9.00pm, given the conflicting information in written material about the application.

Mr Banks presented his Statement of Evidence. Mr Banks provided a traffic report regarding the application submitted by Connell Wagner. He advised that mitigation of effects has been addressed fully on Page 6 of his statement of evidence.

Cr Gordon raised a concern regarding the amount of traffic that would be created due to the vehicle use when a third driveway was established in close proximity to two existing ones, Mr Banks was asked if the new driveway is to be sealed. Mr Henderson advised that it would be sealed.

Cr Bubb asked Mr Banks to provide a definition of the temporary boat parks.

Mr Banks explained it is just a ‘general’ term explaining an area to be developed which will include a general parking area for cars waiting to access the wash bay.

Mr Collier addressed the Committee.

In relation to the objection received by facsimile from Mr P Pepper stating the he was not notified of the proposal, he has since advised he does not wish to submit as an affected party as his property is now on the market.

This is a two stage project with the primary purpose being boat storage. There will also be storage available for other uses. This is discretionary activity and should be considered as such, fitting within the requirements of the District Plan.

Mr Collier proposed another series of conditions be considered which address issues of concern raised by the submitters.

Mr Collier considered the development promotes the sustainable management of the environment. The application fits within the policies and objectives of the district plan. On these grounds, the application should be approved subject to a number of conditions to address issues of concern raised by the submitters.

The applicant has a dwelling on the site with access separately off Trig Road. The existing access into the property off Beach Road is a tanker track. The area is predominately made up of rural lots.

The Henderson’s propose to carry out the development of a storage unit facility in two stages. There is no proposal for external storage i.e. caravans etc.

The parking area would solely be for unloading, washing and the storage of boats. There may be cases where some units could be used for other reasons but goods will be locked away out of sight.

Mr Collier considered the development would create no more than minor effects on the environment.

Five of the immediate neighbours were notified of the proposal. Three submissions from affected parties was received.

Ms G Jaques and Mr K McCowatt of 290 Waihi Beach Road, Waihi

Mr P and Mrs T McCowatt, 256 Beach Road, Waihi

Mr B Morrison - on behalf of Waihihi Holdings Ltd, 305 Waihi Beach Road, Waihi.

On 12 November 2007 Mr P Pepper of Waihi Beach Road, Waihi advised Council he had not been notified of the proposal. He was duly notified by Council; however he did not make a submission.

Mr Collier addressed the primary matter (part 2) of the Act. The application is consistent with Section 5 - to promote sustainable management. He considered the proposal will meet the objectives of the District Plan and will not compromise the rural character and productivity of the land.

Landscape screening will protect visual amenity. He considered this is a passive activity in a rural area.

Traffic affects have been addressed by Mr Bank’s evidence.

There are no unique features associated with the site. He agreed that the road is an extremely busy road with close proximity to Waihi Beach. Its close proximity to Waihi Beach justifies the establishment of this type of activity.

Adverse affects have been remedied and mitigated, in particular, affects to neighbouring properties.

Hours of operation of the wash down bays are proposed to be restricted.

In addressing Ms G Jacques and Mr K McCowatt’s submission which stated they had an issue with privacy and affects on rural character. They do not live in the house adjoining the site. A Kapuka hedge will be planted to act as a ‘visual buffer’ so that privacy and amenity values are retained.

In relation to the issue of noise levels and visual affects raised, Mr Collier stated that Beach Road is a district arterial route which already has quite a high noise level from traffic.

A wash down activity would create no more noise than a farming operation would create i.e. the washing down of a milking shed.

Intermittent noise would generally be in the afternoon/early evening.

Access to the buildings will be on the side away from adjoining properties. The design of the sheds will be sleeved which will reduce noise emissions, i.e. the Stage 1 and 2 sheds will be joined by a fence.

There are already existing activities of a commercial nature in the area. A kennel and cattery facility and a plant nursery are located further up the road from the site.

The District Plan standards for the rural zone will be met. Council has the right to monitor noise levels from the operation.

The development will be set off the road boundary to reduce affects on amenity.

A swipe card and pin number access to the facility will be set up to ensure security.

Tenants will have to sign a lease agreement which requires them to adhere to rules of use which would include Council’s conditions.

The applicants are living onsite so they are able to monitor the facility and address any issues if they occur immediately.

The noise from the alarm system is no different than from a residential alarm. Sensored security lighting will be used therefore no permanent lighting will be used.

In addressing issues raised concerning traffic safety – the accessway proposed will not affect the safe and effective movement of traffic. Existing width of Waihi Beach Road can be widened if needed, creating a shoulder for vehicles to pull into off the road. He concluded that the effects on the roading network are minor and conditions relating to traffic can be met.

In relation to Mr McCowatt’s comment that this is not a permitted activity, mitigation measures will address issues raised.

Mr Collier could see no negative effect on property values.

There will be no effect on water supply as roof collection and tank storage will be used.

Water used as part of the operation will go through an oil separation unit and then into soak holes.

Didymo – is not issue in this case, however the applicants are in agreement to a condition that signage alerting to Didymo be installed, and suggested that Koi Carp be added.

Mr Collier agreed with the staff planner that rural based activities should be allowed. He considered that storage sheds are provided for as a rural based activity. The buildings will have no more effect than farm buildings.

Mr Collier agreed with the Consultant Planner’s report as regards to a number of conditions to address issues of concern. He suggested a number of amendments be made to the conditions as follows:

Amendment to Condition 23 –

Condition 27 –

No running of outboard motors shall be permitted prior to 10am.

The activity is largely passive and effects are mitigated. The application should be approved subject to the above conditions.

Cr Carmine referred to the hours the daytime noise standard applied to in the District Plan – 7.00am to 10.00pm. How would applicants ensure the noise levels would be complied with?

The applicants would address hours of use through a lease agreement advising tenants of the hours of use allowed. The applicant lives on site and can ensure the requirements are met.

Motors can be washed out without turning engines on in some cases. Older motors could create more noise but submerging motor into a ‘bath’ of water will reduce the noise.

It was proposed that the hours of use be amended to be from 7.00am until 9.00pm.

Drain on town supply not applicable, as there is no reticulated supply. Water will come from roof collection and there are two onsite bores in existence on the property.

Mr Henderson stated that a drum would be available for motor cleaning.

Mr Banks proposed that a single double width vehicle access entrance be formed to serve the proposed development in accordance with HDC Class C (Rural Residential Vehicle Crossing).

Cr Bubb asked if submerging the motor under the water reduced noise significantly. Mr Collier advised that the water acts as ‘muffler’. Mr Collier likened the sound to be similar to a vehicle idling, no more than that.

Cr Bubb asked could the Henderson’s see what is going on from their property in Trig Road. Could they monitor the operation closely? Mr Collier advised that the lessee’s will be approached by the applicants if any issue of breaching the lease agreement arose. Due to the small scale of the facility they could not see a problem with monitoring the operation closely.

Cr Carmine asked how they would ensure that lessees are conforming to the hours of use allowed. Mr Collier advised the applicants would continually monitor the operation.

Mr Mark Dyer (on behalf of G Jacques and K McCowatt) presented his Statement of Evidence.

Mr Dyer presented a list of outstanding issues against the proposal as follows:

Amenity
Safety
Cumulative Effects
Traffic Effects 
Building 
Building Design 
Noise  
Hours of operation 
Signage 
Rural Character

Mr Dyer also commented on the planning report in relation to the loss of productive potential of the land.

The hours of use will affect the submitter’s privacy. The activity could have been located more to the east away from the submitter’s home.

The application has not included an acoustic report. A report should have been provided; given the proposal is an unknown identity. Movement of vehicles backing up and maneuvering on site will create a noise issue.

Target market will be out of town people so the peak activity time could vary. Boating people use boats late at night and early in the morning. Traffic issues could occur at peak times.

Mr Dyer did not agree that noise levels will be in keeping with "normal" rural noise levels. They are not. Noise generated by fishermen gathering while flushing engines is nothing like a rural situation.

There are likely to be groups of people at one time. Farm operations have very different noise levels and characteristics.

Signage will be needed but has not been addressed in the application.

Mr Dyer considered that Beach Road is a busy road. Creating a major accessway off this road will create issues of road safety. Trig Road South should be considered as an access to the site instead of using Beach Road.

The applicant’s engineer cannot confirm the traffic movements. The traffic effects require further assessment.

Potentially the vehicle crossing proposed will not be sufficient to deal with peak periods.

These are large storage units. A security risk has been identified by the need for lighting and security measures to be put in place.

This is a high value commercial activity in the rural zone which is inappropriate. High security is required which is not in keeping with the existing use of the land and its character.

In addressing the comments made by the Applicant’s Planner regarding the limited productive use of the land due to the size of the paddock, Mr Dyer did not agree that productive use of land is lessened due to the paddock size. This is irrelevant. There is a loss of productive potential as the land is Class I-III.

Cumulative effects have increased.

Hours of Noise of operation – afternoons, evening holiday periods and weekends are likely to be peak use times. These are periods when people on neighbouring properties are enjoying their leisure time and would be most affected.

Movement of vehicles, boat washing etc does not generate the same noise level and characteristics as motor bikes and tractors used in a farming environment.

Outboard motors create a significant noise.

Noise from buildings will exist. There is no solid screen where the sheds are to be located only landscaping.

The hours of use have been changed to help address the effects of the operation.

Storage facilities can be used for a wide range of uses. Storage of other goods may increase noise levels from the sheds. This matter must be addressed.

In consideration of Mr Collier's report, Mr Dyer did not agree that the effects of the proposal would be no more than minor.

Mr Dyer agreed with the review clause for (Stage 1) that consent be reviewed after six months and thereafter every two years.

This activity does not meet the objectives of compatibility with rural activity. The effects on the amenity of neighbours are significant.

If effects cannot be remedied, they must be avoided.

Particular Assessment Criteria for discretionary activities:

Is there a local need for this activity? Can this activity be set up in an industrial area? This is an ‘out of district’ need, not a local need. The proposal does not meet the assessment criteria. The location is inappropriate.

Out of town people travel through areas where there are industrial areas which have existing storage facilities available such as in Waihi. Boat owners should be able to use these facilities rather than creating an industrial facility in a rural area.

The objectives and polices seek to avoid conflict between existing rural character and non rural activities. The use is not compatible with the existing rural character. The location is also inappropriate due to the high density of traffic the road receives.

Mr Dyer agreed that the entrance to the storage units could be off Trig Road South instead of Beach Road.

Mr Dyer stated that the applicant has failed to provide certainty on issues relating to noise, traffic, security and amenity and consent should be declined on these grounds.

Mr Dyer stated that an acoustic report should be required.

The Committee asked Mr Dyer if the submitters would be accepting if the entrance was constructed off Trig Road South? Mr Dyer commented that access from Trig Road South would assist in addressing the traffic safety issue.

Cr Gordon asked if the site of the facility could be changed to Trig Road South? Mr Dyer stated that there is a reasonable frontage to Trig Road South further away from the McCowatt's house which would be more suitable.

Hours of operation – limitations on hours is required.

Mr Dyer stated that future applications for signage would be granted as the facility will create traffic safety issues raised because of the high use Beach Road receives.

Ms Jaques spoke to her and Mr K McCowatt’s submission. Ms Jacques stated that she was very upset to learn of the Henderson’s proposal to establish a storage facility. She stated that they are aware that farming operations do create noise but this is an area zoned rural for the purpose of farming.

They enjoy the rural character existing. Ms Jaques considered the consultation with them was poor. They object to the close proximity of the development to their property. There is other land available which would be more suitable for this type of activity. Proposed units are unreasonably long. They considered the congregating of fishermen late at night will disturb their privacy.

Noise issue is considered significant.

Proposed entrance is dangerous.

Ms Jaques considered there would be increased danger at their driveway as it is in between the storage units and the intersection of Trig Road South, Trig Road North and Beach Road.

Mr Baldwin spoke to his report, highlighting the main points and addressed issues raised by the applicant and submitters.

The application is provided for as a discretionary activity, therefore environmental effects must be considered in that they are no more than minor. Council is also able to refuse consent.

Appropriate conditions of consent will need to be enforced by Council if it is granted.

Effects must be mitigated or avoided in some situations in relation to noise and amenity value to neighbouring properties.

A water bath for motor cleaning is proposed which will assist in reducing noise.

An additional condition is proposed that Stage 1 be moved to the western side of the site (currently shown as Stage 2 and that the external wall on Stage 1 (on western side) be constructed with a sound resistant material to mitigate noise further.

The Committee can engage an Acoustic expert if deemed necessary but he considered sound proof building material used in construction of units will address noise issues.

A review of the operation should be carried out 6 months after commencing then every two years after that.

Mr Baldwin recommended that the conditions offered by the applicant be added.

Mr Baldwin considered his findings are that the proposal is consistent with what the District Plan provides for. He agreed that security fencing does not add to the character of the rural zone. Fencing is suitable in a commercial area. Visually, the commercial view must be removed and emphasised that landscaping will address this issue.

Cr Gordon asked about the width of the entranceway.

Mr Lye was in attendance to comment on the width of entranceway. He stated that the construction of a Class B entranceway would be appropriate.

The applicants were invited to give their right of reply.

In addressing issues raised Mr Dyer, Mr Collier did not agree that the site description is misleading.

The hours of use will now be 7.00am – 9.00pm.

Access issues have been addressed by Mr Banks.

Peak Effects from activity would coincide with peak traffic flows on Waihi Beach Road. This is seen as a benefit, background noise levels will be higher.

Trig Road Access – more suitable to have access from Waihi Beach Road not Trig Road South as it is a narrow road.

The applicants are trying to contain all activities on as small an area as possible.

Noise – if building is not sleeved and mitigation measures not proposed then it may be appropriate that a noise report be required.

Compliance with District Plan is needed but this is a discretionary activity and the objectives and policies are not a gateway test. There is no requirement for compliance with performance standards as such. These can be used as a guide.

Building Security – fence is (1.8m high) to be on inside of landscaping so will not be noticeable once plantings are established.

Signage – this has been addressed as there is no need for "advertising" signage. Advertising will be undertaken through the Boating Club.

Rural Character – no effect as site will be screened by landscape planting.

Compatibility Issue (Point 5.3) – location and proximity to road was a factor in choosing the site. The site already has existing background noise levels.

The Pepper property is 300m from the site; therefore effects on it would be minor.

Mr Collier advised he did not agree that consideration of Section 5 required a hierarchical approach in relation to the requirements to avoid, remedy and mitigate effects. In relation to the alternatives, he advised these only needed to be addressed if there were significant adverse effects.

Precedent or Cumulative Effects – this is not particularly relevant due to proposal being a discretionary activity. To be considered on a case by case basis.

Ms Jaques concern regarding consultation – satisfied with consultation that occurred.

Screening – vegetation existing is an effective barrier.

Tubs and Hoses – appropriate to restrict the number of tubs and hoses to two with one hose per tub only.

Noise - close boarded wooden fence between Stage 1 and 2 buildings is supported.

Staging – supported switching the location of stage 2 with stage 1.

Wall construction – the use of "hush gib" is supported.

Operational characteristics - issues of operation will be addressed by conditions placed into the lease agreement.

Hours of use for motor noise - agreed this should apply to all boat motors.

Access limitations – pin/swipe controls entry. A sensor allows access at all times.

Boats/Trailers onto road – gate is set back. Vehicles waiting for gate to open will not protrude onto the road.

Landscaping – more detailed plan to be provided to include:

HC08/16 Bubb/Leonard CARRIED

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

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Having visited the site the Committee considered that the existing and proposed screening would ensure no significant adverse effects in relation to the amenities of and privacy for the immediate neighbour. The Committee considered that the recommended conditions and those additional ones offered by the applicant would with some modification adequately mitigate the effects of the operation.

The hearing closed at 1.30pm.

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

1. Unless modified by the following conditions of consent, the activity shall be carried out in accordance with the information submitted with the application, including:

6. That any soil spilled or tracked onto any public road shall be removed from the road immediately.

23. The consent holder shall ensure that all external security lighting be installed, designed, shaded and arranged in order that the level of lighting measured on the boundaries of the site is no greater than 8.0 lux.

24. The consent holder shall ensure that all advertising signage associated with the facility shall be in accordance with the permitted activity standards of the District Plan (ie one on-site sign, maximum 1.5m²). Additional land use consents will be required should the proposed signage exceed these standards.

25. The consent holder shall provide appropriate information details at the main entrance gate to the site which sets out:

Contact details for management (phone number and address);

Hours of operation 7am – 9pm;

27. That the storage units shown as Stage I on the proposed development plan shall be located on the western side of the proposed site, which is shown as Stage II. The first units to be constructed on the site are to be those shown as Stage II (or the western most units aligned on a north-south axis) on the development plans.

28. That the storage units constructed on the western most portion of the site, shall be constructed in a manner that includes sound attenuation properties on the western elevation. This wall shall be lined with a ‘hush gib’ or similar sound attenuating product. Details of the proposed sound attenuation measures shall be provided as part of the building consent application for the proposed Stage I shed.

29. The consent holder shall construct a close boarded timber fence between the western most shed (Stage 1) and the proposed southern most shed, to act as further sound attenuation for neighbouring properties. Stormwater discharge shall be provided in sealed underground pipes under the fence.

30. No power points are to be provided in the storage units. Internal lighting can be provided by sealed lighting fixtures and switches.

31. Hoses, containers and outboard motor baths are to be provided in the wash bay area only.

32. Access to the site is to be restricted to the hours of operation detailed below with the security gate fitted with an appropriate electronic device (e.g. key pad or card swipe access) that prevents entry outside these hours. The consent holder shall provide the Planning and Environmental Services Manager with the access details, for his approval, prior to leasing the units.

33. That the storage units shall be used for the purposes of storage only. No individual commercial, industrial, business or personal activities shall be carried out within the storage facility that is not associated with the main activity of storage e.g. no maintenance, repairs, manufacture or construction.

34. No bulk boat fuel shall be permitted to be stored within the storage units apart from the onboard storage of fuel in boat tank.

35. No running of any boat motors shall be permitted prior to 10am.

Lease Agreement

6. That any soil spilled or tracked onto any public road shall be removed from the road immediately.

19. The consent holder shall ensure that all lighting be installed, designed, shaded and arranged in order that the level of lighting measured on the boundaries of the site is no greater than 8.0 lux.

20. Conditions 27 – 37 of Stage I above shall continue to be satisfied in accordance with this consent.

21. That pursuant to section 36(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the applicant shall pay Council charges for receiving, processing and granting of the Resource consent.

22. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay an administration fee of $95.00 for administration of the consent.

23. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay all Council’s costs for monitoring this consent including all costs associated with the consideration and certification of plans and details associated with the consent as appropriate.