.gif){kind=small}
(25KB)HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL
HEARINGS COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WILLIAM STREET, PAEROA ON MONDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2008 COMMENCING AT 1.00PM
|
PRESENT |
Crs D M Carmine (Chairperson), B A Gordon, J M Bubb and G R Leonard |
|
IN ATTENDANCE |
Messrs P Thom (Planning & Environmental Services Manager), M van Steenbergen (District Planner), J Gray (Consultant Planner, Maunsell Consulting Ltd), G East (Monitoring Officer) and Ms C Black (Council Secretary) |
APOLOGIES
There were no apologies.
LATE ITEMS
There were no late items.
DELEGATED MATTERS
Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation for the period 1st October to 1st November 2008 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.
RESOLVED
THAT the reports of delegated matters for the period 1st October to 1st November 2008 be received.
HC08/44 Bubb/Leonard CARRIED
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
MEETING HELD MONDAY 6 OCTOBER 2008
RESOLVED
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Monday 6 October 2008 be taken as read and confirmed.
HC08/45 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED
APPLICATIONS FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 6 FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS ACT 1987
G & M HENDERSON, 3673 SH2, NGATEA WEST - (SWIM-01286) (446483)
(25KB)
The applicants seek an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their swimming pool.
A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was attached.
A hearing was scheduled for 1.10pm. The hearing commenced at 1.10pm.
Staff Report
Mr East reported that Mr & Mrs Henderson have a swimming pool on their property at 3673 SH2, Ngatea West, 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 a sliding door/hung door from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 6th November 2008 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption/waiver in place for the doors opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr & Mrs Henderson seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the sliding door and hung door from the dwelling open into the pool area. Photographs will be presented at the hearing.
The doors that open directly into the pool area from the dwelling have securing devices fitted above the floor which can not be reached by a child under the age of 6 years old, as allowed under clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act, nevertheless this needs to be specifically approved by Council under section 6 of the Act. The securing devices are capable of being locked.
The hearing closed at 1.15pm
The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.
DECISION
G & M HENDERSON, 3673 SH2, NGATEA WEST - (SWIM-01286) (446483)
After considering all the evidence the Committee:
RESOLVED
THAT the report be received
AND THAT the request from Mr & Mrs Henderson 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 dwelling 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 that, when properly operated, prevents the door from being opened by children under 6 years of age. Allowing the exemption/waiver would not significantly increase danger to young children.
The waiver is subject to the following conditions:
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.
That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
HC08/46 Carmine/Leonard CARRIED
GLEN SMITH, 13 COUNTY ROAD, KARANGAHAKE, RD4, PAEROA, (SWIM-01317) (442125)
(25KB)
The applicants seek an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their swimming pool.
A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was attached.
A hearing was scheduled for 1.15pm. The hearing commenced at 1.15pm
Staff Report
Mr East reported that Mr Smith has a swimming pool on his property at 13 County Road, Karangahake, RD4 Paeroa, 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 a back door from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 19th September 2008 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption/waiver in place for the door opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr Smith seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the back door from the dwelling opens into the pool area. Photographs will be presented at the hearing.
The door that opens directly into the pool area from the dwelling has a securing device fitted above the floor which can not be reached by a child under the age of 6 years old, as allowed under clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act, nevertheless this needs to be specifically approved by Council under section 6 of the Act. The securing device is capable of being locked.
The hearing closed at 1.20pm
The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.
DECISION
GLEN SMITH, 13 COUNTY ROAD, KARANGAHAKE, RD4, PAEROA, (SWIM-01317) (442125)
After considering all the evidence the Committee:
RESOLVED
THAT the report be received
AND THAT the request from Mr Smith 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 dwelling to comply with the Act. Clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act allows for this specific situation on condition that the door is fitted with a lock that, when properly operated, prevents the door from being opened by children under 6 years of age. Allowing the exemption/waiver would not significantly increase danger to young children.
The waiver is subject to the following conditions:
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.
That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
HC08/47 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED
Mr & Mrs Besamusca, 18 Lawrence road, Waihi (SWIM-01394) (444156)
(25KB)
The applicants seek an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their swimming pool.
A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was attached.
A hearing was scheduled for 1.20pm. The hearing commenced at 1.20pm.
Staff Report
Mrs East reported that Mr & Mrs Besamusca have a swimming pool on their property at 18 Lawrence Road, Waihi 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 a sliding door from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 29th October 2008 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption/waiver in place for the door opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr & Mrs Besamusca seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the sliding door from the dwelling opens into the pool area.
The door that opens directly into the pool area from the dwelling has a securing device fitted above the floor which can not be reached by a child under the age of 6 years old, as allowed under clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act, nevertheless this needs to be specifically approved by Council under section 6 of the Act. The securing device is not capable of being locked.
Mr & Mrs Besamusca seek from the Committee, a waiver under Section 6 of the Act for the requirement for the door that opens immediately onto the pool area to comply with clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule, being the requirements to automatically self close, on the grounds that this would be impossible or unreasonable. The alternative is the construction of a pool fence between the dwelling and the pool.
The pool area is effectively fenced off from access by children other than those staying as invited guests, and therefore under the supervision of the house owner. It should be noted however, that if children younger than 6 years of age were staying at the property they could gain direct access to the pool if not supervised. The main access to the house for the public is via a separate door other than the door to the pool area from the dwelling.
The hearing closed at 1.25pm
The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.
DECISION
Mr & Mrs Besamusca, 18 Lawrence road, Waihi (SWIM-01394
) (444156)After considering all the evidence the Committee:
RESOLVED
THAT the report be received
AND THAT the request from Mr & Mrs Besamusca 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 dwelling to comply with the Act. Clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act allows for this specific situation on condition that the door is fitted with a lock that, when properly operated, prevents the door from being opened by children under 6 years of age. Allowing the exemption/waiver would not significantly increase danger to young children.
The waiver is subject to the following conditions:
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.
That the door with access from the dwelling into the pool area is locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
HC08/48 Carmine/Leonard CARRIED
D & S SHIRLEY, 43 HUBBARD ROAD, PAEROA
(SWIM-03254) (445903)
(23KB)
The applicants are seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their spa pool.
A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was attached.
A hearing was scheduled for 1.25pm. The hearing commenced at 1.25pm.
Staff Report
Mr East reported that the applicants are seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their spa pool. The alternative is the erection of a compliant swimming pool fence. In the interim, until a decision is made, the spa pool is to remain empty of water.
The applicant has fitted a lockable cover to the Spa for added security and protection and the top meets the NZS8500-2006 standards for this situation.
The spa has a hard cover that is lockable. The Spa Pool is compliant with the NZS 8500: 2006 Standard 3.10, please find attached a copy of the standard with emphasis on 3.10 (a).
The cover as proposed by the applicants will not significantly increase danger to children less than six years of age as long as it is locked in place and only removed while under adult supervision.
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.
DECISION
D & S Shirley, 43 HUBBARD ROAD, PAEROA (swim-03254) (445903)
After considering all the evidence the Committee:
RESOLVED
THAT the report be received
AND THAT the application from Dennis & Sharon Shirley for a special exemption from the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their spa pool, is granted, subject to the following conditions:
That a lockable cover be fitted and used in strict accordance with the specifications as stated in the NZS8500:2006.
That the cover is locked in place when the Spa Pool is not under adult supervision or when the property is vacant.
That the lockable cover is maintained to a standard acceptable under the NZS8500:2006
That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
HC08/49 Leonard/Carmine
CARRIED
NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION
The applicant proposes to subdivide Lot 1 DP 307966 and create two lots (one additional).
A detailed report and supporting documents from the Consultant Planner were attached.
A hearing was scheduled for 1.30pm. The hearing commenced at 1.30pm.
Applicant
Mr Owen Millar (Applicant) was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.
Mr Millar was invited to present any evidence in support of his application.
Mr Millar responded that he did not wish to present any further information in support of his subdivision proposal.
Planning Officer’s Report
Mr Gray presented his report.
Mr Gray provided a summary of his report which advised the members of the background of the application.
The land comprising the subject property has been subject to subdivision on two separate occasions within the last 8 years. On 24 July 2001 consent was granted for the subdivision of land containing the subject property, creating the subject property (Lot 1 DP 307966) and three other lots to the south and south west. The subject property was amalgamated with one of the other newly created lots to the south west (Lot 4 DP 307966) at the same time.
Approximately 18 months later on 31 January 2003, the subject property was subdivided again which separated Lot 4 DP 307966 from the subject property (Lot 1 DP 307966) creating one additional lifestyle lot. The second subdivision that was granted on 31 January 2003 was determined on the grounds that the original subdivision created only four lots when five could have been created as a controlled activity. It was considered at the time that the proposed subdivision was still in accordance with the intentions of the lifestyle lot subdivision provisions of the District Plan.
It is also noted that there has been protracted mediation between the applicant and a tenant living on the subject property regarding ‘sitting tenant’ rights. This matter is considered to be a legal concern and separate to any resource management issues. Therefore the matter has not been given any weight when considering the application.
The applicant proposes to subdivide Lot 1 DP 307966 and create two lots (one additional) as follows:
Lot 1 – 5.9040 ha
Lot 2 – 5.8174 ha
There is one existing dwelling on the subject property which is accessed via Pt Sect 16 Blk XIII Ohinemuri SD which is currently amalgamated with Lot 1 DP 307966 and contains an entranceway onto State Highway 2. The existing dwelling will be contained within proposed Lot 1 and will retain the existing access onto State Highway 2. It is proposed to amalgamate Lot 1 with Sect 261 & 262 Blk XIII Ohinemuri SD and PT Sect 16 Blk XIII creating a combined total area of 8.6430 ha that will comprise the second newly created title.
Lot 2 will be a vacant Lot. It is proposed to access Lot 2 via an entranceway that will traverse a partially formed section of Edwin Street that adjoins the southern corner of the subject property. It is proposed to amalgamate Lot 2 with Lot 5 DP 322255 that adjoins the south western boundary, to create a combined total area of 7.3530 ha that will comprise the newly created title.
Both sites can be serviced adequately for sewer, water, stormwater, electricity and telecommunications.
The existing access to proposed Lot 1 can remain and no upgrading is required. No additional traffic movements will result from the proposed subdivision.
It is considered that the partially formed section of Edwin Street be upgraded in accordance with a Rural Right of Way standard servicing 1-2 lots. The Right of Way would need to extend across the Goldfields road reserve and into Lot 2. Sealing would not be required.
In consideration of the information provided, Mr Gray gave his reasons that the application be declined as follows:
The proposal is not consistent with the objectives and policies of the District Plan and the creation of the subdivision will have more than minor effect on the environment.
The reason for previous lots approved allowed for the development of 5 lots. Mr Millar subdivided only 4 lots on two prior applications.
Mr Gray considered that as Mr Millar has already subdivided the land under two separate applications already, he could see no reason to allow any further subdivision. He had the opportunity to create 5 lots prior to this application.
Ms van Steenbergen stated that the issue with this subdivision could be overcome with an amalgamation condition whereby rather than creating a new title, one of the proposed lots could be amalgamated with another title.
There is no second dwelling allowed, as the title had been created after September 2000.
Mr Gray stated that the opportunity for further subdivision has been taken already. Mr Millar now wants to further subdivide which he considered will cause fragmentation of the land.
Mr Gray confirmed that the land is ‘poorer class’ land which is unsuitable for intensive farming but the subdivisions already approved are the appropriate level of subdivision for this type of land.
Ms van Steenbergen stated that the anticipated environmental result of maintaining the open rural character applies in this case. Council does not want to set a precedent that landowners can keep applying to subdivide land further if it does not meet the criteria. Council’s District Plan requires that in considering subdivision in the rural zone, the rural character of the environment is preserved.
Cr Gordon asked would further subdivision make any difference to what already exists?
Mr Gray stated that further subdivision, would cause further fragmentation of the land and suggested that the best solution to the issue is to undertake a boundary adjustment subdivision.
Such an application would be a controlled activity under the District Plan; Council could only impose conditions, not refuse consent.
Right of Reply
Mr Millar disputed the affect on the open rural character of the area, stating that this further subdivision of Lot 1 would have no impact on what is already existing.
Mr Millar asked if it is being suggested he amalgamate a lot with neighbouring property of (Mrs Boswell) who would like to buy the land.
Cr Bubb asked whether there will be any change to the land use if the subdivision proceeded.
Mr Millar advised there would be no change to the current use of the land.
The hearing closed at 2.00pm
The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.
Deliberations
A discussion was held as to the option for an amended application to be made including the amalgamation of one of the proposed lots with the adjoining title.
Cr Leonard recommended that the application be declined on the grounds that approving the subdivision would compromise the consistency and integrity of the District Plan and would set a precedent.
Cr Gordon concurred with Cr Leonard in this opinion.
Cr Bubb stated that if Mr Millar had created less than the number of lots allowed in the two previous applications, he should be allowed to subdivide once more to take him to the maximum number. As there will be no change to the current use of the land she could not see any impact on the current character of the land if one more lot was created.
Cr Carmine concurred with Cr Bubb in this opinion.
Cr Carmine suggested the most appropriate solution would be to undertake a boundary change and amalgamate the titles.
DECISION
O MILLAR, 7743 STATE HIGHWAY 2, MACKAYTOWN RC-15550 (447081)
After considering all the evidence the Committee:
RESOLVED
THAT pursuant to Section 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council decline consent to this non-notified discretionary activity application to subdivide Lot 1 DP 307966, located at 7743 State Highway 2, Mackaytown into two lots, for the following reasons:
The proposed subdivision is contrary to the relevant policy of the Hauraki District Plan that seeks to facilitate subdivision of lower quality rural land while protecting amenity values and rural character. When viewed in isolation the effects of the proposed subdivision could be viewed as minor, however when viewed in a wider context the subdivision will contribute to a cumulative reduction in the rural character and amenity of the District as a whole.
Consent to the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the integrity of Rule 10.1.5.4.B(e) of the Hauraki District Plan and public confidence in the consistent administration of the District Plan. The application that gave rise to the subject title was granted consent on 24 July 2001, approximately 10 months after the ‘threshold’ date, and one further subdivision was granted consent on 31 January 2003. While there are current disputes between parties that appear to generate the requirement for the subdivision, these factors are not in themselves sufficiently mitigating circumstances for Council to grant consent to the current application which represents a significant departure from the title date provision in Rule 10.1.5.4.B (e). While each application must be considered on its own merits, Council if adopting a consistent approach to administration of the District Plan would find it difficult to decline consent for subdivisions of other titles of a similar age if consent were granted to this application.
HC08/50 Gordon/Leonard
CARRIEDCr Bubb abstained from voting on the motion.
The meeting closed at 2.20pm.
CONFIRMED
D M Carmine
Chairperson
8 December 2008