RESOLVED

THAT the apology of Cr J M Bubb be received and sustained.

HC09/52 Leonard/Gordon CARRIED

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

THAT pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the following late items be accepted for discussion.

The item was not on the agenda because the item was unavailable at the time of the agenda deadline.

Discussion on the item could not be delayed because the Hearings Committee must consider the objection within 20 working days. The 16^th November meeting of the Hearings Committee is the only scheduled meeting within the 20 working days period.

HC09/53 Carmine/Leonard CARRIED

DELEGATED MATTERS (19KB)

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation for the period 1^st July to 1^st November 2009 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters for the period 1^st July to 1^st November 2009 be received.

HC09/54 Gordon/Leonard CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Monday 10 August 2009 be confirmed and are a true and correct record.

HC09/55 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

APPLICATION BY NETHERFIELD INVESTMENTS LTD FOR LAND USE CONSENT TO REMOVE VERANDAH AT THE FORMER BNZ BUILDING AT CNR PRINCES STREET AND WHARF STREET, PAEROA (RC-15635 / 515813) (355KB)

A report and supporting documents from the Staff Planner regarding the application were presented.

The hearing was scheduled for 9.30am.

The hearing commenced at 9.30am.

Mr N Hoogeveen (Applicant) and Mr John Munro (Architect, DRS Architectural Limited) were in attendance.

Mr Munro tabled and presented a statement of evidence (Doc. 526117) in support of the applicants request to remove the existing verandah from the ex BNZ building located on the corner of Princes and Wharf Street, Paeroa.

Mr Munro stated that the refurbishment of the building has enhanced the streetscape and the character of the building has been retained.

Cr Carmine asked if the windows under the verandah would detract from the character of the building if the verandah was removed.

Mr Hoogeveen and Mr Munro advised that the original windows were removed in the early 1960’s. The newly installed windows are suited to the style of the building.

Cr Gordon asked if the hooks holding up the verandah are to be removed.

Mr Hoogeveen responded that the preference is that they be removed.

Mr Martin Gregory presented his report.

Mr Gregory supported that the verandah be removed as there are no shops in the street any more, therefore, less reason for a verandah. The existing volume of pedestrian traffic is very low.

Mr Gregory referred to the Historic Places Trust’s tabled submission dated 12 November 2009 (Doc. 525462) which was presented for the Committee’s consideration. He disagreed with the Trust’s opinion that the verandah makes the building more unusual and distinctive, adding to its cultural heritage value. He considered that the verandah detracts from the aesthetic value of the building and its removal would enhance its cultural heritage value.

Architecturally, it makes no sense.

The improvements made to the building have enhanced the location and significantly improved a historical building.

Cr Gordon asked Mr Gregory why he thought the verandah hooks supporting the structure should remain.

Mr Gregory stated that the hooks could be left behind as a hint of its former use to give effect to the history of the building.

Cr Gordon suggested that as a compromise, a plaque be installed where the verandah hooks were to acknowledge the history of the building.

Cr Leonard concurred with Mr Gregory that the hooks are a suitable hint of the past.

Cr Leonard asked if the verandah was built at the same time as the building.

Mr Gregory advised that the verandah was built at the time the building was constructed.

Mr Hoogeveen referred to the NZ Historic Places Trust’s tabled submission (Page 2) referring to the style of the verandah. He did not agree that the verandah added any heritage value to the building at all.

Mr Munro stated that they are looking at the use of the ‘total’ building. They are trying to bring the building back to a balanced single use structure.

They have removed the air conditioning units and other structures from the outside of the building that were added later to it and were detracting from its heritage value.

Inside the building, non-original internal window coverings have been removed to allow more light into the building.

Cavity sliders (aluminum front doors) in ‘heritage style’ have been installed within the existing frames to retain the character of the building. .

The hearing closed at 10.03am.

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

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received, and

THAT pursuant to Section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council cancels condition 3 of Decision No. 2008/09-125 to grant consent to refurbishment of the former BNZ building situated at the corner of Princes Street and Wharf Street, Paeroa, on land legally described as Part Lots 28-29 Blk B DP 247 for the following reasons:

• the verandah no longer serves its original purpose to provide shelter at shop fronts

• the light pedestrian use of Princes Street does not justify the retention of the verandah

• the degree of modification to the building is moderate in scale

• the removal of the verandah will enhance the appearance of the Art Deco building and consequently improve the environment of the town centre

• the removal of the verandah will eliminate the risk of collision with tall vehicles.

• The applicant has mitigated adverse effects through enhancement of other heritage features.

• The verandah compromises the architectural merit of the building.
• The hooks be retained as a reminder of the buildings’ history.

Subject to the following conditions:

1. That the three hooks from which the verandah is suspended are retained in place and painted to offset their appearance against the building façade.

2. That within six months of the removal of the verandah the building is repaired from the removal work to match in the verandah area with the rest of the façade according to a scheme submitted to and approved by the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services.

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

HC09/56 Carmine/Leonard CARRIED

S & H ERCEG, 2191 STATE HIGHWAY 25 KOPUARAHI (517271 – SWIM-03484)(28KB)

The applicants seek 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 available.

The hearing was scheduled for 10.30 am.

The hearing commenced at 10.30am.

The applicants were not in attendance.

Mr East presented his report.

The Spa Pool is compliant with the NZS 8500: 2006 Standard 3.10.

The hearing closed at 10.32am.

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

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received, and

THAT the application from S & H Erceg for a special exemption from the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their spa pool for a lockable cover to be fitted and used in strict accordance with the conditions in place, be 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

Granting the application for exemption will not significantly increase the danger to young children on the basis that the conditions of the waiver are met at all times.

HC09/57 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

The applicant seeks an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for his spa pool.

A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was available.

A hearing was scheduled for 10.35am.

The hearing commenced at 10.33am

The applicants were not in attendance.

Mr East presented his report.

The spa has a hard cover that is lockable; the cover is in need of some minor maintenance in that the stitching has given away although this does not affect the effectiveness of the cover to be secured in place. Mr Bennett stated that he would engage Paeroa upholstery to recover the top. The Spa Pool is compliant with the NZS 8500: 2006 Standard 3.10.

The hearing closed at 10.35am.

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

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received, and

THAT the application from Mike Bennett for a special exemption from the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for his spa pool. A lockable cover to be fitted and used in strict accordance with the conditions in place, be granted, subject to the following conditions:

1. That a lockable cover be fitted and used in strict accordance with the specifications as stated in the NZS8500:2006.

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

Granting the application for exemption will not significantly increase the danger to young children on the basis that the conditions of the waiver are met at all times.

HC09/58 Carmine/Leonard CARRIED

OBJECTION TO CONDITIONS OF SUBDIVISION CONSENT: G C & J H JENKINS AT 31 SILVERTON ROAD, WAIHI (RC-15643 / 524994) (37KB)

Mr Harder presented his report and tabled a letter to the Hearings Committee dated 16 November 2009 in support of his objection to Condition 5 (Doc. 527550).

Mr Harder firstly spoke to the objection to Condition 5 relating to the upgrade of the sewer.

Mr Harder suggested the following three ways the issue regarding the sewer could be addressed:

• Change the boundary to become a private sewer.
• Apply a 221 consent notice advising sewer to be maintained in perpetuity by Lot 2.
• Accept scheme as presented and provide an easement.

Regarding Condition 3, Mr Harder argued that Council constructed the entrance off Silverton Road and one would have reasonably assumed that the construction work was to Council specifications. Apparently, the construction work does not meet HDC specifications and now Council wants applicants to upgrade the work at their expense. Furthermore, he stated there is no problem with the entrance whether it meets the specifications or not and does not require any further work.

Mr Harder argued that the sewer serving the cottage on proposed Lot 2 has been constructed to HDC specifications, inspected and approved. Therefore, there is no further work required to bring the sewer up to the requirements of NZS 4404:2004. There is no need for this sewer to become part of the public sewer network.

Mr Gregory presented his report.

Mr Gregory requested the objection to Condition 3 be upheld.

Mr Gregory spoke to the issue concerning the sewer travelling across Lot 1 to the subject property. In particular, he noted Council practice and bylaw is to require all sewers crossing private land become public. Mr Thompson reiterated Councils preference is that a public sewer be installed as it avoids potential conflict.

Mr Gregory stated that the first proposal to change the boundary could be acceptable.

As regards to the second proposal (Section 221 consent notice), Mr Gregory wanted to get further advice on this option.

Mr Thompson stated that the first proposal is Councils’ preferred option, other than requiring an upgrade to public standard as per existing consent Condition 5. The second proposal is outside the normal arrangement and could create ongoing issues. The latter option to leave it as is with an easement is not acceptable.

Mr Harder advised he did not have any further comments to make on the objection.

The hearing closed at 10.55am.

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

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received, and

THAT pursuant to Section 357D of the Resource Management Act 1991 Council upholds the objection to Decision No. 2009/2010-45 in part concerning Condition 3 and will amend the decision to delete the condition on the grounds that:

• The existing vehicle entrance is adequate for the current and anticipated domestic level of use.

THAT Council dismisses the objection to Condition 5 which remains unaltered. However, subject to receipt of an amended scheme plan, Council will accept an alteration to the boundary as discussed by the applicant (Lot 1 to incorporate the length of the sewer) as an alternative to Condition 5.

HC09/59 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

The meeting closed at 11.05am.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

7 December 2009