COAT-ARM Hastings District Council


Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East, Hastings 4156

Phone:  (06) 871 5000

Fax:  (06) 871 5100













Hearings Committee




Meeting Date:

Friday, 8 December 2017

And Continued, in Public Excluded Session, later on 8 December 2017







(Non-notified Non-complying Resource Consent for Subdivision at 14 Haumoana Road, Hastings

(C Cadwallader) (RMA20170334))

CG-14-12-00020                                                                         1





HELD IN THE Landmarks Room, Ground Floor, Civic Administration Building, Lyndon Road East, Hastings

ON Friday, 8 December 2017 AT 9.00am


[AND Then CONTINUED in public excluded session

later ON friDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2017



with the decision being released on Friday, 19 january 2018

(following a resolution to proceed in open session

in order to release that decision)




Present:                          Chair: Councillor Lyons

Councillor Kerr

Hastings District Rural Community Board Member: Mr P Kay


IN ATTENDANCE:             Environmental Consents Manager (Mr M Arnold)

Team Leader Environmental Consents/Subdivision (Mr C Sutton)

Committee Secretary (Mrs C Hilton)


ALSO PRESENT:               Mr J Kaye, Development Nous Limited

                                                Ms S Edmead, Development Nous Limited


                                                A member of the public was present as an observer.



1.         Apologies


            There were no apologies from the Hearings Committee.




Non-notified non-complying resource consent for subdivision at 14 Haumoana Road, Hastings (C Cadwallader) (RMA20170334)


(Document 17/1300)


The Chair introduced the members of the Hearings Committee sitting on the Panel for this hearing, and the Council Officers present.  The Chair made his opening comments and outlined the process that would be followed at the hearing, together with addressing “housekeeping” issues.  It was explained that the planning report had the same status as any of the other evidence being considered at this hearing. 


The Chair also advised that the Committee had been on a site visit the previous day.


Once the respective evidence had been presented, the Committee would consider that information, undertaking its deliberations in Public Excluded (Confidential) Session.


Mr J Kaye circulated and read his evidence (56971#0081), interpolating as appropriate on behalf of the Applicant, Mr C Cadwallader.  Mr Kaye gave an apology on behalf of the Applicant, who was not able to attend the hearing.  With the agreement of the Committee, Paragraphs 1-3 of the evidence were “taken as read”. 


The main points that Mr Kaye highlighted in his evidence or that were addressed in response to questions from the Committee included:

·           Paragraph 12 – a pedestrian footbridge to access the two parts of the site.

·           Paragraphs 73 to 79 – assessment of twenty sites in the Plains Production Zone, <5ha in size (including the subject site). 

·           Not all these twenty sites contained a water course.

·           Paragraph 88 – the subject site had clearly differentiated unique features.

·           Amalgamation of the site had been considered but “had gone nowhere”.

·           The 1.9ha of productive land includes land directly to the east of any dwelling or visitor accommodation.

·           The original house on the site, (was now used for visitor accommodation) - the District Plan required the balance site to have only one dwelling.

·           Could the visitor accommodation be linked back to the primary residence?

·           Could the land be subdivided parallel to Haumoana Road with the houses cut off and the balance land amalgamated further down Parkhill Road?

·           The strip of land between Haumoana and Parkhill Roads is held with the area of productive land and taken over the outside of the curtilage (the driveway area).

·           The Applicant had looked at the costs of a bridge (could be $150,000 to $200,000 plus consent and design costs).

·           A primary dwelling could be built on the site, and that right remains even if subdivision takes place.

·           The proposed boundary was on the western side of the stream (not on the centre line of the stream). 

·           Proposed Lot 2 would be totally responsible for maintaining the stream.

·           On the site visit the Panel had seen there was a lot of work to be done.


The meeting adjourned briefly to enable the Reporting Planner, Mr Sutton, to prepare his response to the issues raised at the hearing.


The hearing adjourned at 9.48am and resumed at 10.00am


The Reporting Planner, Mr C Sutton made the following comments in response to issues raised by Mr Kaye and questions that had been addressed:  The main points that were raised included:

·           This proposal was for a small scale subdivision but it was a significant challenge to the Plains Zone provisions in the District Plan.

·           This was the first such application since the relevant Plan provisions had come into effect in September 2015.

·           There were two fundamental points:

o    No amalgamation was being proposed.

o    If treated as a Plains Zone subdivision, the sites were significantly below the 12ha sizes required under the Plan.

·           He addressed the productive potential and use of Proposed Lot 1 and retaining the potential for this land to be used productively.

·           If this proposed lot was not subdivided it could be used for residential purposes.

·           Alternatively it could be used for buildings associated with land based production as it had some difficulties in terms of overall productive use, due to the stream.

·           Building a bridge or the use of a culvert (via a HBRC resource consent application) were options.  A bridge would be the more useful option.

·           Paragraph 77 – the wording “those that did…as a single productive unit” – the Applicant was acknowledging that if works did occur, the site could be more easily used as one site.

·           Supplementary residential buildings were provided for in the Plains Zone to give flexibility to family/workers staying on a site.


The Committee asked questions of Mr Sutton.  The main points that were addressed included:

·           Paragraph 59 – he agreed the application was contrary to Policy PPP6 which was quite directive and restricts the ability to create lifestyle sites.

·           Relevant case law - it was not appropriate to compare this situation to the Jara Family Trust v HDC case referred to in Mr Kaye’s evidence.

·           He stood by the recommendation in his agenda report to decline consent.

·           Did he consider that in this case the buildings had been erected on the site with the intent of future subdivision being undertaken?

·           He said Officers should not be put in a position that they needed to scrutinise every application for a supplementary residential building, in case a landowner tried to subdivide around those buildings in the future. 

·           This would make applications hard to assess and would have a flow on effect that would hinder that Plan policy.

·           Information can only be included on the title to prevent further subdivision if it was offered by the Applicant.

·           Council can only place land use covenants on a land use application.

·           Did Lot 1 have productive potential, given the stream and the size and shape of the land?

·           His focus was the “potential for”, rather than “what was currently on the site”.  He had looked at the land involved as a whole site.

·           The lemon trees towards back of the site appeared to be growing well.


The Committee then asked a further question of Mr Kaye.  The main points that were addressed included:

·           The potential flood hazard – the detention dam, mentioned in the application material would affect proposed Lot 1 if the dam was breached.

·           This was a HBRC dam with only limited information available.  If it breached, other sites would also be affected.

·           The dam appeared to be in use but he didn’t know how it was being maintained.


Mr Kaye then exercised a Right-of–Reply on behalf of the Applicant and responded to questions from the Committee.  The main points that were addressed included:

·           He felt there was considerable common ground between his own evidence and the report and evidence presented by Mr Sutton.

·           He did not believe the effects of this proposed subdivision would be more than minor.

·           This site was unique and quite distinct from the other sites that had been assessed, as had been presented earlier in his evidence.

·           He did not believe the subdivision would set a precedent or affect the integrity of the Plan.

·           Plan provisions required supplementary residential dwellings to be no more than 25m from the primary dwelling so they are viewed as one development on a site.

·           If subdivision occurred the two houses had to be 15m from the boundary.



It was noted that the hearing would be adjourned and the Committee would then start its deliberations.


At this point the Committee went into Public Excluded Session to undertake its deliberations.



Councillor Lyons/Councillor Kerr


That the public be excluded from the deliberations in relation to the hearing of the Non-notified Non-complying Resource Consent for Subdivision at 14 Haumoana Road, Hastings (C Cadwallader).  The reason for passing this Resolution in relation to this matter and the specific grounds under Section 48(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this Resolution is as follows:


That the exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation in:


a)    Any proceedings before a local authority where:


i)       A right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the final decision of the local authority in those proceedings; or


ii)      The local authority is required, by any enactment, to make a recommendation in respect of the matter that is the subject of those proceedings.






The Hearing adjourned at 10.20am

and would reconvene in Public Excluded Session

for the Committee to undertake its deliberations






with the decision being released on  friday, 19 january 2018

(following a resolution to proceed in open session

in order to release that decision)



Non-notified non-complying resource consent for subdivision at 14 Haumoana Road, Hastings (C Cadwallader) (RMA20170334)Continued


The Committee then confirmed its decision in Open Session so it could be publicly released.  The Substantive Wording is set out below.  The full decision wording, in including narrative, the associated conditions and any advice notes are contained in a separate document as noted in italics below.





Councillor Kerr/Mr P Kay


That pursuant to Rules SLD25 (Subdivision) of the Proposed Hastings District Plan (As Amended by Decisions 15 September 2015) and Sections 104, 104B, 104D, 106, 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, consent is REFUSED to Charles Cadwallader to:


(a)     Subdivide 14 Haumoana Road, Part Lot 1 DP 6280 CFR HB95/57 as follows:

·      The creation of proposed Lot 1 comprising 3,900m2 around an existing supplementary residential building.

·      The creation of proposed Lot 2 comprising 2.2510 hectares that contains an existing visitor accommodation building.






(Note:  The full wording of the signed hearing decision, including any associated conditions and advice notes, is attached as a separate document.  The full decision is circulated with, and forms part of these minutes – the signed decision is saved under 56971#0089 in the Council’s records system.


That full decision wording also includes the narrative which summarises details of the hearing process and the evidence that was presented to the Committee for its consideration, in regard to the application).



The meeting was formally closed at 11.26am