Agenda of Hearings Committee Meeting

Hearing Report - reporting planner

Attachment 1

REPORT ON NOTIFIED APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT UNDER THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 (RMA)

REPORT TO: HEARING COMMISSIONERS

HEARING DATE: 13 September 2019

FROM: Liam Wang

ENVIORNMENTAL PLANNER – CONSENTS

SUBJECT: A LIMITED NOTIFIED APPLICATION FOR LAND USE RESOURCE CONSENT TO CONVERT OF AN INCOMPLETE IMPLEMENT SHED TO A HABITABLE BUILDING AS PART OF THE EXISTING “PLACE OF ASSEMBLY” ACTIVITY ON SITE.

NOTE: This report is not the decision on the application. This report sets out the advice and recommendation of the reporting planner. This report has yet to be considered by the hearing commissioners delegated by Hastings District Council to decide this resource consent application. The decision will be made by the hearing commissioners only after they have considered the application and heard from the applicant, submitters and Council officers.

1.0 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

1.1 Application and Property Details

Application Number: RMA20180494

Applicant’s Name: Kahungunu Health Services

Site Address: 151 Waitangi Road, Waimarama

Legal Description: Waipuka 2T3 BLK X Kidnappers SD

Total Site Area: 1.0739 ha

Lodgement Date: 11 November 2018

Notification Date: 27 June 2019

Submission Period Closed: 2 August 2019

Number of Submissions Received: 1 submission opposing the entirety of the application.

1.2 Application Documents

The list of application documents and plans are set out in the recommendation forming part of this report.

1.3 Adequacy of Information

The information submitted with the application is sufficiently comprehensive to enable the consideration of the following matters on an informed basis:

· The nature and scope of the proposed activity for which resource consent is sought;

· The extent and scale of the actual and potential effects on the environment;

· Those persons and/or customary rights holders who may be adversely affected; and

· The requirements of the relevant legislation.

One formal request for further information under section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) was made in relation to this application for resource consent on the following date:

Date s92 Request Made by Council	Date Response Received from Applicant
1. 5 December 2018	Partial response received 30 April and 6 May 2019

1.4 Report and Assessment Methodology

I have undertaken a separate and independent assessment of the proposal, avoiding undue repetition of descriptions or assessments from the application where appropriate, with technical aspects having been reviewed by independent experts engaged by the Council as needed. Where there is agreement on any descriptions or assessments in the application material, this is identified in this report.

Where professional opinions differ, or additional assessment and/or consideration is needed for any reason, the relevant points of difference of approach, assessment or conclusions are detailed. Also, the implications of any professional difference in findings in the overall recommendation is provided.

This report is prepared by: Liam Wang

Environmental Planner - Consents

Signed:

Date: 23 August 2019

_________________________________________________________________________________

Reviewed and approved for release by: Murray Arnold

Environmental Consents Manager

Signed:

Date: 23 August 2019

1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The applicant is seeking to convert a near-complete implement shed located at 151 Waitangi Road, Waimarama to a habitable building used as part of the existing “place of assembly” on site (the proposal).

1.2 The subject site is zoned “Rural” under the Proposed Hastings District Plan (the Proposed Plan). The proposal requires resource consent for a Non-Complying activity due to its non-compliance with the minimum boundary setback requirement and being located within a tsunami hazard zone. Additionally, “place of assembly” is not provided for in the rural zone.

1.3 Council limited notified one affected party, identified through its Section 95 notification report, on the grounds of potential adverse effect on the amenities that the party will enjoy.

Address / Legal Description	Owner	Council PID
145 Waitangi Road, Waipuka 2T4 BLX X KIDNAPPERS SD	Mangu Matthews, Myda Matthews and Pehitane Potaka	58265

1.4 One submission was received by the Council. The submission, from the owners of 145 Waitangi Road (the submission) opposes the application and requested to be heard.

Recommendation

1.5 Having considered all the information provided through the application, submission and further information request, it is recommended that the Council approve this application, subject to conditions outlined in Section 9.0 of this report.

Reporting Planner

1.6 My full name is Liam Wang. I am currently employed as an Environmental Consents Planner with the Hastings District Council.

1.7 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses as contained in the Environment Court’s Consolidated Practice Note (2014), and I agree to comply with it as if this hearing were before the Environment Court. I confirm that the issues addressed in this hearing report are within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

2.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

Attachments

2.1 The following table identifies the various attachments to this report.

Attachment B	Applicant’s assessment of environmental effects 59548#0288
Attachment C	Section 95 notification report and decision 59548#0302
Attachment D	Submission from owners of 145 Waitangi Road 59548#0311
Attachment E	Development plans – prior to the amendment to the building consent ABA20171619 59548#0245
Attachment F	Development plans – after the amendment to the building consent ABA20171619 59548#0274
Attachment G	Section 92 further information Request 59548#0291
Attachment H	Response to further information request (Part 1) 59548#0292
Attachment I	Response to further information request (Part 2) – Traffic assessment 59548#0294
Attachment J	Response to further information request (Part 3) Tsunami Risk 59548#0295, #0298
Attachment K	Hastings District Council Development Engineer’s Comments 59548#0289, #0312

The Application

2.2 The Council received the application to convert an incomplete implement shed to a habitable building as a “place of assembly” on 22 November 2018. The applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effect is included as Attachment B of this report. The application is summarised as below.

2.2.1 The applicant seeks resource consent for a new 543.5m² place of assembly building within an inundation zone that infringes the side yard setback in the Rural zone, as the proposed place of assembly building has been located 5 metres from the property boundary. The 2.5900 hectare lot is contained in Register of title (RT) HB154/77 at 151 Waitangi Road, Waimarama.

2.2.2 Two place of assembly buildings are already established on the site, which consists of accommodation, cooking, and ablution facilities housed within an existing whare and wharenui (meeting house). These existing buildings infringe on the side yard setback being 6.1 metres from the boundary at the closest point.

2.2.3 The subject site is currently leased by Kahungunu Health Services, a Charitable Trust who manage all the bookings for all of the events held onsite. The events currently held on site consist of a not for profit camp for school groups, corporate events such as team building, cultural groups/events, Te Reo Maori classes and the occasional family hui.

2.2.4 Accommodation at the site is currently provided in the Whare in the form of four bunk rooms which each sleep 12 people (44 people), a modern ablution block, a large open plan kitchen and an outside decking area. The wharenui (meeting house) also provides space for inside recreation, meeting space and has accessible ablution facilities.

2.2.5 The applicant proposes to utilise the new building onsite as an extension of the existing place of assembly activity. This will allow for extended community, education and cultural camp activities to occur on site. It is proposed that the new building would sleep up to 40 people and provide space for indoor activities for the educational, cultural and community activities to take place in times of bad weather. The requirement for additional inside space and additional ablution facilities has been identified and requested by visiting groups.

2.2.6 The building was originally granted building consent as a non-habitable implement shed under building consent ABA20171619. The applicant later applied for an amendment to the building consent to add a kitchen, ablutions (showers, toilets, handbasins) and laundry facilities to the building and change the use of the building. The proposed development plans, both before and after the amendment, are attached as Attachment E and F of this report.

2.2.7 There are also other commercial interests on the site being four visitor accommodation units. A primary residential building and supplementary residential building are also present on the site.

Notification decision

2.3 Attachment C (Section 95 report) outlines the background information in relation to this consent. The report includes the reasons for consent and Council’s initial consideration on the potential level of adverse effects. A summary is provided below:

2.3.1 The proposed activity required consent for the following reasons:

2.3.2 Rule NH10 states that any of the following activities (Visitor accommodation, non-residential care facilities, education facilities, early childhood centres, homes for the aged, places of assembly, emergency service facilities, camping grounds, health care services, retirement villages) located within a Tsunami Hazard Zone as identified in Appendix 58 and on planning maps must be assessed as a Restricted Discretionary activity.

2.3.3 Rule RZ27 states any activity which is not provided for as a permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary activity (or in rules NP18-NP21) shall be a Non-Complying activity. A place of assembly that does not comply with the minimum yard setback requirement is not provided for in the Rural Zone.

2.3.4 The proposal is therefore being assessed as a Non-Complying activity overall.

2.3.5 The report then proceeded to consider a range of potential effects that may arise from the activity. It was identified that the proposal will be unlikely to have a more than minor effect on the wider environment.

However, it was identified the proposal may have a minor effect to 145 Waitangi Road. Based on the issues identified by the report. Under authority delegated by the Council, the Environmental Consents Manager, Murray Arnold, limited notified the consent to the owners and occupiers of 145 Waitangi Road on the grounds that the proposal will result in a loss of amenity and the overall level of adverse effect is likely to be minor.

Submission

2.4 A submission from the owners of 145 Waitangi Road was received by the Council on 2 August 2019. The submission is included as Attachment D of this report.

2.4.1 The submission has expressed concerns on a range of potential effects being more than minor, including:

· Visual amenities and privacy effects;

· Noise; and

· Traffic;

2.4.2 The submission also offered its interpretation of relevant standards and objectives and policies of the Proposed Plan.

2.4.3 Particularly, the submission has identified that the private road which the proposed activity relies on does not meet the minimum standards set in Table 26.1.6.1-1 (rural zone private road serving 7-20 household units) of the Proposed Plan, and therefore the addition of an extended place of assembly would not have safe and efficient access.

2.4.4 The assessment of the extension to the place of assembly would fall under table 26.1.6.1-2 commercial and industrial and other activities which requires a 5m wide formation width for up to 20 sites and 5.5m width for 21-200 sites.

2.4.5 I concur with the assessment that this underwidth formation non-compliance requires consent and should be covered as part of this assessment. The non-compliance is considered a Restricted Discretionary activity in accordance with Rule TP2 of the Proposed Plan. However the overall activity status of non-complying as identified in the section 95 notification report, remains unaffected.

2.4.6 The submitters requested the Council to decline the consent application and have the uncompleted building removed from the site, or the building only be permitted to be used as an accessory building for the permitted residential and rural use of the site.

DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

The following sections will assess the proposal in accordance with Section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

3.0 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 In considering any application for resource consent, the council must have regard to the following requirements under s104(1) - which are subject to Part II (the purpose and principles):

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

(ab) any measure proposed or agreed to by the applicant for the purpose of ensuring positive effects on the environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or may result from allowing the activity; and

(b) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national environmental standard:

(ii) other regulations:

(iii) a national policy statement:

(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:

(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

(b) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

3.2 As a Non-Complying Activity, Section 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 states that Council may grant or refuse the application. If it grants the application, it may impose conditions under s108. In considering the application, the Council can take any effects that may arise from the proposed activities into account.

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT - s104(1)(a) and s104D(1)(a)

4.1 Effects that must be disregarded

4.1.1 Any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application - s104(3)(a)(ii)

No written approvals have been provided.

4.1.2Effects that may be disregarded - Permitted baseline assessment - s104(2)

When considering any actual or potential effects, the council (as consent authority) may disregard an adverse effect on the environment if a national environmental standard or the plan permits an activity with that effect (the permitted baseline). The Council has discretion whether to apply this permitted baseline.

An accessory building (implement shed) of this size and shape has been built in this location as a permitted activity.

The visual effects of an implement shed of this size and height in this location have been disregarded in the following assessment.

4.2 The following potential adverse effects were considered relevant to the proposal.

Visual and Privacy effects

4.3 I have concluded that the overall level of visual effect associated with the proposal will be no more than minor. The reasons are outlined as follows.

4.3.1 The structure was originally designed for an implementation shed. Such structure is classified as an “accessory building”, which can be located at 5 metres away from the common boundary (Rule 5.2.5B(3) of the Proposed Plan).

4.3.2 The building plan was subsequently amended to include a kitchen, ablution and laundry facilities. This has resulted in the need for the resource consent, as the minimum boundary setback of 5m only applies to accessory buildings. The Proposed Plan has not specified any setback requirement for buildings used for “Place of assembly”, as the activity itself is not provided in this zone. (Rule 5.2.5B(1)). The overall profile, shape and footprint of the existing accessory building has not changed in this proposal and is largely comparable to a complying activity under Rule 5.2.5B(3). (Refer to building plans attached in appendix A)

4.3.3 The main noticeable change to the building exterior, compared with the “permitted baseline” (non-habitable implement shed), is that the building will now include more than 10 windows. Approximately half of the windows will be facing to the centre of the site, however some of them will be facing 145 Waitangi Road, and some of those will be for the first floor.

4.3.4 Whilst the Proposed Plan does not restrict the number of windows an implement shed can have, accessory buildings like the shed that was originally applied for are generally designed for storage, workshop and other non-habitable uses. As such they do not usually require a large amount of glazing, and use of a shed usually means that the likelihood of overlooking into adjoining sites is low. The number of windows on the proposed building is not consistent with the character generally expected for an implement shed.

4.3.5 Additionally, the deck on the first floor is generally associated with habitable uses and is not commonly found on non-habitable accessory buildings.

4.3.6 The proposed extra windows and deck are generally associated habitable spaces that have a higher need for glazing and recreational space. This can potentially lead to a loss of privacy and loss of the sense of separation generally expected in the rural zone. The submitter was considered affected on the grounds that the proposal will result in a loss of amenity and the overall level of adverse effect is likely to be minor, which includes the building being located only 5 metres away from the shared boundary.

4.3.7 In order to ascertain the level of potential effect associated with this aspect, I have taken the following matters into account:

· The building is not a dwelling (residential building) and will only be occupied when there is a gathering or event or use by a group such as a school.

· Half of the windows facing the common boundary will function as glazing for kitchen, laundry and toilet facilities. Those spaces will only be used during certain times of the day or sparsely used throughout the day.

· The applicant has proposed to retain and enhance the existing vegetation along the boundary. A condition can be imposed to require the vegetation to maintained to a height similar to the building (6 metres) and

· The submitter’s dwelling is located approximately 30 metres away from the building.

· Mezzanine windows on the northwestern side and deck facing the submitter will be directly overlooking into the submitter’s site and towards their house. There will be a direct sightline between the submitter’s first floor deck and the proposed building.

4.3.8 I have also considered the potential types of conditions which the Council can impose to mitigate the effects:

· Requiring non-transparent (opaque) glazing on windows facing other sites (northwestern and southwestern sides in particular);

· Visual screening in the form of trees and hedges;

4.3.9 In case of the first floor deck, visual screening in the form of physical barrier or screen on the northwestern side, I consider those conditions appropriate as to address any privacy issues. The overall effect can therefore be reduced to a level comparable to a permitted activity.

4.3.10 For those reasons, I have concluded that the level of visual and privacy effects can be managed and controlled to the level that is comparable to a complying activity.

Amenity and Cumulative Effects

4.3.11 I acknowledge the submitter’s concern on the potential level of cumulative effects expressed in the submission, in particularly on page 2 where a comparison was made to a range of permitted activities in the Rural zone.

4.3.12 In response, I note that the existing “place of assembly” activity has been legally established as a permitted activity under the Operative District Plan of that time. A place of assembly does not have to be contained within a building. In case of the existing wharenui, it is not uncommon to have gatherings, ceremonies and events outside of the physical building. There was no restriction on how far such activity must be away from the boundaries.

4.3.13 I agree that the proposal will result in adverse effects in addition to those already permitted on site. However, cumulatively the proposal will be unlikely to significantly change the nature of the existing legally established “place of assembly”.

4.3.14 Previous paragraphs have already established that the existing building would be otherwise permitted (accessory building) if it is not used for “place of assembly”, which is part of the permitted baseline which has been applied..

4.3.15 Previous paragraphs have also established that the existing, legally established place of assembly activity does not have to be confined within the buildings. Outdoor activities have also been established on site as of right. This can continue to happen with or without the proposed building.

4.3.16 As such, the main effect associated with the proposal is limited to the amenity and privacy effects associated with activities inside the building. With conditions requiring visual screening those effects can be reduced to less than minor.

4.3.17 Also, the proposed dwelling will not result in significant effect to the visual amenities that the submitter will enjoy.

4.3.18 It is noted that the Proposed Plan does not protect any views from the existing dwelling on 145 Waitangi Road. While the proposed building will partially block the view from the adjoining dwelling to the shoreline, such reduction in visual amenity is considered acceptable under the Proposed Plan, and is part of the permitted baseline.

4.3.19 Furthermore, the bulk of the proposed building has been disregarded as part of the permitted baseline. A building of same size and scale can be built at the current location as of right. The only matter triggering consent requirement is its intended use.

4.3.20 Cumulatively, the proposal will not significantly change the visual characteristics of the area. The proposed building is currently partially screened by the existing vegetation along the side boundary. This screening will be further enhanced by the applicant should the Council decide to grant the application.

4.3.21 The overall density of the development on site and the surrounding environment remains low. All other buildings are more than 5 metres away from the shared boundary. Based on the “permitted baseline”, those buildings can still be built as of right if their uses are limited.

4.3.22 Overall, it is considered that the potential level of adverse effect to local amenities, both on its own and cumulatively, will likely to be minor or less than minor.

4.3.23 I also acknowledge the submitter’s concern relating to the nature of his occupation and the potential sensitivity from having a gathering place next to his private residence. Unfortunately both the RMA and the Proposed Plan do not provide opportunities for me to take this factor into account.

Noise and other environmental nuisance effects

4.4 The likely level of adverse effect from noise and other environmental nuisance effects is likely to be less than minor. The reasons are outlined as follows.

4.4.1 The applicant has volunteered compliance to noise standards under Chapter 25.1 of the Proposed Plan. The site has a history of operation as a “place of assembly”, with no recorded complaints on Council’s file.

4.4.2 The building is oriented in a way that directs the main activities to the northeast of the building towards the centre of the subject site and away from the adjoining site 145 Waitangi Road. The internal layout of the building directly facing the adjoining site will include the kitchen, ablutions blocks and boundary sinks. Those areas are generally only used during specific hours – before meals, morning, and in the case of the toilets, sparsely used throughout the day. The main lounge areas are generally located away from the southern wall, with the exception of the first floor lounge and deck.

4.4.3 As previously discussed, any privacy effect from the mezzanine deck can be managed by requiring a physical barrier or screen between the deck and the side boundary. This barrier can also function as a noise barrier.

4.4.4 It is also noted that a large area on the north-western end of ground floor has been designated as “garage” in the plans supplied. Given the application has not outlined how the maximum of 40 people will be accommodated by building, It was unclear whether this space will be used for any habitable purpose.

4.4.5 Overall, it is expected that noise-generating activities will be unlikely to generate noise directed to the submitters direction, but to the centre of the subject site.

4.4.6 I have also considered the potential conditions that the Council can impose to further mitigate the potential risk of excessive noise:

· Physical barrier or screen on the northwestern side of the deck to prevent a direct sightline between the first floor, the deck and the adjoining site (145 Waitangi Road).

· Review condition to allow the Council to impose the following measures should noise become an issue:

o Restrict the hours or season which the building can be used as an accommodation facility;

o Require acoustic fencing between the building and adjoining site; and

o Require windows to be removed / closed at all times.

4.4.7 As part of the building code requirement, all windows for habitable building will be double glazed and walls insulated. This will further mitigate the effect from noise.

4.4.8 In terms of lighting, there will be no external lighting on the southwestern side of the building, and all other lighting associated with the proposal will comply with Rule 5.2.5D of the Proposed Plan.

4.4.9 No other environmental nuisance effects are considered relevant.

Traffic and accessibility

4.5 The following assessment concludes that the level of effects associated with increased traffic and accessibility will likely to be no more than minor.

4.5.1 I agree with the applicant that the site contains sufficient area to accommodate for the potential increase in demand on parking spaces. Due to the nature of the site and spaces available, it is considered unnecessary to formalise the spaces.

4.5.2 The application states that the proposed building will be able to accommodate up to 40 persons. In terms of the vehicle movements, the applicant has identified that in addition to those already generated by existing permitted activities, attendees using the proposed place of assembly are likely to be transported by 1 bus and 5 cars.

4.5.3 I have considered the traffic assessment (prepared by traffic solutions limited, dated 29 April 2019) provided by the applicant. Page 5 of the report has considered the potential effects from the additional traffic generated by the proposal. It was found that even in the worst scenario (all attendees travelling by private cars), it will result in an additional 30 vehicle trips per hour at the start and end of a gathering. Considering Waitangi Road is a low traffic volume road the number of vehicle movements will be unlikely to result in any significant impact on the safe and efficient operation of the road.

4.5.4 The last section of Waitangi Road is a private road. The report has identified the road formation to be typically 4.6 metres wide. This does not comply with the minimum access way standard under Table 26.1.6.1-2 of the Proposed Plan.

4.5.5 Council’s Development engineer, Nick Bruin concurs with the assessment that there are ample passing opportunities along the public part of the road. I also concur with such conclusion. Given it’s a low usage road with berms on both side, the additional traffic will be unlikely to create significant issues in relation to safety and dust issues.

4.5.6 In terms of the private section of the road, Mr Bruin also concurred with the conclusion of the traffic assessment stating that:

In the private part of the road there are presently few passing opportunities available, if a large vehicle such as a bus is used to ferry attendees to and from the site. If other users of that part of the road become unduly obstructed as a result of the proposal, then the operator should consult with the other co-owners, with a view to providing some roadway widening at selected locations, such as at the various curves, by private arrangement.

4.5.7 In response to the submitter’s concerns, I concur with both submitter’s and the traffic assessment’s conclusion that large vehicles like a bus may encounter issues on the private section of the road with the limited width for passing opportunities.

4.5.8 The traffic assessment is based on the worst case scenario (all attendees travelling by private vehicles). However, I acknowledge that it is difficult to predict the type of vehicles that will be used to access the site, as it is highly dependent on attendees and nature of the gatherings.

4.5.9 Considering the additional capacity that will result from the proposal (40 persons), it is reasonable to assume that one bus will be sufficient to accommodate for the travelling needs, should all of the attendees travel by bus.

4.5.10 The relatively low usage rate of the private road would mean that there is only a small chance of the bus encountering traffic coming from the opposite direction at a point that does not allow two vehicles to pass with ease.

4.5.11 I recommend that should the Council decide to approve the Consent, a review condition to be added in order to allow Council to review the traffic conditions, and require the road to be upgraded (passing bays) should the types of traffic that the activity attract becomes an issue.

Natural hazard

4.6 The property is located with the “tsunami hazard zone”. “Place of Assemblies” located within this overlay require resource consent in accordance rule NH10 of the Proposed Plan.

4.6.1 The risk associated with the tsunami hazard can be effectively addressed by requiring an emergency evacuation and management plan as part of the consent conditions. The subject site is located right below a hillside that will be able to provide a quick evacuation route.

4.6.2 The proposed building is also located sufficiently far away from the hill side that the risk associated with landslide is minimal. In the event that a severe landslide occurs, moving to the shore would be the quickest evacuation route.

4.6.3 No other natural hazards are considered relevant to this proposal.

Other effects

4.7 All other effects have been considered in the Section 95 report (Attachment C). The level of effects was considered to be less than minor. No other effects are considered relevant.

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF STANDARDS,POLICY STATEMENTS OR PLANS s104(1)(b)

National Environmental Standards (NES)

5.1 The notification report has identified that the proposal does not trigger any requirement under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NESCS), as there was no known history of “HAIL activity” occurring on site.

5.1.1 In relation to the National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water, the proposal is considered not relevant to the NES due to the nature of its activity, and with the closest known source of human drinking water located 1 km away from the site.

5.1.2 No other NES was considered relevant.

National Policy Statements (NPS)

5.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement - s104(1)(b)(iv)

The purpose of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) is to state policies in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA in relation to the coastal environment of New Zealand. In this instance, the site is situated within the coastal environment and the NZCPS is therefore relevant.

I have considered the following objectives of the NZCPS:

Objective 1 To safeguard the integrity, form, functioning and resilience of the coastal environment and sustain its ecosystems, including marine and intertidal areas, estuaries, dunes and land, by:

· maintaining or enhancing natural biological and physical processes in the coastal environment and recognising their dynamic, complex and interdependent nature;

· protecting representative or significant natural ecosystems and sites of biological importance and maintaining the diversity of New Zealand’s indigenous coastal flora and fauna; and

· maintaining coastal water quality, and enhancing it where it has deteriorated from what would otherwise be its natural condition, with significant adverse effects on ecology and habitat, because of discharges associated with human activity.

Comment:

The location of the proposed building does not contain any known indigenous coastal flora and fauna. The location is also away from any dune or sensitive coastal environment, and does not have any known significant role as a habitat or part of the wider natural processes.

Objective 2 To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and landscape values through:

· recognising the characteristics and qualities that contribute to natural character, natural features and landscape values and their location and distribution;

· identifying those areas where various forms of subdivision, use, and development would be inappropriate and protecting them from such activities; and encouraging restoration of the coastal environment.

Comment:

The proposal is not seeking to establish a new activity, but rather expand on the existing activity.

Section 4 of this report has considered the visual effects associated with such expansion, and was concluded that the bulk, scale and design of the building is generally consistent with the permitted baseline.

The activity will not affect any existing vegetation and the vegetation along the boundaries will be further enhanced.

Furthermore, considering that the building is located in a low-lying area that has a number of existing developments, the existing landscape is atypical of a coastal environment. The subject site does not contain any known significant vegetation or habitat that provides for important coastal, ecological and environmental functions.

Objective 5 To ensure that coastal hazard risks taking account of climate change, are managed by:

· locating new development away from areas prone to such risks;

· considering responses, including managed retreat, for existing development in this situation; and

· protecting or restoring natural defences to coastal hazards.

Comment:

The main natural hazard risk the site is subject to is tsunami. The proposal is not seeking to establish a new activity, but rather expand on the existing activity. Consequently there will be an increase of such risk.

As discussed in Section 4 of this report, the risk can be managed by requiring an tsunami evacuation plan. The site’s close proximity to the hillside provides a readily available evacuation route.

Objective 6 To enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and their health and safety, through subdivision, use, and development, recognising that:

· the protection of the values of the coastal environment does not preclude use and development in appropriate places and forms, and within appropriate limits;

· some uses and developments which depend upon the use of natural and physical resources in the coastal environment are important to the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities;

· functionally some uses and developments can only be located on the coast or in the coastal marine area;

· the coastal environment contains renewable energy resources of significant value;

· the protection of habitats of living marine resources contributes to the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities;

· the potential to protect, use, and develop natural and physical resources in the coastal marine area should not be compromised by activities on land;

· the proportion of the coastal marine area under any formal protection is small and therefore management under the Act is an important means by which the natural resources of the coastal marine area can be protected; and

· historic heritage in the coastal environment is extensive but not fully known, and vulnerable to loss or damage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.

Comment:

This proposal will provide for the social and economic wellbeing of applicant and the wider community by providing additional capacity for an important community infrastructure. In the meanwhile, as discussed in the assessment above, any existing visual and ecological values within the coastal environment will not be compromised.

5.3 Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan and Policy Statement (RPS)

5.3.1 The Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan 2006 (RRMP) includes the regional policy statement (RPS) for the Hawke's Bay Region, which contains the following relevant objectives and policies:

OBJ 1 To achieve the integrated sustainable management of the natural and physical resources of the Hawke's Bay region, while recognising the importance of resource use activity in Hawke's Bay, and its contribution to the development and prosperity of the region.

OBJ 4 Promotion of the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment and its protection from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

OBJ 8 The avoidance of further permanent development in areas prone to coastal erosion or inundation, taking into account the risk associated with global sea level rise and any protection afforded by natural coastal features.

OBJ 18 For the expansion of existing activities which are tied operationally to a specific location, the mitigation of off site impacts or nuisance effects arising from the location of conflicting land activities adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, areas required for current or future operational needs.

OBJ 31 The avoidance or mitigation of the adverse effects of natural hazards on people's safety, property, and economic livelihood.

5.3.2 The proposal is considered not contrary with those objectives for the reasons outlined below.

5.3.3 As identified by this report, the main conflict between the existing land use and the proposal is the potential visual amenity and privacy effects. Those effects can be managed through conditions of the consent controlling aspects such as the transparency of the glazing, and visual screening between the deck windows and the dwelling on the adjoining property. Those conditions can reduce the level of potential adverse effects to a level comparable to a complying activity.

5.3.4 In the meanwhile, all existing legally established activities, including their need to expand are recognised by the recommendation. Section 4 of this report has concluded that considering the nature of the existing activity, and the potential outdoor component of any place of assembly activity, the level of cumulative effect will likely to be minimal and will not significantly change the nature of the existing activity on site.

5.3.5 This assessment has recognised the potential tsunami risks associated with the low-lying nature of the property. As the hillside behind the back of the property can provide a readily available evacuation route, it is concluded that the adverse effects associated with the natural hazard can be sufficiently mitigated.

5.3.6 Overall, it is considered that the proposed activity will use the existing land resource in a way that does not compromise the coastal, physical and social values of the area.

5.4 Hawkes Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan

5.4.1 Although outside of any defined coastal hazard area, the site is contained within the coastal environment, therefore the Objectives and Policies of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan have to be considered. The following are considered relevant to this application:

Objective 2.1 Preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, and the protection of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

Policy 2.3 To promote the location of future use and development in areas of the coastal environment which are already significantly modified by similar activities, provided the adverse effects of the new use and development are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Policy 2.4 To recognise and provide for appropriate use and development provided any adverse effects on the coastal environment’s natural character arising from such use and development are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Comment:

The proposed development will be carried out in an area that has already been highly modified. The proposed activity is a small addition to the existing “place of assembly”. As discussed by the rest of this assessment, adverse effects relating to the proposal will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

The proposed building will also be situated outside of known area with sensitive coastal environment, as the site is already highly modified.

Objective 8.1 The sustainable management of the land resource so as to avoid compromising future use and water quality.

Policy 8.1 To encourage landowners and occupiers to manage the effects of activities affecting soil (including both land use activities and discharges of contaminants onto or into land) in accordance with the environmental guidelines set out in Table 8-1 below.

Comment:

The subject site is not subject to any known erosion or contamination risks. It is located at the outer edge of the coastal environment. It is also built on a flat land, with minimal disturbance to existing land forms.

5.5 Proposed Hastings District Plan (As Amended by Decisions September 2015

Legal Status

5.5.1 The application was lodged on the 21st December 2018. The decisions on submissions made to the Hastings Proposed District Plan were released on the 12th of September 2015 and therefore, the entire Proposed Plan has legal effect.

5.5.2 In terms of Section 86F Resource Management Act a review of the appeals received on the Proposed District Plan decisions has identified that the sections relevant to this application have not been appealed and therefore are beyond challenge. Therefore, the rules in the Proposed Plan applying to this application can be treated as operative.

Assessment Criteria

5.5.3 The proposal is being overall considered a Non-Complying activity. In assessing the application, the Council is not limited to any assessment criteria and can consider the full range of effects associated with the proposed activity.

5.5.4 Section 4 of this report has considered all relevant matters that has the potential to create adverse effects. No other assessment criteria matters under the Proposed Plan are considered relevant.

Objectives and Policies s104(1)(b)(vi)

5.5.5 Sections 104(1)(b)(vi) and 104D(b) of the RMA require the consenting authority to consider a Non-Complying activity against all relevant objectives and policies under the District Plan. As the Proposed Plan has legal status on this application, only objectives and policies of the Proposed Plan will be considered.

5.5.6 The assessment of the proposal against relevant objectives and policies are outlined below.

5.5.7 Part A of the Proposed Plan includes the strategic direction underpinning the Plan. Relevant Part A provisions are contained in Section 2.8 Rural Resource Strategy which are considered below:

OBJECTIVE CEO1 (Coastal Environment) To ensure the implementation of the integrated management regimecontained within the Coastal Environment Strategy that protects, manages and develops the Coastal Environment.

POLICY CEP1 Implement the Hastings District Coastal Environment Strategy to ensure the integrated management approach is adopted for the protection and development of the Hastings coastal environment.

POLICY CEP5 Ensure the protection of the characteristics of significance to tangata whenua and the significant natural and cultural character, heritage and scenic features of the coastal margin identified in the Coastal Environment.

Comment:

The property is not located within any known ecologically or cultural sensitive coastal land. The land is generally flat and does not contain any existing coastal features, and is not categorised under the Proposed Plan as having significant landscape amenities. Therefore it is considered the proposed development will be consistent with those objectives and policies.

OBJECTIVE RRSO1 (Rural Resource Strategy) To promote the maintenance of the life-supporting capacity of the Hastings District's rural resources at sustainable levels

POLICY RRSP1 Reflect the various characteristics and distribution of the rural resources to enable the sustainable management of these characteristics.

POLICY RRSP2 Provide for a wide range of activities to establish, which complement the resources of the rural area, provided that the sustainability of the natural and

OBJECTIVE RRSO4 To ensure that the natural, physical, and cultural resources of the rural area that are of significance to the Hastings District are protected and maintained.

POLICY RRSP5 Establish mechanisms within the District Plan that will address the protection of outstanding landscape and natural areas, and items or areas of heritage or cultural significance, but which also maximise the opportunity to sustainably utilise the resources of the rural area.

Comment:

The property currently contains very little rural production activity, and has a long history of non-productive land use. The existing “Place of Assembly” activity will likely to continue with or without this consent. The proposed activity will therefore not affect the overall life-supporting capacity of the District’s rural resources.

Additionally, the site is not subject to significant or outstanding landscape overlays under the Proposed Plan. No areas of heritage or cultural significance will be affected.

OVERARCHING OBJECTIVE RSMO1 (Rural Strategic Management Area) The primary production role and associated amenity of the Rural environment is retained.

POLICY RSMP2 Require that activities and buildings in the Rural SMA are of a scale that is compatible with that environment.

OVERARCHING OBJECTIVE RSMO2 Provide for a range of activities within the Rural environment such that they do not compromise the productive nature of the land and soils and the established Commercial and Industrial Zones in the District.

POLICY RSMP4 Provide for other primary production activities that are not reliant on the life supporting capacity of the soil, provided that they are appropriately located and compatible with the amenity expectations of the rural environment.

Comment:

The proposal is not for a land based primary production activity. However, as discussed in the previous sections, the existing activities on the site have been legally established under the previous Operative Plan and form part of the wider landscape that is part of of the rural community.

The previous sections have also established that the cumulative scale of the increase in size of the “place of assembly” is not considered inappropriate to this particular location. Given the limited primary production opportunities the area can provide, expanding on the existing legally established activity is not an inefficient use of land resource.

This assessment has also demonstrated that with conditions controlling glazing, noise and traffic, the potential adverse effects to the adjoining and wider environment can be mitigated to a level that is comparable to a complying activity.

It is therefore considered that, the proposal will not be contrary to any of the relevant objectives and policies.

Natural Hazards (Chapter 15.1):

OBJECTIVE NHO1 Minimisation of the effects of natural hazards on the community and the built environment.

OBJECTIVE NHO2 To avoid increasing the risk to people, property, infrastructure and the environment from the effects of natural hazards.

Policy NHP3 – Adopt and promote the best practicable options (including mitigation or the 'do nothing' option) in the management of areas of existing development actually or potentially at risk from natural hazards.

Policy NHP4 – Adopt and promote an avoidance approach to development located withinareas of significant natural hazard risk, rather than mitigation or remedial measures.

Policy NHP5 – Restrict the establishment of activities which have the potential to increase the extent to which natural hazards have, or may have, an effect on human life or the natural and built environment.

Policy NHP8 – Allow Public Bodies exercising their statutory powers to carry out natural hazard mitigation activities.

Comment:

5.5.8 Although areas of the site are subject to tsunami hazard, this is a widespread natural hazard that does not present a significant or specific risk to site development. Furthermore, the land is located outside of the mapped coastal erosion areas.

5.5.9 There are also readily available evacuation route that can be used in the event of a tsunami. Imposing a condition requiring a tsunami evacuation plan will allow the Council to review and approve the plan prior to the activity being established on site.

5.5.10 I also concur with the applicant’s assessment in that:

“A Place of Assembly is already established on site, therefore this application for a change of use of an existing building to another Place of Assembly building is an incremental increase of the pre-established land use. This application is not introducing a new land use which will significantly increase the threat to human life from natural hazards, instead it is adding to a pre-established and documented activity.”

5.5.11 As previously discussed, no other natural hazards were considered relevant. The proposal is therefore considered consistent with those objectives and policies.

Rural Zone (Chapter 5.2)

OBJECTIVE RZO1 – Ensure that the productive nature of the land is not diminished

The policies associated with this objective focus on the retention of larger land parcels, limiting the scale of residential activites to safeguard the life supporitng capacity of the land, and provision for dairy processing.

Comment:

5.5.12 The property has a long and established history of non-productive land uses. The remainder of the land is fairly small and irregular, not suitable for large scale rural production activities.

5.5.13 Similarly, the surrounding area is dominated by rural residential uses. The proposal is unlikely to result in any reverse sensitivity effects that may impede any legally established rural production activities.

5.5.14 The rural environment also benefits from a range of non-productive activities in order to function. Community centres, including places of assembly forms a part of those activities.

5.5.15 It is therefore considered that the proposal is consistent with Objective RZO1.

OBJECTIVE RZO2 – Retention of the natural and rural character and amenity values of the Rural Zone.

Policy RZP4 – Require that any new development or activity is complementary to the amenity of the Zone which predominantly comprises open pastoral characteristics with low scale and sparsely located buildings.

Comment:

5.5.16 The proposal will result one additional building with a GFA of 543.m² being added to the environment. The proposed building complies with all other bulk and location requirements with the exception of the minimum boundary setback from the common boundary with the submitter’s site. The infringement is entirely due to the proposed use of the building as the building complies with the standards for an accessory building.

5.5.17 As discussed in Section 4 of this report, the minimum boundary setback required is based on the proposed use of a building, not the scale, size or exterior of the building. Depending on the proposed use, an accessory building of the same sale and location can be built on site as of right.

5.5.18 The site is located within an environment that is atypical of the rural zone. It is situated at the interface between rolling hills and coastal environment. The area already contains a mix of land uses, including rural residential, papakainga (152 Waitangi Road – RMA20110395) and a place of assembly and visitor accommodation on this site.

5.5.19 It is also recognised that the proposal is not seeking to establish a new activity, but rather complement and extend an activity that has already been established on site and forms part of the environment.

5.5.20 I also have the following comments regarding the concern raised by the submitter in relation to Policy RZP4.

5.5.21 The policy identifies the amenity of the zone as “predominantly comprises open pastoral characteristics with low scale and sparsely located buildings”. It does not go as far as to say that such open character should preclude any exceptions to the low scale sparsely located buildings within the zone.

5.5.22 The explanation section for this policy has identified that the zone is comprised a diverse range of land cover. An example of this is the forestry in the higher country permitted by Rule RZ8, however the principal landuse that contributes to the character of the surrounding area is pastoral use of the land, and smaller residential sites.

5.5.23 The existing pastoral land uses and the built environment of the area reflect the physical limitations of the soils and topography of this area, and the existing pattern of smaller sites in this vicinity. 152 Waitangi Road located to the east of the property on the opposite side of the private road, contains a papakainga development. Once fully developed, that site will likely have a higher density of buildings/dwellings compared with this proposal.

5.5.24 Furthermore, the policy focuses on the predominant nature of the zone and does not seek to protect views from individual properties. As previously discussed, there are permitted activities such as forestry that do not conform to the open pastoral nature of the zone, which if established could block views from any hypothetical dwellings nearby.

5.5.25 The zone rules also provides for industrial activities up to 2500 m² gfa and directly linked with processing of primary goods, as permitted activities in the Rural zone. Such activity would be another exception in a landscape that is described as “open pastoral” land, particularly on smaller rural lots.

5.5.26 Overall, I have concluded that the proposal is not contrary to this policy as the proposal will not significantly detract from the amenity of the surrounding environment, when compared with the permitted baseline.

Policy RZP9 – Noise levels for activities should not be inconsistent with the character and amenity of the Rural Zone.

Comment:

5.5.27 The proposed activity is not expected to result in a significant increase in the level of noise and is expected to comply with the noise standards applicable to this zone.

5.5.28 Furthermore, the proposed building is orientated towards the centre of the subject site, with lounge areas and main entrances facing away from side and rear boundaries. It is expected that noise from most activities will be directed away from adjoining site, in particular the submitter’s property.

5.5.29 Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with policy.

OBJECTIVE RZ03 – To enable the flexible use of land while not limiting the ability of land uses relying on the productivity of the land or soils to undertake their activities.

Policy RZP11–Require that any activity locating within the Rural Zone will need to accept existing amenity levels and the accepted management practices for primary production.

Comment:

5.5.30 As previously discussed, the site has a history of being used for non-primary land based production uses. Furthermore, the use of the land is limited by the location, soil type and other physical constrains.

5.5.31 The proposal will also be unlikely to cause any reverse sensitivity issues in relation to primary production activities, as most of such activities are limited to low-density grazing.

5.5.32 Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with this policy.

OBJECTIVE LS03 (Natural Features and Landscapes – The values that define the District's Rural and Coastal Landscape Character Areas are identified and maintained.

Policy LSP12 – To identify, recognise, and maintain the Districts Rural and Coastal Landscape Character Areas, where broad areas are highly valued for their cultural patterns of land use, including rural patterns, rather than their natural landscape values.

Comment:

5.5.33 The site is within Coastal Landscape Character Area 4 (CCL4). “The areas identified comprise coastal character that is highly valued for cultural patterns of land use, rather than natural landscape values. They are not considered significant natural landscapes at a district wide level. The location and extent of the features are shown on the Planning Maps and place specific management issues are identified which should be considered in the assessment of any new activities. The relevant management issues identified in Appendix 46 for this area are

Maintain built form to the lower slopes of the settlement with minimal disruption to the natural coastal patterns;

Maintenance of the compact coastal settlement and its built character

Maintain the sense of remoteness and small scale pattern of development

5.5.34 The proposal is consistent with the management issues identified for this zone. The proposed building will be clustered within the existing development, maintaining a compact development pattern. The land is flat which will result in minimal disruption to the natural coastal patterns. The area is also located away from public road, and compared with the existing environment, the proposal will only result in a small addition to the existing physical environment. The remoteness and scale of the existing development will be maintained.

5.5.35 I therefore concur with the applicant’s assessment that:

The establishment of the Place of Assembly at the site can be considered part of the defined character of the area. The proposal is an incremental increase in the established built form associated with the land use.

5.5.36 The addition to the existing activity will further increase the density of the activity on site. However, such increase is considered minor in terms of the rural and coastal landscape. It will not significantly change the existing coastal landscape to the point that the existing activities, including the new building will become stand out and detract from the wider environment, and sits within the existing cluster of buildings on this site.

5.5.37 Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with this policy.

OBJECTIVE TPO1 (Transport and Parking) – Ensure that land uses and new subdivision are connected to the transportation network in a manner that provides for the efficient and sustainable movement of people and goods in a safe manner.

Policy TPP1 - Ensure that subdivision and land use are integrated with the transport network and that the traffic effects are mitigated, including through the use of sustainable transport modes.

Policy TPP5 – Require turning areas on sites where road safety may be compromised by vehicles reversing onto or off the site.

Comment:

5.5.38 As previously discussed on the potential traffic effect, the Traffic Impact Report by Traffic Solutions Ltd concludes that the overall increase in traffic, and the effect associated with this increase, will likely to be less than minor. The anticipated increase in traffic can be sufficiently accommodated by the existing road and shared private access way. The exception being that the private access way may have difficulty to accommodate for buses.

5.5.39 It is also considered that despite the assessment comments above about buses, due to the limited number of buses, the likely level of effect will be minor.

5.5.40 The site is large enough to provide for turning of the type of vehicle anticipated within the site so that access to and from the access road can be achieved in a forward direction.

5.5.41 Furthermore, it is also recommended that the Council impose a review condition that would allow the Council to require an upgrade (Eg installation of passing bays) of the existing access way if the traffic effects warrant it.

5.5.42 For the reasons discussed above, it is considered that the proposal will not be in contrary with these objective and policies.

6.0 OTHER MATTERS s104(1)(c)

Adverse Precedent Effects

6.1 Precedent effects are ‘other matters’ that may be considered under section 104(1)(c). A precedent effect is created where the granting of a consent could lead to similar applications for which Council, being consistent in its approach, would need to consider granting.

6.1.1 Therefore not only is it considered that the proposal will not create an 'adverse' precedent of itself, it is considered that the proposal will not create any precedent as this form of land use has already been set.

6.1.2 It is considered that this application will not set an adverse precedent for the following reasons:

· The assessment has demonstrated that with appropriate conditions imposed, the potential effects associated with the proposal can be mitigated and remedied; and

· While “place of assembly” is not an activity provided in this specific zone, the existing activity has been legally established under the previous Operative District Plan. Approving the consent to expand the existing place of assembly will therefore not set a precedent of establishing a new activity not provided for in the zone;

Integrity of the District Plan

6.2 The granting of consent to non-complying activities (where the proposal lacks any unique qualities) may be considered to undermine the confidence of the public in the consistent administration of the District Plan. Any potential impact upon the integrity and consistent administration of the District Plan is considered under Section 104(1)(c).

6.2.1 While technically this proposal would be against the integrity of the plan (and any application could be declined) in practical terms the application will comply with the overall intent of the plans objectives and policies which aim to ensure that a a range of activities are provided for in the Rural zonewhile avoiding adverse effects to the existing landscape and the productive potential of rural land.

6.2.2 This consent provides for a new building that extends the existing legally established activity. The addition will be carried out in a scale that its effects to the adjoining and wider environment will either be less than minor, or can be managed in a way that reduces the effects to a comparable level, and effects on persons identified as minor can be mitigated with imposition of conditions to control amenity effects such as privacy and noise effects. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal will not affect the integrity of the plan.

7.0 PARTICULAR RESTRICTIONS FOR NON-COMPLYING ACTIVITIES - s104D

7.1 Section 104D of the Act states that a consent authority shall not grant resource consent for a Non-Complying Activity unless it is satisfied that:

(a) The adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor; or

(b) The application is for an activity, which will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of:

(i) the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of the activity; or

(ii) the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant plan in respect of the activity; or

(iii) both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the activity

7.2 Under s104D a non-complying activity must pass at least one of the 'gateway' tests of either s104D(1)(a) or s104D(1)(b) before a decision can be made on whether to grant a resource consent application under s104B.

7.3 If an application fails to pass both tests of s104D(1) then it must be declined.

7.4 The proposal satisfies both the tests of s104D(1) because the adverse effects on the environment, as identified by this report, will be no more than minor and the proposal will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of relevant statutory documents as concluded above.

7.5 The application therefore meets both of the tests of s104D and the application can be assessed against the provisions of s104B and a substantive decision made.

8.0 PART II OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

8.1 The Act seeks to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Part II of the Act deals with the purposes and the principles of the Act. In Section 5 of the Act, “sustainable management” is defined as:

managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while –

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

8.1.1 The assessment carried out by the this report has demonstrated that the proposal will provide for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of the wider rural community without creating adverse effects that would compromise the existing natural and physical resources, the life supporting capacities, and the amenity of the environment

8.1.2 Section 6 of Part II of the Act sets out matters of national importance. No matters outlined in Section 6 are considered to be relevant to this proposal.

8.1.3 Section 7 of the Act sets out matters that Council shall have particular regard to in administering the Act. Of particular relevance are:

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:

(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:

8.1.4 The assessment in this report has demonstrated that, with appropriate conditions imposed, the proposed activity can be carried out in a way that does not compromise the quality of the environment and the amenity values.

8.1.5 Approving the proposal will promote a efficient use of land resource.

8.1.6 Additionally, the proposal represents a minor incremental increase to an existing activity. Within the context of this, the increase will not significantly change the wider environment and detract from existing natural and character and amenity.

8.1.7 Section 6(e), 7(a) and 8 state that Council should recognise the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waāhi tapu, and other taonga, have regard to kaitiakitanga, and take into account the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This proposal does not affect any known archaeological sites or waāhi tapu.

8.1.8 Considering the points raised above, it is considered that this application is consistent with Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991.

9.0 Conclusion

9.1.1 The Assessment of effects shows that the potential adverse effects on the environment can be mitigate to a level that is less than minor.

9.1.2 I have concluded that while the proposal will be inconsistent with some of the relevant objectives and policies of the relative planning documents and the Proposed District Plan, it will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the Proposed District Plan.

9.1.3 The proposal satisfies both gateway tests under s104D and therefore consent can be granted.

9.1.4 After considering the application and the requirements of section 104, 104B, and 104D of the Resource Management Act, I am of the opinion that the consent should be granted.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to Rule NH10, RZ27 and TP2 of the Proposed Hastings District Plan (As Amended by Decisions 15 September 2015) and Sections 104, 104B and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, resource consent as a Noncomplying Activity is GRANTED to Kahungunu Health Services to convert a near-complete implement shed located at 151 Waitangi Road, Waimarama to a habitable building used as part of the existing “place of assembly” on a site legally described as Waipuka 2T3 BLK X Kidnappers SD.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

GENERAL

1. That unless otherwise altered by the conditions of this consent, the development shall proceed in accordance with the plans and information submitted as part of the resource consent application RMA20180494 (PID 59548):

a. The application and assessment of environmental effect titled “Resource Consent Application for Land Currently Occupied at 151 Waitangi Road, Waimarama”, dated 22 November 2018, prepared by Development Nous Limited. (HDC reference: 59548#0288)

b. Development plans submitted as part of the building consent ABA20171619 (HDC reference: 59548#0274)

c. Any other information submitted as part of this application

Tsunami Evacuation Plan

2. That the consent holder shall submit a Tsunami Evacuation Plan to the Environmental Consents Manager, Hastings District Council (or nominee) for approval.

Management of Environmental nuisance

3. That the consent holder shall ensure that the proposed activity will comply with the following performance standards contained within the Proposed Hastings District Plan at all times:

a. Section 25.1.6D of the Proposed Plan outlining the maximum noise limit for activities in Rural Zones; and

b. Section 5.2.5D of the Proposed Plan outlining the lighting and glare requirements for activities in Plains Production zone.

That in addition to the environmental nuisance effects identified in the condition above, the consent holder shall also ensure, on a continuous basis, that no environmental nuisance as defined under Section 29 of the Public Health Act 1956 will be generated by the activity.

Visual screening

4. That all windows and doors with direct sightline to any part of 145 Waitangi Road shall use frosted glass or other types of glazing that are non-transparent;

5. That a wall, or other type of visual screening shall be erected on the northwestern face of the first floor deck so that there is no direct line of sight between the deck and the dwelling at 145 Waitangi Road;

6. That the existing vegetation between the proposed building and the common boundary with 145 Waitangi Road shall be enhanced so that there is no direct line of sight between any parts of building and the dwelling located on 145 Waitangi Road prior to occupation of the building.

7. That when established the vegetation screening as required by the condition above shall be maintained to a minimum height of 6 metres

Note: Maintained means the ongoing replacement of any dangerous, dead or dying matter, the replacement of any trees that are lost or are otherwise defective and the general preservation of the shelterbelt to a healthy standard. Any dead trees shall be removed and replaced within the next growing season.

Review condition

8. Pursuant to Sections 128 and 129 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council may review the conditions of this consent at any time(s) from one month after operations commence, to address:

a. effects arising from noise generated by the activity;

b. effects arising from lighting and glare emanating from the site;

c. effects on the safety and efficiency of the access road.

d. Amenity effects on the adjoining site

9. That Council’s ability to review the consent conditions shall be limited to the following aspects:

a. The level of noise generated by proposed activity;

b. Traffic, both the volume and types of traffic generated by the proposed activity;

c. Privacy effects to the immediate adjoining properties.

Monitoring

10. A monitoring deposit of $230 (including GST) shall be payable to cover the reasonable costs of monitoring compliance with the consent conditions in accordance with Council's schedule of charges. In the event of non-compliance being detected by monitoring or justified complaint and/or the costs of monitoring the consent exceeding the deposit, the costs to Council of any additional monitoring shall be paid by the consent holder in accordance with the Council's advertised schedule of fees.

Appendix A – Proposed Plans

s95 Notification decision

Attachment 3

NOTIFICATION REPORT FOR RESOURCE CONSENT RMA20180494

SECTIONS 95A AND 95B OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991


Application Received: 23/11/2018	PID: 59548	RMA20180494


Applicant:	Kahungunu Health Services

Address of Site:	151 Waitangi Road, Waimarama

Legal Description:	Waipuka 2T3 BLK X Kidnappers SD

Area:	1.0739 ha

Zoning:	Rural – Proposed Hastings District Plan

Proposal:	Convert a partially complete building into a place of assembly within an inundation zone that infringes the side yard setback

District Plan Provisions:	Rules RZ27 and NH10 of the Proposed Hastings District Plan

Assessment of Status:	Non-Complying Activity

Report Prepared By:	Lisa Rosandich

1.0 THE PROPOSAL

The applicant seeks resource consent for a new 543.5m² place of assembly building within an inundation zone that infringes the side yard setback in the Rural zone, as the proposed place of assembly building has been located 5 metres from the property boundary. The 2.5900 hectare lot is contained in Register of title (RT) HB154/77 at 151 Waitangi Road, Waimarama.

Two place of assembly buildings are already established on the site, which consists of accommodation, cooking, and ablution facilities housed within an existing whare and wharenui (meeting house). These buildings infringe on the side yard setback being 6.1 metres from the boundary at the closest point.

The subject site is currently leased by Kahungunu Health Services, a Charitable Trust who manage all the bookings for all of the events held onsite. The events currently held on site consist of a not for profit camp for school groups, corporate events such as team building, cultural groups/events, Te Reo Maori classes and the occasional family hui.

Accommodation at the site is currently provided in the form of four bunk rooms which each sleep 12 people (44 people), a modern ablution block, a large open plan kitchen and an outside decking area. A wharenui (meeting house) also provides space for inside recreation, meeting space and has disabled ablution facilities.

The applicant proposes to utilise the new building onsite as an extension of the existing place of assembly activity. This will allow for extended community, education and cultural camp activities to occur on site. It is proposed that the new building would sleep up to 40 people and provide space for indoor activities for the educational, cultural and community activities to take place in times of bad weather. The requirement for additional inside space and additional ablution facilities has been identified and requested by visiting groups.

There are also other commercial interests on the site being four visitor accommodation units.

A primary residential building and supplementary building are also present on the site.

A partial site plan of the site is shown below:

Figure 1: Site Plan

Brief history

The applicant applied for a building consent for a new single level implement shed on 22 December 2017 – ABA20171619 which was approved on the 22 February 2018. An amendment to this building consent was then applied for on the 15 June 2018 and a Form 4 certificate was attached to this amendment by Hastings District Council on the 18^th June 2018, as the proposal was deviating from the previous implement shed to a place of assembly and resource consent was determined to be required. No further building work can now proceed at the site until resource consent is obtained.

Further information requested

The applicant was requested to provide further information on the 5^thDecember 2018 that addressed the following matters:

· A site plan showing where the proposed place of assembly is located and distance/setback from all site boundaries.

· Elevations for the proposed place of assembly.

· A floor plan/internal layout for the proposed place of assembly.

· Changes to the external appearance of the accessory building that will occur due to the proposed change of use (place of assembly).

· Details on what methods will be used to ensure public safety in the instance of a natural hazard event occurring such as a Tsunami. What early warning systems, emergency management contingency plans, escape routes or other mitigation techniques will be put in place. Is a Civil Defence Tsunami Risk Management Plan proposed to be provided, due to the increasing number of individuals proposed to be exposed to the risk of a tsunami hazard while at the site?

· Identification of the persons affected by the activity, any consultation undertaken, and any response to the views of any person consulted regarding the proposal, as per Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act.

· A traffic impact assessment. How many traffic movements are expected to and from the site each day/week/month with the proposed increase in use? Will all visitors to the site arrive via private car, or are buses or other alternative transport options envisaged? Will the increase in use cause an increase in dust effects along the private road? How will this be managed? Will there be any potential road safety conflicts with other road users? Are people likely to arrive by foot access, bicycle or other alternative transportation means?

· Information on how many car parks, bicycle racks and loading spaces are to be provided on site?

· What will be the total building coverage on site?

· What are the proposed times/days of use for the place of assembly? Will it be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week or within restricted hours? Are any special events proposed?

· Is a no-complaints covenant proposed in terms of the neighbouring rural zoned land so reverse sensitivity effects are avoided?

· What is the gross floor area (GFA) of the new building proposed as a place of assembly? What is the GFA of the existing place of assembly buildings on the site?

· Is any additional landscaping proposed on site? If so please provide details.

The applicant agreed to provide the information and partially responded on the 19 December 2018, 30 April 2019 and 6 May 2019.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Existing Consents

The following resource consents relate to the site:

· RMA96359 – 26 November 1996 – Relocate a shed

· RMA20000162 – 12 May 2000 – To establish visitor accommodation

· RMA20000406 –10 November 2000 - Code of compliance certificate for four bed visitor accommodation

· RMA20020061 – 26 June 2002 - establish secondary dwelling exceeding 80m² & two visitor accommodation units

· RMA20090269 – 18 August 2009 – Increase gross floor area of secondary dwelling to over 80m² 84.98m².

The whare and wharenui buildings obtained building consents under ABA20120400 and ABA20131545 and were considered permitted activities under the Operative District Plan.

2.2 Interested Parties

Council has received correspondence from the landowners of 145 Waitangi Road, Waimarama, 291 Waitangi Road, Waimarama and Waipuka 2R Sec 3 Blk, Lot C, Waimarama who state that they are not in support of the application. The concerns of these landowners have been considered as part of the notification assessment of this application.

3.0 THE SITE AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT

The 2.5900 hectare subject site is located at 151 Waitangi Road, Waimarama being land legally described as Waipuka 2T3 Block contained in Certificate of Title HB154/77.

The Certificate of Title is subject to the following interests of relevance:

· Roadway order pursuant to sections 415 & 419 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 over part herin.

The site is a rough L shape and flat in contour and is accessed off Waitangi Road of which the first 400m of the road is vested in council and the remainder of the road is classified as a Maori Roadway.

The site contains the following buildings:

· Primary residential building

· Secondary residential building

· Implement/Accessory shed

· Four visitor accommodation units

· Whare (four bunk rooms sleeping 12 people, modern ablution block, large open plan kitchen and an outside decking area)

· Wharenui (inside recreation area and meeting space)

The site is predominately flat and is located approximately 500m from the Waimarama Beach and the Pacific Ocean. The land immediately to the west of the site slopes steeply upwards and forms a line of hills that isolates the coastal flat.

The site location and the location of the existing building development is shown below (Please note: the accessory shed has partially being constructed on the southern boundary as per site plan shown in figure 1 above).

Figure 2: Land use on site prior to construction of proposed new place of assembly building

The surrounding sites are zoned Rural. Much of the surrounding land is Maori land. There site is independently serviced with an onsite sewage and wastewater system. Water is sourced from rain water collection.

The whole subject site and surrounding environment is shown in the aerial photo below:

Figure 3: Aerial photograph of site and surrounding area

4.0 ACTIVITY STATUS AND REASONS FOR CONSENT

4.1 National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES Status)

The National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health 2011 (NES) is triggered, as the proposal involves a subdivision and a change in land use. A check of Council records has found no known ‘HAIL’ activity occurring on the site. Furthermore, a review of Council historic aerial photographs (see below) has illustrated that the site and the surrounding area has not been used as an orchard, nursery or any other common rural activity on the ‘HAIL’ list. Therefore the land use does not require consent under the NES.

4.1.2 National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water

The Hastings District Council’s Waingongoro Stream shallow bore site is located approximately 1km to the south west of the site on the corner of Waimarama and Waitangi Roads. This bore is approximately 1km from the proposed activity , and given the nature of the proposal being a change in land use the NES: Sources of Human Drinking Water is not considered relevant.

4.2 Operative District Plan Status

The application was lodged on the 21st December 2018. The decisions on submissions made to the Hastings Proposed District Plan were released on the 12th of September 2015 and therefore, the entire Proposed Plan has legal effect.

In terms of Section 86F Resource Management Act a review of the appeals received on the Proposed District Plan decisions has identified that the sections relevant to this application have not been appealed and therefore are beyond challenge. Therefore, the rules in the Proposed Plan applying to this application can be treated as operative.

4.3 Proposed District Plan Status

The site is zoned Rural and located within the Coastal Character Landscape 4 (Waimarama and Peach Gully) area as identified in appendix 46.

Figure 4: Zoning map

Rule LS1 states any activity not defined as a controlled, restricted discretionary, discretionary, non-complying or prohibited activity by the landscape area rules within landscape area CCL 1-5 is a permitted activity.

A check of this standard has confirmed that the activity proposed by this application is not a defined activity in the landscape rules and therefore is a permitted activity.

Rule NH10 states that any of the following activities (Visitor accommodation, non-residential care facilities, education facilities, early childhood centres, homes for the aged, places of assembly, emergency service facilities, camping grounds, health care services, retirement villages) located within a Tsunami Hazard Zone as identified in Appendix 58 and on planning maps must be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity

A check of this standard has confirmed that as the proposed place of assembly is located within a tsunami hazard zone the activity must be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity.

Rule RZ16 states any permitted or controlled activity other than those listed elsewhere in this table not meeting one or more of the general performance standards and terms in section 5.2.5 and specific performance standards and terms in section 5.2.6 must be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity.

A check of this standard reveals that the proposed unfinished place of assembly building is located 5 metres from the side property boundary which does not comply with the required 15 metre setback specified for the rural zone. Therefore the activity must be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity.

Rule RZ27 states any activity which is not provided for as a permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary activity (or in rules NP18-NP21) shall be a non-complying activity.

A check of this standard has revealed that places of assembly are not provided for in the rural zone rule table therefore the activity is classified as a non-complying activity.

Overall Status

In this situation the land use activities are intricately linked and it is considered that the bundling principal should apply. Therefore overall the proposal will be assessed as a Non Complying Activity in accordance with Rule RZ27 of the Proposed Hastings District Plan.

5.0 ADEQUACY OF THE APPLICATION/REQUIREMENT FOR OTHER CONSENTS

Under the provisions of section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), an application for a resource consent must be made in the prescribed form and manner and include an assessment of environmental effects in such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the activity will have on the environment. Where these requirements are not met, the Council may, under section 88(3), decide that the application is incomplete and return the application, with written reasons, to the applicant.

The application has been assessed and it has been determined that the application is complete and following requests for further information the application contains sufficient information to allow an assessment of effects.

Section 91 of the RMA allows the council to decide not to proceed with the notification of an application if it considers on reasonable grounds that other resource consents under this Act will also be required for the proposal and it is appropriate that such consent be applied for before proceeding further.

It has been determined that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) consent for discharge of wastewater from the proposed place of assembly building may be required. It is advised that the applicant discuss these requirements with HBRC to determine what system would be required. Accordingly there is no need to put this consent on hold pending HB Regional Council consents.

4.0 SECTION 95A AND 95B NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT

4.1 Public Notification Assessment

4.1.1 Section 95A(2) - Step 1 Mandatory Public Notification

In respect of section 95A(3)(a) the applicant has not requested that the application be publicly notified, notification is not required as a result of further information not having been responded to and the application hasn’t been made jointly with an application to exchange recreation reserve land under section 15AA of the Reserves Act 1977.

Given the above the criteria in section 95A (3) has not been met, public notification is therefore not considered to be mandatory for this application.

4.1.2 Section 95A(4) – Step 2 Public Notification Precluded in Certain Circumstances

In respect of section 95A(5)(a) the application is for a resource consent but in this case public notification is not precluded by way of a rule that relates to the land use activity. The proposal does not involve a consent relating to a National Environmental Standard. This criteria is not met.

In respect of section 95A(5)(b)(i) the application is not a controlled activity.

In respect of section 95A(5)(b)(ii) the application is not a restricted discretionary or discretionary activity.

In respect of section 95A(5)(b)(iii) part of the activity includes a boundary activity, however there are other associated activities so the application does not meet this criteria.

In respect of section 95A(5)(b)(iv) the activity is not a prescribed activity.

As the criteria of section 95A(5) is not met, public notification is not precluded for this application.

4.1.3 Step 3 Section 95A(7) and (8) – Public notification in certain circumstances

As the application is not precluded from notification by step 2 then it must be assessed against step 3.

The application is not subject to a rule or a NES which requires public notification.

Any adverse effects on the following properties (yellow stars) have been disregarded under s95D (a) of the Resource Management Act, 1991.

Figure 5: Map of adjacent sites disregarded from the Public Notification Assessment

Permitted Baseline Section 95D(b)

When assessing actual and potential effects of an activity on the environment under section 95D (b), the Act provides for the Council to disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the Plan already permits an activity with that effect. This provision is commonly known as the ‘Permitted Baseline’, and its application is at the discretion of Council.

The applicant has stated on page 20 of the application that “the permitted baseline in this instance is the approved pole shed (ABA20171619) whereby the physical form of the shed can otherwise be achieved. Therefore, any effects associated with the physical envelope of the building should be disregarded in line with section 104(2) of the act.”

I however disagree with this assessment as the effects of a pole shed are somewhat different to what would be experienced or expected from a place of assembly building/increase in activity on site.

There is no permitted baseline for place of assembly in the Rural Zone as it is an activity not provided for under the Proposed Hastings District Plan. However the site does contain two buildings being the Whare and the Meeting house that are currently utilised as a place of assembly on site. These buildings were consented by ABA20120400 (Whare) and ABA20131545 (Meeting house) which were established as permitted activities under the Operative Hastings District Plan in June 2013.

As the place of assembly activity is not provided for in the rural zone in the current district plan, yard setbacks are not defined, it is therefore considered that the permitted baseline argument does not apply.

Permitted activities in the Rural Zone (as relevant under the Proposed District Plan) include land based primary production, limited residential activities, limited commercial and industrial activities, forestry, wineries, seasonal workers accommodation and relocated buildings within specified limits and recreation activities on reserve land.

Given the density of the proposal and the yard breaches, it is considered that there is no permitted baseline for the future activities on the site.

Accordingly the permitted baseline is little assistance in considering this proposal, and so the effects of permitted activities have not been disregarded under Section 95D (b).

Restricted Discretionary Activity Section 95D(c)

The activity is not a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

Trade Competition Section 95D (d)

The proposal does not involve trade competition.

Written Approvals Section 95D (e)

The following partial written approvals were provided with the application however they are incomplete, therefore any effect of these parcels of land has not being disregarded.

Persons

Address / Legal Description

Council PID

Hine Mahanga Baker

Waipuka 2TI

58262

Hariata Te Ruru Akonga Mohi Trust

2S2, 2S1, 2T1, 2T73, 2R1, 2P

58260

58261

Council also received written approvals on Wednesday the 5^th June 2019 however no site plan of the proposal was received, therefore any effect of these parcels of land has not being disregarded at this stage.

Persons

Address / Legal Description

Council PID

Patua Eric Carroll

Whiu Arther Carroll

Ana Carroll

Marylin Carroll-Walker

Joinell Maitu Carroll

Te Rori Carroll-Walker

146 Waitangi Road, Waipuka 2R Sec 3

102665

Assessment of Effects

An assessment of environmental effects was provided in Section 8.0 of the submitted application. The adverse environmental effects that have been considered in preparing the application are related to amenity and visual effects, natural hazards, reverse sensitivity, traffic, access and loading, servicing, effect on soil resource and other matters. The application concludes the proposed development of the site will result in less than minor adverse effects on the surrounding environment.

The adverse effects likely to result from the proposal are as follows:

Any effect on the wider community including any socio-economic and cultural effects

Suitability of the Site in the Context of the Surrounding Neighbourhood

There is potential for additional noise and reduced amenity effects due to the proximity to the boundary and increased activity at the site, however it is considered that these effects are likely to be no more than minor on the wider environment.

Culture and Heritage

The proposal does not affect any known waāhi tapu, archaeological sites or any other areas of historic or cultural significance.

Reverse Sensitivity Effects

There are not expected to be any reverse sensitivity effects associated with this proposal beyond the adjacent sites. No known ‘Intensive Rural Production Activities’ (IRP) or intensive horticultural land use activities occur on the neighbouring sites. Therefore it is not expected that there will be any conflict with permitted rural uses. The applicant has however offered within the further information received on the 19^th December 2018 (HDC ref: HPRM 59548#0292) to accept a no-complaints covenant to be registered on the title of the site. Therefore the reverse sensitivity effects are considered to be no more than minor on the wider environment.

Any physical effect on the locality, including any landscape and visual effects:

Visual

The proposed building itself is not likely to have any visual effects on the wider environment. Given the existing built environment onsite it is unlikely that there would be any visual effects that are more than minor beyond the adjacent sites identified above in section 4.1.3 of this report.

Rural Character and Amenity

While the site is located within the rural zone it is not a typical pastoral farm and could potentially be more likened to a rural lifestyle site. Therefore it is considered that any rural character and amenity effects on the wider environment will be no more than minor.

Noise

Noise from the future activity proposed on site is unlikely to have any adverse noise effects that are more than minor beyond the adjacent sites identified above in section 4.1.3 of this report.

Effects on Life-Supporting Capacity of Soil Resource

The use of the land area of will have a minimal effect on the rural soil resource as the site has already been removed from use as land based primary production and existing place of assembly and visitor accommodation activities already occur on site.

Natural Hazards

The site is located within an unknown level of risk from liquefaction which should be treated as high until assessed otherwise. The geotechnical report provided with the building consent application ABA20171619 undertaken by Tonkin and Taylor dated 15 January 2018, Job number: 1005716 for a light weight shed concluded that the ground does not meet the definition of “good ground” and confirms that subject to specific engineering design the shed could potentially be built on the site with specifically designed foundations.

The site is also located within the 10m near source tsunami inundation zone. It is considered that a condition of consent will be imposed to ensure a Tsunami Risk Management/evacuation plan is completed for the site so that any potential occupants are aware of the risk and evacuation routes should disaster strike. This approach is considered appropriate given that a hill rises immediately behind the site so there is a feasible evacuation point within a short distance.

Accordingly it is unlikely that there would be any effects on natural hazards that are more than minor on the wider environment as a result of the proposal.

A map of the natural hazards is shown below:

Figure 6: Natural Hazards

Traffic Effects

Parking

In terms of car parking, the site has sufficient area to provide the required onsite car parking.

Accordingly, it is considered unlikely that any adverse parking effect of the proposal will reach beyond adjacent sites.

Traffic Generation and Movements

A traffic impact assessment from a suitably qualified traffic engineer confirms that there are no traffic effects on the wider public road network or the Waimarama/Waitangi Road intersection as both roads are lightly trafficked and operating well within their available capacity.

Given this, no adverse traffic effects that are more than minor are anticipated on the wider environment as a result of the proposal.

Traffic Sightlines

Traffic sightlines beyond the immediate adjacent environment are not likely to be adversely affected.

Infrastructural Capacity

The site is currently independently serviced and has onsite servicing for water supply (rain water collection), wastewater disposal and stormwater.

It is advised that the applicant seek advice or approval from Hawkes Bay Regional Council to ensure the existing wastewater system and disposal area is of an appropriate size for the increase in wastewater facilities and disposal at the site.

It is anticipated that servicing of this proposal will not have any effects beyond the site boundary and it is considered that these effects will be no more than minor on the wider environment.

Temporary Construction Effects

Noise, dust and traffic associated with the construction of the building will be temporary in nature. Overall and given that construction effects will only be temporary it is considered that there are no more than minor effects on the wider environment.

Cumulative Effects

The Act defines a cumulative effect as an effect that arises over time or in combination with other effects.

The proposed place of assembly building will cumulatively add additional noise and traffic characteristics that will result in a more intensive use of the site, such that, although individually, they may be appropriate and/or have limited effects, when coupled together they may have an adverse cumulative effect for neighbours adjoining the site.

In this instance, having regard to what is proposed, it is considered that any such cumulative effect will be minor, but limited to immediate neighbours rather than the wider environment. It is acknowledged that traffic movements will slightly increase, however, it is considered that the traffic effects in combination with other effects will result in no more than minor cumulative effects on the wider environment.

Therefore public notification in certain circumstances is not required.

4.1.4 Step 4: public notification in special circumstances

Under Section 95A(9) the Council must publically notify an application if it considers that special circumstances exist.

"Special Circumstances" have been defined by the Court of Appeal as those that are unusual or exceptional, but they may be less than extraordinary or unique (Peninsula Watchdog Group (Inc) v Minister of Energy [1996] 2 NZLR 529). With regards to what may constitute an unusual or exceptional circumstance, Salmon J commented in Bayley v Manukau City Council [1998] NZRMA 396 that if the district plan specifically envisages what is proposed, it cannot be described as being out of the ordinary and giving rise to special circumstances.

In Murray v Whakatane District Council [1997] NZRMA 433, Elias J stated that circumstances which are "special" will be those which make notification desirable, notwithstanding the general provisions excluding the need for notification. In determining what may amount to "special circumstances" it is necessary to consider the matters relevant to the merits of the application as a whole, not merely those considerations stipulated in the tests for notification and service.

In Urban Auckland and Ors v Auckland Council [2015] NZHC 1382 the High Court found that special circumstances existed where relevant information may have been obtained from the public should it have been notified.

It is considered that the proposed application cannot be described as either exceptional or out of the ordinary, or giving rise to special circumstances.

The issues of concern are primarily around visual amenity, noise and traffic effects such as viability and dust for the reasons addressed in this section of this report it is not considered that these issues are unusual or exceptional in either character or intensity for this area such as to warrant wider public notification of the application.

The remaining factors have been thoroughly addressed in the assessment of effects and it has been demonstrated that any adverse effects on the wider environment will be at most minor.

Accordingly, there are no special circumstances under section 95A(9) of the RMA that would justify public notification of the application.

Decision:

I am satisfied that the application can be considered without full notification to the public in accordance with S95A(9)(b).

4.2 Limited Notification Assessment

4.2.1 Step 1 Notification of Certain Affected Groups and Affected Persons

Section 95B (2) requires that a determination is made as to whether there are any affected protected customary rights groups or affected customary marine title groups (for an accommodated activity). These are not applicable to this application.

Section 95B (3) the proposed activity is not on or adjacent to, or may affect, land that is the subject of a statutory acknowledgement made in accordance with an Act specified in Schedule 11. Therefore no persons are affected under this section.

Given the above, limited notification to the above mentioned considered parties pursuant section 95B(4) is not required.

4.2.2 Step 2 Limited Notification Precluded in Certain Circumstances

Section 95B(5) requires determination as to whether any of the criteria in subsection (6) is met.

In terms of section 95B(6)(a) the application is not an activity that is subject to a rule or national environmental standard precluding limited notification, it is not a controlled activity that requires consent under the district plan and is not a prescribed activity. Therefore this criteria is not met and must be assessed under step 3.

4.2.3 Step 3 Certain Other Affected Persons

Section 95(8) requires that a determination be made if there are any affected persons in accordance with Section 95E.

Section 95E States:

In terms of Section 95E(3)(a) the applicant has provided partial written approvals as mentioned in section 4.1.3 above, however as these are incomplete any adverse effect on those persons has not being disregarded.

The following assessment below considers adverse effects on persons, including not only those who own or occupy the subject site, or those on the land adjacent to the subject site, but also any person who may be adversely affected. The statutory threshold applied under Section 95E (1) is adverse effects on a person that are minor or greater.

4.2.3.1 Sites physically adjoining the Subject Site

145 Waitangi Road

This site physically adjoins the subject site to the south (145 Waitangi Road) which contains a residential dwelling an accessory building/shed a vegetable garden, chicken hutch and associated accessory buildings. The site contains established vegetation for approximately 120 metres along the property boundary between the two sites.

The proposed place of assembly building at 151 Waitangi Road is located 5 metres from the adjoining property boundary (145 Waitangi Road) which is an activity that is not anticipated in the Rural Zone.

The agent has offered in part of the further information received on the 19 December 2018 (HDC Ref: HPRM 59548#0292) that the applicant proposes to retain and enhance the vegetation along the infringed boundary, within the applicant’s property and have offered to secure it by way of resource consent conditions.

The applicant has indicated in the application that the proposed change in land use will not result in a nuisance from noise generation or the generation of noise above and beyond the standards set out for the Rural Zone.

The applicant has also offered a condition that will help mitigate any reverse sensitivity effects.

There have been no other mitigations offered by the applicant to address amenity, bulk and location, privacy or character effects.

Overall it is considered that the persons at 145 Waitangi Road, will observe a resultant loss of amenity through the more regular use of the proposed (currently unfinished) building and an increase in place of assembly activities occurring on the site where amenity disturbance maybe experienced. It is considered therefore that a minor adverse amenity effect will be experienced.

152 Waitangi Road

This site is located to the east and on the opposite side of Waitangi Road to the applicant’s site.

The site has an occupation order contains a Papakāinga development on Lot C and residential buildings on Lots F and H.

The applicant has provided written approval from the owners of the site however a signed site plan has not been provided and therefore the written approval is considered incomplete.

The residential building on Lot F is located approximately 20 metres from the edge of the existing formed Waitangi Road. The traffic impact assessment provided as further information on the 30 April 2019 (HDC Ref: HPRM – 59548#0294) considered that dust effects from the increase of traffic flows would be minimal because traffic flows will not increase significantly along the road and will be at limited times.

Although the applicant has not offered any dust mitigation measures to ensure the occupants of Lot C on 152 Waitangi Road will not incur dust effects that are less than minor caused by the increase in traffic movements (particularly buses) coming in and out of the site at 151 Waitangi Road, it is noted that traffic will be slowing to negotiate the two right angle corners at this point and slowing for entry or exit from the site, so any dust nuisance will be significantly less than elsewhere along the road.

It is not considered that the place of assembly building will have an effect on the amenity and or rural character experienced by the occupants and occupiers of this site.

Overall it is considered that the persons who occupy Lot F at 152 Waitangi Road, may observe a an small increase in dust effects caused by the traffic movements associated with the place of assembly activities occurring on 151 Waitangi Road, such that a less than minor adverse dust effect will be experienced.

Therefore it is still considered that these sites at 152 Waitangi Road will experience a less than minor adverse effect.

Waipuka 2N BLK X Kidnappers SD, Waipuka 2T2 BLK X Kidnappers SD, Waipuka 2S1 BLK X Kidnappers SD and Waipuka 2S2 BLK X Kidnappers SD

Given the location of the proposed place of assembly at 151 Waitangi Road, close to the southern boundary it is not considered that the properties identified above are adversely affected by the proposal. The closest site being Waipuka 2N BLK X Kidnappers SD is located at least 75 metres from the place of assembly building which includes the width of Waitangi Road as a physical buffer to the applicant’s site. The other properties that are adjacent to 151 Waitangi Road already experience the applicant’s residential buildings within close proximity to the property boundary. Given that the proposed place of assembly building will be screened by the existing residential buildings, existing vegetation and located on the opposite side of the site, any adverse amenity effects will be less than minor.

Accordingly it is considered that any effects on persons on these sites are considered to be less than minor.

4.2.3.3 Any Other Persons

The separation between the subject site and sites other than those identified above is such that persons on these sites are unlikely to experience an adverse effect associated with noise, visual amenity or traffic generation.

As such, other persons in the wider environment are not considered to be adversely affected by the proposal and are not likely to be affected in terms of amenity in a way that can be considered to be minor or more than minor.

4.2.3.4 Summary of Limited Notification Assessment

On the basis of the above analysis it has been determined that there are Affected Persons in terms of Section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991.

4.2.4 Step 4 Further notification in Special Circumstances

It is considered that no special circumstances exist in relation to the application that warrant notification of the application to any other persons in accordance with Section 95B(10) for the same reasons as identified above.

4.3 Notification Decision:

For the above reasons and in accordance with Section 95B(9) of the Resource Management Act 1991 it is recommended that the consent authority give limited notification of the application to the following persons:

Address / Legal Description	Owner	Council PID
145 Waitangi Road, Waipuka 2T4 BLX X KIDNAPPERS SD	Mangu Matthews, Myda Matthews and Pehitane Potaka	58265

Recommended by: Lisa Rosandich

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER (CONSENTS)

Decision issued under Delegated

Authority by:

Murray Arnold

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSENTS MANAGER

PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES

Date: 27 June 2019

Committee Members	Panel Members Rostered on for this hearing: Chair: Councillor Lyons Councillor Lawson and Mr P Kay Other Hearings Committee Members (not rostered on for this hearing): Councillors Barber, Heaps, Kerr (Deputy Chair), Redstone and Schollum
Officer Responsible	Environmental Consents Manager – Murray Arnold
Reporting Planner	Environmental Planner (Consents) – Liam Wang
Democracy & Governance Advisor	Christine Hilton (Ext 5633)

HEARINGS COMMITTEE

1. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

Pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hearings Committee of Council is delegated power to:
1) Hear, consider and decide upon any Resource Consent application or any other application made to Council under the Act (including private plan change requests). For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the use or exercise of any powers vested in the Council under the Act to process, hear and decide upon any such application.	Decide on Applications and Private Plan Change requests.
2) Hear, consider and recommend to the Strategy, Planning and Partnerships Committee or Council as it considers appropriate, on submissions made on any proposed plan or any Council initiated change to the District Plan or variations to the Proposed Plan.	Submission on Council Plan Changes.
3) Appoint a Commissioner or Commissioners to hear, consider and decide on any Resource Consent application or any other application made to Council under the Act. This delegation is subject to the requirement that any Hearings Commissioner(s) appointed shall hold a valid certificate of accreditation under section 39A of the Act.	Appoint Commissioner for Resource Consents.
4) Appoint a Commissioner or Commissioners to hear, consider and recommend to the Strategy, Planning and Partnerships Committee or Council as it considers appropriate, on any submissions made on any proposed plan or any Council or privately initiated change to the District Plan. This delegation is subject to the requirement that any Hearings Commissioner(s) appointed shall hold a valid certificate of accreditation under section 39A of the Act.	Appoint Commissioner for Proposed District Plan and Council or Private Plan Changes.
5) Extend any time limits or waive compliance with any requirement specified in the Act or Regulations in respect of any matter before it under the Act and pursuant to the above delegations pursuant to Section 37 of the Act.	Extend Time Limits and Waive Compliance.
6) Hear and determine any objection made pursuant to Section 357, 357A, 357B, 357C and 357D of the Act	Review of Decisions made under Delegation.
7) Make an order, pursuant to Section 42 of the Act, relating to the protection of sensitive information in respect of any matter before it.	Protection of Sensitive Information.
8) Waive, pursuant to Section 42A(4) of the Act, compliance with Section 42A(3) of the Act relating to the receiving of officers reports in respect of any matter before it.	Waive Time for Receipt of Officers’ Reports.
9) Determine, pursuant to Section 91 of the Act, not to proceed with a hearing of an application for Resource Consent where it considers additional consents under the Act are required in respect of any application before it.	Defer Application Where Other Consents Required.
10) Require, pursuant to Section 92 of the Act, further information relating to any application before it and postpone notification, hearing or determination of the application.	Require Further Information.
11) The above delegations shall apply with all necessary modifications to: i) Any notice of review of Consent conditions issued by Council pursuant to Section 128 of the Act or by any committee or officer or the Council having delegated authority to do so.	Review of Consent Conditions.
ii) Any submissions on any requirement for a designation or alteration to a designation made pursuant to Sections 168, 168A or 181 of the Act.	Hear Submissions on Designations.
iii) Any submissions on any requirement for a Heritage Order made pursuant to Section 189 and 189A of the Act.	Hear Submissions on Heritage Orders.
12) Consider and make recommendations on any requirement for a designation or alteration to a designation pursuant to Section 171 of the Act.	Recommendations and Designations.
13) Consider and decide on any amendments to Council’s District Plan to alter any information, where such an alteration is of minor effect, or may correct any minor errors pursuant to Clause 16(2) or 20A of Part 1 of the First Schedule to the Act.	Amend District Plan.

2. HEALTH ACT 1956
Pursuant to Clause 32 of Part 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Local Government Act 2002 and Section 23 of the Health Act 1956 the Hearings Committee is delegated authority to:
i) Hear explanations against a notice to revoke registration issued pursuant to Clause 9 of the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966.	Explanations Why Registration Should Not be Revoked.
ii) Hear and determine any appeal against a direction or decision of any officer acting under delegated authority and any application or objection made pursuant to Clause 22 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1974.	Determine Appeals, Applications or Objections to Requirements Under Housing Improvement Regulations.
3. DOG CONTROL ACT 1996
Pursuant to Clause 32 of Part 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Local Government Act 2002, the Hearings Committee is delegated authority to hear and determine any objections lodged against any decision of an officer acting under delegated authority or any notice issued by a Dog Control Officer pursuant to the following Sections. Section 22 Objection to the classification as a probationary owner. Section 26 Objection to disqualification from being an owner of a dog Section 31 Objection to the classification of a dog as a dangerous dog Section 33B Objection to the classification of a dog as a menacing dog under section 33A. Section 33D Objection to the classification of a dog as a menacing dog under section 33C as it is believed to belong to 1 or more classified breeds. Section 55 Objection to the issue of an abatement notice for a barking dog. Section 70 An application for the return of a barking dog seized under section 56 for causing distress. Section 71 An application for the release of a dog that is being held in custody under section 71(1) and (2) for threatening public safety. Section 71(1)(a) To be satisfied that a dog seized under section 15(1)(c) because the dog was without access to proper and sufficient food, water or shelter, will be given access to proper and sufficient food, water, or shelter if returned to the land or premises from which it was removed. Section 71A(2)(a)(i) To be satisfied that the owner of a dog seized under section 33EC (because the owner failed to comply with his obligations in respect of a dog classified as menacing), or of a dog classified as a menacing dog seized under section 33EB (because the owner failed to have the dog neutered), has demonstrated a willingness to comply with the relevant requirements”.	Decide on objections under the Dog Control Act 1996
4. LITTER ACT 1979
Pursuant to Clause 32 of Part 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Local Government Act 2002, the Hearings Committee is delegated authority to hear and decide on any objection lodged pursuant to Section 10 of the Litter Act 1979 against a notice issued under that section.	Decide on Objections to Notices Issued by a Litter Control Officer.
5. Building Act 2004
Pursuant to Section 67A of the Building Act 2004 the Hearings Committee is delegated authority to grant a waiver or modification to section 162C(1) or (2) (which requires residential pools to have means of restricting access by unsupervised children) the requirements of the Act (with or without conditions) in the case of any particular pool.	Grant Exemptions to Pool Fencing Requirements.
6. HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL BYLAWS
Pursuant to Clause 32(1) of Part 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Local Government Act 2002, the Hearings Committee is delegated authority to:
i) Hear and determine any application for a review of any decision of a duly authorised officer pursuant to any part or provision of the Hastings District Council Bylaws.	Review of Delegated Decisions.
ii) Consider and determine any application under Clause 1.5 of Chapter 1 of the Hastings District Council Consolidated Bylaw for a dispensation from full compliance with any provision of the Bylaws.	Dispensations from Bylaws Requirements.
7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974
Pursuant to Clause 32(1) of Part 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Local Government Act 2002 the Hearings Committee is authority to hear and recommend to Council on any objections to any proposal to stop any road pursuant to Section 342 and the Tenth Schedule to the Local Government Act 1974.	Hearing Objections to Road Stopping.
8. GAMBLING ACT 2003
Pursuant to Clause 32(1) of Part 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Local Government Act 2002, the Hearings Committee is delegated authority to:
i) Hear, consider and determine in accordance with section 100 of the Gambling Act 2003, applications for territorial authority consent required under section 98 of that Act, as required by the Hastings District Council Class 4 Gambling Venue Policy.	Hear and Decide on Applications for Territorial Authority Consent.

a ⇩	Hearing Report - reporting planner	59548#0313
b ⇩	Description of Proposal and Assessment of Environmental Effects	59548#0288
c ⇩	s95 Notification decision	59548#0302
d ⇩	Submission on the Application - 145 Waitangi Road	59548#0311
e ⇩	Excerpt from Development Plans - prior to the amendment of the building consent ABA20171619	59548#0323
f ⇩	Excerpt from Development Plans - after the amendment of the building consent ABA20171619	59548#0324
g ⇩	S92 Further Information Required Letter	59548#0291
h ⇩	Response to Further Information Request (Part 1)	59548#0318
i ⇩	Response to Further Information Request (Part 2)	59548#0319
j ⇩	Response to Further Information request (Part 3)	59548#0320
k ⇩	HDC Development Engineer's Comments	59548#0321

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings

Hearings Committee – Terms of Reference