COAT-ARM Hastings District Council


Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East, Hastings 4156

Phone:  (06) 871 5000

Fax:  (06) 871 5100













Hearings Committee




Meeting Date:

Tuesday, 24 April 2018 and reconvened in Public Excluded Session later on 24 April 2018







(Section 357 1(g) and (2) Resource Management Act 1991 Objection to Decision On Resource Consent RMA20170335 42 Raymond Road, Haumoana (Endsleigh Cottages Ltd))

CG-14-12-00050                                                                       1





HELD IN THE Council Chamber, Ground Floor, Civic Administration Building, Lyndon Road East, Hastings

ON Tuesday, 24 April 2018 AT 10.00am


[AND Then CONTINUED in public excluded session

later ON tuesDAY, 24 april 2018



with the decision being released on 16 May 2018

(following a resolution to proceed in open session

in order to release that decision)



Present:                       Chair: Councillor Lyons

Councillor Kerr and Hastings District Rural Community Board Member: Mr P Kay


IN ATTENDANCE:           Environmental Consents Manager (Mr M Arnold)

Team Leader Environmental Consents/Subdivision (Mr C Sutton)

Senior Environmental Planner Consents (Mr M Parker-Bevin)

Committee Secretary (Mrs C Hilton)


ALSO PRESENT:             Mr Matthew Holder, Planning Consultant, Development Nous – appearing for the Objector, Endsleigh Cottages Ltd

                                        Mr Dennis Hardy, representing the Objector, Endsleigh Cottages Ltd

                                        Ms Sophia Edmead, Planner, Development Nous


                                        A number of members of the public were also present as observers


1.       Apologies 


          There were no apologies from members of the Hearings Committee.




Section 357 1(g) and (2) Resource Management Act 1991 Objection to Decision On Resource Consent RMA20170335 42 Raymond Road, Haumoana (Endsleigh Cottages Ltd) (RMA20170335)


          (Planning report (Documents 18/298 and 57057#0034) and background information in the agenda had been previously circulated) (Evidence was circulated at meeting)


(Note: The document references  in italics and brackets denote the number in the Council’s records system)


          The Chair, Councillor Lyons, welcomed all parties to the Hearing and introduced the Hearings Committee and Council Officers present.


          The Chair then made his opening comments and outlined the process to be followed at the hearing, together with addressing “housekeeping” issues.  It was explained that the planning report had the same status as any other evidence being considered at this hearing.  The Committee had been on a site visit that morning, prior to the hearing.


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


Mr M Holder circulated and read his submissions on behalf of the Objector, Endsleigh Cottages Ltd (57057#0043), interpolating as appropriate. 


The main points that Mr Holder highlighted in his submissions included:

·     Paragraph 1 – the proposal was to undertake subdivision to create 4 lots below 4ha and a large balance lot.

·     He felt the delegated authority decision which declined the resource consent contradicted itself, as the Objector believed the site did not have any productive worth.

·     He said the agricultural soils report by Fruition Consultants, prepared for the Raymond Road Zoning Change Group (Appendix E, Page 177 of the agenda), and also Reason 1 in the delegated authority decision essentially supported that point.

·     Second sentence in Paragraph 25 – the figure of 5.2ha was incorrect and should read 3.7ha.

·     Paragraph 54 – Mr Holder highlighted the extract from the Environment Court Decision in Beacham v Hastings District Council noting the importance of this wording.

·     The first two sentences of Paragraph 59 – the Objector acknowledged the proposed subdivision was non-complying in terms of lot sizes as they are below the minimum lot size for subdivision in the Plains Zone.

·     He highlighted the fact that just because it was non-complying did not necessarily mean it was repugnant to the objectives and policies of the District Plan.

·     Each case needed to be taken on its own particular merits.

·     Some of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS) still incorporated areas with versatile soils and Plains Zone sites.


The Hearings Committee then asked questions of Mr Holder in regard to his submissions on behalf of the Objector.  The main points that were addressed in response to questions from the Committee included:

·     Paragraph 12 – clarification was sought in regard to the statements that the land in question was unproductive (i.e. it had little or no productive worth).

·     It was clarified that the Fruition report had stated this land was marginal for high performance horticultural crops.

·     On the site visit, the Committee had seen that crops were growing on the neighbouring properties.

·     The Committee asked how Mr Holder came to the conclusion that this land was non-productive.  He acknowledged that while the site had trees on it and some fruit grew there, it was not economic.

·     Apollo Apples only wanted to lease the lower portion of the land.

·     The soil maps showed that the soil on the site had poor characteristics.

·     Mr Holder initially said that the poorest quality soils in the district are the soil type 30, Waipukurau and that is what HPUDS considered them to be.  He later clarified that these were the poorest quality soils in the Plains Zone (not the district).

·     The Objector commissioned the Fruition report which was peered reviewed by a consultant chosen by the Council (AgFirst Consultants HB Ltd).

·     The Committee made the point that the land in question was part of a larger 20ha block so it was not a stand-alone area. 

·     The Committee asked whether there was a reason that grapes could not be grown in that area on sites smaller than 3ha.

·     Mr Holder stated that HPUDS had identified those limitations in signalling the situation.  He queried where the greatest value lay – in housing opportunities or in retaining the land for perpetuity?

·     The Objector’s representative, Mr Hardy, explained that two years ago Apollo Apples had been given the opportunity to lease the whole site and the house, but it had chosen to only lease the bottom part of the land which had soils classed as Pakowhai Silt Loam.


The Reporting Planner, Mr Matthew Parker-Bevin advised that he had nothing further to add to the evidence / information that had been presented at the hearing.  The Committee did not ask any questions of Mr Parker-Bevin.


Mr Holder advised he did not have anything to add as a Right-of-Reply, on behalf of the Objector. 


Mr Hardy made some comments outlining how different parts of the Endsleigh Cottages land and the house was leased by various tenants.  He felt the proposal should be granted.



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


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



Councillor Lyons/Councillor Kerr


That the public be excluded from the deliberations in relation to the hearing of the Objection by Endsleigh Cottages Ltd to the Decision on Resource Consent RMA20170335 - 42 Raymond Road, Haumoana.  The reason for passing this Resolution in relation to this matter and the specific grounds under Section 48(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this Resolution is as follows:


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


a)   Any proceedings before a local authority where:


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


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






The Hearing adjourned at 10.43am

and would reconvene in Public Excluded Session

for the Committee to undertake its deliberations






with the decision being released on 16 May 2018

(following a resolution to proceed in open session

in order to release that decision)



Section 357 1(g) and (2) Resource Management Act 1991 Objection to Decision On Resource Consent RMA20170335 42 Raymond Road, Haumoana (Endsleigh Cottages Ltd)Continued


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





Councillor Lyons/Councillor Kerr


That the Objection made by Endsleigh Cottages Ltd to the decision on Resource Consent RMA20170335 at 42 Raymond Road, Haumoana be dismissed.




(Note:  The full wording of the signed hearing decision is attached as a separate document.  The full decision is circulated with, and forms part of these minutes – the signed decision is saved under 57057#0049 in the Council’s records system.


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



The meeting was formally closed

on Tuesday, 24 April 2018 at 12.20pm