minutes of no. pp6 held 7 september 2017 12...minutes of no. pp6 held 7 september 2017 13 6. policy...

115Minutes of No. PP6 held 7 September 2017 12

4.3 Council will decide early in each process the appropriate level of engagement to support decision making, and will apply the principles of engagement set out in Part 5.

4. 4 In some instances legislation requires Council to follow either the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) set out in Section 83 of the LGA 2002, or the principles of consultation set out in Section 82 of the LGA 2002, regardless of the level of significance of a proposal or decision.

4.5 In accordance with Section 97 of the LGA 2002, some decisions will only be taken if they have been consulted on and provided for in a Long Term Plan. This includes a decision to alter significantly the intended level of service of a significant activity, and a decision to transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from a local authority. Council's strategic assets are listed in Schedule 2 to this policy.

4. 6 For all other proposals or decisions Council will determine the appropriate level of engagement on a case by case basis, applying the engagement principles set out in Part 5 of this policy.

4.7 Engagement will be informed by Council's Community Engagement Guidelines and Tangata Whenua Engagement Guidelines and Protocols. A summary of the engagement spectrum and tools is provided in Schedule 3 to this policy.

4. 8 Council through its Tangata Whenua Engagement Guidelines and Protocols, recognises the specific obligations set out in Section 81 of the LGA 2002 to establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to Council decision-making processes.

4. 9 If Council makes a decision that is inconsistent with this policy, the steps identified in Section 80 of the LGA 2002 will be followed.

5. Principles of Engagement

Engagement will be: • Meaningful - based on an open mind and willingness to listen. • Respectful - with the aim of building council-community

relationships. • Supported by the provision of information which is balanced,

sufficient and in plain language. • Inclusive and endeavour to reach all those affected. • Flexible and tailored to the needs of those who are being

engaged. • Coordinated across Council departments to minimise duplication

and engagement fatigue. • Pragmatic, efficient and value for money.


6. Policy Procedures

6.1 Council will use an internal significance check/is~ alongside each report to Council I Committee, to ensure the proposal or decision has been assessed against the matters set out in Policy 4.1.

6.2 Each Council report will include a section on Significance, detailing the level of significance of the particular proposal or decision and the rationale for why that level has been determined.

6.3 Each report seeking a decision will detail the level of engagement appropriate to the proposal or decision, and tools that will be used to engage. The Community Engagement Guidelines and Tangata Whenua Engagement Guidelines and Protocols will be used to inform engagement decisions.

6. 4 The following financial thresholds will guide analysis of the level of financial consequence of a proposal or decision. Proposals or decisions above these thresholds will be considered to be of high significance:

Decisions or proposals in excess of $8 million or which would result in a 5% or more increase in the annual District rates. Decisions or proposals which would result in a new or increased targeted rate of more than 10% of existing rates per property. Decisions or proposals relating to capital expenditure in excess of $6 million (total project cost) which has not been provided for in the 3-year term of the current long term plan.

7. Definitions

Community A group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common. Includes interested parties, affected people and key stakeholders.

Decisions Refers to all the decisions made by or on behalf of Council including those made by officers under delegation. (Management decisions made by officers under delegation during the implementation of Council decisions will not be deemed as significant).

Engagement A term used to describe the process of seeking public input to inform decision making. There is a continuum of community engagement (see Section 3 in Schedule 2 of this policy).

Significant Significant means that the issue, proposal, decision or other matter is assessed as having a high degree of significance aqainst the criteria of this policy.

117Minutes of No. PP6 held 7 September 2017

Strategic asset

8. Policy Review

14

As defined in Section 5 of the LGA 2002 ''in relation to the assets held by a local authority, means an asset or group of assets that the local authority needs to retain if the local authority is to maintain the local authority's capacity to achieve or promote any outcome that the local authority determines to be important to the current or future well-being of the community,· and includes-

( a) any asset or group of assets listed in accordance with section 76AA(3) by the local authority; and

(b) any land or building owned by the local authority and required to maintain the local authority's capacity to provide affordable housing as part of its social policy; and

(c) any equity securities held by the local authority in-

(i) a port company within the meaning of the Port Companies Act 1988:

(ii) an airport company within the meaning of the Airport Authorities Act 1966'~

Council's strategic assets are listed in Schedule 2.

8.1 This Policy will be reviewed eve!JI 3 years following the commencement of a new triennium.


Schedule 1 -Council's approach to Sustainable Decision Making

finandal costs, benefits and considerations

Western Bay of Plenty District long Term Plan Outi:omes

Regional policy

Technical input and advice

Sustainable decision-making

Public I stakeholder opinions, concerns, ideas, needs, values,

motivations and ~Is

r Community and stakeholder engagement

(including consultation}

For example: • Stakeholder meetings and workshops • Reference and advisory groups • Su111eys • Focus groups • Feedback forms

Coundl strategy and policy

Government policy and

______ !egislati~-- _]


Schedule 2- List of Strategic Assets

For the purposes of sections 5 and 76AA(3) of the Local Government Act 2DOZ Council considers the following assets to be strategic assets: • The roading network as a whole • Reserves listed and managed under the Reserves Act 1997 excluding:

(a) Reserves identified for investigation for disposal in an adopted Reserve Management Plan

(b) Local Purpose Reserves • Land held under other Acts or as fee simple but listed as reserves or

considered as reserves. • Water reticulation network as a whole • Wastewater plant and network as a whole • Storm water reticulation network as a whole • Library network • Pensioner housing network.


Inform Whakamohio

CoU!lcil led- th is le vel is jus I os importonl as the other levels

Consult Whakauiuia

Coutu: died- this is !.he standnrd Council role

lnvolv{) Whakaura

CoU!lcillcd- this i . .s. where we fn·;est

in our slokeholdcr

Co-led- make sure you mean it. This is our partnerships. working together in collaboro!ion

Empower Whakamanahia

Community ledmost underus.ed role. This. is where Council can take a step back and ou.r

PP6.5

Schedule 3 - Community engagement levels and methods of engagement

To prm•ide balanced and objective information to assist t he community in understanding the problem, alternatives, opporiunit ies and/or solutions

To work diredly with the community throughout the process to ens ure concerns and aspirali ons are consistently understood and considered

To partner with the community in each a sped of the decision including the development

of allernatives and the ideniific.ation. oft!.a preferred solution

To place final dec ision making in t he hands oft he community

We will keep you informed

en>uretha!. your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternat ives developed and provide feed back on how your inpu t influenced t he decision

We w ill look to you for direct advicE< a nd innovation in form ulating so lut.ions and

incorporate your advice and mcommendatio ns inlo t he decis ion s to the maximum ex.tent possible

Yo u wil l decide an.d we will implement what you dec ide

Open days/drop-in sessions/Maori initiated event s

Community workshops

Partnership f:orums

1-lapu/lwi Managem-ent Plans

Citiz.en Advisory Committees

Par tnership Forums

Ballots

Treaty settlement lagi!.lation

Adoption of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017

The Policy Committee considered a report from the Senior Policy Analyst (Cont ractor) dated 25 August 2017 as circulated with the agenda. The Policy and Planning Manager introduced the report, noting requirements with regard to budget in 2018, and the consultation process from October 2017. She tabled an item titled Project map for Waste Management/Solid Waste.


Staff responded to questions as follows: • Actions specified in the draft plan reflected the directions given by

Council. It would be premature for Council to signal any further position to the community until investigatory work had been undertaken that confirmed a sustainable and effective model.

• There were a number of options within the context of a 'kerb-side collection model', which would be investigated, and Council was legally obliged to assess these along with all options.

• The direction Council had given was that a continuum was desired as part of the Annual Plan. This would need to be budgeted as part of the Long Term Plan.

• Council could not investigate different, existing options in other towns, without investigating all available options. In a previous report, a number of examples from other Councils had been appended for information.

• In terms of kitchen waste collected (41.4%), in relation to Council's goals to reduce total waste to landfill, an appropriate target could be added.

• In the 'Summary of Actions, Table 3' shown on page 89 of the agenda, in the 'Kerbside Collections column', "rates funded" could be replaced with "Council-led" refuse, recycling and garden and food waste collection.

• Since this Council and Tauranga City Council had adopted joint visions and goals, there had been no further conversations. However, staff were aware of the process Tauranga City Council were progressing, and would have a further discussion with that Council's staff, noting it was a similar process.

• The Waste Assessment was included on the website, and background reports could be included for release if deemed necessary. There would be a month of special consultative procedure, where people had an opportunity to submit and indicate if they wished to be heard in support of their submission. Submitters would not have an opportunity to make a further submission after that, as this was not a Resource Management Act process.

• Council had undertaken a comprehensive process of pre-engagement over many months to gain a sense of what the public appetite for change might be. The next legislative step that must be taken was to capture formal public feedback.

• Unless the process was completed, Council would not get its waste levy, but more importantly, would not be able to action change to meet its goals and objectives. When Council received the results of its investigation into different kerbside collection options, for example, the next step was to inform the options and ultimately, once the plan was progressed and budgets set, the actions could be implemented.

In discussion of the report, it was noted that releasing the draft plan for public consultation was a required process so that Council could formally hear from its communities as to what was wanted. Responses would be considered and the details worked through. Further steps were to include the plan for budgeting in Council's Annual Plan and Long Term Plan.


10.30am 10.45am

PP6.6

Resolved: Mayor Webber I Scrimgeour

1. THAT the Senior Policy Analyst (Contractor)~ report dated 25 August 2017 and titled Adoption of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017 is received.

2. THAT the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of medium significance in terms of Council~ Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. THAT the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017 statement of proposal (including the waste assessment pursuant to sections 44 and 51 and of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008}, and (including amendments to the Summary of Actions in the draft plan), and feedback form as appended to the agenda report are released for consultation pursuant to s83 of the Local Government Act 2002, from 22 September to 23 October 2017.

The meeting adjourned for morning tea. The meeting was reconvened. Councillor Marsh entered the meeting.

Draft Memorandum of Understanding with Tauranga City Council (Tauriko West Boundary Alteration Proposal)

The Policy Committee considered a report from the Strategic Consultant dated 28 August 2017 as circulated with the agenda. The Strategic Consultant introduced the report and spoke to a powerpoint presentation, providing an overview, and noting the following key points: • The Memorandum of Understanding with Tauranga City Council to

initiate a Reorganisation Application for a boundary alteration for Tauriko West had been drafted, negotiated over some months, and agreed to.

• Critical roles; sequencing of the planning processes; recognition of the Wairoa River Strategy, working with local iwi; and expected progress to further infill and intensification within the city boundary by Tauranga City Council (prior to considering any further boundary alterations), had been incorporated.

• Legislation required district-wide consultation, but there were timing issues.

The Strategic Consultant responded to questions as follows: • Tauranga City Council planned to notify the shifting of the urban limits

line in November 2017. • If or when the boundary was altered was the point the District Plan

could be notified. That process must happen before any construction could take place, and assuming there were no difficulties.

• The legislative approach had been 'fluid', and complicated by the timing of the imminent central government election. It was unknown whether Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith would make a decision before the election took place. If not, the next question was when the


PP6.7

decision makers at parliament would begin work and be in a position to make decisions fol lowing the election.

• If approved, the Memorandum would go before Tauranga City Council on 19 September 2017 for approval, and would then return for Mayoral sign-off.

Resolved: Mayor Webber I Mackay

1. THAT the Consultants report dated 28 August 2017 and titled Draft Memorandum of Understanding with Tauranga City Council {Tauriko West Boundary Alteration) be received.

2. THAT the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of high significance in terms of Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. THAT the draft Memorandum of Understanding with Tauranga City Council (Tauriko West Boundary Alteration) be approved and that the approved Memorandum of Understanding be referred to the Tauranga City Council for their approval.

Receipt of Policy Committee Information Pack No. PP6

The Policy Committee considered the Policy Committee Informat ion Pack No. PP6 dated 7 September 2017 as circulated separately with the agenda.

Resolved: Thwaites I Dean

THA T the Policy Committee Information Pack No. PP6 dated 7 September 2017 be received and the information noted.

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act

Exclusion of the Public

Schedule 2A

Resolved: Mackay I Murray-Benge

THAT the public be excluded from the following part of this meeting namely:

• Policy Committee Information Pack No. PP6 - In Confidence


The general subject to each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each Reason for passing this Ground(s) under Section matter to be considered resolution in relation to 48(1) for the passing of

each matter this resolution

Policy Committee THAT the public conduct of For reasons previously stated Information Pack No. PP6- the relevant part of the on the relevant minutes. In Confidence proceedings of the meeting

would likely result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist

125

Western Bay of Plenty District Council

Minutes of Meeting No. L TAP2 of the Long Term and Annual Plan Committee held on 7 September 2017 in the Council Chamber, Barkes Corner, Tauranga

commencing at l .OOpm

Present

Councillor J Scrimgeour (Chairperson), Councillors G Dally, M Dean, M Lally, P Mackay, K Marsh, D Marshall, M Murray-Benge, J Palmer, D Thwaites, M Williams and His Worship the Mayor G J Webber

In Attendance

M Taris (Chief Executive Officer), G Allis (Deputy Chief Executive), E Holtsbaum (Group Manager Technology, Customer and Community Services), R Davie (Group Manager Policy, Planning and Regulatory Services), C Steiner (Contract Policy Analyst), J Rickard (Senior Policy Analyst), P Martelli (Resource Management Manager), E Rogers (Policy and Planning Manager), I Butler (Finance Manager), A Denton (Research and Monitoring Analyst) and F Sweeney (Democracy Management Advisor)

Community Boards

Chairperson S Beech (Maketu Community Board), Chairperson M Grainger (Omokoroa Community Board), and Chairperson A Sole (Waihi Beach Community Board)

The meeting was convened at l.OOpm and then adjourned to allow the members to complete a prior workshop.

The meeting reconvened at 1.35pm.

Apologies

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Lally.

Resolved: Mackay I Mayor Webber

THAT the apology for absence from Councillor Lally be accepted.

126Minutes of LTAP2 held 7 September 2017 2

LTAP2. 1

LTAP2.2

LTAP2.3

Adoption of Growth Assumptions for the Draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028

The Long Term and Annual Plan Committee considered a report from the Resource Management Manager dated 24 August 2017 as circulated with the agenda.

Resolved: Murray-Benge I Mayor Webber

1. THAT the Resource Management Manager's report dated 24 August 2017 and titled "Growth Assumptions" be received.

2. THAT the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of high significance in terms of Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. THAT the Long Term Plan Committee adopts the growth assumptions for population and dwellings in Attachment 1 to this report to be included in the Draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

Adoption of Strategic Assumptions for the Draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028

The Long Term and Annual Plan Committee considered a report from the Senior Policy Analyst dated 25 August 2017 as circulated with the agenda.

Resolved: Williams I Mackay

1. THAT the Senior Policy Analyst's report dated 25 August 2017 and titled Adoption of Strategic Assumptions for the Draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028 be received.

2. THA T the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. THAT the Long Term Plan Committee adopts the strategic assumptions attached as Appendix A to this report to be included in the Draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

Revenue and Financing Policy and Long Term Plan 2018-2028

The Long Term and Annual Plan Committee considered a report from the Strategic Advisor dated 23 August 2017 as circulated with the agenda. The Chief Executive Officer introduced the report noting previous discussions with Council on this topic and that the report would confirm the Long Term Plan process and future reviews going forward.

Resolved: Murray-Benge I Mayor Webber

1. THA T the Strategic Advisor's report dated 23 August 2017 and titled "Revenue and Financing Policy and L TP 2018-28" be received.

127Minutes of LTAP2 held 7 September 2017 3

2. THAT the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. THAT as a preliminary stage of the review of the Revenue and Financing Policy, the following components are confirmed in principle/ subject to decisions relating to the overall impact of liability for revenue: • the funding principles in Attachment 1 • the activity revenue and financing policy assessments

(Discussion/Rationale and Funding Approach) as drafted in Attachment 2/ which exclude assessments for the Regulatory and Solid Waste groups of activity.

The meeting concluded at 1.47pm.

LTAP2

128

Present


Minutes of Meeting No. RHS of the Regulatory Hearings Committee held on 12 July 2017 in the Council Chamber

Commencing at 10.00am

Councillors G Webber (Chairperson), P Mackay, D Marshall, M Murray-Benge J Scrimgeour, and M Williams

In Attendance

R Davie (Group Manager Policy, Planning and Regulatory Services), A Curtis (Compliance and Monitoring Manager), M Murton (Animal Services Officer), F Sweeney (Democracy Management Advisor), and M Parnell (Democracy Advisor)

Hearing

RH5.1 Objection to Dangerous Dog Classification - Ashleigh Attewell

The Hearings Panel considered a report from the Compliance and Monitoring Manager dated 16 June 2017 as circulated with the agenda.

The Chairperson welcomed all present to the hearing and introduced members of the Committee and staff. He noted that the objection from Perry Catley (RH5.2) would not be heard today and a further hearing had been scheduled on 15 August 2017 commencing at l.OOpm at the request of that Objector who was unable to attend today. It was noted that the Objector in this case had not attended the hearing.

The Compliance and Monitoring Manager, at the invitation of the Chair, verbally summarised the report and the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996. She also advised of proposed additional provisions from the Department of Internal Affairs for the management of high risk dogs, noting that these provisions would come into effect early next year.

She reiterated Council 's current policy and bylaw requirements for dangerous and menacing dogs. She noted that the requirement for dogs classified as dangerous and menacing to be de-sexed would mean that more dog owners would be objecting to the classification.

129Minutes of RHS held on 12 July 2017 and 15 August 2017 2

She then summarised the specifics relating to the classification of Ashleigh Attewell's dog.

Staff responded to questions of clarification as follows: • Once a dog was neutered, it tended to wander less, reduced

aggression and with a male dog less likely to sire more dogs with a similar nature. With female dogs, there was evidence of reduction of aggression after spaying.

• In terms of ownership, the original owner transferred the ownership to his partner as he was facing multiple breaches.

• From a legal perspective, the Committee did not have to take cognisance of the proposed changes at this time.

• The matrix system was designed to give a gauge as to at which point Council should take a prosecution action to gain a court order to get the dog destroyed, although generally this Council did not take prosecutions unless the attacks were on people rather than domestic animals.

Resolved: Murray-Benge I Mackay

1. THAT the Compliance and Monitoring Manager's report dated 16 June 2017 and titled 'Objection to Dangerous Dog ClassificationAshleigh Attewel/' be received.

2. THAT the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. THAT pursuant to section 31{4) of the Dog Control Act 1996 the Regulatory Hearings Committee upholds the dangerous dog classification.

Reasons: • This decision is made for the safety of the community. • Council needs to uphold the law.

The Chairperson advised that the hearing would reconvene on 15 August 2018 at l.OOpm to consider the Objection to a Menacing Dog Classification as listed on the agenda.

The meeting was adjourned at 10.20am

130

Present


Minutes of Meeting No. RHS of the Regulatory Hearings Committee held on 15 August 2017 in the Council Chamber

Commencing at 1.00pm

Councillors G Webber (Chairperson), D Marshall, M Murray-Benge, and J Scrimgeour

In Attendance

R Davie (Group Manager Policy, Planning and Regulatory Services), P Hrstich (Animal Services Officer), and B Clarke (Democracy Advisor)

Others

As listed in the minutes.

Apologies

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mackay and Williams.

Resolved: Mayor Webber I Murray-Benge

THAT the apologies for absence from Councillors Mackay and Williams be accepted.

Hearing

RH5.2 Objection to Menacing Dog Classification- Perry Catley

The Hearings Panel considered a report from the Compliance and Monitoring Manager dated 16 June 2017 as circulated with the agenda.

The Chairperson welcomed Nicky Mulvaney and Perry Catley (Objector) to the hearing. He noted that tabled items (circulated to the Panel prior to the hearing), had been received from the following persons in support of the Catley's objection: • Claudine Mulvaney • Jason Horton & Gabrielle Falls • Diana Bennetts


• • •

1.

Elda Catley Bridgette Tolfrey Melia Blackwood

Staff Report

A: Introduction

The Group Manager Policy, Planning and Regulatory Services introduced the staff report noting the following key matters: • Miss Mulvaney had provided a letter objecting to the Dog Owner

Disqualification Notification dated 21 March 2017. However, no written notice appealing the Notice of Disqualification had been lodged by 4 April 2017, which was the closing period to do so. Therefore, this matter could not be considered today. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the objection for a menacing dog only.

• In terms of the dogs' complaint history, both dogs had a history of roaming and aggression towards members of the public on more than one occasion when they were off the owner's property.

• A specific incident of aggression occurred 9 November 2016, and at the time both dogs were at large and uncontrolled.

• Miss Mulvaney advised staff that a gate had now been installed on the property. A gate was a legal requirement in any case.

• Under the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996, Council must consider public safety, and could exercise powers to impose conditions on dog owners, as the purpose of the Act was far reaching.

• Should the Hearings Panel be of a mind to uphold the menacing dog classification, both the dogs would be required to be neutered. Free de-sexing had been offered under a programme to reduce harm from high-risk dogs, but this offer had not been accepted at this time.

• In terms of the Hearings Panel's discretion today, the Panel may uphold the classification, or can rescind the classification, but there was no provision to modify the classification.

B: Animal Control Officer - Verbal Evidence

At the Invitation of the Chairperson, the Animal Services Officer spoke to the staff report, noting that there was a history of eleven complaints in relation to the dogs owned by Mr Catley, during the period from 7 February 2012 to 9 November 2016, and he noted the following: • He noted that a specific incident on 9 November 2016 had resulted

in a complaint from a member of public, stating that her nine-yearold son was chased by the dogs "Lead" and "Pipi" in an aggressive manner, and this had frightened him. She was present as a precautionary measure to ensure her son was safe because these dogs had rushed at her on a previous occasion.

• He had been required to visit Miss Mulvaney's property several times to address complaints about the dogs. These dogs were

132Minutes of RH5 held on 12 July 2017 and 15 August 2017 5

displaying territorial aggression. If there were no physical barriers on a property and a dog was allowed to go off property, it was acknowledged that such a dog perceived their territory to extend from the property to the road, for example, and further. Animal Services staff were aware that this was often the reason why dogs rushed at passers-by.

• A dog could display territorial aggression when off their property; and display pleasant behavior when on their property with people they knew.

• Council assesses the difference between a menacing dog and a dangerous dog using a tally of points method on an Attack Rating Report. Menacing dogs were required to be neutered, which was not harmful to the dog, but often helped. Vets encouraged neutering to reduce wandering and aggression. They considered it increased a dog's well-being.

Staff responded to questions of clarification as follows: • Council had received numerous complaints from members of the

public in relation to these particular dogs. Complaints ranged from aggression, rushing, and roaming, and at these times the dogs on the property had not been confined.

• There had been an aggressive rushing complaint two years ago in July 2015; a series of verbal and written warnings over time; and an infringement notice for one dog as far back as April 2012.

• Staff often found that for every person who complained, there were often others who may have experienced similar incidents but did not bother with the complaint process.

• When Officers had to collect a dog it could initially display fear aggression (where the dog backs away). In that case, it was better to find another method to catch the dog.

2. Objectors

Perry Catley and Nicky Mulvaney were in attendance in objection to the Menacing Dog classification. Miss Mulvaney addressed the Hearings Panel with the following concerns: • They had a one-hectare property that had now been completely

fenced and the dogs cannot get out anywhere. • Her daughter Shelby had witnessed the 7 November 2016 incident

and was out with the dogs when the runner was followed by his mother and got into the car. Her daughter was fourteen, and did not believe the mother or her son were in danger. The runner was thirty metres away from the dogs.

• She doubted and disagreed with the complaint from this person as her daughter was with the dogs on her bike. The dogs were with her and not roaming alone.

• She questioned how dogs could be classified as menacing when they had not chased or bitten anyone.

• She had sent a letter objecting to the Dog Owner Disqualification Notice, and wished to deal with it today.


1.25pm 1.30pm

The Chairperson noted that Mr Catley had advised he had nothing further to add.

Staff Clarification

Through the Chairperson, the Group Manager Policy, Planning and Regulatory Services clarified that the Dog Owner Disqualification Notice set out a time period for recipients to respond, and no response had been received within this time period.

An objection had been received to the Menacing Dog Classification, but there was no legal standing within this hearing to now consider the Notice of Disqualification. She reiterated for the Objectors present, that the purpose of the hearing was to consider the objection for a menacing dog only.

Closure of Evidential Section of the Hearing

There being no further statements, evidence or questions, the Chairperson thanked Mr Catley and Miss Mulvaney for attending, and advised that the evidential part of the hearing was now closed.

The hearing was adjourned to release the Objectors. The hearing was reconvened.

A brief deliberative discussion was had and the Chairperson put the following motion.

Resolved: Murray-Benge I Scrimgeour

1. THAT the Compliance and Monitoring Manager's report dated 16 June 2017 and titled 'Objection to Menacing Dog Classification -Perry Catley' be received.


3. THAT pursuant to section 338(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996 the Regulatory Hearings Committee upholds the menacing dog classification.

Reasons: • The Menacing Dog Classification assessment is a recognised

process. As the total of 34 points in this case borders on a Dangerous Dog Classification, it is recognised that staff have given a 'benefit of the doubt; in spite of the long-standing complaints history.


• It is acknowledged that the Dog Owner has taken steps with fencing and installing a gate on the property, howeve0 this is what the law requires and as such is viewed as a legal 'bottom line' in terms of mitigation.

• The Objector has not demonstrated sufficient steps to minimise the roaming of the dogs, but more particularly has not demonstrated steps to eliminate the territorial aggression displayed by both dogs.

• This decision is made for the safety of the community. • Council needs to uphold the law.

The Chairperson thanked panel members and staff.


RHS

135

Present


Minutes of Meeting No. RH6 of the Regulatory Hearings Committee held on 15 August 2017 in the Council Chamber

commencing at 2.00pm

Councillors G Webber (Chairperson), D Marshall, M Murray-Benge, J Scrimgeour, and M Williams

In Attendance

C Watt (Consents Manager), A Price (Senior Consents Planner), R Friend (Senior Consents Planner), and B Clarke (Democracy Advisor)

Apology

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mackay.

Resolved: Murray-Benge I Marshall

THAT the apology for absence from Councillor Mackay be accepted.

Hearing

RH6.1 RC10514(L)- AD & ND Dawson Resource Consent Application to Establish and Operate a Frost Control Fan at Lancaster Road, Katikati

A. Chairperson's Introduction

The Chairperson opened the meeting and welcomed those present. He introduced the Committee, outlined the hearings procedure, advised of housekeeping matters, and called for introductions from those present.

B. For the Applicants

• Allan and Nell Dawson (Applicants)

136Minutes of RH6 held on 15 August 2017 2

• Brett Farquhar (Associate Principal/Senior Planner, Stratum Consultants Limited)

• Andrew Williams (Planner, Stratum Consultants Limited) • Andrew Roff, (Sales, NZ Frost Fans) • Sean Carnachan (Applicant's Neighbour/property owner).

1. Staff Report

The Senior Consents Planner addressed the Committee and summarised her report, noting the following:

• The application had been processed on a limited notified basis. • One submission had been received in opposition. • The fan height met the required standards and property values

could not be considered under the Resource Management Act. • This would be the first fan on the Applicant's property. • Noise levels evidence from Hegley Acoustic Consultants had been

provided. • Alternatives such as the use of helicopters and irrigation had been

considered, but disregarded as covered in the report. • It was recommended that the consent be approved subject to

conditions of consent.

In response to questions, she advised as follows:

• In relation to distance from the opposing resident's property, and hedges, the boundary was a mesh screen but there was no shelterbelt. The mesh screen was approximately fifteen feet in height.

• Helicopters could operate at any time and on any day, and could not be regulated otherwise. With a frost fan, Council was able to put some conditions around the hours of operation. Using a helicopter for this work provided no certainty to the neighbours.

• There was nothing to stop people also using a helicopter. Council had no jurisdiction over helicopters. The applicant did use helicopters currently as part of the on-sight operations.

2. Evidence of the Applicant

A. Andrew Williams (Planner, Stratum Consultants Limited), gave a brief introduction on behalf of the Applicant, and tabled his Statement of Evidence, which he asked to be taken as read. He also tabled an aerial photographic showing the distance of 125.56m from the proposed frost fan location to the submitter's dwelling; and a letter from Hegley Acoustic Consultants to Andrew Roff (Sales, NZ Frost Fans Limited), dated 28 July 2017, regarding the noise prediction model undertaken. He requested that questions be taken at the end of the Applicant's evidence and speakers.

B. Sean Carnachan, (the Applicant's neighbour), addressed the Hearings Panel as follows:


• He owned two properties beside the Dawson's property, and operated two frost control fans. The number of hours they were in use was limited, but they were effective to control frost.

• He had more concerns about the helicopters the Dawson's were currently using for frost control, than for a frost fan to go in. His concerns were based on helicopters flying at 3.00am in the dark. There was noise, lights and he held health and safety concerns as there were large trees to be careful of. His only concern was around the use of a helicopter, so he was in full support of the Applicant using a frost control fan instead. Fans were not noisy, but were effective and safer.

In response to questions, Allan Dawson (Applicant) responded as follows: • The fan was not located further from the boundary, as they

had taken the advice of Andrew Roff from NZ Frost Fans, as they were the experts.

In response to questions, Andrew Roff (Sales, NZ Frost Fans), responded as follows: • A frost fan blowing into a predominant south-west wind could

cover 80ms back into the 'drift', with the drift, that would cover 250ms, so that was why the Dawson's frost fan location had been chosen. It would produce the best result.

• If a frost fan was placed into the orchard that location was at the lowest and coldest end of the block. If it was moved further into the block and near the shelter belt it would not cover the area being damaged by frost, which is the lowest end of the orchard.

• There was a confined area where the frost fan would be located, so was not necessary for it to be used on the rest of the property.

In response to questions, Allan Dawson (Applicant) further responded as follows: • The frost fan could not start operating before it reached 2°C,

and must shut off when the temperature reached 4°C. In terms of how many times per year that situation would occur, it was, on average, about five days per year, which would be similar to the number of days helicopters were required.

In response to questions, Sean Carnachan (Neighbour of the Applicant) responded as follows: • He would get no benefit from the helicopter, and was only

concerned with the noise, lights and safety concerns when it was flying in the early hours of the morning


2.19pm

2.22pm

2.24pm 2.30pm

3. Evidence of Submitters in Opposition

The Chairperson noted that the Submitters in Opposition, Doug and Jocelyn Batchelor were currently overseas and, therefore, were unable to attend the hearing. However he noted that the Batchelor's had requested that an item be tabled on their behalf, and be considered with all evidence. He advised that he would adjourn the meeting to provide time for all parties to read the tabled item.

The hearing was adjourned to allow time to read a tabled item included in evidence. The hearing was reconvened.

4. Staff Comment Following Submissions

The Senior Consents Planner addressed the Hearings Panel and noted that she had no further comments to make following the hearing of all evidence.

5. Applicants Right of Reply

Andrew Williams addressed the Hearings Panel, advised that all questions had been answered and that the Applicant accepted the staff recommendation, and agreed with the recommended conditions of consent.

The Chairperson thanked the Applicant, his expert witnesses, and speakers for attending, noted that the evidential part of the hearing was now closed, and advised he would now adjourn the hearing.

The Applicant and his representatives withdrew from the hearing.

The hearing was adjourned. The hearing was reconvened.

6. Deliberations

The Hearings Panel held a deliberative discussion.

In response to questions of clarification, the Environmental Consents Manager, and Senior Consents Planner advised as follows: • The report recommendation included the standard conditions for

an application to operate a frost control fan. • There had been a small alteration to the recommended

temperatures that the fan turned on and off to. Council would normally allow a larger range, but because of the submission in


Decision

RH6.1.1

opposition, had restricted the temperatures to those recommended under FrostBoss, which was the type of fan proposed.

• The application was for a four-blades FrostBoss fan, which was a quieter model.

• There may be other fans available, for example, two-blade frost fans were noisy. FrostBoss had improved their equipment over the years to make fans quieter. It was understood the model being proposed was the quietest one available.

• In the letter from Stratum Consultants Limited dated 24 May 2017, on page 24, paragraph 7 of the agenda, it was estimated that a helicopter had a noise decibel level of between 80-100dB at 40 metres distance, but the Stratum had not qualified the distance.

• In terms of that activity, and part of the industry, staff were aware that there had been over 100 frost control fans sold in the district. Council was not aware of all their locations and, therefore, how they could be controlled.

• Shelterbelts did not have a noise barrier effect at all, or if any, it would be negligible.

The Chairperson thanked staff for their clarification.

RC10514(L) AD & NO Dawson Resource Consent Application to Establish and Operate a Frost Control Fan at Lancaster Road, Katikati

Following deliberative discussion, the following decision was put and declared carried.

Resolved: Murray-Benge I Scrimgeour

Decision -Section 113 of the Resource Management Act 1991

1. Introduction

1.1 The application presented to the Regulatory Hearings Committee was for the establishment and operation of a frost control fan. The site is zoned Rural. The site is located at Lancaster Road, Katikati, legally described as Lot 3 DPS 79545 and it comprises of 5.5422 hectares.

1.2 Under the Operative District Plan 2012 (Rule 4C1.3.8) resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity is required as the noise level of the proposed frost control fan would exceed 55dBA at the notional boundary of neighbouring property dwellings.

1.3 The application was processed on a limited notified basis. A total of one (1) submission was received, which was in opposition to the proposal.


1.4 The Committee heard the application on 15 August 2017.

2. The Reasons for the Decision (Section 113(1){a))

2.1 That pursuant to Section 113(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, consent is granted for the following reasons;

1. That the proposal meets the statutory provisions that are required to be considered in respect of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. That the proposal is consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 and other Part II matters.

3. The potential adverse effects of the activity on the environment are able to be appropriately mitigated through specific consent conditions relating to visual effects, and the activity is not repugnant to the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan.

3. The Relevant Statutory Provisions (Section 113(1) (aa))

3.1 The application was considered pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991, the relevant provisions of which are Sections 95A to 95FNotification, Section 104 - Consideration of Applications, Section 1048 - Determination of Discretionary Activities, and Part II Matters (Section 5 - Purpose of the Act Section 6 - Matters of National Importance, Section 7 - Other Matters, and Section 8 - Treaty of Waitangi).

3.2 Section 104(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 states that when considering an application for Resource Consent the consent authority must have regard to any relevant provisions of a Plan (Operative District Plan) or Proposed District Plan.

4. Relevant Planning Documents (Section 113(1)(ab))

4.1 The operative date of the Operative District Plan 2012 was 18 June 2012 and all appeals have been resolved. The Council has however notified several plan changes. Many of these plan changes have already been made operative. For those current plan changes which have not been made operative, any provisions which have not been appealed, or where any appeals have been resolved, or where no submission has been received in opposition, have been treated as if they were operative in accordance with Section 86F of the Resource Management Act 1991. Those current plans changes where a submission in opposition or appeal has been lodged, but not


determined or resolved, have been considered but are found to have no relevance to this application.

4.2 In respect of the above paragraph the relevant provisions of the Operative District Plan are outlined below.

4.2.1 Rule 4C1.3.6- Permitted Activities

Under Rule 4C1.3.6, frost protection fans are a permitted activity where they comply with the following:

Rule 4C.1.3.6 Frost Protection Fans- Performance Standard for Permitted Activity

Frost protection fans (including portable non-fixed type) shall be a Permitted Activity subject to the relevant performance standards of the underlying zone. Should the fan not comply with the relevant noise standards the activity shall default to be considered as a Controlled or Restricted Discretionary Activity as detailed in 4Cl.3.7 and 4Cl.3.8.

4.2.2 The frost fan is not a permitted activityj as it does not comply with the general noise standards for all activities in the Rural zone. In accordance with the Rule, regard is therefore given to Rules 4C1.3.7 and 4C1.3.8.

4.2.3 Rule 4C 1.3. 7- Controlled Activities

Under Rule 4C1.3.7 frost protection fans are a controlled activity where it complies with the following:

Rule 4C.1.3.7 Frost Protection Fans - Performance Standard for Controlled Activity

Where the following performance standards cannot be met then the activity shall fall to being assessed as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. [emphasis added by writer]

(a) Noise from the operation of frost protection fans shall not exceed 55dBA Leq and 65dBA Lmax at any point within the notional boundary of any dwelling in a Rural or Lifestyle Zone (excluding a residential dwelling on the same property on upon which the fan is operating) nor at any point within the boundary of any property within a Residentia~ Rural-Residential or Future Urban Zone.

(b) The overall height for the fan including the fan blade shall not exceed 15m.

(c) When the frost protection fan is in operation for frost protection the frost protection fan must not start up until the air at canopy height drops to ?JC, and shall cease operation when the rising temperature reaches -?Cat canopy height.

(d) When the frost protection fan is operating for maintenance purposes the machine shall only be used from Monday to Friday Bam to5pm.

Explanatory Note:


Fan Type - The distance required to achieve 55dBA will vary depending on the noise performance of the frost protection fan. Applications for resource consent must be supported with evidence identifying the noise performance of the fan to be used

4.2.4 The noise assessments to date advise that the proposed frost control fan would exceed 55dBA Leq at the notional boundary of neighbouring dwellings. The frost control fan would not complv with Rule 4C1.3.7(a). The ''notional boundary" is defined as follows:

"Notional Boundary" is as defined in New Zealand Standard NZS 6801:2008 Measurement of Sound and is a line 20m from any side of a dwelling/ or the legal boundary of the property on which the dwelling is locatec;t whichever point is closer to the dwelling.

4.2.5 The proposed frost control fan falls to be considered a restricted discretionary activity under Rule 4C1.3.8 as it generates noise levels above 55dBA at the notional boundary of neighbouring properties. Rule 4C1.3.8 states:

Rule 4C.1.3.8 Frost Protection Fans - Performance Standard for Restricted Discretionary Activity

Where the written approvals of all affected persons have not been obtained then notice shall be served on those persons.

Explanatory Note: For the purpose of Identifying affected persons where the noise from the operation of the frost protection fan exceeds 55dBA Leq at any point within the notional boundary of any dwelling in a Rural Lifestyle or Future Urban Zone/ (excluding a residential dwelling on the same property on upon which the fan is operating) or at any point within the boundary of any Residential or Rural-Residential zone/ those occupiers/owners shall be deemed to be affected

4.2.6 The relevant objectives and policies within Section 4C (Amenity) of Councils Operative District Plan 2012 are as follows:

Objective 4C.1.2.1 An environment free of unreasonable noise in accordance with the character and amenity of the zone within which the noise is generated and received

Policies 4C.1.2.2 1. Ensure activities do not generate noise levels inconsistent

with the character and amenity of the zone in which the generated noise is received.

2. Exempt from the maximum permitted noise level requirements are those activities which are an integral part of accepted management practices of activities associated with production land in rural areas as well as other activities clearly of a temporary nature (e.g. construction work~

military training exercises).


3. Have regard to any relevant New Zealand standards, guidelines, or codes of practice in the assessment of applications for resource consents.

4.2.7 The relevant objectives and policies within Section 18 (Rural) of Councils Operative District Plan 2012 are as follows:

Objectives 18.2.1 1. The rural land resource and versatile land capability is

maintained to enable its use for rural production activities. 2. Primary productive activities should be able to operate in the

Rural Zone without unreasonable constraints being imposed on them by other activities.

5. Maintain the rural character and amenity values associated with the low density rural environment.

18.2.2 Policies 1. Subdivision, use and development of versatile land should

occur in a way which retains its potential to be used for a range of productive rural purposes and which maximises the likelihood of it actually being used for such purposes.

10. Activities with a functional or other legitimate need for a rural location should not be established in rural areas unless they are able to be undertaken without constraining the lawful operation of productive rural land uses which are carried out in accordance with accepted management practices.

5. Relevant Assessment Criteria that relate to the proposed activity cover the following matters:

5.1 Pursuant to Section 104C(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council in determining an application under Rule 4C1.3.8 can only consider those matters prescribed under Rule 4C1.5.2 which states:

Rule 4C.1.5.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity - Frost Protection Fans

Council shall restrict its discretion to the following:

(a) The best practicable option, this should address as a minimum; alternative options for frost protection, effectiveness of those alternative options, affordability, cumulative effects of existing machines in the vicinity, and any effects on established land uses, and proposed mitigation.

(b) The effect of the increased noise level on those persons who will experience noise levels over 55dBA Leq at their notional boundary or boundary.

5.2 In considering these criteria and in having regard to other relevant matters, the main issues associated with this proposal, as summarised by the reporting officer, were the effects relating to noise.


6. Notification and Submissions

6.1 The application was processed on a limited notified basis. Letters were sent to identified affected persons on 14 June 2017.

7. The Principal Issues that were in contention (Section 113{1){ac))

7.1 The principal issues arising from the proposed activity that were in contention as identified within evidence from the applican~

submitters and Council staff were: • Noise • Alternative Methods

8. Summary of Evidence Heard (Section 113(1)(ad))

8.1 Chairpersons Introduction

The Chairperson opened the meeting and welcomed those present. He introduced the Committee, outlined the hearings procedure, advised of housekeeping matters, and called for introductions from those present.

8.2 For the Applicants

• Allan and Nell Dawson (Applicants) • Brett Farquhar (Associate Principal/Senior Planner, Stratum

Consultants Limited) • Andrew Williams (Planner, Stratum Consultants Limited) • Andrew Roff, (Sales, NZ Frost Fans) • Sean Carnachan {Applicants Neighbour/property owner).

8.3 Absent

Submittors - Martray Partnership (evidence tabled)

8. 4 The Chairperson then invited the Senior Consents Planner to introduce her report dated 25 July 2017.

8.5 The Senior Consents Planner addressed the Committee and summarised her report, noting the following: • The application had been processed on a limited notified basis. • One submission had been received in opposition. • The fan height met the required standards and property values

could not be considered under the Resource Management Act. • This would be the first fan on the Applicants property. • Noise levels evidence from Hegley Acoustic Consultants had been

provided. • Alternatives such as the use of helicopters and irrigation had been

considered, but disregarded as covered in the report.


• It was recommended that the consent be approved subject to conditions of consent

In response to questions, she advised as follows: • In relation to distance from the opposing resident's prope~ and

hedges, the boundary was a mesh screen but there was no shelterbelt. The mesh screen was approximately fifteen meters in height.

• Helicopters could operate at any time and on any day, and could not be regulated otherwise. With a frost fan, Council was able to put some conditions around the hours of operation. Using a helicopter for this work provided no certainty to the neighbours.

• There was nothing to stop people also using a helicopter. Council had no jurisdiction over helicopters. The applicant did use helicopters currently as part of the on-sight operations.

8. 6 Evidence of the Applicant

C Andrew Williams (Pianne~ Stratum Consultants LimitedJ gave a brief introduction on behalf of the Applicant_, and tabled his Statement of Evidence, which he asked to be taken as read. He also tabled an aerial photographic showing the distance of 125.56m from the proposed frost fan location to the submitter's dwelling; and a letter from Hegley Acoustic Consultants to Andrew Roff (Sales, NZ Frost Fans Limited), dated 28 July 2017, regarding the noise prediction model undertaken. He requested that questions be taken at the end of the Applicant's evidence and speakers.

D. Sean Carnachan, (the Applicant's neighbour), addressed the Hearings Panel as follows: • He owned two properties beside the Dawson's prope~ and

operated two frost control fans. The number of hours they were in use was limited, but they were effective to control frost.

• He had more concerns about the helicopters the Dawson's were currently using for frost control, than for a frost fan to go in. His concerns were based on helicopters flying at 3. OOam in the dark. There was noise, lights and he held health and safety concerns as there were large trees to be careful of His only concern was around the use of a helicopte~ so he was in full support of the Applicant using a frost control fan instead. Fans were not noisy, but were effective and safer.

In response to questions, Allan Dawson (Applicant) responded as follows: • The fan was not located further from the boundary, as they

had taken the advice of Andrew Roff from NZ Frost Fans, as they were the experts.


In response to questions, Andrew Roff (Sales, NZ Frost Fans), responded as follows: • A frost fan blowing into a predominant south-west wind could

cover 80ms back into the 'drift; with the drift, that would cover 250m, so that was why the Dawson's frost fan location had been chosen. It would produce the best result.

• If a frost fan was placed into the orchard that location was at the lowest and coldest end of the block. If it was moved further into the block and near the shelter belt it would not cover the area being damaged by frost, which is the lowest end of the orchard.

• There was a confined area where the frost fan would be located, so was not necessary for it to be used on the rest of the property.

In response to questions, Allan Dawson (Applicant) further responded as follows: • The frost fan could not start operating before it reached 2°C,

and must shut off when the temperature reached 4°C In terms of how many times per year that situation would occur, it was, on average, about 5 days per year, which would be similar to the number of days helicopters were required.

In response to questions, Sean Carnachan (Neighbour of the Applicant) responded as follows: • He would get no benefit from the helicopter, and was only

concerned with the noise, lights and safety concerns when it was flying in the early hours of the morning.

8. 7 Submitters in Opposition

The Chairperson noted that the Submitters in Opposition, Doug and Jocelyn Batchelor were currently overseas and, therefore, were unable to attend the hearing. However he noted that the Batchelor's had requested that an item be tabled on their behalf, and be considered with all evidence. He advised that he would adjourn the meeting to provide time for all parties to read the tabled item.

8.8 Staff Comment Following Submissions

The Senior Consents Planner addressed the Hearings Panel and noted that she had no further comments to make following the hearing of all evidence.

8. 9 Applicants Right of Reply

Andrew Williams addressed the Hearings Panel, advised that all questions had been answered and that the Applicant accepted the staff recommendation, and agreed with the recommended conditions of consent.


9. The Main Finding of Fact (Section 113(1) (ae))

9.1 The principal matters to be considerett as raised by opposing submitter, the planner report and within information submitted by the applicant_, relate to amenity and character effects which arise from noise emissions.

9.2 The applicant has provided noise assessments which take into account the existing environment and noise generated by the proposed frost protection fan.

9.3 The Committee acknowledges that the proposed frost fan is the most pragmatic approach.

9. 4 The Committee note that the applicant could use a helicopter which cannot be controlled by Council, creates more noise and poses potential health and safety risks to the applicant_, and all neighbouring properties. The proposed frost fan has a less intrusive frequency in relation to lights/ noise than uncontrolled use of a helicopter.

9. 4 The Committee further acknowledge that the conditions of consent will limit the use of the proposed frost fan to a more restrictive temperature range than that normally conditioned by Council being 0.5°C- 2.5°C

9. 6 Having considered all the matters presented before them by the applicant and the concerns raised by the opposing submitter, pursuant to Section 1 04B of the Act_, the Committee has concluded that the adverse effects on the environment would not be significant for reasons outlined above. Having regard to the provisions of Sections 104~ 104(1) and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Committee considers that the application may be granted consent subject to appropriate conditions

10. Decision

THAT pursuant to Sections 104, 1 04C and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council grants consent to the application by AD & ND Dawson to establish and operate a frost control fan within a floodable area, being a restricted discretionary activity, located at Lancaster Roatt Katikati, legally described as Lot 3 DPS 79545 subject to the following conditions:

1. THAT the frost control fan shall be establisheft operated and located in accordance with the details submitted with the application receivett including (a) The report prepared by Stratum Consultants ''Proposed Frost

Fan, Lot 3 DPS 79545, Lancaster Roatt Katikati'; reference 628301-M-P-C001;

(b) ''Assessment of Environmental Effects on the use of the Frost Boss C49 Frost Fan for the Protection of Crops" prepared by


Lyn Elliott for New Zealand Frost Fans Ltd, referenced ':AD & NO Dawson";

(c) Acoustic report prepared by Hegley Acoustic Consultants for New Zealand Frost Fans Ltd Hastings April 2016, entitled ''Frost Boss C49 Frost Fan Field Testing Noise Report'; Report number B912v2.

2. THAT the hours of operation be restricted to the following times:

(a) When the frost protection fan is in operation for frost protection the frost protection fan must not start up until the air at canopy height drops to O.SO~ and shall cease operation when the rising temperature reaches 2.SOC at canopy height. The thermostatic temperature probe shall be located at canopy height.

(b) When the frost protection fan is operating for maintenance purposes the machine shall only be used from Monday to Friday Bam to 5pm. Reasonable test operation may take place outside of these hours should emergency maintenance be required outside of these hours.

3. THAT the type of frost control fan to be used shall be a Frost Boss C49 Four Blade Frost Fan with a maximum engine operating speed of lBOO rpm. The frost control fan shall be powered by a John Deere 606BT diesel engine or equivalent and the maximum blade length shall be 5.5 metres.

4. THAT the frost control fan shall be sealed with tie wires and a lead crimp or locked with a yellow sealant to ensure that the rpm and gear ratios cannot be changed from those specified in condition (3) above.

5. THAT prior to the commencement of operation of the frost control fan, a certificate is to be supplied to the Council from a service agent confirming that the frost control fan has been set at the maximum (or lesser) operating levels specified in condition (3) above and that the tie wires and lead crimp or yellow sealant have been installed in accordance with condition (4) above.

6. THAT the frost control fan shall be used no more than 20 nights in one calendar year, excluding those times when the frost control fan is used for maintenance purposes only.

7. THAT the consent holder shall maintain a log clearly stating the frequency and length of use and a copy of such log shall be made available to Council within two days upon request

B. THAT noise from the operation of the frost control fans shall not exceed a 64BA (Leq) noise limit between the hours of 1 Opm and Bam the following day measured at a distance of 100 metres from the fan.


(Note: This performance standard will ensure that the noise levels from this machine should not exceed the 55 dBA (Leq} level 240m from one fan)

9. THAT the thermomete~ which is used to determine temperature on the frost control fan be independently assessed and calibrated by a suitably qualified technician to ensure that it accurately measures temperature and that certification is provided to Council prior to the operation of the fan.

10. THAT the consent holder shall ensure that an alarm is activated by telephone to the home of the consent holder or their manager(s) appointed for the time being whenever the fan commences operation for the purposes of frost control. The consent holder or manager shall immediately attend the orchard and shall ensure its operation is in accordance with condition (2) of this consent

11. THAT pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, Council may review the conditions of this consent to ensure that the adverse effects in terms of noise are adequately mitigated. A review will only take place immediately after the frost season for which the frost control machine is required and not during the frost season.

12. THAT the consent holder shall pay Western Bay of Plenty District Council such administration charges including monitoring fees that are fixed at the time by the said Council in accordance with Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Advice Notes:

1. The consent holder should notify Council in writing, of their intention to begin works prior to commencement Such notification should be sent to the Councils Compliance & Monitoring Team and include the following details: • name and telephone number of the project manager and site

owner • site address to which the consent relates • activity to which the consent relates • the expected duration of works.

Notifying Council of the intended start date enables cost - effective monitoring to take place. The consent holder is advised that additional visits and administration required by Council officers to determine compliance with consent conditions will be charged to the consent holder on an actual and reasonable basis as provided for under the Act.

2. Full compliance with the conditions of consent is necessary to carry out the activity to which this consent relates. Your progress towards satisfying the conditions of consent will be monitored by a Council representative and failure to meet these conditions may result in


RH6.1.2

RH6.2

enforcement action being taken in accordance with Council's Monitoring, Compliance and Enforcement Strategy. This may involve the issuing of an Infringement Notice (instant fine) and/or a monitoring fee.

3. The consent holder or submitters may Appeal this decision, including any conditions of consent, to the Environment Court within 15 working days of receipt of this decision. Prior to doing so you are advised to engage your own legal advice. Please note, however, that pursuant to Section 116 of the Act that the consent granted and authorised by this decision cannot be given effect to until all Appeals are resolved.

Recommendation to Review Rule SSdcb Relating to Noise at Property Boundaries

Following deliberative discussion the following motion was put and declared carried.

Resolved: Webber I Murray Benge

THAT the Regulatory Hearings Committee recommends to the District Plan Committee that Council review rule 55dcb (relating to noise at property boundaries) in light of the use of helicopters and mobile frost fans where Council has no current control over the noise levels.

Recommendatory Report from Te Puke Community Board- New Road Name, Lamay Place, Te Puke

The Regulatory Hearings Committee considered a report from the Democracy Advisor dated 31 July 2017 as circulated with the agenda.

Resolved: Mayor Webber I Scrimgeour

1. THAT the report from the Democracy Advisor dated 31 July 2017 and titled Recommendatory Report from Te Puke Community Board July 2017 New Road Name - Lomay Place, Te Puke be received.


3. THAT pursuant to Section 319 and 319a of the Local Government Act 1974, the Regulatory Hearings Committee adopts the road name ''Lomay Place" for the new private-way arising out of subdivision consent S/B/11856 at 17 No.1 Road, Te Puke.

4. THAT the Te Puke Community Board be notified of this decision.



RH6

152

Present


Minutes of Meeting No. RH7 of the Regulatory Hearings Committee held on 31 August 2017 in the Athenree Room

commencing at 9.1Sam

Councillors G Webber (Chairperson), P Mackay, D Marshall, M Murray-Benge, and M Williams

In Attendance

C Watt (Consents Manager), and B Clarke (Democracy Advisor)

Leave of Absence

It was noted that Councillor Scrimgeour was on leave of absence.

RH7.1 Appointment of Independent Hearings Commissioner August 2017

The Regulatory Hearings Committee considered a report from the Environmental Consents Manager dated 18 August 2017.

Resolved: Williams I Marshall

1. THAT the Environmental Consent Manager's report dated 18 August 2017 and titled ''Appointment of Independent Hearings Commissioner- August 2017" be received


3. THAT the Regulatory Hearings Committee appoints Commissioner Russell DeLuca as Independent Hearings Commissioner to consider and determine the resource consent RC10620L at 33 Hakao Road, Minden.

The meeting concluded at 9.17am.

RH7

153Action Sheets Completed for Council (Open)

Minutes Remit Title Number

C216.4 ,Chief Executive 15 Dec 10fficer's Report-2016 December 2016

Owner Remit Description

DEPUTY iTHAT Council investigate the single Ianing CEO/GROUP and parking of Te Puke. MANAGER AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT the Chief Executive Officer's report SERVICES dated 7 December 2016 and titled Chief

Executive Officer's Report- December 2016 be received.

LA~<-v>.->»-~-~""'''-''~'-'>~.~,_},"'''-->---'"-"'--""--~""-"---------~-c--J.«n.A·>·~-• .-.,-., . .,._., ... "'•'-"'-''-~-"-"'"""''"'-''"''-~"-"'-"-"-""''"''''"~'""-"""""""-'"'""'·' .,., .. , •. -... ,_.,,,..,,., .. ,.,-.__, _____ , ____ ~~--"'-"""'...,...,...,...,,,_, _ _,, ,...,.,,..... - ,.,,

Council Minutes Action Sheets Completed 11 September 2017 (Open) A2988105

Owner Comments Current Status

21/08/2017: Rey Research Survey results reported to COMPLETE Operations Committee. Public meeting scheduled for 29 August to report back survey findings as well as results of retailers survey. 17/07/2017: Operations Committee undertook a site inspection on 22 June 2017. Independent survey stil l underway. 19/06/2017: Independent survey of the main street upgrade under way. Operations Committee to undertake site inspection on 22nd June. 22/05/2017: The parking survey was presented to the Te Puke Community Board and the Operations Committee along with a separate presentation from Te Puke EDG. The GPS

,data shows that the one Ianing has reduced travel time by

lapprox. 1 minute in the 4-6pm peak period. An independent survey of the main street upgrading will be undertaken in

J une. 124/04/2017: The parking survey has been completed and will I be presented to the Te Puke Board and the Operations

I Committee. The survey of main street users has been

,5!e~~X~d .EL~~~N~ig~~fica ~~ .~~~th:~M:~:nts.