Regulatory Committee Agenda - Waipa District Council

LIJ 

Waipa 

DISTRICT COUNCIL 

Regulatory 

Committee Agenda 

12 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT QUARTERLY REPORT 1 JULY TO 30 

SEPTEMBER 2012 

15-15-03/3 I Pages 39- 48 

During the first quarter of the 12/13 financial year the Council enforcement staff 

completed 87 resource consent inspections and found 5 breaches of consent 

conditions which resulted in 2 Abatement Notice and 8 warning letters being issued. 

No infringement notices were issued. 

In relation to breaches of the District Plan provisions, 13 incidents were investigated. 

This resulted in 3 Abatement Notice and 6 warning letters being issued. Seven signs 

were removed from the Council road reserve for this quarter. 

Other enforcement includes 2 parking infringements issued; 1 warning letter issued 

for heavy vehicles parked in a residential area, 6 illegal dumping complaints 

investigated with 4 warning letters issued. 

The prosecution against Te Awamutu Hire Centre was concluded on 13th of August 

2012 at the Te Awamutu District Court with a guilty plea for failing to secure trade 

waste correctly under the Trade Waste Bylaw. A conviction was entered with an 

agreement to pay Council $9,380.26 in reparation. 

The Environmental Services team and after-hours contractors responded to 230 

excessive noise complaints in the quarter, resulting in a number of written and verbal 

directives. No noise Abatement Notices or Infringement Notices was issued and 

there were no stereo seizures. There were also 22 unreasonable noise complaints 

received for the quarter. 

In addition, the Environmental Services team and after-hours contractors responded 

to 20 nuisance complaints, (15 were for fire and smoke complaints). 

There was a total of 52 urban fire permits issued. The rural fire area season has been 

open for this quarter. 

There were 1392 animal control complaints or request for service in this quarter. Of 

these 878 were generic administration requests for service and were resolved over 

the telephone. The balance of 514 required investigation. 

In relation to liquor licensing, there have been two controlled purchase operations 

since the last report. There have been 55 inspections of licensed premises 

undertaken in this quarter with minor issues dealt with by verbal or written advice. 

In regard to food premises, five complaints were received with no requisitions issued. 

The team has undertaken 121 food premises inspections in this quarter. 

Page 4 of 10 

12178629

Lll 





b) In consideration of Sections 104, and pursuant to Sections 104B, 108 

and 220 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waipa District 

Council declines the application to change Condition 4 of SP/0106/11 

by AL & ARJ Hooker. 

Reasons for Decision 

a) The application is inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the 

operative Waipa District Plan and the proposed Waipa District Plan. 

b) Granting consent for an alternative to the requirements for the provision 

of telecommunication connection to a new allotment conflicts with the 

relevant rules of the District Plan, and for which there are no unique or 

special circumstances, could impair public confidence in the consistent 

administration of the District Plan, and set a precedent for the misuse of 

the telecommunication connection provisions. 

13.3 AH & CA Baker- 419 Wallace Road, Cambridge- Section 127 Application to 

Change Condition 3 of Subdivision Consent SP/0113/12 

File: 04631/022.02 I Pages: 93- 131 

Recommendation 

That: 

a) The report of H Beard, Planner for the Waipa District Council, be received; 

and 

b) In consideration of Sections 104, and pursuant to Sections 104B, 108 and 

220 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waipa District Council 

grants the application to change Condition 3 of SP/0113/12 by Murray 

Hislop Surveyors for AH & CA Baker. 

This condition has been changed: 

Telephone 

C3 Tl:le consent holder must arrange ·.vith a telephone company for the 

reticulation of telephone cables to serve all lots and pay all costs 

attributable to such •.vorlc The consent holder must submit to the 

Council written confirmation from tl:le telephone company that 

satisfactory arrangements have been made for the reticulation of the 

service to all lots in the subdivision. This is to include if necessaP; the 

resiting, repositioning or removal of any telef)hone cables which e>Eist 

on the land being subdi·;ided. 

Page 6 of 10 

12178629

LLI 





V•Jhere telephone cables serving any lot are required to cross the 

boundary of any other lot or lots registered easements must be 

created for such services. 

The current and future owners of Lots 1 and 2 are advised that no 

reticulated telecommunications con nections are provided to the said 

lot. 

Reason: The applicants demonstrated at the time of subdivision 

application that it is cost prohibitive to provide a telecommunications 

connection and that alternative options are available for the site. 

This being a condition to be complied with on a continuing basis by the 

subdividing owner and subsequent owners, before the deposit of the 

survey plan the Council must issue a consent notice pursuant to 

Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991 specifying the 

above condition. 

Such consent notice must be either prepared or checked at the cost of 

the subdividing owner by the Council's solicitors and must be 

registered against the title of Lots 1 and 2. 


a) The Applicant has demonstrated that it is cost prohibitive to provide a 

connection and alternatives are available for the site. 

b) The Section 221 Consent Notice will ensure future purchasers and owners 

of the site are aware there is no telecommunication connection. 

13.4 Thornton Ridge Trust - 81 Maungakawa Road, Cambridge - Subdivision to 

create one additional title in the Rural Zone (Fencourt Rural Residential 

Policy Area) 

File: 04380/329.04 I Pages: 133- 173 


That: 

a) The report of Tanya Running- Consultant Planner be received; and 

b) In consideration of Section 104, and pursuant to Sections 1048, 1040 108 

and 220 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waipa District Council 

approves the subdivision consent application by Thornton Ridge Trust to 

create one additional lot at 81 Maungakawa Road, Cambridge, legally 

described as Part Allotment 161 Parish of Hautapu and Lot 1 DPS 322290 

held in CFR 88987 subject to the following conditions: 

Page 7 of 10 

12178629

LIJ 





3. The requirement to tarseal the access leg on the western boundary is 

required to mitigate any dust or noise issues on the owners of Lot 2 DP 

322290. 

4. The proposal is not contrary with the relevant objectives and policies of 

the Operative and Proposed Waipa District Plan and Regional planning 

documents. 

5. The proposal meets both threshold tests of section 104D of the Act in that 

it is not contrary to the objectives and policies of either the Operative or 

Proposed Waipa District Plans, nor will it have adverse effects on the 

environment which are more than minor. 

6. Overall the granting of consent to the application with the recommended 

conditions outlined below will be in accord with the purpose and 

principles of the Resource Management Act 1991. 

13.5 Robert Edward Lee - 59 Alpha Street, Cambridge - Proposal to 

Demolish/Remove a Heritage Item- Cambridge RSA 

File : 04370/358.00 I Pages: 175- 300 


That: 

a) The report of Marlize Durandt be received; and 

b) In consideration of Sections 104 and 1048, and pursuant to Section 108 of 

the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waipa District Council approves 

land use application LU/0096/12 by Robert Edward Lee to 

demolish/remove the building at 59 Alpha Street, Cambridge, legally 

described as P[art Allot 393 Town of Cambridge {SA7728155}, subject to 

the following conditions: 

General 

1) That the proposal must be generally consistent with the information 

provided by Robert E Lee, submitted with LU/0096/12, unless 

otherwise altered by the conditions of the consent. 

2) The building must be removed/demolished from the site. 

3} Architectural and photographic recording of the building fabric 

The applicant must engage a suitably qualified professional to record 

the architectural features and photographical evidence of the building 

and site. The recording work must focus on identifying and recording 

information about the Cambridge Farmers' Club and Wells phases of 

Page 9 of 10 

12178629

LIJ 

""aipa 




building use as well as recording the structure's last use. This work 

should include a thorough investigation of the building fabric to answer 

questions about the Cambridge Farmers' Club and Wells floor plans 

and the fabric of the building during those phases of use. Products 

should include (but is not limited to): 

• overall site plan; 

• floor plans that show the various periods of building construction; 

• elevations (exterior) and through sections; 

• roof and ceUing plans that record the various periods of building 

construction (as possible); 

• details of joinery, architraves, fireplaces, etc.; 

• a photographic record of the building (with plan notations); 

• exterior paint sampling to identify CFC and Wells paint colours (e.g. 

'cratering'); 

• wall paper samples or paint colours that related to the CFC and 

Wells phases, if any ore identified; and 

• samples of any other building fabric that are unusual or could be 

interpreted in a museum display. 

Notes: i) CAD system is recommended for the architectural plans. The 

building information should be compiled as a report. In 

addition larger format plans must be provided with the report 

and a copy of the digital photographs copied to CD. It is 

suggested that an architectural draftsman with heritage 

building experience be commissioned do this work. 


ii) Copies of the report information should be deposited with 

WDC and the Cambridge Library. The large format 

architectural drawings, photo CD, a copy of the report and any 

samples of relevant building material should be deposited with 

the Cambridge Museum. 

a) The application is not consistent with the objectives and policies of the 

operative Waipa District Plan and the proposed Waipa District Plan. It 

is however considered that special circumstances exist which support 

the demolition/removal of the building from the site. 

b) Any actual and potential effects on the environment can be 

appropriately mitigated through conditions of consent. 

c) The application does not contravene the matters set out in Part 2 of 

the RMA. 

Page 10 of 10 

12178629

12 

LIJ 



5 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 

File: 01-89-04 

RESOLVED 

4/12/32 


Committee 'Minutes 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2012 be confirmed as a true and 

accurate record. 

Cr Taranaki/Cr Thomas 

6 LATE ITEMS 

There were no late items. 

7 CONFIRMATION OF ORDER OF MEETING 

File: 01-89-04 

RESOLVED 

4/12/33 

That the order of the meeting be confirmed. 

Cr Sharpe/Cr Milner 

8 WAIPA DISTRICT LIQUOR LICENSING AGENCY: MONTHLY SCHEDULE OF 

LIQUOR LICENCE APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY STAFF UNDER 

DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

File: 01-85-10 

RESOLVED 

4/12/34 

That the monthly schedule of Liquor License Applications Considered by Staff under 

Delegated Authority for June, July and August 2012 be received. 

Cr Sharpe/Cr Thomas 

9 MATTERS CONSIDERED BY STAFF UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 

File: 01-52-01 

Page 2 of6

14 

LIJ 

Waip a 



Committee Minutes 

enforcement, 61 incidents were investigated. This resulted in four Abatement 

Notices being issued associated with a large Webbline advertising sign in a paddock 

on Kihikihi Rd and five warning letters for various minor matters being issued. Of the 

warning letters issued 1 these included two for a heavy vehicle parked in a residential 

area; one for excavations, one for keeping animals in a residential area and one for 

car wrecks in Oliver Street. In addition there were 12 illegal dumping complaints 

received with one infringement notice issued for ilfegal dumping on Waikoha Rd. 

Twelve signs were removed from the Council road reserve for this quarter. Other 

enforcement includes 1 parking infringement notice issued. 

The Environmental Services team and after-hours contractors responded to 307 

excessive noise complaints In the quarter, resulting in a number of written and verbal 

directives. One noise Abatement Notice and one Infringement Notice was issued. 

There were no stereo seizures. There were also 10 unreasonable noise complaints 

received for the quarter. 

In addition, the Environmental Services team and after-hours contractors responded 

to 42 nuisance complaints, (33 were for fire and smoke complaints). 

There was a total of 69 urban fire permits Issued. The rural fire area season has been 

open for this quarter. 

There were 1116 animal control complaints or request for service In this quarter. Of 


the telephone. The balance of 561 required investigation. 

In relation to liquor licensin& there have been no controlled purchase operations 

since the last report. There have been 40 inspections of licensed premises 

undertaken in this quarter with minor issues dealt with by verbal or written advice. A 

number of liquor licensing Authority hearings have taken place. 

ln regard to food premises, three complaints were received with no requisitions 

issued. The team has undertaken 163 food premises inspections in this quarter. This 

included 59 premises inspected at Fieldays. 

RESOLVED 

4/12/37 

The Monitoring and Enforcement Quarterly report from Wayne Allan Manager 

Planning and Regulatory be received for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 June 2012 and 

End of Yeor Results for 11/12. 

Cr Thomas/Cr Milner 

Page4 of6

w 





13 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY 

33-25-18 

District Licensing Agency Secretary Karl Tutty presented his report to the Committee 

and answered questions of clarification or interest. 

RESOLVED 

3/12/38 

That 

a) The information contained in the report of Karl Tutty, District Licensing Agency 

Secretary, be received, and; 

b) The Annual Report to the Uquor Licensing Authority be adopted and 

forwarded to the Liquor Licensing Authority. 

Cr Thomas/Cr Taranaki 

14 HEARINGS 

14.1 9.30am 

Review of the proposed Internal Site Landscaping Plan for the Leamington 

Retail Complex: Eljayej Holdings Limited, Burns Street, Cambridge 

File: 04510//465.00 

Planner Amy Eden presented her report and said that Development 

Engineering and Council Parks and Reserves Departments were happy with 

what is provided and the design is broadly in line with the concept plan 

provided with the application. 

Discussion was held around the low seating and given that there is a high 

number of elderly residents in the area, consideration could be given to a 

different type of seat. Also, Ms Eden was requested to investigate whether a 

further disability carpark could be provided on the Burns Street side of the 

retail area (CPl). 

RESOLVED 

3/12/39 

That 

a) The report of Amy Eden, Planner be received; and 

b) Subject to the suggestions of providing higher alternative seating 

which are mare elderly friendly and the provision of a further disability 

carpark on the Burns Street side of the retail area (CPl), the Woipa 

?age 5 of 6 

15

16 

LLI 





District Council approves the Internal Site Landscaping Plan submitted 

with land use application LU/0162/10.02 at Burns Street, Leamington, 

legally described as Lot 1 DPS 85543, Lot 2 DPS85543, Lot 8 DPS85543, 

Lot 9 DPS85543 and Lot 12 DPS85543. 


Cr Milner/Cr Thomas 

a) The Internal Site Landscaping Plan is consistent with the positive 

aspects of the development identified by the Urban Design Specialist 

and CPTED principles. 

b) Any actual and potential effects on the environment will not be 

significant. 

There being no further business the meeting dosed at 9.50am 

CHAIRPERSON: 

DATE: 

CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

Page 6of6

...... 


To: 


From: 

Subject: 

Meeting Date: 

File Reference: 

LlANo. 

016/CU0100/07 

016/CU1/2001 

016/CU1/91 

016/CM/0003/11 

CM 016/45/02 

016/CM/327/96 

016/GEN/0055/11 

016/GEN/004 7/12 

016/GEN/0035/12 

016/GEN/0042/12 

016/GEN/0045/12 

021/GM/3602/2002 

016/G EN/0057/11 

016/GEN/0034/11 

016/GEN/0038/11 

District Licensing Agency 

Monthly Liquor Licensing Report 

The Chairperson and Members of the District Licensing Agency 

KARL TUTTY 

MONTHLY SCHEDULE OF LIQUOR LICENCE APPLICATIONS 

CONSIDERED BY STAFF UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

(SEPTEMBER 2012) 

22 October 2012 

01-85-10 

Applicants Name Application 

I 

I Associated 

TeAwamutu & 

Type 

Club Licence 

I 

Premises 

I 

TEAWAMUTU & 

District Memorial Renewal DISTRICT 

RSA Incorporated MEMORIAL RSA 

Cambridge Club Club Licence CAMBRIDGE CLUB 

Incorporated Renewal INCORPORATED 

Waipa Club Licence WAIPA 

Workingmen's Club Renewal WORKING MENS 

Incorporated CLUB 

John D Byett Club Manager TEAWAMUTU 

Certificate 

Renewal 

BOWLING CLUB 

Keith D Ireland Club Manager TEAWAMUTU 

Certificate ASSOCIATION 

Renewal FOOTBALL CLUB 

Brian J Gordon Club Manager TE PAHU SQUASH 

Certificate 

Renewal 

CLUB 

Desire Crous General Manager 

Certificate 

NO PREMISE 

Krista 0 Verdonk General Manager THE NASH BAR & 

Certificate RESTAURANT 

Amandeep Singh General Manager COUNTDOWN TE 

Certificate AWAMUTU 

Jacqueline M Gray General Manager COUNTDOWN TE 


Sam J Ward General Manager MYSTERY CREEK 

Certificate WINES 

Michelle J Wood General Manager CAMBRDIGE 

Certificate 

Renewal 

COUNTDOWN 

Donald E Harris General Manager CAMBRIDGE 

Certificate 

Renewal 

BOWLING CLUB 

Paul M Cox General Manager 

Certificate 

Renewal 

PAKnSAVE 

Che_ryl K Dy_son General Manag_er LIQUORLAND TE 

I 

Date Issued 

12/09/2012 

06/09/2012 

11/09/2012 

27/09/2012 

07/09/2012 

04/09/2012 

17/0912012 

17/0912012 

10/09/2012 

27/0912012 

13/0912012 

03/09/2012 

18/09/2012 

04/0912012 

16/0912012 

12188573 

17

18 


Renewal 

016JGEN/0048/11 Philippa L Woods General Manager THE RED CHERRY 

Certificate CAFE 

Renewal 

016/GEN/0052/11 Katherine A General Manager HAMILTON 

Clement Certificate AtRPORT MOTOR 

Renewal INN 

0 16/G EN/0056/11 Clare S Lee General Manager CAMBRIDGE NEW 

Certificate WORLD 

Renewal 

GM 016/47/02 Leeanne H Bryan General Manager THE STAR TAVERN 

Certificate 

Renewal 

016/0FF/0000/12 Temata Group Off Licence LEAMINGTON 

Limited LIQUOR 

016/0FF/0005112 Leamington Off Licence FRESH CHOICE 

Supermarket LEAMINGTON 

Limited 

016/0FF/06/05 Monavale OFF Licence MONA VALE 

Blueberries Limited Renewal BLUEBERRIES 

016/0FF/0010/08 V.J. & Co Limited OFF Licence SUPER LIQUOR 

Renewal CAMBRIDGE 

016/0N/0011/08 Roy EGower ON Licence SARNIAPARK 

Renewal 

016/0N/0011/08 Bever1ey 0 Gower ON Licence SARNIAPARK 

Renewal 

016/0N/13/2000 Hamilton Airport ON Licence HAMILTON 

Motor Inn Limited Renewal AIRPORT MOTOR 

INN 

016/SP/0095/12 Te Awamutu Club Special Licence TEAWAMUTU 

Incorporated CLUB 

016/SP/0088/12 Cafe 547 Ltd Special Licence PIRONGIA 

CLYDESDALES 

016/SP/0090/12 EmmaNewbom Special Licence THE WOOLSHED 

0 16/CLJ3/96 Te Awamutu Rugby Special Licence TEAWAMUTU 

Sports & RUGBY SPORTS & 

Recreation Club RECREATION CLUB 

Incorporated 

016/SP/0092112 Rosetown Darts Special Licence TE RAHU HALL 

Association 

016/0FF/0003/11 McArthur Holdings Special Licence TEAWAMUTU 

ltd EVENTS CENTRE 

016/SP/0096/12 Maurice Hickford Special Licence PIRONGIA CRAFT 

FAIR 

016/SP/0097/12 Special Olympics Special Licence WAJPWAIPA 

TeAwamutu RACING 

CLUB(KING 

COUNTRY ROOM) 

016/SP/0098/12 Nga Kakano Special Licence KIHIKIHI PRIMARY 

Kohanga Reo 0 SCHOOL HALL 

Kihikihi 

016/SP/0094/12 Kaipaki Promotions Special Licence MYSTERY CREEK 

Limited EVENTS CENTRE 

016/SP/0099/12 Go Lizze Limited Special Licence DON ROWLANDS 

CENTRE 

Total Number of t.:icences I Certificates Issued: 37 

w 



Re!Xlrt to Regulatory Commlnee 2.ZOcrober 2.01Z 

Monthly LJquor Llcenslng Report 

03/0912012 

04/0912012 

03/0912012 

06/09/2012 

06/09/2012 

0310912012 

24/0912012 

27/0912012 

06/09/2012 

06/09/2012 

17/0912012 

18/09/2012 

05/09/2012 

21/09/2012 

12/0912012 

10/09/2012 

07/09/2012 

18/0912012 

25/09/2012 

21/09/2012 

21/09/2012 

21/0912012 

Page 2 of3 

12188573

Ll.l 


To: 


From: 

Subject: 

Meeting Date: 


LLANo. 

016/GEN/0051/12 

016/GEN/0049/12 

016/GEN/0049/08 

016/GEN/0050/08 

016/GEN/0058/11 

016/G EN/0059/11 

016/GEN/0063/11 

016/0FF/0006/11 

016/0N/0007/12 

016/0N/0009/11 

District Licensing Agency 

Monthly Liquor Licensing Report 

The Chairperson and Members of the District licensing Agency 

Karl Tutty 

MONTHLY SCHEDULE OF LIQUOR LICENCE APPLICATIONS 

CONSIDERED BY STAFF UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY- (OCTOBER 

2012) 

19 November 2012 

01-85-10 

Applicants Name Application Associated Date Issued 

Type Premises 

Tracey D Reekers General Manager TEAWAMUTU 24/10/2012 

Certificate CLUB 

Melanie H General Manager THE REDOUBT BAR 09/1012012 

Jacobson Certificate &EATERY 

Baljeet Singh General Manager INDIAN AROMA 17/10/2012 

Certificate 

Renewal 

Harley C Roulston General Manager PAKnSAVETE 18/1012012 


Renewal 

Annegret Nickless General Manager CAMBRIDGE NEW 09/10/2012 

certificate WORLD 

Renewal 

Navraj K S Cheema General Manager FRESH CHOICE 18/10/2012 

Certificate SUPERMARKET 

Renewal 

Katie J Luke General Manager COMMERCIAL 30/10/2012 

Certificate HOTEL 

Renewal 

Satguru Enterprises OFF Licence PIRONGIA FOUR 17/10/2012 

Ltd Renewal SQUARE 

Alpha Hotel (2012) On Licence ALPHA HOTEL 12/10/2012 

Limited 

Cambridge ON Licence THE NASH BAR & 23/10/2012 

Hospitality 2011 Renewal RESTAURANT 

Limited 

Record Number 

21

Planning Regulatory Report Landuse 

Where between 01 September 2012 and 30 September 2012 

Cambridge 

Decision 

AppNo Valuation Name Address Description By Decision Issued 

John Francis 108 King Street Erect workshop within 

LV/0127/12 04361/072.00 Thurston Cambridge 3434 internal boundary setback Delegated /#APPROVED 26/09/2012 

31 Robinson Street 

LV/0091/12 04361/976.00 Jamm1 Sons limited Cambridge 3434 Resite dwellling Delegated #APPROVED 21/09/2012 

37 Wordsworth Street 

Ap Kowhai Property Leamington Erect dwelling within road 

LU/0113/12 04510/204.00 Ltd Cambridge 3432 boundary setback Delegated II APPROVED 3/09/2012 

Jason Edward 11 Scott Street Buildings within side yard 

Pettigrew, Andrea Leamington in conjunction with 

LU/0138/12 04521/655.00 Wendy Pettigrew Cambridge 3432 SP/0021/12 Delegated #APPROVED 27/09/2012 

Robert Carl Leigh, 

Angela Margaret 15 lsobel Hodgson Drive Erect dwelling exceeding 

LU/0120/12 04380/280.11 Leigh Cambridge 3434 site coverage Delegated IIAPPROVED 4/09/2012 

45 Allwm Drive Build Caltex Diesel stop in 

Chevron New RD 1 Ha utapu Special Industrial 

LU/0117/12 04380/215.09 Zealand Cambridge 3493 ZOne Delegated lfAPPROVED 4/09/2012 

Hami$h Gordon 

Rennie. Mart:aret 130 Victoria Street Erect shed within internal 

LU/0102/12 04361/515.00 lillian Thomson C.:tmbridge 3434 boundary setback Delegated ltAPPROVED 11/09/2012 

waste Storm 

Road Water Water Water Comm Parks 

No No No No No No 





Ye$ No No No No No 

No No No No No No

TeAwamutu 

Decision Waste Storm 

AppNo Valuation Name Address Description By Decision Issued Road Water Water Water Comm Parks 

Wilksbrooke 132 Kihikihi Road Construct garage for 

LU/0118/12 04482/864.00 Motors Ltd Te Awamutu 3800 commercia I U'>e Delegated #APPROVED 4/09/2012 No No No No No No 

Erect additions.. Non 

complying with the 

ReadyToGol 119 Alexandra Street shopping frontage and 

LU/0119/12 04492/176.00 limited TP Awamutu 3800 car parking. Delegated #APPROVED 18/09/2012 No Yes Yes Yes No No 

KEY 

SLCA Special Landscape Character Area 

CCCA Central Cambridge Character Area 

DCs Development Contributions

TeAwamutu 



Ceekaybee Ltd, Kihikihi 

&0 Whitmore Street 

SP/00&0/12 04552/629.00 Deeavee Ltd Te Awamutu 3800 1 residential lot into 4 Delegated #APPROVED 12/09/2012 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

KEY 

SLCA Special landscape Character Area MElT Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust I 

LAH Long Association with a Holding EPL Environmental Protection Lot 

TOR Transferable Development Rights HPL Heritage Protection Lot 

so Surplus Dwelling LUCL Landuse consent lot 

NPV & TR No Productive Value Topographical Restraint OCs Development Contributions

Planning Regulatory Report Landuse 

Where between 01 October 2012 and 31 October 2012 

Cambridge 

Decision 


St Kilda Road 

Grantchester Farms RD1 Erect 3 advertising signs 

LU/0136/12 04380/359.92 ltd Cambridge 3493 residential zone Delegated #APPROVED 18/10/2012 

Establish, operate and 

maintain 

Two Degrees 32 Lake Street telecommunications 

LU/0135/12 04370/603.00 Mobile Limited Cambridge 3434 facility Delegated #APPROVED 11/10/2012 

Linda Adele Gilbert, 350 Lake View Drive 

Kevin William RD2 Garage within internal 

LU/0139/12 04520/083.11 Gilbert Cambridge 3494 boundary setback Delegated #APPROVED 11/10/2012 

Beaudene Henton 98 Maungakawa Road Erect internal access 

LU/0143/12 04380/334.14 Bate Cambridge 3496 garage/dwelling extension Delegated #APPROVED 19/10/2012 

Cain Andrew 1/898 Kaipaki Road 

Taylor, Stephanie RD3 Enclose lean to within 

LU/0140/12 04525/244.04 I so bel Taylor Cambridge 3495 internal boundary setback Delegated #APPROVED 11/10/2012 

Kakepuku 

Decision 


Peter George 33 Woodstock Road 

Wilson, Jean Gladys RD 1 Buildings within internal 

LU/0150/12 04631/081.00 Irene Wilson Te Awamutu 3879 boundary setback Delegated #APPROVED 17/10/2012 

Waste 

Road Water Water 

No No No 

No No No 

No No No 

No No No 

No No No 

Waste 

Road Water Water 

No No No 

Storm 

Water 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Storm 

Water 

No 

Comm 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Comm 

No 

Parks 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Parks 

No 

w ...

TeAwamutu 



Timothy Shaughan 29 Whitaker Street 

Fookes, Lynette Kihikihi 

LU/0130/12 04552/531.00 Jean Fookes Te Awamutu 3800 Resited dwelling Delegated #APPROVED 2/10/2012 No No No No No No 

1/5022 Ohaupo Road 

Fergus Andrew RD 1 Operate restaurant and 

LU/0115/12 04495/241.00 Barker Te Awamutu 3879 hold functions Delegated #APPROVED 19/10/2012 Yes No No No No No 

69 St Leger Road Implement shed within 

Valerie Jean RD5 the internal boundary 

LU/0129/12 04480/044.02 Morgan Te Awamutu 3875 setback Delegated #APPROVED 19/10/2012 No No No No No No 

Parklands 

Southdown Stud 312 Turere Lane 

LU/0131/12 04480/008.33 Ltd Te Awamutu 3800 Resite a garage Delegated #APPROVED 2/10/2012 No No No No No No 

150 Flat Road Retain accessory building 

George Bernard RD5 within intranal boundary 

LU/0144/12 04551/155.01 Gwynn Te Awamutu 3875 setback Delegated #APPROVED 30/10/2012 No No No No No No 

Add office/beauty room 

Brent Nicoll, Stacey 881 Pakura Street within the internal 

LU/0126/12 04470/177.00 Buffett Te Awamutu 3800 boundary setback Delegated #APPROVED 4/10/2012 No No No No No No 

Graeme Kenneth 

Sanders, Gael 620 Racecourse Road Farm building in the 

LU/0141/12 04471/397.00 Heather Sanders Te Awamutu 3800 internal boundary setback Delegated #APPROVED 30/10/2012 No No No No No No 

KEY 

SLCA Special Landscape Character Area 

CCCA Central Cambridge Character Area 

DCs Development Contributions

Planning Regulatory Report Subdivision 

Period between 01 October 2012 and 31 October 2012 

Cambridge 

AppNo Valuation Name Address Description 

Decision 

By Decision Issued 

Kaipaki Road 

RD 3 

SP/0126/12 04S25/097.17 Landcycle Ltd Cambridge 3495 1 Rural lot into 2- LUCL Delegated #APPROVED 11/10/2012 

Kakepuku 

Decision 


Gavin Richard Weal, RD 5 

Wyatt Road 

SP/0138/12 04611/212.02 Susan Crawford Weal Te Awamutu 3875 Rural boundary relocation Delegated #APPROVED 25/10/2012 

Peter George Wilson, 33 Woodstock Road 

Jean Gladys Irene RD 1 

SP/0123/12 04631/081.00 Wilson Te Awamutu 3879 1 Rural lot into 2- TOR Delegated #APPROVED 18/10/2012 

Russell Mark 

Johnson, Gladys 833 Paterangi Road 1 Rural lot into 2- 25ha 

SP/0135/12 04611/011.00 Annette Johnson Te Awamutu 3800 and boundary relocation Delegated #APPROVED 8/10/2012 

Maungatautari 

Decision 


KA&PM 589 Victoria Road 

Chamberlain RD 1 1 Rural lot into 3 - LAH & 

SP/0027/12 04445/401.00 Partnership Cambridge 3493 so Delegated #APPROVED 11/10/2012 

Robert Kelvin 1146 Maungakawa 

Berridge, Vicki Marie Road 1 Rural lot into 2 

SP/0139/12 04445/579.00 Berridge Cambridge 3496 Delegated #APPROVED 19/10/2012 

Waste Storm 


Yes No No No Yes Yes 

Waste Storm 





Waste Storm 



Yes No No No Yes Yes

KEY 

SLCA Special Landscape Character Area MElT Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust I 

LAH Long Association with a Holding EPL Environmental Protection Lot 

TOR Transferable Development Rights HPL Heritage Protection Lot 

SD Surplus Dwelling LUCL Landuse consent lot 

NPV & TR No Productive Value Topographical Restraint DCs Development Contributions

LLI 


To: 


From: 

Subject: 

Regulatory Committee ·; nd 

Community Board Re art 

INFORMATION ONLY 

The Chairperson and Members of the Regulatory Committee and 

Community Boards 

(Copy to NZ Police) 

Manager Planning and Regulatory 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT QUARTERLY REPORT {1 JULY 2012 

- 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 

Meeting Dates: 19 November 2012- Regulatory Committee 


1 PROPOSAL 

7 November 2012- Cambridge Community Board 

13 November 2012-Te Awamutu Community Board 

15-15-03/3 

To provide the results of the Planning and Regulatory Services Monitoring and 

Enforcement activity for the period of 1 July 2012 to 30 September 2012. 

2 SUMMARY 

During the first quarter of the 12/13 financial year the Council enforcement staff 

completed 87 resource consent inspections and found 5 breaches of consent 

conditions which resulted in 2 Abatement Notice and 8 warning letters being issued. 

No infringement notices were issued. 

In relation to breaches of the District Plan provisions, 13 incidents were investigated. 

This resulted in 3 Abatement Notice and 6 warning letters being issued. Seven signs 

were removed from the Council road reserve for this quarter. 

Other enforcement includes 2 parking infringements issued; 1 warning letter issued 

for heavy vehicles parked in a residential area, 6 illegal dumping complaints 

investigated with 4 warning letters issued. 

The prosecution against Te Awamutu Hire Centre was concluded on 13th of August 

2012 at the Te Awamutu District Court with a guilty plea for failing to secure trade 

waste correctly under the Trade Waste Bylaw. A conviction was entered with an 

agreement to pay Council $9,380.26 in reparation. 

TRIM REF: 12196469 

39

5 REPORT 

5.1 Complaints 

5.2 

The total number of complaints received for breaches of the RMA, resource consent 

conditions, District plan rules, bylaws, and general enforcement this quarter was 48. 

A breakdown ofthe complaints are as follows: 

• Resource Consent complaints 11 

• District Plan complaints 13 

• Parking complaints 18 

• litter complaints 6 

• Overhanging trees impeding footpath 0 

• Long grass becoming fire hazard 0 

• Signs 0 

• Other 0 

Abatement Notices 

Five Abatement Notices were issued this quarter. This involved the following: 

• Two for failing to complete sealing of entrances as a requirement of resource 

consent on Bryce Street and Hannon Road; 

• Two for having wandering stock on public roads in the Te Pahu I Smith Road 

area causing adverse environmental effects on road safety; 

• One for housing and keeping of animals in a residential area, involving horses 

in the Gleneagles housing area which created a nuisance. 

5.3 RMA Infringement Notices 

There was no infringement notices issued this quarter. 

5.4 Warning letters 

5.5 Signs 

..... 



Eleven warning letters (excluding RMA condition enforcement) were sent from the 

Enforcement team for the following activities: 

• Keeping of animals in Residential Zones- bees/roosters /ponies; 

• Boundary encroachments; 

• Heavy trucks parked in residential areas; 

• Glare from Cambridge Golf Club; 

• Non complying signs and breaching Litter Bylaw; 

• Vehicles advertised for sale on road reserve; 

• Dust and non farming activity in Rural Zone. 

Seven signs were removed from the road reserve during this quarter. 

Report to the Regu Ia tory Committee and Community Boards- August 2012 

Monitoring and Enforcement Quarterly Report (1 July 2012 - 30 September 2012) 

Page 3 of 10 

41

) litter 

There were six complaints associated with litter concerns. 

Four warning letters were given to residents of a housing block that were putting out 

black rubbish bags which were not being collected in Te Awamutu. 

c) Overhanging Trees Impeding Footpath/ Fire Hazard (long grass) 

There has been no complaints regarding overhanging trees impeding footpath access 

or fire hazards regarding long grass. 

d) General 

It should be noted that the Senior Enforcement Officer was on annual leave for one 

month during this period. 

5.8 Noise Control 

Under the Resource Management Act 1991, Council staff and contractors responded 

to a total of 230 excessive noise complaints (as compared to 307 in the last quarter). 

These related to the following Wards: 

• 104 in the Cambridge/Maungatautari Wards; 

• 109 in Te Awamutu/Kakepuku Wards; 

• 17 in the Pirongia Ward. 

There were 22 complaints of unreasonable noise, compared to 10 in the last quarter, 

resulting in three noise measurements been taken. A number of these related to the 

use of motor cross bikes used for recreational purposes in the rural zone, and to 

construction noise. 

The complaints resulted in 24 written directions to reduce noise and approximately 

37 verbal directions. After-hours contractors were directed to serve a written 

excessive noise direction in any circumstances where noise was excessive between 

ll.OOpm and 7.00am. This was to reduce the number of repeat visits to properties. 

As a result the number of written directions has risen, and the number of repeat 

visits has fallen. 

There were no noise Abatement Notices or Infringement Notices issued and there 

were no seizures of stereo equipment. 

5.9 Nuisance/ Fire Permits 

LLI 



Report to the Regulatory CommitteE! and Community Boards- August 2012 

Monitoring and Enforcement Quarterly Report (1 July 2012-30 September 2012) 

Page 5 of 10 

43

44 

Staff responded to 20 nuisance complaints during this quarter, compared to 42 in the 

last quarter. Of these, 15 were for smoke nuisance complaints. The remainder were 

for rubbish, vermin, odour and housing matters. 

A total of 52 urban fire permits and 13 rural restricted fire permits (e.g. Pirongia 

township) were issued. The rural fire season is open with no permits required. 

5.10 Liquor Licensing 

There were no recorded liquor licensing complaints from the public. 

There have been 55 inspections of licensed premises undertaken in this quarter 

including some after-hours, with minor issues dealt with by verbal or written advice. 

Two small controlled purchase operations were undertaken by the Cambridge Police 

in conjunction with District licensing Agency staff. These focussed on cafe style 

premises and off licences. Of the nine premises visited, five sold to a seventeen year 

old. All premises and managers are likely to face action before either the Liquor 

Licensing Authority or District Court. 

5.11 Animal Control 

There were 1392 animal control complaints or request for service in this quarter. Of 


the telephone. The balance of 514 required investigation (note that some of these 

calls related to the same issue). Of these: 

• 46 were in relation to stock trespassing on private property or wandering on 

roads; 

• 16 complaints were about dog bites or attacks 

• 20 were dog aggression and/or rushing in a public place and/or stock worrying 

complaints; 

• 283 were for wandering dogs; 

• 122 were barking complaints; 

• 27 related to other matters. 

These complaints resulted in 101 dogs being impounded, of which 72 were claimed, 6 

were euthanased, 9 were re-homed and one stolen. Thirteen remain impounded or 

in foster care awaiting re-homing. No infringement notices were issued. 

The number of active dogs peaked at over 7000 during the quarter, but as at 30 

September the total was 6,996 active dogs in the District with, 6582 of those dogs 

registered and 414 yet to be registered. 

LLI 



Report to the Regulatory Committee and Community Boards- August 2012 


Page 6of 10

Of the total dogs registered, 9 are classified as dangerous due to aggressive 

behaviour, and 43 as menacing due to breed or behaviour. 

5.12 Registered Premises 

There were five complaints received about food premises or items of food in this 

quarter. This resulted in the premises being inspected by an Environmental Health 

Officer, however no requisitions were issued. 

Twenty eight food or health premises are operating unregistered (from a total of 

371). They have received a final warning that they will face prosecution if this is not 

resolved. 

There were 121 food inspections carried out in this quarter. Eleven health premises 

(hairdressers, funeral directors etc) were also visited. 

6 Statistics- Year to Date 

6.1 A copy ofthe Monitoring and Enforcement Statistics and other permit information 

for the period 1 July 2012- 30 September 2012 is attached as Appendix 1. 

Wayne Allan 

MANAGER PLANNING & REGULATORY 

Ross McNeil 

GROUP MANAGER PLANNING & COMMUNITY RELATIONS 

..._. 



Report to the Regulatory Committee and Community Boards- August 2012 


Page 7 of 10 

45

LLI 


To: 


From: 

Subject: 

Meeting Date: 


APPLICANT: 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

SITE AREA: 

Regulatory Committee 

The Chairperson and Members of the Regulatory Committee 

Gareth Moran 

PG/0032/12 

19 1 h November 2012 

04445/490.10 

ZONING- DISTRICT PLAN: Rural 

PROPOSAL: 

Wanabehere Trust 

345 Maungakawa Road, Te Mira 

Report 

Lot 1 DP 380993 and Lot 2 DP 412588 and comprised 

Certificate of Title 446803. 

24.6452 hectares 

SURVEYOR: Cogswell Surveys Limited 

1 THE SITE 

Request to confirm four Environmental Protection Lot (EPL) 

entitlements 

1.1 The site is a rural property situated within steep undulating topography at 345 

Maungakawa Road, Te Miro and is legally described as Lot 1 DP 380993 and Lot 2 DP 

412588 and comprised in Certificate of Title 446803. 

1.2 The site is almost entirely covered in bush containing a variety of tree species from 

exotics such as remnant pines and wattles, through to good quality native bush. A 

small area of bush has been cleared about the existing dwelling and those areas 

utilised for access. 

1.3 The site accommodates one existing dwelling which has been architecturally 

designed to blend in with the natural landscape. Access to the property is currently 

via an existing vehicle crossing connecting to Maungakawa Road. 

1.4 There is an existing Scenic Reserve (Maungakawa Scenic Reserce) located to the 

north east of the property and the holdings to the west of the property are used for 

pastoral grazing purposes. 

in 

49

50 

Jmase. 

l 

Flsure 2: Operative District Plan, Planning Map 

The subject property is zoned rural under the provisions of the Operative District 

Plan, but does not form part of any relevant policy areas. The existing Maungakawa 

scenic reserve has been identified to the north east of the property. 

Report to Rquiltory Committee Meetlf"W -19" NCMmber 20!12 

Request to confirm four Environmental Protection Lot entitlements. 

Pi11C2 

PG/OOJl/12 Final Ret Report

l 

Figure 3: Proposed District Plan, Planning Map 

1.5 The subject property has been identified in the Proposed District Plan, Planning Maps 

as containing a 'Significant Natural Area". The PDP refers to this area as "Indigenous 

forest and scrub north of and around Maungakawa Road" and it is classified as an 

area of regional significance. 

2 BACKGROUND 

April2004 

2.1 In April 2004, C Keiser and E Thomass were granted subdivision consent (SP4456) to 

create two rural lots of 21.3 hectares and 6.7 hectares under rule 10.3.2(2)(d) - 

dwelling on land with little or no productive value and topographical restraints. 

2.2 The Certificates of Title for the subdivision were issued on the 01 December 2008. 

2.3 As part of the subdivision process a consent notice was registered on the Certificate 

of Title requiring the ongoing protection of the native bush located within the 

boundaries of Lot 1 DP380993. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting- 19 November 2012 


Page3 

PG{0032{12 Final Res Report 

51

54 

Flpare 5: Proposed Lots 1 and 2 (Area to be Sifted to DOC) 

Page6 

PG/0032/U Final Rll Report

60 

On the basis that approximately 22.55ha of regional significant native bush will be 

protected in perpetuity, it is also recommended that Council waive the parks and 

reserves component of the development contribution for the subsequent 

development of Certificate of Title 446803. However, all remaining development 

contributions (i.e. two full HEU's for the TOR lots, and the remaining portion of the 

development contribution for the two lots proposed for CT446803) will not be 

waived by Council. 

9 RECOMMENDATION 

That 

a) The report of Gareth Moran, Planner be received; and 

Gareth Moran 

PLANNER 

b) The Waipa District Council confirms that jour Environmental Protection Lots 

for the property at 345 Maungakawa Road, legally described as Lot 1 DP 

380993 and Lot 2 DP 412588 comprised in Certificate of Title 446803 can be 

applied for; and 

c) The Waipa District Council waives the parks and reserves component of the 

development contribution for the two lots proposed for the subsequent 

development of Certificate of Title 446803. 


a) Four Environmental Protect!on lots are considered to be appropriate for the 

protection of combined areas referenced as lot 1 and 3 on the accompanying 

Cogswell Surveys Scheme Plan. 

b) The application is not in conflict with the Objectives and Policies of the 

Operative and Proposed Waipa District Plans and the potential adverse effects 

on the environment are considered to be minor. 

Approved for the Regulatory Committee Agenda by 

Manager- Planning and Regulatory 

Wayne Allan 

Report to Re11ulatory Committee Meetlfl8- 19 November 2012 


Page 12 

PG/0032/12 Final Reg Report

LIJ 


To: 


From: 

Subject: 

Meeting Date: 


APPLICANT: 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

SITE AREA: 

Regulatory Committee 

The Chairperson and Members ofthe Regulatory Committee 

Hayley Beard 

SP /0106/11.01 


04601/111.00 

ZONING- DISTRICT PLAN: Rural 

PROPOSAL: 

AL Hooker, ARJ Hooker 

79 Bell Road, RD 6, Te Awamutu, 3876 

Lot 1 DPS 16384 & Lot 1 DPS 81621 (SA64B/58) 

59.0260ha 

SURVEYOR: CKL Surveys Limited 

Report 

Section 127 application to change Condition 4 of subdivision 

consent SP/0106/11 

NB: This report sets out the advice of the reporting planner to the Regulatory 

Committee. This report has yet to be considered by the Committee, and the 

recommendation contained in the report is not the decision on the application. A 

decision will only be made after the Committee has considered the application and 

heard from the applicant and any submitters. 

This Section 127 application has been referred to the Regulatory Committee as 

planning staff are of the opinion that the matter in contention is one that requires 

determination by the Regulatory Committee. 

1 THE SITE 

1.1 The site is located at 79 Bell Road, Te Awamutu. The site has an area of 59.0260ha 

and is held in one Certificate of Title legally described as Lot 1 DPS 16384 and Lot 1 

DPS 81621 (CT: SA64B/58). 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting- November 2012 

AL & ARJ Hooker- Section 127 Application- Planners Report 

Page 1 

12198240 

63

64 

1.2 The property is adjacent to and farmed in conjunction with lot 1 OP 8804 (CT: 

SA14C/1038) which is also owned by Al Hooker. That allotment has a size of 

67.7803ha. 

1.3 The topography of the site is undulating land with the highest points on the property 

being located at the Bell Road frontage. 

1.4 The site contains an existing dwelling and detached garage, and a former farm shed 

converted for use as a small museum (The Swingletree}. The Swingletree was granted 

a landuse consent in September 1997 (RC/2340). The remaining area of the site is 

used for farmland and grazing purposes. 

1.5 The surrounding properties comprise rural-residential sized sections and farmland. 

Diagram 1 below illustrates the site and surrounding area. 

2 BACKGROUND 

2.1 The property has been subdivided on multiple occasions. In August 2008, subdivision 

consent was granted (SP/0126/08} for a two-staged, four lot subdivision to create 

two additional allotments from the two underlying Certificate of Title (lot 1 DPS 

16384 and lot 1 OPS 81621- SA64B/58 and lot 1 DP 8804- SA14C/1038}. 

2.2 This subdivision was as follows: 

• Stage 1 - lots 1 (S,OOOm 2 } and 4 (S8.38ha) were proposed to be subdivided 

pursuant to the 2Sha Rule and a simultaneous boundary relocation pursuant to 

Rule 10.3.3.1. 

• Stage 2- lots 2 (S,000m 2 } and 3 (67.33ha) were proposed to be subdivided 

pursuant to the long Association with a Holding (LAH} provisions. 



Page2 

11198240

2.3 A section 127 application was granted on the 30 September 2008 (SP/0210/08) to 

change condition 8 relating to entrance formation for proposed Lot 4 from a heavy 

commercial to a medium commercial. No works towards implementing this 

subdivision have been carried out. 

2.4 A second subdivision application was received by Council in June 2011 to subdivide 

the same two allotments (Lot 1 DPS 16384 and Lot 1 DPS 81621- SA64B/58 and Lot 1 

DP 8804- SA14C/1038} into four allotments (SP/0106/11}. Essentially the subdivision 

proposal was for the same activity as approved in SP/0126/08, however the location 

ofthe allotments changed and the subdivision was no longer required to be staged. 

The subdivision was to create the following allotments: 

• Lot 1 - 5000m 2 - vacant allotment 

• Lot 2 - 5000m 2 - vacant LAH allotment 

• lot 3 - 12. 79ha - Boundary relocation between Lot 1 DP 8804 and lot 1 DPS 

16384 

• lot 4 - 45.24ha - balance to be amalgamated with Part lot 1 DP 8804 

(SA14C/1038) 

As a result of a Section 92 further information request regarding the method of 

subdivision and location/formation of the entrance to proposed Lot 1, the Applicant 

removed lot 1 from the subdivision. 

The subdivision consent for lots 2, 3 and 4 was granted on 13 March 2012 and 

included a condition requiring the surrender of the previous subdivision consent 

SP/0126/08 discussed in Section 2.1 above. 

The approved allotment configuration is demonstrated on the subdivision scheme 

plan contained in Appendix 2. 

3 THE PROPOSAL 

3.1 The proposal is to change Condition 4 as it relates to Lot 2 of the recently granted 

subdivision SP/0106/11. Condition 4 is as follows: 

'7elephone 

C4 The consent holder must arrange with a telephone company for the 

reticulation of telephone cables to serve all lots and pay all costs attributable 

to such work. The consent holder must submit to the Council written 

confirmation from the telephone company that satisfactory arrangements 

have been made for the reticulation of the service to all lots in the subdivision. 

This is to include if necessary the resiting, repositioning or removal of any 

telephone cables which exist on the land being subdivided. 

------------------------------------------------------------------ 



Page 3 

11198140 

65

{2) Repealed. 

(a) the holder of a subdivision consent must apply under this section for a change 

or cancellation of the consent before the deposit of the survey plan (and must 

apply under section 221 for a variation or canceflation of a consent notice 

after the deposit of the survey plan); and 

{b) no holder of any consent may apply for a change or canceflation of a 

condition on the duration of the consent. 

{3) Sections 88 to 121 apply, with all necessary modifications, as if- 

{a) the application were an application for a resource consent for a discretionary 

activity; and 

{b) the references to a resource consent and to the activity were references only 

to the change or cancellation of a condition and the effects of the change or 

cancellation respectively. 

{4) For the purposes of determining who is adversely affected by the change or 

cancellation, the local authority must consider, in particular, every person who 

{a) made a submission on the original application; and 

{b) may be affected by the change or cancellation. 

4.2 The request to change condition 4 of SP/0106/11 meets the relevant tests of Section 

127 as follows: 

(1) The applicant is the holder of the subdivision consent. 

(a) The applicant has not deposited the survey plan; and 

(b) The holder of the consent is not applying to change or cancel a condition 

relating to the duration of the consent. 

4.3 The change of condition is to be considered as a Discretionary Activity under Section 

104 of the RMA and an assessment of affected persons is provided in Section 5.3 

below. 

5 NOTIFICATION 

5.1 Notification Rule 1.5.5(2) of the Operative Waipa District Plan states that an 

application for resource consent need not be notified if: 

• The consent authority is satisfied that the adverse effect on the environment of 

the activity for which the consent is sought will be minor; and 

• Written approval has been obtained from every person whom the consent 

authority is satisfied may be adversely affected by the granting of the resource 

consent. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting- No11ember 2012 


Page 5 

12198240 

67

68 

5.2 The assessment of effects undertaken by Council's processing planner, Kathryn Drew, 

for the original subdivision application SP/0106/11 concluded that the adverse 

effects of the subdivision are minor and can be mitigated by the imposition of 

conditions. With regard to consideration of the effects on the environment of the 

amendment to Condition 4, the following sections of this report conclude that the 

adverse effects are negligible. 

5.3 Section 127{4) of the RMA states that for the purpose of considering who may be 

adversely affected by the change of conditions, Council must consider every person 

who may be affected by the change. In this regard the only persons considered to be 

adversely affected by the change of condition are the applicant/owners. Accordingly, 

no written approvals are required. 

5.4 The Section 127 application has accordingly been processed on a non-notified basis. 

6 CLASSIFICATION OF APPLICATION 

6.1 The subject site is zoned Rural in the Operative Waipa District Plan, and Rural in the 

Proposed Waipa District Plan. There are no other designations or overlays in either 

District Plan that affect the site. 

6.2 The original subdivision (SP/0106/11) assessment determined the proposal complied 

with the boundary relocation and LAH provisions of the Operative Waipa District 

Plan. As a result, the application was processed as a Discretionary Activity. 

6.3 The Proposed District Plan was publicly notified in May 2012. As SP /0106/11 was 

approved in March 2012 no assessment was undertaken for the Proposed District 

Plan. 

6.4 Section 8GB of the RMA sets out the circumstances when a rule in a Proposed District 

Plan is deemed to have legal effect. In this case, there are no rules from the 

Proposed District Plan that directly affect this application that are considered to have 

legal effect. The Proposed District Plans rules are accordingly not considered further. 

6.5 In accordance with Section 127(3)(a) of the RMA the application to change a consent 

condition is considered as a Discretionary Activity. 

7 SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT 

7.1 A consent authority must have regard to a number of matters under section 104 of 

the RMA when considering a Section 127 application. 

Those considerations include the actual and potential effects of an activity on the 

environment, the relevant provisions of an operative and proposed district plan, 

regional plan or other relevant statutory document, and any other matter the 

Report to Regulatory CommiHee Meeting - November 2012 

AL & ARJ Hooker- Section 127 Application - Planners Report 

Page 6 

12198240

consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the 

application. 

The following assessment addresses all relevant considerations under Section 104 of 

the RMA as they relate to this application. 

7.2 Assessment of Environmental Effects 

7.2.1 Telecommunication connection effects 

The applicant seeks that no telecommunication connection is installed at the time of 

subdivision to service proposed Lot 2. The reasons for this request are outlined in 

Section 3.2 above, with the main reasons being that an alternative means of 

connection can be provided to service the allotment, and it is cost prohibitive to 

provide the connection. 

The lack of provision of a telecommunication connection may however result in an 

additional cost on a subsequent land owner of the proposed allotment on the basis 

that if they wished to connect via this means, the costs will be borne by them. Given 

the size of the proposed allotment and the close proximity of the allotment to both 

Pirongia and Te Awamutu, it is anticipated the site will be attractive to future 

purchasers as a rural-residential allotment who would generally expect this 

connection to be provided to the boundary of their site without additional costs 

(apart from service lead-ins). 

While a Consent Notice, in accordance with Section 221 of the RMA, could be utilised 

to advise any potential purchasers or land owners that a telecommunication 

connection was not existing for the site, this mitigation measure is considered to be 

inappropriate in this instance due to the location of the site, and on the basis that the 

applicant has not demonstrated that alternative connections can be appropriately 

provided to service the site. Whilst the costs of providing this connection are 

relatively high, the costs are reflective ofthe nature of development in this locality. 

An amendment to this condition could also impair public confidence in the consistent 

administration of the District Plan and set a precedent for the misuse of the 

telecommunication connection provisions. In the last 12 months three subdivision 

consents have been granted in the surrounding area which are required to provide 

telecommunication connections. Should this application be approved for an 

exemption, it would be unfair to the surrounding subdividers who have complied 

with this condition. 

7 .2.2 Overall assessment of effects 

There will be no adverse visual or traffic effects as a result of the proposed 

subdivision. An amendment to the requirement for a telecommunication connection 

is considered to have an effect on the future land owners of the site and the 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - November 2012 


Page 7 

12198240 

69

72 

Policy 15.3.3.1 - Servicing requirements 

All proposed urban development and subdivision shall be serviced to a level that 

will provide for the anticipated activities approved In a structure plan, or otherwise 

anticipated within the Zone. Servicing requirements shall include: 

(a) Reserves for community, active and passive recreation; and 

(b) Pedestrian and cycle connections; and 

(c) Roads; and 

(d) Public transport infrastructure, e.g. bus stops; and 

(e) Telecommunications; and 

(/) Stormwater collection, treatment and disposal; and 

(g) Wastewater treatment and reticulation, water provision for domestic and fire 

fighting purposes; and 

(h) Anticipating and providing for connections to identified adjacent future growth 

areas. 

Polley 15.3.3.2 - Co-ordination between servicing and development and 

subdivision 

Development and subdivisions shall: 

(a) Be located in areas where infrastructural capacity has been planned and 

funded; and 

(b) In areas subject to an approved Structure Plan, provide sufficient 

infrastructural capacity to meet the demand identified in the Structure Plan; 

and 

(c) Achieve the lot yield anticipated in an approved Structure Plan; and 

(d) Include infrastructure provision for both the strategic infrastructure network 

and local infrastructure connections. 

The objectives and policies of the Proposed District Plan clearly require 

telecommunication connections at the time of subdivision,. These provisions are 

supported by the Assessment Criteria in Section 21. In particular 21.1.15.14(a)(iii) 

states regard shall be given to "the ability of the network utility provider to effectively 

and efficiently provide the required service to the entire site or future development. 

Where the service cannot be provided to the entire site or future development the 

application will be declined". 

Therefore it is considered the application and consequential consent conditions, 

when reviewed under the Proposed District Plan provisions, are considered to be in 

compliance with the Proposed District Plan. The approval of the request by the 

applicant to amend condition 4 would result in the proposal being inconsistent with 

the above objectives and policies. 

Furthermore the objectives and policies of the Proposed District Plan indicate that 

there has been no shift in Council's thinking about the need for subdivisions to 

provide connections from that original proposed with the Operative District Plan 

even though some other Councils are providing for such alternatives. 



Page 10 

12198240

7.3.4 Weighting of District Plans 

The foregoing assessment of the application under the operative and proposed 

District Plans produces the same outcome, being that a telecommunication 

connection is required. In these circumstances, there is no need to consider the 

relative weight to be applied to the provisions of the two plans. 

7.4 Provisions of Other Statutory Planning Documents 

The application is consistent with the provisions of the Waikato Regional Policy 

Statement and the Waikato Regional Plan, and does not raise any issues that are 

contrary to any national policy statement. 

7.5 Other Relevant Matters 

There are no other relevant matters that require consideration in the assessment of 

this application. 

8 PART 2 MATTERS 

8.1 All considerations under Section 104 are subject to Part 2 of the RMA, which sets out 

the purpose and principles of the RMA. 

8.2 Part 2 of the RMA is its purpose and principles. The overall purpose is to promote the 

sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This is defined as 

managing the use and development of resources in a way that enables people and 

communities to provide for the social, economic and cultural well-being, and for their 

health and safety, while avoid ing, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the 

environment. 

8.3 The nature of the change sought can be perceived as having both positive and 

negative consequences when viewed against Section 5. On one hand the change will 

enable the applicant to provide for their social and economic well-being at a limited 

cost, whereas on the other hand it may result in future landowners being penalized 

and subject to those costs which should have been borne by the applicant being the 

one that directly benefited financial from the creation of the new allotment. 

8.4 Section 6 requires consent authorities to recognise and provide for a number of 

matters of national importance in exercising powers and functions under the RMA 

and Section 7 lists the other matters to which Council shall have particular regard. 

There are no Section 6 and Section 7 matters that are relevant to the amendments 

sought by this application. 

8.5 Section 8 requires all persons exercising powers under it to take into account the 

principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In terms of this proposal, consultation was 



Page 11 

12198240 

73

74 

undertaken as part ofthe original application with Nga lwi Toopu o Waipa who raised 

no concerns with the proposal. Accordingly, it is not considered that there is nothing 

in the proposal that would conflict with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 

8.6 Overall, it is considered that the application would not offend any of the matters 

contained within Part 2. The proposal would enable the applicant to provide for their 

wellbeing while avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on the 

environment. 

9 CONCLUSION 

9.1 The proposal is to amend Condition 4 of the subdivision consent SP/0106/11. 

9.2 The amendment is sought for a variety of reasons including the restriction of utilising 

alternative technologies, costs, lack of flexibility for land owners, and the availability 

of wireless and satellite technology. 

9.3 The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the intent of the relevant 

objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan and the Proposed District Plan. 

9.4 In conclusion, having had regard to the relevant matters set out in section 104 of the 

RMA, it is considered that the application to amend Condition 4 of SP/0106/11 be 

declined, as the application is contrary to the relevant provisions within the 

Operative and Proposed District Plans. 


10.1 That 

a) The report of H Beard, Planner for the Waipa District Council, be received; and 

b) In consideration of Sections 104, and pursuant to Sections 1048, 108 and 220 

of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waipa District Council declines 

the application to change Condition 4 of SP/0106/11 by AL & ARJ Hooker. 


a) The application is inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the operative 

Waipa District Plan and the proposed Waipa District Plan. 

b) Granting consent for an alternative to the requirements for the provision of 

telecommunication connection to a new allotment conflicts with the relevant 

rules of the District Plan, and for which there are no unique or special 

circumstances, could impair public confidence in the consistent administration 

of the District Plan, and set a precedent for the misuse of the 

telecommunication connection provisions. 



Page 12 

12198240

76 

Appendix 1 

Site location Map 


AL & ARJ Hooker - Section 127 Application - Planners Report 

Page 14 

12198240

78 

Appendix 2 

SP/0106/11 Approved Subdivision Scheme Plan 



Page 16 

12198240

80 

Appendix 3 

SP/0106/11 Decision 



Page 16 

12198240

82 

Planning Conditions 

General 

Schedule 1 

Conditions of Consent 

Resource Consent No: SP/0106/11 

C1 That the Land Transfer Plan to give effect to this subdivision consent must be 

generally consistent with the approved plan prepared by CKL Surveys Limited 

reference N2132, Revision 53 dated February 2012 submitted with application 

SP/0106/11, unless otherwise altered by the consent conditions. A copy of the 

approved plan is attached. 

C2 That in accordance with Section 138 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the 

consent holder must surrender the subdivision consent SP/0126/08 by giving 

written notice to the Waipa District Council. This written notice must be received 

prior to the issue of the Section 224(c) of this approved subdivision. 

Power 

C3 The consent holder must arrange with a local network electricity operator for the 

reticulation of electricity to serve all lots and pay all costs attributable to such work. 

The consent holder must submit to the Council written confirmation from the local 

network operator that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the 

reticulation of the service to all Jots in the subdivision. This is to include if necessary 

the resiting, repositioning or removal of any electric power lines which exist on the 

land being subdivided. 

Telephone 

Where electric power lines are crossing the boundary of any lots registered 

easements must be created for such services. 

C4 The consent holder must arrange with a telephone company for the reticulation of 

telephone cables to serve all lots and pay all costs attributable to such work. The 

consent holder must submit to the Council written confirmation from the telephone 

company that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the reticulation of the 

service to all lots in the subdivision. This is to include if necessary the resiting, 

repositioning or removal of any telephone cables which exist on the land being 

subdivided. 



Page 20 

12198240

Where telephone cables serving any lot are required to cross the boundary of any 

other lot or lots registered easements must be created for such services. 

Amalgamation Condition 

CS That Lot 4 hereon be transferred to the owners of Part Lot 1 DP 8804 (CFR: 

SA14C/1038) and that one Computer Freehold Register be issued to include both 

parcels. 

Entrance 

C6 That the consent holder must construct a Figure 3 type rural residential vehicle 

entrance to Lot 2 located on Bell Rd. The entrance is to be constructed to the 

Council's standards as set out in the Code of Practice for Land Development and 

Subdivision. All work is to be completed to the satisfaction of the Council's 

Development Engineering Manager and must be at the consent holder's expense. 

The following issues must also be addressed: 

Services 

• The entrance must be sealed 5 metres from the edge of the road or to 

the property boundary- whichever is the greater distance. 

Advisory Note: A culvert is required under this entrance. 

C7 The consent holder must submit to Council written and signed confirmation that. 

either: 

a) there are no water supply pipelines crossing boundaries between Lots 2 and 3 

or; 

b} that all water supply pipelines, that do exist, have been severed on a 

permanent basis or; 

c} easements have been registered to protect the location of water supply pipes 

and water supply to the satisfaction of the Council's Engineering Manager. 

Advisory Note: Where any water supply pipes are required to pass across the 

boundary of another Lot or Lots, 2-metre minimum width easements are to be 

created and registered against the certificates of title of those Jots affected. 

Easements for water supply pipes shall be placed centrally over the pipe or cable 

location and shall be contained wholly within the lots. All costs in connection with 

the easements shall be met by the consent holder. Easements in gross must be 

approved by the Councils solicitors at the cost of the consent holder. 

Consent Notice- Dwelling for Long Association with a Holding 

C8 Subdivision consent has been granted for Lot 2 under the prov1s1ons of the 

Operative Waipa District Plan Rule 10.6.1.4(a) 'Dwelling for Persons with a Long 

Association with a Holding'. The rule states that one lot can be subdivided from the 

·- - - ----------- 



Page 21 

12198240 

83

84 

'holding' when the applicant has resided on the land forming part of the holding 

continuously for a minimum period of fifteen {15) years. Only one lot per holding 

must be permitted under this Rule notwithstanding the number of people who may 

qualify. 

Advisory Note: A 'holding' is defined in the District Plan as a property or collection of 

properties under common occupancy or in single certificate of title which are farmed 

in conjunction with one another, and are contiguous. 

This being a condition to be complied with on a continuing basis by the subdividing 

owner and subsequent owners, before the deposit of the survey plan the Council 

must issue a consent notice pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management 

Act 1991 specifying the above condition. 

Such consent notice must be either prepared or checked at the cost of the 

subdividing owner by the Council's solicitors and must be registered against the title 

of Lots 2, 3 and 4. 

Consent Notice- Subdivision Potential 

C9 That Lot 4 and Pt Lot 1 DP 8804 hereon must not be subdivided further than into 2 

lots (one additional) pursuant to Rule 10.6.1.1{a) of the Operative Waipa District 

Plan. 

This being a condition to be complied with on a continuing basis by the subdividing 



Act 1991 specifying the above conditions. 


subdividing owner by the Council's solicitors and must be registered against the 

titles to Lot 4 and Pt Lot 1 DP 8804. 

C10 At the consent holder's expense the Council will instruct their solicitor to prepare 

the cancellation of consent notice BS26496.5 from Lot 1 DPS 81621 and Lot 1 DPS 

16384 (SA64B/58). Cancellation must be conditional upon the consent notice in 

condition C9 being registered on proposed Lot 4 and Pt Lot 1 DP 8804. 

Advisory Notes 

ANl Failure to comply with the conditions of consent may result in Council taking legal 

action under the provisions of Part XI I of the Resource Management Act 1991. 

AN2 All earthworks associated with any development of land must be undertaken in 

accordance with the following matters: 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meettng - November 2012 


Page 22 

12198240

i) All earthworks must be carried out so as to provide sound foundations as 

required under NZS 4431:1989 and avoid any hazard to persons or property; 

ii) All earthworks must be carried out so as to avoid or mitigate any detrimental 

effect on the environment particularly with regard to the unnecessary 

destruction of vegetation, the contamination of natural water or the diversion 

of surface or ground water flows 

iii) The existing landform must not be altered in such a manner that adjoining 

properties will be detrimentally affected particularly through changes in 

drainage systems or abrupt changes in ground level 

iv) All earthworks must be carried out in accordance with the Waipa District 

Council Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision for formation 

and construction standards. 

AN3 Where during earthworks, any archaeological features, artefact or human remains 

are accidentally uncovered or are suspected to have been discovered, the following 

protocol must apply: 

(I) All works within the vicinity must cease immediately. 

In cases other than suspected human remains: 

(ii) The contractor must immediately secure the area and advise the NZ Historic 

Places Trust of the occurrence. 

(iii) The consent holder must consult with a representative of the relevant iwi 

authority and the NZ Historic Places Trust to determine what further actions are 

appropriate to safeguard the site or its contents. 

Where human remains are suspected: 

(iv) The contractor must take steps immediately to secure the area in a way that 

ensures human remains are not further disturbed. 

(v) The consent holder must notify the NZ Police of the suspected human remains as 

soon as is practicably possible after the remains have been disturbed. The consent 

holder must notify the relevant iwi authority and the NZ Historic Places Trust 

within 12 hours of the suspected human remains being disturbed or otherwise as 

soon as practicably possible. 

(vi) Excavation of the site must not resume until the NZ Police, NZ Historic Places 

Trust and relevant Kaumatua have each given the necessary approvals for 

excavation to proceed. 


AL & ARJ Hooker - Section 127 Application- Planners Report 

Page 23 

12198240 

85

86 

Schedule 2 



1 Any adverse environmental effects resulting from the proposal are deemed to be no 

more than minor, or can be mitigated by the imposition of appropriate consent 

conditions. 

2 Subject to the above conditions the proposal is not contrary to the relevant 

objectives and policies of the Operative Waipa District Plan. 

3 Pursuant to Section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the application has 

not been publicly notified as the adverse effects of the proposal are deemed to be no 

more than minor. Similarly, the application has not been subject to limited 

notification as there were not considered to be any parties who where affected by 

the proposal in a minor way. The application was accordingly processed on a non 

notified basis. 

4 Engineering requirements will ensure that the subdivision is adequately provided 

with services when the area is developed. 

5 The Applicants request to waive the requirement from Council's standard condition 

power condition, to ensure that where electric power lines are crossing the boundary 

of any lots registered easements must be created for such services, is not supported 

by Council staff. Council staff is of the opinion that Operative Waipa District Plan 

provides the ability to impose such a requirement in Rules 1.6.S(o) and 10.10.7.2(a) 

of the Operative Waipa District Pian, which is also supported by Policy SU21. 

6 The Consent Notice will advise future owners of the special and continuing 

circumstances of the site relating to future subdivision. 

7 The Development Contributions payable for this subdivision have taken into account 

the fact that there is unimplemented subdivision consent subject to development 

impact fees that could be exercised. The development contributions payable are 

thus only the Parks and Reserve component on the basis of one additional household 

equivalent unit. 


AL & ARJ Hooker- Section 127 Application M Planners Report 

Page 24 

12198240

Appendix 4 

Section 127 Application 



Page 25 

12199240 

87

We seek that you grant us a variation allowing telephone seJVices to be provided 

by alternative means othet than fixed cabling. We understand that Waitomo and 

Otorohanga District Councils allows alternatives in rural areas. Council may 

require a note registered on the tiUe (section 221) to this affect 



Page 27 

12198240 

89

94 

1.2 The topography of the land is flat with underlain peat soils. 

1.3 The site contains two existing dwellings and associated implement sheds. Farm 

buildings are located on the site and used in conjunction with the blueberry farming. 

1.4 The surrounding properties comprise a mixture of blueberry farms, residential 

dwellings and pasture for grazing. Diagram 1 following illustrates the site and 

surrounding area. 

2 BACKGROUND 

2.1 The subject site was first subdivided by the applicants In 2011. The subdivision (Ref 

SP/0131/10) involved the creation of one new allotment under the 'Long Association 

with a Holding' (LAH) provisions and a boundary relocation. Diagram 2 following 

Illustrates the subdivision layout. 


AH & CA Baker- Section 127 Application - Planners Report 

Page 2 

1210J8§8SP OllJ 12.01• Rl!gulatory Rl!port

96 

2.4 The subdivision was granted consent on 2 August 2012. 


3.1 The proposal is for the amendment of Condition 3 of the recently granted subdivision 

SP/0113/12. Condition 3 is as follows: 

"Telephone 

C3 The consent holder must arrange with a telephone company for the 

reticulation of telephone cables to serve all lots and pay all costs attributable 

to such work. The consent holder must submit to the Council written 

confirmation from the telephone company that satisfactory arrangements 

have been made for the reticulation of the service to all lots in the subdivision. 

This is to include if necessary the resiting, repositioning or removal of any 

telephone cables which exist on the land being subdivided. 

Where telephone cables serving any lot are required to cross the boundary of 

any other lot or lots registered easements must be created for such services." 

3.2 An amendment is sought to this condition to allow alternative means of 

telecommunication. The reasons for the relief sought provided by the applicant are 

as follows: 

• The first subdivision undertaken (SP/0131/10} required a telecommunication 

connection which was provided for $4,070.00. 

• This connection has not been used by the landowners due to the unreliability of 

the service. Alternative connections to Farmside and NoB Wire have been used 

instead. 

• Chorus has provided a price of $33,053.00 to provide a telecommunication 

connection for SP/0113/12. Chorus have stated the increase in costs is due to the 

lack of free capacity in the existing line along Wallace Road. The price provided 

will provide a new reticulation along Wallace Road which would then be 

available for any other new connections at a fee of $2,070.00. 

• Alternative sources for connection are available (NetSmart}. 

3.3 The section 127 application to amend condition 3 was submitted on behalf of the 

applicant by Murray Hislop Surveyors, and received at Council on the 8 October 2012. 

A copy ofthe application is included in Appendix 4. 

4 SECTION 127- RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 

4.1 Section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA} provides for cancelling or 

changing of consent conditions. Section 127 states: 

127. Change or cancellation of consent condition on application by consent holder 


AH & CA Baker- section 127 Application- Planners Report 

Page4 

12203BSBSP 0113 12.01- Regulatory Report

100 

There will be no adverse visual or traffic effects as a result of the proposed 

subdivision. An amendment to the requirement for a telecommunication cable 

connection is considered to be appropriate in this instance and, subject to the 

appropriate consent notice being imposed, the effects of not providing a connection 

will be insignificant. 

7.3 Operative and Proposed District Plans 

7.3.1 Operative Waipa District Plan- Rules 

The Applicants have sought an amendment to the provision of telecommunication 

cabling to allow for alternative methods of connection to the network. Rule 

10.5.1.2{c) requires every allotment to be "connected to network utility services 

particularly sewerage, water, stormwater, electricity and telephone reticulation". This 

provision is supported by Rule 10.10.7 of the Operative District Plan requires "every 

allotment in any subdivision shall be provided by the subdivider at the time of 

subdivision with telecommunications". 

As part of the applicant's application they provided a copy of the quote from Chorus 

to install a connection . The quoted price is $33,053.00. A copy of this letter is 

included in Appendix 4. 

The applicants have also provided commentary from discussions with Chorus whom 

explained the $33,000 fee would cover the cost of installing a new line along Wallace 

Road. Future connections to the new line would then be available for at a fee of 

$2,070. 

An exemption to the prov1s1on of telecommunication connection has only been 

approved once in the Waipa District where evidence from Chorus indicated it would 

cost over $40,000 to install a connection. The Applicants who received the exemption 

also provided evidence of an existing phone connection (via No.8 Wire) and the 

potential that the site could obtain an internet connection (via Farmside), to 

demonstrate alternatives were available. Evidence of alternative wireless technology 

{NetSmart) available to the subject site has been provided by the Applicants. That 

application was also different because of its location, Rotongata Road, and because 

the allotment to be created was around an existing dwelling, not a vacant allotment, 

as proposed here. 

It is considered that granting consent for an alternative to the requirements for the 

provision of telecommunication connection to a new allotment is appropriate in this 

instance as is the cost of supply is cost prohibitive and alternatives are available. 

7 .3.2 Operative Waipa District Plan- Objectives and Policies 

The objectives and policies of the Operative Waipa District Plan relevant to this 

application follow and are commented on as follows. 



Page 8 

12203858SP 0113 11.01 - Regulatory Report

Objective SU3 

To ensure that when land is subdivided or developed, effective, efficient and 

environmentally appropriate utility services are provided to meet the requirements 

of the proposed use of land. 

PolicySU17 

To ensure that an adequate standard of utility services is provided to subdivided 

lots that is compatible with the network to which they will be connected, and to 

require subdividers to pay for the reasonable cost of providing the necessary 

services. 

PolicySU18 

To require, where appropriate, utility services to be provided to a subdivision of 

land at a standard that will allow the utility service to be extended to provide an 

adequate service to lots or development on adjacent land. 

PollcySU20 

To require the subdividers of land to pay the reasonable cost of any alteration to 

existing utility services, including the undergroundirtg of electric lines, street lighting 

supply lines and telecommunication lines, which is necessary to enable the 

subdivision or develt,pment to proceed. 1 

The objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan clearly outline the 

expectation of the subdivider to provide connections to utility services including 

telecommunications at their own cost. The explanation for Policy SU17 explains that 

utility services are essential and "it is important that no subdivision consent be 

granted unless it can be shown that appropriate utility services can be provided to the 

lots which will be created". The subdivision application was assessed under these 

provisions and suitable conditions were included in the consent to ensure compliance 

with the intention of these objectives and policies. 

Under review of the objectives and policies, and the granted consent conditions, it is 

considered the original assessment was fair and consistent with the provisions of the 

District Plan. However, notwithstanding that the approval of the request by the 

applicant would result in the proposal being inconsistent with the above objectives 

and policies, the applicants have demonstrated that is cost prohibitive to provide a 

connection and alternative sources are available. 

7.3.3 Proposed Waipa District Plan- Objectives and Policies 

The Proposed Waipa District Plan was publicly notified on 31 May 2012. The 

objectives and policies relevant to this application are contained in Sections 1 and 15 

of the Proposed District Plan. Section 1 contains Council's Strategic Policy Framework 

including objectives and policies regarding Council's growth strategy, town concept 


AH & CA Baker- Section 127 Application- Planners Report 

Page 9 

1ZZ038585P 0113 lZ.Ol• R!I[Uiitory R!port 

101

102 

plans, and future settlement patterns. Section 15 outlines Council's objectives and 

policies relevant to subdivision. 

The objectives and policies of the Proposed Waipa District Plan relevant to this 

application follow and are commented on as follows. 

Objective 15.3.3 -Integrated development: efficient servicing 

Achieving the efficient and cost effective servicing of land by ensuring that servicing 

is provided to areas proposed to be developed. 

Policy 15.3.3.1 -Servicing requirements 

All proposed urban development and subdivision shall be serviced to a level that 

will provide for the anticipated activities approved in a structure plan, or otherwise 

anticipated within the Zone. Servicing requirements shall include: 

(a) Reserves for community, active and passive recreation; and 

(b) Pedestrian and cycle connections; and 

(c) Roads; and 

(d) Public transport infrastructure, e.g. bus stops; and 

(e) Telecommunications; and 

(f) Stormwater collection, treatment and disposal; and 

(g) Wastewater treatment and reticulation, water provision for domestic and fire 

fighting purposes; and 

(h) Anticipating and providing for connections to identified adjacent future growth 

areas. 

Policy 15.3.3.2 - Co-ordination between servicing and development and 

subdivision 

Development and subdivisions shall: 

(a) Be located in areas where infrastructural capacity has been planned and 

funded; and 

(b) In areas subject to an approved Structure Plan, provide sufficient 

infrastructural capacity to meet the demand identified in the Structure Plan; 

and 

(c) Achieve the lot yield anticipated in an approved Structure Plan; and 

(d) Include infrastructure provision for both the strategic infrastructure network 

and local infrastructure connections. 

The objectives and policies of the Proposed District Plan clearly require 

telecommunication connections at the time of subdivision. These provisions are 

supported by the Assessment Criteria in Section 21. In particular 21.1.15.14(a)(iii) 

states regard shall be given to "the ability of the network utility provider to effectively 

and efficiently provide the required service to the entire site or future development. 

Where the service cannot be provided to the entire site or future development the 

application will be declined". 



Page 10 

12203858SP 0113 12.01- Regulatory Report

Therefore it is considered the application and consequential consent conditions, 

when reviewed under the Proposed District Plan provisions, are considered to be in 

compliance with the Proposed District Plan. The approval of the request by the 

applicant would result in the proposal being inconsistent with the above objectives 

and policies. 

Furthermore the objectives and policies of the Proposed District Plan indicate that 

there has been no shift in Council's thinking about the need for subdivisions to 

provide connections from that original proposed with the Operative District Plan 

even though some other Councils are providing for such alternatives. 

7.3.4 Weighting of District Plans 

The foregoing assessment of the application under the operative and proposed 

District Plans produces the same outcome, being that a telecommunication 

connection is required. In these circumstances, there is no need to consider the 

relative weight to be applied to the provisions of the two plans. 

7.4 Provisions of Other Statutory Planning Documents 

The application is consistent with the provisions of the Waikato Regional Policy 

Statement and the Waikato Regional Plan, and does not raise any issues that are 

contrary to any national policy statement. 

7.5 Other Relevant Matters 

There are no other relevant matters that require consideration in the assessment of 

this application. 


8.1 All considerations under Section 104 are subject to Part 2 of the RMA, which sets out 

the purpose and principles of the RMA. 

8.2 Part 2 of the RMA is its purpose and principles. The overall purpose is to promote the 

sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This is defined as 

managing the use and development of resources in a way that enables people and 

communities to provide for the social, economic and cultural well-being, and for their 

health and safety, while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the 

environment. 

8.3 The nature of the change sought can be perceived as having both positive and 

negative consequences when viewed against Section 5. On one hand the change will 

enable the applicant to provide for their social and economic well-being at a limited 

cost, whereas on the other hand it may result in future landowners being penalized 

---------- ------------------------ 


AH & CA Baker- Section 127 Application· Planners Report 

Page 11 

1ZZ03858SP 0113 12.01 ·Regulatory Report 

103

104 

and subject to those costs which should have been borne by the applicant being the 

one that directly benefited financial from the creation of the new allotment. 


matters of national importance in exercising powers and functions under the RMA, 

and Section 7 lists the other matters to which Council shall have particular regard. 

There are no Section 6 and Section 7 matters that are relevant to the amendments 

sought by this consent. 

8.5 Section 8 requires all persons exercising powers under it to take into account the 

principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In terms of this proposal, consultation was 

undertaken as part of the original application with Nga lwi Toopu o Waipa who raised 

no concerns with the proposal. Accordingly, it is considered that there is nothing in 

the proposal that would conflict with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 

8.6 Overall, it is considered that the application would not offend any of the matters 

contained within Part 2. The proposal would enable the applicant to provide for their 

wellbeing while avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on the 

environment. 

9 CONCLUSION 

9.1 The proposal is to amend Condition 3 ofthe subdivision consent SP/0113/12. 

9.2 The amendment is sought due to cost, and the availability of alternative wireless and 

satellite technology. 

9.3 The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the intent of the relevant 

objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan and the Proposed District Plan, 

however the Applicants have demonstrated that is cost prohibitive to provide a 

connection. 

9.4 In conclusion, having had regard to the relevant matters set out in section 104 of the 

RMA, it is considered that the application to amend Condition 3 of SP/0113/12 be 

granted. 


10.1 That 

a) The report of H Beard, Planner for the Waipa District Council, be received; and 

b) In consideration of Sections 104, and pursuant to Sections 1048, 108 and 220 of 

the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waipa District Council grants the 



Page 12 

12203858SP 0113 12.01 - Regulatory Report

106 

Terrena Kelly 

AUTHORISED OFFICER 

Wayne Allan 


Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting-November 2012 


Page 14 

12203858SP 0113 12.01-Regulatory Report

Appendix 2 

SP/0113/12 Approved Subdivision Scheme Plan 



Page 17 

12203858SP 0113 12.01 • Regulatory Report 

109

Appendix 3 

SP/0113/12 Decision 



Page 19 

12203858SP OlB 12.01 • Rtgulatory Rtport 

1 1 1

114 

C4 That Lot 3 hereon be transferred to the owners of Lot 1 DP 437941 (CFR540037) and 

that one Certificate of Title be issued to include both parcels (See Request 1085371). 

Easement 

Note: The above condition is required under Section 220(1}(b)(i) of the Resource 

Management Act 1991. 

CS That the easements shown as 'A' on the approved plan prepared by Murray Hislop 

Surveyors reference 1771 dated 3 July 2012 submitted with application SP/0113/12, 

be created and duly granted. 

Consent Notices 

C6 The following conditions are to be complied with on a continuing basis by the 

subdividing owners and subsequent owners: 

a) That for subsequent development of Lot 2 a suitably qualified and experienced 

Engineer will be required to inspect the site and submit to Council for approval, 

at the time of building consent, design details on the proposed on-site 

stormwater disposal system. 

b) That for subsequent development of Lot 2 a suitably qualified and experienced 


at the time of building consent, design details on the foundations of the 

buildings. 

c) That for subsequent development of Lot 2 a suitably qualified and experienced 


at the time of building consent, design details on the proposed on-site domestic 

waste water disposal system. 

Reasons: The above conditions are required as the site is subject to poor soakage, 

high water table and peat soils. 

Before the deposit ofthe survey plan with Land Information New Zealand the Council 

must issue a Consent Notice pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management 


Such Consent Notice must be either prepared or checked at the cost of the 


relevant title. 

Engineering Conditions 

Right of Way 



Page 22 

12203BS85P 0113 12.01 -Regulatory Report

116 

that the water supply to lot 2 is supplying Lot 2 exclusively. 


AN1 Failure to comply with the conditions of consent may result in Council taking legal 

action under the provisions of Part XII of the Resource Management Act 1991. 

AN2 All earthworks associated with any development of land must be undertaken in 

accordance with the following matters: 

i) All earthworks must be carried out so as to provide sound foundations as 

required under NZS 4431:1989 and avoid any hazard to persons or property; 

ii) All earthworks must be carried out so as to avoid or mitigate any detrimental 

effect on the environment particularly with regard to the unnecessary 

destruction of vegetation, the contamination of natural water or the diversion 

of surface or ground water flows 

iii) The existing landform must not be altered in such a manner that adjoining 

properties will be detrimentally affected particularly through changes in 

drainage systems or abrupt changes in ground level 

iv) All earthworks must be carried out in accordance with the Waipa District 

Council Code of Practice for land Development and Subdivision for formation 

and construction standards. 

AN3 Where during earthworks, any archaeological features, artefact or human remains 

are accidentally uncovered or are suspected to have been discovered, the following 

protocol must apply: 

(i) All works within the vicinity must cease immediately. 




















Page 24 

U203BSBSP 0113 12.01 - Regulatory Report

Schedule 2 



1 Any adverse environmental effects resulting from the proposal are deemed to be no 

more than minor, or can be mitigated by the imposition of appropriate consent 

conditions. 

2 Subject to the above conditions the proposal is not contrary to the relevant 

objectives and policies ofthe Operative Waipa District Plan. 

3 Pursuant to Section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the application has 

not been publicly notified as the adverse effects of the proposal are deemed to be 

minor, and all parties that were considered potentially adversely affected by the 

granting of this consent have provided their written approval. Accordingty, the 

application was processed on a non-notified basis. 

4 Engineering requirements will ensure that the subdivision is adequately provided 

with services when the area is developed. 

5 The consent notice(s) will advise future owners of the special and continuing 

circumstances of the site. 



Page 25 

1220U585P 01B 12.01- R@gullltel'y R@pert 

117

118 

Appendix 4 

Section 127 Application 



Pase 26 

12203858SP 0113 12.01 -Regulatory Report

120 

With our proposed new tubdivision. SPJ0113112 which dlange. the boundary 

alignments we have received a Jetter from Chorus now raqulmg the payment 

of$33,053. 

We have spoken with Chorus In this regard. and their comments are as 

follows. 

•rhe connections were availabte fOf' this subdivision folowing the payment of 

lhe original contributJon. Since then our cJienta had their land line 

disconnected ... 

This was due to the continual bad telephone connections and our clients and 

their daughter and son in law have gone wireless via olher services. 

•oue to our c,ients disconnecting the serke. the free capacity in the fines has 

now been provided to others along Walace Road. 

If our clients were to pav the $33,000 then a new reticulatiOn would be 

provided along Wallace Road. This would be available for MY other new 

connection at Ole fee of $2070. • 

We ask that the condition be amended such that the consent holder is 

required to provide conformation from a seNice pnMder that a wireless 

connection can be provided. We would accept a consent notice bet I'll placed 

on the consent advising future owners that there i$ no physical conec:tion. 

This is an issue that won't go away and other COuncil are dealing with it at 

the time of District Plan review. 

If you have any quires, please contact the writer. 

Yours faithfully 

Murray Hislop 



Page 28 

12Z038SBSP 0113 12.01 ·Regulatory Report

Reason: The applicants demonstrated at the time of subdivision application that it is 

cost prohibitive to provide a telecommunications connection and that alternative 

options are available f or the site. 

This being a co ndition to be complied with on a continuing basis by the subdividing 



Act 1991 specifying the above condition. 


subdividing owner by the Council's solicitors and must be registered against the title 

of Lots 1 and 2. 

Amalgamation 

C4 That Lot 3 hereon be transferred to the owners of Lot 1 DP 437941 (CFR540037) and 

that one Certificate of Title be issued to include both parcels (See Request 1085371). 

Easement 

Note: The above condition is required under Section 220(1){b)(i) of the Resource 

Management Act 1991. 

CS That the easements shown as 'A' on the approved plan prepared by Murray Hislop 

Surveyors reference 1771 dated 3 July 2012 submitted with application SP/0113/12, 

be created and duly granted. 

Consent Notices 

C6 The following conditions are to be complied with on a continuing basis by the 

subdividing owners and subsequent owners: 

d) That for subsequent development of Lot 2 a suitably qualified and experienced 


at the time of building consent, design details on the proposed on·site 

stormwater disposal system. 

e) That for subsequent development of Lot 2 a suitably qualified and experienced 


at the time of building consent, design details on the foundations of the 

buildings. 

f) That for subsequent development of Lot 2 a suitably qualified and experienced 


at the time of building consent, design details on the proposed on·site domestic 



Page 35 

12203858SP 0113 12.01 • Regulatory Report 

127

128 

waste water disposal system. 

Reasons: The above conditions are required as the site is subject to poor soakage, 

high water table and peat soils. 

Before the deposit ofthe survey plan with land Information New Zealand the Council 

must issue a Consent Notice pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management 




relevant title. 


Right of Way 

C7 That the consent holder must either; 

a) Demonstrate that the proposed Right of Way 'A' to lot 2 on Scheme Plan 

SP/0113/12 meets all the standards outlined in the Code of Practice for land 

Development and Subdivision. Evidence must be submitted to the 

Development Engineering Managerfor acceptance by provision of Two Quality 

Assurance Certificates (Forms DE2010/1 & DE2010/2) from a suitably qualified 

and experienced professional. All costs must be at the consent holders 

expense. 

OR 

b) That the consent holder must upgrade the Right of Way to lot 2 to the 

Council's standards as set out in the Code of Practice for land Development 

and Subdivision. Two Quality Assurance Certificates (Forms DE2010/1 & 

DEi010/2) from a suitably qualified and experienced professional must be 

submitted to the Development Engineering Manager. All work is to be carried 

out and completed to the satisfaction of the Council's Engineering Manager 

and must be at the consent holder's expense. 

Vehicle Entrance 

CS That the consent holder must upgrade as required the vehicle entrance to lot 2 to a 

Figure 5 Heavy Commercial rural vehicle entrance complying with Council's standards 

as set out in the Code of Practice for land Development and Subdivision. The work 

must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Council's Development 

Engineering Manager and must be at the consent holder's expense. The following 

issues must also be addressed: 

• The entrance gate or cattle stop must be offset 19.0 metres from the centreline 

of the carriageway on Wallace road. 


AH & CA Baker- Section 127 Application· Planners Report 

Page 36 

122038SBSP 0113 12.01- Regulatory Report

130 

















Report to Regulatory Committee Meetlns- November 2012 


Page 38 

12203858SP 0113 12.01- Regulatory Repon

132

I. 

' 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 

Meeting Date: 


APPLICANT: 

The Chairperson and Members of the Regulatory Committee 

Tanya Running-Consultant Planner- Opus International Consultants 

Undertake a subdivision to create one additional title in the Rural Zone 

(Fencourt Rural Residential Policy Area) 


04380/329.04 

Thornton Ridge Trust 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 81 Maungakawa Road, Cambridge 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: lot 1 DP 322290 held in CFR 88987 

SITE AREA: 9807m 2 

ZONING - DISTRICT PLAN: Rural (Fencourt Rural Residential Policy Area) 

PROPOSAL: Undertake a subdivision to create one additional title 

AGENT: Cogswell Surveys ltd 

NB: This report sets out the advice of the reporting planner to the Regulatory Committee. 

This report has yet to be considered by the Committee, and the recommendation contained 

in the report is not the decision on the application. A decision will only be made after the 

Committee has considered the application and heard the applicant and any submitters. 

This application has been referred to the Regulatory Committee as planning staff do not 

have delegated authority to determine limited notified applications where submissions have 

been lodged. 

1. THE SITE 

1.1 The site is a rural residential property, located at 81 Maungakawa Road, Cambridge. 

The site is currently 9807m 2 • The property contains a dwelling with an attached 

garage. The site is used for residential purposes and for the grazing of stock. The 

topography of the site is generally flat near Maungakawa Road it then drops down to 

the south east to flat paddocks. The surrounding area is predominantly rural 

residential in character and use. 

·-·-·---+-.. ·-- 

133

134 

2. BACKGROUND 

2.1 A previous application for a boundary relocation and subdivision for an additional lot 

was assessed by the Regulatory Committee in July 2009. 

2.2 This application sought to create to undertake the proposal in two stages. Stage One 

was a boundary relocation between the subject site and Lot 4 DPS 82776 to create 

Lot 1 of 1.0312ha and Lot 2 of 2580m 2 • The use of Lot 4 DPS 82776 was to increase 

the size of the subject srte to be over 1 hectare to comply with the averaging 

requirement. The second stage of the proposal was to subdivide Lot 1 into two lots 

(Lot 1 at 3571m 2 and Lot 2 at 6741m 2 }. 

2.3 This application was declined by the Committee as it was considered that the 

proposal was inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the District Plan in that 

it would result in an increase in denstt:y not anticipated by the District Plan. 

3. THE PROPOSAL 

3.1 The proposal is to create one additional lot. The proposed lot sizes are: 

Lot 1: 4250m 2 (3290m 2 excl. access} 

Lot 2: 5557m 2 

The additional lot will be located on the northern boundary of the site with access 

proposed via a right of way over the existing access to the site and an access leg on 

the western boundary of the stt:e. 

3.2 A copy of the revised scheme plan dated 5 September 2012 is contained in Appendix 

A of this report. 

Services 

3.3 The application included a report by Grant Crook Consulting Engineers Ltd dated 29 

May 2008. This report outlines the sites suitability for residential development, 

on site wastewater treatment and storm water disposal. 

Residential development 

3.4 The Grant Crook Consulting Engineers Ltd report dated 29 May 2008 indicates that 

the proposed building platform on Lot 1 is suitable for residential development via 

site specific engineering design at the building consent stage. 

Wastewater 

3.5 The Grant Crook Consulting Engineers Ltd report dated 29 May 2008 states that the 

on-stt:e testing identifies silty top soils as being relatively free draining. However only 

150-200mm of this material is suitable for receiving treated wastewater and the silty 

clays below this layer are restrictive and poorly draining. Accordingly it Js considered 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting- {1g November 2012) 


Page2

that any proposed dwelling would be best served by a secondary treatment plant 

providing consistent high quality effluent that is irrigated to the silty topsoil. 

Stormwater 

3.6 The Grant Crook Consulting Engineers Ltd report dated 29 May 2008 recommends 

that to achieve hydraulic neutrality the overflows from the rainwater holding tanks 

are to be directed to Engineer designed retention tanks with outflows to a dedicated 

in ground soakage area of 150m 2 • 

Water Supply 

3. 7 Water supply to both Lots 1 and 2 is proposed via a bore on Lot 4 DPS 82776 located 

adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. An easement will be required from the 

bore and over the existing lines to Lots 1 and 2. 

Power and telecommunications 

3.8 Waipa Networks and Telecom have confirmed that Lot 1 can be serviced. Lot 2 

contains an existing dwelling with connections. 

4. PROCESS MATTERS 

4.1 The application was received at Council on the 24 May 2012.. A request for further 

information pursuant to section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 ( RMA) 

was issued on the 1 June 2012. This request was as follows: 

The application proposes a right of way over Lot 4 DP 82776. Council have determined 

that the area of land in the location of the proposed right of way has been set aside 

for the extension of the effluent disposal system for the dwelling on this Jot. As much 

of Lat 4 is steep, wet ground, alternate locations are not likely to be available for 

future wastewater and stormwater disposal. It is noted that when the house was built 

on this Jot it was difficult to install a satisfactory wastewater and stormwater disposal 

system and therefore Council consider that the proposed right of way may 

compromise future wastewater and stormwater disposal. In addition the location of 

the right of way may direct a/1 stormwater to the adjoining property (Lot 2 DP 

324431). 

In light of this information please reconsider the location of the access to proposed 

Lot 1 as Council are unable to support the current access arrangements for this 

proposal. 

4.2 This request was satisfied on the 5 September 2012 by an amended scheme plan 

which located the proposed access to Lot 1 on the western boundary of the site. 

5. NOTIFICATION 

--------------------------------------------------- 

5.1 The application was Limited notified under section 95B of the RMA as under section 

95E it was determined that the activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting- {19 November 2012) 


Page3 

135

7.2 A copy of the application was forwarded to Ngaa lwi Toopu o Waipa (NJTOW} in 

accordance with Councils agreed notification procedure. NITOW have no concerns 

with the proposal. 

8. DISTRICT PLAN PROVISIONS- CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBDIVISON 

CONSENT 

Operative District Plan (1997) 

8.1 The subject sJte is zoned Rural on Planning Map 3BA of the Operative Waipa District 

Plan and is located within the Fencourt Rural Residential Policy Area. An assessment 

of the proposal against the Rural Zone rules of the District Plan was undertaken. In 

summary, the proposal is unable to comply with the following rules: 

10.6.1.2(a) The average of the net 

lots areas excepting the 

balance of any existing lot 

exceeding 4ha shall not 

be less than sooom 2 • 

Non-Complying The average of the net lot areas of 

Lot 1 (3290m 2 net) and Lot 2 

(SSS7m 2 ) Is 4423m 2 

8.2 As a result of non-compliance with the above, the subdivision application is deemed 

to be a Non-complying Activity. 

Proposed Dlstritt Plan (31 May 2012} 

8.3 Council publically notified the Proposed District plan on the 31 May 2012 with 

submissions now closed. Council are calling for further submissions until the 7 

November 2012. 

8.4 Section 86F of the RMA provides that rules in proposed plans do not have legal effect 

until after decisions have been made on submissions. However all objectives and 

policies have legal weight. For completeness an assessment under the Proposed 

District Plan has been taken however these rules have no legal effect. 

8.5 The subject site is zoned l:arge Lot Residential Zone on Planning Map 29 of the 

Proposed Waipa District Plan. Rule 15.4.2.2(f) requires that lots have a minimum area 

of sooom 2 • As this proposal will not comply with this requirement it is considered a 

non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 15.4.1.1(k). 

9. ASSESSMENT OF MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 (RMA) 

9.1 In accordance with section 104D, consent for a non-complying activity can only be 

granted if one of two tests is satisfied: either that the adverse effects of the activity 

on the environment will be minor (s104D(1)(a)}, or the activity will not be contrary to 

the objectives and policies of the relevant plans (s104D(1)(b)). Once an application 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting" (19 November 2012} 


Page5 

137

138 

passes through either of the section 1040(1) tests, it is to be considered against the 

relevant section 104 criteria. 

9.2 Matters to be considered by the Council when assessing an application for resource 

consent under section 104 ofthe RMA are: 

• any actual and potential effects on the environmenti 

• any relevant provisions of a national policy statement, a regional policy 

statement, and any plan or proposed plan; 

• any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably 

necessary; 

• Part 2 ofthe RMA. 

9.3 Section 10 (Effects on the Environment) and Sections 11 and 12 (Plan Provisions) of 

this report respectively address sections 104D(1)(a) and (b) of the RMA. 

10. ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF 

ALLOWING THE ACTIVITY 

Following Is an assessment of the potential environmental effects from the proposed 

subdivision. 

Visual Amenity 

10.1 The existing surrounding environment is one of rural residential nature. The 

proposed subdivision will result in an additional dwelting and curtilage In the locality. 

10.2 The submission by FJ Carrick and M.L Wood relates to the potential effects Of the 

proposal on the visual amenity. These submitters are purchasing 103/4 Maungakawa 

Road on the 5 November 2012. The submission seeks that a report on the potential 

visual effects of the proposal and proposed mitigation be obtained by a suitability 

quallfled person. 

10.3 The Applicant's Agent has undertaken consultation wtth J Carrick: and M.L Wood in 

relation to providing screen planting to mitigate the visual effects of any future 

dwelling on Lot 1. J Carrick and M.L Wood have agreed via email dated 25 October 

2012 attached as Appendix C to screen planting of pittosporums along the northern 

boundary of proposed Lot 1. Therefore a condition of consent is recommend that this 

screen planting be undertaken prior to the issue of the section 224 certificate and a 

consent notice will also be required on the title of Lot 1 requiring the current and 

Mure owners of Lot 1 to maintain this screening in perpetuity. 

10.4 Overall I consider that the effects on the visual amenity will be no more than minor 

as a dwelling will be in keeping with the existing environment and any potential 

visual effects will be mitigated. 

Reporl to Regut.tay C4nmlbe MMI!ng- (19 No....nber 2012) 

Thomton Ridge Truat 

Page6

Rural Residential Density and Variety of Lot Sizes 

10.5 Rule 10.6.1.2(a) requires a minimum lot size of 2500m 2 and that the average of the 

net lot areas shall not be less than 5000m 2 • In addition the rule specifies that where 

an allotment is under 5000m 2 then there shall be a corresponding lot over 5000m 2 • 

10.6 The proposal will result in Lot 1 having a net lot area of 3290m 2 (4250m 2 incl. access) 

and Lot 2 of 5557m 2 .1n this case the average net lot area is 4423m 2 (557m 2 less than 

required). 

10.7 Part 3 section 8.1 of the District Plan explains that the purpose of a Rural-Residential 

Area is to provide allotments of sizes to suit the requirements of persons seeking a 

rural lifestyle. In order to avoid allotments all being the same size a variety of 

allotment sizes will be required in any subdivision. This will be achieved by requiring 

an average allotment area of at least twice the minimum lot size areas in this case 

being 5000m 2 • 

10.8 The proposal achieves the density of development by providing a lot over the 

minimum required lot size. While the proposal will not comply with the average lot 

area requirement it will contribute to providing a variety of lot sizes. Existing 

properties in the area range in size from 2500m 2 to 1 hectare. The adjacent 

properties to the subject site area 3529m 2 , 5562m 2 , 5780m 2 and 5557m 2 • Therefore l 

consider that this proposal will not increase the density of the area more than what 

was envisaged by the District Plan and as such the effects are no more than minor. 

Traffic effects 

10.9 Access to proposed Lot 1 is via a right of way over the existing access to Lot 2 then via 

an access leg along the western boundary of the site. Council's Development 

Engineer has recommended a number of conditions of consent relating to the 

construction of the entra nee and the right of way. 

10.10 J.P Snyman lodged a neutral submission on the proposal in relation to the proposed 

access leg which runs adjacent to his property at 79 Maungakawa Road. The 

submission seeks that the access leg be tar sealed adjacent to the property boundary 

in order to mitigate the effects of dust and noise. The Applicant's Agent has 

confirmed that it is acceptable to the Applicant that the requirement to tarseal the 

access leg be recommended as a condition of consent it is therefore considered that 

the effects of the access leg on the adjacent neighbour are adequately mitigated. 

10.11 In addition it is anticipated that the effects of one additional lot on the roading 

network will be no more than minor. 

10.12 Given the above and provided the conditions of consent are implemented should this 

application be approved, I consider that the effects of the proposal on the roading 

network to be no more than minor. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting- (1Q November 2012) 


Page7 

139

140 

Assessment of Environmental Effects Conclusion 

10.13 The effects of the land use on the environment are considered to be no more than 

minor and or can be adequately mitigated via conditions of consent. 

11. OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE OPERATIVE WAIPA DISTRICT 

PLAN 

11.1 The following is an assessment of the proposal against the objectives and policies of 

the Operative Waipa District Plan considered relevant to this application. 

Residential Objective and Polley 

Objective RS1 

To manage the development of residential activities in urban and rural areas in order 

to:- 

i) minimise any adverse effects on the natural and physical resources oi the 

District; 

ii) avoid as far as is possible and practicable any significant adverse ef:fects on 

the qualities of the environment; and 

iii) maintain the social and physical wellbeing and health of the residents of the 

District. 

Policy RS6 

To allow for further housing development in existing towns and settlements in the 

District. 

11.2 The proposal is considered to have less than minor effects on the natural and 

physical resources of the district as it is utilising land zoned for the purpose of rural 

residential development. The land surrounding the site is an existing rural residential 

settlement and the addition of one lot is not expected to generate any effects on the 

quality of the environment. Therefore the proposal is not contrary with the above 

objective and policy. 

Transportation Objective 

Objective TR4 

To minimise the adverse effects of the use and development of the District's transport 

facilities and networks on people and the environment. 

11.3 The creation of one additional lot is not anticipated to have adverse effects on the 

local reading network, in addition conditions are recommended requiring the access 

and right of way be constructed to Council standards. Overall it is considered that this 

proposal is consistent with the above objective. 

Report to Regulat.ccy Commlttes Meatlng- (19 November 2012) 


PageS

Objective- Giving effect to the Waikato River v;sion and Strategy 

15.3.12 To ensure that the Waikato River Vision and Strategy ;s given effect to by all 

development and subdivision 

12.7 The site is not located near any water bodies and any future wastewater or 

stormwater systems will be required to be designed by a suitability qualified engineer 

and approved by Council. This will ensure that these systems are suitable for the 

location and do not give rise to effects on any water bodies therefore giving effect to 

the directions and outcomes in the Waikato River Vision and Strategy. 

Assessment of Objectives and Policies Conclusion 

12.8 The proposal is considered inconsistent with the objectives and policies in relation to 

maintaining the open space and low density character of the area due to the noncompliance 

with the required net lot area of Lot 1. It does however provide for the 

other objectives and policies outlined above in relation to settlement pattern and 

consistency with Future Proof and the Waipa District Growth Strategy. 

Weighting of PDP Objectives and Policies 

12.9 While the weight to be given to a plan change generally depends on what stage the 

relevant provision has reached, with the weighting typically being greater as the plan 

change moves through the First Schedule process, apportioning weight is influenced 

by a number of other factors, including: 

• The extent (if any} to which the PDP has been exposed to testing and 

independent decision making; 

12.10 Council notified the PDP in July this year and are currently calling for further 

submissions. Given early stages that the PDP is currently at J consider it more 

appropriate to give more weight to Operative District Plan. 

13. SECTION 1040 CONCLUSION 

13.1 It is considered based on the above assessment that the effects of the proposal will 

be no more than minor thereby passing the first threshold test as set out in section 

104D(1)(a). In terms of the objective and policies the proposal is consistent with the 

objective and policies of the Operative District Plan. 

13.2 However the proposal is not consistent with the objectives and policies of the 

Proposed District Plan in relation to maintaining the open space and low density 

character of the Large Lot Residential Zone. It does however provide for the other 

objectives and policies in relation to settlement pattern and consistency with Future 

Proof (the Sub-Regional Growth Strategy) and the Waipa District Growth Strategy 

(the Growth Strategy). 

13.3 It is acknowledged that when assessing whether a non-complying activity is contrary 

to the objectives and policies of a plan, a broad judgment must be made. This 

requires more than just isolating out one or two policies wh:h which the activity is 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting- (19 November 2012) 


Page 13 

145

146 

contrary. Where policies are general and have wide-rqnging topics, the question is 

whether the activity is, in principle, contrary to the objectives and policies. If, in 

principle, it is opposed to the objectives and policies, it will be contrary for the 

purposes of the s.1040 test. In any event what must be determined is whether the 

application is for an activity that will be opposed to in nature; different; or opposite 

to the objectives and policies of the Plan. 

13.4 The proposal seeks to create a rural residential lot in the Rural Zone within the Rural 

Residential Policy Area. The Proposed Plan clearly anticipates this type of 

development in this area therefore I conclude that the proposal is not contrary to the 

objectives and policies of the Proposed District Plan. 

13.5 Overall, I consider that the proposal passes both threshold tests as set out in section 

1040(1) and as such Council may consider granting consent to the proposal following 

an assessment against the relevant section 104 criteria. 

14. WAIKATO REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT AND REGIONAL PLAN 

14.1 In accordance with section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, the following assessment considers 

the proposed subdivision in terms of relevant provisions of policy statements and 

plans. 

Regional Polley Statements 

14.2 There is now both an Operative and Proposed Regional Policy Statement, with a 

discussion of both below. In respect of status, it is considered appropriate to have 

greater regard to the objectives and policies of the Proposed Regional Policy 

Statement (2010) than the Operative Regional Policy Statement as they reflect the 

more recent policy direction of the Waikato Regional Council and more directly relate 

to the issues at stake with this application, despite being at a relatively early phase in 

the statutory process. 

14.3 The Operative Regional Policy Statement (2000) (ORPS) provides an overview of the 

significant resource management issues for the Waikato Region and sets out 

objectives, policies and methods to achieve integrated management of the region's 

natural and physical resources. 

14.4 The majority of the aspects of the subdivision proposal are considered to be 

consistent with the ORPS. Those sections most relevant to the application are 

Section 3.3 (Land and Soil) and Section 3.4 (Water). The proposal is considered to be 

consistent with the sections on Land and Soil and Water, given the absence of 

adverse effects in regard to these topics. 

14.5 Hearing of the submissions on the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement 

(PRPS) occurred in June 2012 and the hearing committee requested infonnation from 

staff, and re-convened the hearing on the 22 June 2012. Council considered the 

hearing committee's recommendations in October 2012, and are due to publicly 

notify the decisions report and release the decisions version of RPS in November 

Report to Regulatory Commltteo Meeting- (19 November 2012) 


Page 14

148 

defines the Waikato River as: "-The Waikato River and its catchments, including all 

water courses, tributaries and streams, flowing into the River''. 

15.5 The Settlement Act will work in conjunction with the RMA and a number of other 

statutes, to provide direction for planning documents created under the RMA to 

protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for future generations. The 

Settlement Act addresses a number of issues related to the Waikato River such as, 

redress for certain assets, the regulation of customary activities, and the 

management of the Waikato River. Although more planning documents will be 

created in relation to the regulation of the Waikato River, the vision and strategy will 

provide the overarching direction. The Settlement Act provides for a single cogovernance 

entity to set the agenda for the health and wellbeing of the Waikato 

River for future generations. 

15.6 The site is not located near any water bodies and any future wastewater or 

stormwater systems will be required to be designed by a suitability qualified engineer 

and approved by Council. This will ensure that these systems are suitable for the 

location and do not give rise to effects on any water bodies therefore giving effect to 

the directions and outcomes in the Waikato River Vision and Strategy. 

16. PART 2- PURPOSE AND PRINCIPALS OF THE RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT ACT 

16.1 Section 104 of the RMA is subject to Part 2, the purpose and principles of the RMA. 

This part of the report examines the purposes and principles as set out in sections 5, 

6, 7 and 8. All of the section 104 analysis conducted in the previous parts of this 

report is subject to the relevant matters in these sections. 

16.2 Section S requires an overall broad judgement of whether or not a proposal 

promotes the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In making 

such a judgement, it is necessary to compare conflicting considerations and the scale 

or degree of those conflicting considerations and their relative significance to the 

final outcome. 

16.3 Sections 6, 7 and 8 are the other sections in Part 2 of the RMA, and their function is 

to inform and assist the purpose ofthe RMA in sectionS. These subsequent sections 

should be approached as factors in the overall balancing exercise to be conducted in 

reaching a broad conclusion under Part 2. 

Section 8 

16.4 The RMA requires that those making decisions under the RMA must take into 

account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The requirements to take into 

account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi means that those with statutory 

functions under the Act should be informed of, and actively consider, the concerns 

and needs oftangata whenua. 

16.5 Section 8 has been characterised as the clause which recognises the relationship of 

tangata whenua with natural and physical resources and encourages active 

Report to Regulatory Ct111mlttee MeeUna- (19 Novwmber 2012) 

Thomton Ridge Trust 

Page16

participation of, and consultation with, tangata whenua in resource management 

decision making. 

16.6 A copy of the application was forwarded to Ngaa lwi Toopu o Waipa (NlTOW) in 

accordance with Councils agreed notification procedure. NITOW have no concerns 

with the proposal. Therefore it is considered that the proposal will not be contrary to 

section 8 of the RMA. 

Section 7 

16.7 Section 7 outlines the 'other matters' that Council 'shall have particular regard to'. 

Matters of particular relevance are: 

(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources; 

(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values; 

(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment 

(g) Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources. 

16.8 All of the above matters are considered of relevance to the assessment of the 

application to some extent. rt is considered that the proposal represents an efficient 

use of a physical resource and protects the finite characteristics of natural and 

physical resources, being that the proposal will create a rural residential lot in a 

defined rural residential area. This proposal will maintain the amenity values of the 

area through proposed mitigation measures. 

16.9 Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be consistent with these matters within 

section 7. 

Section 6 

16.10 Section 6 requires that Council'shall recognise and provide for' matters of national 

importance. No matters of national importance are considered relevant to this 

application. 

Section 5 

16.11 Section 5 is set out as follows and the matters within it are considered below: 

(1} The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and 

physical resources. 

(2) In this Act, sustainable management means 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 



Page 17 

149

154 


subdividing owner by the Council's solicitors and must be registered against 

the title for lot 2. 


Entrance Upgrades-lot 1 and 2 

C8 That the Right of Way shown as 'B' on the scheme plan of subdivision 

SP/0076/12 dated 05/09/12 be created and duly granted or reserved. 

C9 That the consent holder must upgrade as required the existing vehicle 

entra nee to Right of Way 'B' servicing Lots 1 and 2 located at 81 Ma unga kaw a 

Road to a medium commercial rural vehicle entrance complying with 

Council's standards as set out in the Waipa District Development and 

Subdivision Manual2012. The work must be carried out and completed to the 

satisfaction of the Council's Development Engineering Manager and must be 

at the consent holder's expense. The following issues must also be addressed: 

• The entrance must have all damaged seal repaired between the 

cattlestop and the road edge. 


i) The area to be included in the seal repairs is to extend from the cattlestop 

at 81 Maungakawa Road to meet a 10 metre wide edge of the entrance 

where it meets Maungakawa Rd. There Is a much wider combined 

entrance at this location. The applicant is only required to upgrade the 

northern portion of the combined entrance as described above. 

ii) Part of the boundary fence to Lot 2 encroaches on to the Road Reserve. 

Council may at any time require that all fences be relocated to the legal 

property boundary and at the property owner's expense. 

Reason: This would normally be in the case of Council needing to use the road 

berm for purposes of reading, drainage or safety improvements. Should 

Council require the relocation of the fence the property owner will be 

consulted and given reasonable time to effect the relocation. 

ClO The consent holder must construct Right of Way 'B' to lots 1 and 2 to the 

Council's standards as set out in the Waipa District Development and 

Subdivision Manual 2012. All work is to be carried out and completed to the 

satisfaction of the Council's Development Engineering Manager and must be 

at the consent holder's expense. The following issues must also be addressed: 

• The Right of Way must have a 3 metre wide sealed surface within 

Right of Way 'B'. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting- (19 NovBI'Tlbet 2012) 

Thornton Rldge Trust 

Page22

• The internal access to Lot 1 between Right of Way 'B' and the northern 

boundary of Lot 2 DP 322290 shall be sealed. 

Cll Two Quality Assurance Certificates forms DE2010/1, DE2010/2 from a suitably 

qualified and experienced professional must be submitted to Council. The first 

must include pavement design and drainage of Right of Way 'B' and the 

second must cover the construction of Right of Way 'B'. These must be filled 

out and submitted to Council prior to issuing of the section 224 certificate. 

C12 The consent holder must submit design/construction plans to Council for 

acceptance prior to carrying out any construction work required by this 

consent. All work associated with Right of Way 'B' must be designed, 

constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Council's Development 

Engineering Manager, and must be in accordance with Council's standards as 

set out in the Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision and 

must be at the consent holders expense. The submitted plans must include: 

• Pavement design- based on testing of existing ground. 

• Disposal of stormwater including all structures and erosion control. 

• Surface treatment- i.e. sections to be sealed. 

Water Supply 

C13 The water line identified as enclosed within easement 'C' on the application 

plan for SP/0076/12 shall be registered on the title for Lot 4 DPS 82776 in 

favour of Lot 2. These easements are to have a minimum 2m width. 


It is suggested that an agreement be entered into between the owner of the 

water bore and the owner of Lot 2 that identifies the rights and obligations of 

the parties and addresses the following issues (but not be limited to): 

• Future maintenance responsibilities including access to the water line 

for maintenance and basis of cost sharing for the maintenance of the 

bore. 

• Maximum daily water quantity to be supplied to Lot 1. 

• Notice period in the case of discontinuance of the bore supply. 

Users of the bore water supply located in Lot 4 DPS 82776 are advised that it 

is their responsibility to determine the suitability of whether the water quality 

meets the standards for potable use. 

C14 That the consent holder must submit to Council written and signed 

confirmation, either, 

a) that there are no water supply pipelines crossing boundaries between 

Lots 1 and 2, 

or; 



Page 23 

155

156 

b) that all water supply pipelines, that do exist, have been severed on a 

permanent basis, 

or; 

c) that the consent holder must arrange to cn!ate a 2-metre minimum 

width appurtenant easement to convey water, placed centrally over 

the existing water supply pipes where located within adjacent lots. The 

proposed easements must be registered on the servient titles. The 

consent holder must meet all costs incurred. All costs associated with 

the easements must be met by the consent holder. 


AN1 Failure to comply with the conditions of consent may result In Council 

taking legal action under the provisions of Part XII of the Resource 

Managemerat Act 1991. 

AN2 All earthworks associated with any development of land must be 

undertaken in accordance with the following matters: 

i) All earthworks must be carried out so as to provide sound 

foundations as required under NZS 4431:1989 and avoid any 

hazard to persons or property; 

ii) All earthworks must be carried out so as to avoid or mitigate any 

detrimental effect on the environment particularly with regard 

to the unnecessary destruction of vegetation, the contamination 

of natural water or the diversion of surface or ground water 

flows 

iii) The existing landform must not be altered In such a manner that 

adjoining properties will be detrimentally affected particularly 

through changes in drainage systems or abrupt changes in 

ground level 

tv) All earthworks must be carried out in accordance with the Waipa 

District Council Code of Practice for Land Development and 

Subdivision for formation and construction standards. 

AN3 Where durtng earthworks, any archaeological featun!s, artefact or 

human remains are accidentally uncovered or are suspected to have 

been discovered, the following protocol must apply: 

(i) All works within the vicinity must cease Immediately. 


(ii) The contractor must immediately secure the area and advise the 

NZ Historic Places Trust of the occurrence. 

Report to Regullltcry Commltlee M.Ung • (1g NOYWnber 2012) 

Thornton Ridge Truat 

Page 24

(iii) The consent holder must consult with a representative of the 

relevant iwi authority and the NZ Historic Places Trust to 

determine what further actions are appropriate to safeguard the 

site or its contents. 


(iv) The contractor must take steps immediately to secure the area in 

a way that ensures human remains are not further disturbed. 

(v) The consent holder must notify the NZ Police of the suspected 

human rema ins as soon as is practicably possib!e after the 

remains have been disturbed. The consent holder must notify 

the relevant iwi authority and the NZ Historic Places Trust 

immediately. 

(vi) Excavation of the site must not resume until the NZ Police, NZ 

Historic Places Trust and relevant Kaumatua have each given the 

necessary approvals for excavation to proceed. 

AN4 Once 224 completion certificate has been issued for this subdivision 

Council will advise the applicant of new property numbers allocated 

for Lots 1 and 2. 

Reason: Entrances are required to be accurately numbered in 

accordance with Councils RAPID numbering standards. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting· (1 g November 2012) 


Page 25 

157

Appendix 1 

Amended Scheme Plan 



Page 27 

159

160

162

164

Appendix 3 

Consultation with Submitter 



Page 29 

169

170

Tanya Running 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Phil Cogswe ll 

Thursday, 25 October 2012 9:52 a.m. 

tanya.running@opus.co.nz 

Subject: FW: Submission on a Limited Notified Application 

HiTunya 

Copy of emails. As discussed Mark & Fio na were reasonably happy & we offered them a screen planting option. 

Phil Cogswell 

B.Surv, MNZIS, Regd. Professional Surveyor Managing Director 

A: 11 Anzac Street, PO Box 156, Cam bridge 

P: (07) 827 5071 

F: (07) 827 5062 

M: 0274 531 335 

E: phil@cogswellsu rveys.co. nz 

W: www.cogswellsurveys.co.nz 

---···Original Message----· 

From: Phil Cogswell 

Sent: Thursday, 18 October 201.2 8;25 a.m. 

To; tanya.running@opus.co.nz 

Cc: pjboult@xtra.co.nz 

Subject: FW: Sub mission on a Limited Notified Application 

Hi Tanya 

Met with Mark yesterday and I offered a scree n planting (probably a Pittosporum hedge type) option to help 

reduce visual impact. I guess this could be imposed as a condition of consent if deemed necessary. 

Get back to me any further queries. 

Cheers 

Phil 

Phil Cogswell 

B.Surv, MNZIS, Regd. Professional Surveyor Managing Director 

A; 11 Anzac Street, PO Box 156, Cambridge 

P: (07) 827 5071 

F: (07) 827 50G2 

M: 0274 531 335 

E; phil@cogswe llsurveys.co. nz 

W: www.cogswellsurveys.co.nz 

-----Orlgi na I Message----- 

From: Fiona Carrick [mailto:fefifo@xtra.co.nz) 

Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2012 8:10p.m. 

1 

1 71

172 

To: Phil Cogswell 

Subject: RE: Submission on a Umlted Notified Application 

Hi Phil, 

Thanks for taking the time to meet with me today regarding the subdivision In the submission below. 

As agreed, some screen planting along the dlents northern boundary (of something like the Plttosporums you 

mentioned) would certainly help reduce the visual Impact to our property. We would obviously not like to see 

anything planted that would attract bees, wasps or any other 'pests'. 

If you require anymore Information or to discuss things further please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Regards, 

Mark&Fiona 

-On Man, 15/10/12, Phil Cogswell wrote: 

> From: Phil Cogswell 

>Subject: RE: Submission on a Umited Notified Application 

>To: "Fiona Carrick" 

> Cc: "tanya.runnlng@opus.co.nz" 

>Date: Monday,15, October, 2012,1:24 PM Hi FionaHave just spoken to 

>my dlents and they have asked me to consult with you as outlined in 

> my previous email. I need to get back to the Council Planner before 

>Friday to enable her to include any consultation in her report. Is it 

>possible to catch up this week? Either my office or on site if that 

>suits you. Get back to me.ThanksPhll Phil CogsweiiB.Surv, MNZIS, Regd. 

>Professional SurveyorManaglng Director 

> A: 11 Anzac Street, PO Box 156, 

> CambrldgeP: (07) 827 5071F: (07) 827 5062M: 0274 531335E: 

> phll@cogswellsurveys.co.nz W: www.cogswellsurveys.co.nz From: 

> Fiona Carrick [maflto:fefifo@xtra.co.nz] 

>Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012 8:32p.m. 

>To: Phil Cogswell 

>subject: Re: submission on a Umited Notified Application HI Phil, 

>Thanks .for the e-mail. 

>Yes, 

>we would certainly be interested in discussing measures like screen 

> plant\ng or landscaping along the clients northern boundary, to help 

>reduce the visual impact to us. Some sort of consent condition that 

>included those sounds good. 

> As you mentioned, being oonsulted on spedes etc would also be 

· >preferred. We are also a little curious as to why the rule regarding 

>plot size doesn't seem to be being adhered to. look forward to your 

>response. 

> RegardsMarkand 

>Fiona 

>On 11/10/2012, at 9:43AM, Phil Cogswell 

> wrote:HI FlonaAs per my previous email your submission is acknowledged 

>and I have discussed It with Tanya Running who is processing the 

>application. We would like to open some dialogue about Implementing 

>some mitigating measures such as screen planting to reduce the visual 

> impact from your site. I am sure my dients would agree to a 

>Landscaping I screen planting condition (to be included as a consent 

2

condition) along their Northern boundary. The type (height etc) and 

>species would obviously be determined after consultation with 

>yourselves. 

>Please feel free to call me to discuss the proposai.ThanksPhil Phil 

> CogsweiiB.Surv, MNZIS, Regd. 

>Professional SurveyorManaglng Director A: 11 Anzac 

>Street, PO Box 156, 

>Cambridge?: (07) 827 5071F: (07) 827 5062M: 0274 531335£: 

> phil@c:ogswellsurveys.co.nz W: www.cogswellsur11eys .c:o.nz From: Fiona 

>Carrick [mailto:feflfo@xtra.co.nz] 

> 

>Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012 9:14a.m. 

>To: Phil Cogswell 

>Subject: Submission on a Limited Notified Application Hi, Please see 

>attached a Submission on a llmited Notified Application for the 

>Thornton Ridge Trust application for resource consent reference number 

> SP/0076/12 and 04380/329.04.My name is Fiona Carrick and with my 

> partner Mark Wood we ha11e purch aseLI103/4 Maungakawa Road which is 

>property DP354565 and will be impacted by the subdivision. 

>We received a further 

>notification from the Waipa council in late September stating that the 

>date in the original letter of Ocotber 2nd was incorrect. 

>Regards Fiona 

3 

173

174

176 

1 THE SITE 

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 

1.1.1 The site subject to this application is located at 59 Alpha Street, Cambridge. The site 

is a corner site with frontage to both Alpha Street and Empire Street. The site 

consists of flat land which is elevated above both roads. The main access to the site 

is obtained off Empire Street. The Alpha Street frontage consists of a wide berm area 

(approximately 12m wide) with a service lane access formed parallel to Alpha Street 

to service properties to the east of the site. 

1.1.2 Improvements on the site consist of a large building which is not currently occupied. 

The building was used for several commercial type activities in the recent past of 

which the most recent involved the operation of a french market. A more detailed 

summary of the buildings history is provided in Section 1.2 below and in the report 

attached as Appendix 7. The remainder of the site is formed as a gravel area and 

contains a small accessory building in the north-eastern corner. 

1.1.3 The surrounding properties comprise a mixture of commercial and retail activities 

including an antique shop, a furniture shop, Briscoes and Countdown supermarket. 

There are also some sporadic dwellings near the site. Diagram 1 following illustrates 

the site and surrounding area. 

Figure 1-The site and surrounding area 


To demolish a Heritage Item- Cambridge RSA 

Page2 

LU/0096/12

Operative District Pion 

1.1.4 The site is located in the General Zone of the Operative District Plan. Properties to 

the east and south are zoned Town Centres Zone, whereas properties to the north 

and west are also zoned General as demonstrated In Figure 2. 

1.1.5 The building is classified as a Historic Building (RSA Clubrooms) according to Appendix 

10 of the Operative District Plan. It has an Historic Places Trust (HPT) classification of 

II with the use being identified as being residential/now recreational. 

Figure 2: Zoning and Overlay- Operative Dist rict Plan 

Proposed District Pion 

1.1.6 According to Planning Map 28 of the Proposed District Plan, the site is proposed to 

be zoned Commercial with Character Precinct and Pedestrian Frontage overlays as 

demonstrated in Figure 3. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting- ( 19 November 2012) 

To demolish a Heritage Item-Cambridge RSA 

Page3 

LU/0096/12 

177

178 

Figure 3: Zoning and Overlay- Proposed District Plan 

1.1.7 The building on the site is also listed as a heritage building in Appendix N1 of the 

Proposed District Plan, as the Former RSA Clubrooms- Residential/now recreational, 

original building 1877. It is classified as a Category C building. 

1.2 HISTORY OF THE SITE 

1.2.1 The Cambridge Farmers' Club building was constructed on the site in 1877. The site 

and surrounding area was used as cattle show grounds until1881. 

1.2.2 The building was sold to Thomas Wells, a Cambridge merchant, in July 1881. It 

remained in the Wells family for over 50 years (until1932). 

1.2.3 During 1932 to 1942 the building was purchased by Speight, Nicholl and Davys Ltd 

who intended to convert the building into flats. 

1.2.4 In 1941 Speight, Nicholl and Davys Ltd donated the building to the Returned Services 

Association (RSA) to use as a club house. 

1.2.5 It was in the ownership of the RSA from 1942 to 2004, when it was purchased and 

registered in the names of Ernest Corporate Investments Ltd. 

1.3 ALTERATIONS TO THE BUILDING 

1.3.1 An investigation undertaken by Alexy Simmons, Simmons and Associates Ltd on 

behalf of Council has identified that a number of alterations have been done to the 

building over the years. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix 7, but the 

following provides a brief description ofthe alterations. 

1.3.2 When the building was constructed in 1877, it consisted of a large hall constructed of 

kauri on a concrete foundation. Rooms included a main lecture room with fireplace, 

I . 



Page4 

LU/0096/12

library with west facing bay window and fireplace, smoking room and 2 committee 

rooms. 

1.3.3 During the time the building was in the ownership of the Wells family it is believed 

that minor renovations, and modifications were undertaken to convert the building 

to be more residential in character. The showgrounds were turned into a garden. 

1.3.4 The alterations that were undertaken by the RSA include the following: 

• In 1952 the meeting room was converted into a lounge area and it is believed 

that the fireplaces and chimneys were removed. 

• In 1971 an office has been removed and the bar shortened to create a large 

lounge area. Kitchen renovations, cool room, toilet facilities, ladies room and 

reading room additions were undertaken. 

• A billiard room was added to the south elevation in 1973. 

• In 1993 the wall between the Lounge Bar and Pool Salon was opened. 

• Further additions and alterations o the office and kitchen were undertaken in 

1996. 

1.3.5 From the above it is clear that major renovations and internal modifications have 

been done over the years. 

2 BACKGROUND 

2.1 The current owner of the site applied to New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) 

for authorisation to demolish the building on the site. Authorisation to demolish the 

RSA Building to ground level was granted by NZHPT on 20 June 2012, subject to 

conditions. 

2.2 A copy of this authorisation is included in Appendix 3. 

2.3 It is noted that the authority excludes earthworks or ground disturbance, e.g. "No 

earthworks are permitted, foundations, piles or floor slabs are to be left in situ at 

ground level." 

2.4 The approval is solely for the buildings removal. A separate authority will need to be 

applied for to deal with any in-ground archaeological deposits before any future 

earthworks or redevelopment on this property can be undertaken. 



Page 5 

LU/0096/12 

179

180 


3.1 The proposal is to demolish/remove the heritage building from the site. A copy of 

the resource consent application is contained in Appendix 2. The application was 

supported by an archaeological assessment undertaken by Matthew Campbell and 

Peter Holmes- CFG Heritage. 

3.2 The proposal does not include the seeking of consent to relocate the building to a 

different site within the District nor does it relate to the future development of the 

site. Either of these two proposals would be subject to an assessment of their merits 

at the time of such applications. This application is solely for the demolition and/or 

removal of the building. 

4 NGA IWI TOOPU 0 WAIPA (NITOW) CONSULTATION 

4.1 NITOW was given an opportunity to provide their comments on the application. 

NITOW responded on the 16th of July 2012 advising that they have no concerns in 

relation to the proposed application. 

5 NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS 

5.1 Due to the nature of the application it was determined by Council staff that the 

application was one that required full public notification. The application was 

publicly notified on 1 August 2012 in the Cambridge Edition. 

5.2 Seven (7) submissions were received during the statutory submission period of which 

six (6) opposed the proposal while one (1) is neutral. Four submitters sought the 

relocation of the building or part of it and one suggested signage or a plague 

acknowledging the significance of the site and building. Only two submitters 

indicated that they wish to be heard. 

5.3 Enclosed in Appendix 6 are full copies of the submissions received. A summary of the 

submissions is also included in this appendix. 

5.4 The key submission points can be summarised as follows: 

• Cambridge is known for beautiful trees and old buildings which make the town 

different from others. This building is the second oldest building with much 

history and has a prominent street frontage on an elevated site. 

• Demolition is for individual gain. It removal will be a loss to town which cannot 

be reclaimed. 

• It's a landmark and part of the town's heritage and history. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (19 November 2012) 

To demolish a Herltase Item- Cambridge RSA 

Pase6 

LU/0096/12

• Heritage buildings should be conserved and history maintained along with 

architectural pleasure relating to Cambridge. Should not be throwing away 

another significant building for the sake of money. 

• Although building was altered over the years, its appearance is still a fine 

example of early local colonial architecture and has most of its original exterior 

features worth of preserving. 

• Built of hard timbers in 1877. It's perfectly sound and has a future life for a range 

of purposes. It has been rewired, re-plumbed ad re-piled. 

• RSA members voted to sell in 2003 based on the assurance that the 'historic 

significance of the building be maintained' (Waikato Times 10 Dec 2003) . 

Demolition of the building is not in keeping with that. 

• Demolishing the RSA goes against all principles of Waipa Heritage Council and is 

a major departure from WDC's heritage protection regulations/policy. Heritage 

buildings need to be protected and not destroyed. 

• Building has been given protection by WDC for its value as an early character 

structure of significance to the town and therefore needs to be preserved. 

• It is situated in the CBD 'character zone'- one of the few remaining examples of 

its type. 

• It is not up to NZHPT to determine whether heritage buildings in Waipa can go or 

not. It's the decision of the Waipa Community. NZHPT deal with national 

buildings. 

• Total demolition of the building with no attempt of any salvage would go down 

as a sad chapter in Cambridge's history. 

5.5 The key decisions/outcomes sought by the submitters include the following: 

• The building needs to be saved from demolition or removal. 

• Council have a duty to stand by our principles and uphold the protection of our 

heritage buildings. 

• Relocate the building within the CBD or nearby. 

• Council has to insist that it is offered for removal. 

• Building not to be removed from the site as building and site go hand in hand 

from historical point of view. 

• The assurances given to the RSA upon its sale should be respected . 

• If building is demolished, a plague be erected on site to acknowledge the early 

significance of the site. 

• No commercial housing or cafes to be built on the site- if building is removed. 



Page 7 

LU/0096/12 

181

182 

5.6 The majority of the above issues are discussed further in Section 8.1, Environmental 

Effects. There are however a number of issues that have been raised in the 

submissions that require comment at this point in time as they are either not RMA or 

environmental effect considerations. The following provides this commentary. 

5.7 One ofthe submitters states that the demolition is for individual gain. Whilst this may 

the case this is not a fact that Council can consider when making a decision on this 

application. It is the prerogative of the owner of the site to make an application to 

Council which he/she deems to be the best outcome for the site and the owner. This 

assessment solely looks at the effects and merits of the proposal from an 

archaeological and historical perspective. 

5.8 Three submitters have also indicated that the building should be relocated and that 

Council must insist that it is offered for relocation. It was also suggested that it be 

moved to the greenbelt and used as a museum or used as a residence. As the site is 

privately owned, Council cannot enforce a decision which is not the subject of the 

application. As above, the application is assessed on its merits. 

5.9 Two submitters stated that the RSA members voted to sell in 2003 based on the 

assurance that the 'historic significance if the building be maintained', and that the 

demolition is therefore not in keeping with that. As it is the owner's wish to demolish 

the building and as there are no legal instruments registered on the title to ensure 

adherence to what have been agreed to, Council can not enforce such an agreement. 

5.10 The suggestion of erecting a plague on the site containing the history of the building 

and site seems to be a good compromise but is a requirement that would be difficult 

to enforce. It will ultimately depend on the good will of the future owners of the site. 

6 OFFICER COMMENTS 

6.1 Council has engaged the services of Alexy Simmons, Simmons and Associates Ltd to 

review the application, submissions received and undertake an assessment of the 

building and its background. Her report, which is attached as Appendix 7, forms the 

basis of this assessment and the recommendation contained in this report. 

6.2 The report provides an overview of the submissions received, history of the building 

and site, reasoning behind the building being listed in the Proposed District Plan and 

a recommendation. The report includes an extensive assessment of the existing 

features and includes floor plans and photographs of the floor and ceiling boards 

supporting the conclusion. This reporting is additional to that provided by the 

applicant in support of the application by Matthew Campbell and Peter Holmes- CFG 

Heritage. 

6.3 The report recommended that a recording be done to document the architecture and 

photographic evidence of the building and that signage be erected on the site 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting· (19 November 2012) 


PageS 

LU/0096/12

detailing the history of the building and containing photographs and plans of the 

structure. 

6.4 The application was also internally circulated to several Council departments and 

organisations. This was for information purposes only and no formal comments were 

required to be provided. 

6.5 No comments were accordingly received, except from Council's SPnior Building 

Compliance Officer, Owen Johnston, who confirmed that a building consent is not 

required for its demolition. 

6.6 The application was also forwarded to the Cambridge Hentage Society and 

Cambridge Community Board for their comments. Various members provided their 

individual comments of which copies are attached as Appendix 4. In short, Mr John 

Bishop from the Cambridge Heritage Society supports the application while other 

members of the Heritage Society had split opinions as follows. 

• Jennie Gainsford- Cambridge Heritage Society- Oppose 

• Alan Hall- Cambridge Heritage Society- Support 

• Robin Astridge- Cambridge Heritage Society- Neutral 

• John Bishop- Cambridge Community Board- Support 

6.7 Copies of the application were available at the Public Counters and Public Library of 

both the Cambridge and Te Awamutu offices throughout the notification period. 

7 DISTRICT PLAN PROVISIONS - CLASSIFICATION OF THE LANDUSE 

CONSENT 

7.1 As already mentioned, the subject site is zoned General in the Operative Waipa 

District Plan, and Commercial in the Proposed Waipa District Plan. 

7.2 Operative Waipa District Plan 

7.2.1 The site is listed in Appendix 10 of the Operative District Plan as containing a Heritage 

Building (RSA Clubrooms) which has an HPT classification of II. 

7.2.2 Under Rule 11.2.4(a} of the Operative District Plan, the demolition of a building listed 

in Appendix 10 is a Discretionary Activity and shall be considered in accordance with 

Rule 11.2.5, and subject to the following procedure: 

• The Council may publicly notify the proposal and shall serve notice of the 

proposal on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and on such other interested 

groups or bodies as the Council thinks fit. 

• Prior to giving any effect to the proposal, such plans, photographs and other 

information as the Council may require shall be supplied by the owner to enable 

an adequate record to be made. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (19 November 2012} 

To demolish a HeritJge Item- Cambridge RSA 

Page9 

LU/0096/12 

183

184 

7.2.3 The application was publicly notified and notice has been served on the following 

groups/bodies, including New Zealand Historic Places Trust: 

• Department of Conservation 

• Public Health Unit Waikato District Health Board 

• The Chief Executive Officer 

• Ngaa lwi Toopu 0 Waipa 

• New Zealand Historic Places Trust 

• Waipa Heritage Council 

• Fish & Game NZ Auckland I Waikato 

7.2.4 The proposal is assessed against Rule 11.2.5 of the Operative District Plan. The 

assessment is contained in the Table which is attached as Appendix 5. 

7.3 Proposed Waipa District Plan 

7.3.1 The building is listed in Appendix Nl of the Proposed District Plan as a Category C 

Heritage Building. Category C Heritage Building have Community Significance, i.e. 

local significance heritage items of local importance which contribute to the 

community's history and are noteworthy as community heritage places. 

7.3.2 The demolition of Heritage Items which have Group C Local Significance is to be 

processed as a Discretionary Activity according to Rule 22.4.1.1(f) of the Proposed 

Plan. According to Rule 22.5.2, the criteria in Section 21 are only a guide to the 

matters that the Council will consider and shall not restrict the Council's discretionary 

powers. 

7.3.3 The proposal is assessed against the relevant criteria contained in Section 21 of the 

Proposed Plan, which is attached as Appendix 5. 

7.4 Legal Effect of Rules in the Proposed District Plan 

7.4.1 Section 86B of the Resource Management Act 1991 sets out the circumstances when 

a rule in a proposed district plan is deemed to have legal effect. In this case, the 

relevant rules and associated standards relate to the protection of historic heritage 

and thus they have legal effect as from 31 May 2012. 

7.5 Activity Status 

7 .5.1 Overall, the proposal is considered to be a Discretionary Activity, due to its status 

under Rule 11.2.4(a) of the Operative District Plan and Rule 22.4.1.1(f) of the 

Proposed District Plan. 


To demolish a Heritage Item - Cambridge RSA 

Page 10 

LU/0096/12

8 SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT 

A consent authority must have regard to a number of matters under Section 104 of the 

Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) when considering an application for resource 

consent. 

Those considerations include the actual and potential effects of an activity on the 

environment, the relevant provisions of an operative and proposed district plan, regional 

plan or other relevant statutory document, and any other matter the consent authority 

considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. 

The following assessment addresses all relevant considerations under Section 104 of the 

RMA and provides commentary on submitters comments as appropriate. 

8.1 section 104(1)(A) - Any Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment of 

Allowing the Activity 

8.1.1 The actual and potential adverse effects on the environment of this proposal relates 

directly to the removal of a building which has a historic connotation and which has 

sentimental value to the community of Cambridge. In the event the consent is 

granted, the result will be a vacant allotment. This assessment accordingly focuses 

on the heritage and archaeological effects of the proposal. This assessment does not 

address any potential future development on the site as such development will be 

subject to the requirements and provisions ofthe District Plan at that time. 

8.1.2 In order to assist Council in making an informed recommendation on the 

appropriateness of the proposal from a heritage and archaeological perspective, 

Alexy Simmons, Simmons & Associates Ltd, has been engaged to provide an overview 

of the historic character of the building and to make appropriate recommendations. 

8.1.3 Ms Simmons report concluded that: 

"Major modifications to the buUd;ng have erased the arcMtectural features 

associations with the CFC (1877-1881) and Wells (1881-1936) phases of building use. 

For example the internal modifications have left virtually no spatial references to CFC 

use of the building. The sense of the place as a domestic structure associated with the 

Wells occupancy is also lost." 

8.1.4 Whilst some submitters have suggested that the building still has most of its original 

features, the assessment done by Ms Simmons concluded that the building has 

substantially been compromised by modifications over the years (as mentioned in 

section 8.1.3}. Also during a site visit undertaken of the interior of the building it was 

evident that there are limited architectural features remaining. 



Page 11 

LU/0096/12 

185

186 

8.1.5 It is acknowledged that the building has historic significance as well as sentimental 

value to the community but due to the alterations undertaken over the years and the 

current "neglectedH state of the building, any effort to restore the building to its 

original form could prove to be a significant financial challenge. The owner has also 

indicated that he does not wish to maintain the building. 

8.1.6 It is agreed that heritage buildings should be conserved in order to maintain 

Cambridge's history and architectural design, as stated by some submitters. 

However, as there is no Council funding assistance in place the onus is on the owner 

of the heritage item to fund any such maintenance/upgrading. As a result, Council is 

therefore not in the position to enforce this upgrading. For this reason the District 

Plan has to provide for the option of demolition of heritage items, even if it goes 

against Waipa District Council's heritage protection policy. 

8.1.7 I concur with the building having a prominent street frontage and being a Cambridge 

landmark and that it would be a 'sad day to see it being demolished', but the reality is 

that investigations undertaken concluded that very little of the original features 

remain. Restoration of the building, in part or full, is not something that Council can 

enforce. If the retainment and upgrading of the building is what the Cambridge public 

would require, then Council would need to purchase and upgrade the building at the 

ratepayers cost. 

8.1.8 One submitter mentioned that it is not up to NZHPT to determine whether heritage 

buildings in Waipa can be demolished. NZHPT acknowledges the fact that the building 

has undergone significant alteration and modification over the years and has 

therefore granted authorisation to demolish it. This provides some direction to 

Council, but any decision is primarily dependent on the condition of the building and 

approval or decline is ultimately the decision of Council's Regulatory Committee. 

8.1.9 I therefore concur with the recommendation of the report prepared by Ms Simmons 

which advises that architectural and photographic recording of the building and site 

be undertaken in order to mitigate potential effects relating to the 

demolition/removal. 

8.1.10 Based on the above, I consider the removal of the building from the site appropriate 

given that appropriate mitigation measures be undertaken, i.e. recording of 

architectural features and photographic evidence. 


To demolish a Heritage Item- cambridge RSA 

Pase 12 

LU/0096/12

188 

8.2.3 Proposed Waipa District Plan 

Objective - Protection of heritage items 

22.3.1 To protect the District's heritage items from inappropriate subdivision, use 

and development. 

PoHcy- Providing protection for listed heritage items 

22.3.1.1 To protect the heritage values associated with heritage items, (Appendix Nl) 

so that the national, regional or local significance of the item is retained. The 

basis of the significance of an item is wide ranging and can be its built 

features or the role that an item has played in the community over time. The 

categories that apply are: 

(c) Category C: Community Significance- Local significance heritage items 

are of local importance, contribute to the community's history and are 

noteworthy as community heritage places. 

Comment: The RSA building is listed as a Category C building. Removal of the building 

is not consistent with Polley 22.3.1.1. 

Objective - Maintaining and using heritage items 

22.3.2 To protect the District's heritage items by ensuring that heritage items are 

retained within the District, appropriately maintained, and that any 

additions, alterations, or signs do not compromise the heritage values of the 

item. 

Policy -Demolition, partial demolition and removal of a heritage Item 

22.3.2.7 The demolition or removal of a heritage item from its site shall be avoided 

unless in exceptional circumstances. Partial demolition, that is part of works 

to achieve an addition or alteration to a heritage item, shall be achieved in a 

manner that results in no more than minor adverse effect on the character 

and values of the heritage Item. 

Comment: In this instance it can be argued that there are exceptional circumstances 

which could support the removal of the building. These include the renovations and 

alterations to the building undertaken over the years and the financial requirement 

to restore the building to its original state. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting· (19 November 2012) 


Page 14 

LU/0096/12

8.2.4 Objectives and Polices Assessment Conclusion - Proposed District Plan 

I have considered all the relevant objectives and policies of the Proposed District Plan 

in light of the context of the District Plan and its explanations. 

The proposal is considered to be inconsistent with Policy 22.3.1.1 but consistent with 

policy 22.3.2. 7 due to special circumstances applicable to the building. 

8.3 Weighting of District Plans 

The Proposed District Plan has been notified and is now closed for submissions. The 

rules relating to the protection of historic heritage have legal effect from 31 May 

2012 and have therefore been considered in the assessment of the application. 


9.1 Part 2 is the purpose and principles of the RMA. The overall purpose of the RMA is to 

promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. 

"Sustainable management" is defined to mean 'managing the use, development and 

protection of such resources in a way that enables people and communities to 

provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and their health and safety'. 

At the same time they must: 

• Sustain the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the 

reasonably foreseeable needs of the future generations; 

• Safeguard the life-supporting capacitY of air, water, soil and ecosystems; 

• Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment of the 

activity. 


matters of national importance in exercising powers and functions under the RMA. 

Of relevance to the current proposal is clause 6(f), which relates to the protection of 

historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Mitigation 

measures required for the application, i.e. recording of heritage values in order to 

retain a record, deemed the proposal to not be inconsistent with section 6. 

9.3 The above Part 2 matters must be given effect to in policy, plan and rule making and 

when making decisions on resource consents. In this instance, the proposal is not 

considered to be consistent with all the objectives and policies of the Operative 

District Plan or Proposed District Plan, and although the potential effects (discussed 

in Section 8.1 of this report) of the proposal are deemed to be significant it is not 

considered to be inconsistent with the sustainable management principles of Part 2 

of the Act. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (19 November 2012) 


Page 15 

LU/0096/12 

189

190 

10 CONCLUSION 

10.1 The applicant is seeking consent from Council to demolish/remove an existing 

building from the site which is listed as a historic building in the Operative District 

Plan and as a Heritage Item in the Proposed District Plan. 

10.2 To demolish a historic/heritage building is a Discretionary Activity in both the 

Operative and Proposed District Plans. 

10.3 After having considered the application in accordance with the matters required by 

Section 104, and based on the assessment undertaken by Alexy Simmons, I conclude 

that: 

• An assessment of the environmental effects of the proposal including concerns 

raised by the submitters have been considered in this report. The conclusion of 

that assessment is that the actual and potential adverse effects of allowing the 

activity can be adequately mitigated subject to appropriate conditions. 

Specifically, if the Committee was of the mind to approve the consent then 

conditions would need to be imposed that ensure the history of the building and 

site is recorded and kept for the public access. 

• The objectives and policies of both Operative and Proposed District Plan have 

been considered in this assessment. That assessment has concluded that the 

proposal is generally inconsistent with the objectives and policies of both plans 

which relates to the protection and preservation of historic/heritage buildings. 

However, based on the investigation undertaken by an expert professional (Alexy 

Simmons, Simmons and Associates Ltd) special circumstances are considered to 

apply to the building which supports the demolition. 

10.4 On the basis of the conclusions reached within Section 8.1 of this report I consider 

any potential effects associated with the proposal to be more than minor. I have 

however used my judgement and discretion provided by Section 104B to recommend 

that land use consent be granted subject to the recommended conditions, to avoid, 

remedy and/or mitigate the identified potential adverse effects, in section 11 of this 

report. The recommended conditions are based on the recommendations of the 

report prepared by Alexy Simmons, Simmons and Associates Ltd. 

Report to Regulatory Committee Mel!ting • ( 19 November 2012) 

To demolish a Herltase Item-Cambridse RSA 

Page 16 

LU/0096/12


That 

a) The report of Marlize Durandt be received; and 

b) In consideration of Sections 104 and 1048, and pursuant to Section 108 of the 

Resource Management Act 1991, the Waipa District Council approves land use 

application LU/0096/12 by Robert Edward Lee to demolish/remove the 

building at 59 Alpha Street, Cambridge, legally described as Part Allot 393 

General 

Town of Cambridge (SA 7728155), subject to the following conditions: 

1) That the proposal must be generally consistent with the information provided 

by Robert E Lee, submitted with LU/0096/12, unless otherwise altered by the 

conditions of the consent. 

2) The building must be removed/demolished from the site. 

3) Architectural and photographic recording of the building fabric 

The applicant must engage a suitably qualified professional to record the 

architectural features and photographical evidence of the building and site. 

The recording work must focus on identifying and recording information 

about the Cambridge Farmers' Club and Wells phases of building use as well 

as recording the structure's last use. This work should include a thorough 

investigation of the building fabric to answer questions about the Cambridge 

Farmers' Club and Wells floor plans and the fabric of the building during those 

phases of use. Products should include (but is not limited to): 

• overall site plan; 

• floor plans that show the various periods of building construction; 

• elevations (exterior) and through sections; 

• roof and ceiling plans that record the various periods of building 

construction (as possible); 

• details of joinery, architraves, fireplaces, etc.; 

• a photographic record of the building (with plan notations); 

• exterior paint sampling to identify CFC and Wells paint colours (e.g. 

'cratering'); 

• wall paper samples or paint colours that related to the CFC and Wells 

phases, if any are identified; and 

• samples of any other building fabric that are unusual or could be 

interpreted in a museum display. 

Notes: i) CAD system is recommended for the architectural plans. The building 

information should be compiled as a report. In addition larger format 



Page 17 

LU/0096/12 

1 91

192 

plans must be provided with the report and a copy of the digital 

photographs copied to CD. It is suggested that an architectural 

draftsman with heritage building experience be commissioned do this 

work. 

ii) Copies of the report information should be deposited with WDC and 

the Cambridge Library. The large format architectural drawings, 

photo CD, a copy of the report and any samples of relevant building 

material should be deposited with the Cambridge Museum. 


ANl Archaeological Authority number 20012/929 has been issued by NZHPT for 

demolition of the structure. The Authority excludes earthworks or ground 

disturbance, e.g. "No earthworks are permitted, foundations, piles or floor 

slabs are to be left in situ at ground level." A separate application to NZHPT is 

required to undertake any earthworks on the site or to remove foundations. 


a) The application is not consistent with the objectives and policies of the 

operative Waipa District Plan and the proposed Waipa District Plan. It is 

however considered that special circumstances exist which support the 

demolition/removal of the building from the site. 

b) Any actual and potential effects on the environment can be appropriately 

mitigated through conditions of consent. 

c) The application does not contravene the matters set out in Part 2 of the RMA. 

Marlize Durandt 

PLANNER 

Approved for the Regulatory Committee Agenda by 

Terrena Kelly 

SENIOR ANALYST· PLANNING 

Wayne Allan 




PagelS 

LU/0096/12

List of Appendices 

Appendix 1 

Site Location Map 

Appendix 2 

Resource Consent Application 

Including: Certificate of Title and Archaeological Assessmen t undertaken by Matthew 

Campbell and Peter Holmes - CFG Heritage 

Appendix 3 

Authorisation from New Zealand Historic Places Trust 

Appendix 4 

Comments from Cambridge Community Board and Cambridge Heritage Council 

Appendix 5 

Assessment of the proposal against the Operative and Proposed District Plan provisions 

Appendix 6 

Su bmissions Received & Summary of su bmiss ions 

Appendix 7 

Assessment undertaken by Ale xy Simmon s, Simmons and Associates Ltd 



Page 19 

LU/ 0096/ 12 

193

194 

Appendixl 

Site location Map

Rgure 9 (top left}. Detail of the gable wing, showing the square bay 

window and decorative elements. 

Figure 70 (top right). Detail of the CFC wing showing ltalianate 

influences. 

Figure r7 (right).lnteriorofthe gable wing showing the squart boy 

window and presumed original floorboards. 

The Empile St fronuge remains as shown in the 19-405 pb«o (F.agare 3) with str.ps leading 

up from the street and a landscaped front yud. The back of the section shaM that numerous 

lean-to additions have been built here over time crating something of a jumble. 1he rear of the 

section looks to have been built up and levelled to form a car park. 

Aaaenment 

The following assessment is based on the archaeology described in the previous sections and 

relatea only to archaeological values. Other interested parties, in particular tangam wbcnua, 

may hold diifcrent w1ucs regudiag the site. This assessment acknowledses that other values, in 

particulu streetscapt; amenity and community wJucs, are re1cvaDt to this buildiag. 

The following statements of archaeological values are made in regard to the criteria idenillied 

in Section 23 of the HPA. These criteria are considered as part of the assessment on the HPT 

archaeological authority application form. 

10 

219

222 

Appendix 3 

Authorisation from New Zealand Historic Places Trust

archaeological sites dwi.ng earthworks for the demolition of the RSA (Former) building at 59 

Alpha Street, Cambridge. 

The Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following: 

a) procedures for any archaeological investigation or recording of archaeological 

information, 

b) the role, responsibility and level of authority of the appooved archaeologist(s), 

c) timefrarnes for archaeological work. 

d) protocols for the Wlexpected discovery of archaeological material, 

e) on-site briefing by Project Archaeologist for contractors about the archaeological work 

required and how to identify archaeological sites during works, 

f) the responsibilities of contractors with regard to notification of archaeological sites, 

g) requirements for stand down periods to enable archaeological work, 

b) mechanisms for dispute resolution, and 

i) emergency contact details for the Project Archaeologist, NZHPT Area Archaeologist 

and lwi. 

The Plan must be submitted to the NZHPT Area Archaeologist for approval prior to the 

commencement of any earthworks. No earthworks shall commence until the NZHPT has 

given its written approval of the Plan. 

5. The demolition of the RSA (Fonner) building at 59 Alpha Street, Cambridge must be 

archaoologically investigated, recorded and analysed prior to demolition to document and 

recover all infonnation about its construction. alteration and use through time. This is to be 

tmdertaken prior to and during demolition to a minimwn standard of Level III as defined in 

the Guidelines for the Investigation and Recording of Buildings and Standing Stnu:tures 

(NZHPT Archaeological Guidelines Series No. l) for the pre-1900 portions of the building. 

The post-1900 portions of the building on site do not need to be recorded but should be 

annotated on the produced drawings where they affect the pre-1900 structure or ground 

surface. 

6. The Authority Holder must ensure that allowance is made in the work schedule for any 

archaeological work required as a condition of this authority. This shall be determined in 

consultation with the approved archaeologist 

7. No earthworks are permitted to be earned out under this authority. Reasonable efforts must be 

made to safeguard any archaeological material on site from unlawful excavation and removal. 

8. The Authority Holder must ensure that a representative collection of any non-Maori artefacts 

and/ or building materials recovered during works is offered to the local or regional musewn 

for their collections or for use as a comparative collection. 

9. A digital catalogue of diagnostic building material and samples is provided to the NZHHPT 

as an addendum to the final report for the inclusion into the digital comparative collection. 

10. If any koiwi tangata (human remains) are encountered, alJ work should cease within 20 metres 

of the discovery. The NZHPT Area Archaeologist, NZ Police and Tangata Whenua Ngati 

Koroki Kahakura must be advised immediately and no further work in the area may take place 

until they have responded. 

2 

227

22& 

11. The Authority Holder must ensme that if any possible taonga or Maori artefacts, or sites of 

Maori origin are encountered, all work should cease within 20 metres of the discovery. The 

NZHPT Area Archaeologist must be advised immediately and no further work in the area 

may take place until they have responded. 

12. Within 20 days of the completion of on-site archaeological work Site Reoord Forms must be 

updated or submitted to the NZAA Site Recording Scheme by the approved archaeologist. 

Copies of any forms or updates must be provided with the 20 day report. 

13. That within 20 working days of the completion of the on-site archaeological work associated 

with this authority, a written summary outlining the archaeological work undertaken, the 

preliminary results, and the approximate percentage of archaeological material remaining insitu 

and a plan showing areas subject to earthworks, areas monitored and the location and 

extent of any archaeological sites affected or avoided, must be submitted to the NZHPT Area 

Archaeologist 

This report must be prepared by an archaeologist approved by the NZHPT. 

14. That within 12 months of the completion of the on-site archaeological works a draft final 

report must be submitted to the NZHPT Area Archaeologist for feedback. 

The NZHPT Area Archaeologist will provide feedback on the draft report within one month 

of receipt. A final report, completed to the satisfaction of the NZHPT is to be submitted 

within one month of receiving feedback from the NZHPT Area Archaeologist. 

This report shall include, but may not be limited to, site plans, section drawings, photographs, 

inventory of material recovered, including a catalogue of artefacts; location of where the 

material is currently held, and analysis of recovered material in accordance with accepted 

archaeological practice. The authority nwnber must be included in the report title. 

This report must be prepared by an archaeologist approved by the NZHPT. 

IS. The Authority Holder shall ensure that one hard copy of the final report is sent to the NZHPT 

Area Archaeologist A digital copy must also be sent to the NZHPT's National Office for 

inclusion in the Digital Library. 

Hard copies of the final report must also be sent to: 

NZAA Central Filekeeper. Special Collections Department, University of Auckland Library, 

and The Librarian, Anthropology Department, University of Otago 

APPROVED ARCHAEOLOGIST 

Pursuant to section 17 of the Act, Dr Matthew Campbell, with such assistants as may be necessary, 

is approved by NZHPT to carry out any archaeological work required as a condition of this 

authority, and to compile and submit a report on the work done. 

3 

• 

I

230 

Appendix 4 

Comments from Cambridge Community Board and Cambridge Heritage Council

From: Tony and Jennie fmailto:gford@jhug.co.nz] 

Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2012 11:01 a.m. 

To: cathie Shaw 

Cc: John Bishop; 'Mike Pettit'; 'Elwyn'; Tony Roxburgh; Barbara Taran!!lki (external); 

a.hall@clear.net.nz; annjebil!f@xtra.co.nz; nritchie@doc.govt,nz; beather@noSwlreless.co.nz; 

chrlsrobin@xtra.co.nz; flow@blstodc.org.nz; Alan Uvingston; rjchardwrlght627@gmail.com; Sue Milner 

(external); phllip@cambddaereafestate.co.nz 

Subject: cambridge RSA Heritage and Protected Building 

Hi, 

I firmly oppose the demolition of the cambridae RSA; it goes against all the principals that we stand for as the 

Walpa Heritage Coundl. The woe have given this building protection for Its value as an early character 

structure of significance to the town and as suc:h every effort should be made to preserve it. The building has 

been altered but its appearance it still that of a very fine elCample of early local colonial architecture. It has a 

prominent street frontage and stands proud on an elevated site. It is situated in the CBD 'character zone' as 

one of the few remaining elCamples of Its type. It still has most of its original exterior features and Is certainly 

worth preserving in its current state. 

I do not understand why Council should be considering a major departing from their own heritage protection 

regulations by considering demolition. It appears that the only reason for making this decision would be to 

enable the current owners to realise a better price for the property. I believe we have a duty to stand by our 

principles and uphold the protection of our heritage buildings which we have fought so hard for. We owe this 

to the community who would no doubt be extremely disappointed if we allowed demolition. 

Regards, 

Jennie Galnsford 

231

From: John Bishop 

Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2012 4:49p.m. 

To: Cathie Shaw; Mike Pettit; Elwyn; philio@cambridgerealestate.co.nz; Grahame Webber (external); 

Sue Milner (external}; richardwright627@gmall.com; gford@xtra.co.nz; Barbara Taranaki (external); 

a.hall@clear.net.nz; gford@ihug.co.nz; f!ow@historic.orq.nz; anniebillf@xtra.co.nz; 

nritchje@cloc.govt.nz; heather@no8wireless.co.nz; chrisrobjn@xtra.co.nz 

Subject: Re: Cambridge RSA - Comments Please 

Hi Marlize 

Just confirming a few of the points I discussed with you today. 

1) -Am happy to support the application to demolish the building. - Although significant in age the building 

has seen additions which are a little "clumsy," with the interior now bearing little resemblance to the original. 

2) - From a community board view point would not be interested in saving and then having Waipa purchase 

and also spending significant money to refurbish- not in community best interest. 

3)- Archeologically- would be happy for the site to be checked for artefacts directly building is removed- we 

are unlikely to find holy grail, but site could yield bottles, glassware, porcelain or pottery. Should be a 

maximum time limit to complete this activity. 

4]- With Cambridge Heritage Area now including this site- covenant include any new building should have a 

facade and heritage colour sympathetic to the location. i.e. no slab concrete walls, corrugated iron walls, loud 

colours. 

5) - When new building is erected and being landscaped Waipa district to erect discreet signage marking the 

importance of the location as an historic site. 

Kind regards 

John Bishop 

Cambridge Community Board 

Kind regards 

John Bishop 

233

234 

Ff'OM: Chris & Robin Astrtdge [maJ!to:cJuisrobkt@xtra.co.nzl 

Sent: Wednesday, 25luly 201211:27 a.m. 

To: cathie Shaw 

SUbject: Re: Cambridge RSA- Comments Please 

Hi Cathie 

Am very undecided on this matter whilst I agree that it would be a shame to lose the building I am 

equaUy sure that if the only alternative is for the woe to buy the building then It should go in this 

current financial times. 

Robin

-------- 

AppendixS 

Assessment of the application against the Operative and Proposed District Plan 

provisions 

235

can be avoided, remedied or 

mitigated. 

(c) The extent of modification to the 

features of importance as identified 

for the individual heritage item. 

(d) The importance (if any) of the 

setting surrounding the heritage 

feature. 

(e) The impact the proposal has on 

the integrity/value of the heritage 

item. 

(f) The importance attributed to the 

heritage item by the wider 

community. 

(g) Information, advice or opinion 

contained in the Heritage Report, 

provided with the environmental 

assessment of effects including the 

policies and requirements of any 

specific conservation plan and the 

heritage inventory relating to the 

heritage item. 

(h) The significance of the place to 

tangata whenua as advised in a 

cultural impact assessment. 

21.1.22.8 Demolition (includes partial 

demolition) 

(a) The extent to which there has 

been a change in circumstances that 

has resulted in a reduction of the 

historical significance of the building 

or feature since the building was 

evaluated and listed. 

(b) The reasons why the heritage 

item is proposed to be demolished. 

(c) The extent to which the building 

can be economically adapted for 

X 

Associates Ltd recommend that 

the building be recorded in 

order to mitigate any potential 

adverse effects from removing 

it from the site. 

(c) N/A- the building is proposed 

to be removed/demolished. 

(d) The site is located in the 

Gerenal Zone (ODP) and 

Character Precinct (PDP). The 

rest of the site is not 

maintained/planted in garden. 

(e) The proposal is to remove the 

heritage item from the site. 

(f) The community has expressed 

sentimental value to the 

history of the site and building. 

(g) The Archaeological Assessment 

submitted with the application 

concluded that although the 

building has historical 

associations, the archaeological 

potential of the building has 

been severely compromised by 

the condition of the building. 

(h) lwi has confirmed that they do 

not have any concerns with the 

proposal. 

(a) The building is listed in 

Proposed District Plan based 

on the local, district and 

regional history associated with 

the building. 

(b) Major modifications to the 

building over the years have 

erased the original 

architectural features. 

(c) Based on investigations 

undertaken to determine what 

original features have remain 

237

238 

reuse or relocated either within the 

site or off site, in preference to 

demolition, to retain the significance 

of the building for future 

generations. 

(d) The extent to which any 

alteration to the building can be 

made that retains the heritage item. 

(e) The extent to which the materials 

of the item can be reused and 

incorporated into future buildings on 

the site. 

(f) The extent to which the item in its 

current state poses a significant 

safety risk. 

(g) The extent to which the heritage 

significance of the site, group or 

precinct to which the heritage 

feature relates Is compromised. 

(h) The extent to which the 

significance of the item to the 

community has been considered and 

the outcomes of any consultation 

undertaken. 

(I) The extent to which the effects of 

demolition can be mitigated by 

requiring the applicant to provide an 

accurate historical record of the 

building/structure. 

U) The extent to which there are 

extenuating drcumstances, such as 

the building presenting a danger to 

the public from being instable, or the 

cost of repair would be so great that 

it would exceed the lfkely value of 

the restored building. 

(k) If demolitJon or removal is 

approved, the Historic Building 

Documentation (HBD) should 

include: the structure's history, 

photocraphrc documentation and 

plans of the buildlne/structure as 

prepared by a slitably qualified 

person in refatlon to heritage. The 

documentation must be completed 

and accepted by the Council prior to 

and the extend of alterations 

undertaken over the years, it is 

my opinion that substantial 

financial Input would be 

require to restore the building. 

(d) Due to the scale of alterations 

it Is concluded in the report 

prepared by Alexy Simmons 

that the architectural features 

have been erased. 

(e) See (d) 

(f) It Is not believed the building 

poses a safety risk. 

(g) Removal of the building will 

not affect the integrity of the 

immediate area, but will leave 

a vacant site which previously 

had a historic connotation. 

(h) The application has been 

publidy notified and the 

comments from the submitters 

are noted. 

(i) A condition will be Imposed 

requiring that the applicant 

provide an historic remrd of 

the building and site. 

U) It is my opinion that the costs 

to restore the building to its 

former character would be high 

based on the fact that almost 

all the original features have 

been removed over the years. 

(k) A condition will be Imposed 

accordingly.

uilding demolition/removal. 

21.1.22.9 RemovaVRelocation of a heritage 

item 

(a) The extent to which the item is 

retained within the local community 

or Waipa District. 

(b) The extent to which the item is 

retained for a similar use or adaptive 

reuse. 

(c) Relocation of the item to a similar 

setting. 

(d) Documentation (Historic Building 

Documentation) that should include: 

the structure's history, photographic 

documentation and plans of the 

building/structure as prepared by a 

suitably qualified person in relation 

to heritage. The documentation 

must be completed and accepted by 

the Council prior to building 

removal/relocation. 

21.2.21 Assessmen"t Criteria and 

Information Requirements (this 

Section) 

Zl.Z.ZZ 

21.2.22.4 

Heritage and Archaeoloay 

Additions, alterations, demolition 

or removal 

(a) A Heritage Report shall be 

provided for application to 

undertake additions, alterations, 

relocations or demolition. The report 

shall be proportional to the scale 

and intensity of the effects of the 

works being undertaken and shall be 

prepared by a suitably qualified 

person and shall address the criteria 

listed below: 

Historical slgnl/fcanee and social 

slgnlflcana 

(b) The historical significance or 

value associated with the item e.g. a 

notable person, event, time period 

or activity. Consideration as to 

whether the building, place or object 

presents an important reflection of 

(a) The building is proposed to 

be removed from the site I 

demolished. 

(b) See (a) 

(c) See (a) 

(d) A condition will be imposed 

requiring that the historic 

significance of the building 

and site be recorded. 

An archaeological assessment has ' 

been prepared by CEG Heritage - 

Matthew campbell and Peter 

Holmes, which was submitted with 

the application. I accept this report 

as it outlines the history of the 

site, detail about a survey 

undertaken of the bulldln& an 

archaeological assessment, 

assessment of significance of the 

building and of effects and a 

recommendation. 

Council have further engaged the 

services of Alexy Simmons, 

Simmons and Associates Ltd to 

review the application, review the 

heritage provisions, investigate the 

history of the site and building, 

review the submissions and 

239

and educational value, and its 

potential to provide further 

information thrCKJih research. 

Sdllng/COIJWIIt or group 

(i) The unity that the heritage 

building, place or object has in 

relation to its environment or 

surroundings including buildings, 

particularly if it Is noted as being 

part of a group of buildings, as 

denoted by the addition of 'G' to the 

category. For example scale, space, 

structure, form, materials, texture 

and colour, 

(B) For a building that Is proposed to 

be demolished Information about 

the buildins and It's history Is to be 

supplied to the Council and will be 

will be retained as a record of the 

building in the event that the 

buildi"l is demolished or partially 

demolished. 

241 

1

242 

Appendix 6 

Submissions Received & Summary of Submissions 

- -- -

HN1rin1: 

- ------ - 

[] I do wish to be heard in support of my submission 

(this means that you will speak at the hearing) 

I do not wish to be heard in support of my submission 

(this means that you will not be advised of the date of the hearing and will not speak at the hearing) 

[] I have served a copy of my submission on the applicant. 

(this is required by section 96(6) (b) of the Resource Management Act 1991) 

Closin1 Date for Submissions: sth September 2012 

Notes to submitter: 

• 

• 

• 

You must serve a copy of your submission on the applicant as soon as reasonably practicable after you have served your 

submission on the consent authority. 

Submitter address for service: 

If you make your submission by electronic means, a signature Is not required. Electronic submissions on resource consent 

applications !m!J! be directed to www.jnfo@walpadc.goyt.nz. 

For more Information on making a submission please refer to the website:www.mfe.govt.nz 

Doc Ref: LU/0096/12 

M Durandt 2235 

t!faipa 

DlllaiCT COUNCil 

Document Number: 12149930 

249

Name 

Heard - Oppose 

Addressl 

Hamish McMullin 446 Brunskill Road 

Jennie Gainsford 

Not Heard - Oppose 

94 Princes Street 

Roseta Gray 66 Thornton Road 

Lesley Wyatt 6 Moore Street 

Selina Rutherford 446 Brunskill Road 

Cambridge Historical 

Society Inc 

Not Heard- Neutral 

C/ B Dean, Secretary 

Violet Fleming 43 Bums Street 

Page 1 of 1 

Address2 

RD4 

Cambridge 3434 



RD 4 

532 luck at last 

Road 


Address3 


Roseta.b.gray@xtra.co.nz 


RD 2, Cambridge 3494 

Fonn Version 17/07/03 

POAF 10.4b 

261

264 

Appendix 7 

Assessment undertaken by Alexy Simmons, Simmons and Associates ltd

CAMBRIDGE (FORMER) RETURNED SERVICES 

ASSOCIATION BUILDING, WAIPA DISTRICT 

1 INTRODUCTION 

Waipa District Council received an application for a resource consent (landuse) that affects the 

(former} Cambridge Return Services Association (RSA) Building. This report addresses Mr 

Robert Edward Lee application Hto demolish and remove all material of the [RSAl building from 

the existing site .•• to provide the purchaser with a dear site" . Mr Lee's application also notes: 

"no earthworks will be undertaken in this process." 

The Returned Services Association (RSA) Building is scheduled in the Operative and Proposed 

district plans as a heritage item and is included in Cambridge Character Precinct area four, the 

wider central business area. 

The report on the RSA Building is divided into eight sub-sections: District Plan Provisions, 

Submissions on the Resource Consent, New Zealand Historic Places Trust registration and 

archaeological authority, History and Assessment of the RSA Building, District Plan Heritage 

Criteria, Summary and Recommendations. 

2 DISTRICT PLAN PROVISIONS 

2.1 Operative District Plan 

Heritage Schedule: RSA Building record number 29, (Note: items on the schedule are not 

ranked) . 

Additional information-The RSA Building was idennfted as a category A by Dinah Holman on the 

1997Waipa District Plan Heritage Inventory Record Form. The building themes listed ore 

farming, community and organisations (Holman 1997). 

Central Cambridge Heritage Area Design Guidelines: RSA Building is not included in the 

Cambridge Town Centre Precinct Zones (refer to 5-28 Guidelines -central Cambridge Character 

Area Figure 1 ). 

Operative District Plan Provisions: Discretionary activity, Town Centre Zone and Heritage site. 

Additional information- Discretionary assessment criteria 6.6.1 (below) and Rule 1.6.2 

3 

267

268 

• The objectives and polices for the Town Centre Zone. 

• Whether any adverse effect or cumulative effects will occur from non-compliance and 

whether they can be avoided or mitigated by conditfons on any resource consent. 

• The existence of buildings and /or plant which could not be readily relocated or 

converted foro complying actfvlty. 

2 .Z Proposed District Plan 

HerH:ase Schedule Record: number 29, rank category C. 

Additional information· Category Cronk is assigned to heritage places that ore of local 

importance ond noteworthy os community heritage places. Local heritage contributes to a 

community's history and environment. These Items form part of the context of the community. 

The asses.sment criteria for the listing ond rank ore included as sub-section 6.1. 

Cambridge Heritase Precinct Area: Area Four, the wider central business area. Not applicable. 

Additional information- Demolition is not addressed in the Central Cambridge Character 

Guidelines (Appendix DG2). (Note: The character guidelines will affect future development on 

the land). 

Proposed District Plan: Discretionary activity; demolition of any category 8 or c item or 

removal or relocation of a listed Category 8 or C heritage Item. 

Additional information- Proposed policy Demolition 22.3.2. 7, port;al demolition and removal of 

a heritage item. The demolition ar removal of a heritage item from its site shall be avoided 

unless in exceptional drcumstances. 

Discretionary assessment criteria far: 

• Demolition 

• Removal/relocation 

Information requirements for additions, alterations, demolition or removal which address 

matters such as the history and background af the site far Council records, significance af the 

site, and condition and integ,;ty of the heritage item. 

4

3 SUBMISSIONS ON THE RESOURCE CONSENT 

The application was publicly notified. A total of seven submissions were received by the 

submission closing date of 5 September 2012. Six submissions opposed the consent and one did 

not indicate their stance. Two indicated they wished to be heard In support of their 

submission. The submissions are summarised in Table 1. 

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS -RSA BUILDING CAMBRIDGE 

Name Address Stance Request Issues and Decision SouJht 

to be 

oppose support heard 

" " 

Hamish 446 Brunskill 

Issue- Opposes removal of a 

McMullin Road, RD4 heritage building. 

Cambridge Decision Sought- Be saved from 

Jennie 

Gains ford 

94 Princes Street, 

Cambridge " " 

demolition or removal 

Issues- Opposes removal of the 

RSA building as scheduled in the 

district plan; loss of heritage 

building from the streetscape In 

the CBD character zone. 

Decision Sought- Protection of 

the RSA Building. The email 

attached to the submission 

Roseta Gray No postal address 

provided. Ph 027- " 

Indicates demolition is opposed. 

Issue- Conservation of Cambridge 

heritage buildings. 

2101992 Decision Sought- Relocate the 

Lesley Wyatt 6 Moore St, 

leamington " 

building in the CBD or nearb_y. 

Issue- Opposes demolition of the 

RSA building. landmark loss. 

Cambridge 3432 Decision Sought- Relocate the 

Selina 

Rutherford 

446 Brunskill Rd. 

RD4, Cambridge " 

building. Opposes demolition. 

Issue- Opposes demolition or 

removal of the RSA building from 

It's site. 

Decision Sought-Retention of the 

Beverly Dean 

on behalf of 

c/-B. Dean, 

Secretary " 

RSA building on it's current site. 

Issue-loss of a significant part of 

Cambridge's history through 

the Cambridge demolition. 

Cambridge Historical Society Decision Sought-Relocation of 

Historical 532 luck at Last part of the building. If the 

Society Inc. Road, RD2, building is totally demolished 

Cambridge 3494 erection of a plaque on the site 

to acknowledge the significance 

of the site and the buildings 

5 

269

270 

I 

MrsV 43 Burns Street, Not Indicated 

history. 

Issue- Buildi"R reuse. 

Flernlng leamington Decision SouR,ht4 Relocatlon of 

the building to the Hamilton 

Road Green Belt. 

3.1 Summacy of Decision Sought 

Table 2 provides a summary of the decisions sought. 

Table 2 RSA Bulldrng-Declslons Sought by Resource Consent Submissions 

Retention In Situ Relocation (all or Signa1e/ Plaque 

part) 

Hamish McMullin Lesley Wyatt cambridge Historical Society Inc. 

Jennie Gainsford Cambridge Historical 

Society Inc 

Selina Rutherford Mrs V Fleming 

Roseta Gray 

4 NEW ZEALAND HISTORIC PLACES TRUST REGISTRATION AND 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AUTHORITY 

4.1 New Zealapd Historic Places Trust Buildln1 Rellster 

The RSA building is not registered. The RSA Building registration was discontinued in 2010 

(Mercer, Henry and Pattison 2010). 

Additional Information- The RSA building was registered by New Zealand Historic Places Trust 

(NZHPT) as record number 2695 Category II prior to 1993. It wos assumed the RSA building was 

registered under the 1993 Historic Places Act until o 2tXJ4oudit revealed the RSA Building and 

other heritage Items were not tronsfe"ed to the 1993 register by the Trust Board. 

4.2 Arcbaeolo&Jcal Site PrOVisjgns 

The RSA Building dates from 1877 and is protected under the Historic Places Act 1993, e.g. an 

archaeological site is defined _.s."'any place In New Zealand that either (i} was assoch1ted with 

human activity that occurred before 1900; or (ii) is the site of a wreck of any vessel where that 

wreck occurred before 1900; _.nd (bl is or may be able throu&h investigation by archaeological 

methods to provide evidence relating to the history of New Zealand." 

6

S.l Maori Land Use Before European Contact 

Maori settlement on or near Alpha and Empire Streets Is not documented, but there is a 

potential Maori may have used this area in the past. Vennel (1939) documented a number of 

Maori fortifications in Cambridge (figure 1). The Maori pa on Karaplro stream Is not far from the 

RSA building site. Consultation with Nga Mana Toupu of Waipa may lead to the identification of 

information relating to Maori use of this area. The activity currently proposed should not 

expose evidence of historic Maori artefacts or features In this area, but earthworks associated 

with new development could. 

Figure 2 Map of early Cambridge and the surrounding country (Vennel1939). The Maori 

fortifications indicated by the double circles. 

9 

273

274 

5.2 Waikato Campaien of the New Zealand Wars And Allocation of Allotment 393 

In July 1864 construction of the Five Star Redoubt established a military presence in Cambridge 

(figure 2). Prior to construction of the redoubt the focus of military occupation was at 

Pukerimu, a major supply point for the troops. The new redoubt at Camp Cambridge was 

manned by the Third Waikato Regiment under the command of Colonel William Charles Lyon. 

The men of the Third Waikato enrolled as military settlers. The conditions of enlistment 

included the allocation of a land grant and timber for a modest cottage. Each soldier received a 

land grant in the conquered territory under the New Zealand Settlement Act 1863 at the 

completion of service (Vennell939). Land allocations included a town allotment and a farm 

section, the farm size was based on rank-- privates received 40 acres, sergeants 80 acres, field 

officer 400 acres. 

In December 1864 survey plans were finalised for the division of Cambridge and lots were 

drawn for sections, albeit the choice was limited. The farm block survey was completed in 

February 1865 and handed over to the regiment for allocation. Each soldier also received ten 

pounds of timber, enough to construct a modest two room cottage with an earth floor and no 

lining (Norris 1956:51}. Soldiers were struck off the payroll, but were obliged to continue 

service as soldier and remain in the district. Attendance at monthly military parades was 

required along with other types of military service. 

Andrew Gray, the soldier associated with allotment 393 was a substitute (figure 3). Substitution 

provided an opportunity for men to obtain land by assuming the obligations of a soldier that 

wanted to be released from service. Usually a small payment was made for the land and any 

improvements. Gray substituted on 4 July 1865, well after the town and farm sections were 

drawn. He is described as a twenty-five year old, born in Ireland and five food six inches tall 

(Parker 2012: pers com). His occupation was listed as groom. Gray probably lived on Allotment 

393 in a hut that was constructed by his predecessor. (The soldier he substituted for has not 

been identified). 

In June 1867 Gray was awarded two crown grants (freehold town and farm titles] (Daily 

Southern Cross 5 June 1867:3). Mrs Parker noted that most substitutes were interested in 

remaining in the community, but no other information has been found about Mr Gray (Parker 

2012: pers com). This is not unusual, newspapers of the times and local histories document 

individuals that took on civic duties or were notable members of social organisations I 

churches, etc. 

There is the potential that Mr Gray's occupancy may be documented in archaeological remains 

exposed during future earthworks for site development. 

10

276 

Estate, Gwynn lands, Marshmeadows. Community fraternal societies, church groups and clubs 

formed including the Cambridge Framers' Club (CFC). The CFC was founded by Influential land 

llolders interested il"' advancing agriculture development in the area. 

The focus In this sub-section is a chronology of the CFC phase of site use and the identification 

of the CFC buildfng fabric. 

5.4.1 Building and Club Show Chronology. 1877 

April1877 -Land for a club house was acquired (24 November 1877). 

The land ls identified as sections 393, 394, 395 and 396 in Mercer 2009:10. 

1877 June or July- Richard Keals commissioned to design a club buildina. 

Tenders -"The advertisement Is out callins for tenders, which will be received up to the 

20th inst. By the architect Mr Keals of Auckland/' (Waikato Times 12 July 1877:2) 

'"The Fanners Club is an institution of a very respectable character. beJns supported bv 

the leading settlers in the Waikato ..• they have arranged for building a hall, which will 

cost when completed upwards of £1000 ..• The build Ins when finished will comprise 

large assembly room, reading room, smoking room, two committee rooms, sample 

rooms, museum, etc." (Auckland Star 30 August 1877:3) 

1877 July 31. Tender of Mr James accepted for club house construction. 

•It has been decided to accept the lowest tender, that of Mr James, at £615.• {Wailcato 

Times 31 July 1877:2). 

1877 September 22. Planning for the CFC cattle Show 

"M r E. B. Walker arranged for purchase and delivery of timber and posts for the pens 

(Waikato Times 22 September 1877). 

1877 October 2. Club house construction. 

The CfC building was being constructed at the same time the 1877 show was being arransed. 

12

Club-house- "The contractor is getting on very fast with this building. The foundation is 

of concrete and brick. The timber is the best kauri, and very substantial." (Waikato 

Times 22 September 1877:2). 

"The Cambridge farmers Club-House is progressing rapidly. It is only a fortnight wince 

the frame was commenced and the large hall is now nearly finished externally showing 

that the contractor is in real earnest to have it ready for the great show day." (Waikato 

Times 2 October 1877:2). 

1877 October 18. Planning for the CFC Cattle Show 

The CFC show committee resolved that a well would be dug on the show grounds and a 

windmill used for pumping water (Waikato Times 18 October 1877:2). 

"It was decided to hold the dinner after the show, in the new Club-house. A partition 

would be taken down and two rooms thrown into one. It was suggested that moveable 

partitions be made, but as the building will be furnished, and the rooms are very lofty, 

and it is not the intention of the Club to hold any dinner there after the one at the Show, 

the suggestion was not entertained." (Waikato Times 18 October 1877:2) 

1877 October 25. CFC Cattle Show . 

"The show was held in the large paddock at the rear of the fine building now nearing 

completion for the farmers Club (NZ Herald 20 November1877:3). 

The cattle and sheep pens were in the centre and the horses of all classes were arranged 

around the sides (NZ Herald 20 November1877:3). following the show a dinner was held for 

100 guests in the club-room with food provided by Mr Hewitt of the Criterion Hotel. The show 

was considered successful, with £55 9s 7d collected at the gate. 

The pens may have been left on site for future shows. No mention is made of a windmill and 

well, but this may also be exposed by future earthworks near the building. 

1877 November 20 Club house official opening. 

The CFC building was officially opened on 20 November 1877: 

13 

277

278 

"This building, which has been erected at a cost of £800, is built of kauri throughout, on 

a concrete foundation. 3 The entire length of the building is 80 feet. It consists of library, 

lecture room, smoking room, and two committee rooms. The library is a most 

comfortable and elegant room, with a handsome bow window, facing west. The size of 

the room is 24 feet by 24 feet, with handsome mantle-piece and registered grate. The 

lecture room, 34 feet by 24 feet, very lofty, with handsome ceiling and fireplace, fitted 

up in a first class manner. The room is furnished with comfortable and substantial 

chairs, and three large tables, and will now accommodate about forty members." 

(Waikato Times 24 November 1877:2). 

The Waikato Times description does not mention the museum and sample rooms that were 

noted in the Auckland Star article, nor did later articles. 

5.4.2 Identification ofthe Cambridge Farmers Club House 

The excerpts provide a working hypothesis for identifying the CFC club-house fabric in the RSA 

building. The building is described as a large hall, 80 feet in length (24.38 meters) 4 constructed 

of kauri on a concrete foundation. The building featured lofty rooms, including: 

• Main lecture room- 34 feet x 24 feet (10.36m x 7.32m) with a handsome ceiling and 

fireplace; 

• Library 24 by 24 feet (7.32m x 7.32m) with a west facing bow [bay] window and a 

handsome fireplace mantle-piece and registered grate (fire box]; 

• Smoking room; and 

• Two committee rooms 

5.4.2.1 Building style and exterior features 

The club-house was described as elaborate and lofty, an apt description for an ltalianate 

neoclassical building design. The ltalianate style (southern) wing of the building faced Alpha 

Street; toward the town centre (figure 4). In the 1870s through early 1900s the front elevation 

of commercial buildings, institutions, and residences were elaborate and the rear sections plain 

3 The foundation is described as concrete and brick. "The contractor is getting on very fast with this building. The foundation Is 

of concrete and brick. The timber Is the best kauri.• (Walbto Times 22 September 1Bn:3) the concrete and brick foundation Is 

still evident on the exposed footings of the original buildin&- lnvestiptlon under the building and In the attic should confirm the 

plan of the club building. 

4 The building was constructed using Imperial measurements (inches and feetl and later metric. Both measurements will be 

given but Imperial measurements will be the primary measurement referred to during the discussion of the CFC and Wells 

periods of occupancy and on sketch plans relating to those periods. 

14

and serviceable. Frequently the front elevation of a building features more ornate cladding and 

the sides and rear plain weather board. The Exterior features of the CFC building are discussed 

in sub-section 6. 1. 

figure 4 Cambridge RSA building In the 1940s. (lees private collection In Mercer 2009:41) 

(Note: arched windows with panels below on the south elevation and key stones above the 

windows). 

5.4.2.2 CFC Building Plan 

Th e CFC club-house was a T -plan with a gable roof connecting to a hipped gable roof on the 

south wing (figure 5). The T plan was a standard plan used for many halls. Figures 6-7 are sketch 

plans of the CFC building rooms based on a non-invasive assessment of the building. It was 

determined that the CFC building was not 80 feet long as noted In the newspaper, but 60 feet 

(18.29 meters). Other contradictions in the newspaper room dimensions were also identified. 

For exam ple the CFC lecture room was 20 feet wide and 34 feet long. (The length of the lecture 

room was confirmed by evidence in the ceiling cavity which will be discussed later). 

The fabric of the structure was examined with attention to the floor and celling space. The use 

of non-Invasive methods constrained the investigation and limited the amount of information 

that could be collected. 

15 

279

280 

!wells addition 1881 CFC Lecture Room CFC library Winlil 

figure 5 West Elevation, (former) CFC Club-house and Wells residence, late 1880s 

(Reproduced from Sally Parker, Cambridge: An Illustrated History, Cambridge Borough Council, 

Cambridge, 1986, p.35 in Mercer 2009:39) 

. 

. 

N 

,-----····------- 

Wells Addltoo 

not to scale 

Sllat:h Ftln 

CFC Lecture Room 

34 feet 

Hall 

CFC 

Entry 

f6teetJ 

60 feat 

CFC Rocm 

CFC litray 

20feet 

figure 6 Cambridge Farmers Club-house and some of the additions (sketch) 

-------- 

16 

j 

.., 

N

282 

Figure 8 Floor boards 5 3/81nches (137mm); CFC Lecture Room (top) and Well's Addition 

(bottom). 

18

284 

figure 9 Possible CFC room or shed abutting the hall or a Wells addition (Note the south wallis 

at the tap cf the phoiDs) 

20

5.4.2.4 Ceiling Investigations 

North end of the CFC Lecture Room 

The false ceiling panel near the doorway from the CFC lecture room into the 1881 Wells 

addition was lifted (near fireplace on figures 6-7). The north gable wall of the CFC house was 

evident, figure 10. This finding re-confirmed the location of the north end of the CFC lecture 

room. 

figure 10 Gable wall end of the CFC hall 

South end of the CfC lecture room 

A ceiling panel that was a skewed near the south east corner of the CFC lecture room/ RSA bar 

and lounge. The panel was moved and accessed via a ladder. The panel was approximately 30 

to 32 feet from the north wall of the room. The ceiling above the false ceiling exposed a room 

corner and a wooden panelled ceiling (figure 11). The corner was approximately 34 feet from 

the north wall of the CFC lecture room. 

21 

285

286 

figure 11 Southeast corner of the ceiling in the CFC lecture room and hall with paneled ceiling 

The wooden panelled ceiling shown in figure 11 is believed to be the original hall ceiling from 

the CFC building. The hall was probably six feet wide (1828mm) based on examination of the 

floor boards-- the north to south floor boards of the CFC lecture room converged with the east 

to west library floor boards forty feet from the north wall (figure 6) indicating a six foot wide 

hall was located at the end of the 34 foot lecture room (figure 7). The CFC lecture room ceiling 

is clad with fibre board and features an architrave style associated with the 1930s and 40s. This 

suggests the ceiling was relined, possibly by the RSA. The ceiling is painted ochre yellow, a 

colour also applied to the ceiling in the 1881 Wells's addition on the north end of the building. 

The original CFC lecture room ceiling may be located behind the yellow ochre ceiling. Invasive 

methods would be required to investigate the ceiling and roof cavity. 

A similar investigation should also be carried out in the south wing (CFC Library) to record the 

original ceiling and determine the dimensions of the rooms. 

22

5.4.3 Summary Cambridge Farmers Club-house 

The building interior contains very few architectural references to the CFC phase and how the 

club used the building. The lecture room, library and room adjacent to the library have been 

stripped of their spatial characteristics and features. The building fabric no longer provides an 

opportunity to experience the building as the Cambridge Farmers dub-house. There are 

recordable architectural details, as noted in the previous text, that could be used to interpret 

the CFC phase of building use. 

5.5 Oakleit:h. Wells family (1881-1936) 

The Farmers Club annual show went from an attendance of 1000 in October 1877 to a failed 

show in October 1880. In 1880 during an economic depression the CFC also faced a dedining 

membership. The CFC decided to sell off the dub-house and three acres of land to clear the 

club of liabilities and mortgages on the property. Prior to the sale King Tawhiao visited 

Cambridge and was allowed to reside at the Farmer's Club (Waikato Times 23 July 1881:2). 

On 25 July 1881 the CFC building was sold by tender to Thomas Wells, a Cambridge merchant 

and club member. Wells was one of two bidders for the building that submitted the same 

tenders. The dub requested Mr Wells and Mr Grice provide new tender offers. The tender 

from Thomas Wells was £1355, one pound more than Mr Grice's tender (New Zealand Herald 

25 July 1881:5}. 

Thomas Wells was a local merchant who owned a large wholesale and retail establishment on 

Duke Street. His store stocked draperies, ironmongery, groceries, and agricultural farming 

implements (Edgcumbe 1880). In late July 1881 he began the process of renovating the 

(former) CFC building and converting the grounds into a garden (Waikato Times 26 July 1881). 

The renovation work continued into late August 1881 (Waikato Times 23 August 1881:3). Mr 

Wells renamed the building Oakleigh. The residence remained in tile Wells family for 

approximately 50 years. Mercer (2009} documented the role the Wells family played in the 

development of Cambridge. 

Thomas Wells added a gabled bay window to the northern end of the building (figures 4-5), 

which is referred to as the Wells addition. The Wells addition is similar in style to other 

Victorian houses in the 1880s. It featured a fine bay window and Eastlake stick-style details in 

the gable end (figures 4 and 5). The Wells addition to the CFC building is evident on the west 

and eastern elevations. Figure 12 shows the east elevation. The Wells additions are also 

illustrated on figure 13. The Wells Family lived at Oakleigh and developed the hall and 

23 

---·····-···--- 

287

surrounding landscape Into a notable residence. Very little is known about the other 

modifications they made to the building, particularly partitioning of the interior and installation 

of a kitchen and a bathroom. As I noted, what is known is the bay window on the northwest 

wing Is associated with the Wells transformation of the hall into a home. How the bay 

windowed room was used Is not known, e.g. was it a sitting room, bedroom, office, dining 

room, etc. 

Sketch Pion 

N 

• RSA .Additions ac a'llells 

• Wei's .Addifions • • • J CFC 

fisure 13 Wells additions to the CFC building 

5.5.1 Remodelling the former farmers club-house 

The CFC building was a hall and devoid of residential facilities Including a kitchen and bathroom. 

The building probably had a privy/ outhouse/latrine near the main building. Wells would have 

added a kitchen and bathroom in 1881. These facilities could have been installed on the east 

side of the building, in a separate structure, or inserted in existing rooms. 

25 

289

292 

Historical: "The extent to which the place reflects importance or is representative of Waipa, the 

Waikato, or New Zealand's history." 

Early representative example of regional and district farming history: 

The land at 50-61 Alpha Street was purchased by the Cambridge Farmers' Club (CFC} In the mid- 

1870's. The CFC erected a building on the sjte In 1877. 

The focus of the CFC was on farm Improvement, both land and livestock. The CFC membership 

included the most influential families In the district or what Is referred to as the founding 

families of Cambridge. The CFC was both a club al'ld an educational institution focused on 

farming. A feature of the CFC building was a reading room, albeit it's full use many not have 

been realized. The CFC provided educational lectures and members shared information about 

farming methods. 

The Cambridge Farmers' Club sponsored all annual livestock shows on the grounds surrounding 

the building. They also collectively negotiated favourable commercial prices for transport and 

goods, as well as lobbying local and regional government for farm related benefits. The CFC laid 

the foundation for the later Farmers Union, now Federated Farmers. 

Association with an important person: 

1877-1881 Associated with owners of local estates, farms, and agricultural merchants, e.g. 

James Runciman (Marshmeadows), Henry Reynolds (Piako Estate & Woodlands), RHO 

Fergusson (Gorton Estate), Mr AA Fantham (Gwynn lands), GE Clarke, Thomas Wells, etc. 

1881-1932 Wells Family, e.g. purchased and converted to a house by Thomas Wells in 1881. 

Thomas Wells was a local businessman of note and a Cambridge mayor. 

Associated with an important group: 

1877-1881 Cambridge Farmers' Clubi a forerunner to the Farmers Union and later Federated 

Farmers. 

1942-2004 Cambridge Returned Services Association 

Community Association; "The community association with or public esteem for the plac.e." 

Community ossotiation with the plote: 

18n-1881 Cambridge Farmers' Club (CFC). (Note: CFC association substantially less known 

than the RSA). 

28

1942-2004 Cambridge Returned Services Association. The RSA "as a very strong community 

association with the building. This association remains, els"t years after the RSA sold the 

build ins. 

Commemorative: "The commemorative value of the place 11 

1942-2004 Cambridge Returned Services Association (RSA). Despite the sale of the building and 

the removal of the RSA equipment and memorabilia from the site the place currently retains an 

associated with the RSA based on community sentiment (figure 14). 

EduCitlonal: "The potential of t"e place for public education. 11 

The building represents three major phases of Cambridge history and district history based on 

the building occupants. The site was initially developed as a Farmers' Oub hall and annual show 

arounds venue by members of the farming community. The next stage of occupancy was by a 

merchant family who took on civic duties. The final phase was use and modification by the RSA. 

The building is an extant remainder of t"ese users, or more correctly parts of the building 

represent ownership and use over time. 

Archltoloaical: "T"e potentJal of the place to provide knowled&e of Waipa, the Waikato, or 

New Zealand's history." 

The building dates to pre-1900and Is protected as an archaeological site under the Historic 

Places Act 1993. 

The building features significant arc:haeological built heritage Information. T"e use of 

archaeological investigation methods has the potential to rec:over Information about the 1877 

CFC building as well as document the modifications made by the Wells when they converted it 

to a residence In 1881. 

The site afso contains insitu (in the ground) information relati• to the building, building users, 

and site uses. Pre-1900 site uses on the land surrounding the building lnclude the CFC shows 

and the Wells garden. Archaeological investtgatlon could reveal details relating to the staging 

of the livestock show or development and change in t"e Wells garden during their many years 

of ownership. 

29 

293

12. Rarity: "The frequency with which the historic place can be found." 

There are no other Farmers' Clubs in Waipa District (Mercer 2009:32), albeit the CFC portion of 

the building has been subsumed into the RSA building. 

13. Integrity: "What is the integrity of the place?" 

Architectural integrity: 

Poor. The history of the building use has involved substantial modification to earlier building 

fabric. The newer work has compromised the architectural integritv of the structure. NZHPT 

determined the architectural compromises deemed the building not worthy of registration. 

The physical state or condition of the place: 

The building is in fair condition, but is not being used. 

To what extent is the place vulnerable to modification or destruction: 

Not known. 

7 SUMMARY 

Scheduling of the building in the district plan and the submissions received indicate there is 

community sentiment and interest in the building. Some of this sentiment is associated with 

the RSA building as a venue and an early historical place. Submitters suggested mitigation 

through retention of the building in the district or on the site. The buNding has been vacant for 

rnany years and the owner does not wish to continue to maintain an empty building on the 

land. 

The Historical Society suggested signage on the site as a method for mitigating affects if the 

building is removed from the site. 

The historical and architectural information documented in the previous sections illustrates 

how substantially the building fabric has been compromised by modifications over the years. 

The work, particularly during the 1950s through 1990s was required to make the building 

usable as an RSA venue. 

Major modifications to the building have erased the architectural features associations with the 

CfC (1877-1881) and Wells (1881-1936) phases of building use. for example the internal 

modifications have left virtually no spatial references to CFC use of the building. The sense of 

the place as a domestic structure associated with the Wells occupancy is also lost. Building 

33 

297

Copies of the report information should be deposited with WDC and the cambridge library. The 

large format architectural drawings, photo CD, a copy of the report and any samples of relevant 

building material should be deposited with the Cambridge Museum. 

8.2 Sienaee 

The signage should include the erection of a sign that contains 

• detailed interpretation of the history of the structure, and 

• photographs and plans that illustrate how the structure changed over time. 

The sign age will commemorate the history of the place and provide a focus for public 

education. (WDC may wish to involve the Cambridge Museum in assessing the proposed 

signage design before it is accepted). 

8.3 Monitoring the outcome 

The mitigation tasks required as a resource consent conditions should commence prior to 

demolition or removal of the structure. The tasks should be completed to council's satisfaction. 

9 SELECT REFERENCES 

Campbell, Matthew and Peter Holmes 

2012 Cambridge RSA: Archaeological Assessment. CFG Heritage Consultants, Auckland. 

Mercer, Kathryn 

2009 Report for a Deficient Historic Place Registration, Cambridge RSA, Cambridge. New 

Zealand Historic Places Trust. 

Mercer, Kathryn, Gail Henry and linda Pattison 

2010 Deficient Registration Discontinuation Report, Cambridge RSA, Cambridge. New Zealand 

Historic Places Trust. 

New Zealand Historic fJiaces Trust 

2012 Archaeological Authority 2012/929. 

Norris, HCM 

1956 Armed Settlers. Paul's Book Arcade, Hamilton. 

fJarker, Eris 

2012 Phone conversation on October 17. Cambridge Museum, Cambridge. 

Simmons, Alexy 

35 

299

Regulatory Committee Agenda - Waipa District Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?