APPENDIX B: FURTHER INFORMATION · x the earthwork volumes have been reassessed/ clarified, x signed site plan from Barbara Smith is attached, x any response received from the roading

APPENDIX B: FURTHER INFORMATION

HJC Agenda - 20-03-17 Page 214

1

From: Monique Kimber [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2016 9:06 a.m. To: 'Wendy Harris'; Cowan, Louise Cc: 'Lisa Boyles' Subject: LUSE 2016/562 K and L Boyles, Back Miranda Road

Dear Louise

Please find attached a response to your request for further information.In summary

the proposed sign has been withdrawn from the proposal,the outdoor exercise area has been identified on the site plan,the earthwork volumes have been reassessed/ clarified,signed site plan from Barbara Smith is attached,any response received from the roading team will be forwarded upon receipt andno further correspondence has been received from the Rhinds and Yeagers.

We are ask that you now progress to making your notification determination.

Also attached is a copy of the pre application meeting minutes. These were attached to the application so I trust youhave seen them?

Can you please insert the last attachment to replace page 14 of the Tilsley Engineering Report. This page includesbetter photographs of the application site.

Regards,

MONIQUE KIMBERPlanning Consultant


2

T: 09 235 3252PO BOX 97 Pukekohe

Please Note: I work part time and my days in the office are Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.


Hodgson Planning Consultants Ltd HPC








APPENDIX C: CLARIFICATION RESPONSE EMAIL AND PLAN


From: Monique Kimber [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2017 11:19 a.m. To: Cowan, Louise Subject: RE: Re[2]: Pre Hearing Meeting in relation to Boyles Dog Boarding Facility

Hi Louise

Apologies for the delay. As discussed we had a meeting on site last Thursday. At this meeting Ishared with Lisa and Kevin Boyles that the Yeagers have a restricted role in the hearinggiven they were not determined to be an affected party but explained that they could stillattend the hearing and be a witness for the Rhinds.

I also advised that the Rhinds were not willing to attend a Pre Hearing Meeting. As per youremail that issued raised by the Rhinds submission are clear; being effects on their farmingoperation and the welfare of their stock.

In terms of a hearing date we can confirm that we can attend a Hearing on Wednesday 8th

March.

As per the submitted management plan if a dog has nuisance behaviour humane practicessuch as isolation would be used, the owners would be contacted to collect if it continues (ifpractically possible, if not alternative solutions will be discussed). On the kennels plan thereis a room to the far left at the end of the kennels closest to their house, that will be used asan isolation room. Please refer to attached plan clarifying its location.

As discussed Lisa Boyles has extensive experience and training in dog behaviour andwelfare. She understands the obligations under both the Animal welfare (Dogs) Code ofWelfare 2010, and the Animal Control Act. Lisa and Kevin have spent a considerable amountof time investigating the various legislations that influence this activity. The proposal hasbeen designed cognisant of these and in many cases exceed the recommendations.Lisa and Kevin are also hoping to become AssureQuality pet boarding certified. The facilityhas been designed and will operate in accordance with the Assure Quality Kennel Code ofPractice. For reference here is a link to that code of practice:https://www.asurequality.com/assets/Pet Boarding/Pet Boarding Code of Practice forKennels Version 4.2.pdf.

As detailed in the application this activity is unique to many dog boarding facilities, whichcommonly feature cages and metal runs. The proposed facility is modelled on being a homeaway from home. To illustrate the different nature of this activity to standard kennel here isa similar example of a dog hotel boarding facility in Nelsonhttp://www.canineretreat.co.nz/.

As detailed in the application the intention is to accommodate smaller sized dogs only. It isdifficult to define a small dog given the variances in dogs heights and weights and the widerange of dog breeds and cross breeds.The smaller breeds anticipated include bichons, schnauzers, terriers and poodles. Thefacility would definitely include all toy breeds that are typically less than 7kg. No dogs


greater than 20kg are likely to be accommodated. The facility will not accommodate anydangerous and menacing dogs, including the following breeds classified as menacing(Brazilian Fila, Dogo Argentino, Japanese Toso and American Pit Bull Terrier).

Of note is that the Acoustic Assessment has utilised field measurements taken at existingkennels, which included larger dogs barking. It is Nevil’s opinion that the noise level used forthe assessment is conservative (high). Therefore, from a noise effects perspective there isno specific need to include a specific condition restricting the size of dog the kennelsaccommodate. We are satisfied that the condition “in accordance with the informationsubmitted “would suffice to ensure that facility operates as proposed.

We are of the opinion that the proposal will not result in any significant effects on theenvironment. This is supported by Council’s limited notification determination that potentialeffects on visual amenity from the boarding facility are more than minor but being localisedto affect those persons who own or occupy adjacent sites. As the effects are not likely to besignificant (being an effect that is noticeable and would have a serious adverse impact onthe environment) we have not specifically considered possible alternative locations ormethods for undertaking the activity.

Notwithstanding that we are of the opinion that the location of the activity best meets theproject objectives and avoids, remedies or mitigates potential effects on the environment.As highlighted above the methods of undertaking the activity, as detailed in theManagement Plan, has been well researched. We are confident that the activity can operatein a manner that avoids, remedies and mitigates potential environmental effects.

We look forward to receiving your s42 report next week.

Regards,






From: Cowan, Louise [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2017 10:53 AMTo:Monique Kimber <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Re[2]: Pre Hearing Meeting in relation to Boyles Dog Boarding FacilityImportance: High

From: Monique Kimber [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2017 12:21 p.m. To: Cowan, Louise Subject: RE: Re[2]: Pre Hearing Meeting in relation to Boyles Dog Boarding Facility

Hi Louise

I hope to provide you a response today. I have drafted one and am just waiting for the Boyles toconfirm the content.

Monique

From: Cowan, Louise [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2017 12:11 PMTo:Monique Kimber <[email protected]> ([email protected])<[email protected]>Subject: RE: Re[2]: Pre Hearing Meeting in relation to Boyles Dog Boarding Facility

1. Whether it is possible to have a sound proofed, physical “exclusion” room within the boarding facility, for persistently noisy dogs, where it is not possible for owners to come and remove the dogs within a reasonable time, eg where owners may be away overseas or similar. This would ensure the noise of any persistently barking dog is contained within the building. The question of whether there was an “exclusion room” was raised following discussions with Animal Control Officers at Council who identified that although there may be a resource consent, and noise conditions can be complied with, the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996 will still apply including in relation to persistent and loud barking or howling by any dog.


2. In terms of consideration of alternatives, can you confirm whether any other locations were considered in relation to the proposed activity, and whether any other locations within the site were considered as background to the proposal. It is noted that some of the concerns of the Committee may be allayed if the boarding facility were to be located further than the 12.0m proposed from the side boundary of the site, and a little more toward the middle of the section. I am aware that to move the location of the facility at this stage would require you as the applicant to go and reobtain the written approvals of the two parties you have already obtained written approval from. I suggest this is something you may want to talk through with your client. If this is seen as possible then amended plans and new approvals could be submitted to Council prior to the hearing for the consideration of the Hearings Committee.


APPENDIX D: COPY OF REGIONAL COUNCIL CONSENT


1

From: Monique Kimber [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2016 9:20 a.m. To: Cowan, Louise Subject: Back Miranda Road - Dwelling and Dog Boarding Facility

Hi Louise

Please find attached for your records a copy of the Regional Consent for the dwelling and dog boarding facility.

Have any submissions been received as yet?

Regards,





Consent Evaluation Report

Applicant: L&K Boyles File No.: 61 69 33A

Address of Site: Back Miranda Road, Miranda Project Code: RC23474

Application Number: APP137545

1 Introduction

Lisa and Kevin Boyles have made an application for resource consent (here after referred to as ‘the applicant’) to authorise the discharge of treated domestic wastewater from two separate septic tanks to land at Miranda. The proposal is to be undertaken at Back Miranda Road, Miranda, at or about map reference NZTM 1808841E and 5874203N. The applicant has contracted consultants (Hodgson Planning Consultants) to assist in the preparation of the above application and to assess the effects of the proposal. Any reference to ‘the applicant’ in this report should be understood to signify the applicant and/or any consultant representing the applicant. The resource consent that is being applied for is described below. Reference Id Activity Subtype Activity Description

AUTH137545.01.01 Land - other To discharge treated dog boarding facility wastewater and washwater to land, Back Miranda Road, Miranda

2 Background and Description of Proposal

2.1 Site Description

As discussed earlier, the proposed site of the discharge is located along Back Miranda Road, and is legally described as Lot 1 DP 397053. Miranda is located south west of the Firth of Thames in the Waikato Region, however the site is located further back from the coast, and outside the coastal environment. The size of the proposed lot is 1.67 hectares and is predominately covered in pasture.

The site has a slightly downward sloping topography to the north east. A raised knoll is located on the road-facing boundary of the property. The sloped angle for the disposal fields are less than 5 degrees. An assessment of the soil conditions was undertaken by Tilsley Engineers at being category 4 sandy clays, with moderate draining capacity. The land surrounding the site is classified as rural residential, with a number of farming paddocks in the area. A groundwater bore is located to the south east of the property, Figure 1: Location of proposed site and surrounding features


however this is located approximately 30 metres away from any of the disposal fields. The surrounding land to the north is located in Waikato Regional Councils flood hazard zone, however the proposed site is outside this.

2.2 Proposal

The applicant is proposing to discharge a total of 1.4m3 of treated wastewater to land from a dwelling and a boarding house for dogs. The disposal system will consist of two separate wastewater systems, 900 litres discharged from the new dwelling, and 500 litres discharged from the boarding facility. The wastewater will be discharged to land via two separate Wisconsin mounds.

2.3 Technical aspects of the proposal

As discussed, the applicant has proposed to discharge a total of 1.4m3 of treated wastewater via two separate wastewater systems, with 900L being sourced from a residential dwelling, and 500L being sourced from the boarding facility. The flows from the site have been calculated as followed;

No. of Bedrooms Occupancy Daily Flow * Dwelling 3 5 people 900 litres/day Dog Boarding - 25 dogs 500 litres/day Total: 1400 litres/day *Per capita flow allowance based on Auckland Regional Councils Technical Publication 58.

Two septic tanks will provides primary treatment of wastewater, removing gross solids, floating matter and grease, while providing conditions for the anaerobic breakdown of compounds found in the wastewater. The effluent outlet sits in the wastewater in between the scum and sludge layer, and is fitted with an outlet filter to reduce the suspended solids in the final discharge (up to 30mg/L). The 4,500L septic tank design will provide adequate retention time for wastewater. The expected level of treatment from a conventional septic tank and outlet filter is as follows;

Performance Criteria Typical concentration (mg/L) cBOD5 70-120

Suspended Solids 30 Faecal Coliforms 105-106 Total Nitrogen 40-100

Each septic tank will have an individual disposal field consisting of Wisconsin mounds. The disposal field which services the dwelling has a dose area of 30m2, made up of a bed 1.5 metres by 20 metres. The dog boarding facility will be serviced by another disposal field with a 16.7m2 dose area, made up of a bed 1.5m by 11m. The maximum dose rate proposed is 30 litres/m2, which is consistent with TP58. Groundwater has been measured at 1 metre below ground level. Auckland Regional Councils Technical Publication 58 (TP58) requires that for primary treated effluent, a minimum separation distance of 1200mm (1.2m) is established between groundwater and the base of the disposal bed. This will be achieved with Wisconsin mounds, raising the base of the bed by 200mm to achieve required separation.

3 Status of Activities under the Plans

The Waikato Regional Plan (WRP) became operative in September 2007, and has been used to assess the application and the status of the activity that has been proposed.

Rule Rule Description Activity Status 3.5.7.7 Other on-Site Sewage Discharges Discretionary Activity


The applicant has proposed to discharge a total of 1.4m3 of treated wastewater to land. The volume of the discharge does not meet the permitted activity standard set out in rule 3.5.7.5. Furthermore, the type of waste does not meet the definition of ‘domestic sewage’ as dog wastewater from a commercial boarding facility will also be treated. Given this rationale, the activity is categorised as a ‘discretionary activity’ under rule 3.5.7.7 of the Waikato Regional Plan.

4 Consultation/Affected Party Approvals

4.1 Iwi

No Iwi representatives have been consulted with as part of the application process. The discharge is into land which as I understand, is consistent with Maori Principles regarding wastewater management. I consider that Iwi are not affected parties to this application.

4.2 Other Parties

No other parties have been consulted with as part of the application process. The applicant considers that the effects of undertaking the discharge are no more than minor. I concur with that position.

5 Process Matters

The application was submitted and received by WRC on the 2nd of November 2016, and is recorded as document #9460899. The following relevant process matters are as followed; Date Process Detail 02/11/2016 Application lodged 04/11/2016 Application approved (S.88) 15/11/2016 Notification decision approved (S.95) 01/12/2016 Decision due date

24/11/2016 Sent for final approval

6 Statutory Considerations

Subject to the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act (RMA) (part 2 assessment), Waikato Regional Council shall have regard to the matters outlines in section 104.

Consideration of applications (Section 104(1))

This section outlines matters which the consent authority must have when considering an application for a resource consent. This includes;

a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and b) any relevant provisions of—

i) national environmental standard: ii) other regulations: iii) a national policy statement: iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement: v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

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


Determination of applications for discretionary activities (Section 104B)

When considering an application for a resource consent for discretionary activities, a consent authority;

a) may grant or refuse the application; and b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.

Matters relevant to certain applications (Section 105(1)) Furthermore, if an application is for a discharge consent to do something that would contravene section 15 or section 15B, the consent authority must have regard to;

a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; and b) the applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice; and c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.

Restriction on grant of certain discharge permits (Section 107(1) Finally, when considering a discharge consent, a consent authority shall not grant an application allowing;

a) the discharge of a contaminant or water into water; or b) a discharge of a contaminant onto or into land in circumstances which may result in that contaminant (or

any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water; or

if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged (either by itself or in combination with the same, similar, or other contaminants or water), is likely to give rise to all or any of the following effects in the receiving waters:

c) the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended materials: d) any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity e) any emission of objectionable odour f) the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals: g) any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.

Existing Environment and the Permitted Baseline

A consent authority may choose to take into account the existing environment when making a decision on a resource consent. Case law has determined that the "environment" must be read as the environment which exists at the time of the assessment and as the environment may be in the future as modified by the utilisation of permitted activities under the plan and by the exercise of resource consents which are being exercised, or which are likely to be exercised in the future. It does not include the effects of resource consents which might be sought in the future nor any past reversible effects arising from the consent being considered. I have considered the existing environment as part of my assessment. Under section 104(2), a consent authority can disregard the effects of a permitted activity when formulating the actual and potential effects against the environment. This is referred as the permitted baseline, and calls for a discretionary decision to be exercised by the consent authority as to whether or not to discount such permitted effects. In relation to this particular proposal, I have not discounted any permitted baseline effects.


6.1 Assessment of Environmental Effect

As discussed earlier, section 104(1)(a) provides for the consideration of actual and potential effects that a consent authority must have when making a decision on a resource consent application (subject to part 2 of the RMA). Having considered the proposal provided and the supporting information, the actual and potential effects to consider are those relating to;

Effects on groundwater; Effects on surface water; Odour effects; Effects on soil; Flooding risk; Effects on human health; and Cultural effects.

6.1.1 Effects on Groundwater

The discharge of wastewater can result in adverse effects on groundwater if not properly managed and controlled. The overloading of wastewater can cause nitrogen and pathogens to leach into the groundwater and make its way into drinking water, and potentially cause significant adverse effects to human health. Furthermore nutrient loading in groundwater can slowly make its way to surface water, causing the growth of algae and other forms of aquatic weeds. The Wisconsin mounds have been designed to provide at least 600mm of space between the base of the sand bed and the water table. The 600mm of unsaturated soils between the beds inside the Wisconsin mound and groundwater table will retain a portion of the nutrients in the soil column. As discussed, a groundwater bore is located an estimated 30 metres away from the disposal field for the dwelling. TP58 recommends a minimum of 20 metres setback from any groundwater supply bore. Given the unlikely situation where pathogens and nutrients may enter groundwater, and compliance with the recommended resource consent conditions, I consider that the effects caused by groundwater infiltration are minor.

6.1.2 Effects on Surface water

If the disposal of wastewater is not undertaken in a sustainable way (i.e. overloading of soils, irrigating too close to surface water) then there is a potential for wastewater to be discharged into surface water. The effects this can cause include the accelerated growth of plants and weed, adverse effects of aquatic organisms from reduced BOD load and increased ammonia, and the presence of microbiological contaminants in wastewater causing adverse effects to human and animal health. These effects should not be considered as a single discharge, rather the through the cumulative effects of discharge from within a catchment. The nearest watercourse to the disposal fields is a farm drain located along the north western boundary of the property. This is located over 50 metres from the disposal field for the dog boarding facility, where TP58 recommends a minimum of 20 metres. The contour of the site runs towards the northeast, away from the farm drain. Any overland flow that may occur from the discharge will run in this direction. The applicant will be required to ensure that the discharge of treated wastewater will not cause overland flow or ponding on the surface. This is recommended as a consent condition.


Given compliance with the recommended conditions, I consider the potential effects on surface water will be less than minor.

6.1.3 Odour effects

Wastewater treatment and discharge can cause potential adverse effects on air quality, producing objectionable odour to neighbouring properties during periods of high flow. This can be caused by the treatment of wastewater or the disposal of treated wastewater. The disposal fields will only generate odour if it became anaerobic due to overloading. As discussed, the applicant has undertaken soil investigations to ensure that the proposed discharge rate will not overload the soils and cause objectionable odour as a result. Any nuisances beyond the boundary of the property caused by the odour arising from the septic tank may require installation of a carbon filter. I consider the potential for nuisance odours to be minimal.

6.1.4 Effects on soil

The discharge of metals and other contaminants in concentration can lead to the contamination of soil. This can leave the soil unusable, and can result in adverse effects given prolonged exposure. Septic tanks are designed to separate sludge which has high concentrations of environmentally harmful contaminants from the discharged wastewater. The chemicals used in the dog boarding facility have been tested by Resource Developments Limited for any potential effects on the wastewater treatment process and the effects on the receiving soils. The contaminant will be diluted as part of the treatment, and that the discharge of wastewater will not cause contamination of the receiving soils. Any other cleaning and sterilisation chemicals should be diluted in the septic tank, or broken down by mycobacterial processes. The discharge of wastewater from domestic sources does not generally contain heavy metals. I consider that the discharge is unlikely to have any significant effects on the property or potential future use of soils.

6.1.5 Flooding Risk

As previously discussed, the property is located outside of a flood hazard area, therefore I consider the risk by flooding to be less than minor.

6.1.6 Effects on Human Health

Wastewater discharges from septic tanks can have high concentrations of pathogens which, when exposed to humans are harmful. Exposure can occur when treated wastewater breaches the surface due to overloading of the soakage trenches, or when it enters groundwater or surface water. These effects are caused when the system is not properly installed, maintained or operated. The loading rate has been designed to meet the capacity of the receiving soils, therefore it is not expected that the wastewater breach the surface and come into contact with humans or animals. I consider that that the effects on human health will be less than minor.


6.1.7 Cultural Effects

The proposal is to discharge treated wastewater to ground via Wisconsin mounds. Maori view the discharge of wastewater to water as unacceptable, and that waste should be returned to the land. If the septic tank and disposal is operated and maintained correctly, the disposal of treated wastewater to land is, as I understand, consistent with Maori views.

6.2 Policy Statements, Plans and Regulations

The relevant policies and plans to this application are the Waikato Regional Plan, National Policy Statements, National Environmental Standards, and the Regional Policy Statement.

6.2.1 National environment standards

As of June 2010 there are five NESs that have come into effect - the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (where various standards have been in effect since October 2004); Sources of Human Drinking Water; Electricity Transmission Activities; and Telecommunication Facilities. National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water The National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water commenced on 20th June 2016. This standard is a regulation enacted by an Order in Council, under s43 of the Resource Management Act. The regulation requires that a regional council must not grant a water or discharge permit for an activity that will occur upstream of a drinking water abstraction point if specific criteria at the point of abstraction are exceeded. The matters to be considered as part of an assessment are dependent on the permit being sought and the level of effects on any drinking water supplier located downstream or down gradient of the activity. Under this regulation a regional council may also impose a condition of consent on any resource consent application requiring the consent holder to notify, as soon as reasonably practical, the registered drinking-water supply operators and the regional council if the activity leads to an event that, or as a consequence of an event, results in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the water at the abstraction point I have considered the proposed activity alongside the NES for Sources of Human Drinking Water, and have found it to be consistent with the legislation.

6.2.2 National policy statements (including NZ Coastal Policy Statement)

There are four National Policy Statements (NPS) that have come into effect – the NPS for Freshwater Management; for Renewable Electricity Generation; on Electricity Transmission and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. The NPS for Freshwater Management is the most relevant of these policy statements. Considering the distance of the farm drain from the disposal field, I do not consider that surface water would be adversely affected by the proposal, and that the disposal is consistent with the NPS for Freshwater Management.

6.2.3 Other regulations

There are no other regulations conserved relevant to this consent application.


6.2.4 Regional Policy Statement

The Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS) is a high-level broad-based document containing objectives and policies the purpose of which is to provide an overview of the resource management issues of the region and to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the Region. The Waikato Regional Council’s RPS was made operative on the 20th May 2016. Key issues that relate to this proposal are the state of resources (issue 1.1), managing the built environment (issue 1.4) and relationship of tangata whenua with the environment (issue 1.5). There are a number of overlapping objectives under each of these relevant to this proposal. These are listed as follows:

Integrated management of natural and physical resources (Objective 3.1); Decision making (Objective 3.2); Ecosystem services (Objective 3.8); Relationship of tangata whenua with the environment (Objective 3.9); Air quality (Objective 3.11); Mauri and values of fresh water bodies (Objective 3.14); Ecological integrity and indigenous biodiversity (Objective 3.19); Public access (Objective 3.23); Natural Hazards (Objective 3.24); and Value of soils (Objective 3.25).

Relevant policies include integrated management (Policy 4), manage adverse effects on amenity (air) (Policy 5.3), fresh water bodies (Policy 8), Relationship of Maori To taonga (Policy 10.2), Indigenous biodiversity (Policy 11), and soils (Policy 14). I consider that the application is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement.

6.2.5 Regional Plan

The WRP is operative. The purpose of regional plans is to help the Council carry out its functions under s30 of the RMA.

Objective 3.5.2 – Discharges “Discharges of contaminants to water undertaken in a manner that:

a) does not have adverse effects that are inconsistent with the water management objectives in Section 3.1.2

b) does not have adverse effects that are inconsistent with the discharges onto or into land objectives in Section 5.2.2

c) Ensures that decisions regarding the discharge of contaminants to water do not reduce the contaminant assimilative capacity of the water body to the extent that allocable flows as provided for in Chapter 3.3 are unable to be utilised for out of stream uses.”

Policy 4: Discharges to Land Ensure that the discharge of contaminants onto or into land maximises the reuse of nutrients and water contained in the discharge


Policy 5: Ground Water Minimise the adverse effects of discharges onto or into land on ground water quality by ensuring that they:

a) do not compromise existing or reasonably foreseeable uses of ground water b) avoid adverse effects on surface water bodies that are inconsistent with the policies in

Section 3.2.3 of this Plan as far as practicable and otherwise, remedy or mitigate those effects

c) are not inconsistent with the policies in Section 3.8.3 that manage the effects of drilling and discharges associated with drilling on ground water quality.

The applicant has proposed to discharge treated wastewater to land via Wisconsin mounds, which provides a minimum of 600mm separation from the bottom of the sand bed to the groundwater table. As discussed earlier in this report, this will provide adequate distance to allow for the soil to retain nutrients and water in the discharge. This will ensure that nutrients do not compromise the foreseeable needs of groundwater by minimising the discharge of nutrients and pathogens. The discharge of treated wastewater to land will not be contrary to the water and land management objectives in sections 3.1.2 and 5.2.2 of the WRP.

6.2.6 Proposed Plan Change 1 (Healthy Rivers Plan Change)

Proposed plan change 1 is not relevant to the application as the proposed site is outside of the Waikato River catchment. Given this, I consider that this proposal is consistent with the WRP.

6.3 Other Matters

6.3.1 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

Miranda forms part of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, and therefore is required to be assessed against the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (2000). The act recognises the Hauraki Gulf as a matter of national importance, and that any consents under it should have regard to the life-supporting capacity of the gulf. As discussed in the assessment of environmental effects, the discharge will not have adverse effects on surface water or groundwater (where it can enter surface water), and therefore providing for the life-supporting capacity of the Hauraki Gulf. I consider the proposal consistent with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act.

6.3.2 Iwi management plan

The application has been consider with reference to the Hauraki Iwi Environmental Management Plan (2004). The purpose of the iwi management plan is “to provide a strategy for collective action by Hauraki Whanui to sustain the mauri of the natural environment and cultural heritage of the Hauraki rohe over the next 50 years.” I have assessed this proposal against the visions, issues and principles contained in the document, and I consider that the proposal is consistent with this Iwi management plan.


6.4 Waikato-Tainui Raupatu (Waikato River) Settlement Claims Act 2010 or Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010 or Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Act 2012

6.4.1 Vision and strategy

The proposed activity in on the Hauraki Plains and therefore falls outside of the jurisdiction of the above legislation.

6.4.2 Customary activities

There are no customary activates relevant to this consent proposal.

6.5 Protected Customary Rights and/or Customary Marine Titles (Marine and Coastal Act 2011 (Takutai Moana))

There are no protected customary rights relevant to this consent process.

6.6 Section 105 assessment

As noted earlier, the discharge is required to be assessed against the receiving environment as detailed in section 105 of the RMA. Miranda does not currently have its own reticulated wastewater system, nor are there any immediate plans to install a community wastewater system. Furthermore, onsite wastewater treatment and discharges are an accepted method of waste management in the region. The system is existing, and the application is to authorise the existing discharge. Given the above rationale, I consider that the discharge is consistent with section 105 of the RMA

6.7 Relevant Part 2 Considerations

Part 2 is the cornerstone of the RMA and states that the Act has a single purpose to “promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” I consider that the proposal is not inconsistent with any of the matters set out in sections 8, 7 or 6 of the Resource Management Act. Section 5 states that the sole purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Sustainable management is defined in the act as;

Managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—

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

b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Adverse effects that have been identified as part of this proposal have been assessed in section 6.1 of this report. In my assessment, I consider that these effects have been successfully avoided, remedied or mitigated. The proper maintenance and operation of the treatment system will ensure the life-supporting capacity of groundwater and surface water is maintained. I have assessed the proposal against the relevant Part 2 matters and consider the proposed discharge of wastewater to land to be consistent with these matters and overall to achieve the purpose of the RMA.


7 Discussion/Conclusions

Hodgson Planning Consultants have made an application for resource consent on behalf of Lisa and Kevin Boyles to authorise the discharge of treated wastewater from a dwelling and a dog boarding facility to two disposal fields at Miranda. The main potential adverse environmental effects associated with the activities are considered to be;

Effects on groundwater; Effects on surface water; Odour effects Effects on soil; Flooding risk; Effects on human health; and Cultural effects.

I consider the environmental effects that have been assessed in this report can be successfully avoided, remedied or mitigated, and the effects will be no more than minor, provided that the recommended consent conditions are complied with. The overall proposal has been assessed in respect to its consistency with the objective and policies of the Regional Council policies and plans, and the statutory provisions of the RMA. It has further been considered in accordance with section 104B of the RMA which has regard to the determination of applications for discretionary activities. Provided the activity is undertaken in accordance with the application for consent and subsequent supporting documents, and the recommended consent conditions in the attached resource consent certificate, I consider it will not be inconsistent with council’s policies or plans, or the statutory provisions of the RMA. For these reasons, I recommend consent be granted subject to conditions in the attached resource consent certificate. The applicant has requested a consent duration of 35 years, however I consider that 20 years is an appropriate duration. The following considerations have been taken into account in recommending this term.

The successful avoidance, remedy or mitigation of adverse effects; Consistency with regional councils policies, objectives and plans; Consistency with the purpose and principles of the RMA; Waikato Regional Councils internal guidelines for consent duration.

8 Monitoring

The Waikato Regional Council has a statuary obligation under section 35 of the RMA to monitor the effects of resource consents being exercised in its region. Waikato Regional Council staff and/or its authorised agents will therefore monitor the activity throughout the term of the consent. Monitoring by Waikato Regional Council staff is likely to occur within the first year of the consent being exercised, to check on the wastewater treatment system and disposal area and then on a once in every four years basis if full compliance is achieved. At any stage, monitoring may occur should there be problems with the system. The actual or reasonable costs incurred by WRC when undertaken this monitoring will be recovered from the consent holder, it should be noted that if a condition(s) of consent is not complied with, the


activity may receive an elevated level of monitoring until WRC is satisfied that the consent is being exercised in accordance with consent conditions.

9 Recommended Decision

I recommend that in accordance with 104B resource consent application APP137545 be granted in accordance with the duration and conditions prescribed in the attached Resource Consent Certificate for the following reasons:

The activity will have no more than minor actual or potential adverse effects on the environment

The activity is not contrary to any relevant plans or policies The activity is consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991

Kyall Foley Date: 25 November 2016

Resource Officer

Resource Use Directorate

10 Decision

That the resource consent application is granted in accordance with the above recommendations.

Hugh Keane Date: 25 November 2016

Team Leader

Resource Use Directorate


RESOURCE CONSENT

CERTIFICATE

Resource Consent:

AUTH137545.01.01

File Number:

61 69 33A

Pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Regional Council hereby grants consent to:

L&K Boyles

310 Ormiston Road Flat Bush Auckland 2019

(hereinafter referred to as the Consent Holder)

Consent Type:

Discharge Permit

Consent Subtype:

Land - other

Activity authorised:

To discharge treated dog boarding facility wastewater and washwater to land, Back Miranda Road, Miranda

Location: Back Miranda Road - Miranda

Map reference: NZTM 1808841 E 5874203 N

Consent duration:

This consent will commence on the date of decision notification and expire on the 30th November 2036.

Subject to the conditions overleaf:


CONDITIONS

General

1. The discharge of wastewater authorised by this resource consent shall be undertaken in general accordance with the application for this resource consent titled, ‘Lisa and Kevin Boyles - Proposed Wastewater Discharge Back Miranda Road’ dated 2nd of November 2016, (Document # 9446264), except where varied by the document titled (Waikato Regional Council Doc#9348173) titled ‘Effluent Disposal, Stormwater Management & Geotechnical Report’ dated 16th of November 2016, (Document # 9527742), and all supporting documentation except where otherwise required in the resource consent conditions below. Where there is any discrepancy between the application documents and the resource consent conditions then the conditions below shall prevail.

2. The consent holder shall be responsible for all contracted operations relating to the exercise of this resource consent, and shall ensure contractors are made aware of the conditions of this consent and ensure compliance with those conditions.

Wastewater Discharge

3. The maximum volume of treated wastewater discharged shall not exceed; i. a total of 900 litres per day to disposal field A; and

ii. a total of 500 litres per day to disposal field B.

4. The consent holder shall ensure that there is a minimum separation distance of at least 600 millimetres of unsaturated soil between the base of the disposal fields and the groundwater table at all times

5. The discharges shall be uniformly distributed over the two wastewater disposal areas.

6. Wastewater that is discharged at disposal field A via the Wisconsin mound connected to the dwelling shall be discharged into the sand bed at a loading rate that does not exceed 30 millimetres per day (i.e. 30 litres per square metre per day) or the absorptive capacity of the soils, whichever is the lesser.

7. Wastewater that is discharged at disposal field B via the Wisconsin mound connected to the dog boarding facility shall be discharged into the sand bed at a loading rate that does not exceed 30 millimetres per day (i.e. 30 litres per square metre per day) or the absorptive capacity of the soils, whichever is the lesser.

8. There shall be no overland flow or ponding of wastewater from any part of the wastewater treatment system or disposal areas at any time.

9. Surface stormwater and stormwater runoff shall be directed away from the wastewater treatment plant and disposal areas.

10. The treatment system shall be maintained in as watertight a condition as practicable to prevent the ingress of stormwater or groundwater into the system.

11. The discharges to disposal fields A and B shall not result in any objectionable effects from odour beyond the boundary of the property.

12. Any solid matter (sludge) that is removed from the treatment system shall be disposed of at an off-site facility that is authorised to receive such waste.

Maintenance and Management

13. The consent holder shall ensure that the septic tank and disposal system is properly operated and maintained at all times.

14. A reserve disposal area that is equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the in-service wastewater disposal area is to be available at all times. To this end the consent holder


shall ensure that no permanent hard surface (for example concrete) shall be placed over the reserve disposal areas for the duration of this consent.

Review

15. The Waikato Regional Council may at any time in July of 2021, 2026 and 2031, serve notice on the consent holder under section 128(1) of the Resource Management Amendment Act (1991), of its intention to review the conditions of this resource consent for the following purposes:

a. Require the consent holder to adopt the best practical option to remove or reduce any adverse effect on the environment, or

b. To deal with any other adverse effect on the environment that the exercise of this consent may have an influence, or

c. To review monitoring requirements to determine any actual or potential adverse effect on the environment.

Note: Costs associated with any review of the conditions of this resource consent will be recovered from the consent holder in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Administration

16. The consent holder shall pay the Waikato Regional Council any administrative charge fixed in accordance with section 36 of the Resource Management Act (1991), or any charge prescribed in accordance with regulations made under section 360 of the Resource Management Act (1991).

In terms of s116 of the Resource Management Act 1991, this consent commences on 25 November 2016.


APPENDIX E: NOTIFICATION REPORT





















APPENDIX F: SUBMISSION FROM CHARLES AND DAPHNE RHIND




APPENDIX G: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA RURAL ZONE


PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONTROLLED ACTIVITYZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED CONTROLLEDACTIVITY ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

RESTRICTED DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITY

CouncilCouncil

Zone Development Standards(2)Yards (Buildings)

sitesite

site

site

road

yard

yard landscapingsite

Discretionary Activity Councildevelopment standards

Permitted ControlledRestricted Discretionary Activities

buildings structures



road

road

site, manoeuvring areas

Permitted ActivitiesDiscretionary Activities

state highway

buildings

buildingsroads siteroad


amenity

sbuildings

environment zones

exploration mining earthworks


signs amenities

site

environment

road amenity

mineral

buildings structuresamenity values

environment

building structure

buildings


APPENDIX H: DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS REPORT


REPORT

ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT



ENGINEERING CONDITIONS

Advice Notes




RRESOURCE CONSENT HEARING

INTRODUCTION STATEMENT BY LISA & KEVIN BOYLES Thank you for providing us a chance to speak in support of our application to build our home and business in Miranda.

Our names are Lisa and Kevin Boyles. Since purchasing our land on Back Miranda Road nearly a year ago, Kevin and I have been looking forward to becoming part of the Miranda community, developing new friendships and building on some of the amazing ones we have established. My life has been as a registered nurse since qualifying 27 years ago, and since returning back to NZ 12 years ago Kevin has developed his own successful custom fishing rod business.

We are excited to build our family home whilst also establishing our dream business on our little part of paradise in Miranda. Our unique, boutique dog hotel, exclusively for smaller breeds, will be situated alongside our home and be shared with the local (and further afield) communities. It will cater for all needs of smaller dog breeds.

Our motivation started many years ago with the inability to find boarding that was of a standard we were totally satisfied with for our furry boys, even after many hours of visiting differing options. On researching further, this was a concern for many dog owners when looking at going away.

Woof Woof Ranch will be unique in many ways from traditional boarding facilities in the region, setting it in a league of its own. The build design is a solid quality linear weatherboard home build, replicating the style of our own home, both inside and out with materials. No tin shed or barn design; only natural looking materials that will blend in to the country environment. Ranch Style.

The interior will be welcoming and homely, with individual bedroom styled sleeping rooms. There will be no cages at all in any part of Woof Woof Ranch to ensure our guests have maximum comfort and a truly home feel.

There will be a range of internal play areas and relaxation areas that can be adjusted and altered to accommodate the needs of all dogs, ages, and dispositions.

Externally we will have a fully solid fenced play area for outdoor stimulation, again, with different areas for different play needs of different dogs.

Our design, exclusively for smaller breeds, ensures that our guests do not need to be segregated from others as in other boarding scenarios, but can share the run of the whole ranch.

The entire build, design and management plan, has been thoroughly researched utilizing information from successful operations of similar styles overseas, also ensuring that the NZ Code of Welfare for Dogs and


2

MPI recommendations and standards for animal welfare are exceeded. The design will ensure a more calming environment increasing animal welfare during their stay.

In NZ there are some high quality, cage free, boutique style dog boarding establishments, but none offer services exclusively for smaller breeds, giving our business a total point of difference and uniqueness.

Having personal experience as dog owners all our lives, Kevin and I feel extremely knowledgeable about caring for dogs. However, to pursue this further I felt I needed to expand my knowledge base and as well as signing up as a volunteer for the SPCA in all dog areas to gain further professional experience, I also completed a university course in Canine care and behavior.

We are both extremely motivated and excited to have a total career change and work together to establish and develop our successful business Woof Woof Ranch in Miranda. We know we will offer a service like no other, and be hugely successful.

Lisa and Kevin Boyles 22 February, 2017


1


2


3

Noise shall not exceed the levels set out below when measured in accordance with the provisions of New Zealand Standard (NZS) 6801:2008 Acoustics – Measurement of Environmental Sound and assessed in accordance with the provisions of NZS 6802:2008 Acoustics – Environmental Noise:

(a) Between Sites within Zones


4

within the notional boundary of

any residential property within that zone


5

.


6


7


8

the proposed isolation room shall be designed to

ensure the noise from barking at the notional boundary of any dwelling will not

exceed 35dB LAeq

1


9

The effects of noise associated with the boarding facility

on any lawfully established future dwelling on the adjoining site may be

significant depending on the location of any such dwelling

Acoustics – Environmental Noise


10

there is

the potential for the boarding facility to create adverse nuisance effects in

relation to future permitted activities on the adjoining site … and the noise

effects in relation to this activity cannot practically be controlled by way of

mitigation measures … the effects of noise associated with the dog boarding

facility on ny lawfully established future dwelling on the adjoining site may be

significant


Lisa and Kevin Boyles Statement of Evidence of Monique Kimber

Evidence Monique Kimber 1

BEFORE HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act

1991 (The Act)

AND

IN THE MATTER Application for Resource Consents

by Lisa and Kevin Boyles to

construct a new dwelling and to

construct and operate a dog

boarding facility at 104 Back

Miranda Road,Waitakaruru

(202.2016.00000562.001)

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MONIQUE KRYSTAL KIMBER




QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1. My name is Monique Krystal Kimber. I am a Planning Consultant and

hold a Bachelor of Science Degree (Geography/ Environment Science)

from Auckland University. I am a full member of the New Zealand

Planning Institute. I have been employed in resource management

related positions in local government and the private sector since 2003.

2. For the public sector, I was employed in planning regulatory roles by

Auckland Council and three different London Borough Councils. In

addition to public sector work, I have been engaged as a Planning

Consultant on wide range of projects in both Auckland and Waikato

Regions, including advising on and preparing land use and subdivision

resource consent applications. I have experience in resource consent

applications, hearings and appeals on a wide range of subdivision and

land use activities.

INVOLVEMENT IN PROJECT

3. Hodgson Planning Consultants have provided planning services to Lisa

and Kevin Boyles since 2015, including planning feasibility advice on

another prospective site for a dog boarding activity and a Regional

wastewater discharge consent1. I prepared the Assessment of

Environmental Effects for the Resource Consent Application submitted

on 19th September 2016 (Council reference LUSE-

202.2016.00000562.001).

4. I am fully aware of and understand the dog boarding activities proposed.

I am here today to provide planning evidence on behalf of the

applicants.

1 Waikato Regional Wastewater Discharge Permit AUTH137545.01.01




STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE

5. After briefly outlining the nature of the site and consents sought, I will

comment on the Council Planner’s Report and the issues raised by

submitters.

6. My evidence is structured under the following headings:

Description of Site and Location

Description of Activity

Activity Status

Planner’s Report/District Plan Assessment

Issues Raised by Submitters

Regional Policy Statement

Conditions

Part 2 of the RMA

Conclusions

7. While not a hearing held in the Environment Court, I confirm that I have

read the Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (Practice Note

2014) and will comply with it for this hearing. I have not omitted to

consider any material facts known to me which might alter or detract

from the opinions expressed in my evidence, and the issues I address are

within my area of expertise.




DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCATION

8. A description of the proposed site and location is contained in the

resource consent application documents and is also summarised in the

Council’s Planner’s Report. In my view, the following points are

important to note:

The subject site is a vacant 1.678-hectare rural property. The size

of the lot restricts the potential land uses to those associated with

rural lifestyle rather than rural production. The potential impact of

the lot size and anticipated use on rural production and rural

character would have been a consideration when the subdivision

consent was granted; noting that the policies that support

Objective 7 of the Subdivision Section provide for small lot lifestyle

subdivision on less productive rural land, subject to ensuring that

the rural character, landscape and amenity values are protected.

The land comprises an elongated trapezoid shaped lot (164-243m

long by 83m wide) that at its southern boundary starts on a raised

knoll, falling in a southern direction within the plains.

The western boundary of the site is demarcated by a water

easement in favour of the Hauraki District Council.

The site is currently in pasture but is not being grazed. Broadly the

surrounding area is characterised by pastoral and dairy farming,

with the occasional smaller land parcel that support non-

productive residential living in a rural environment and countryside

living.




Consequently, the rural landscape is characterised by paddocks

intermittently disrupted by dwellings with established landscaping,

shelterbelts and clusters of rural buildings and sheds.

The site is not located within a defined “Outstanding Natural

Landscape” or “District Amenity Landscape”.

The directly adjoining properties are utilised for pastoral farming

and are vacant of dwellings and thus not occupied for residential

use.

From aerial photographic measurement, the nearest dwelling from

the proposed boarding facility is located at 105 Back Miranda

Road, which is approximately 100m from the boarding facility

building on the opposite side of the road. Written approval has

been obtained from the owners/occupiers of this property. The

dwelling at 82 Back Miranda Road, owned and occupied by Judith

and Dennis Yeager, is approximately 160m from the proposed

boarding facility.

The Rhinds’ property at 33 Back Miranda Road is a 14.5-hectare

parcel (CFR: 575417), which is utilised as part of a larger dairy

farm.

The site can be conveniently accessed from State Highway 25,

approximately 1km away, which in my view will contribute

positively to the viability of the proposed business that will

leverage off tourism traffic.

The site is not known to be subject to any hazards. Council’s

Development Engineer has confirmed that there is no risk of

inundation on the site. Notwithstanding, there is a consent notice




registered on the title at the time of subdivision (2010) stating a

minimum floor level above the design flood level, which the

development complies with.

I agree with the Reporting Planner that there are several existing

dog boarding kennels located within rural areas of the District and

that such areas are appropriate for these types of facilities.

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY

9. A full description of the activity is contained in the resource consent

application documents, and it is again summarised in the Council

Planner’s Report. I will not repeat that description but note the

following points:

Lisa and Kevin firstly wish to establish their family home on the

raised southern end of the site. At its closest point the dwelling will

be located 6m from the front boundary.

In addition to their house Lisa and Kevin wish to establish a unique

high quality boarding facility for small dogs, “Woof Woof Ranch”.

The facility will accommodate the dogs in rooms rather than

typical cages and wired runs.

The activity will be operated by Lisa and Kevin, who have designed

the facility so that it exceeds the requirements of the applicable

animal welfare standards. A detailed management plan has been

prepared cognisant of these standards and recognising the need to

maintain rural character and amenity values.

The proposed boarding facility building will be of a complementary

design to the main dwelling, reflective of a typical rural accessory




building, and features a pitched roof and timber weatherboards

finished in a neutral colour. Both buildings will be single level in

height. The boarding facility will be located at a lower level.

The facility will accommodate a maximum of 25 dogs onsite at any

one time. On average, outside peak time, it is likely that around 10

dogs will be accommodated. The maximum number of dogs is

reflective of the regulations and enables the activity to be

operated as a home business without the need to employ

additional staff.

The dogs will be inside during the hours of 7pm to 7am and during

feeding times.

A 1400m² outdoor play area will be enclosed in a 1.8m high close

boarded fence. The close boarded fence will provide noise

attenuation, will securely enclose the dogs and avoid sightlines

with the adjoining grazing cattle.

Acoustic consultant for the applicant, Nevil Hegley, has considered

the potential noise effects from the activity and concluded that

compliance with the District Plan noise standards can be achieved.

Native landscaping is proposed around the building and the

enclosure fence to soften the appearance of these built structures.

Four car parking spaces will be provided for the activity. It is

estimated that the activity will generate around 18 traffic

movements (9 vehicles) per day. The drop offs and pickups will be

restricted to between 7am-9am and 4pm- 6pm.




Wastewater will be treated and disposed of onsite via Wisconsin

Mounds. A permit to discharge the wastewater from the boarding

facility has been obtained from Waikato Regional Council.

Approximately 289m³ of earthworks will be required to establish

the platforms for the dwelling and the boarding facility.

A 1.5m² sign will be installed to advertise the activity.

ACTIVITY STATUS

10. The subject property is zoned Rural in the Hauraki District Plan (“District

Plan”).

Dwelling

11. In the Rural zone of the District Plan, one Dwelling House per Rural Lot

and its accessory buildings are a permitted activity, subject to

compliance with the relevant standards and provisions. One such

provision is a 12m yard requirement.

12. The proposed dwelling at its closest point will be located 6m from the

front boundary. This triggers the need for consent as a Discretionary

activity pursuant to Rule 5.1.4.4 (D18)

Boarding Facility

13. Within the Rural Zone, a boarding facility for animals is listed in the

activity table as a Discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 5.1.4.4 (D17).

14. The plan specifies a 50m yard setback for buildings/ enclosures housing

and keeping animals as a development standard that is to be met by all

permitted and controlled activities and to be used as a guide in assessing




any Discretionary of Non-Complying activity. The proposed boarding

facility is located closer than 50m from the nearest adjoining yard (12m).

The environmental outcome sought by the yard setbacks is to allow

flexibility in site layout while still maintaining the amenities of the site

and adjoining sites and mitigating reverse sensitivity effects from new

noise sensitive activities.

Wastewater Disposal

15. The discharge of wastewater and washwater from the dog boarding

facility required consent under the Waikato Regional Consent as a

Discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 3.5.7.7. Consent was granted on

30th November 2016.

PLANNER’S REPORT

16. The Planners report sets out a useful format for assessment that to assist

the commissioners I will replicate in my evidence.

Permitted Baseline

17. I concur with the Reporting Planner’s description of the parameters that

form a permitted baseline assessment. The permitted baseline informs

what is the maximum level of change that is permissible as of right. I

consider that in this circumstance the permitted baseline is particularly

relevant to the assessment of actual and potential effects.

18. The Reporting Planner’s discussion focusses on the use of accessory

buildings for farming, with reference to a small-scale building. However,

due to the size of the lot, I believe buildings accessory to the

residential/rural lifestyle activity on the site, which are also permitted by




the District Plan, are a more relevant consideration. Clause 5.1.4 of the

District Plan states that:

Activities and their accessory uses, and buildings (unless otherwise

stated) are Permitted, Controlled, Restricted Discretionary, Discretionary,

Non-Complying or Prohibited according to the Activity Status table

below:

P4 of the Permitted activity table states that one dwelling on each

certificate of title up to 40 hectares of land is permitted. Consequently,

accessory buildings to the residential use are also permitted subject

compliance with relevant development standards. Therefore, a dwelling

and shed, up to 11m in height and both located 12m from the

boundaries could be established on this Rural zoned property as of right.

It is noted that within the rural zone there is no restriction on building

coverage.

19. As identified by the Reporting Planner the size of the site lends it use to

lifestyle purposes. In this instance, I consider it realistic that an

accessory building, which in part could be used as a utility/storage shed

for boats, cars, campervans, lawnmower etc. at one end and then a

gym/rumpus room at the northern end could be established on this

lifestyle property. This scenario is illustrated on the attached drawing.

From my review of the wider environment, this type of site layout is not

untypical of lifestyle living where this and other built element

arrangements on smaller lots are displayed (Attachment 1). I consider

that this potential built form is part of the permitted baseline and a

relevant consideration. It shows a permitted built form of development

identical to what is proposed. This is directly relevant to the Planner’s

concerns with adverse visual/amenity effects arising from the buildings

proposed by the application.




20. As well, a fence up to 2m in height is not subject to yard setbacks2. It is

my understanding that the erection of a fence on a rural zone property

would typically not trigger the need for consent. The same applies to

the establishment of landscape planting and shelterbelts on the side and

rear boundaries. This is a tall fence allowed as a permitted activity and in

my opinion forms a relevant consideration in a permitted baseline

assessment.

21. The yard development standard states that any building or enclosure

used for housing and keeping of any animals (including milking sheds

and stock yards) is not permitted within 50m of the boundary. It is

assumed that the term “enclosure” does not extend to fenced paddocks

or, for example, horse arenas. I consider that this standard is imposed to

primarily address potential noise and odour effects associated with

intensive farming activities where a high concentration of animals is

likely within a building or enclosure.

22. My understanding is that a dressage horse arena, which is a fenced area

used for the training and exercise of horses, could be established as a

permitted activity on the site. Often such arenas feature a post and rail

fence system with a portion of the arena fitted with full height mirrors to

assist with training. The potential for a permitted horse arena is also

illustrated on the attached drawing. The visual/amenity effects of such a

facility on neighbouring sites is comparable to the effects of the enclosed

outdoor play area proposed with this activity.

2 Yard Means a part of a site measured from the boundary of the site which is required to be unobstructed by buildings from the ground upwards except that: (a) a verandah or canopy attached to a non-residential building may project over any front yard; (b) an open fire escape may project over any yard; (c) a fence, boundary wall or retaining wall not exceeding 2 metres in height (but in each case not being a building) may be erected on any yard; (d) an uncovered deck of less than 1 metre in height may project over any yard; (e) where a building line restriction is imposed over the site, the yard shall be measured back from the building line; and (f) eaves no more than 600mm wide may encroach into any yard.




23. In my opinion any assessment of effects on rural character or amenity

must start from the point of permitted buildings, accessory buildings and

rural structures, as this outlines the maximum level of change to the

environment that can occur as right.

24. Applying the baseline provides the consent authority with a realistic and

balanced starting point in assessing what the Rural Zone can legitimately

expect in terms of character and amenity effects. The range of

permitted activities has been formulated cognisant of the rural

objectives and policies which seek to preserve and enhance the open

rural landscape.

25. Rather than question the visual or rural character effects of the built

structures, which are consistent with the permitted baseline, the focus

should be whether the boarding of 25 dogs on the site generates effects

over and above the permitted baseline that are sufficiently adverse to

require the application to be declined. In my opinion it does not.

Proposed Dwelling

26. I concur with the conclusions of the Reporting Planner on the

assessment of the proposed dwelling, noting the support from Council’s

Roading Authority and the submitters. Therefore, I do not consider it

necessary to readdress the s104 assessment relevant to the dwelling.

Dog Boarding Facility

27. I agree with the Reporting Planner’s assessment of the matters relating

to:

a. Stormwater and Effluent Disposal

b. Nuisance Effects, and

c. Vehicle Access and Parking




Consequently, I make no further comment on these matters in this

evidence.

Effects on Stock

28. Effects on the welfare of dairy cows and staff are raised in the Rhinds’

Submission. Although I hold no expertise in the behavioural responses of

cows to small dogs, I note that in this instance the only interaction

between them would be aural. The proposed boarding facility has been

designed to prevent any prospect of line-of-sight between the dogs and

cows. Cows may intermittently hear dogs barking, but that is it. I note

the Council’s Dog Ranger’s comments that he is not aware of of

complaints being received from farmers about stock on their farms

becoming distressed or adversely affected by noise from adjacent dog

boarding facilities. Mr Hegley’s experience is consistent with that. Given

this advice and the applicants’ responsibilities under the Dog Control

Act, I consider that this potential effect/risk is minor .

Noise

29. Section 8.3 of the District Plan identifies control of noise as a method to

protect the character and amenity values of areas. Noise limits apply to

the notional boundary of any ‘residential property’, which is defined “as

any occupied dwelling, community house or any form of tourist

accommodation lawfully established. In this case, the adjoining property

owned by the Rhinds is not considered a “residential property”3.

Therefore, there is no obligation in the District Plan to achieve

compliance with the noise standard at this property.

3 Residential Property/Site Means any occupied dwelling, community house or any form of tourist accommodation lawfully established which is located on a separate certificate of title from that on which the noise level of an activity is being measured and assessed.




30. Noise effects have been addressed by Mr Hegley who concludes that

compliance with the noise standards can be achieved.

31. The Rhinds have a development right to erect a dwelling on the

adjoining property. Through consultation and submission, I am not

aware of any intent by the Rhinds to locate a dwelling on their property

along the common boundary adjacent the proposed kennel building, as

propositioned by the Reporting Planner as a potential future

development scenario. Given that the Rhinds property is at its narrowest

140m in width I would suggest this is an unlikely scenario and they

would be more likely to look for greater separation from the adjoining

lifestyle lot – noting again that if the boarding activity does not proceed

the permitted baseline permits a large fence and accessory buildings on

the Boyles land from which it is practical to assume the Rhinds would

want separation from.

32. Also of note is that the Rhinds have been in communication with Council

about the establishment of a dwelling at the front of their property

(refer to attached email- Attachment 2). This makes sense given the

attractiveness of the elevation, views, proximity to the road frontage for

servicing and potential geotechnical challenges of the lower land. Given

this creditable potential dwelling location the applicant sought specialist

advice from Nevil Hegley on the potential noise effects on a house in this

location. His advice confirmed that compliance with the noise standard

can be achieved (even though the noise standard does not presently

require it).

33. As outlined in the emails from Grant and Helen Rhind, they are

concerned about the potential flood hazard on their property and that is

why they are considering a dwelling on the upper front part of their

property. Advice from Waikato Regional Council on the flood hazards

that relate to the subject site is that while the site is outside the Regional




Flood Hazard, the Regional Scale Hazard would extend onto the northern

extent of the Rhind property (Attachment 3). A stream also meanders

through parts of this site, which may also restrict the ability to establish

a dwelling on the lower parts of their property.

34. I consider that these matters should also be considered in the context of

what is deemed to be the receiving environment to which the noise

effects will assessed against.

35. The noise assessments undertaken by Nevil Hegley conclude that the

noise will not create adverse nuisance effects and will be controlled to

within a reasonable level. His assessments have been based on a range

of mitigation measures relating to the physical build and operation of

the activity to control noise. These have informed the development of

the management plan and recommended conditions. The provision of

the acoustic fence around the entire perimeter of the outdoor play area

is additional mitigation above what is considered necessary by Nevil

Hegley to achieve compliance with the rules.

36. On balance, I am satisfied that there are sufficient measures

incorporated within the proposal to avoid adverse noise effects on the

present environment and the future environment. Noise from the

activity will not be greater than what is anticipated in the rural

environment and provided for by the noise standards.

Visual effects, Visual Amenity and Rural Character

37. As highlighted above I am of the opinion that the visual effects of the

proposed dog boarding facility are comparable to the visual effect of a

permitted accessory building. While these permitted building features

are not currently characteristic of the site and immediately adjoining

landscape, they are provided for within the Rural Zone and are a




reasonably expected part of the rural character and anticipated rural

amenity values.

38. I am satisfied that the visual and visual amenity effects of the built

development will maintain amenity values and will not detract from the

open rural landscape character. The single level buildings are lower than

the 11m permitted in the Rural Zone, which helps to reduce their

prominence. The buildings will cover 3% of the site. Consistent

design/materials and colours will be adopted between the dwelling and

the boarding facility to visually integrate the built forms. The choice of

materials and colours are sympathetic to the rural environment. The

finished colours will have low reflectivity to reduce prominence. In time,

landscaping around the dwelling and facility will soften the appearance

of the built structures.

39. I agree with the Reporting Planner that the rural zone is a logical zone for

animal boarding facilities to be located. In this case, the rural location is

essential to the unique setting and amenity this boutique boarding

facility wishes to achieve. I consider the scale and nature of the activity,

to be consistent with the rural character.

40. The scale of the facility has been designed to ensure it remains

manageable by the applicants and to reduce the potential for adverse

amenity values. As previously discussed it is considered that noise

emitted from the facility will be reasonable. The submitted Management

Plan will ensure that the activity will operate in a manner that maintains

rural amenity values. These include methods to control odour, noise,

traffic and animal control as well as a complaints procedure.

41. The 50m yard setback in the District Plan is provided as a guide to avoid

adverse amenity effects. The evidence submitted has demonstrated that




such a facility can be located and operated closer than 50m, without

adverse amenity effects, particularly noise effects.

42. When the permitted baseline is considered in conjunction with the scale

and nature of the proposal I consider that effects on visual amenity and

rural character will be successfully avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Positive Effects

43. I note that the Reporting Planner has not identified any positive effects

of the proposal. The proposal will introduce a new business activity to

the area. Of note is that Hauraki District Council’s Economic

Development Strategy vision is for a place where businesses locate,

talent lives and people visit because of our vibrant great lifestyle options

and enabling business environment”4. The applicants have shared with

you their excitement about establishing their unique business within the

Hauraki District and how they are looking forward to enjoying the

benefits of living with the rural community. The applicants are

committed to providing a high standard facility which will have a positive

effect of the wellbeing of the dogs in their care. The activity will also

have social benefits of enabling the applicants to live and work on site.

Overall, it is considered that this activity will positively contribute to the

local economy and community.

Objectives and Policies

44. The objective and policy structure of the District Plan is set out at Pages

22 to 24 of the Reporting Planner’s report. The objectives and policies

address the following relevant matters in the Rural Zone:

4 http://www.hauraki-dc.govt.nz/assets/business_docs/EcoDevStrat.pdf




a. Ensure and Provide for a range of compatible rural land use

activities

b. Maintenance of Amenity Values

c. Preserve and Enhance the open rural landscape character

d. Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of activities

45. I concur with the Reporting Planner that the proposed dwelling does not

conflict with the relevant objectives and policies.

46. I am also of the opinion that the dog boarding activity is consistent with

the objectives and policies. This activity is compatible to the rural

environment and rural activities and can operate without detrimental

disruption to productive rural activities. The plan permits activities to

establish with some visual effects and will persevere the open rural

landscape. The scale and nature of the activity combined with the

proposed management methods will ensure that amenity values are

maintained. Anticipated noise emitted from the activity is reasonable

and compliant with the noise standards.

ISSUES RAISED BY SUBMITTERS

47. As outlined in the Planner’s report, two submissions were lodged

following limited notification of the application 137 Back Miranda Road.

137 Back Miranda Road – Charles and Daphne Rhind

48. The submitters state that they oppose the construction and operation of

the dog boarding facility but not the construction of a new dwelling. The

submitters consider that the proposed location of the kennel building

will have a moderate (at times) and major effect on their farming activity

with reference given to animal welfare matters and consequent effect

on staff safety.




49. I have set out my opinion on matters relating to the welfare of the cows.

From advice sought given by Council’s Dog Ranger I am confident that

the activity can occur without detrimental effects on the cows and farm

staff. I also reiterate the Reporting Planner’s comments that activity

would be subject to the requirements of the Dog Control Act, which the

applicants are aware of.

82 Back Miranda Road – Judith and Dennis Yeager (Submission not accepted

by Council)

50. The submitters were not formally notified of the application as they

were not identified as an affected party. The submission raises concern

that the kennel building would have a moderate to major effect on their

rural views and adverse noise effects. They also raise concerns that the

activity will increase at a later stage.

51. While having no formal submission status, addressing these comments I

reiterate my conclusions around visual effects and impact on amenity

values. Of note is that this dwelling is located 160m from the proposed

activity and that the proposal being considered is for a maximum of 25

small dogs. The applicant understands that should they wish to expand

this would be subject to another resource consent application.

REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT

52. I have reviewed the objectives and policies of the Waikato Regional

Policy Statement (RPS). I am opinion that the activity will enable the

continued use of the surrounding productive farming activities. Of note

is that the site is not located within an outstanding natural landscape. I

am also confident that the qualities and characteristics of the rural

environment as anticipated by the RPS are maintained. Boarding




facilities do feature within the rural environment and the proposed

activity can operate in a manner than maintains amenity values. Overall,

I am of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the RPS.

CONDITIONS

53. I am of the opinion that consent can be granted to the activity in its

entirety subject to conditions of consent to ensure that adverse effects

are suitably avoided, remedied and mitigated. Within Attachment 4 is a

list of recommended conditions of consent.

PART 2 (PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES) OF THE RMA

54. In terms of Section 5, I consider that the proposal will provide for the

community’s social and economic wellbeing, by providing a unique

boarding facility to serve the local area as well as visitors who pass

through. Subject to conditions, any adverse effects will be adequately

avoided, remedied or mitigated.

55. There are no relevant matters of national importance listed in section 6

that are to be recognised and provided for.

56. In terms of Section 7(c) and 7(f), in my opinion the proposal will maintain

amenity values. The visual amenity effects of the proposal are

consistent with the permitted baseline and the scale, nature and

operation of the activity will also maintain amenity values.

57. There are no matters relevant to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

58. Overall, I consider that the application achieves the purpose of the RMA

being the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.




CONCLUSION

59. In terms of consent required for the dwelling I come to the same

conclusion as the Reporting Planner. The recommended conditions of

consent are appropriate, fair and reasonable.

60. On the Boarding Facility land use, it is my opinion that overall, any

adverse effects over and above those permitted to occur at this location,

are avoided, remedied or mitigated by the scale of the activity and the

scale and design of the development and the applicants’ proposed

management procedures.

61. The activity meets the sustainable management purpose of the RMA in

my opinion and consent can be granted for the activity subject to the

recommended conditions.

Monique Kimber

22 February 2017


Attachment 1 – Permitted Baseline Drawing




Attachment 2- Rhind Property Communications






Attachment 3 – Flood Hazard Assessment


Regional scale flood hazard mapping Waikato Regional Council holds regional scale flood hazard maps for the Waikato Region. These maps provide an overview of the flood hazards associated with many water bodies and may be useful for identifying potential flooding issues that require further discussion and investigation. When using this broad scale information, it is important to understand the associated limitations: The accuracy of the information makes it unsuitable for determining detailed flood hazard

information for a specific site (e.g. extent of inundation or design flood levels). The information does not consistently represent a particular design flood event (e.g. an

event with a 1 % AEP). The information does not cover all waterways in the Waikato Region, therefore the

presence of a flood hazard zone does not guarantee the existence of such a hazard, nor does the lack of information preclude the existence of a hazard or risk.

The information is not suitable for land-use planning processes, other than identifying potential flooding issues that may require further discussion and investigation.

The information does not replace detailed flood hazard information. The regional scale flood hazard map for this property is below.

Given the limitations regarding the accuracy and completeness of this information, it is recommended that further investigations and discussions be undertaken to confirm the nature and extent of the flood hazard (if any).

104 Back Miranda

State highway

Local road

Regional scale flood hazard


H56 & H57 Verified by Kirsty Baxter (2001) through EW staff at Paeroa, the Paeroa classification/rating maps and asset management reports. Verified by Eva Cordery (May 2005) through EW staff at Paeroa. The storm on 14 July 1995 was a freak event that involved the springtide, a northerly wind, a low-pressure system in the Firth of Thames and a wet catchment. This freak event caused the overtopping of the foreshore stopbanks along the Miranda area which poured into the areas outlined in the map. Further flooding would have been due to the runoff from the hill catchments surrounding these areas. If a similar ‘freak’ storm event occurred, to that of 1995, but to a 100-year return period capacity, the effects could be disastrous. The northerly wind would have the capacity to push the ‘spring tide’ over the foreshore stopbanks, inundating the land. The entire area between the Hapuakohe Ranges and the boundary would be inundated to Karito Canal. The foreshore along Miranda Road would also go under, with waters having the capacity to go over the road and enter farmland on the opposite side of the Road. The spread of the flooding would be further complicated as flooding from the mouth of the river could spread some way along the outside of the Waitakaruru canal stopbanks. If a similar event occurred on a 100-year scale, there is a high possibility that stopbanks will be breached causing a larger scale of inundation from waters and a larger runoff from the hill catchments.

Topographic information Waikato Regional Council holds detailed topographic information for this property that was captured using the LiDAR surveying technique (refer below).

Elevation

Above 100 m

Sea level

ADDRESS


Coastal flood and erosion hazard This property is located in the coastal environment and may be subject to one or more of the hazards that occur in this area (e.g. extreme tides, storm surges and coastal erosion). This property may also be subject to inundation from tsunami. Information regarding tsunami response plans should be sought from the local civil defence authority.

Limitations of this report It is important that the limitations of this flood hazard information are understood. These limitations are: The presence of flood hazard information does not guarantee the existence of a hazard,

nor does the lack of information preclude the existence of a hazard or risk. Waikato Regional Council, while providing the information in good faith, accepts no

responsibility for any loss, damage, injury, or loss in value of any person, property, service or otherwise resulting from flood hazards or knowledge of flood hazards in the Waikato Region.

This flood hazard information is based on the existing condition of the catchment. Any significant change to this condition (e.g. land use changes, deforestation and the intensification of development) may affect the flood hazard that affects this property. Where significant changes do occur, this flood hazard information should be reviewed.

This flood hazard information is based on the existing channel geometry and floodplain topography. However, this excludes existing and future obstructions such as fences, trees and buildings. These obstructions may cause localised changes to the flood extent, depth and/or speed.

This flood hazard information is only relevant to major river systems and schemes. Other sources of flooding (e.g. other waterways, localised ponding, stormwater infrastructure and the coastal environment) are not included and may need to be considered.

Any design flood level information contained in this report does not represent the maximum possible flood level. During extreme river and/or tidal flood events, this level may be exceeded.

This flood hazard information does not include instances where large debris blockages and debris flows occur.


Attachment 4 – Recommended Conditions


1

Subject to the following conditions:

1. That the dwelling and boarding facility shall be sited, constructed and operated generally in accordance with the application by Hodgson Planning Consultants Ltd dated 8 September 2016 and the Amended Site Plan by A1 Homes, Sheet No. 3 dated 22/08/2016 which has been signed and stamped approved. This includes the provision of an isolation room within the dog boarding building.

Earthworks

2. That all earthworks shall comply with the Hauraki District Council Engineering Manual

2010 – version 1 and NZS 4431 in terms of land stability and foundation treatments.

3. The consent holder shall take all measures, including the control of any contractors, during the earthworks and construction period, to ensure that:

a. No earthworks or construction work are to be undertaken on Sundays or outside the hours between 7am to 5.30pm – Monday to Saturday.

b. Noise levels are to comply with Section 8.3.1 Noise of the Operative Hauraki District Plan and New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise.

c. Dust emissions do not create adverse effects beyond the boundary of the site. Boarding Facility

4. The activity shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Management Plan.

5. The maximum number of dogs in the kennels at any one time shall not exceed 25.

6. The dogs shall be closed in their kennels for the night by 7.00pm and not allowed

outside before 7.00am the following day.

7. The kennels shall be designed, constructed and operated to ensure that the following noise levels (Standard 8.3.1.3.1 of District Plan) are not exceeded within the notional boundary of any residential property existing at the date consent was granted:

Standard LAeq (15 mins) LAFmax

On all days 7.00am – 10.00pm

50dB NA

On all nights 10.00pm – 7.00am

40dB 65dB


2

Residential Property Means any occupied dwelling, community house or any form of tourist accommodation lawfully established which is located on a separate Certificate of Title from that on which the noise level of an activity is being measured and assessed.

8. At the time of applying for a building consent, a design report by an Acoustic

Consultant shall be submitted to the Council, demonstrating how the requirements of condition 7 will be complied with. This shall include a 1.8m high acoustic barrier on the sides of the outdoor run and the isolation room being designed to ensure the noise from barking at the notional boundary of any dwelling will not exceed 35dB LAeq.

9. The hours of operation for pick up and drop off of dogs and inspection of the kennels by clients shall be limited to 7.00am -9.00am and 4.00pm – 6.00pm each day (unless by special arrangement). Dogs are to be left and collected at reception.

10. A register of dogs that bark excessively shall be kept and made available to Council on request. These dogs shall not be allowed to return to the kennels.

11. That pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, Council may serve notice on the consent holder of its intention to review the noise associated with the activity at any time from 6 months after the date the boarding facility become operational. The consent holder will be required to undertake, at their cost, any works required to mitigate any adverse effects identified by the review. The appropriate mitigation measures will be decided by Hauraki District Council’s Manager of Planning and Environmental Services. The actual and reasonable costs incurred by the Council in undertaking this review shall be paid by the resource consent holder within one month of being invoiced.

12. All rubbish and waste (excluding waste disposed of to the non-domestic effluent

system) shall be bagged and contained in an enclosed receptacle designed to minimize odours, and shall be regularly removed from the site. If the activity generates objectionable odours (those that are more offensive as a matter of degree than smells reasonably to be expected in a rural environment) that reach other properties, the applicant shall be required to take immediate steps to eliminate the nuisance. The degree of the objectionable odours emanating from the property shall be determined by the Environmental Health Officer.

13. The consent holder shall prepare a final landscaping implementation and maintenance plan for the development that shall be submitted to the Council, prior to construction commencing on-site. The landscape plan shall detail the proposed landscaping to be located on site and shall include details of the proposed species and planting times. The landscape plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning and Environmental Services Manager. The landscaping shall be implemented and maintained thereafter in accordance with the maintenance programme submitted with the approved landscape plan.


3

14. Before the activity commences, all access, parking and manoeuvring areas shall be formed, sealed with an all-weather surface, drained and marked out to the satisfaction of the Council’s Manager of Planning and Environmental Services.

15. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the

applicant shall pay Hauraki District Council charges for receiving, processing and granting the Resource Consent.

16. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay Hauraki District Council a fee of $110.00 for the administration associated with monitoring the consent, and thereafter shall pay to Hauraki District Council, all costs that arise for monitoring this consent, including all costs associated with site visits, and the consideration and certification of plans and details associated with the consent, as appropriate.

Advice Notes

A new resource consent would be required for any increase in scale or intensity of the boarding operations beyond the activity approved by this resource consent.

The consent holder shall obtain all other necessary consents and permits, including those required under the Building Act 2004, and comply with all relevant Council Bylaws. This consent does not constitute Building Consent approval.


Documents

APPENDIX B: FURTHER INFORMATION · x the earthwork volumes have been reassessed/ clarified, x signed site plan from Barbara Smith is attached, x any response received from the roading