licensing, exemptions and objections · pdf file · 2014-08-12objection lodged by...

Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee

Notice of Meeting A meeting of the Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Forum North, Whangarei on:

Wednesday11 May 2011

1.30 pm

Committee of: Council

Committee Cr M R Williams (Chairperson)

His Worship the Mayor (Deputy Chair) Cr S J Deeming

Cr S L Morgan Cr J D T Williamson

INDEX Item No Page No 1. Minutes of a Meeting of the Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee held 9 March 2011 .................................................................................................................1 2. Report – Decisions of the Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee......................4 3. Special Exemption from Compliance with Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 – S and S Culham...................................................................................................9

CONFIDENTIAL INDEX Item No Page No C.1 Report ......................................................................................................................................1

Recommendations contained in this agenda are NOT final decisions. Please refer to the minutes for resolutions.

Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee 11 May 2011

1. Minutes : Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee Wednesday 9 March 2011

Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee held in the Council Chamber, Forum North, on 9 March 2011 at 1.00 pm Present: Cr M R Williams (Chairperson) Crs S J Deeming, Cr S L Morgan and Cr J D T Williamson Apology: His Worship the Mayor Moved: Cr Williams Seconded: Cr Deeming “That the apology be sustained.”

CARRIED Also present: Mr D R Capey In attendance: Resource Consents Manager (A Hartstone), Team Leader Compliance (G Barnsley), Team Leader Environmental Planner (L Jolley), Liquor Licensing Officer (K Lambert), Compliance Officer (K Hislop) and Senior Meeting Co-ordinator (C Brindle) 1. Confirmation of Minutes of a Meeting of the Licensing, Exemptions and Objections

Committee held on 9 February 2011

Moved Cr Deeming Seconded Cr Williamson “That the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee held on 9 February 2011, including the confidential section, having been circulated, be taken as read and now confirmed and adopted as a true and correct record of proceedings of that meeting.”

CARRIED 2. Special Exemption from Compliance with Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Jeeves

Moved Cr Morgan Seconded Cr Deeming “That having considered the particular characteristics of the property, the swimming pool situated thereon and the occupants of the property, Council is satisfied that there is no significant increase in danger posed to young children by the swimming pool located at 31 Tullamore, Whangarei and therefore GRANTS a special exemption from the compliance requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. This special exemption is granted pursuant to section 6 of the Act and is granted to Mr Graham Jeeves and Mrs Carole Jeeves, the owners and occupants of the property under the following conditions:

1


1. That the special exemption is personal to the applicant(s) and will automatically expire upon the property being sold, or ceasing to be personally owned and occupied by the applicant(s).

2. That the applicant(s) must inform any prospective purchaser of the property that the special

exemption is personal to them and will expire immediately upon completion of the sale.

3. That the applicant(s) must inform any visitors to the property with children under 6 years of age, that the doors which give access to the immediate pool area are not fully compliant with the Act and that such children will need to be supervised at all times whilst on the property.”

CARRIED 3. Special Exemption from Compliance with Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Liddall

Moved Cr Williamson Seconded Cr Deeming “That having considered the particular characteristics of the property, the spa pool situated thereon and the occupants of the property, Council is satisfied that there is no significant increase in danger posed to young children by the spa pool located at 64 Ngunguru Ford Road, Whangarei and therefore GRANTS a special exemption from the compliance requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. This special exemption is granted pursuant to s.6 of the Act and is granted to Mr Peter Liddall and Mrs Suzanne Liddall, the owners and occupants of the property under the following conditions: 1. That the special exemption is personal to the applicant(s) and will automatically expire

upon the property being sold, or ceasing to be personally owned and occupied by the applicant(s).

2. That the applicant(s) must inform any prospective purchaser of the property that the

special exemption is personal to them and will expire immediately upon completion of the sale.

3. That the spa pool cover MUST be kept locked at all times when not in use.”

CARRIED

4. Objection to Costs Under Section 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991- Daecher Trust

Moved Cr Williamson Seconded Cr Williams

“That following the hearing of the matters before the committee, the public be excluded from the meeting pursuant to Section 48(1)(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act to enable the committee to deliberate in private on the decisions made.

CARRIED Further motion Moved: Cr Deeming Seconded: Cr Williams “That pursuant to section 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991, Council DISMISSES the objection lodged by Daecher Trust to the additional charge of $1,592.30 (including GST) as invoiced by Council for the processing of a section 127 application (reference SD0740596.02).”

CARRIED

2


The meeting closed at 1.56pm

Confirmed this 11th day of May 2011 Cr M R Williams (Chairperson)

3


2. Report Decisions of the Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee

Reporting officer G Barnsley (Team Leader Compliance)

Date 12 April 2011

Pursuant to Section 48(1)(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act the Committee having deliberated on the attached decision(s) and made available to the public.

A copy of the decisions is received for information.

Recommendation That the reports be received.

Attachments

Jeeves Decision

Liddall Decision

Daecher Trust Decision

4

Private Bag 9023 | Whangarei 0148 | New Zealand T: 09 430 4200 | 0800 WDC INFO | 0800 932 463 | F: 09 438 7632

W: www.wdc.govt.nz | E: [email protected]

11/6617

Report and Decision of Whangarei District Council thr ough its Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee Meeting held in the Council Chambers, Forum North, Whangarei on Wednesday 9 March 2011 commencing at 1.30pm

A Committee of Whangarei District Council was convened to determine an objection to the costs relating to the processing of a resource consent application lodged by David Capey on behalf of Daecher Trust. The objection, made in accordance with section 357 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘the Act’), was lodged with Whangarei District Council and referenced as LU0740596.02 (P107387).

Present Hearings Committee

Councillor M R Williams (Chairperson) Councillor S J Deeming Councillor S L Morgan Councillor J D T Williamson

Applicant Daecher Trust – D W Capey

Consent Authority Whangarei District Council

In Attendance Resource Consents Manager (A Hartstone), Team Leader Compliance (G Barnsley), Compliance Officer (K Hislop), Environmental Planner Consents (L Jolley), Liquor Licensing Officer (K Lambert) and Senior Meeting Co-ordinator (C Brindle)

1 Objection

An objection pursuant to section 357B of the Act was received from Daecher Trust (DR and CW Capey) relating to consent granted by Council to LU0740596.01 on 27 September 2010. The objection addresses the issue of processing costs associated with granting approval to change conditions of consent relating to RC40596, being resource consent granted on 16 January 2008 to establish a residential unit in the Coastal Countryside Environment as a restricted discretionary activity. The section 127 application sought to vary condition 4 of the consent issued, removing the requirement to register an encumbrance protecting two stands of Manuka trees whilst retaining the emphasis of the condition upon protecting the vegetation as intended.

The objection as lodged electronically on 15 November 2010 states “When I talked to Katie Hislop earlier this year about applying to change condition of resource consent she indicated that the price would be around five hundred ($500) dollars. The amount is just below $2,000.”

2 Presentation of Objection

No written submission was tabled. The consent holder, David Capey of Daecher Trust, addressed the Committee expanding on issues contained in his objection as follows:

• The section 127 application was lodged in response to concerns raised by Council’s Policy and Monitoring Division regarding compliance with the conditions attached to LU0740596, particularly with respect to condition 4 and the requirement to register an encumbrance protecting two stands of Manuka trees.

• As the consent holder did not fully appreciate at the time of consent issuing what an encumbrance entailed (i.e. $5,000 yearly penalty), they did not object to the initial decision and delays ensued in complying with the resource consent conditions when the process became clearer.

• The consent holder discussed the matter with Council’s Compliance Officer, who suggested the option of seeking approval to alter the condition of consent. The consent holder sought advice with respect to costs and suggested that the Compliance Officer had indicated a cost of around $500. Hence the total costs invoiced were a surprise.

7

11/6617

• The consent holder appreciated the tasks of staff in processing the decision and the benefit of the site visit however suggested that the time seemed excessive given the information already available on Council’s file.

• However, the primary reason for the objection related to the costs estimate. The consent holder was aware that the $400 was a deposit fee and did expect to pay a little more, just not as much as billed.

• If the consent holder had been more aware of the likely costs then the chances are that they would have complied with the existing condition. At the time they felt strongly that an encumbrance was not warranted.

• The consent holder was unable to indicate any specific costs, as summarised on the billing listing, as being unreasonable. He did not consider any one item as being expensive, with the tasks well listed in terms of every minute. He did however consider the whole amount excessive.

3 Staff Report

The staff report was taken as read and Liz Jolley the reporting officer summarised the application and answered questions from the Committee in clarification of certain matters. Ms Jolley commented as follows:

• The current application required a deposit fee of $400. • When estimates are sought in respect of pending applications, Ms Jolley confirmed that she

indicates a wide range in terms of costs, noting that it will depend on the type of application and issues raised. Ms Jolley often suggests that the reporting planner be contacted after lodgement to gain further clarification in terms of costs.

Alister Hartstone confirmed that under the Resource Management Act 1991, applicants could request an estimate of any additional charge likely to be imposed. Mr Hartstone confirmed that Council had received very few requests for costs estimates.

The Committee did not require any comment from Katie Hislop.

4 Decision

The Committee has considered the points presented by the consent holder together with the staff report.

The Committee’s findings were that the additional charge, as imposed, satisfies the criteria of section 36(4) of the Act and represents actual and reasonable costs incurred in the processing of the application.

The Committee determined:

That pursuant to section 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991, Council DISMISSES the objection lodged by Daecher Trust to the additional charge of $1,592,30 (including GST) as invoiced by Council for the processing of a section 127 application (reference SD0740596.02).

Right of Appeal

Section 358 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides for any person who has made an objection under Section 357 to make an appeal to the Environment Court against the decision on the objection.

Councillor M R Williams Chairperson

8


3. Special Exemption from Compliance with Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 – S and S Culham

Reporting officer Gary Barnsley (Team Leader Compliance)

Date 14 March 2011

Time Hearing Name

1.30pm Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Committee Mr and Mrs S Culham

Hearing Procedure

Exemption under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

• Informal as possible – no cross examination. Only Committee members can ask questions

• Staff report taken as read

• Questions of clarification – staff report

• Pool owner presents their case

• Question of clarification of pool owner

• Any final questions of clarification

• Adjourn hearing.

It is recommended that the following resolution is passed to exclude the public from the meeting during discussion:

“That following the hearing of the matters before the committee, the public be excluded from the meeting pursuant to Section 48 (1) (d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act to enable the committee to deliberate in private on the decisions made.”

A written decision will be issued within 15 working days.

9

Report to Licensing, Exemptions and Objections Commit tee - Special Exemption from Compliance with Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 – S and S Culham Summary

Mr Shane Culham and Mrs Sue Culham, the owners of a property at 662 Ngunguru Road in Glenbervie, Whangarei have requested a special exemption from full compliance with the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 in terms of a spa pool and a swimming pool located on their property. In terms of the spa pool, this is fitted with a lockable spa pool cover, which is compliant with New Zealand Standard 8500:2006.

Though this is not strictly compliant with the Act, compliance with the standard has been achieved, and this together with other relevant criteria, may warrant a special exemption pursuant to s.6 of the Act. The swimming pool is fitted with a device which fully covers the pool and which can only be activated by a key, which itself is stored in a locked pool house. This automated cover, known as an ‘under track system’, totally covers the entire pool surface and is anchored in recesses in the pool wall, which therefore prevents any access to the pool itself when the cover is in place. In addition to the locking spa pool cover and the locking swimming pool cover, both pools are located in a fully enclosed pool area adjacent to the dwelling and access to this area can only be achieved via the dwelling itself.

The property in question comprises over 16 hectares, predominantly in orchard and is located in a rural environment, bordered by other similar properties. The dwelling, the spa pool and the swimming pool are located more or less centrally on the property, therefore the spa pool is a minimum distance of 100m from the nearest boundary, and is some 700m along the driveway from the northern access. In addition, there are electronic security gates installed approximately half way down the driveway and the property is monitored 24/7 by 5 security cameras at strategic points on the property. In short, any unauthorised intrusion onto the property would be extremely unlikely, as would any unauthorised access to the pool area through the dwelling.

Access to the pool area from the dwelling itself is not negated, as the doors that access this area do not carry top locks at a minimum 1.5m from the floor, neither are the windows which access the pool area fitted with limiters, so both doors and windows are therefore not compliant with the FOSPA requirements. However the property owners have given their assurance that at any time when access to the pool area is possible using these doors or windows, both the spa pool cover and the swimming pool cover are employed. Furthermore, we are assured that the only time that the spa pool cover or the swimming pool cover are removed is when they are in use, at which time they are in attendance.

Young children visit the property on occasion and the applicants do have a small child of their own under the age of 6 years. Accordingly they are very aware of their responsibilities in this regard, so much so that as an added precaution, they have fitted an attachment to the gateway which gives access to the pool area, which enables a further barrier to be fitted if required. Having being satisfied that in all the circumstances, the situation at this property would not significantly increase danger to young children, the recommendation is that this application for special exemption is granted.

Requirement of the Act

The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 is an Act to promote the safety of young children by requiring fencing of certain swimming pools and spa pools, and requires that all pool or spa pool owners must ensure that the pool or spa pool is fenced in compliance with the building code to prevent access to the pool or spa pool area by young children.

Section 8 of the Act, “Obligations of owner and persons in control of pool” states that every owner of a pool to which this Act applies shall ensure that, except as provided in any exemption granted under section 6 of this Act, the pool, or some or all of the immediate pool area including all of the pool, is fenced by a fence that complies with the requirements of the building code in force under the Building Act 2004 in respect of swimming pools subject to this Act at all times when this Act applies in respect of the pool.

10

Section 6 - Exemption

Section 6 of the Act provides for special exemption from this requirement, and states:

1. “A territorial authority may, by resolution, grant an exemption from some or all of the requirements of this Act in the case of any particular pool where the territorial authority is satisfied, having regard to the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, any other relevant circumstances, and any conditions it imposes under subsection (2) of this section, that such an exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

2. In granting an exemption under subsection (1) of this section, the territorial authority may impose such other conditions relating to the property or the pool as are reasonable in the circumstances.

3. Any exemption granted or condition imposed under this section may be amended or revoked by a territorial authority, by resolution.”

The Application

In February 2011, Council compliance staff undertook a scheduled swimming pool inspection at the property and noted that the swimming pool and the spa pool on the property were located in an area immediately adjacent to the dwelling, which was fully enclosed by compliant pool fencing on three sides and by the dwelling itself on the fourth side. However, it was also noted that the doors and windows of the dwelling that gave access to the pool area were not fitted with top locks and limiters, as is required by the compliance schedule of the Act. For that reason the swimming pool and spa pool failed the compliance inspection. However it was noted that the spa pool was fitted with a lockable spa pool cover which complied with New Zealand standard 8500:2006 and that the swimming pool was also fitted with a retractable and lockable cover when not in use.

The issue was discussed with the owners at the time and on the basis of the spa pool cover, the retractable swimming pool cover, the remoteness of the property and inaccessibility to the pool area on the property, it was agreed that an application for special exemption from the compliance requirements of the Act may be appropriate. The owners of the property have now made such application for a special exemption from the compliance requirements of the Act, and a copy of their application is attached hereto.

Assessment of the Application for Exemption

Under Section 6 of the Act Council may, by resolution, grant an exemption from some or all of the requirements of the Act, with such conditions as may be necessary, after appropriate consideration of the particular characteristics of the property and the swimming pool and/or spa pool, and any other relevant circumstances. In granting an exemption, Council must be satisfied that any such exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

In considering the issues raised by Mr and Mrs Culham in their application, one must refer to the Act in terms of what it seeks to achieve, and the Department of Internal Affairs publication, ‘The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 Guidelines for Territorial Authorities’ (the Guidelines). The Act states that it is “An Act to promote the safety of young children by requiring the fencing of certain swimming pools”. The Guidelines offer practical evaluations in terms of certain aspects which may not strictly comply with the Act, yet offer some degree of protection or a means to safeguard access to the pool.

Spa Pool Cover

One aspect of this application relates to the provision of a lockable spa pool cover. The applicants are of the view that the lockable cover fitted to the portable spa pool complies with all the requirements laid down in New Zealand Standards 8500:2006 and this is concurred with. This standard was adopted in 2006 to provide guidance to spa pool owners in terms of assisting them to avoid pool related drownings by providing various options which are designed to delay, deny or detect unsupervised entry to the spa pool by young children.

However, it must be stressed that compliance with the requirements of New Zealand Standards 8500:2006 does not constitute compliance with the requirements of the Act itself and Councils position on this, and that of other territorial authorities, is that compliance with this standard can only form a basis for an application for special exemption pursuant to s.6 of the Act.

11

As the spa pool on this property does not meet with the strict interpretation of compliance within the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, then under conventional circumstances this would simply require that the immediate spa pool area be appropriately fenced to a compliant standard. Alternatively, the spa pool must be emptied when not in use, which would effectively negate the requirement for compliance with the Act, pursuant to Section 5 (b) of the Act. The applicants have confirmed that the spa pool cover is locked, unless the spa pool is in use and they accept full responsibility for ensuring the cover is locked whenever the spa pool is not in use.

Swimming Pool Cover

Another aspect of this application relates to the provision of a lockable and retractable swimming pool cover.

This cover, known as an ‘under track system’ completely covers the entire pool surface when the pool is not in use, is fully automated and can only be operated by a keyed system, the key to which is itself secured in the adjacent pool house. Once in place, this cover is retained by concealed metal tracks recessed into the pool wall which secure the sides of the heavy duty fabric cover, the end of which is then concealed under the pool edge. The pool cover is very solid and could easily support the weight of a small child, and perhaps even an adult without difficulty. In addition to this, the surface of the pool cover is constantly monitored for pooled water which may accumulate from rainfall, and this is then automatically vacuumed from the pool cover by an automated device, to negate the possibility of a small child drowning in any accumulated water on top of the pool cover. The pool cover also carries warning signs as an added precaution.

The applicants are of the view that the retractable swimming pool cover which is fitted to their pool, together with the automated vacuum device, when used in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations, provides ample protection from the likelihood of small children drowning in their pool or in any accumulated surface water and once again, they accept full responsibility for ensuring that the retractable pool cover is in place and is locked, and that the vacuum device is employed, whenever the pool is not in use.

Doors and Windows Giving Access to Pool Area

The Act states, in terms of gates and doors that the term “gates or doors” refers to gates in pool fences and doors in any building which makes up part of a fence. A door may be built in the wall of a building that forms part of a pool fence. If it does, it must be fitted with a lock (at a minimum height of 1.5m) which prevents it being readily opened by children under the age of six.

The compliance schedule of the Act in terms of doors in walls of buildings, at clause 11 states:

Where a building forms part of a fence, a door in the building wall does not have to comply with clauses 8 to 10 (which specify compliance requirements) if a territorial authority is satisfied that:

(a) Compliance with these clauses is impossible, unreasonable, or in breach of another Act, regulation, or Bylaw; and

(b) The door is fitted with a lock that, when properly operated, prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years.

In terms of the windows which give access to the pool area, the guidelines state that a window in a building that forms part of the barrier to access the pool area shall be treated as a ‘fence’. As such any opening windows lower than 1.2 metres from floor level must be restricted to open no more than 100mm. One must also restrict the window if there are any climbing aids placed against the window, such as furniture and including a window ledge that reduces the required height.

In this case, the applicants feel that it is unreasonable to be required to fit compliant locks to the doors and windows that give access to the pool area on their property, given that once you have gained access to the pool area, there are more than adequate provisions in place, in terms of the lockable spa pool cover and the lockable swimming pool cover, which are always employed when the pools are not in use, to ensure that there is no risk to young children from drowning, even should they gain access to the pool area.

In terms of Clause 11, whilst it may be deemed ‘unreasonable’ that the applicants fit locks to the doors and windows sufficient to prevent opening by a child under 6 years, the second part of the clause still requires that a lock is in fact fitted, which prevents the door or window from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. For this reason, clause 11 can not be applied to this particular case as in fact no locks are fitted. Therefore, a ‘special exemption’ needs to be granted in terms of the doors and windows which access the immediate pool area on this property.

12

Characteristics of the Property

The location of the swimming pool and the spa pool and the property itself also provides extenuating circumstances which may warrant special exemption from compliance requirements. The property owned by Mr and Mrs Culham is mainly in orchard, is over 16 hectares in area, and is located in a wholly rural environment, bordered by other similar large lifestyle or orchard properties to all boundaries.

The swimming pool and spa pool are located in a fully enclosed pool area immediately adjacent to the dwelling, and this pool area is fully fenced to a compliant standard on three sides. The fourth side is enclosed by the dwelling itself, including non compliant doors and windows. The dwelling and therefore the pool area are more or less centrally located on the property, (See aerial view attached hereto). Therefore the pool area is located a minimum distance of 100m away from the nearest boundary, and is some 700m along the driveway from the northern access to the property.

Additionally, 350m along this driveway, there is an electronic security gate which may only be activated by the applicants and the property is monitored, 24 hours per day by 5 strategically placed security cameras. There is no ready access to the property from any public place and in fact, the dwelling on the property cannot be seen from any public place. In addition, the applicants have a large German shepherd dog on the property which, whilst on a long leash, will readily warn of any unauthorised intrusion onto the property. As such, it would be extremely unlikely that any unauthorised public access to the dwelling and therefore the pool area would go unnoticed by the owners.

The immediate pool area can be accessed by children under 6 years who are visiting the property, and Mr and Mrs Culham do in fact have a 4 year old child who is resident on the property, however the spa pool is fitted with the lockable cover, which is kept locked when the spa pool is not in use, and the swimming pool is fitted with the lockable ‘under track system’ which is also kept locked at all times when the pool is not in use. Additionally, their own child and any small children of visitors to the property are under constant supervision by adults at all times. As such, there would seem to be no foreseeable circumstances where any child under 6 years of age would be on the property or in the dwelling unattended.

For the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the special and extenuating circumstances offered by the applicant in terms of the ‘standard compliant’ locking spa pool cover, the locking ‘under track system’ swimming pool cover, the remoteness of the property from public places or public access, the inaccessibility of the property and the pool area in general, and the diligence of the applicants in terms of young children on the property, then there is no significant increase in danger to young children presented by this particular swimming pool and spa pool and the decision should be taken to grant a special exemption.

Conclusion

This report considers the particular characteristics of the swimming pool, the spa pool, the property and the owners/occupants of the property and the relevant legal matters which must be taken into account in considering the application for exemption and the report establishes the following:

(a) The swimming pool and the spa pool are located on the property in such a way that they are not exposed to view or to ready access from a public place.

(b) The swimming pool is fitted with a lockable ‘under track system’ cover, and the spa pool is fitted with a lockable cover which is compliant with New Zealand Standard 8500:2006, which are both employed at all times when the pools are not in use.

(c) Access to the property itself is not readily available, and access to the pool area can only be attained through the dwelling. As such, access to the pool area by the applicant’s child and the children of any visitors to the property, is supervised by an adult at all times.

(d) Whilst this situation does not strictly meet the criteria for compliance with the Act, there are sufficient grounds to consider that the purpose of the Act will be met and the pools and the property generally meet the criteria for special exemption as discussed in the Department of Internal Affairs publication, ‘The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 Guidelines for Territorial Authorities’

In these circumstances, it is considered that there is no significant increase in danger posed to young children by this particular swimming pool and spa pool on this particular property and consequently this application for exemption pursuant to Section 6 of the Act should be granted with certain conditions.

13

It is recommended that the following conditions be applied should the exemption be granted:

1. That the exemption is personal to the applicant(s) and will automatically expire upon the Property being sold, or ceasing to be personally owned and occupied by the applicant(s).

2. That the applicant(s) must inform any prospective purchaser of the property that the exemption is personal to them and will expire immediately upon completion of the sale.

3. That the applicant(s) must inform any visitors to the property with young children less than 6 years, that the doors and windows which give access to the immediate pool area are not fully compliant with the Act, and that such children must be supervised at all times whilst on the property.

4. That the spa pool cover must be maintained, employed and locked at all times when the spa pool is not in use.

5. That the swimming pool cover must be maintained, employed and locked at all times when the swimming pool is not in use.

Recommendation That having considered the particular characteristics of the property, the swimming pool and the spa pool situated thereon and the occupants of the property, Council is satisfied that there is no significant increase in danger posed to young children by the swimming pool and the spa pool located at 662 Ngunguru Road, Glenbervie, Whangarei, and therefore GRANTS a special exemption from the compliance requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. This special exemption is granted pursuant to s.6 of the Act and is granted to Mr Shane Culham and Mrs Sue Culham, the owners and occupants of the property under the following conditions:

1. That the exemption is personal to the applicant(s) and will automatically expire upon the Property being sold, or ceasing to be personally owned and occupied by the applicant(s).

2. That the applicant(s) must inform any prospective purchaser of the property that the exemption is personal to them and will expire immediately upon completion of the sale.

3. That the applicant(s) must inform any visitors to the property with young children under 6 years, that the doors and windows which give access to the immediate pool area are not fully compliant with the Act, and that such children must be supervised at all times whilst on the property.

4. That the spa pool cover must be maintained, employed and locked at all times when the spa pool is not in use.

5. That the swimming pool cover must be maintained, employed and locked at all times when the swimming pool is not in use.

Attachments:

1. Letter of Application 2. Aerial View of property 3. Photographs of property, swimming pool and spa pool 4. DBH - Guidelines (not available online)

14

Aerial view of Culham property showing distance to boundaries, (min 100m and 700m to public road) remoteness of the property and the seclusion of the spa and pool area on the property.

18

Photographs showing pool area at 662 Ngunguru Road, Glenbervie

with compliant fencing.

19

Photographs of external views of property showing driveway

access and security gates on driveway

25

Photographs of swimming pool cover spa pool cover, the pool house warning notices on pool cover & automated vacuum device

30

Photographs detailing ‘under track pool cover system’

& automated & keyed operating system

37

licensing, exemptions and objections · pdf file · 2014-08-12objection lodged by...

Documents