I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 30 April 2015

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Governing Body

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Len Brown, JP

 

Deputy Mayor

Penny Hulse

 

Councillors

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

Cr Dick Quax

 

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Penny Webster

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

 

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

Cr Calum Penrose

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Elaine Stephenson

Democracy Advisor

 

24 April 2015

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117

Email: elaine.stephensoni@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

 

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

 

(a)     the power to make a rate; or

(b)     the power to make a bylaw; or

(c)     the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long term council community plan; or

(d)     the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e)     the power to appoint a Chief Executive; or

(f)      the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g)     the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

 

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

 

(a)     Approval of a draft long term plan or draft annual plan prior to community consultation

(b)     Approval of a draft bylaw prior to community consultation     

(c)     Resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer

(d)     Adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

(e)     Relationships with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees.

(f)      Approval of the Unitary Plan

(g)     Overview of the implementation of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.


EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·         Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·         Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·         Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·         In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·         The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·         However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·         All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Staff

 

·         All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·         Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·         Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB)

 

·         Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.

·         Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs)

 

·         Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.

 

 

 


Governing Body

30 April 2015

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Affirmation                                                                                                                      7

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

5          Acknowledgements and Achievements                                                                      7

6          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

7          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

8          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

9          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

10        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

11        The Mayor's report on the Long-Term Plan 2015-2025                                            9

12        Report of the Hearing Panel on the proposed Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015                                                                                                                    11

13        Proposed changes to delegations on alcohol bans - Recommendations from the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee                                                                           81

14        Establishment of a Rainbow Advisory Panel                                                           87  

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                 93

C1       Additional New Special Housing Area Request - April 2015 Auckland Development Committee Recommendation                                                                                     93  

 


1          Affirmation

 

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

 

2          Apologies

 

An apology from Cr WD Walker has been received.

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Governing Body:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 26 March 2015, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Acknowledgements and Achievements

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

 

6          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

7          Public Input

 

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

 

8          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.


 

 

9          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

10        Notices of Motion

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

 


Governing Body

30 April 2015

 

 

The Mayor's report on the Long-Term Plan 2015-2025

 

File No.: CP2015/06823

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       His Worship the Mayor will table a report containing his recommendations on the Long-Term Plan 2015-2025, for consideration at the 7 May 2015 Budget Committee Meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      note the Mayor’s report on the Long-Term Plan 2015-2025, which will be considered at the 7 May 2015 Budget Committee meeting.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Author

Elaine Stephenson - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

30 April 2015

 

 

Report of the Hearing Panel on the proposed Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015

 

File No.: CP2015/05056

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To adopt the new Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015.

Executive Summary

2.       The animal management bylaw hearing panel was appointed to consider submissions and make recommendations on the review of animal management bylaws which was publicly notified for submissions in August 2014.

3.       Panel members included Councillors Cashmore (Panel Chairperson), Casey, Cooper, Penrose and Member Wilcox of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

4.       The panel considered 125 written submissions and heard from 12 submitters. Public meetings were held on 11 February, 2 March and 23 March 2015.

5.       The panel would like to thank the submitters and staff whose contribution to the consultation process has been greatly appreciated.

6.       After considering the views of submitters, the panel recommends amendments to the bylaw to make is easier to graze stock on lifestyle blocks and to own different types of animals in rural residential areas, while encouraging responsible animal ownership and minimising impacts on neighbours.

7.       The most significant changes include the following:

·    amendments to general animal owner obligations to clarify that the bylaw regulates the ownership of animals using a complaints response approach

·    up to six quail as well as six chickens may be kept on properties smaller than 2000 square metres without the need for a licence

·    up to twelve chickens and quail, six ducks, geese and pheasants may be kept on properties larger than 2000 square metres without the need for a licence

·    poultry may be slaughtered on properties smaller than 4000 square metres, subject to the above permitted numbers, and any other stock may be slaughtered on properties larger than 4000 square metres

·    no limits or licence requirements to keep stock on properties larger than 4000 square metres.

8.       The panel also recommends that the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws report to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee by 1 September 2015, on an amendment to the Keeping of Stock Control to allow for the keeping of stock in rural-residential areas associated with events such as calf club and school agricultural days.

9.       The amended bylaw recommended by the panel is attached as Attachment A, with a comparison of the publicly notified version and recommended amendments attached as Attachment B.

10.     The amended bylaw is proposed to come into effect from 1 September 2015, from which date the legacy bylaws will be revoked.

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a)   receive and adopt the recommendations of the hearing panel on the review of animal management bylaws contained in the report.

b)   determine pursuant to section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 contained in Attachment A is the most appropriate way to address issues relating to the keeping of animals in Auckland, is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

c)   make the Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 contained in Attachment A to the agenda report, pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 and the Health Act 1956, with effect from 1 September 2015.

d)   revoke the legacy bylaws contained in Section 1 of the document titled “Additional Information to the Animal Management Bylaw 2015” on 1 September 2015 pursuant to section 63 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.

e)   confirm the delegations contained in Section 3 of the document titled “Additional Information to the Animal Management Bylaw 2015”.

f)    authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws, in consultation with the chair of the hearing panel, to make any minor edits or amendments to the bylaw and additional information (Attachment A to the agenda report) to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the Governing Body.

g)   direct the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws to report to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, by 1 September 2015, on options for an amendment to the Keeping of Stock Control to allow for the keeping of stock in rural-residential areas associated with events such as calf club and school agricultural days.

 

Comments

Background

11.     The animal management bylaw hearing panel was appointed to hear submissions, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on the review of animal management bylaws (resolution number RBC/2014/21).

12.     On 31 July 2014, the Governing Body approved the Statement of Proposal and proposed bylaw for public consultation (resolution number GB/2014/68).

13.     The proposal was publicly notified with a submission period of 15 August 2014 to 15 September 2014. A total of 123 submissions were received with a further two submissions obtained after the submissions period had closed. Twelve submitters made verbal submissions at public hearings held over 11 February and 2 March 2015, after which the hearing panel deliberated in public on 2 March and 23 March 2015.

Overview of written and verbal submissions

14.     Submitters generally made comments based on animal management topics and options as contained in the Statement of Proposal, with few submitters commenting on specific clauses in the bylaw.

15.     Most written submissions commented on the number of stock allowed in urban areas, controls for horse riding in public places and the regulation of beekeeping in urban areas. A smaller number of submitters commented on preferred approaches for cat management, and regulation for slaughtering animals in urban areas, nuisance from wild birds, and pest animal management. 


Deliberations

16.     Topics discussed by the hearing panel during deliberations have been categorised into eight topic areas. The amended bylaw is attached to this report as Attachment A, with a comparison of the publicly notified version and recommended amendments attached as Attachment B.

Deliberations Topic 1: Cat management

 

Proposal as publicly notified

17.     The proposal as publicly notified was to regulate cat ownership through general nuisance regulation in the bylaw (clauses 6(1)(a) and (b) and 7(2)) and to rely on existing legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and Animal Welfare (Companion Cats) Code of Welfare 2007. The proposed approach also involved resolving problems by negotiation and working alongside other agencies involved in cat management.

 

Matters raised in submissions

18.     Thirteen submitters commented on cat management and expressed a range of preferred approaches including:

·   collaboration with external organisations to provide public education on responsible cat ownership

·   the management of stray cat colonies through long-term strategies (trap-neuter-return)

·   the development of a nation-wide cat management strategy

·   council provision of an Auckland-wide shelter service for cats

·   prohibiting the feeding of cats on council land

·   a cat ownership number limit

·   introduction of compulsory cat registration, micro-chipping and night curfews.

19.     Two submitters supported the proposal to regulate cat ownership through general nuisance regulation. One submitter opposed the proposal on the premise that the definition of animal owner would mean cat colony carers would be required to obtain council permission to release cats in parks for trap-neuter-return initiatives (clause 7(2)). The submitter also opposed clause 7(1)(a) because they believed the requirement to keep animals under control in public places was impractical for cat owners.

Hearing panel deliberations

20.     The hearing panel deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions. The panel recommend the following as the most appropriate way to address the issue of cat management:

·  that nuisance and public health problems associated with cat ownership should be regulated through general animal owner obligations in the bylaw (clause 6(1)(a) and (b)), supported by public education on responsible cat ownership, such as de-sexing

·  that the Manager Licensing and Compliance Services continue to work with external organisations to encourage responsible cat ownership within existing budgets 

·  that nuisance from stray cats should be addressed on a case by case basis through a management response, as opposed to a governance response

·  that a nation-wide strategic approach is required in relation to cat registration, micro-chipping and curfews.

21.     The panel also recommends deleting clause 7(1)(a) and amending clauses 7(1)(b) and 7(2) to reflect concerns raised by submitters. The amendments remove ambiguity and clarify that the bylaw regulates nuisance using a complaints response approach. The panel also recommends that an explanatory note be inserted in the bylaw to identify existing animal owner obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, such as the provision of food, water, shelter and exercise for their animal.

Deliberations Topic 2: Keeping stock in urban areas (includes poultry)

Proposal as publicly notified

22.    The proposal, as publicly notified, was to regulate the keeping of stock in urban areas through a permitted number of six chickens in compliance with minimum standards, and to require a licence to keep any other type or number of stock in an urban area. An urban area in the bylaw was defined as land zoned residential under the Proposed Auckland Council Unitary Plan, including large lot and rural and coastal settlement zones.

Matters raised in submissions

23.     Sixty-five submitters commented on keeping stock in urban areas. Fourteen submitters supported the proposal as publicly notified, including the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, noting that inspectors are often called to small lifestyle properties where livestock are being mismanaged. Twelve submitters did not support a bylaw to regulate the keeping stock in urban areas, and instead preferred to rely on the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to regulate welfare issues.

24.     Eighteen submitters did not support licensing the keeping of stock on land zoned residential and preferred the use of minimum property sizes to regulate the activity. Three submitters did not support the licensing of keeping ducks, geese and pheasants in an urban area, while one submitter did support this approach. Four submitters expressed concern that the bylaw licensed the temporary keeping of stock for calf club and school agricultural days in rural-residential areas.

Hearing panel deliberations

25.     The hearing panel deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions. The panel recommends amendments to the bylaw to make it easier to graze stock on lifestyle blocks and to own different types of animals in rural-residential areas. 

26.     The panel recommends that the Keeping of Stock Control be amended to:

·    enable the keeping of up to six chickens and quail on properties smaller than 2000 square metres without the need for a licence

·    enable the keeping of up to twelve chickens and quail, six ducks, geese and pheasants on properties larger than 2000 square metres without the need for a licence

·    enable the grazing of stock on properties larger than 4000 square metres with no licence requirement

·    require the owner of stock in an urban area to ensure stock are restrained within the boundaries of the property

·    identify exiting animal owner obligations under the codes of welfare for stock.

27.     The panel also recommends that the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws report to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee by 1 September 2015 on options for an amendment to the Keeping of Stock Control to allow for the keeping of stock in rural-residential areas associated with events such as calf club and school agricultural days.

Deliberations Topic 3: Slaughtering animals in urban areas

Proposal as publicly notified

28.    The proposal as publicly notified was to prohibit the slaughtering of animals in an urban area, including large lots and rural and coastal settlements zoned residential under the Proposed Auckland Council Unitary Plan.

Matters raised in submissions

29.     Seven submitters commented on slaughtering animals in urban areas. Two submitters supported the proposal as publicly notified, four submitters opposed the proposal and preferred provision to dispose of chickens at the end of their laying life, and two submitters opposed the prohibition of homekill in rural-residential areas.

Hearing panel deliberations

30.     The hearing panel deliberated on the views of submitters and acknowledged both written and verbal submissions. The panel recommends amendments to clause 8(2) of the bylaw to provide for the culling of poultry and other stock where those animals are allowed to be kept in urban areas under the bylaw. The panel recommends that slaughtering poultry should be allowed on properties smaller than 4000 square metres, subject to permitted poultry numbers under the Keeping of Stock Control, and that slaughtering all other stock should be allowed on properties larger than 4000 square metres.

31.     The panel also recommends the insertion of an explanatory note in the bylaw outlining existing animal owner obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 in relation to the humane treatment of animals.

Deliberations Topic 4: Beekeeping in urban areas

Proposal as publicly notified

32.     The proposal as publicly notified was to regulate beekeeping in urban areas through responsible hive management standards and to provide guidelines on best practice beekeeping. The proposed approach involved resolving problems by negotiation and working alongside other groups involved in bee management such as AsureQuality, local beekeeping clubs and the National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand. National legislation already requires beekeepers to register with central government for the monitoring of pest diseases. 

Matters raised in submissions

33.     Forty-two submitters commented on beekeeping in urban areas. Eleven submitters supported the proposal as publicly notified. Five submitters commented on the need for enforcement guidelines and a consistent criteria to resolve nuisance complaints on a case by case basis. Four submitters preferred beekeeping to be regulated by way of hive density, particularly in residential, business and countryside living areas. Twenty-two submitters did not support a bylaw to regulate beekeeping and instead preferred to rely on national legislation to protect bees from pest diseases. Two submitters opposed beekeeping in urban areas in general.

Hearing panel deliberations

34.     The panel acknowledged both written and verbal submissions and recommend that beekeeping in urban areas should be regulated through responsible hive management standards. The panel recommends minor amendments to the guidelines for flight path management, and recognises that responsible hive management standards are intended to be a positive reinforcement of responsible beekeeping to encourage and educate beekeepers.  

Deliberations Topic 5: Horse riding in public places

Proposal as publicly notified

35.     The proposal as publicly notified was to regulate horse riding in public places through responsible horse riding standards on land controlled by Auckland Council, and specific conditions for beaches with established time and season rules (Algies Beach, Hatfields Beach, Martins Bay Beach, Omaha Beach, Orewa Beach, Snells Beach and Karioitahi Beach).

36.     The bylaw delegates the authority to amend horse riding controls to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee for parks and beaches of regional significance, and to local boards for all other parks and beaches. The proposed approach also involved relying on existing legislation such as the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and parks management plans which provide council policy on appropriate parks for horse riding.


Matters raised in submissions

37.     Sixty-two submitters commented on horse riding in public places. Fifteen submitters supported the proposal as publicly notified. Forty-one submitters opposed the ability for the council to make controls to restrict horse riding on beaches. Six submitters preferred non-regulatory approaches including council provision of bridle ways and education. Three submitters opposed the requirement to dispose of horse manure in public places, while one submitter supported this standard.

Hearing panel deliberations

38.     The hearing panel deliberated on the views of submitters and recommends a minor amendment to permitted riding times for specified beaches and to guidelines on responsible horse riding to ensure consistency with the outcomes of the Unitary Plan.

 

39.     The hearing panel deliberated on the requirement to dispose of horse manure in a public place and recommends retaining the proposal as publicly notified, as the panel recognises the standard is intended to set an expectation for riders to be considerate of other public open space users.

Deliberations Topic 6: Definitions

Proposal as publicly notified

40.     The bylaw definitions as publicly notified can be seen in Attachment B of this report.

Matters raised in submissions

41.     Three submitters commented on definitions in the proposed bylaw. One submitter sought clarification on whether the definition of public place included private land accessible by the public, road reserves and paper roads, particularly with regards to grazing stock. One submitter suggested an amendment to the definition of nuisance to include reference to noise and odour associated with keeping animals, and one submitter suggested simplification of the definition of premises.

Hearing panel deliberations

42.     The hearing panel noted comments made by submitters and recommends the definition of premises be amended for clarification, and inserting an explanatory note to the definition of nuisance to specify nuisance includes noise and odour associated with keeping animals.

43.     The panel also recommends the definition of public place be amended to clarify that the bylaw regulates land under the control of Auckland Council, not land under the control of Auckland Transport.

Deliberations Topic 7 – Pest animal management

Proposal as publicly notified

44.     The proposal as publicly notified was to revoke legacy bylaw clauses relating to the use of pest traps and the management of pests on private land, and to rely on the powers of the Biosecurity Act 1993, the Health Act 1956 and council pest management policies. The proposal also involved relying on regulations made under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 relating to the use of leg-hold and glueboard traps.

Matters raised in submissions

45.     Two submitters commented on pest animal management. Both submitters supported the use of existing regulations to manage pest animals, although one submitter preferred to regulate the use of leg-hold and glueboard traps in a bylaw.

Hearing panel deliberations

46.     The panel acknowledged comments made by submitters and recommends retaining the proposal as publicly notified as the most appropriate way to address the issue.

 

Deliberations Topic 8 – Nuisance from wild birds

Proposal as publicly notified

47.     The proposal as publicly notified was to rely on the Health Act 1956 and use non-regulatory approaches to manage nuisance from wild birds. The proposal would involve the use of signage and negotiation to discourage feeding wild birds where health nuisances arise, and to work alongside animal re-homing groups to re-locate or re-home poultry when appropriate. 

Matters raised in submissions

48.     Four submitters commented on nuisance from wild birds. Two submitters preferred the use of a bylaw to regulate the feeding of wild birds, while two submitters supported the proposal as publicly notified.   

Hearing panel deliberations

49.     The panel acknowledged comments made by submitters and recommends to retaining the proposal as publicly notified as the most appropriate way to address the issue.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

50.     The views of local boards were sought through two rounds of consultation to identify animal management issues (July 2013) and to discuss preferred options to address perceived animal management issues (February 2014). The majority of local boards supported a bylaw that was reactive to complaints and enabled activities such as horse riding, beekeeping and keeping chickens in urban areas.

Māori impact statement

51.     Council staff presented at three hui in 2013 and discussed animal management issues and preferred approaches for managing animals. Most of the feedback received focused on protecting rural activities in urban/rural transitional areas and support for enabling beekeeping in urban areas because of the significant role bees have in the ecosystem. There were no issues identified through the consultation as having a significant impact on Māori.

Implementation

52.     The Social Policy and Bylaws unit, together with Licensing and Compliance Services will develop an operations policy and procedures manual to guide staff on the implementation of this bylaw.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Auckland Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015

19

bView

Comparison between notified and amended version of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015

51

     

Signatories

Author

Cr Bill Cashmore, Chair of the Hearings Panel

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

30 April 2015

 

 
































Governing Body

30 April 2015

 

 






























Governing Body

30 April 2015

 

 

Proposed changes to delegations on alcohol bans - Recommendations from the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

 

File No.: CP2015/05466

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To consider recommendations from the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee relating to an amendment to delegations for decision-making on alcohol bans on Tūpuna Maunga.

Executive Summary

2.       At its 1 April 2015 Regulatory and Bylaws Committee meeting, the committee agreed to recommend an amendment to the current decision-making delegations on alcohol bans (resolution number RBC/2015/7).

3.       The original report from the 1 April 2015 Regulatory and Bylaw Committee meeting is attached to this report.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      agree that the delegations of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee for decision-making on alcohol bans adopted in resolution GB/2014/121 be amended to include recommendation i) c) below:

i)        The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has decision-making responsibility in relation to alcohol bans on –

a)  any public place for which the Governing Body retains decision-making for non-regulatory activities as contained in the Long Term Plan.

b)  any regional park, including any associated park, road, beach or foreshore area.

c) all Tūpuna Maunga over which the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority is the administering authority, including the Tūpuna Maunga vested in the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Item 13 Regulatory and Bylaws Committee 1 April 2015 Agenda - Proposed changes to delegations on alcohol bans

83

    

Signatories

Authors

Jaimee Maha - Democracy Advisor

Paul Wilson, Team Leader Bylaws

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

30 April 2015

 

 




Governing Body

30 April 2015

 

 

Establishment of a Rainbow Advisory Panel

 

File No.: CP2015/05880

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To consider the recommendation from the Community Development and Safety Committee to establish a demographic advisory panel for the rainbow community of Auckland.

Executive Summary

2.       At its meeting of 18 March 2015, the Community Development and Safety Committee directed staff to “report to the Governing Body on 30 April 2015 with details of the selection process and financial information regarding the establishment of the Rainbow Advisory Panel and recommending that the panel be established and council staff engage with Independent Māori Statutory Board regarding the selection process prior to establishment of the Rainbow Advisory Panel” (COM/2015/24).

3.       This resolution stemmed from engagement with the Rainbow Door Reference Group, who identified a requirement for the rainbow community to have a voice in Auckland Council decision-making. The term ‘rainbow community’ covers diverse sexual orientations and gender/sex identities.

4.       The council currently has five demographic advisory panels: Seniors, Disability, Youth, Ethnic Peoples and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panels. The role of the panels is to provide strategic advice to council on issues of significance to their communities, and advise on effective engagement by council with these communities. Should the Governing Body decide to establish a Rainbow Advisory Panel, its role would be similar to that of the other panels.

5.       Should council resolve to establish the panel, staff would follow the same recruitment process as for the other demographic panels.

6.       A budget of $56,500 would need to be added to the Long-term Plan to resource the Rainbow Advisory Panel.

 

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a)      determine whether to establish a Rainbow Advisory Panel.

b)      agree that if a Rainbow Advisory Panel is established, the inclusion of an additional $56,500 in the Long-term Plan2015-2025  to resource the panel, be referred to the 7 May 2015 Budget Committee meeting .

 

 

Comments

Council currently has five demographic advisory panels

 

7.       In the first term of Auckland Council four demographic advisory panels were established. These were the Ethnic Peoples and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panels, the Youth Advisory Panel and the Disability Strategic Advisory Panel. The Ethnic Peoples and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panels were required by statute.


 

8.       In December 2013 the Governing Body decided to establish five demographic advisory panels (ethnic peoples, pacific peoples, disability, seniors and youth). The Governing Body also decided that:

·  the panels be considered and supported collectively as part of the council structure

·  the purpose of the panels be to provide strategic advice on issues of significance to their communities, and to advise on effective engagement by council with those communities

·  there be an annual work programme for each panel, integrated wherever possible with other panels and signed off by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

·  there be a full recruitment process based on a call for expressions of interest and interviews with a selection panel

·  the panels be disestablished one month before council elections (GB2013/160).

9.       The Seniors, Ethnic Peoples and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panels were then established following a contestable recruitment process. The Disability Advisory Panel continued to meet until August 2014. A full review of that panel’s membership was then undertaken and a new panel was established on 30 October 2014. The Youth Advisory Panel appointment process is different, with its membership being a member from each local board area.

 

Auckland’s rainbow communities are facing legal and social barriers

10.     The term ‘rainbow community’ covers diverse sexual orientations and gender/sex identities.  It is inclusive of, but not exclusive to: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersex, takataapui, whakawahine, vakasalewalewa, fakaleiti, tangata ira tane, tongzhi, mahu, palopa, fa’afafine, akava’ine, fakafifine, queer, questioning, asexual, genderqueer, pansexual and genderfluid. 

11.     A number of barriers exist to Auckland becoming the world’s most liveable city for rainbow communities.  Members of rainbow communities and particularly people of diverse gender identity or biological sex still face legal and social obstacles that impede their ability to lead their lives fully, safely and openly (Human Rights Commission/Te Kahui Tika Tangata, 2008). Currently, rainbow community members experience high levels of addiction, mental health issues and suicide as well as discrimination on an institutional and individual level.

 

The proposal for a Rainbow Advisory Panel originated from the Rainbow Door Reference Group

12.     The Rainbow Door Reference Group (RDRG) was established in 2010. Its aim was to provide a forum for representatives from both rainbow and mainstream service providers to meet with Auckland Council representatives and discuss issues of interest or concern for Auckland’s rainbow communities.  A RDRG working group was established to coordinate a Rainbow Hui in 2013.  

13.     From the hui a framework for action was drafted.  According to the framework, a liveable city for rainbow communities would have the following outcomes:

·   Rainbow communities have a strong voice in Auckland and influence decision-making (a strong voice for our communities).

·   Rainbow community members feel safe, welcome and included (able to be who we are).

·   People across all sectors and interests work together to understand, voice and act on issues and needs for rainbow communities (a strong community sector).

 

14.     In February 2014, the Community Development and Safety Committee endorsed the Rainbow Door Framework for Action, to be implemented by Auckland Council and the community over the next three years.

15.     In September 2014, the Community Development and Safety Committee directed Community Development Arts and Culture (CDAC) staff to “explore the options for establishing an appropriate panel for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex (GLBTI) community” (COM/2014/38).

16.     At its 18 March meeting the Community Development and Safety Committee directed staff to “report to the Governing Body on 30 April 2015 with details of the selection process and financial information regarding the establishment of the Rainbow Advisory Panel and recommending that the panel be established and council staff engage with Independent Māori Statutory Board regarding the selection process prior to establishment of the Rainbow Advisory Panel” (COM/2015/24).

The role of the Rainbow Advisory Panel would be the same as the other panels’ role

17.     The role of the Rainbow Advisory Panel would be the same as the other panels’ role, i.e. provide strategic advice to council on issues of importance to the communities they represent and advise council on how to engage effectively with these communities. 

18.     Members of the Rainbow Door Reference Group have expressed that, given that the rainbow community faces issues of similar significance to the other demographics represented by panels, Auckland Council needs to increase its responsiveness to the rainbow community.  Some members of the rainbow community have input via existing panels, but these panels may not adequately represent the diverse viewpoints that the rainbow community encompasses. Rainbow door members think that, as well as elevating rainbow community concerns to a more official level within council, establishing a panel corrects current inequality in how the demographic is represented.

The processes for establishing the Rainbow Advisory Panel would be the same as for the other panels

19.     If the Governing Body decides to establish a rainbow advisory panel, staff will follow the same recruitment processes as those used for the Seniors, Ethnic Peoples and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panels.

20.     Staff recommend that the panel comprise between 10 and 13 members, which is a similar number to the other panels.

Recruitment

21.     As for the other panels the appointments would be made on the basis of the key competencies of strategic experience, governance experience and community links. The competencies would include a  knowledge of the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori cultural values.

22.     The selection process would follow an open call for applicants. Short-listed candidates would be interviewed and assessed using a defined set of competencies. The selection panel would comprise three or four community nominees, a liaison councillor and a senior member of staff.

23.     In accordance with the resolution of the Community Development and Safety Committee, staff  are engaging with the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) on the selection process, and the IMSB would also be invited to participate in the selection panel. Following recommendations from the selection panel and reference checks, the successful applicants would be recommended to the Mayor for appointment and then endorsed by the Governing Body. The selection process would run from mid-May to late July 2015.

Eligibility

24.     Local board members and staff (including CCO staff) would not be eligible to serve on panels.

Term

25.     The term of the panel would conclude on 30 September 2016.

Interim Chair

26.     The selection panel would appoint an interim chairperson who would chair the first two meetings of the panel. At the third meeting an election would be held for the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the panel.

Operating processes

27.     All other processes and procedures would be based on the current policy and practices of the demographic panels, which are:

·  A six weekly meeting cycle

·  Remuneration and expenses paid under the adopted policy for panels

·  The same terms of reference and code of conduct as the other demographic panels

·  Up to two community summits.

Additional resources are needed for the Panel

28.     There is no budget to support an additional panel. 

29.     The recruitment costs for the panel would be $15,000 and would be incurred in the 2014/2015 financial year. These could be funded from savings in existing budgets.

30.     The ongoing operational costs of the panel would be $56,500 per annum, and would need to be provided for in the Long-term Plan. The costs, excluding staff time, are made up of:

Meeting fees                              $32,000

Catering, mileage, parking        $  4,500

Two summits                             $20,000

Total                                           $56,500

31.     These costs do not include staff time. The recent inclusion of new committees and meetings into the council’s governance structure has increased the workload of staff supporting the democratic processes. Democracy Services would require additional resources to support the new panel. Experience has shown that supporting the demographic panels is resource-intensive for Democracy Advisors and Lead Officers.

32.     If an additional panel is established, an extra ½ full time equivalent position (FTE) may have to be recruited (it would not be practical to recruit for less than a ½ FTE). This is estimated at $33,000. However the current review of the committee structure could free up some democracy advisor time and this may offset the need for additional FTEs.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

33.     The panels’ focus is to give strategic advice to council. This includes local boards and council’s council-controlled organisations.

Māori impact statement

34.     The Independent Māori Statutory Board is being consulted on the selection process, and would be invited to participate in the selection panel. Speakers at the public input session at the Community Development and Safety Committee noted that Māori were some of the most disadvantaged of the rainbow community. This would be factored into the recruitment of the Rainbow Advisory Panel.

Implementation

35.     Should the Governing Body approve the proposal, expressions of interest can be called in early May.  Applications would be open for two and half weeks. Interviews would be in mid-June.  Panel members would be endorsed at the 30 July Governing Body meeting and the Panel’s first meeting would be in August.

36.     There is currently no budget for an additional panel. Council needs to allocate additional funds.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Bruce Thomas - Principal Advisor Panels

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

      

 


Governing Body

30 April 2015

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

That the Governing Body:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

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

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Additional New Special Housing Area Request - April 2015 Auckland Development Committee Recommendation

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information in regards to development proposals.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.