Agenda of Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

04 May 2015

Alcohol Ban Signage Guidelines

File No.: CP2015/06909

Purpose

1. To adopt guidelines for alcohol ban signage.

Executive Summary

2. The Governing Body requested the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee develop guidelines for alcohol ban signage.

3. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide clarity and consistency for all alcohol ban signage installed on roads, parks, reserves and beaches.

4. To assist development of the guideline, feedback was sought from Brand and Channel, Parks, Sport and Recreation, Community Development Arts and Culture, Auckland Tourism Economic Events and Development, Auckland Transport, and the New Zealand Police.

5. Staff recommend adopting a guideline that contains the minimum requirements to provide for public awareness and enforcement of alcohol bans in a way that minimises visual clutter and costs (Attachment A).

6. Staff have also identified a range of additional signage components that the committee may decide to include in the guideline.

Recommendations

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) adopt the minimum requirements for Alcohol Ban Signage Guidelines contained in Table 1 of the agenda report.

b) delegate the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to the guidelines in Attachment A to the agenda report, to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

c) delegate the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws the ability, in consultation with the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee chair, to make any amendments to the guidelines in Attachment A to the agenda report, to reflect decisions made by the committee.

Comments

Background

7. On 30 October 2014 the Governing Body resolved (GB/2014/121) to “direct the Manager Policies and Bylaws to develop alcohol ban signage guidelines to be reported to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee”.

8. The adoption of a guideline has been aligned with the implementation of the review of the more than 1,700 alcohol bans currently in progress across 20 local boards (excludes the Great Barrier Local Board) and the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee.

9. Alcohol bans are made under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014.

10. Clause 8 of the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 states:

“The council may make controls on any or all of the following in relation to signage for alcohol ban areas subject to compliance with any regulations under section 147C of the Local Government Act 2002

(a) require the council to erect and maintain signs indicating the existence of boundaries of an alcohol ban:

(b) describe the placement of the signs

(c) prescribe the kinds of signs required to be erected and maintained (including, without limitation, content, images, maps, size, lettering, symbols and colouring).”

11. The Department of Internal Affairs have indicated they are not intending on making regulations as outlined in section 147C of the Local Government Act 2002.

Comments

12. Alcohol ban signage is an effective way to inform the public when they are entering or when they are in an alcohol ban area, and allows for enforcement of alcohol bans by the New Zealand Police.

13. Signage guidelines provide clarity and consistency in the type of alcohol ban signage that is appropriate on roads, parks, reserves and beaches.

14. The current alcohol ban signage used across Auckland is summarised in the table below.

Types of signage

Current status

Stand-alone (regulatory)

· essential to allow active enforcement by the New Zealand Police

· generally placed on road reserve^{^[1]} in town centres

· may also be in parks, beach and foreshore areas

· used to replace current damaged or missing signs

· individually developed for temporary events.

Integrated (regulatory)

· essential to allow active enforcement by the New Zealand Police

· may be integrated into Auckland Council Parks signage and Auckland Transport Car parking signage.

Advisory (integrated)

· increases public awareness of alcohol ban areas

· helps in reducing visual clutter of signs

· may be integrated into Auckland Council Parks signage and Auckland Transport Car parking signage

· not ideal for police enforcement

· unclear whether area is an alcohol ban (mandatory) or alcohol free area (voluntary).

15. Feedback from key stakeholders (Brand and Channel, Parks, Sport and Recreation, Community Development Arts and Culture, Auckland Tourism Economic Events and Development, Auckland Transport, and New Zealand Police) to assist the development of the guideline is that:

· there are two types of signs (regulatory and advisory) which have very different purposes

· content, message and design of regulatory signs should be simple, meaningful and easy to understand

· icon should be used consistently across the regulatory and advisory sign

· Auckland Council and New Zealand Police logos should be included. It is not necessary to include local board or private owners/third party logos

· Te Reo should be incorporated into signs in a way that is not intrusive or detracts from the message and intent of the sign

· content to be consistent across the region for permanent and event based signs

· signs will need to be considerably larger if legible maps are to be included

· stencilling on pathways may be a viable option for advisory signage

· Auckland Council website and contact number should be included

· information not required on the signs included the use of quick response codes (for scanning by mobile phones) and infringement costs

· the installation of alcohol bans signs on the road side must comply with Auckland Transport’s Guidelines.

Options

16. Signage components were identified and prioritised at the workshop with key stakeholders. The minimum requirements to be included in an alcohol ban signage guideline are described in Table 1.

Table 1: Minimum requirements to be included in alcohol ban signage guideline

Signage component	Regulatory (stand-alone) signage	Regulatory (integrated) signage	Advisory Signage
Size	· recommended size 300mmx600mm · large enough to see without dominating visual landscape	· not required	· not required
Text	· provides clear, concise and relevant information to the public on the alcohol ban area	· informs public of an alcohol ban area	· not required
Colour	· consistent look and feel with Auckland Council brand	· consistent look and feel with Auckland Council brand	· Consistent look and feel with Auckland Council brand
Logo	· Auckland Council logos identify bylaw making authority · New Zealand Police logo identifies the enforcement agency	· not required	· not required
Symbol / Icon	· visual representation of the intent of the sign	· visual representation of the intent of the sign	· visual representation of the intent of the sign
Time	· informs public time alcohol ban is operational · allows for active police enforcement	· informs public time alcohol ban is operational · allows for active police enforcement	· not required
Te Reo	· aligns with goals of the Maori Responsiveness Framework	· not required	· not required
Contact information	· provides public with information on who to contact	· not required	· not required

17. Additional signage components considered but not included in Table 1 were maps, quick response code, infringement costs, and identifying the type of alcohol ban area. The main reasons for not including these components are:

· the considerable cost of incorporating maps within signage (estimated at $6.5 million compared to $1.8 million for the minimum requirements in Table 1)

· the size of the signs if the maps are to be legible

· quick response code technology may become outdated

· the regulations which allow infringement notices to be issued may change

· alcohol bans may consist of multiple areas (e.g. beach and park).

18. Further discussion of the additional signage components is contained in Attachment B.

Staff recommendation

19. Staff recommend adopting a guideline containing only the minimum requirements in Table 1. This approach will:

· provide for enforcement of alcohol bans

· provide for public awareness of alcohol bans

· minimise visual clutter of signage

· keep costs to a minimum.

Next steps

20. Alcohol ban signage guidelines will be used to develop and install new signage associated with the current review of alcohol bans and any future alcohol ban requests.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

21. Local boards have been informed in workshops that the Governing Body is developing a region-wide guideline.

Māori impact statement

22. Advice has been obtained from Te Waka Angumua on the translation components on the alcohol ban signage templates.

23. Inclusion of Te Reo Māori is a commitment to the Auckland Council Māori Responsiveness Framework.

Implementation Issues

24. None.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Alcohol Ban Signage Guidelines	15
b View	Draft Signage	27

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Policy Analyst

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Authoriser

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

04 May 2015

Review of Alcohol Bans 2015

File No.: CP2015/06915

Purpose

1. To adopt a proposal on the review of alcohol bans of regional significance.

Executive Summary

2. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has the delegated responsibility to review all 17 existing alcohol bans on areas of regional significance by 31 October 2015.

3. The purpose of the review is to identify which existing alcohol bans meet the new higher statutory threshold to enable them to be retained. Alcohol bans that do not meet the threshold will lapse on 31 October 2015.

4. As part of the review, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee may choose to either make a decision (at this business meeting) based on the evidence obtained to date. This would mean that the alcohol bans would be effective from 31 October 2015. Alternatively the committee may use a public submission process to gather further evidence from the community before making a final decision.

5. To assist the committee, staff have undertaken an analysis of legacy council information and recent police data.

6. Staff recommend to:

· use a public submission process to complete the review and to adopt a proposal to facilitate this (Attachment C)

· propose to retain five existing alcohol bans

· propose to lapse 12 existing alcohol bans unless sufficient evidence is provided through the public submission process.

7. Staff will update the attachments as necessary to reflect the decisions by the committee.

Recommendations

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

EITHER OPTION 1

a) adopt the alcohol bans contained in Attachment A to the agenda report, pursuant to the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014, with no further public consultation and a commencement date of 31 October 2015.

b) allow the alcohol bans contained in Attachment B to the agenda report, to lapse, with no further public consultation and coming into effect on 31 October 2015.

c) agree that the decisions in (a) and (b) are accordance with relevant requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014.

d) delegate the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to Attachment A to the agenda report, to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

OR OPTION 2

a) adopt the proposal titled “Proposal Review of Alcohol Bans – Regional Significance May 2015” in Attachment C to the agenda report, for the purposes of a public submission process.

b) agree that the proposal contained in Attachment C to the agenda report, is in accordance with relevant requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014.

c) delegate the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to the proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

d) delegate the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws the ability, in consultation with the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee chair, to make any amendments to the proposal to reflect decisions made by the committee.

e) appoint three Regulatory and Bylaws Committee members (one as Chair) as a panel to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and recommend changes to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee.

f) delegate to the Chairperson of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee the ability to make changes to the panel appointed under (e) where this becomes necessary because of the withdrawal or unavailability of any of those persons.

Comments

8. Alcohol bans are an accepted and effective way of helping to reduce alcohol related harm. They limit the amount of alcohol consumed in public places. This helps reduce harm including levels of intoxication, noise, litter, harm and disorder.

9. Alcohol bans are made under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014. Alcohol bans prohibit the consumption of alcohol in public places and are enforced by the New Zealand Police using powers of search, seizure, and arrest. Penalties include an infringement fee of $250.

10. Recent amendments to legislation to require a review of existing alcohol bans against the new higher threshold is intended to ensure that alcohol bans are only retained in areas of high alcohol related crime or disorder.

11. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee have the delegated responsibility to review existing alcohol bans of regional significance by 31 October 2015. This does not include consideration of new alcohol bans which will be subject to a separate process to commence after 31 October 2015.

12. The decision required of the committee is to decide which decision-making process to use, and which existing alcohol bans to retain and lapse.

Decision-making requirements

13. In making decisions, the committee must be satisfied that any existing alcohol bans proposed to be retained comply with a range of statutory and bylaw requirements.

14. Changes to the Local Government Act 2002 introduced a higher threshold to be met to allow an existing alcohol ban to be retained. Alcohol bans that do not meet the higher threshold will lapse on 31 October 2015.

15. The most important requirements as outlined in the bylaw are:

· evidence that the alcohol ban area has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area

· that the alcohol ban is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence and can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms

· consideration of community-focused solutions as an alternative to or to complement an alcohol ban area

· consideration of the views of owners, occupiers, or persons that council has reason to believe are representative of the interests of owners or occupiers, of premises within the area to which the alcohol ban will apply

· consideration to using one of the following times for consistency:

§ 24 hours, 7 days a week (at all times alcohol ban);

§ 7pm to 7am daily (evening alcohol ban)

§ 10pm to 7pm daylight saving and 7pm to 7am outside daylight saving (night time alcohol ban)

§ 7pm on the day before to 7am on the day after any weekend, public holiday or Christmas/New Year holiday period (weekend and holiday alcohol ban).

16. Further detail of the decision-making requirements is appended to the Proposal (Attachment C) document.

Comment

17. There are currently 17 alcohol bans of regional significance summarised in the table below. These have each been independently assessed and evidence is included in Attachments A and B.

Type of alcohol ban area (number)		Alcohol ban time
Maunga (6)	24 hours a day 7 days a week
Maunga (8)	Daylight saving 10pm – 8am non-daylight savings 8pm – 8am
Regional Facilities (1)	Daylight saving 10pm – 8am non-daylight savings 8pm – 8am
Regional Parks (1)	Daylight saving 10pm – 8am non-daylight savings 8pm – 8am
Auckland Domain (1)	The weekend of the Christmas in the Park event held in December each year

Evidence

18. Evidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder has been obtained from legacy council files, and data from the New Zealand Police for the period 1 September 2013 – 30 September 2014 has also been supplied. The police data was supplied in confidence. A public summary is contained in Attachment A.

19. Other sources of Auckland-wide alcohol-related crime or disorder information were investigated but did not provide evidence able to be linked to particular alcohol bans.

20. Other sources included service request data lodged through the council call centre, graffiti and Ambulance and Emergency Service data.

21. Evidence may also be gathered through a public submission process. Documented evidence may be provided by way of:

· a written account of incidents of alcohol-related crime or disorder people have witnessed prior to, after, or recently in relation to a particular alcohol ban having been introduced

· historical media articles.

Options

22. In terms of the decision-making process, the committee can choose to:

· either make a decision based on the evidence obtained to date. This process requires consideration of:

o the area and times of each alcohol ban

o legacy council information (where available) on the level of alcohol-related crime or disorder that was evident when the alcohol ban was initially made

o crime and disorder data provided by the New Zealand Police for the period 1 September 2013 – 30 September 2014 by alcohol ban area

· or use a public submission process to gather further evidence from the community. This process requires:

o the committee to adopt a proposal by May 2015 (Attachment A)

o the proposal (together with proposals from local boards) will be publicly notified in June 2015

o the committee to hold hearings, deliberations and make decisions on submissions by August 2015

o any alcohol ban not deemed to meet the statutory evidence test to lapse on 31 October 2015.

23. The public submission process is specifically designed to obtain further evidence of alcohol related crime or disorder from the public for those alcohol bans where legacy council information or police data is limited.

24. It is important to note that the statutory requirements of this review means the retention of alcohol bans must be determined on evidence of high levels of alcohol-related crime or disorder.

Recommendation

25. Staff recommend:

· using a public submission process to complete the review and adopting the Proposal Review of alcohol bans on areas of regional significance – May 2015 to facilitate this (Attachment C).

· to propose to retain the following five existing alcohol bans:

o Auckland Domain (Auckland Domain, car park areas, sportsfields and streets)

o Auckland Domain all hours ban during the weekend of the Christmas in the Park event held each December (Auckland Domain, car park areas, sportsfields and streets)

o Auckland Zoological Park (car park area)

o Puketapapa/Pukewiwi (Winstone Park, Mt Roskill)

o Te Pane o Mataoho/Te Ara Puera (Māngere Mt, Māngere Domain area only

· to propose to allow the remaining 12 alcohol bans to lapse unless sufficient evidence is provided through the public submission process to justify their retention.

26. The reasons for this recommendation are:

· there is sufficient evidence of a high level of alcohol-related crime or disorder to retain five existing alcohol bans

· the alcohol bans retained are appropriate, proportionate, and reasonable

· the hours of alcohol bans retained are aligned to those contained in the bylaw

· the public submission process provides an effective and efficient way to obtain further evidence (in a useable format) to support decision making.

Next steps

27. Staff will update the attachments as necessary to reflect the decisions by the committee.

28. If a public submission process is adopted, the proposal (together with proposals from local boards) will be publicly notified in June 2015.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

29. Local boards support the retention of alcohol bans on areas of regional significance in their areas and consider that the hours of operation should be consistent with those on adjoining reserves where appropriate.

30. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board seek the continued operation of an all hours ban at Ōtāhuhu (Mt Richmond) and consider that an all hours ban across all maunga would be desirable if the evidence allowed.

Māori impact statement

31. Managing alcohol related harm associated with people consuming alcohol in public places increases opportunities for health and wellbeing, which is consistent with the outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau.

32. Feedback from mana whenua representatives at a hui held in March 2015, supported the use of alcohol bans in combination with other non-regulatory approaches to help reduce alcohol related harm.

33. The Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority at a hui on 2 March 2015, adopted a policy to declare Tūpuna Maunga as being alcohol and smoke-free areas and to formally request Council to make alcohol bans on all Tūpuna Maunga.

34. The authority is aware that the council can only make alcohol bans in areas that have experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area. The authority has adopted an alcohol free policy to acknowledge and support the spiritual, cultural and community significance of the Tūpuna Maunga. An alcohol ban is not required to implement this policy.

Implementation Issues

35. There are no implementation issues associated with this decision to adopt a proposal.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Alcohol bans proposed to retain	35
b View	Alcohol bans proposed to lapse	37
c View	Review of Alcohol Bans 2015 - Proposal	39

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Policy Analyst

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Authoriser

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

04 May 2015

Introduction of a new property maintenance and nuisance bylaw

File No.: CP2015/04099

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to request that a recommendation be made to the governing body to approve the Statement of Proposal and the proposed draft Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 for public consultation using the special consultative procedure.

Executive Summary

2. Nuisance issues on private land or property generate the second highest number of complaints per year to Auckland Council.

3. Four of the former councils had bylaws, or clauses within bylaws, which addressed these issues. The other councils relied on district plan rules and/or national legislation to manage private property issues.

4. The proposed new Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw seeks to address issues relating to:

· stored material, debris and refuse that may create a nuisance

· overgrown sections that may harbour pests or vermin

· feeding wild birds, fowl, or feral animals in a manner that may create a nuisance

· derelict or abandoned buildings that may attract or harbour pests or vermin or create a nuisance

· regulation of industrial water cooling towers

· provide temporarily for the regulation of light spillage in the legacy Auckland City area until the proposed Auckland Unitary plan has legal effect.

Recommendations

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) recommend to the Governing Body of Auckland Council that it resolve (i) to (vi) as follows:

i) that pursuant to section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues relating to nuisance created on private land

ii) that pursuant to section 155(2)(a) and (b) and section 155(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, as described in part 9 of the attached Statement of Proposal, the proposed draft Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and is the most appropriate form of bylaw

iii) that pursuant to sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Statement of Proposal, and proposed draft Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 (Attachment A) be approved for public consultation

iv) that pursuant to sections 145, 146 and 149 of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 19 of the Health Act 1955, the proposed draft Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 is for the purposes of:

a) requiring private property to be kept in such a manner that it does not create a nuisance or be likely to be injurious to health;

(b) protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety by restricting the feeding of wild or feral animals;

(c) protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety by requiring all industrial water cooling tower systems to be registered with the council and regularly tested to mitigate against an outbreak of Legionnaire’s Disease.

(v) that pursuant to section 62 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and 156 of the Local Government Act 2002, Auckland Council proposes to revoke the following legacy council bylaws:

(a) Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2007 – except for the definitions in clause 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6;

(b) North Shore City Bylaw 2000 – Part 7 – Environmental Protection - Nuisances Arising On Private Land;

(vi) that pursuant to section 63 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 the council proposes to confirm the definitions in clause 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6 of the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2007 to ensure transitional regulation of spill lighting in the legacy Auckland City area until the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has legal effect.

(b) appoint a hearing panel comprised of three elected members, of which one is appointed as chairperson of the panel, to hear submissions on the making of the draft Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 and review the legacy environmental protection bylaws, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body.

(c) delegate to the chairperson of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee the power to make a replacement appointment to the hearings panel in the event that any member appointed by the committee under resolution (b) is unavailable.

(d) that the Manager, Social Policy and Bylaws be authorised to make any minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee or the Governing Body.

Comments

Background

5. Under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 all the bylaws inherited by the council remain operative until 31 October 2015, where after they lapse, if not confirmed.

6. The legacy Auckland City Council and North Shore City Council had environmental protection bylaws that included provisions to address of nuisance issues on private land.

7. Those two legacy council bylaws contained provisions to regulate the following:

· causing a nuisance on any premises

· attracting vermin or pests

· depositing or storing refuse or offensive matter

· damaging or interfering with drains or infrastructure

· vehicle likely to cause a nuisance (with refuse or offensive matter)

· maintenance of premises

· food premises (depositing litter and contaminants)

· intruder alarms

· artificial lighting

· dangerous fences

· contaminated land and refuse landfill development control

· stock slaughter.

8. The Waitakere City Council adopted a bespoke bylaw to address intruder alarms. As part of this review of the environmental protection bylaws it is proposed that bylaw be revoked. Manukau City Council included a clause in its animals and pest management bylaw regulating the management of pests and vermin. On 30 April 2015 this bylaw will be revoked upon the adoption of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015.

9. The other legacy councils relied on district plan rules and national legislation; such as the Litter Act 1979, Health Act 1956, or the Building Act 2004, to address these issues.

10. Section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, a determination as to whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. A bylaw cannot be inconsistent with existing statutory provisions. However, it can bring together in one document a range of powers, duties, and prohibitions that are otherwise scattered throughout various statutes.

Options

11. In order to assess the appropriateness of a bylaw, staff have:

· reviewed the number and types of complaints received in the areas which are covered by the existing bylaws

· reviewed how staff have responded to similar complaints received in areas where bylaws have not existed

· consulted with operational staff on potential options to address identified issues

· facilitated workshops with 21 local boards during October and November 2014 to obtain their views on the issues of concern and the preferred option

· conducted a People’s Panel survey on private property maintenance in February 2015, and

· consulted with Māori at two hui held at Orewa and Manukau in March 2015.

12. Data collected shows that the most frequently issues raised were:

· overgrown sections harbouring pests or vermin

· refuse / vehicles on private property harbouring rodents and other vermin / omitting offensive odours

· derelict / abandoned buildings harbouring rodents and other vermin

· illegal dumping of refuse on private and public land

· bird droppings from neighbouring property

· bees from neighbours causing a nuisance

· cats smell and faeces on private land

· chicken coup causing smell and effluents discharge on neighbouring property

· lighting spill and glare

· flies originating from neighbouring property due to compost or animal manure.

13. Through this process a further issue relating to industrial water cooling tower systems was also identified. Following the legionnaires disease outbreak in Auckland in 2012 it became apparent that there is no national requirement for the registration, maintenance, or testing of industrial water cooling tower systems.

14. The council had difficulty in responding to the outbreak as it was unaware of the location of the industrial water cooling tower systems. Simple measures to maintain the industrial water cooling towers that can prevent the breeding of the legionellae bacteria were not in place and it required a considerable effort by the council to track the industrial water cooling towers and ensure the measures were put in place.

15. From this issues analysis staff identified the following key outcomes:

· reduced the risk to the health of the population of Auckland and avoid nuisance to persons on neighbouring properties and public places from activities and behaviours on private property

· provision of suitable preventative measures to ensure the safe management of industrial water cooling tower systems to reduce the risk to the health of the population of Auckland from legionnaire’s disease

· retain transitional measures in the legacy Auckland City area pending regulation of light spillage through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

An analysis of potential regulatory and non-regulatory options was conducted to determine the most appropriate approach to achieving these outcomes.

Avoiding nuisance from activities on private property

16. The legacy Auckland City area received:

· 1768 complaints about overgrown sections. The number of complaints to the council about overgrown sections is second only to complaints about signage

· 525 complaints in 2012 about accumulated refuse on private property either omitting a smell or odour, or harbouring vermin.

· 26 complaints in 2013 relating to wild birds / fowl / feral animals in the legacy Auckland City area. These included complaints about the noise, smell, and excrement

· 115 nuisance related complaints over the past four years as a result of derelict or abandoned buildings that have attracted anti-social behaviour.

17. The results of a People’s Panel survey carried out by the council in February 2015 showed that of the 4,184 respondents:

· 1,401 (33 per cent) were concerned over a significantly overgrown section in their local area in the past year

· 558 (13 per cent) had noted an abandoned or unoccupied derelict building in their local area in the past year.

18. Complaints data and the results of a February 2015 People’s Panel survey support the council’s involvement in dealing with the issues to be addressed through a proposed new bylaw.

19. Options considered for addressing these issues are included in Tables 1 and 2:

Table 1 Nuisance and risks to public health caused by activities on private properties

Options

Advantages / Disadvantages

Option A:

Allow the legacy bylaws to lapse and rely on alternative non - regulatory approach

Advantages:

· It provides a clear directive to everybody of the expectations of the community.

· It provides a benchmark to assess against when deciding what is acceptable, and what is not.

· This option does not require direct compliance or enforcement from the council and therefore does not have an associated enforcement cost.

· It also allows for flexibility so Aucklanders can determine the level of acceptance.

· The use of educational strategies and awareness initiatives places the onus on Aucklanders to “self-regulate” and become accountable for their actions. For some residents this option may provide consistency and a degree of comfort.

Disadvantages:

· Educational strategies and awareness initiatives have no statutory authority and therefore cannot be used to ensure compliance.

· This option relies on an informed and organised community to adhere to set standards, which does not exist in many cases.

· This would also require communities to agree to set standards.

· This option does not allow council to utilise its statutory powers and does not provide the ability to take action if an issue arises.

· Legacy councils that did not provide bylaw measures were unable to consistently deal with complaints.

Option B:

Regulation in a specific Auckland-wide bylaw.

Recommended option

Advantages:

· In the legacy areas where environmental protection bylaws were adopted, it provided an effective way to mitigate nuisance related issues or risks to public safety.

· Provisions in a new bylaw would clarify statutory provisions that may be a risk to public safety or that may cause a nuisance while remaining within the scope of the enabling statutory powers.

· A bylaw allows the council to require compliance with consistent standards across Auckland

· A bylaw allows the council to meet its regulatory objectives

· A bylaw promotes public safety and avoids the creation of nuisance, and

· A bylaw provides clear standards that allow for consistency and equity.

· The enhanced penalties of a maximum court-imposed fine of $20,000, compared to a maximum fine of $500 under the Health Act 1956. This provides an incentive to ensure compliance with the bylaw by persons who persistently cause nuisance or create a risk to public safety by failing to maintain their properties.

Disadvantages:

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime to support its effectiveness.

· There is an associated cost that falls on the council as a result.

· A bylaw may also provide a level of regulation that is considered by some sectors of the community to be prescriptive, invasive or restrictive.

· Conversely, members of the public may have unrealistic expectations that the council is able to take steps through the proposed bylaw to address unkempt and unsightly properties that do not cause a nuisance or present a risk to public safety.

· Enforcement of the bylaw must be restricted to issues of nuisance and risks to public safety to avoid the risks of being ultra vires.

Option C:

Do nothing – let the legacy bylaws lapse and rely on national legislation

Advantages:

· This option avoids the cost of making a bylaw

· Not making a bylaw and relying on existing legislation such as the Health Act 1956, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Litter Act 1979 ensures consistency with national legislation

· This option reduces the regulatory burden on the council as it reduces the scope of the council’s responsibility.

Disadvantages:

· The restrictive definition of nuisance used in the Health Act 1956 prevents the council from responding to all the complaints.

· The costs of instituting prosecution for breaches of the Health Act 1956 are not justified by the available penalties.

· Legacy councils that did not provide bylaw measures were unable to consistently deal with complaints.

· The scope of the council’s ability to respond to complaints is limited

Option D:

Rely on an alternate bylaw / the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Advantages:

· This option avoids the cost of making an additional bylaw

Disadvantages:

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime to support its effectiveness.

· There is an associated cost that falls on the council as a result.

· The proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has no equivalent provisions to deal with this issue. In addition, the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan cannot address the nuisance and public safety issues.

· The Regional Pest Management Strategy does not provide for the “nuisance” effects of urban pests or vermin on people or their land.

· Not all stored material qualifies as “waste” under the Solid Waste Bylaw 2012. Consequently stored material that is not waste can still cause a nuisance or be a risk to public health.

· This option relies on fragmented and inconsistent enforcement measures in a different regulatory documents that do not address the problems consistently

· Legacy councils that did not provide bylaw measures were unable to consistently deal with complaints.

· Little deterrent for worse case offenders.

Option E: Retain the legacy council bylaw provisions

Advantages:

· This option allows for the continuation of enforcement of existing rules in areas where these apply and rely on legislation in other areas.

· It does not add any regulatory burden to the council.

· It meets customer expectation in terms of level of service in some parts of Auckland.

Disadvantages:

· It results in an inconsistent level of service across Auckland Council.

· The council is unable to respond consistently to complaints across Auckland.

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime to support its effectiveness.

· There is an associated cost that falls on the council as a result.

· This option relies on fragmented and inconsistent enforcement measures in a different regulatory document that do not address the problems consistently.

· Legacy councils that did not provide bylaw measures were unable to consistently deal with complaints.

Table 2 Nuisance and risks to public health caused by derelict, vacant and abandoned buildings

Options

Advantages / Disadvantages

Option A:

Allow the legacy bylaws to lapse and rely on alternative non - regulatory approach

Advantages:

· it provides a clear directive to the community using educational strategies and awareness initiatives

· It encourages self-regulation

· it also sets expectations relating to maintenance of private property

· it does not require direct compliance or enforcement from council and

· It is flexible.

Disadvantages:

· Educational strategies and awareness initiatives have no statutory authority

· It requires community agreement on standards of behaviour

· It does not enable enforcement against persistent offending.

Option B:

Regulation in a specific Auckland-wide bylaw.

Recommended option

Advantages:

The advantages of this option are similar to that already referred to above relating to activities occurring on private property. In summary, the advantages are:

· It provides minimum standards designed to ensure property maintenance.

· it promotes public safety and prevents nuisance

· It provides a consistent approach.

Disadvantages:

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime

· There are associated costs for the council.

· Regulation may seem invasive or restrictive to parts of the community.

· Enforcement of the bylaw must be restricted to issues of nuisance and risks to public safety to avoid the risks of being ultra vires.

Option C:

Do nothing – let the legacy bylaws lapse and rely on national legislation

Advantages:

· This option avoids the cost of making a bylaw

· This option reduces the regulatory burden on the council as it reduces the scope of the council’s responsibility.

Disadvantages:

· Neither the Building Act 2004 nor the Building Code sufficiently provide for this issue.

· The council is unable to pro-actively respond to complaints about derelict or abandoned buildings that cause nuisance.

20. Following this assessment of the options available for addressing nuisance and risks to public health caused by activities on private properties (Table 1) and by derelict, vacant and abandoned buildings (Table 2); staff recommend the introduction of a specific Auckland-wide bylaw based on the provisions previously contained in the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2007 and the North Shore City Bylaw 2000 – Part 7 – Environmental Protection - Nuisances Arising On Private Land (Option B).

21. The key reasons for this recommendation is that it will deliver a regionally consistent approach that is simple and efficient to implement and enables enforcement options that provides an incentive to ensure compliance with the bylaw.

Industrial water cooling tower systems

22. The Building Act 2004 regulates all buildings that contain a mechanical ventilation system, such as an air conditioning unit.

23. However, the Building Act 2004 does not require any equivalent provisions for industrial water cooling towers. Whilst is it proposed to include registration and maintenance of industrial water cooling tower systems in the Building Act, at present there are no national legislative provisions to address this issue.

24. The bylaw review assesses the most appropriate way to address this gap.

25. None of the legacy councils adopted specific bylaw provisions that require industrial water cooling tower systems within their territorial boundaries to be registered or tested for legionella and there are no measures to address the issue in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

26. Options considered are included in Table 3.

Table 3 Registration and testing of industrial water cooling tower systems

Options

Advantages /Disadvantages

Option A:

Allow the legacy bylaws to lapse and rely on alternative non - regulatory approach

Advantages:

· It provides a clear directive to owners of buildings with an industrial water system as to the expectations relating to the registration and maintenance of that system.

· This option does not require direct compliance or enforcement from the council and therefore does not have an associated operational cost.

· Places the onus on owners of buildings with an industrial water tower to self-regulate and become accountable for their actions.

· This option is also useful when it is used in conjunction with a regulatory tool to achieve maximum outcomes.

Disadvantages:

· Educational strategies and awareness initiatives have no statutory authority

· It does not enable enforcement against persistent offending.

Option B:

Regulation in a specific Auckland-wide bylaw.

Recommended option

Advantages:

· Provides a compliance measure to ensure dip-slide tests and control measures for industrial cooling water systems with and without automatic chemical dosing, developed by Standards New Zealand, are carried out.

· A bylaw is the only feasible way of ensuring all industrial water cooling tower systems are registered with the council and monitored to prevent another outbreak of legionnaire’s disease.

Disadvantages:

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime

· There are associated costs for the council.

Option C:

Do nothing –rely on national legislation

Advantages:

· This option avoids the cost of making a bylaw

Disadvantages:

· Neither the Building Act 2004 nor the Building Code sufficiently provide for this issue.

· The council is unable to pro-actively respond to complaints about derelict or abandoned buildings that cause nuisance.

27. Staff recommend the introduction of regulations in a specific Auckland-wide bylaw (Option B).

28. The key reason for this recommendation is that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of ensuring all industrial water cooling tower systems can be identified and monitored to prevent another outbreak of legionnaire’s disease.

Glare and light spill from artificial lighting

29. The legacy Auckland City area is the only legacy area that regulates nuisance from artificial lighting in residential areas through a bylaw. All the other legacy councils address this issue in their respective district plan. This issue will be addressed in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

30. It is not envisaged that the relevant provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan will have legal effect until 2017, which will leave a significant period of two years where there would be no regulation in place in the Auckland Central area.

31. Options considered for addressing this issue during the period between 1 November 2015 and when the proposed Auckland Council Unitary plan has legal effect are included in Table 4.

Table 4 Lighting spill and glare can create a nuisance

Options

Advantages/ Disadvantages

Option A:

Allow the legacy bylaws to lapse and rely on alternative non - regulatory pending regulation through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Advantages:

The advantages of this option are similar to that already referred to above relating to activities occurring on private property. In summary, the advantages are:

· it provides a clear directive to the community using educational strategies and awareness initiatives

· It encourages self-regulation

· it also sets expectations relating to how artificial lighting is used

· it does not require direct compliance or enforcement from council and

· It is flexible.

Disadvantages:

· Educational strategies and awareness initiatives have no statutory authority

· It does not enable enforcement against persistent offending.

Option B:

Retain the legacy council bylaw provisions pending regulation through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Recommended option

Advantages:

The advantages of this option are similar to that already referred to above relating to activities occurring on private property. In summary, the advantages are:

· It provides minimum standards designed to ensure that nuisance caused by spill lighting is avoided

· it promotes public safety and prevents nuisance

· It provides a consistent approach.

Disadvantages:

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime

· There are associated costs for the council.

· Regulation may seem invasive or restrictive to parts of the community.

32. Staff recommend that the clauses regulating spill lighting in the legacy Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 be confirmed under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 to provide transitional regulation until the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has legal effect.

33. The proposal to retain the lighting provisions in the Auckland City Environmental Protection bylaw will require pubic consultation. This is included as part of this Statement of Proposal in order to streamline processes and timelines for retaining these provisions.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

34. The views of local boards have been sought on how best to address the issues identified. Staff attended workshops with 21 local boards during October and November 2014 and the views of local boards were taken into account in the drafting of the proposed bylaw.

35. Local boards are supportive of continuing to regulate the identified activities in a bylaw.

Māori impact statement

36. Staff undertook a literature view of key documents to gain a preliminary understanding of the impact the draft Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 potentially has on Māori. Specific views of Māori in relation to property maintenance were gathered at two hui held at Orewa and Manukau in March 2015.

37. The proposed measures do not have more impact on Māori than on the general population of Auckland. The proposed measures were supported by representatives of Māori that attended the hui.

Implementation

38. If the recommendations of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee are adopted by the governing body, the council will commence the special consultative procedure by giving public notice within two weeks from approval.

39. The enforcement of the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015, once adopted, will be assigned to Licensing and Compliance Services. There is expected to be little impact on Licensing and Compliance Services in enforcing a new Auckland-wide bylaw as existing resources will be used.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Statement of Proposal	59

Signatories

Authors

Richard Stuckey - Principal Policy Analyst

Helgard Wagener - Team Leader Policies and Bylaws

Authoriser

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

04 May 2015

AC new logo_horz_cmyk

Statement of Proposal

Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakaporearea 2015

May 2015

1 Introduction. 3

2 Relevant Legislation. 4

3 Reasons for and purpose of proposal 4

4 Definition of issues. 6

5 Outcomes sought. 11

6 Addressing the perceived issues. 12

7 Discussion of the proposed bylaw provisions. 21

8 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 22

9 Determinations under section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002. 22

10 Compliance and enforcement. 23

11 Revocation of legacy bylaws. 23

12 Conclusion. 23

Appendix A: Proposed Bylaw.. 24

1 Introduction

Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 the legacy council bylaws are deemed to have been made by the Auckland Council (the council). Like all the bylaws inherited by the council, they remain operative until 31 October 2015, where after they lapse, if not confirmed. This presents the council with an opportunity to review the legacy council bylaws to ensure they meet the current and future demands of the wider community.

This statement of proposal is part of the review of the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 and the North Shore City Council Environmental Protection - Nuisances Arising on Private Land 2000 (“legacy bylaws”) that is being undertaken by the Auckland Council as part of its bylaw review programme. This review also considers the pest management clause in the Manukau City Council Animals and Pest Management Bylaw 2008 and the Waitakere City Council Control of Intruder Alarms Systems Bylaw 2010.

An assessment of the efficiency of these legacy council environmental protection bylaws and consultation with various stakeholders indicates that they have been an appropriate method of mitigating a number of specific issues in their respective areas, but that changes need to be made to improve effectiveness.

Five of the legacy council areas have no such bylaw and enforcement officers in those parts of Auckland report frustration at the lack of an adequate and consistent regulatory measure to address complaints related to nuisance that arise on private property. The introduction of a new Auckland- wide bylaw covering property maintenance will ensure a consistent level of service is provided to all of our customers. The results from a recent People’s Panel survey conducted by the council indicate support for the council to intervene where nuisance arises on private property.

While the council has determined that a new bylaw is the most appropriate mechanism to deal with the issues faced, the proposed new bylaw has been drafted with limited changes to the scope of the two legacy council bylaws. The majority of the changes in the proposed new bylaw are intended to clarify aspects of the respective legacy council bylaws that may have caused confusion, simplify the wording of the requirements, and assist the enforcement regime. The layout of the proposed new bylaw is similar to that of the legacy council bylaws.

The only major change proposed in the proposed new bylaw is the introduction of a requirement for business owners who use an industrial water cooling tower system to register that system and regularly test for legionellae.

Except for the legacy Auckland City area, light spillage is currently regulated through district plans and is proposed to be regulated in the Unitary Plan. This statement of proposal further proposes to confirm provisions in the legacy Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 regulating light spillage to ensure regulatory continuity until the proposed Auckland Council Unitary Plan has legal effect.

The proposed new bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and is considered the most appropriate form for dealing with the issues faced. It meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002.

The council proposes the revocation of the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 (except clauses 13.1 and 13.5), the North Shore City Council Environmental Protection - Nuisances Arising on Private Land 2000 and the Waitakere City Council Control of Intruder Alarms Systems Bylaw 2010 and the making of a new Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015.

2 Relevant Legislation

The council is able to make a bylaw under section 145 of the Local Government Act 2002 to:

· protect the public from nuisance

· protect, promote and maintain public health and safety

· minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

The council is also able to make a bylaw under section 22 of the Health Act 1956 for the protection of public health.

Section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, a determination as to whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. Section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 states that, if it is determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, it must be determined, before making the bylaw, whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw. Section 155(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that no bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, notwithstanding section 5 of that Act.

A bylaw cannot be inconsistent with existing statutory provisions. However, provided it remains within the scope of the statutory power authorising the council to make a bylaw, it can bring together in one document a range of powers, duties, and prohibitions that are otherwise scattered throughout various statutes.

A bylaw can provide citizens with easy access to a comprehensive account of their duties and the council with a cost effective enforcement mechanism to deal with the large number of complaints it receives as a result of a nuisance on private land.

3 Reasons for and purpose of proposal

The primary reasons for this proposal are to:

· protect the public from nuisance or avoid risks to public health and safety that may arise on private properties through activities and behaviour of the occupants of the properties, including through the storage of material, a lack of maintenance of the property or accumulation of animal excrement caused by the feeding of wild or feral animals

· protect, promote and maintain public health and safety through the registration and prescription of maintenance requirements for industrial water cooling tower systems

· ensure continuity of measures to deal with nuisance caused by light spillage in the legacy Auckland Council area pending regulation of the issue by the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

· Ensure Auckland Council delivers a consistent service to the residents across Auckland that addresses concerns of Aucklanders to their satisfaction.

3.1 Purpose

Nuisance arising from private property

The first purpose of the proposed new bylaw is to avoid or mitigate the effect of nuisance arising from private property. The proposed measures will mitigate the effects of any action, activity or inaction by a landowner or property owner, or person occupying any land or property that may cause a nuisance for any other person, including the public generally, and neighbouring property owners and occupiers, or pose a risk to public safety. It also assigns to enforcement officers the powers to require a landowner, or person occupying any land to abate any nuisance or remove any material or thing this is deemed to be the cause of a nuisance.

The comfortable use of public and private space is influenced by other people’s activities. This is particularly the case in the urban environment where the population density is higher than in rural areas and where activities on any premises are more likely to adversely affect occupants of neighbouring premises and cause nuisance because of their close proximity.

The Health Act 1956 contains a definition of “nuisance”. However, this definition is now over fifty years old and parts of it are now outdated and not appropriate in the 21^st century context. The bylaw therefore provides a stand-alone definition of nuisance adopted from the definition in the Health Act 1956, to be used for the purposes specific to the provisions of this bylaw.

Only Auckland City Council and North Shore City Council made environmental protection bylaws. The other legacy councils relied on an ad hoc manner using a combination of the Local Government Act, Litter Act, Building Act, and/or the Health Act. Specific issues that arise are also addressed by single –issue bylaws such as the Control of Intruder Alarms Bylaw in the former Waitakere City and specific pest management requirements in the Manukau City Animals and Pest Bylaw.

This has resulted in a fragmented enforcement regime in Auckland with different rules and requirements for different parts of the region and the council not providing the same level of service to all of its customers. The proposed new bylaw addresses a number of the issues contained in those legacy council environmental protection bylaws.

Responding to legionellae in industrial cooling towers

Secondly, the council has identified that the current measures do not adequately enable it to respond to risks to public safety posed by an outbreak of legionella’s disease in industrial water cooling tower systems. The proposed new bylaw provides for the establishment of a registration process of industrial water cooling tower systems and maintenance requirements to enable the council to respond timely in the event of further outbreaks of legionella’s disease. Similar measures are already required for commercial cooling towers through building warrants of fitness under the Building Ac 2004.

Ensuring regulatory continuity on spill lighting in the legacy Auckland City area

Lastly, this statement of proposal proposes to confirm clauses 13.1 and 13.5 of the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 regulating light spillage to ensure regulatory continuity pending the proposed Auckland Council Unitary Plan having legal effect.

3.2 Benefits

A new bylaw would clarify existing bylaw provisions but remain within the scope of the statutory powers of the Local Government Act 2002 that authorises the council to make a bylaw. In adopting this approach a bylaw would provide a consistent Auckland-wide approach in a single regulatory measure that outlines the rules and provides the council with a useful and dependable compliance tool.

The advice from enforcement officers is that having such a bylaw will assist the council in addressing the private property nuisance related issues faced by Aucklanders in a consistent manner as well as making a meaningful contribution toward making Auckland the world’s most liveable city. In areas where the legacy bylaws apply the council is able to respond effectively to complaints, while contrastingly, in other areas the response is inconsistent and occasionally ineffective. An additional benefit of making a bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002 are the updated enforcement measures that are available to the council compared to the outdated enforcement measures provided by the Health Act.

Requiring registration of industrial water cooling tower systems and prescribing treatment requirements ensures the council is able to respond in time and appropriately in the event of any outbreak of legionella’s disease. The proposed measures are similar to legislative requirements for commercial cooling towers. The proposed measure will ensure consistency in the management of water cooling towers and will reduce the possibility of fatalities, promote public health and ensure the efficient use of resources during an outbreak.

Retaining the clauses of the legacy Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 maintains the current standards for light spillage in the legacy Auckland City area until a single regulatory system under the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has legal effect. Light spillage in other areas of Auckland is regulated through district plan measures that remain in effect until replaced by the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Retaining the bylaw provisions is a transitional measure to prevent nuisance associated with light spillage in the legacy Auckland City area following the revocation of the legacy bylaws and before the Auckland Unitary Plan has legal effect.

4 Definition of issues

During 2013, the council received over 1,500 complaints in the legacy Auckland City area (where a legacy bylaw applies) relating to a nuisance on private land or property. Data collected shows that the most frequently issues raised were:

· overgrown sections harbouring pests or vermin

· refuse / vehicles on private property harbouring rodents and other vermin / omitting offensive odours

· derelict / abandoned buildings harbouring rodents and other vermin

· illegal dumping of refuse on private and public land

· bird droppings from neighbouring property

· bees from neighbours causing a nuisance

· cats smell and faeces on private land

· chicken coup causing smell and effluents discharge on neighbouring property

· lighting spill and glare

· flies originating from neighbouring property due to compost or animal manure.

4.1 Stored material, debris and refuse

Stored material, debris and refuse can not only produce foul smells and odours that are considered a nuisance but may also create the conditions that attract or harbour pests and vermin. A guide produced by the Department of Conservation^{^[2]} states that: “Litter is unpleasant and encourages rats and mice, wasps and disease.” The issue of pest and vermin encroaching on private and commercial premises as a result of either abandonment or a lack of property maintenance has a direct impact on the quality of people’s life, affecting their health, well-being and potentially their livelihood.

Pest animals on private property are normally the responsibility of the land / property owner, and the onus is on them to arrange for their removal. In some situations where the property owner has not done this, the council, or an agency like the Ministry for Primary Industries, can investigate the cause of the problem or provide further advice but do not always actively remove the pest.

In 2012, the legacy Auckland City area received 525 complaints about accumulated refuse on private property either omitting a smell or odour, or harbouring vermin. In the same period, the legacy North Shore City Council received 130 similar complaints. The legacy bylaw provisions enabled the council to address these complaints.

4.2 Overgrown sections

Overgrown sections can harbour pests and vermin such as rats and mice that are carriers of serious disease and parasites like fleas and ticks. Advice published by the Ministry of Health^{^[3]} suggests that “rodents like rats and mice are a nuisance – and they can even be a source of disease.” That advice suggests ways to control these pests. These include:

· “Store refuse in secure metal or thick plastic containers with lids

· Do not leave plastic refuse bags outside overnight, if possible

· Keep the inside and outside of your home clear of food scraps and refuse.”

The results of a People’s Panel survey carried out by the council in February 2015 showed that of the 4,184 respondents, 1,401 (33 per cent) were concerned over a significantly overgrown section in their local area in the past year. The number of complaints to the council about overgrown sections is second only to complaints about signage. In 2012, the council received 1768 complaints about overgrown sections in the legacy Auckland City area. Similarly, in 2013 the council received 260 similar complaints in the legacy North Shore area.

However, it should be noted that the council cannot regulate issues of visual amenity through a bylaw. The Local Government Act 2002 enables the council to adopt a bylaw to protect the public from nuisance or protect public health and safety. An unsightly and unkempt property does not meet the criteria and it is not the purpose of this proposed bylaw to address such visual amenity issues.

Although the Local Government Act 2002 allows the council to intervene in situations where overgrown vegetation on a property poses a fire hazard, no consistent measure exists that regulates overgrown sections that do not pose a fire hazard (for example during winter), but that may harbour or promote pests or vermin.

4.3 Feeding wild birds / fowl / feral animals

Certain wild bird and fowl species have been associated with different transmissible bird diseases including pigeons, geese, starling, and house sparrows. Abandoned or wandering poultry and peafowl that have escaped from private properties can also cause noise nuisance issues.

The feeding of wild birds such as pigeons often encourages their presence and, over time, the accumulation of excrement. Bird excrement may carry diseases and the accumulation of excrement may cause risks to human health. It is estimated there are over sixty diseases other than avian flu that birds and their droppings can carry. According to Medical News Today: “The problem is especially worrisome in residential areas, as many of them are airborne and can be transferred to humans just by being around droppings.”^{^[4]}

In 2013, the council received 26 complaints relating to wild birds / fowl / feral animals in the legacy Auckland City area. These included complaints about the noise, smell, and excrement. In the same period the legacy North Shore, Rodney, and Waitakere areas reported a combined average of seven complaints a month with 90 per cent (86) of the complaints relating to excrement / mess and the other ten complaints relating to noise caused by animals.

4.4 Derelict unoccupied or abandoned buildings

If not properly secured, derelict unoccupied or abandoned buildings can become a focal point for anti-social behaviour resulting in a nuisance and pose a safety hazard to children.

Following a number of incidents with derelict unoccupied or abandoned buildings, Auckland fire safety officers requested transients are kept out of these buildings. In one incident a fire safety officer found the building in question had been torched at least three times in the last few years and was considered a magnet for street kids and homeless people who use such buildings for shelter, which in turn creates a problem for the fire brigade. A similar issue was raised in January 2015 when an unsecured abandoned property in the south of Auckland became a dumping ground for refuse, and for youths to wander in and out of at night, often drinking alcohol.

Data from the legacy Auckland City area shows that over the past four years there have been 115 nuisance related complaints as a result of derelict or abandoned buildings that have attracted anti-social behaviour. Data from the legacy North Shore City Council area shows that in the six months July – December 2014 an average of five complaints a month were received.

In the legacy Franklin and Papakura areas there were seven reported complaints in 2014. Of those seven properties, one was demolished as the result of a court order; one was under the supervision of the council after it was burnt out, two properties were sold and re-developed and there are on-going issues at the other three properties, all of which are now occupied.

In 2014, in the legacy Manukau area the council was asked to respond to seven complaints about abandoned / unoccupied derelict buildings. Of those seven, two appeared to be occupied, three were not secured and were strewn with litter, and two had been gutted by fire. At present the council in the legacy Manukau City Council area has no regulatory mechanism to deal with such complaints.

The results of the council’s February 2015 Peoples Panel survey showed that of 4,184 respondents, 558 (13 per cent) had noted an abandoned or unoccupied derelict building in their local area in the past year.

Without an effective regulatory tool, such as a bylaw, the council has to rely on a multi-faceted approach in dealing with abandoned or unoccupied derelict houses. However, the council’s efforts are often unsuccessful, compelling the council to commence enforcement through costly and time-consuming legal proceedings under whatever applicable legislation is available to redress the specific circumstances.

4.5 Industrial water cooling tower systems

Legionella bacteria can be found in both water and soil in the New Zealand environment and can breed in built environments, such as cooling towers and mechanical ventilation systems. To prevent the growth of the bacteria, water cooling towers and mechanical ventilation systems must be designed appropriately, and treated and tested regularly.

Most commercial buildings make use of mechanical ventilation systems to regulate the internal temperature. In addition, some businesses have industrial water cooling tower system which uses water during the manufacturing process to cool a product, such as glass. If not regularly tested and dosed industrial water cooling tower systems and mechanical ventilation systems can spread legionnaire’s disease.

Following the legionella outbreak in 2012 the council were unable to identify buildings with industrial water cooling tower systems. That outbreak resulted in 17 confirmed cases of the disease. It also contributed to the deaths of two people with other underlying health problems and showed the urgent need for a register of industrial water cooling tower systems in Auckland.

None of the legacy councils had specific bylaw provisions that required industrial water cooling tower systems within their former territorial boundaries to be registered or tested for legionella.

The Building Act 2004 requires that all buildings that contain a mechanical ventilation system, such as air conditioning units, have a compliance schedule. A compliance schedule requires specific inspection, maintenance and reporting procedures for a variety of systems including mechanical ventilation systems, and can incorporate air-conditioning cooling towers. The New Zealand Building Code Handbook contains a model compliance schedule for mechanical ventilation systems. This requires monthly testing for the presence of legionella bacteria. Legionella tests with results greater than or equal to 1000 cfu/ml should be notified within 48 hours to the local medical officer of health at the public health service of the district health board.

Building owners are responsible for ensuring their buildings are properly maintained, and comply with the compliance schedule. This requirement is fulfilled by way of a building warrant of fitness, which is a statement supplied by the building owner to the territorial authority confirming that specified systems listed on the compliance schedule have been inspected, maintained and reported on in accordance with the compliance schedule.

In providing the building warrant of fitness, the building owner will be confirming that the mechanical ventilation systems (if present) have been inspected, maintained and reported on in accordance with the compliance schedule. The council can issue a notice to fix if the requirements of the building warrant of fitness are not met. The building owner could be fined up to $200,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding $20,000 for each day or part day during which the offence is continued.

These provisions which regulate the mechanical ventilation systems are not extended to water cooling systems

4.6 Lighting spill and glare

Artificial lighting is essential for providing safety, amenity, and security, as well as enabling work and recreational activities to take place after sunset. However, the use of artificial lighting, particularly in residential areas, can have a significant adverse effect if the spill from that lighting impacts on adjoining properties. This type of artificial lighting can be in the form of floodlights for a sports pitch, motion activated security lighting on a private property, or advertising signage.

Artificial lighting can cause a nuisance and adversely affect people in adjoining properties through light spill and glare. Similarly, unless properly controlled the screening or aiming of light can result in light pollution, causing adverse changes to the view of the night sky.

Whilst the volumes of complaints to the council are comparatively low when compared to overgrown sections, the nuisance effects are none the less serious and impact on people’s quality of life, particularly as these types of nuisance complaints more often than not happen in the evening when people, particularly children, are at home. Artificial lighting can be the source of distraction and unwanted illumination that may, in certain circumstances, disrupt a person’s sleeping pattern.

The legacy Auckland City Council has artificial lighting requirements in its Central Isthmus Section district plan, as did all of the other legacy councils in their respective district plan. However, it was the only legacy Auckland City Council that had similar requirements in its Environmental Protection Bylaw to cover lighting issues in all residential zones.

Whilst the legacy council’s district plan requirements are proposed to be included in the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, revoking the artificial lighting requirements from the legacy Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw will leave a regulatory gap in residential areas in the Auckland City area until such time as the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has legal effect.

5 Outcomes sought

The outcomes sought by the council from this proposal are as follows:

· reduce the risk to the health of the population of Auckland and avoid nuisance to persons on neighbouring properties and public places from activities and behaviours on private property

· provide supplementary preventative measures to ensure the safe management of industrial water cooling tower systems to reduce the risk to the health of the population of Auckland from legionnaire’s disease

· temporarily retain transitional measures in the legacy Auckland City area pending regulation of light spillage through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Figure 1 sets out the relationship of the council’s bylaws with the Mayor’s vision, the Auckland Plan, legislation and the council’s strategies, policies and other plans.

Figure 1: Purpose of bylaw (strategic framework)

Any regulatory measures that are proposed must meet the following criteria:

· measures must be in accordance with legislative requirements

· measures must address the issues faced in our communities and contribute to making Auckland the world’s most liveable city

· measures must deliver a balance between personal freedom of expression and the wider social impacts and outcomes of an individual’s lifestyle choices

· the approach taken by the council recognises, and is consistent with, its available resources and organisational priorities

· the requirements of any proposed measures must be clear and able to be followed, noting that it may affect large swathes of the wider Auckland community

· a consistent level of service must be provided across Auckland that enables the council to satisfactorily deal with its customers’ complaints.

6 Addressing the perceived issues

The council has considered the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived issues of nuisances on private land, managing the risks relating to an outbreak of legionella’s disease and providing transitional measures to manage spill lighting in the legacy Auckland City area and considered the problems, the outcomes sought and the appropriate mechanisms to help deliver those outcomes.

The analysis has been undertaken with regard to the following assessment criteria:

· the purpose of a bylaw is to supplement (and not duplicate) the obligations of people under national legislation

· a bylaw is only one part of the overall approach to address a perceived problem and to ensure strategic alignment between the council’s and other agencies’ objectives of achieving wider community outcomes

· a bylaw to address a perceived problem needs to be considered in the context of finite resources within the council and other agencies to administer and enforce it

· a clear, practical and efficient approach to enforcement.

The council has identified options that are analysed below:

· rely on non - regulatory approach

· regulation in a specific Auckland-wide bylaw

· rely on national legislation

· rely on an alternate existing bylaw / the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

· retain the legacy council bylaw provisions

(a) Advocating for national legislative change has not been included as a stand-alone option as the council cannot control whether national legislation is passed or not.

The council’s analysis of the possible approach is informed by the processes inherited from the legacy councils and how well these operated. Where regulatory approaches have been effective in the past it gives weight to ensure the measures are retained. Similarly, the effectiveness of the non-regulatory approach provides evidence for assessing whether these approaches should be retained and extended across Auckland.

Following this analysis, staff have identified a preferred option on each of these issues and has drafted the proposed bylaw based on this.

6.1 Nuisance and risks to public health caused by activities on private properties

As stated above, nuisance and a risk to public health may be created on a private property by:

· stored material, debris and refuse may create a nuisance

· overgrown sections that may harbour pests or vermin

· feeding wild birds / fowl / feral animals

The analysis of the available options for the above mentioned issues are contained in table 1 to avoid repetition and ensure clarity.

Table 1 Nuisance and risks to public health caused by activities on private properties

Options

Advantages / Disadvantages

Option A:

Allow the legacy bylaws to lapse and rely on alternative non - regulatory approach

Advantages:

· It provides a clear directive to everybody of the expectations of the community.

· It provides a benchmark to assess against when deciding what is acceptable, and what is not.

· This option does not require direct compliance or enforcement from the council and therefore does not have an associated enforcement cost.

· It also allows for flexibility so Aucklanders can determine the level of acceptance.

Disadvantages:

· Educational strategies and awareness initiatives have no statutory authority and therefore cannot be used to ensure compliance.

· This option relies on an informed and organised community to adhere to set standards, which does not exist in many cases.

· This would also require communities to agree to set standards.

· This option does not allow council to utilise its statutory powers and does not provide the ability to take action if an issue arises.

· Legacy councils that did not provide bylaw measures were unable to consistently deal with complaints.

(b)

Option B:

Regulation in a specific Auckland-wide bylaw.

Recommended option

Advantages:

· In the legacy areas where environmental protection bylaws were adopted, it provided an effective way to mitigate nuisance related issues or risks to public safety.

· Provisions in a new bylaw would clarify statutory provisions that may be a risk to public safety or that may cause a nuisance while remaining within the scope of the enabling statutory powers.

· aA bylaw allows the council to require compliance with consistent standards across Auckland

· A bylaw allows the council to meet its regulatory objectives

· A bylaw promotes public safety and avoids the creation of nuisance, and

· A bylaw provides clear standards that allow for consistency and equity.

(c)

Disadvantages:

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime to support its effectiveness.

· There is an associated cost that falls on the council as a result.

· A bylaw may also provide a level of regulation that is considered by some sectors of the community to be prescriptive, invasive or restrictive.

· Enforcement of the bylaw must be restricted to issues of nuisance and risks to public safety to avoid the risks of being ultra vires.

(d)

Option C:

Do nothing – let the legacy bylaws lapse and rely on national legislation

Advantages:

· This option avoids the cost of making a bylaw

· Not making a bylaw and relying on existing legislation such as the Health Act 1956, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Litter Act 1979 ensures consistency with national legislation

· This option reduces the regulatory burden on the council as it reduces the scope of the council’s responsibility.

(e)

Disadvantages:

· The restrictive definition of nuisance used in the Health Act 1956 prevents the council from responding to all the complaints.

· The costs of instituting prosecution for breaches of the Health Act 1956 are not justified by the available penalties.

· Legacy councils that did not provide bylaw measures were unable to consistently deal with complaints.

· The scope of the council’s ability to respond to complaints is limited

Option D:

Rely on an alternate bylaw / the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Advantages:

· This option avoids the cost of making an additional bylaw

(f)

Disadvantages:

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime to support its effectiveness.

· There is an associated cost that falls on the council as a result.

· The proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has no equivalent provisions to deal with this issue. In addition, the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan cannot address the nuisance and public safety issues.

· The Regional Pest Management Strategy does not provide for the “nuisance” effects of urban pests or vermin on people or their land.

· Not all stored material qualifies as “waste” under the Solid Waste Bylaw 2012. Consequently stored material that is not waste can still cause a nuisance or be a risk to public health.

· This option relies on fragmented and inconsistent enforcement measures in a different regulatory documents that do not address the problems consistently

· Legacy councils that did not provide bylaw measures were unable to consistently deal with complaints.

· Little deterrent for worse case offenders.

(g)

Option E: Retain the legacy council bylaw provisions

Advantages:

· This option allows for the continuation of enforcement of existing rules in areas where these apply and rely on legislation in other areas.

· It does not add any regulatory burden to the council.

· It meets customer expectation in terms of level of service in some parts of Auckland.

(h)

Disadvantages:

· It results in an inconsistent level of service across Auckland Council.

· The council is unable to respond consistently to complaints across Auckland.

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime to support its effectiveness.

· There is an associated cost that falls on the council as a result.

· This option relies on fragmented and inconsistent enforcement measures in a different regulatory document that do not address the problems consistently.

· Legacy councils that did not provide bylaw measures were unable to consistently deal with complaints.

(i)

Option B is recommended.

6.2 Derelict vacant and abandoned buildings may attract / harbour a nuisance

Derelict unoccupied or abandoned buildings may be dangerous, may provide locations for criminal or anti-social behavior and may pose a safety hazard to children if not properly secured. They may also harbour or provide a breeding ground for pests and vermin.

The analysis of the available options for the abovementioned issues are contained in table 2 to avoid repetition and ensure clarity.

Table 2 Nuisance and risks to public health caused by derelict vacant and abandoned buildings

Options

Advantages / Disadvantages

Option A:

Allow the legacy bylaws to lapse and rely on alternative non - regulatory approach

Advantages:

· it provides a clear directive to the community using educational strategies and awareness initiatives

· It encourages self-regulation

· it also sets expectations relating to maintenance of private property

· it does not require direct compliance or enforcement from council and

· It is flexible.

Disadvantages:

· Educational strategies and awareness initiatives have no statutory authority

· It requires community agreement on standards of behaviour

· It does not enable enforcement against persistent offending.

(j)

Option B:

Regulation in a specific Auckland-wide bylaw.

Recommended option

Advantages:

The advantages of this option are similar to that already referred to above relating to activities occurring on private property. In summary, the advantages are:

· It provides minimum standards designed to ensure property maintenance.

· it promotes public safety and prevents nuisance

· It provides a consistent approach.

(k)

Disadvantages:

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime

· There are associated costs for the council.

· Regulation may seem invasive or restrictive to parts of the community.

· Enforcement of the bylaw must be restricted to issues of nuisance and risks to public safety to avoid the risks of being ultra vires.

(l)

Option C:

Do nothing – let the legacy bylaws lapse and rely on national legislation

Advantages:

· This option avoids the cost of making a bylaw

· This option reduces the regulatory burden on the council as it reduces the scope of the council’s responsibility.

(m)

Disadvantages:

· Neither the Building Act 2004 nor the Building Code sufficiently provide for this issue.

· The council is unable to pro-actively respond to complaints about derelict or abandoned buildings that cause nuisance.

Option B is recommended.

There are no equivalent provisions in any legacy bylaw, any other Auckland Council bylaw or the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that address this issue in a consistent manner across Auckland.

Option B is recommended.

6.3 Registration and testing of industrial water cooling tower systems

Territorial authorities are required to follow the regulations established under the Building Act 2004 to ensure buildings are safe and healthy. They administer and enforce the building warrant of fitness regime under the Building Act 2004. Compliance schedules made under section 22 of the Building Act 2004 specify inspection, maintenance and reporting procedures for mechanical ventilation and air conditioning systems, to ensure compliance with the New Zealand Building Code.

Upon compliance with the New Zealand Building Code, the council issues a ‘compliance schedule’ to the owner of a building itemising all specified systems in the building as found in the Building (Specified Systems, Change of Use: Earthquake Prone Buildings) Regulations 2005. Mechanical ventilation and air conditioning systems are included in these regulations. The compliance schedule sets out the inspection, testing and maintenance requirements for the specified systems. The building owner must maintain those systems in accordance with the compliance schedule, issuing each year a building warrant of fitness to the council confirming that this has been done.

However there is no requirement to record this information as a minimum in the form of an electronic database. Whilst there are plans to have this rectified at a national level until such time as this happens, a bylaw is the only means of regulating this issue at the local level.

The analysis of the available options for the abovementioned issues are contained in table 3 to avoid repetition and ensure clarity.

Table 3 Registration and testing of industrial water cooling tower systems

Options

Advantages /Disadvantages

Option A:

Allow the legacy bylaws to lapse and rely on alternative non - regulatory approach

Advantages:

· It provides a clear directive to owners of buildings with an industrial water system as to the expectations relating to the registration and maintenance of that system.

· This option does not require direct compliance or enforcement from the council and therefore does not have an associated operational cost.

· Places the onus on owners of buildings with an industrial water tower to self-regulate and become accountable for their actions.

· This option is also useful when it is used in conjunction with a regulatory tool to achieve maximum outcomes.

Disadvantages:

· Educational strategies and awareness initiatives have no statutory authority

· It does not enable enforcement against persistent offending.

Option B:

Regulation in a specific Auckland-wide bylaw.

Recommended option

Advantages:

· A bylaw is the only feasible way of ensuring all industrial water cooling tower systems are registered with the council and monitored to prevent another outbreak of legionnaire’s disease.

(n)

Disadvantages:

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime

· There are associated costs for the council.

(o)

Option C:

Do nothing –rely on national legislation

Advantages:

· This option avoids the cost of making a bylaw

Disadvantages:

· Neither the Building Act 2004 nor the Building Code sufficiently provide for this issue.

· The council is unable to pro-actively respond to complaints about derelict or abandoned buildings that cause nuisance.

(p)

Option B is recommended.

6.4 Lighting spill and glare can create a nuisance

Glare and / or light spill from artificial lighting can cause a nuisance and adversely affect the occupants of neighbouring properties. With the exception of the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 measures are provided throughout Auckland in the legacy district plans that apply until they are replaced by the Auckland Unitary Plan Part 3,

Chapter H, 6 General, 6.1 Lighting of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan will adequately address lighting matters. Those proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provisions are largely based upon the existing requirements in the legacy Auckland City Council Environmental Protection bylaw which aim to avoid nuisance arising from lighting.

The proposed Auckland Unitary Plan will address artificial lighting spill issues. It has proposed provisions that are largely based upon the existing requirements in the legacy Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw which aim to avoid nuisance arising from lighting. When the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has legal effect it will provide a regionally consistent set of rules for artificial lighting and light spill.

With the imminent lapsing of the legacy bylaws on 31 October 2015, regulation of spill lighting in the Auckland City area will cease to exist unless temporary measures are put in place until the Auckland Unitary Plan has legal effect.

The analysis of the available options for the abovementioned issues are contained in table 4 to avoid repetition and ensure clarity.

Table 4 Lighting spill and glare can create a nuisance

Options

Advantages/ Disadvantages

Option A:

Allow the legacy bylaws to lapse and rely on alternative non - regulatory pending regulation through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Advantages:

The advantages of this option are similar to that already referred to above relating to activities occurring on private property. In summary, the advantages are:

· it provides a clear directive to the community using educational strategies and awareness initiatives

· It encourages self-regulation

· it also sets expectations relating to how artificial lighting is used

· it does not require direct compliance or enforcement from council and

· It is flexible.

(q)

Disadvantages:

· Educational strategies and awareness initiatives have no statutory authority

· It does not enable enforcement against persistent offending.

Option B:

Retain the legacy council bylaw provisions pending regulation through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Recommended option

Advantages:

The advantages of this option are similar to that already referred to above relating to activities occurring on private property. In summary, the advantages are:

· It provides minimum standards designed to ensure that nuisance caused by spill lighting is avoided

· it promotes public safety and prevents nuisance

· It provides a consistent approach.

Disadvantages:

· It requires an active enforcement and compliance regime

· There are associated costs for the council.

· Regulation may seem invasive or restrictive to parts of the community.

Option B is recommended as it provides a temporary measure that retains the definitions in clause 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6 of the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw until the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provisions have legal effect.

7 Discussion of the proposed bylaw provisions

The following section gives an outline of the bylaw provisions. These address the issues and problems identified above.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

This part of the bylaw sets out the purpose of the bylaw and what it is this bylaw is striving to achieve and regulate. It also provides definitions for terms used in the bylaw. In particular, the definitions of “material or thing” and of “nuisance” are comprehensive and inclusive to ensure problems are specifically identified and controlled. Including a comprehensive list of “materials or things” and of “nuisances’ in the bylaw as examples assists with the ease of enforcement of the bylaw while making sure that the issues are dealt with in scope of the enabling legislation.

Part 2 Control measures

Clause 6 of the bylaw sets out the minimum requirements applying to the maintenance of private properties and the requirements of the occupier of any private property. It addresses the issues identified by the council as causing the most number of complaints from residents about the lack of maintenance of neighbouring properties.

This clause prevents the accumulation of material in a manner that may cause nuisance, or allowing any private property to become so overgrown that it may cause nuisance, or feeding any wild or feral animals so that it creates nuisance.

It also requires the owner of any building that is abandoned or that is wholly or partly unoccupied, whether permanently or temporarily, to ensure that the building or the unoccupied part thereof is secured so as not to allow public access. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that vacant premises do not become available for misuse.

Clause 7 of the bylaw sets out requirements for the owner of any building with an industrial cooling water system. The owner of any building with an industrial cooling tower has to meet the standards set in Schedules 1 to 4 of the bylaw.

Part 3 Enforcement Powers

This part of the bylaw outlines the legislative powers under which this bylaw will be enforced, who will be deemed responsible for private property not adhering to the requirements of this bylaw and the available options in enforcing this bylaw. Enforcement of this bylaw will be the responsibility of the council.

It also provides for transitional measures by retaining the definitions in clause 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6 of Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2007 with reference to Schedule 5 until the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has legal effect.

Schedules to the bylaw

The bylaw contains four schedules that prescribe the measures to be taken by owners of buildings with industrial cooling water systems with and without auto chemical dosing. The various tables in the schedules 1 to 4 set out measures and procedures.

Schedule 5 contains the retaining the definitions in clauses 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6 of the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 that are confirmed and that will remain in force as a transitional measure in the Auckland City area.

8 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

The proposed bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The proposed controls are considered reasonable, as allowed for in section 5 of the Act:

“…the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

The council has concluded that the proposed draft bylaw is not inconsistent with section 18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 that guarantees freedom of movement and residence or section 21 that guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, or any other provision of that Act.

9 Determinations under section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002

The analysis in this statement of proposal has considered the approaches used in the past by Auckland Council as well as that taken by other councils throughout the country, covering both the regulatory approaches in their bylaws and the non-regulatory approaches used for particular issues. Following the analysis, Auckland Council considers that:

· a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the problems relating to nuisances that arise on private land and the management of the risks associated with an outbreak of legionella’s disease in industrial water cooling towers, as identified in this proposal

· confirmation of the legacy provisions in the legacy Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 to provide a transitional measure to control light spillage in the legacy Auckland City area is the most appropriate measure available to the council

· The bylaw contained in Attachment A does not give rise to, and is not inconsistent with, the Bill of Rights Act 1990 as the controls are reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances as allowed for in section 5 of the Act.

· the bylaw contained in Attachment A is the most appropriate form of Auckland Council bylaw and is provided for public submission

10 Compliance and enforcement

Compliance and enforcement for nuisance and public safety complaints are undertaken by the council’s Licencing and Compliance Services staff. Enforcement is undertaken as the result of service requests or complaints received and investigated by the council.

Council staff will typically investigate any complaint, and where appropriate, identify the best course of action to remedy the situation. In the first instance compliance staff will talk to the non-complying person seeking that they voluntarily comply with the bylaw or rectify the situation within a specified timeframe. If sufficient progress is not made then staff will re-assess the situation and begin proceedings. If persons who fail to comply with any council notice that is issued council staff may take legal action. Persons in breach of the bylaw can be convicted for breaching the bylaw and are liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $20,000.

Staff can also undertake a number of other courses of action including works to prevent the breach from occurring, the seizure and impounding of any property involved in the breach or rectifying the breach and recovering the costs from the owner of the property.

11 Revocation of legacy bylaws

The council proposes to revoke the following legacy council bylaws:

· Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2007 – except for the definitions in clause 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6

· North Shore City Bylaw 2000 – Part 7 – Environmental Protection - Nuisances Arising On Private Land

· Waitakere City Council – Control of Intruder Alarm Systems Bylaw 2010.

The council considers it appropriate to revoke either in full, or in part, these bylaws for the following reasons:

· they represent a variety of approaches across Auckland, and this variation is no longer appropriate or necessary

· the bylaws would require substantial amendment to bring them into alignment, and it is more convenient to all users to have a single bylaw in place.

12 Conclusion

The Auckland Council has determined a bylaw to be the most appropriate mechanism to ensuring the maintenance of private property to avoid nuisance and ensure public safety as well as ensuring that industrial water cooling systems are maintained to acceptable standards to ensure public safety. The council has determine that clauses in the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 regulating spill lighting in the Auckland City are to be confirmed as a temporary measure pending the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan having legal effect. The proposed draft is the most appropriate form of bylaw and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Appendix A: Proposed Bylaw

AC new logo_horz_cmyk

Property Maintenance and Nuisance

Bylaw 2015

Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakaporearea 2015

Governing Body of Auckland Council

made by resolution on

DD October 2015

The Governing Body of Auckland Council makes the following bylaw pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 and the Health Act 1956.

Acknowledgement

(r) Auckland Council acknowledges New Zealand Standards for allowing reference to Standards published by Standards New Zealand under Licence 001109, in particular, provisions of Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) 3666: the dip-slide tests for industrial cooling water systems with auto chemical dosing and industrial cooling water systems without automatic chemical dosing.

Contents

1 Title. 26

2 Commencement 26

3 Application. 26

Part 1. 26

4 Purpose. 26

5 Interpretation. 26

Part 2. 28

6 Property maintenance. 28

7 Registration, maintenance and testing of industrial cooling water systems. 29

Part 3. 29

8 Enforcement of this bylaw.. 29

9 Removal of material or things. 29

10 Removal of construction. 29

11 Bylaw breaches. 30

Part 4. 30

12 Savings. 30

13 Revocation. 30

Schedule 1. 31

Schedule 2. 33

Schedule 3. 34

Schedule 4. 35

Schedule 5. 36

Additional Information to Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015. 38

1 Title

This bylaw is the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015.

2 Commencement

This bylaw comes into force on 1 November 2015.

3 Application

This bylaw applies to Auckland.

Part 1

Preliminary provisions

4 Purpose

The purpose of this bylaw is to:

(a) require private property to be maintained in such a manner that it does not create a nuisance;

(b) prevent the feeding of wild birds, fowl, or feral animals in such a manner that it does not create a nuisance;

(c) protect, promote and maintain public health and safety by requiring all industrial cooling water systems in the Auckland to be registered with the council and regularly tested and where appropriate maintained to mitigate against the risk of exposure to Legionella bacteria often linked to outbreaks of Legionnaire’s disease.

5 Interpretation

(1) In this bylaw, unless the context otherwise required:

abandoned means empty, deserted, derelict, or uninhabited

animal means any member of the animal kingdom, including any mammal, bird, finfish, shellfish, reptile, amphibian, insect or invertebrate, and includes their young or eggs and the carcass or its constituent parts, but does not include humans or dogs.

biocide means a physical or chemical agent capable of killing micro-organisms, including Legionella

building means a temporary or permanent moveable or immovable structure including a structure intended for occupation by people, animals, machinery or chattels

cfu means colony-forming unit (10³ cfu/L equals 1 cfu/mL)

council means the Governing Body of the Auckland Council or any person delegated to act on its behalf

diverted material has the meaning given in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008

industrial cooling water system means cooling towers associated with industrial processes (including scrubbing towers) that are not part of a building as defined in the Building Act 2004 which are therefore not required to be inspected, maintained or recorded in accordance with a compliance schedule made under the Building Act 2004.

litter has the meaning given in the Litter Act 1979.

material or thing means, but is not limited to:

(a) building material or equipment associated with building activities

(b) diverted material

(d) litter

(e) manure

(f) metal

(g) paper

(h) plastics

(i) timber

(j) tyres

(k) vehicles

(l) waste.

nuisance means, a person, animal, thing, or circumstance causing unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, or convenience of another person. This includes but is not limited to:

(a) where any accumulation or deposit of material or thing is in such a state or is so situated as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health;

(b) where there exists on any land or premises any condition giving rise or likely to give rise to the breeding of pests or vermin or is suitable for the breeding of pests or vermin, which are capable of causing or transmitting disease;

(c) where there exists on any land or premises any condition or activity that creates or is likely to create an odour that is objectionable or offensive at or beyond the boundary of the land;

(d) where any premises, including any accumulation or deposit of any material or thing thereon, are in such a state as to harbour or to be likely to harbour pests or vermin;

(e) where any premises are so situated, or are in such a state, as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health;

(f) where any buildings or premises used for the keeping of animals are so constructed, situated, used, or kept, or are in such a condition, as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health;

(g) where any animal, or any carcass or part of a carcass, is so kept or allowed to remain as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health;

(h) where any street, road, right of way, passage, yard, premises, or land is in such a state as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health.

occupier means the inhabitant occupier of that property or premises.

owner means the person entitled to receive the rack rent of the property or premises, or who would be so entitled if the property or premises were let to a tenant at a rack rent.

pests or vermin means animals that may attack or infest or are parasitic on living beings and plants, and includes, but is not limited to:

(a) ants

(b) cockroaches

(d) flies

(e) mice

(f) mosquitoes

(g) mites

(h) pigeons

(i) possums

(j) rats

(k) stoats

(l) ticks

(m) wasps

property means any parcel of land and/or building capable of being transferred, sold, rented, leased, or otherwise disposed of separately from any other parcel of land and/or building(s).

vehicle has the same meaning given by the Land Transport Act 1998.

waste has the meaning given in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

(2) Any explanatory notes and attachments are for information purposes, do not form part of this bylaw, and may be made, amended and revoked without any formality.

(3) The Interpretation Act 1999 applies to this bylaw.

(4) To avoid doubt, compliance with this bylaw does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts, regulations, bylaws, and rules of law.

(5) Unless the context requires another meaning, a term or expression that is defined in the Local Government Act 2002 or the Health Act 1956 and used in this bylaw, but not defined, has the meaning given by that Act.

Part 2

Control measures

6 Property maintenance

(1) A person must not:

(a) allow any material or thing to be deposited, accumulated, used, processed or stored on any private property under their control in a manner that causes or may cause a nuisance;

(b) allow any private property under their control to become so overgrown with vegetation that it causes or may cause a nuisance;

(c) allow any wild or feral animal to be fed on any private property under their control in a manner that causes or may cause a nuisance.

Explanatory note: These measures are not available to protect neighbouring property values or assure amenity values of a neighbourhood.

(2) The owner of any building that is abandoned or that is wholly or partly unoccupied, whether permanently or temporarily, must ensure that the building or the unoccupied part thereof is secured so as not to allow access by the public.

7 Registration, maintenance and testing of industrial cooling water systems

(1) The owner of any building with an industrial cooling water system must ensure that it is registered with the council by 1 July of each year.

(s)

(2) The owner of any building with an industrial cooling tower must notify the council if the system is decommissioned or where there is a change in owner (within one month of this occurring).

(t)

(3) The owner of any building with an industrial cooling water system with auto chemical dosing must carry out:

(a) weekly dip-slide tests in Table1, Schedule 1 of this bylaw; and

(b) control measures in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 of Schedule 1 of this bylaw.

(u)

(4) The owner of any building with an industrial cooling water system without automatic chemical dosing must carry out:

(a) the tests specified in Table 2, Schedule 1 of this bylaw, and

(b) the control measures in Table 3.2 of Schedule 1 of this bylaw.

(5) The owner of any building with an industrial cooling water system must ensure as part of a regular routine maintenance programme such systems are cleaned. Cleaning shall include the physical cleaning of the industrial cooling tower at intervals not exceeding six months.

Part 3

Enforcement, offences and penalties

8 Enforcement of this bylaw

(1) The council may use its powers under the Local Government Act 2002 and/or the Health Act 1956 and/or the Litter Act 1979 to enforce this bylaw.

Explanatory note: For any nuisance on communal ground of a property the Body Corporate will be deemed liable in the first instance. In instances where there is no Body Corporate each individual property owner / tenant shall be deemed equally liable.

9 Removal of material or things

(1) In addition to the powers conferred on it by any other enactment, the council may remove or cause to be removed from any private property any material or thing found on that private property in breach of the bylaw.

(2) The council may recover from the person who committed the breach of this bylaw the appropriate costs in connection with the removal of the material or thing.

10 Removal of construction

The council may, pursuant to section 163 of the Local Government Act 2002, remove or alter a work or thing that has been constructed in breach of this bylaw and may recover any costs of removal or alteration from the person who committed the breach.

11 Bylaw breaches

A person who fails to comply with this bylaw commits a breach of this bylaw and is liable to a penalty under the Local Government Act 2002 and/or the Health Act 1956 and/or the Litter Act 1979.

Part 4

Savings provisions

12 Savings

(1) Until such time as the lighting requirements of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan have legal effect the definitions in clause 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6 of the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 referred to in Schedule 5 of this bylaw are confirmed and remain in force as a transitional measure in the Auckland City area.

(v)

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the definitions in clause 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6 of the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 referred to in Schedule 5 of this bylaw are revoked when the requirements of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan relating to lighting have legal effect.

(w)

13 Revocation

(1) The following bylaws are revoked:

(a) Auckland City Council Bylaw No 13 Environmental Protection 2008, with the exception of the definitions in clause 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6;

(b) North Shore City Council Bylaw 2000 Part 7 Environmental Protection – Nuisances Arising On Private Land;

(x)

Schedule 1

Table 1: Cooling tower with auto chemical dosing

Cooling tower with auto chemical dosing	Time	Test method	Test result levels	Control strategies
Legionella	Monthly	AS / NZS 3896	AS / NZS 3666.3	Table 3.1
Heterotrophic micro-organisms	Monthly	AS 4276.3.1	AS / NZS 3666.3	Table 3.2

Table 2: Cooling tower without auto chemical dosing

Cooling tower without auto chemical dosing	Time	Test method	Test result levels	Control strategies
Heterotrophic micro-organisms	Weekly	Dip-slide	AS / NZS 3666.3	Table 3.2

Table 3.1: Control strategies for the presence of legionellae

Test result, cfu/mL	Required control strategy
Not detected (<10)	1. Maintain monthly monitoring. Maintain water treatment programme.
Detected as <1000	2. Investigate problem Review water treatment programme Take necessary remedial action including immediate on-line disinfection in accordance with Schedule 2.
Detected as <1000	3. Retest water within 3 to 7 days of plant operation: (a) If not detected, continue to retest water every 3 to 7 days until two consecutive samples return reading of not detected and repeat control strategy (1). (b) If detected at <100 cfu/mL repeat control strategy 2. (c) If detected at ≥ 100 cfu/mL investigate problem and review water treatment programme, immediately carry out on-line decontamination in accordance with Schedule 33 and notify the Auckland Council and a Medical Officer of Health at the Auckland Regional Public Health Service within 48 hours. (d) If detected at ≥ 1000 cfu/mL undertake control strategy 4. (y)
Detected as ≥1000	4. Investigate problem Review water treatment programme Take necessary remedial action including immediate on-line decontamination in accordance with Schedule 3 and undertake control strategy 5.
Detected as ≥1000	5. Retest water within 3 to 7 days of plant operation: (e) If not detected continue to retest water every 3 to 7 days until two consecutive samples return readings of not detected and repeat control strategy 1. (f) If detected at < 100 cfu/ mL repeat control strategy 2 (g) If detected at ≥ 100 cfu/mL ≤,1000 cfu/mL investigate problem and review water treatment programme, immediately carry out on-line decontamination in accordance with Schedule 3. (h) If detected at ≥ 1000 cfu/mL investigate problem and review water treatment programme, immediately carry out system decontamination in accordance with Schedule 4 and repeat control strategy 5. (z)

Table 3.2: Control strategies for the presence of other heterotrophic microorganisms

Test result, cfu/mL

Required control strategy

< 100 000

1. Maintain monthly monitoring

Maintain water treatment programme

≥ 100 000

< 5 000 000

2. Investigate problem

Review water treatment programme

Take necessary remedial action including immediate on-line disinfection in accordance with Schedule 2

3. Retest water within 3 to 7 days of plant operation:

(i) If test result is <100 000cfu/mL repeat control strategy (1).

(j) If test result is at ≥100 000 cfu/mL but <5 000 000 repeat control strategy (2)

(k) If test result is ≥ 5 000 000cfu/mL undertake control strategy 4

≥ 5 000 000

4. Investigate problem’

(aa) Review water treatment programme

(bb) Take necessary remedial action including immediate on-line disinfection in accordance with Schedule 2 and undertake control strategy 5.

5. Retest water within 3 to 7 days of plant operation;

(a) If test result is <100 000 cfu/mL, repeat control strategy 1

(b) If test result is ≥100 000 cfu/mL but < 5 000 000 cfu/mL repeat control strategy 4

(c) If test result ≥ 5 000 000 cfu/mL investigate problem and review water treatment programme, carry out immediate on-line decontamination in accordance with Schedule 3

(cc)

Schedule 2

2.1 Scope

This schedule sets out the procedure for the on-line disinfection of cooling water systems.

2.2 Biodispersants

Prior to on-line disinfection a bio-dispersant shall be circulated.

2.3 Disinfection

Dose the cooling water system with a biocide or different chemical composition, or similar composition but increased concentration to that of the regular water treatment programme.

2.4 Circulation

Circulate the biocide through cooling water systems for the time specified by the biocide manufacturer.

2.5 Operation

Return the system to its normal operation.

2.6 Record Keeping

Record all actions and observations in the maintenance report.

Schedule 3

On-line decontamination shall be carried out in accordance with the following procedure:

3.1 Dose the recirculating water with a biodispersant and a halogen-based compound, equivalent to at least 5 mg/L of free residual chlorine for at least one hour, whilst maintaining an appropriate pH and monitor at intervals of 15 minutes.

3.2 Review the water treatment programme, tower operation and maintenance programme.

3.3 Correct any faults and implement any changes.

3.4 Record all actions and observations in the maintenance report.

3.5 Recommission and repassivate the circulating cooling water system, and reinstate the water treatment programme.

Schedule 4

System decontamination shall be carried out in accordance with the following procedure:

4.1 Isolate and cooling tower fans to prevent operation.

4.2 Dose the recirculating water with a biospersant and a halogen-based compound, equivalent to at least 5 mg/L of free residual chlorine for at least one hour, whilst maintaining an appropriate pH, and monitor at intervals of 15 minutes.

4.3 Isolate the cooling tower pumps and drain to the sewer /trade waste in accordance with the requirements of the Auckland Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2013.

4.4 Open all system drains temporarily, to flush drain lines with disinfected water.

4.5 Clean all wetted surfaces of the cooling tower in accordance with the supplier’s instructions or by using water spray and mechanical cleaning as necessary. Exercise care to avoid damage to components.

4.6 Refill the cooling tower water system and restart water circulation pumps.

4.7 Does the recirculating water with a biospersant and a halogen-based compound, equivalent to at least 1 to 5 mg/L of free residual chlorine for at least 30 minutes, whilst maintaining an appropriate pH, and monitor at intervals of 15 minutes.

4.8 Record all actions and observations in the maintenance report.

4.9 Recommission and repassivate the circulating cooling tower water system, and reinstate the water treatment programme.

Schedule 5

Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 - lighting provisions

Until such time as the lighting requirements of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan have legal effect, the following definitions contained in clause 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6 of the Auckland City Council Environmental Protection Bylaw 2008 are confirmed and remain in force as a transitional measure in the Auckland City area (the clauses numbers refer to the original bylaw clause numbers):

13.1 General

13.1.1 In this bylaw unless the context requires otherwise:

Added illuminance means that illuminance added by the use of the artificial lighting in

question to the background lighting level in the absence of that artificial lighting.

13.5 Lighting

Spill lighting

13.5.1

A person shall not use on any premises between the hours of 7am to 10pm any artificial lighting so as to cause an added illuminance in excess of 100 lux, measured horizontally or vertically at any point on or directly above the boundary of any adjacent land which is zoned residential, in a residential precinct or land unit, or used for residential purposes.

Lighting hours

13.5.2

A person shall not use on any premises between the hours of 10pm on one day and 7am on the next day, any artificial lighting so as to cause an added illuminance in excess of 10 lux measured horizontally or vertically at any point on or directly above any adjacent boundary of any adjacent land which is zoned residential, in a residential precinct or land unit or used for residential purposes.

13.5.3

A person shall not use on any premises between dusk and dawn any artificial lighting so as to cause an added illuminance in excess of 50 lux measured horizontally or vertically at any point on or directly above a street kerbline or the edge of the roadway where the kerb has been moved to create a vehicle parking area or bus or taxi stopping bay. Notwithstanding this requirement, artificial lighting arising from Ports of Auckland Limited operations shall not exceed an added illuminance of 50 lux measured horizontally or vertically at any point on or directly above the kerbline:

a. On the western side of Brigham Street or the southern side of Jellicoe Street, Quay Street or Tamaki Drive for any artificial lighting arising from the Port of Auckland;

b. On the northern side of Onehunga Harbour Road for any artificial lighting arising from the Port of Onehunga.

Exterior lighting to limit glare

13.5.4

The exterior lighting on any property adjacent to a road or adjacent to land on which there is a residential use shall be so selected, located, aimed, adjusted and screened as to ensure that glare resulting from the lighting does not cause an unreasonable and appreciable level of discomfort to any persons. The standards of Tables 2.1 and 2.2 of Australian Standards AS 4282 - 1997 (Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting) may be used to determine glare and discomfort.

13.5.5

In circumstances where measurements of any added illuminance cannot be made due to the fact that the owner will not turn off artificial lighting, measurements may be made in areas of a similar nature which are not affected by the artificial light. The result of these measures may be used for the purposes of determining the effect of the artificial light.

Exemptions

13.5.6

Where an authorised officer is satisfied that compliance with clauses 13.5.1,

13.5.2, 13.5.3, or 13.5.4 would be unreasonable, impractical or without benefit to the occupiers of adjacent land or in the case of clause 13.5.4 of little benefit to road users or neighbouring properties the authorised officer may grant an exemption in whole or in part with such modifications or conditions as may be appropriate.

Additional Information to Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

This document contains matters for information purposes only and do not form part of any bylaw. They include matters made pursuant to a bylaw and other matters to assist in the ease of understanding, use and maintenance.

The information contained in this document may be updated at any time.

Contents

Section Description Page

1 History of bylaw.............................................................................................. 12

2 Related Documents........................................................................................ 13

3 Delegations...................................................................................................... 13

4 Enforcement Powers ..................................................................................... 14

5 Offences and Penalties ................................................................................. 15

Section 1

History of Bylaw

Action	Description	Date of Decision	Decision Reference	Commencement
Made	The following signs bylaws in force on 31 Oct 2010 deemed to have been made by Auckland Council (a) Auckland City Council Bylaw No 13 Environmental Protection 2008 (b) North Shore City Council Bylaw 2000 Part 7 Environmental Protection – Nuisances Arising On Private Land (c) Waitakere City Council Control Of Intruder Alarm Systems Bylaw 2010	TBC	Section 63 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010	01 Nov 2010
Revoke	(a) Auckland City Council Bylaw No 13 Environmental Protection 2008, except for the definitions in clause 13.1 and clauses 13.5.1 to 13.5.6 (b) North Shore City Council Bylaw 2000 Part 7 Environmental Protection – Nuisances Arising On Private Land (c) Waitakere City Council Control Of Intruder Alarm Systems Bylaw 2010	TBC		1 November 2015
Make	Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015	TBC	TBC	1 November 2015

Section 2

Related Documents

Document Title	Description of Document	Location of Document
Decision Minutes and Agenda	Decisions on submissions to proposed signage bylaw	www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Hearings Report	Background and summary of submissions to proposed signage bylaw	www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Property Maintenance and Nuisance Statement of Proposal	Provides background to the trading issues of nuisance on private land or a private property	www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Long Term Plan	Outlines financial plans	www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
The Local Government Act 2002	Provides certain functions, duties, powers and penalties to make and enforce this bylaw	www.legislation.govt.nz
Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2010	Provides certain functions, duties, powers and penalties to make and enforce this bylaw	www.legislation.govt.nz
Litter Act		www.legislation.govt.nz
Building Act 2004		www.legislation.govt.nz
Waste Minimisation Act 2008		www.legislation.govt.nz

Section 3

Delegations

Clause	Function, Duty, Power to be Delegated	Delegated Authority	Date of Delegation Decision	Decision Reference	Commencement of Delegation
6	All powers, duties and functions.	Licensing and Compliance Services Tier 4 (Managers) Tier 5 (Team leaders) Tier 6 (bylaws officers)	TBC	TBC	1 November 2015
7	All powers, duties and functions.	Building Control Tier 4 (Managers), Tier 5 (Team Leaders, Inspections) Tier 6 (Building control Inspectors)	1 April 2015	TBC	1 November 2015
Part 3 (clauses 8 to 11)	All powers, duties and functions.	Building Control Tier 4 (Managers), Tier 5 (Team Leaders, Inspections) Tier 6 (Building control Inspectors)	1 April 2015	TBC	1 November 2015

Section 4

Enforcement Powers

Legislative Provision

Description of Legislative Provision

Part 8 of Local Government Act 2002

162 Injunctions restraining commission of offences and breaches of bylaws

163 Removal of works in breach of bylaws

164 Seizure of property not on private land

165 Seizure of property from private land

168 Power to dispose of property seized and impounded

171 General power of entry

172 Power of entry for enforcement purposes

173 Power of entry in cases of emergency

175 Power to recover for damage by wilful or negligent behaviour

176 Costs of remedying damage arising from breach of bylaw

178 Enforcement officers may require certain information

183 Removal of fire hazards

185 Occupier may act if owner of premises makes default

186 Local authority may execute works if owner or occupier defaults

187 Recovery of cost of works by local authority

188 Liability for payments in respect of private land

Section 5: Offences and penalties

Legislative provision

Description of offence

Fine

Infringement fee

Other penalty

cl 6 and 7

A person who fails to comply with this bylaw commits a breach of this bylaw and is liable to a penalty under the Local Government Act 2002 and/or the Health Act 1956.

Under section 242 of the Local Government Act 2002 person who is convicted of an offence against a bylaw is liable to a fine not exceeding $20,000.

Under section 66 of the Health Act 1956, any person who breaches a bylaw is liable to a fine not exceeding $500 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding $50 for every day on which the offence has continued.

nil

Clause 6

A person who commits a breach of this bylaw that is an offence under the Litter Act 1979 is liable to a penalty under that Act.

Under section 15(1) of the Litter Act 1979, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or, in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $20,000,

Under section 15(2) of the Litter Act 1979, if it is of such a nature as is likely to endanger any person or to cause physical injury or disease or infection to any person coming into contact with it-

(a) in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 month, or to a fine not exceeding $7,500, or to both; or

(b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $30,000

$100 - $400

(Regulatory and Bylaws Committee Resolution number RB/2012/22 dated 10 October 2012)

Under section 15(2) of the Litter Act 1979 to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 month,

[1] Area generally under the control of Auckland Transport

Chairperson	Cr Calum Penrose
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Denise Krum
Members	Cr Bill Cashmore
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
	Cr Alf Filipaina
	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr John Watson
	Member Glenn Wilcox
	Member Karen Wilson
	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse