Agenda of Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

13 October 2015

Investigation of a set net control for Arkles Bay

File No.: CP2015/16951

Purpose

1. To seek a decision on whether or not a set net control under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 should be made to protect the safety of beach users at Arkles Bay.

Executive Summary

2. On 8 July 2015, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

· requested that Auckland Council (the council) staff investigate the making of a set net control for Arkles Bay (resolution number RBC/2015/24)

· resolved to allow the Rodney District Council Set Net Prohibition – Arkles Bay Bylaw to be automatically revoked under section 63 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 on 31 October 2015 (resolution number RBC/2015/23).

3. The Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 enables the council to make a set net control for times or seasons considered necessary to ensure public safety and prevent nuisance.

4. Set netting at Arkles Bay has been prohibited for the past eight years through the Rodney District Council Set Net Prohibition – Arkles Bay Bylaw. Due to this few issues have been identified over recent years.

5. Staff have reviewed issues raised by the community over 10 months between December 2005 and December 2006 and consider that many of this matters can be addressed using existing regulation. This includes restrictions on vehicles on beaches through the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013, and the obstruction of boats through the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014.

6. Staff consider that there is a potential risk of swimmers becoming entangled in set nets, particularly during peak times over the summer period if set netting is allowed. If an incident was to occur the impact would be high with the potential loss of life.

7. Staff have identified three feasible options for the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to consider:

Option 1: Use existing regulation to address issues associated with set netting

Option 2: Make a seasonal set net control

Option 3: Make a set net control that prohibits set netting at all times

8. Staff consider that a seasonal set net control is appropriate to ensure the safety of swimmers in the summer as the impact of the potential loss of life is high, even though the risk of swimmers becoming entangled in nets is low. To achieve the desired outcome staff recommend Option 2: make a seasonal set net control (Attachment A) as a precautionary approach.

9. Option 2, is likely to be unpopular and cause concern amongst the Arkles Bay community who have expressed a clear preference for Option 3. Iwi may also be concerned about the evidence for this option and prefer no control. However staff consider that allowing set netters to return to Arkles Bay in the winter and to restrict set netting in the summer when people are more likely to be swimming is more consistent with the bylaw-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. This will ensure that the council does not make controls that are unreasonable.

Recommendations

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) confirm that its approach to managing public safety and nuisance issues associated with set netting at Arkles Bay is to:

EITHER

Option 1: address issues associated with set netting at Arkles Bay using existing council regulation including the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 and Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014.

Option 2: make a seasonal set net control under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 to prohibit set netting at Arkles Bay within 200 metres (seaward) of the Mean High Water Spring from 1 November to 30 April annually.

Option 3: make a set net control under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 to prohibit set netting at Arkles Bay within 200 metres (seaward) of the Mean High Water Spring at all times.

Comments

Background

10. In July 2015, Auckland Council’s (the council’s) Regulatory and Bylaws Committee (the committee) resolved as follows:

· that council staff investigate the making of a set net control at Arkles Bay (resolution number RBC/2015/24)

· to allow the Rodney District Council Set Net Prohibition – Arkles Bay Bylaw (the Rodney District Council Bylaw), which currently controls set netting at Arkles Bay, to be automatically revoked under section 63 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, on 31 October 2015 (resolution number RBC/2015/23).

11. Staff have investigated whether a new set net control is required for Arkles Bay to replace the Rodney District Council Bylaw when it is revoked on 31 October 2015. This report presents the findings of that investigation to enable the Committee to make a decision.

Mandate

12. The council can make controls to restrict recreational activities on beaches, including set netting, under its Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013. Specifically, clause 9(3) of the bylaw allows the council to make these controls for times or seasons considered necessary to ensure public safety and prevent nuisance. The bylaw defines nuisance as including a person, thing or circumstance causing unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort or convenience of another person in a public place.

13. In determining whether to make a set net control under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw, the council must also meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. The council must ensure its controls are:

· the most appropriate response to the issue

· enforceable (i.e. the control can be effectively implemented)

· made in a transparent manner.

14. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has the delegation to make a control by passing a resolution pursuant to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw.

15. The process for making a control can be initiated as a result of proactive investigation by council staff or in response to complaints from local boards or the public.

16. The council cannot make controls to protect fisheries resources or wildlife. These matters fall outside the scope of the council’s jurisdiction under the bylaw making powers of the Local Government Act 2002. The Ministry for Primary Industries is responsible for these matters.

Regulating set nets

17. A set net control restricts or prohibits set net fishing activities at a specified beach for a time or season considered necessary to ensure public safety. One of the key risks to public safety associated with set netting is people becoming entangled in nets.

18. As an example, in 2014, the council implemented summer set net controls at Army Bay and Te Haruhi Bay within Shakespear Regional Park (resolution number RBC/2014/55) in response to a series of incidents over the previous three summers where there was harm caused to members of the public from windsurfers being upended when crossing nets in the water.

Problem definition

19. Arkles Bay is a 1.2 kilometre long beach situated on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula north east of Auckland.

20. It has been identified in the Auckland Plan as a High Maritime Recreational Use Area, popular for a range of recreational activities including swimming, fishing, yachting and kayaking. Previously, the area has also been popular for set netting, particularly due to its close proximity to the Long Bay–Okura Marine Reserve, its large tidal range and its sheltered nature.

21. These various recreational activities have at times been in conflict with one another. In 2007, the Rodney District Council Bylaw was implemented to mitigate the public safety risks specifically associated with set netting in the area.

22. The information considered when the Rodney District Council Bylaw was made is summarised as follows:

· there was a high level of community concern about the presence of set netters at Arkles Bay

· in February and March of 2006, the community reported three instances where swimmers became entangled in nets and two instances where the safety of swimmers was at risk due to set nets

· over a ten month period between December 2005 and October 2006, local residents and council staff recorded 101 observations of set netting in the area. Of these observations, 29 incidents related to public safety or nuisance concerns within the council’s jurisdiction (which at that time extended to the mean low water mark) and could be addressed by a council bylaw.

23. Table 1 below outlines a summary of the issues raised by members of the Arkles Bay community before the bylaw was implemented.

Table 1: Type and number of issues raised by the Arkles Bay community from December 2005 to October 2006

Issues raised	Number of observations	Addressed by existing regulation
Nuisance to recreational beach users in the spring/summer from driving vehicles along the beach to set nets	12	ü
Danger to the safety of swimmers who became entangled in nets during summer	3	Not addressed
Breaches of the Ministry for Primary Industries Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013 related to set netting	3	ü (enforced by the Ministry for Primary Industries)
Potential risk to the safety of swimmers in the vicinity of nets	2	Not addressed
Potential risk of injury to set netters in the water at night from boats accessing the boat ramp in the summer	2	ü
Set nets obstructing the access of boats to the boat ramp in summer	2	ü
Intimidatory behaviour	1	ü

24. Staff consider that many of the historical issues raised by the community can be addressed using existing regulation, such as the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 and the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014. The specific rules that address issues can be seen in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Auckland Council bylaws introduced since implementation of the Rodney District Council Bylaw

Issues raised	Auckland Council bylaw	Outcome of the existing regulation
Nuisance to recreational beach users from vehicles driven along the beach to set nets.	Clause 9(5)(m) of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013	Prohibits driving a vehicle on a beach except with council permission or to launch or retrieve a boat in the water where vehicles are permitted.
Nuisance to recreational beach users from vehicles driven along the beach to set nets.	Clause 14 of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014	A vessel must not exceed 5 knots within 50 metres of another vessel or any person in the water within 200 metres of the shore.
Set nets obstructing the access of boats to the boat ramp.	Clause 27(2) of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014	Prohibits the placement of fishing apparatus in, over or near any navigable waters, if it is likely to restrict navigation, or cause, or have potential to cause, injury or death to any person.

26. The Rodney District Council Bylaw has been in place for the past eight years, prohibiting set netting at Arkles Bay. This makes it difficult to identify evidence about nuisance and safety issues in relation to set netting. The evidence identified through the investigation is limited.

27. The council has received few reports of issues over recent years. In January 2015, the council received one email about a swimmer in the vicinity of a net illegally placed in the water.

28. The historical data and the recent report indicate that there are no controls managing the risks of swimmers becoming entangled in set nets and drowning. Staff consider that there is potential risk of swimmers becoming entangled in set nets, particularly during peak times over the summer period if set netting is allowed.

29. There have been two instances reported at Arkles Bay where it has been stated that swimmers have become entangled in nets. The risk of a swimmer becoming entangled in a set net at Arkles Bay may be considered low. However if an incident was to occur the impact would be high with the potential loss of life.

30. The likelihood of risk to swimmers can increase if there are a large number of set nets in the water which is likely to occur during peak times over the summer period, particularly if set netters were allowed to return to Arkles Bay.

31. The level of risk may also be exacerbated by local population growth in Whangaparaoa and Manly townships, including Arkles Bay. It has increased by approximately ten per cent over the past ten years.

Options for the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to consider

32. Staff have identified three feasible options for the Committee to consider to help maintain the safety of beach users at Arkles Bay.

33. Table 3 below presents and analyses the options with reference to the following objectives for achieving an effective policy outcome at Arkles Bay. The objectives are to:

· ensure public safety and prevent nuisance for other recreational beach users

· be enforceable (it can be effectively implemented due to sufficient resources).

34. Table 3: Options analysis

Options	Analysis
Option 1: Do not make a control and address issues using existing regulation: • Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (anti-social behaviour, noise, damage, vehicles on beaches, fish offal) • Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 (littering) • Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 (obstruction of navigable waters for boats) • Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013 (protection of fisheries resources)	Benefits: · Reduces duplication of regulation · No longer prohibits a legal activity and enables set netters to undertake the activity as long as they are not causing a nuisance
Disadvantages: · Could increase risk to swimmers which is a key safety issue particularly in the summer · Potentially creates confusion as to which activities are allowed, and which regulation (and enforcement agency) addresses each particular issue · May not meet the needs of some local residents / beach users who seek a total ban on set netting
Implementation: · Officers (both council and Ministry for Primary Industries) would need to liaise and interact with all beach users and local community to ensure that they are aware of other regulations · Signage, awareness programmes, brochures would be required
Impacts: · This option may not reduce potential for conflict between set netters and community / other beach users · Issues that the Rodney District Council Bylaw sought to address may re-emerge.
Option 2: Make a seasonal set net control (To apply from 1 November to 30 April annually extending 200 metres seaward from the Mean High Water Spring. Refer to Attachment B)	Benefits: · Reduces the risk to the safety of swimmers at peak times · Manages potential beach user conflict at peak times · Pragmatic approach that provides for all activities, yet manages potential conflict
Disadvantages: · May be considered a disproportionate response to the frequency of incidents involving real and potential risk to swimmers from set netting · Potential confusion as to what time of the year set netting is prohibited and allowed – even with signage / public notification
Implementation: · Enforcement is difficult after hours and on weekends as there are no dedicated enforcement resources · Public awareness about the seasonal set net control would need to managed through signage and communication
Impacts: · Continues to prohibit a legal activity that is managed by the Ministry for Primary Industries
Option 3: Make an all year round set net control (Extending 200 metres seaward from the Mean High Water Spring)	Benefits: · Control provides a clear statement that set netting is prohibited at all times of the year · Removes the risk to swimmers as their safety is ensured at all times of the year · Addresses concerns raised by local community about the impact set netting has on other beach users · Maintains status quo and manages the risk of potential conflict between different parties at all times of the year
Disadvantages: · May be considered a disproportionate response
Implementation: · Enforcement is difficult after hours and on weekends as there are no dedicated enforcement resources · Public awareness about the seasonal set net control would need to be managed through signage and communication
Impacts: · Continues to prohibit a legal activity that is managed by the Ministry for Primary Industries · Little evidence to justify all year round ban

Options

Analysis

Option 1:

Do not make a control and address issues using existing regulation:

• Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (anti-social behaviour, noise, damage, vehicles on beaches, fish offal)

• Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 (littering)

• Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 (obstruction of navigable waters for boats)

• Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013 (protection of fisheries resources)

Benefits:

· Reduces duplication of regulation

· No longer prohibits a legal activity and enables set netters to undertake the activity as long as they are not causing a nuisance

Disadvantages:

· Could increase risk to swimmers which is a key safety issue particularly in the summer

· Potentially creates confusion as to which activities are allowed, and which regulation (and enforcement agency) addresses each particular issue

· May not meet the needs of some local residents / beach users who seek a total ban on set netting

Implementation:

· Officers (both council and Ministry for Primary Industries) would need to liaise and interact with all beach users and local community to ensure that they are aware of other regulations

· Signage, awareness programmes, brochures would be required

Impacts:

· This option may not reduce potential for conflict between set netters and community / other beach users

· Issues that the Rodney District Council Bylaw sought to address may re-emerge.

Option 2:

Make a seasonal set net control

(To apply from 1 November to 30 April annually extending 200 metres seaward from the Mean High Water Spring. Refer to Attachment B)

Benefits:

· Reduces the risk to the safety of swimmers at peak times

· Manages potential beach user conflict at peak times

· Pragmatic approach that provides for all activities, yet manages potential conflict

Disadvantages:

· May be considered a disproportionate response to the frequency of incidents involving real and potential risk to swimmers from set netting

· Potential confusion as to what time of the year set netting is prohibited and allowed – even with signage / public notification

Implementation:

· Enforcement is difficult after hours and on weekends as there are no dedicated enforcement resources

· Public awareness about the seasonal set net control would need to managed through signage and communication

Impacts:

· Continues to prohibit a legal activity that is managed by the Ministry for Primary Industries

Option 3:

Make an all year round set net control

(Extending 200 metres seaward from the Mean High Water Spring)

Benefits:

· Control provides a clear statement that set netting is prohibited at all times of the year

· Removes the risk to swimmers as their safety is ensured at all times of the year

· Addresses concerns raised by local community about the impact set netting has on other beach users

· Maintains status quo and manages the risk of potential conflict between different parties at all times of the year

Disadvantages:

· May be considered a disproportionate response

Implementation:

· Enforcement is difficult after hours and on weekends as there are no dedicated enforcement resources

· Public awareness about the seasonal set net control would need to be managed through signage and communication

Impacts:

· Continues to prohibit a legal activity that is managed by the Ministry for Primary Industries

· Little evidence to justify all year round ban

Community views on the options

35. Arkles Bay community members have provided feedback about set netting in Arkles Bay and their expectations of the council on a number of previous occasions, including:

· submissions to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw (February 2013 – March 2013)

· public forum presentations to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee when the Army Bay and Te Haruhi Bay set net control was being considered (November 2014)

· public forum presentations to the Hibiscus and Bays local board (20 May 2015).

36. The dominant view expressed by the community has consistently been a preference for the council to prohibit set netting at Arkles Bay at all times (option 3).

37. From 25 September to 5 October the council received 450 emails to the ‘Setnet email address’ from members of the public in support of an all year round set net control (option 3). There were no alternative views expressed by members of the public through this email address.

Views of the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel

38. The views of the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel were sought at their business meeting on 30 September and it was agreed that panel members would provide their views on the options in the report individually. Two members have since provided feedback indicating concern that groups involved in set net activities have not been adequately consulted, and support using non-regulatory initiatives while more research is undertaken of the groups involved in set netting.

Māori engagement

39. The Māori Plan for Tamaki Makaurau recognises the customary right of access to fisheries resources for mana whenua and the kaitiaki role of tangata whenua concerning fisheries. The Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 and Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013 enable customary fishing for tangata whenua.

40. A set net control made under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 would not prevent customary fishing, but would prevent set-netting as a method of fishing. The council could consider an exemption for customary fishing by way of set netting at Arkles Bay. This could be included in Option 2 and Option 3 with potentially little impact on public safety depending on the extent of customary fishing that may be undertaken using a set net. It is a matter that the Committee can consider now or can be considered in the future, particularly if a control is made and it impacts unduly on customary rights.

41. In October 2006, Rodney District Council staff consulted Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara on the proposed Rodney District Council Bylaw. Iwi preferred an approach using existing regulation and education, rather than a bylaw prohibiting set netting.

42. More recent feedback from iwi (March 2015) was that:

· the council needs to recognise that it can improve the effectiveness of the kaitiaki model by aligning policies and regulations accordingly

· mana whenua have worked hard to develop policy across environmental, cultural, social and economic areas and have developed business processes around some key issues, including working with authorities to respect traditional practices.

Summary of options

43. Table 4 provides assessment of the options against the objectives outlined in section 31.

Table 4: Summary of analysis of options

Objectives	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Ensure public safety and prevent nuisance	üü	üü	üü
Evidence based	üü	-	-
Proportionate and reasonable	üü	ü	xx
Enforceable by the council	ü	-	-

Rating scale

üü

Strongly meets objectives

Meets objectives

Neutral

Conflicts with objectives

Strongly conflicts with objectives.

45. There are benefits and disadvantages associated with all three options. The council needs to determine if a set net control is an efficient and effective intervention for achieving the outcomes sought.

46. During May to September 2006 there were no incidents of swimmers becoming entangled in nets. For this reason staff do not recommend Option 3: make an all year round set net control because it can be viewed as an unreasonable and disproportionate response to the issues raised.

47. Although most issues raised can be addressed using existing regulation, staff do not recommend Option 1 because it does not ensure the safety of swimmers, particularly in the summer. An increase in set netting at Arkles Bay as a result of a total removal of the control may increase the risk to the safety of swimmers.

48. Staff consider that a seasonal set net control is appropriate to ensure the safety of swimmers in the summer as the impact of the potential loss of life is high, even though the risk of swimmers becoming entangled in nets is low. To achieve the desired outcome staff recommend Option 2: make a seasonal set net control (Attachment A) as a precautionary approach. This option could also include an exemption for customary fishing.

49. Option 2 is likely to be unpopular with Arkles Bay residents and cause concern amongst the community. However staff consider that allowing set netters to return to Arkles Bay in the winter and to restrict set netting in the summer when people are more likely to be swimming is more consistent with the bylaw-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. This will ensure that the council does not make controls that are unreasonable.

50. Staff consider that Arkles Bay can be distinguished from other investigations given that the Rodney District Council Bylaw has been in place for eight years. This has influenced the level of evidence available. A higher threshold of evidence should be considered necessary for investigations at other beaches where there is no existing regulation.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

51. On 20 May 2015 the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board recommended to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee that:

· the Rodney District Council Bylaw remain in place until such time as a new total set net control can be put in place under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

· the council undertake the process of making a total set net control for Arkles Bay before 31 October 2015.

52. On 23 September 2015, staff presented an information document to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board with options for the board to provide feedback on. The board reiterated the feedback it provided at the May meeting.

Māori impact statement

53. The impact of a set net control at Arkles Bay for Māori would be that tangata whenua could not authorise set netting at Arkles Bay while the control was in place. This would restrict the ability for tangata whenua to use set netting as a method of customary fishing under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 and the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013.

54. Further information on feedback from Māori can be seen in the Māori engagement section of this report.

Implementation

Risks and risk mitigation

Option	Risk	Mitigation
1	Community concern that the Arkles Bay bylaw has not been replaced with a set net control.	· Collateral will include key messages that the council is legally constrained to ensure regulation is appropriate and proportionate to the evidence of the issues raised.
2	The making of a seasonal set net control at Arkles Bay may set a precedent that controls can be made for other beaches where fishermen set net.	· Collateral will include key messages that set netting is a legitimate fishing method that is regulated by national legislation for the protection of fisheries resources. · Public education to emphasise that: - Arkles Bay is different to other beaches because an all year round ban has been in place - a higher threshold for evidence of public safety problems would be necessary for other beaches.
2	Allowing set netters to return to Arkles Bay during the winter could lead to an increase in complaints to the council during that time and high demand on council’s enforcement staff.	· Signage will be implemented outlining the existing regulation and collateral will include key messages on existing rules and agencies responsible for enforcement.
3	There could be questions about the level of evidence to justify an all year round control particularly from iwi and set netters.	· The report sets out all the feasible options that are available to manage public safety and nuisance issues associated with set netting at Arkles Bay. This document is publicly available and ensures that transparent decision making. · An exemption for customary fishing could be made for this option.

Financial implications

55. There are no dedicated staff resources to respond to complaints about set netting at Arkles Bay or to enforce a control. Given the nature of set netting, enforcement is likely to need to be outside of normal working hours such as weekends and during the night. Enforcement of a set net control at Arkles Bay would be different to enforcing a control at Shakespear Regional Park because there are dedicated regional parks rangers in the summer to enforce the control.

56. The cost for signage, brochures and public notices in the New Zealand Herald is estimated to be between $2000 - $3000. While there is existing signage at Arkles Bay this signage would need to be replaced. Implementation will be funded through the existing budget of the Integrated Bylaw Review Implementation Programme.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposed seasonal set net control at Arkles Bay	19

Signatories

Authors

Emma Pilkington - Policy Analyst

Rebekah Stuart-Wilson - Principal Policy Analyst

Authoriser

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

13 October 2015

Hearing Panel Decision Report on Review of Alcohol Bans 2015

File No.: CP2015/19852

Purpose

1. To decide which existing alcohol bans are to be retained after 31 October 2015.

Executive Summary

2. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has undertaken to review its existing alcohol bans under its jurisdiction using a public engagement process.

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 new threshold will lapse on 31 October 2015.

4. The committee appointed a hearing panel to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and recommend changes to the committee.

5. The key recommendations of the panel are that:

· seven alcohol bans meet the new higher statutory threshold and should be retained

· seven alcohol bans do not meet the new threshold and should be allowed to lapse.

A full copy of the deliberations and decisions (including any amendments to areas and times) are contained in Attachment B and maps are contained in Attachment C.

6. The hearing panel also notes that the committee has the authority to consider evidence to make a new alcohol ban.

7. The decision required of the committee is whether to approve the recommendations of the hearing panel.

8. Following the decision, staff will update the register of alcohol bans to commence on 31 October 2015 and update signage.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) make the alcohol bans recommended to be retained (with any amendments) as contained in Attachments B and C to the agenda report, pursuant to the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014, with a commencement date of 31 October 2015.

b) allow the alcohol bans recommended to lapse as contained in Attachment B to lapse on 31 October 2015.

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

d) request the Manager of Parks, Sports and Recreation to record any evidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in maunga observed by the staff in the course of their work, in particular Ōwairaka/Te Ahi-kā-a-Rakataura (Mt Albert), Te Kōpuke/Tītīkōpuke (Mt St John), Ōhuiarangi (Pigeon Mountain), Ōtāhuhu (Mt Richmond), Maungarei (Mt Wellington), Ōhinerau (Mt Hobson), Te Tatua a Ruikiuta (Big King), to assist with any future consideration of alcohol bans in those areas.

e) authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to Attachment B and C to the agenda report to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

Background

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

10. 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.

11. Recent changes to legislation require a review of existing alcohol bans against a new, higher threshold. This means that alcohol bans can only be retained in areas displaying high levels of alcohol-related crime or disorder.

12. Alcohol bans are made under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has the delegated responsibility to review existing alcohol bans in areas of regional significance.

Proposal

13. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee at its business meeting on 4 May 2015 adopted for public engagement (resolution number RBC/2015/18)) a proposal to:

· retain five existing alcohol bans

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

14. The public engagement period opened on 19 June and closed 17 July 2015.

15. The proposed changes were notified as follows:

· a public notice in the New Zealand Herald

· on the Auckland Council website

· through social media, including the committee’s Facebook pages

· in the committee’s e-bulletins circulated to committee stakeholders

· at public meetings held by committees.

16. In addition to the above:

· the proposal was distributed to social workers in south Auckland through Raukura Hauora o Tainu

· hui and correspondence with mana whenua

· engagement with southern and western Maori wardens

· rangatahi from Papatuanuku Marae undertook engagement (via tablet connected to the internet) in the Māngere and Papatoetoe areas.

17. The views of the Auckland Domain Committee were obtained for bans which cover the Auckland Domain.

18. The Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority also provided their views.

19. All supporting documents were made available on council’s website and through local libraries and service centres.

20. A total of six submitters gave evidence for seven alcohol ban areas through the hearings process. Thirty-three submitters gave general feedback not specific to an alcohol ban area.

Hearing and deliberations process

21. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee appointed Chairperson Penrose (chair), Deputy Chairperson Krum, and member Wilcox to a hearing panel to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and to make recommendations to the committee (resolution number RBC/2015/18).

22. A total of three submitters indicated they wished to be heard. The hearing panel heard from one submitter on 14 August 2015 and held deliberations on all written and oral submissions on the same day.

23. Copies of all submissions received were made available.

24. In conducting hearings and making decisions, the hearing panel considered a range of the statutory and bylaw requirements, summarised in Attachment A. The most important requirements 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

· 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 of 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 7am 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).

Comments

25. The decisions of the hearing panel (including any amendments to areas and times) and summary of the evidence considered are contained in Attachment B and maps are contained in Attachment C.

26. The key recommendations of the panel are that:

· seven alcohol bans meet the new higher statutory threshold and should be retained

· seven alcohol bans do not meet the new threshold and should be allowed to lapse.

27. As part of its decisions, the panel:

· extended the geographical area of the original Te Pane o Mataoho/Te Ara Puere (Mangere Mt) alcohol ban by subsuming the children’s playground and skate park on the maunga into the new alcohol ban area.

· retained six alcohol bans with no amendments to the geographical areas or times.

· noted concern about the lack of evidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in or around Ōwairaka/Te Ahi-kā-a-Rakataura (Mt Albert), Te Kōpuke/Tītīkōpuke (Mt St John), Ōhuiarangi (Pigeon Mountain), Ōtāhuhu (Mt Richmond), Maungarei (Mt Wellington), Ōhinerau (Mt Hobson), Te Tatua a Ruikiuta (Big King). The available evidence did not allow for the retention of these alcohol ban areas, and the hearing panel recommend that parks staff be requested to record any evidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder to assist with any future consideration of alcohol bans in those areas.

· noted that the committee has the authority to consider evidence to make a new alcohol ban.

28. The decision required of the committee is whether to approve the recommendations of the hearing panel.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

30. 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.

31. Feedback from mana whenua representatives at a hui held in March 2015 supported alcohol bans in principle, and believe that non-regulatory approaches should be considered to help reduce alcohol-related harm.

32. 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.

33. The authority is aware that 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

34. Any decision on current alcohol bans to be retained or lapsed will require an update to the register of local alcohol bans and to signage. The updating of signage will be coordinated through the Integrated Bylaw Review and Implementation programme.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Decision-making Requirements	25
b View	Regulatory and Bylaws Committee Deliberation Table	27
c View	Maps of Alcohol Bans made by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee	33

Signatories

Authors	Councillor Calum Penrose - Chair of Hearing Panel for the Review of Alcohol Bans of Regional Significance 2015
Authoriser	Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

13 October 2015

Animal Management Activity Update

File No.: CP2015/20576

Purpose

1. To receive the 2014-2015 Animal Management Annual Report, and an update on the activities and actions of the Animal Management unit.

Executive Summary

2. The Animal Management unit of Licensing and Compliance Services provides its annual operational report.

3. There has been significant change in Animal Management in 2014-2015, with major business improvement and development initiatives being implemented. Highlights include; the adoption of 98 per cent of adoptable dogs, the in-housing of all animal management services, the establishment of a central dispatch team and improved relationships with stakeholders, including a Memorandum of Understanding with the SPCA.

4. One of the main functions of Animal Management is the prevention and management of dog attack incidents in Auckland. The continuous improvement of compliance and enforcement activities is a key priority in reducing attacks. To support prevention of dog attacks Animal Management concentrates on education of communities by working with community groups and organisations. This is an increasing priority for the future, as set out in the Draft Animal Management Operational Strategy for 2015-2025.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) accept the 2014-2015 Animal Management Annual Report (Attachment A of the agenda report).

b) note that Auckland Council is the statutorily mandated authority to implement the Dog Control Act 1996, including the investigation and management of dog attack incidents.

c) endorse staff working with district health boards to encourage medical staff to report serious dog bites.

d) endorse the strategic direction of Animal Management, to put greater emphasis on education and community engagement to foster community safety and responsible dog ownership.

Comments

Background

5. A recent media release reported research showing an upward trend in the number of dog bite incidents over the last 10 years in New Zealand. Unfortunately, the final paper is not yet available for analysis. Animal Management (AM) will review the method of analysis, when available, to see if the data is comparable to Auckland Council statistics.

6. AM statistics do not support that the number of dog bite incidents is rapidly increasing. The number of Requests for Service relating to dog attacks on people has remained stable for the last four years, between 806 in financial year (FY) 2011/2012 and 822 in FY2013/2014, with 877 at its peak in FY2012/2013. This suggests that either Auckland is either out of step with the rest of New Zealand (possibly due to positive interventions and enforcement), or – more likely – the number of dog attacks is being under reported here. This tends to happen when attacks/bites occur in the family home or neighbourhood, resulting in a reluctance to involve the authorities.

Oct 10 -

Jun 11

Jul 11 -

Jun 12

Jul 12 -

Jun 13

Jul 13 -

Jun 14

Jul 14 -

Jun 15

Number of incidents of dog attacks on people

694

806

877

822

820

7. The Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) was introduced as a tool to assist in keeping New Zealanders safe from dog related injuries. The Act gives territorial authorities the powers to regulate dogs, enforce controls and penalise irresponsible dog owners, which might endanger the public. AM takes these powers seriously, and treats dog bite incidents with the utmost care and responsibility. AM are specialists in both the investigation and prosecution of serious incidents. In the 2014-2015 year, Auckland Council took 170 prosecutions against dog owners for dog-related incidents, with a success rate of over 95%.

8. Prosecution is a reactive approach to dog attacks, and as the new AM service delivery model embeds, we expect to develop greater capacity and capability in proactive and preventative activities. Education and engagement with the community, especially vulnerable communities and children, play a key role in the prevention of dog bites. The Draft Animal Management Operational Strategy for 2015-2025 has a primary objective of improving community experience through supporting, educating and empowering Aucklanders to be responsible and safe around dogs. The target is for 35% of AM’s workload to be proactive by 2025.

Animal Management Strategy

9. The Draft Animal Management Operational Strategy for 2015-2025 covers four main activity areas: customer experience, animal welfare, community experience plus regulation and enforcement. The last two activity areas have direct significance in the reduction of dog attacks. The strategy sets out our vision for the future of AM, as well as interim targets and actions.

Community Experience

10. Education is a key focus area for AM. This includes school visits, dog safety sessions for at-risk workers, promotions at community events and improved collateral around our key messages. Educating and enabling the community is not restricted to specific educational activities, but part of the way we interact with customers every day.

11. Keeping communities, especially children, safe requires continuously striving to achieve a better understanding of safety issues and behavioural change for both dog owners and the general public.

12. The focus on school visits with young children will continue, with ongoing updates to collateral to ensure that messages are relevant and accessible. Modern, interactive education modules will be developed. Auckland Council aims to lead the way in innovative, technologically advanced dog safety education, and plans to work with community partners to achieve this.

13. We are also working closely with the SPCA (Auckland branch) to investigate having dog safety education included as a component of the school curriculum.

14. AM will also support vulnerable communities. Improving our relationships and community networks is critical in achieving this. We acknowledge some people have barriers to compliance including financial hardship, differing cultural perception of animal ownership or where English is not their first language.

15. The development of AM’s first Maori Responsiveness Plan is a priority. The research mentioned in a recent media release suggests that Maori children are over-represented in dog attack injuries.

16. AM will collaborate more with other agencies. The 2015-2025 strategy focuses on improved relationships with councils from around the country, and with organisations such as Housing New Zealand Corporation and Work and Income New Zealand, as well as commercial organisations that can assist with the delivery of world class engagement and educational channels.

Regulation and Enforcement

17. AM uses a Graduated Enforcement Model for compliance, so that the penalty for irresponsible behaviour by dog owners is relative to the severity of the incident. In the first instance AM aims to enable and educate the people involved. Ideally, this should reduce the amount of enforcement required. This fits closely with the focus on customer experience, in the longer term.

18. In serious instances, such as dog attacks, AM uses the full extent of its statutory powers to protect the interests of the community. When dog bites are reported to council, the dog is always impounded, pending investigation. In scenarios such as a minor injury, where the victim does not wish to make a formal complaint, the dog might be returned home, but with conditions on its release such as menacing or dangerous classifications or other options for ensuring the dog poses no risk to the community.

19. With attacks on children, AM prosecutes in almost all scenarios, even if the family does not wish to proceed with a formal investigation. Reluctance to report and/or make formal statements regarding attacks are one of the most significant barriers to AM being able to take action. In many cases, the offending dog may be known to the victim, or may even be their own dog. This may be one explanation for the conflicting statistics between AM reporting and recent research.

20. Most AM prosecutions relate to section 57(2) Dogs attacking persons or animals, section 57A Dogs rushing at persons, animals or vehicles and section 58 Dogs causing serious injury.

21. The table below illustrates the outcomes of prosecutions taken by AM for dog attacks on people between June 2010 and June 2014.

Total prosecutions for attacks on people		195
Outcomes of prosecution	Destructions of dogs	24
	Fines	114
	Emotional harm orders	33
	Court costs	78
	Convicted and discharged	12
	Reparation orders	43

22. AM is investigating additional ways to use regulatory options to improve behaviour in the community. For example, AM is investigating the possibility of a ‘diversion scheme’, whereby offenders of mild to medium breaches of the Act are offered a reduced penalty if they attend training courses designed to improve both their own, and/or their dog’s, behaviour.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

23. Some Local Boards (predominantly in south Auckland) are over-represented in incidences of dog aggression, roaming and unregistered dogs. AM has had opening conversations with Local Boards in Mangere-Otahuhu and Otara-Papatoetoe to discuss how to best work with local communities to increase awareness of issues and uptake of positive measures such as de-sexing. This communication will increase as AM rolls out a more proactive programme of work, aimed at prevention.

Māori impact statement

24. The recent research referred to in the Background section of this report, shows an over-representation of Māori and Pacific children being hospitalised for dog bite injuries. For this reason the development of a Māori Responsiveness Plan, and having effective education and engagement with communities is critical to improving safety for Māori children.

Implementation

25. There are no implementation issues as this an annual report presentation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Council Animal Management Annual Report 2014-2015	47

Signatories

Author	Jessica Moore-Jones – Senior Advisor Animal Management
Authoriser	Tracey Moore - Manager Animal Management, Licensing and Compliance Services, Acting Lead Officer

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

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting