I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Wednesday, 9
December 2015
9.30am
Room 1, Level
26
135 Albert Street
Auckland
|
|
Regulatory and Bylaws Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
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
|
|
(Quorum 5 members)
|
|
|
Jaimee Maha
Democracy Advisor
2 December 2015
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8126
Email: jaimee.maha@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee will be responsible for:
·
Considering and making recommendations to the
Governing Body regarding the regulatory and bylaw delegations (including to
Local Boards);
·
Regulatory fees and charges in accordance with
the funding policy;
·
Recommend bylaws to Governing Body for special
consultative procedure;
·
Appointing hearings panels for bylaw matters;
·
Review Local Board and Auckland water
organisation proposed bylaws and recommend to Governing Body;
·
Set regulatory policy and controls, and maintain
an oversight of regulatory performance;
·
Engaging with local boards on bylaw development
and review; and
·
Exercising the Council's powers, duties and
discretions under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and the Sale and Supply of
Alcohol Act 2012
Relevant legislation includes but is not
limited to:
Local Government Act 2002;
Resource Management Act 1991;
Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009;
Health Act 1956;
Dog Control Act 1996;
Waste Minimisation Act 2008;
Land Transport Act 1994;
Maritime Transport Act 1994;
Sale of Liquor Act 1989;
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012; and
All Bylaws.
Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the
meeting
Members of the public
All members of the public must leave the
meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a
person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.
Those who are not members of the public
General principles
·
Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know”
basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to
perform their role.
·
Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must
leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to
perform their role.
·
Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain
only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.
·
In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.
Members of the meeting
·
The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if
the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the
meeting is a committee meeting).
·
However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a
pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.
·
All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a
committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain,
subject to any limitations in standing orders.
Independent Māori Statutory Board
·
Members of the Independent Māori
Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.
·
Independent Māori Statutory Board
members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform
their role.
Staff
·
All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior
management) remain.
·
Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.
Local Board members
·
Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed
in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter
affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.
Council Controlled Organisations
·
Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain
only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled
Organisation.
|
Regulatory and
Bylaws Committee
09 December
2015
|
|
ITEM TABLE OF
CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 7
2 Declaration of Interest 7
3 Confirmation of Minutes 7
4 Petitions 7
5 Public Input 7
6 Local Board Input 7
7 Extraordinary Business 7
8 Notices of Motion 8
9 Decision on a set net and crab pot control for Omaha Beach 9
10 Hearings Panel Appointment for Setting Fees under the Food
Act 23
11 Update on begging behaviour in the central city 27
12 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
An apology from
Deputy Mayor PA Hulse has been received.
2 Declaration of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
3 Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:
confirm the
ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 13
October 2015, as a true and correct record.
|
4 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
5 Public Input
Standing Order
7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day
prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting
Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet
the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes
is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes
speaking time for each speaker.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
6 Local Board Input
Standing Order
6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that
Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this
time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson)
shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to
speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application
that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.
This right is
in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the
agenda.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
7 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item that is
not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time
when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be
delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an item
is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general
business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be
discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in
respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the
local authority for further discussion.”
8 Notices of Motion
At the close of
the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
|
Regulatory and
Bylaws Committee
09 December
2015
|
|
Decision on a
set net and crab pot control for Omaha Beach
File No.: CP2015/18392
Purpose
1. To seek a decision on whether to
manage public safety and nuisance issues associated with set netting and crab
fishing at Omaha Beach by using existing regulations or by making a control.
Executive
Summary
2. On 8 July 2015, the Regulatory
and Bylaws Committee requested that staff investigate the making of seasonal
crab pot and set net controls at Omaha Beach (resolution number: RBC/2015/24).
3. Concerns about
set netting and crab fishing at Omaha Beach have been raised by the Rodney
Local Board and members of the Omaha Beach community since early 2013.
4. The Public Safety and Nuisance
Bylaw 2013 enables the council to make seasonal controls for recreational
activities to ensure public safety and prevent nuisance. Public concerns about
the impact of set nets at Omaha Beach were raised during the making of the
bylaw. This increased during the development of the first annual summer set net
control at Shakespear Regional Park in 2014.
5. To address
public concerns, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee directed staff to monitor
set net activities at Omaha Beach over the 2014/15 summer
period (resolution number: RBC/2014/55). The purpose of monitoring these
beaches was to gather information on public safety and nuisance issues
associated with set netting.
6. Between
December 2014 and October 2015, the council received 22 emails from members of
the Omaha Beach community, 17 of which related to crab fishing and five related
to set netting. The majority of the issues raised can be addressed using
existing regulation, both within the jurisdiction of the council and other
agencies such as the Ministry for Primary Industries.
7. Staff have
reviewed the information obtained during this monitoring period and have
identified three feasible options for the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to
consider:
Option 1: Do not make set net and /
or crab pot controls and instead address issues using existing regulation and
education (recommended option)
Option 2: Make summer set net and /
or crab pot controls
Option 3: Make a set net and / or
crab pot controls all year round.
8. Should the Committee decide to make a control under either Options 2
or 3, it may wish to consider its October 2015 decision where it resolved that
the Arkles Bay Set Net Control should not impact customary fishing rights
carried out in accordance with the Fishing (Kaimoana Customary Fishing)
Regulations 1998.
9. Staff consider
that making new set net and / or crab pot controls for Omaha Beach (Option 2
and Option 3) would be disproportionate in response to the issues raised. Staff
consider that proactive monitoring and education about existing regulations is
the most appropriate approach to addressing public safety and nuisance issues
associated with crab fishing and set netting at Omaha Beach (Option 1), given
that most of these matters are already regulated.
|
Recommendations
That the Regulatory and Bylaws
Committee:
a) confirm that its approach to
managing public safety and nuisance issues associated with set netting and
crab fishing at Omaha Beach is:
EITHER
Option 1: address issues associated with set netting and
crab fishing at Omaha Beach using existing regulations and undertaking a
targeted education and monitoring program over the 2015/16 summer period.
OR
Option 2: Make summer set net and/ or crab pot controls at Omaha
Beach:
i) within 200 metres (seaward)
of the Mean High Water Spring from 20 December to 30 April annually, and
ii) that do not prevent customary
fishing from being carried out at Omaha Beach in accordance with the Fishing
(Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998.
OR
Option 3: Make set net and/ or crab pot controls at Omaha Beach:
i)
within 200 metres (seaward) of the Mean High Water Spring at all
times, and
ii) that do not prevent customary
fishing from being carried out at Omaha Beach in accordance with the Fishing
(Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998.
|
Comments
Background
10. In May 2015, the staff reported
to the Rodney Local Board on the results of the first seasonal set net control
at Shakespear Regional Park and the monitoring of Omaha Beach. At that meeting,
the board resolved to recommend to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee that
staff investigate the making of seasonal set net and / or crab pot controls at
Omaha Beach (resolution number: RD/2015/61).
11. On 8 July
2015, staff presented an update report on set netting activities to the council’s Regulatory and Bylaws Committee which included the
May recommendation from the Rodney Local Board. The committee resolved to
direct staff to investigate the making of summer crab pot and
set net controls at Omaha Beach (resolution
number: RBC/2015/24).
12. ‘Set netting’ is a method of catching fish where nets up to 60
metres long are placed adjacent to the beach and anchored to the sea floor with
surface floats at either end.
13. ‘Crab pots’ are baited
ring pots used to catch paddle crabs.
14. Staff have investigated whether
new set net and crab pot controls are necessary to address concerns raised by
members of the Omaha Beach community.
Mandate
15. Under clause 9(3) of the Public
Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013, the council can make controls restricting
recreational activities on beaches (such as set netting or crab fishing) 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.
16. In determining whether to make a
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 an issue
· evidence-based
(there is sufficient and timely evidence the activity is impacting on public
safety or causing a “nuisance” (as defined in the bylaw)
· complements
other measures aimed at maintaining public safety at beaches
· enforceable (i.e. the control can be implemented)
· made in a
transparent manner.
17. The Committee has the delegation
to make controls by passing a resolution pursuant to the Public Safety and
Nuisance Bylaw.
18. The process for making a control
can be initiated as a result of an investigation by council staff or in
response to complaints from local boards or the public.
19. The council can
only make controls for recreational activities. The council cannot:
· regulate operations such as
crab fishing undertaken by commercial operators
· make controls to protect
fisheries resources and wildlife.
20. These matters
fall outside the scope of the council’s jurisdiction under the bylaw making
powers of the Local Government Act 2002.
21. The
Ministry for Primary Industries is responsible for regulating fisheries
resources and the manner in which fishing gear is used through the:
· Fisheries Act 1996
· Fisheries (Commercial
Fishing) Regulations 2001
· Fisheries (Amateur Fishing)
Regulations 2013 and
· Auckland and Kermadec
Fishery Management Area Recreational fishing rules.
Regulating
set netting and crab fishing
22. The council can make a control to
prohibit or restrict set net or crab fishing activities at a specified beach
for a time or season considered necessary to ensure public safety.
23. As an example, in 2014, the
council implemented summer set net controls at Army Bay and Te Haruhi Bay
within Shakespear Regional Park to address public safety issues (resolution
number: RBC/2014/55).
24. In July 2015, the Committee also
resolved to make a seasonal set net control at Arkles Bay within 200 metres
(seaward) of the Mean High Water Spring from Labour Weekend to Easter annually
(resolution number: RBC/2015/39). The Committee resolved that this control
should not restrict customary fishing rights carried out in
accordance with the Fishing (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations
1998 (resolution number: RBC/2015/40).
Problem definition
25. Omaha Beach is situated on the
north east coast of Auckland, on the eastern side of the Omaha sandspit
adjoining Tawharanui Peninsula (refer to Attachment A: Map of
Omaha Beach). The eastern facing beach is approximately 4 kilometres in length.
In 2013, there were approximately 650 permanent residents at Omaha, with
the population significantly increasing in summer seasons.
26. Since early
2013, the Rodney Local Board and members of the Omaha Beach community have
regularly raised concerns about set net and crab fishing activities at Omaha
Beach.
27. This increased
in 2014, when the council developed its first annual summer set net control at
Shakespear Regional Park. In response to the concerns raised at this time,
council staff monitored set net activities at Omaha
Beach and set up an Auckland Council Set Net email address to gather
information and feedback about set net activities.
28. During the
monitoring period of the 2014/15 summer, the council’s local parks staff
undertook random spot checks at Omaha Beach but observed no set netting
activities. Officers from the Ministry for Primary Industries reported two instances where set netters were found in breach of the
Fisheries (Amateur Fishing)
Regulations 2013.
29. From December 2014 to October 2015, the council received 22 emails, 17
of which related to crab fishing and five related to set netting at Omaha
Beach. Tables 1 and 2 below outlined the type and number of issues raised for
crab fishing and set netting respectively.
Table 1: Crab
fishing – type and number of issues raised at Omaha Beach from December 2014 to October 2015
|
Issue
|
Complaint
|
Frequency
issue raised
|
|
Littering
|
Nets and hooks entangled in
pots; ring pots and chicken carcasses
used for bait in the water, washed up on the beach
|
10
|
|
Public health and safety
|
Concern about
positioning ring pots with chicken carcasses in shallow water; discourages
swimmers from using the area and poses a risk to health
|
8
|
|
Wildlife protection
|
Risk of harm to dotterels from pests attracted by chicken
carcasses washed up on the beach
|
4
|
|
Potential attraction of sharks
|
Concern that chicken carcasses used in ring pots may
attract sharks
|
3
|
|
Navigation safety
|
Proliferation of ring pots is a hazard to surfers and
paddle boarders
|
2
|
|
Anti-social behaviour
|
Aggressive behaviour of crab
fishers
|
1
|
|
Water safety of crab fishers
|
Near-drowning of crab fisherman caught in a rip while
setting a net to catch crabs from a boogie-board
|
1
|
Table 2: Set
netting - type and number of
issues raised at Omaha Beach
from December 2014 to October 2015
|
Issue
|
Complaint
|
Frequency
issue raised
|
|
Risk of swimmers becoming
entangled in nets
|
Nets left unattended
are a hazard to swimmers and other water users; one swimmer swam into a set
net and had to free themselves from the net
|
4
|
|
Use of set net fishing gear
|
Set nets in breach of
the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013;use of milk bottles as
floats on set nets with no owner identification
|
3
|
|
Fisheries resources
|
Concern at unsustainable fisheries harvesting associated
with the use of set nets
|
1
|
|
Wildlife protection
|
Risk of dolphins becoming
entangled in set nets
|
1
|
30. Some of the
concerns identified in Tables 1 and 2 are matters that fall outside the
council’s jurisdiction of managing public safety and nuisance. Attachment B
provides an overview of the work of other agencies in addressing these issues.
Existing regulations that
address public safety and nuisance issues raised
31. There are
a number of existing regulations aimed at addressing the types of public safety
and nuisance issues identified in Tables 1 and 2 above. Table 3 below
identifies the relevant regulations that are enforced by Auckland Council.
Table 3: Relevant existing regulation
enforced by the council
|
Issue
|
Existing regulation
|
|
Littering
|
The Litter Act 1979 prohibits depositing any
litter in or on a public place, including any beach and any waters
the public has access to for swimming or other recreational purposes.
|
|
Navigation safety
|
The Navigation Safety
Bylaw 2014 prohibits a person from placing any item, including fishing
apparatus, in the water in a way that causes an obstruction or is likely to
injure a person.
|
|
Nuisance to swimmers
|
The Public Safety and
Nuisance Bylaw 2013 prohibits wilfully obstructing, disturbing or interfering
with any other person in their use or enjoyment of that public place.
|
|
Anti-social behaviour
|
The Public Safety and
Nuisance Bylaw 2013 prohibits people from causing a nuisance through
excessive noise, disturbing the peace or the reckless use of a vehicle.
|
32. The
outstanding issues raised that are not addressed through existing regulations
include:
· the risk of swimmers being
entangled in nets left unattended (one person entangled in a net prior to the
monitoring period)
· public health and safety concern for swimmers near chicken
carcasses in the water and litter in the water from crab fishing (issue
raised eight times).
33. Staff
consider the risk of swimmers becoming entangled in set nets at Omaha Beach is
relatively low due to the following characteristics of the area:
· length
of the beach i.e. approximately 4 km
· location
of the beach in relation to other swimming beaches i.e. other options are
nearby
· distance from Auckland.
Options for
the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to consider
34. Staff have
identified three feasible options for the Committee to consider to address
public safety and nuisance issues associated with set netting and crab fishing
at Omaha Beach.
35. Table
4 below presents and analyses the options with reference to the following
objectives for achieving an effective policy outcome at Omaha Beach:
· ensure public safety and
prevent nuisance for other recreational beach users
· be
evidence-based – there is sufficient and timely evidence that the activity is
impacting on public safety or causing a nuisance (as per the definition of
‘nuisance’ in the bylaw)
· be a
proportionate and reasonable response to the evidence of the problem
· be enforceable (it can be implemented due to sufficient resources).
Table 4: Options analysis
|
Options
|
Analysis
|
|
Option 1:
Rather than making specific set net and / or crab pot
controls, use the following existing regulations to address public safety and
nuisance issues:
• Public
Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (anti-social behaviour, noise, damage,
vehicles on beaches, fish offal)
• Litter
Act 1979 (littering)
• Navigation
Safety Bylaw 2014 (obstruction of navigable waters for boats).
This option would be supported by
proactive monitoring and education of these regulations by the council over
the 2015/2016 summer period.
(Recommended option)
|
Benefits:
· Reasonable and proportionate response
that avoids duplication (i.e. with existing regulations)
· Proactive monitoring and education of
the Litter Act 1979 may reduce the dumping of chicken carcasses in the water
and raise awareness among crab fishers of the impacts on other beach users
· Face to face communication with
recreational fishers may be more effective at reducing problems than formal
public notification
|
|
Disadvantages:
· Education may not be effective at
reducing the risk of swimmers being caught in set nets
· Is not the response requested by
members of the community of Rodney Local Board
|
|
Implementation:
· Officers (both council and Ministry for
Primary Industries) would need to liaise and interact with beach users and
the local community to improve awareness of existing regulations
· Collateral for awareness programmes
such as signage and brochures could be required
|
|
Impacts:
· This option may not reduce conflict
between set netters and / or crab fishers and other beach users
|
|
Option 2:
Make summer set
net and/ or crab pot controls
(To apply from 20 December to 30 April annually extending
200 metres seaward from the Mean High Water Spring).
Under this option the Committee may wish
to recognise customary fishing rights carried out in accordance with the Fishing
(Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998.
|
Benefits:
· Responds to requests for the council
to regulate the use of set nets and crab pots at Omaha
· Would minimise the risk of swimmers
being entangled in set nets
· Would address issues with rotting bait
/ carcasses by prohibiting the use of set nets and / or crab pots
· Avoids potential conflict between set
netters and crab fishers and other beach users at peak times
|
|
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 and crab fishing is prohibited and allowed – even with
signage / public notification
· Could result in displacement to other
beaches
|
|
Implementation:
· Public awareness about the seasonal set
net and / or crab pot controls would need to be managed through signage and
communication
|
|
Impacts:
· Continues to prohibit two legal
activities that are managed by the Ministry for Primary Industries
· A control under the bylaw would restrict
customary fishing rights unless the Committee chooses to explicitly exclude
customary fishing from the control
· This option would not affect commercial
fishers
|
|
Option 3:
Make an all year round set net and /
or crab pot control
(Extending 200 metres seaward from
the Mean High Water Spring)
Under this option the Committee may wish
to recognise customary fishing rights carried out in accordance with the Fishing
(Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998.
|
Benefits:
· Same as described under Option 2
and would provide a clear statement that set netting and crab fishing are
prohibited at all times of the year
|
|
Disadvantages:
· May be considered a disproportionate
and unreasonable response as the majority of complaints about set nets and
crab pots have occurred during the summer period
|
|
Implementation:
· Public awareness about the controls
would need to be managed through signage and communication
|
|
Impacts:
· Continues to prohibit two legal
activities that are managed by the Ministry for Primary Industries
· A control under the bylaw would
restrict customary fishing rights unless the Committee chooses to explicitly
exclude customary fishing from the control
· This option would not affect commercial
fishers
|
Community
views on the options
36. Members of the
Omaha Beach community have provided feedback about crab fishing and set netting
at Omaha Beach on a number of previous occasions, including:
· submissions to the Public
Safety and Nuisance Bylaw (February 2013 – March 2013) including from the Omaha
Beach Community Incorporated
· 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).
37. The Auckland Council Set Net email address has continued to stay
open throughout the investigation. During the engagement phase of the project
in September, the council received seven emails from members of the Omaha Beach
community in support of summer controls for crab fishing and set netting.
38. One of the emails
received was from the Omaha Beach Community Incorporated. The group held a
planning forum in December 2014 where members of the community unanimously
agreed to pursue a set net and crab pot ban. In October 2015, the group sent the council their original
submission to the Rodney Local Board which outlined their concerns about set
nets and crab pots. Their main point was that the situation remains unchanged
and as such support having a ban on set nets and crab pots.
39. There were no
alternative views expressed via the Set Net email address.
Views of the
Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel
40. In September
2015, staff sought feedback from the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and Ethnic
Peoples Advisory Panel. The feedback from the both panels was:
· neither supported making
controls at Omaha Beach
· preferred approach is
education of with crab fishers and set netters to raise awareness of existing
regulations
· beaches are for the use by
all ethnicities in New Zealand, and specific groups should not be singled out
for regulatory control
· that the council’s response
to making controls should be evidence based such as:
- statistics of unreasonable
interference
- injuries as a result of
getting caught in set nets.
41. The Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel also
suggested methods of education and raising awareness including:
· using distinct markers such
as flags in the water to signal where set nets are
· patrols during the crab
fishing season
· educational workshops and
brochures for crab potter sand set netters
· designated areas
specifically for set netting and crab fishing
· messages through ethnic radio stations and print media in
different languages on safe practices while crab fishing and set netting.
Māori
engagement
42. Council staff received specific feedback from Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust
on the investigation. The following feedback was provided:
· any
controls proposed to be put in place should be done in consultation with the
upper northern iwi groups through a collective hui. This approach was used for
the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan and ensures mana whenua discuss and agree
on the long term management of coastal areas and implications, such as
displacement
· if controls are to be
developed, recognition of cultural practices (mahinga kai), rahui
(restrictions) and impacts on Māori and marine stocks is essential.
43. Iwi have also previously raised concerns
about the displacement of activities to areas such as the Kaipara Harbour. Iwi
were concerned that the tidal nature of this area may increase the risk of
public safety issues.
Summary of
options
44. Table
5 provides an assessment of the options against the objectives outlined in
section 29.
Table 5: 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
ü
-
x
xx
|
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 whether making new set net and / or crab pot controls is an
efficient and effective intervention to achieve the outcomes sought.
46. Of
the 22 emails received from members of the Omaha Beach community, only two of
the issues raised related to matters not already addressed by existing
regulation. These are:
· the risk of swimmers being
entangled in nets left unattended (issue raised four times, one person
entangled in a net), and
· public health and safety
concern for swimmers near chicken carcasses and ring pots in the water (issue
raised eight times).
47. Staff consider
that Option 1, proactive monitoring and enforcement of existing regulation and
education on responsible crab fishing and set netting, is the most reasonable
and proportionate response to the public safety and nuisance issues raised.
48. Option 1 is likely to be unpopular with Omaha residents who
have expressed support for these activities to be banned from Omaha Beach.
However, staff are concerned that Options 2 and 3 would be disproportionate and unreasonable responses to the frequency of
incidents involving real and potential risk to swimmers and other water users.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
49. At their meeting
on 10 November 2014, the Rodney Local Board resolved to recommend to the
Regulatory and Bylaws Committee that they agree to implement set net and
crab fishing controls at Omaha Beach for the 2014/2015 summer daylight saving
period (resolution number: RD/2014/263).
50. On 18 May 2015
the Rodney Local Board resolved to support that staff initiate the process of
investigating seasonal controls for set net and crab pot activities on Omaha
Beach (resolution number: RD/2015/61).
Māori
impact statement
51. Staff consider the recommended
option (Option 1) would not adversely affect Māori
as it would increase the awareness of responsible behaviour amongst set netters
and crab fishers.
52. Making a control
under the bylaw would restrict the method of set netting for customary fishing
at Omaha Beach carried out in
accordance with the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998.
53. The Committee
can explicitly exclude customary fishing from the control. This would reduce
the impact for Māori. The recommendations of this report enable the Committee to
make this decision for Options 2 and 3. This is likely to have a low associated
risk to public health and safety, though depending on the extent of customary
fishing that may be undertaken using a set net.
54. 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.
55. Further
information on feedback from Māori can be seen in the Māori
engagement section of this report.
Implementation
56. Staff consider
that existing regulations will help to address issues raised by members of the
Omaha Beach community. Education and proactive monitoring of the area will
improve compliance with these regulations.
57. The council will
undertake the following:
· distribute educational material to set
netters and crab fishers over the 2015/6 summer period
· proactively monitor the area both from 6
November 2015 to 28 March 2016. This will include both random spot checks and
planned coordinated actions based on identified issues
in response to recreational fishing patterns i.e. fishing outside normal
working hours.
Risks and risk
mitigation
58. Risks associated
with each option have been identified in Table 6 as well as possible ways to
mitigate the risks.
Table 6: Risks associated with identified options
|
Option
|
Risk
|
Mitigation
|
|
1
|
Community concern
that reliance on education and proactive monitoring may not alleviate risks
to swimmers.
|
· Communication
will include key messages that the council is legally constrained to ensure
regulation is appropriate and proportionate to the evidence of the issues
raised.
· Provide
education to set netters and crab fishers to be mindful of other beach users.
|
|
2
|
The making of
seasonal set net and /or crab pot controls at Omaha may set a precedent that
controls can be made for other beaches.
|
· Communication
will include key messages that while set netting and crab fishing are
legitimate activities the council has a role to maintain public safety for
all beach users.
|
|
3
|
There could be
questions about the level of evidence to justify an all year round controls
on set nets and crab pots given that complaints mainly occur in summer.
|
· The
same approach as for Option 2 but also consider reviewing after a year
to assess if it is justified.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Map of Omaha Beach
|
19
|
|
bView
|
Existing regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives
administered by other agencies
|
21
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Emma Pilkington - Policy Analyst
Rebekah Stuart-Wilson - Principal Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy
|
|
Regulatory and
Bylaws Committee
09 December
2015
|
|
|
Regulatory and
Bylaws Committee
09 December
2015
|
|
|
Regulatory and
Bylaws Committee
09 December
2015
|
|
Hearings Panel Appointment for Setting Fees under the
Food Act
File No.: CP2015/24423
Purpose
1. To appoint a
hearings panel to hear submissions on the Statement of Proposal - Setting Fees
under the Food Act 2014.
Executive
Summary
2. The Food Act
2014 introduces significant improvements to how food safety is addressed by
commercial establishments across New Zealand. The new Act places a greater
emphasis on the operator being responsible for food safety, and the regulator
auditing and verifying that their plan is adequate and being followed
correctly.
3. The change to
the legislation obligates council to amend how it charges for the services it
provides; due to amendments to the registration process and the addition of new
verification, auditing and compliance services.
4. The new Food
Act enables council to fix fees to recover the direct and indirect costs of any
registration, verification, compliance and monitoring functions performed under
the Act.
5. At its meeting of 19 November 2015, the
Finance and Performance Committee resolved FIN/2015/120:
a) to adopt the statement of
proposal to fix fees to recover the costs of the Council’s functions under the
Food Act 2014.
b) agree the process for
consultation as set out in the report, noting that staff will report back on
submissions and the proposed fees to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee in
2016.
c) note that the December 2015
meeting of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee will appoint hearings panel
members to consider the submissions.
6. The timing of
the special consultative process is largely determined by central government,
commencing soon after the provision of formal guidance from the Ministry of
Primary Industry. It must conclude before 01 March 2016 to enable council to
recover the costs of the service it provides under the new regime.
7. Engagement with
the hospitality industry and other key stakeholders has been positive.
8. This report
recommends the appointment of the hearings panel to hear submissions on the
Statement of Proposal - Setting Fees under the Food Act 2014.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and Bylaws
Committee:
a) appoint three
elected members (one as chair) to a panel to receive, hear and deliberate on
submissions and other relevant information on the setting of Food Act Fees,
and make recommendations to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee.
b) appoint a
member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board to the hearings panel.
c) delegate to
the chairperson of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee the ability to make
changes to the panel appointed under recommendation a) where this becomes
necessary because of withdrawal or unavailability of any of those persons.
d) agree for the
hearings panel to convene on 28 January 2016.
|
Background
9. The Food Act
2014 was passed into law in June 2014, replacing the Food Act 1981. A three
year transition starts on 1 March 2016. High risk food service businesses with
an alcohol on-licence such as hotels, restaurants, bars and cafes will be among
the first to transition to the new Act.
10. The new Food Act
enables Council to fix fees to recover the direct and indirect costs of any
registration, verification, compliance and monitoring functions performed under
the Act.
11. The Ministry of
Primary Industries has provided guidance on how fees and charges should be
determined. The Act states that fees must not recover more than the reasonable
costs and must satisfy the follow criteria:
Special Consultative Procedure
12. The Statement of
Proposal - Setting Fees under the Food Act 2014, aims to set fees for
businesses required registered and or verified by Auckland Council under the
Food Act 2014. This will be in effect from 1st March 2016.
13. Prior to fixing
fees, the Council is required to consult on the proposed fees using the special
consultative procedure as provided in section 83 of the Local Government Act
2002.
Consultation
has commenced
14. After approval
from the Finance and Performance Committee on 19 November 2015, the
consultation period commenced on Friday 20 November and closes on Monday 21
December. Whilst this is not an ideal time to call for submissions the need to
get the new fee regime in place by March 2016 makes it unavoidable. If the new
fees are not in place by March 2016, council will be unable to any recover fees
associated with discharging its functions under the Food Act 2014.
15. The Statement of
Proposal has been published on the Shape Auckland website and is also available
at council service centres.
16. A public notice
was published in the NZ Herald on Friday, 21 November 2016.
17. Officers have
written to or emailed the 9000 currently licensed food businesses, advising of
the consultation process and providing a set of FAQ’s.
Early
indications are positive
18. Officers have
engaged with industry groups such as Hospitality Association New Zealand
(HANZ), Restaurant Association New Zealand (RANZ) and the Chefs Association,
who all satisfied with the process and engagement to date.
19. Public hearings
will be available for those wishing to present oral submissions
20. It is
anticipated that the Hearings Panel will meet on 28 January 2016. This will be
dependent on the number of submitters who wish to be heard in person.
21. Following the
Hearings Panel, the final report on the setting of Food Act fees will be
prepared for consideration by the Governing Body on 9th February 2016.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
22. Local Boards
views will be sought during the special consultative procedure and included in
the report following the analysis of responses.
Māori
impact statement
23. Food prepared
and served on a marae for customary activities is outside the scope of the Act
and will not be regulated as the food is not sold or traded.
24. The Food Act Transition
project team has engaged with mana whenua, the Independent Māori Statutory
Board and will be sharing information with Mataawaka on 11 Nov at the Te
Mahurehure Marae in Point Chevalier. This session includes representatives from
Te Puni Kokiri and based on the feedback from this hui further engagement will
be scheduled for next year.
25. Council officers
recommend a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board be appointed
to the hearing panel.
Implementation
26. If this process is not completed before 1st March 2016,
there will be implications for new or transitioning food businesses and council
will be unable to any recover fees associated with discharging its functions
under the Food Act 2014.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Paul Walker - Senior Business Advisor, Business and
Finance
|
|
Authorisers
|
Mervyn Chetty - Manager Environmental Health,
Licensing and Compliance Services
Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and
Compliance Services
|
|
Regulatory and
Bylaws Committee
09 December
2015
|
|
Update on begging behaviour in the central city
File No.: CP2015/22341
Purpose
1. To receive the update on begging
in the central city and compliance with the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw
2013.
Executive
Summary
2. Begging is a complex social
issue often with many underlying drivers that require a multi-agency response.
3. The Public Safety and Nuisance
Bylaw 2013 (the Bylaw) controls the manner in which begging is undertaken,
creating an offence to do so in a manner that may intimidate or cause a nuisance
to any person.
4. Proactive patrols of the central
city have been conducted regularly since the passage of the Bylaw, and have
intensified since December 2014. Council compliance staff and security
contractors regularly encounter breaches of the Bylaw in the inner CBD. Since
May 2015, an average of 84 people per month has produced 493 incidents of
begging contrary to the Bylaw.
5. Council follows a graduated
approach to compliance with an emphasis on promoting voluntary compliance
through education, with prosecution as a last resort.
6. Prosecutions have been pursued
in relation to fourteen people persistently found to be begging in breach of
the bylaw. Five were convicted and discharged, four cases were withdrawn as the
individuals could not be found in order to serve a summons, four are awaiting
trial and one person was convicted, fined $100 and charged $130 costs.
7. From October 2013 to October
2015 the trend in incidents with people found begging in the city centre in
breach of the bylaw appears to increase (Appendix A). This is likely due to
increased number of compliance patrols resulting in increased opportunities for
encounters. Overall, staff have observed a noticeable change in the behaviour
of people begging, from aggressive to more passive begging.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and Bylaws
Committee:
a) note the information on begging
behaviour in the central city.
|
Comments
Background
8. The Public Safety and Nuisance
Bylaw 2013 has been operational since 26 May 2014. Clause 6(1) (f) of the bylaw
states that a person must not use a public place to beg, in a manner that may
intimidate or cause a nuisance to any person.
9. The central city is proactively
patrolled by security contractors (City Watch), usually up to four times a day.
There are also joint patrols with the New Zealand Police and Council staff.
10. Additional patrols have been
afforded by funding received from the Heart of the City business association.
11. People begging are provided
information on how to seek help from support organisations, such as the City
Mission, Lifewise, Community Alcohol and Drug Service, Auckland District Health
Board and the Ministry of Social Development.
12. People who are found to be
begging in a manner that is in breach of the bylaw are subject to a graduated
enforcement approach that includes education, verbal warnings, the issuing of
bylaw notices and prosecution.
13. From May 2015 to October 2015 a
monthly average of 84 people were found to be begging in the central city in breach
of the bylaw. During this same period City Watch patrols recorded on average
493 incidents per month with these individuals. An example of a typical
incident would be the asking of a person begging, who was causing a nuisance by
obstructing pedestrians, to relocate themselves away from the pedestrian flow
on the footpath.
14. Below are examples of actions
taken between September and October 2015.
|
September 2015
|
October 2015
|
|
636 incidents with people begging
|
493 incidents with people begging
|
|
623 verbal warnings
|
458 verbal warnings
|
|
9 written warnings
|
28 written warnings
|
|
3 x Police called
|
1 x Police called
|
|
1 x trespassed from adjacent property
|
3 x trespassed from adjacent property
|
|
99 people identified begging
|
86 people identified begging
|
15. To date this year prosecution has
been pursued in relation to fourteen people begging in breach of the bylaw.
Five were convicted and discharged, four cases were withdrawn as the
individuals could not be found in order to serve a summons, four are awaiting trial,
and one person has been convicted, fined $100 and charged $130 costs.
16. Of these fourteen people, two
were specifically encouraged to participate in the New Beginnings Court.
Participants have to volunteer for this programme. The New Beginnings Court is
an initiative aimed at dealing with persistent public place offenders. To be
eligible participants need to meet several criteria, such as having alcohol or
substance abuse issues, be suffering from health or mental health issues, and
consistently coming to the attention of the Police or justice system through
their ‘misdemeanour type’ or low level offending issues. Of the two people
encouraged to attend the New Beginnings Court, one did not take up the offer
and the other failed the eligibility criteria by deciding to plead their case
in the District Court.
17. Incidents with people begging in
the central city, in a manner that is in breach of the bylaw, have steadily
increased since October 2013. This is eight months before the bylaw came into
effect. A graph of incidents with people begging in the central city from
October 2013 is attached in Appendix A.
18. While the number of people
begging in the central city has been steadily increasing, enforcement of the
bylaw has produced a noticeable change in the behaviour of people begging, from
aggressive to more passive begging.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
19. Local Board views have not been
sought in preparing this report however the impact is greatest within the
Waitemata Local Board area.
Māori
impact statement
20. Māori views
have not specifically been obtained in relation to this report but staff
acknowledge that this issue may be of interest to Māori.
Implementation
21. There are no recommendations in
this report that require implementation.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Incidents with people begging in the central city
|
31
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Max Wilde - Manager Bylaws and Compliance
|
|
Authorisers
|
Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and
Compliance Services
|
|
Regulatory and
Bylaws Committee
09 December
2015
|
|
