Agenda of Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

TERMS OF REFERENCE

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.

1 Apologies

An apology from Cr LA Cooper 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:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 9 February 2016, 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.

5.1 Public Input - Viv Beck and Tania Loveridge - Heart of the City

Purpose

1. Heart of the City Chief Executive Viv Beck, and Centre Manager Tania Loveridge, will address the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee regarding the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw.

Executive Summary

2. This public input item will be heard at Item 10 – Potential approaches to further reduce unwanted begging behaviour.

5.2 Public Input - Graham Painter - Set Netting

Purpose

1. Graham Painter, representing the Omaha Beach Community (OBC) Set Net Sub-committee, will address the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee regarding set netting.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) thank Graham Painter for his presentation regarding set netting.

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.

6.1 Local Board Input - Julia Parfitt, Hibiscus and Bays Local Board - Set Netting

Purpose

1. Julia Parfitt, Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Chair, will address the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee regarding set netting.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) thank Julia Parfitt for her presentation regarding set netting.

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

10 May 2016

Report from the Ministry of Primary Industries

File No.: CP2016/06875

Purpose

1. To receive information on the role of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in managing recreational set net fishing, and MPI’s response to concerns about recreational set net fishing in Auckland.

Executive Summary

2. MPI is responsible for the regulation of fishing activity to provide for utilisation while ensuring sustainability. The level of recreational set net fishing is low relative to other recreational fishing methods. However, MPI acknowledges that set net fishing can occur in certain hotspots and there are concerns in certain local areas within Auckland including Omaha.

3. The concerns at Omaha discussed with MPI include compliance with MPI rules, objections to the use of set nets in the area (including because of presence of dolphins) and concerns about disturbance to shorebirds by fishers.

4. MPI has noted the concerns at Omaha and the compliance team is using information to inform surveillance activity. MPI will consider the broader concerns about set netting alongside other discussions that are occurring about the Hauraki Gulf to determine potential management options. Any regulatory changes would need to follow a statutory process that considers evidence available and provides for consultation with tangata whenua and the public. In the interim MPI is considering ways to engage with recreational set net fishers ahead of the upcoming summer to support discussion and education.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) receive the report.

Comments

5. MPI recognises the benefits of communicating, coordinating and where possible integrating management where its responsibilities are closely linked with Auckland Council.

6. One example is coastal fishing activities, where the MPI is the regulator of fishing activity and the Auckland Council has responsibilities to manage the coastal environment.

7. The guiding piece of legislation for fisheries management in New Zealand is the Fisheries Act 1996 which has the purpose to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. This means providing for the social, cultural and economic well-being that people obtain from fishing while ensuring that fisheries resources are able to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations and adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

8. The use of nets is a longstanding method for catching fish and a tradition for a number of people in Auckland and New Zealand. However the amount of recreational net fishing that occurs is relatively minor compared to the number of fishing trips using rods/lines. A survey commissioned by MPI that interviewed fishers during 2011 and 2012 estimated less than 5% of recreational fishing trips on the West Coast and less than 2% on the East Coast of the upper North Island used nets. Key species taken using nets include flounder, mullet and kahawai.

9. While the amount of recreational netting is relatively low overall, MPI acknowledges that netting often occurs in key “spots” and that there are concerns on the impacts on local areas and about the effectiveness of the method in targeting fish. In the early 1990s a group of stakeholders including environmental interests, recreational representatives and commercial fishing representatives were brought together to discuss concerns about set netting in the Hauraki Gulf area in particular. The resulting recommendations from this group led to closing of some areas to set netting, alteration to the rules for recreational set netting and the development of a code of practice.

10. Currently fishers are required to comply with set net laws:

· Set nets must be marked

· Staking of nets is prohibited

· Stalling of nets is prohibited

· There are restrictions on nets in channels

· Set nets must be less than 60 metres in length

· There is a maximum of one net per person or one net and one bait net per vessel.

· Nets must be more than 60 metres apart

· Using baited nets is prohibited.

11. These laws are explained within an updated set net code of practice brochure distributed by MPI. The brochure outlines other matters of good practice that set net fishers need to consider.

12. Monitoring of compliance with the above regulations alongside other rules about mesh size, daily bag limits, minimum legal size and the prohibition to sell recreationally caught fish is undertaken by MPI Compliance Officers and Honorary Fisheries Officers. Reports of suspicious behaviour should be logged by calling 0800 4 POACHER.

13. MPI’s Auckland-based District Compliance Manager and Team Manager Inshore Fisheries met with local representatives in Omaha in February 2016 to discuss specific concerns in the area.

14. A range of matters were raised during that discussion including compliance concerns, community support for the banning of set netting in the area (including because of presence of dolphins) and concerns about the impact on shorebirds from disturbance and behaviours of fishers.

15. MPI has noted these concerns and intends to respond to them in the following ways:

· Information from residents is being used to help plan surveillance in the area;

· Views on the use of set nets have been noted and will be considered alongside feedback from other discussions currently occurring in relation to the Hauraki Gulf (for example Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari) to determine potential management initiatives or changes. . Any regulatory changes would need to follow a statutory process that considers evidence available and provides for consultation with tangata whenua and the public.

· Opportunities to engage with recreational set net fishers are currently being considered to support discussion and education ahead of next summer.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16. This update was prompted following concerns raised by elected members in the northern wards and local board areas about compliance with fisheries regulations.

Māori impact statement

17. Input from tangata whenua will be sought for any proposed changes relating to management of fishing.

Implementation

18. There are no implementation issues directly relevant to Auckland Council, however both organisatons work closely together to ensure that compliance activities are appropriately coordinated where required.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Set Net Code of Practice - Ministry of Primary Industries	15

Signatories

Authors	Laura Furneaux – Team Manager, Inshore Fisheries, Ministry for Primary Industries
Authorisers	Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

10 May 2016

Update on monitoring of set netting activities at Omaha Beach

File No.: CP2016/06833

Purpose

1. To receive an update on the monitoring of set net and crab fishing activities at Omaha Beach over the 2015/2016 summer period.

Executive Summary

2. On 9 December 2015 the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee endorsed council staff undertaking a targeted education and monitoring programme regarding set net and crab fishing activities at Omaha Beach over the 2015/16 summer period (Resolution number: RBC/2015/45).

3. Insite Security Ltd was contracted to undertake the summer monitoring programme. The programme was active between 6 November 2015 and 28 March 2016. Activity reports were provided monthly (refer attachment A).

4. During the monitoring period, set net activities were observed on twelve instances, crab fishing on four instances and drag netting on one instance. Nine of the twelve set netting instances took place after the hours of 7:30pm.

5. Of these monitoring results, Council staff assessed that there were no public safety and nuisance issues that arose.

6. Set netters were observed to have been in breach of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013 on three instances. These regulations are enforced by the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) receive an update on the monitoring of set net and crab fishing activities at Omaha Beach over the 2015/2016 summer period.

Background

7. On 9 December 2015 the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee (the Committee) resolved that existing regulations and a targeted education and monitoring program over the 2015/16 summer period should be used to manage public safety and nuisance issues associated with set netting and crab fishing at Omaha Beach (Resolution number: RBC/2015/45).

8. Auckland Council (the council) contracted local security company Insite Security to monitor set net and crab fishing activities from 6 November 2015 to 28 March 2016 at Omaha Beach. Insite Security was contracted to deliver the following services:

· Regular patrols of Omaha Beach on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays for a weekly total of ten hours.

· Observe and record incidences of nuisance created by crab fishing and set netting.

· Educate beach users and raise awareness of the requirements of the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013, in relation to the safe use of beaches.

· Escalate any significant breaches of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 to the council call centre.

· Provide monthly activity reports to the council, detailing numbers of incidents, observations, education given and any actions taken.

Results

9. Table 1 below presents the results of the monitoring programme for set net and crab fishing activities at Omaha beach over the 2015/2016 summer period.

Table 1: Monitoring results at Omaha Beach over the 2015/2016 summer period

Date and time	Activity
07/11/2015 (Saturday) 12:15pm	Crab fishing Two crab pots with chicken carcasses as bait inside at the northern end of Omaha Beach. No beach goers were affected and the fishers ensured the site was left clean and tidy. Crab fishers advised that they were from east Auckland and had heard that Omaha was a good spot for crab potting.
02/12/2015 (Wednesday) 9:30pm	Set netting Net set in the Whangateau Harbour channel and picked up in the early hours of the morning.
09/12/2015 (Wednesday) 9:40pm	Set netting Net set in the Whangateau Harbour channel and picked up in the early hours of the morning.
11/12/2015 (Friday) 9:00pm	Set netting Net set at the southern end of Omaha Beach.
12/12/2015 (Saturday) 3:30pm	Crab fishing Use of surfcasters to cast nets into the sea and catch crabs at the northern end of Omaha Beach. Use of crab pots.
14/12/2015 (Monday) 7:30pm	Set netting Five nets set 100 metres apart at the northern end of Omaha Beach. In breach of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013. Breaches included the use of milk bottles as flotation devices, stakes to set nets and oversized nets.
16/12/2015 (Wednesday) 8:30pm	Set netting Net set at the southern end of Omaha Beach.
17/12/2015 (Thursday) 10:20pm	Set netting Net set in the Whangateau Harbour channel and picked up in the early hours of the morning.
27/12/2015 (Sunday) 4:45pm	Set netting Net set at the northern end of Omaha Beach.
28/12/2015 (Monday) 4:30pm	Crab fishing At Omaha Beach (in front of the surf club).
29/12/2015 (Tuesday) 9:30pm	Set netting Six nets about to be set in front of the Omaha shorebird sanctuary. The set netters relocated further down the beach when asked.
07/01/2016 (Thursday) 10:30am	Set netting Use of set nets to drag the nets and catch fish at Whangateau Harbour. In breach of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013. Breaches included no personal identification on flotation buoys and extended across most of the channel.
15/01/2016 (Friday) 9:30pm	Set netting Five nets set in front of the Omaha shorebird sanctuary. In breach of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013. Breaches included no personal identification on flotation buoys and oversized nets. Investigation by Ministry for Primary Industries Fisheries Officers. Notices issued.
27/01/2016 (Wednesday) 4:30pm	Crab fishing Use of surfcasters to cast nets into the sea and catch crabs at Omaha Beach (in front of the surf club).
30/01/2016 (Saturday) 9:30pm	Set netting Four nets sets in front of the Omaha shorebird sanctuary.
25/03/2016 (Friday) 5:50pm	Drag netting At Whangateau Harbour.
26/03/2016 (Saturday) 4:30pm	Set netting Nets set in front of the Omaha shorebird sanctuary.

Date and time

Activity

07/11/2015

(Saturday) 12:15pm

Crab fishing

Two crab pots with chicken carcasses as bait inside at the northern end of Omaha Beach. No beach goers were affected and the fishers ensured the site was left clean and tidy. Crab fishers advised that they were from east Auckland and had heard that Omaha was a good spot for crab potting.

02/12/2015

(Wednesday) 9:30pm

Set netting

Net set in the Whangateau Harbour channel and picked up in the early hours of the morning.

09/12/2015

(Wednesday) 9:40pm

Set netting

Net set in the Whangateau Harbour channel and picked up in the early hours of the morning.

11/12/2015

(Friday) 9:00pm

Set netting

Net set at the southern end of Omaha Beach.

12/12/2015

(Saturday) 3:30pm

Crab fishing

Use of surfcasters to cast nets into the sea and catch crabs at the northern end of Omaha Beach. Use of crab pots.

14/12/2015

(Monday) 7:30pm

Set netting

Five nets set 100 metres apart at the northern end of Omaha Beach. In breach of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013. Breaches included the use of milk bottles as flotation devices, stakes to set nets and oversized nets.

16/12/2015

(Wednesday) 8:30pm

Set netting

Net set at the southern end of Omaha Beach.

17/12/2015

(Thursday) 10:20pm

Set netting

Net set in the Whangateau Harbour channel and picked up in the early hours of the morning.

27/12/2015

(Sunday) 4:45pm

Set netting

Net set at the northern end of Omaha Beach.

28/12/2015

(Monday) 4:30pm

Crab fishing

At Omaha Beach (in front of the surf club).

29/12/2015

(Tuesday) 9:30pm

Set netting

Six nets about to be set in front of the Omaha shorebird sanctuary. The set netters relocated further down the beach when asked.

07/01/2016

(Thursday) 10:30am

Set netting

Use of set nets to drag the nets and catch fish at Whangateau Harbour. In breach of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013. Breaches included no personal identification on flotation buoys and extended across most of the channel.

15/01/2016

(Friday) 9:30pm

Set netting

Five nets set in front of the Omaha shorebird sanctuary. In breach of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013. Breaches included no personal identification on flotation buoys and oversized nets. Investigation by Ministry for Primary Industries Fisheries Officers. Notices issued.

27/01/2016

(Wednesday) 4:30pm

Crab fishing

Use of surfcasters to cast nets into the sea and catch crabs at Omaha Beach (in front of the surf club).

30/01/2016

(Saturday) 9:30pm

Set netting

Four nets sets in front of the Omaha shorebird sanctuary.

25/03/2016

(Friday) 5:50pm

Drag netting

At Whangateau Harbour.

26/03/2016

(Saturday) 4:30pm

Set netting

Nets set in front of the Omaha shorebird sanctuary.

Additional information

13. Insite Security provide security services in Omaha on behalf of the community. As part of this role, Insite Security have additionally provided the council with the following secondary accounts from Omaha Beach residents:

· November 2015 - a person reported that they had paddle boarded into a set net on two instances before 6am, removed the set nets and told the set netters to leave

· November 2015 - a swimmer reported to a paddle boarder that they had recently assisted another swimmer, who trains as an ocean swimmer, after they’d become entangled in a set net

· January 2016 - crab fishers set crab pots in the water and threw bait back into the water (fish heads and raw chicken)

· February 2016 - three crab pots set in the water were perceived to be inappropriately using the beach. The crab pots were removed and the crab fishers left.

Discussion

14. During the monitoring period of 6 November 2015 to 28 March 2016, a total of twelve set netting instances were observed, four instances of crab fishing and one instance of drag netting.

15. Of the twelve of set net activities observed, set netters were in breach of the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013 on three instances, including the following breaches:

· use of oversized nets

· staking of nets

· no identification of flotation buoys

· more than one set net being used per individual set netter

· set nets together extending more than one-quarter of the distance across the width of a channel.

16. These regulations are enforced by the Ministry for Primary Industries.

17. Nine of the twelve set netting instances took place after the hours of 7:30pm, which may be considered a low risk to public safety given that it is outside the hours of peak recreational water use.

18. There were no public safety and nuisance incidences, as assessed by Council staff, during council monitoring of set net and crab fishing at Omaha Beach over the summer period. One of the secondary accounts, provided as additional information by Insite Security, indicated three early morning issues in November 2015. These were where an ocean swimmer reportedly became entangled in a set net while training and two incidents of a paddle boarder paddling into a set net before 6:00am. These incidents were not observed by the contractor.

19. Another secondary account provided as additional information by Insite Security indicated that there was one breach of the Litter Act 1979 when crab fishers threw bait back into the water (fish heads and raw chicken) in February 2016.

20. Potential impacts of set net and crab fishing activities on the Omaha Beach Shorebird Sanctuary at the northern end of the beach is outside the scope of the public safety and nuisance monitoring that was undertaken over the summer period.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

21. Local Board views have not been sought in the preparation of this report. Omaha Beach is within the Rodney Local Board area and is likely to be of interest to the local board.

Māori impact statement

22. Māori views have not specifically been obtained in relation to this report but staff acknowledge that this issue may be of interest to Manawhenua.

Implementation

23. There are no recommendations in this report that require implementation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Omaha Beach Monitoring Reports	23

Signatories

Authors	Max Wilde - Manager Bylaws and Compliance
Authorisers	Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

10 May 2016

Update on begging behaviour in the central city

File No.: CP2016/06716

Purpose

1. To update the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee on data recently collected on begging behaviour in the central city and to outline possible actions the council could take to reduce nuisance behaviour associated with begging.

Executive Summary

2. Begging is a complex issue that is typically a symptom of multiple underlying causes, including long-term social issues. To sustainably address begging behaviour, a multi-dimensional, inter-agency response is required. Addressing begging behaviour alone is unlikely to be effective in reducing the number of people who beg.

3. In May 2014, Auckland Council adopted the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (“the bylaw”), which seeks to minimise nuisances, obstructions or unsafe activities in public places. The bylaw specifically covers begging, and states that a person must not use a public place to beg in a manner that may intimidate or cause a nuisance. The intent of the bylaw is not to ban begging.

4. In December 2015, after considering an update report on begging behaviour in the central city, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee (”the Committee”) requested that staff report back to the Committee “regarding the reduction of nuisance behaviour associated with begging in the central city, including the investigation of potential changes to the [bylaw].”

5. This report provides a further update on begging in the central city and identifies potential actions for the council to consider in response.

6. Data on incidences of begging and associated nuisance indicate the bylaw is effective in reducing aggressive and intimidating begging behaviour. The data shows:

· that the number of people begging remains relatively constant

· incidents in breach of the bylaw are decreasing

· increased compliance with the bylaw, with a general shift towards more passive begging.

7. Given these findings, staff recommend the following actions to strengthen the enforcement of the existing bylaw, and to pursue longer term, more sustainable approaches to reduce begging behaviour in the central city.

· maintain City Watch patrols and investigate opportunities to improve practices

· advocate to central government for infringement powers and increased social service provision

· make minor editorial amendments to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

· commence the research phase of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 review.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) agree that should staff undertake the following actions:

i) maintain City Watch patrols and investigate opportunities to improve operational practices; and

ii) advocate to central government for infringement powers and increased social service provision; and

iii) make minor editorial amendments to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013; and

iv) commence the research phase of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 review.

Comments

Background

8. Begging on the street is not unique to Auckland. It occurs in other cities both nationally and internationally.

9. Research shows that begging is a complex issue that is typically a symptom of multiple underlying causes, including long-term social issues. For example, a recent study commissioned by Wellington City Council (2016) found that:

· at an individual level, people who beg often have current or previous addictions, criminal convictions, and fragile or non-existent social support networks

· at a societal level, the prevalence of begging is influenced by wider government policy decisions, particularly in relation to social service provision (e.g. mental health, community care, or drug rehabilitation services) and accessibility to these services. Reductions in these services typically lead to increased prevalence of begging.

10. The study concluded that given the multi-dimensional nature of this issue, short term initiatives targeted at begging alone are unlikely to be effective overtime. Instead, longer term interventions aimed at addressing the underlying causes of begging are required, and these are best delivered across multiple levels, from central to local government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

11. This research indicates that whilst the council has a role to play in managing begging behaviour, its ability to sustainably reduce the prevalence of begging is more limited.

Auckland Council’s role in managing begging behaviour

Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

12. In May 2014, Auckland Council’s Governing Body adopted the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (”the bylaw”), which manages the effects and behaviours associated with certain activities in public places.

13. The bylaw generally seeks to:

· protect the public from nuisance

· promote and maintain public health and safety

· minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

14. The bylaw specifically addresses the issue of begging. Its policy intent is not to ban begging outright, but protect public safety and minimise nuisance to the public. The following clause of the bylaw outlines this:

Clause 6(1)(f):“a person must not use a public place to beg in a manner that may intimidate or cause a nuisance to any person”.

Implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the bylaw

15. The council is responsible for enforcing the bylaw and does so proactively through the City Watch Programme (“the Programme”). As part of the Programme, council staff and security contractors patrol the central city up to four times a day. The New Zealand Police and council staff also regularly conduct joint patrols in the central city.

16. When patrol staff encounter people begging, they generally respond by providing 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.

17. Where people are begging in a manner that breaches the bylaw, patrol staff apply a graduated enforcement approach that includes education, verbal warnings, seizure of signs, the issuing of bylaw notices and prosecution. Examples of the graduated response include:

· patrol staff may ask a person begging, who is causing a nuisance by obstructing pedestrians, to relocate themselves away from the pedestrian flow on the footpath.

· the council prefers to refer people in breach of the bylaw to the New Beginnings Court process.

18. The New Beginnings Court is a multi-agency initiative that seeks to provide a non-adversarial, inter-agency approach to managing a defendant’s legal and social issues. It provides active case management to deal with the issues underlying each individual’s offending. Although the council prefers the New Beginnings process, individuals need to opt into this service.

Current information on begging behaviour in the central city

Previous Committee decision

19. In December 2015, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee (“the Committee”) passed the following resolution in response to a monitoring report on begging behaviour, in the central city (RBC/2015/47-48):

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) note the information on begging behaviour in the central city

b) request that staff report back to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee in May 2016 regarding the reduction of nuisance behaviour associated with begging in the central city, including the investigation of potential changes to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw (2013).

20. This report responds to these resolutions by:

· providing a further update on begging in the central city for the period September 2015 to March 2016

· summarising the findings of the staff investigations and identifying potential actions for the council to consider.

Updated data on begging behaviour

21. Table 1 below shows the number of people identified begging, and the number of incidents of people begging in breach of the bylaw, as identified by Programme patrol staff. The table also provides a breakdown of the type of action undertaken where a breach of the bylaw was identified. The data was collected for the period September 2015 to March 2016.

Table 1. Data about people begging in Auckland CBD (September 2015 - March 2016)

Actions	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar
People identified begging (regardless of whether they are breaching the bylaw or not)	99	86	82	87	91	88	85
Incidents with people begging in breach of the bylaw	636	493	461	504	424	396	353
Verbal warnings	623	458	427	469	406	384	333
Written warnings	9	28	19	13	9	5	2
Police called	3	1	8	30	9	7	7
Trespassed from adjacent property	1	3	7	2	0	0	11

Source: City Watch Programme patrol data

22. Figure 1 below shows trend data for the same period for the number of people identified begging and the number of incidents with people identified begging in breach of the bylaw.

Figure 1. Trend data on begging in Auckland CBD (September – March 2016)

23. The figures show that for the six month period:

· there were an average of 88 people per month identified begging in the central city and an average of 466 incidents per month where individuals were recorded begging in breach of the bylaw

· overall, the number of incidents with people begging in breach of the bylaw has steadily decreased

· the number of people begging has remained fairly constant.

24. Some individuals who engage in begging activity in the central city have been doing so for a number of years and have become well known to patrol staff. Two individuals in particular have generated nearly 400 encounters in the two years to March 2016. Of these, 80 per cent resulted in the individuals willingly complying with requests from staff. However, on some occasions, these individuals have not complied with staff requests. In these instances, enforcement action has been required, such as seizing signage, issuing formal bylaw breach notices, trespass notices or prosecution.

25. On some occasions, the engagement has triggered an aggressive, verbally abusive and/or physical response. Patrol staff and council compliance officers are highly trained and experienced in using de-escalation techniques to defuse these types of situations, to avoid harm to the individuals, themselves and to the public. They work in a difficult environment, engaging with people who present complex and challenging circumstances. They do so sensitively and empathetically, sometimes at risk to their own personal safety.

Possible actions for the council

26. The data indicates that proactive enforcement of the bylaw is successful at increasing compliance overtime.

27. However, the data also shows that the prevalence of people begging (i.e. the number of people begging, whether in breach of the bylaw or not) has not markedly changed. In light of the wider research findings, particularly the recent Wellington research, suggests there are opportunities for the council and other agencies to undertake a more sustainable approach to addressing the underlying causes of begging.

28. Staff have identified the following four actions for the council to continue reducing the nuisance behaviour associated with begging in the central city (as per the Committee’s December 2015 request) and progress these wider opportunities.

Action 1: Maintain City Watch patrols and investigate opportunities to improve operational practice

29. Staff recommend that the council should continue funding the Programme on a long-term basis to ensure the on-going success of the bylaw. The Programme is critical for monitoring and enforcement, particularly to increase compliance and decrease nuisance behaviour. In addition, the graduated enforcement approach employed by patrol staff enables the council to respond to issues in a proportionate manner whilst also promoting a solutions-focussed approach.

30. The council currently funds the Programme at a cost of approximately $274,000 annually. The Heart of the City Business Association has also provided additional funding of $70,000 for 2015/2016 to enable additional patrols in a wider part of the central city, although this is not guaranteed into the future.

31. Staff recommend sustaining current enforcement efforts whilst also looking for any improvements that would strengthen the proactive, graduated enforcement approach. For example, there may be opportunities to connect people who beg with a range of outreach providers.

Action 2: Advocate to central government for infringement powers and increased social service provision

32. Staff recommend that the council should advocate to central government for the power to issue infringement notices for breach of the bylaw. This would help to increase compliance with the bylaw. It may also help to increase the number of people entering the New Beginnings Court process, and therefore gaining access to wider support services.

33. At present, prosecutions are typically dealt with through the normal court process. Although council staff refer offenders to the New Beginnings Court, the offenders themselves must agree to participate in this process. Offenders are presently opting for the district court process, as there is little consequence from prosecutions.

34. An infringement fine may help to incentivise the use of the New Beginnings Court rather than the normal court process as those who cannot pay fines, or that are repeat offenders, may decide to opt in.

35. In addition to advocating for infringement powers, the council can work with, and advocate to, central government and non-government organisations for wider changes that will impact the prevalence of people who beg (e.g. emergency housing, sustainable, affordable housing etc.)

36. The council can also look at opportunities for linkages for its own non-regulatory initiatives. For instance, the council’s partnership in the Ending Rough Sleeping Steering Group (RSSG) can provide positive outcomes for reducing begging.

Action 3: Make minor editorial amendments to the bylaw

37. The Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 states that:

A person must not use a public place to:

(a) wilfully obstruct, disturb or interfere with any other person in their use or enjoyment of that public place; […]

(f) beg, in a manner that may intimidate or cause a nuisance to any person;

(g) wash or offer to wash a vehicle or any part thereof, in a manner that may be unsafe or intimidate or cause a nuisance to any person, or cause an obstruction to traffic.

38. The bylaw currently defines “nuisance” as the same as in section 29 of the Health Act 1956. The terms “intimidation” and “obstruct” are not currently defined.

39. The council could reduce ambiguity in the wording of the bylaw by adding explanatory notes and/or by making minor amendments to the definitions. This may make the bylaw easier to implement. Such amendments would not change the current intent of the bylaw, but would make it easier to identify and demonstrate when a breach of the bylaw has occurred.

40. Minor amendments to the bylaw can be made to it without the requirement of full public consultation. However, such changes could not be used to change the status of passive begging.

41. Minor amendments in the definition will not reduce the overall numbers of people begging as it addresses the action of begging rather than the cause.

Action 4: Commence the research phase of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 review

42. Staff recommend commencing the research phase of the bylaw review immediately rather than in 2017/2018 as originally scheduled. This will help the council to better understand the underlying causes of begging behaviour, in a similar manner to the recent Wellington research.

43. This research would inform the formal review as well as the council’s advocacy activities.

44. Following the research phase, staff could commence data collection before commencing the formal review. The review process would identify and analyse all options, including retaining the current approach (status quo) and amending the bylaw.

Assessment of possible actions

45. Table 2 below provides an assessment of these actions against the following four criteria:

· ease of introduction – the time and resource required to introduce the action

· ease of enforcement – the impacts on enforcement of the bylaw

· impact on people begging – the potential to address the social issues that contribute to people begging

· impact on amount of begging – the potential to reduce the actual number of people begging.

Table 2. Assessment of actions

1. Action	Criteria
	Ease to introduce	Ease to enforce	Impact on people begging	Impact on amount of begging
1) Maintain funding for City Watch Programme	ü	ü	¡	û
1) Maintain funding for City Watch Programme	No change – Programme is currently in operation and funding source is secured	No change – Programme is critical to enforcement of existing bylaw	Data suggests a reduction in aggressive begging, but no change to underlying causes	Data suggests the number of people begging has remained constant.
2) Council’s proactive advocacy to address causes of begging	ü	ü	ü	ü
	Staff have already established channels and skills for advocacy to central government	Council’s proactive advocacy would seek to ease enforcement of the bylaw	Advocacy for initiatives and outcomes for people begging would generally improve the general state of social services	Advocating for better provision of social services and outcomes for people begging will help to reduce overall amount of begging
3) Minor amendments to definitions in the bylaw	ü	ü	û	û
3) Minor amendments to definitions in the bylaw	Minor amendments can be approved without the requirement for full public consultation	Will remove ambiguity when pursuing a prosecution	Does not address the underlying causes of begging	Unlikely to reduce the numbers of people begging
4) Commence research phase of the bylaw review	ü	-	ü	ü
4) Commence research phase of the bylaw review	Staff resources are available to support this action. The bylaw review is scheduled to start imminently	No enforcement impacts	Research into the underlying causes of begging, will lead to better designed interventions	As a longer term solution, research into the underlying causes of begging will reduce the overall numbers of people begging

** £ No change; ü Positive û Negative

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

46. Waitematā Local Board is most likely to be affected by this issue, as patrols of the CBD take place in their board area. The Waitematā Local Board Plan states: “The existence of homelessness in our area is a concern. We will work with agencies to improve the mental and physical wellbeing of our most vulnerable and isolated people” (p.43).

47. A proposal to amend the bylaw would require further consultation with all affected local boards.

Māori impact statement

48. There is no data to illustrate how many people begging in the central city are Māori, or the proportion of Māori are in breach of the bylaw.

49. However, there is data to suggest that homelessness disproportionately affects Māori. The 2013 Auckland City Mission survey of rough sleepers within three kilometre radius of the Sky Tower, found the majority of rough sleepers are Māori and older than 30 years of age.

50. Although not all homeless people beg, Māori will be disproportionally impacted by any options to address begging or homelessness. Agencies such as Awhina Mai Tatou and Community Housing Aotearoa have initiatives in place to address homelessness among Māori.

51. It is important that council works with these agencies and take into account the particular needs of Māori in developing options to address begging.

Implementation

52. This report will be forwarded to the Waitematā Local Board for their information.

53. Implementation impacts will vary depending on the committee’s decision. A directive to undertake unscheduled work may require the re-prioritisation of other policy work.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst

Caroline Lonsdale - Principal Policy Analyst

Max Wilde - Manager Bylaws and Compliance

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

10 May 2016

Extending the McManus Park alcohol ban to part of Ōtāhuhu

File No.: CP2016/07859

Purpose

1. To seek a decision about whether or not to make an alcohol ban over that part of Ōtāhuhu, also known as Mount Richmond, that provides access to McManus Park.

Executive Summary

2. Pursuant to the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has the delegated authority to make alcohol bans on all Tūpuna Maunga over which the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (the Maunga Authority) is the administering authority. This includes Ōtāhuhu (Mount Richmond).

3. In October 2015, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board made a 24 hours, seven days a week alcohol ban on McManus Park, which adjoins Ōtāhuhu. At that time, the Board also requested that the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee make an alcohol ban over the access road adjoining McManus Park. This area forms part of the Tūpuna Maunga, meaning it falls within the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee’s delegations rather than the Board’s.

4. Staff have investigated the Board’s request and whilst there is limited evidence of alcohol-related crime in the area, staff have identified evidence of alcohol-related disorder in the access road as well as the car park further along from McManus Park (see Attachment A). This includes broken glass and alcohol-related litter being left in the park, and noisy gatherings in the car park in the evenings and at night.

5. The Maunga Authority, which provides direction to the council on the management of the Tūpuna Maunga, supports the making of an alcohol ban on all Tūpuna Maunga.

6. Staff have identified three feasible options for the Committee to consider in response to the Board’s request:

· Option 1 – decline to make an alcohol ban, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to meet the requirements of the bylaw

· Option 2 – make a 24 hours, seven days a week alcohol ban for that part of the access road servicing McManus Park

· Option 3 – make a 24 hours, seven days a week alcohol ban for the access road and car park areas adjoining McManus Park and Bert Henham Park (as marked in red in Attachment A).

7. Staff recommend Option 3 as it is an appropriate response to the disorder being experienced by local residents and supports community-focused initiatives in the area. By targeting vehicle parking areas, the response is proportionate to the disorder being experienced.

Recommendations

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

EITHER

a) decline to make an alcohol ban, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence of a high level of crime or disorder associated with the consumption of alcohol in the access road servicing and adjoining McManus Park;

b) make an alcohol ban, pursuant to the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014, to operate for 24 hours a day, seven days a week over that part of the access road servicing and adjoining McManus Park;

c) make an alcohol ban, pursuant to the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014, to operate for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in the area marked in red on Attachment A to this report, and described as follows:

“the car parks and access roads of Ōtāhuhu (Mount Richmond) that adjoin McManus Park and Bert Henham Park.”

d) confirm that the decision in (a), (b) or (c) is in accordance with relevant requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014.

Comments

Background

Decision-making under the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014

8. The Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (“the bylaw”) delegates the authority to make alcohol bans over areas of regional significance to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee. Regionally significant bans, include:

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

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

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

9. The bylaw delegates decision-making authority for all other areas to local boards.

Previous decision of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

10. Between December 2014 and October 2015, the council completed a review of its existing alcohol bans to ensure compliance with new legislative requirements for all alcohol bans to meet a higher evidential threshold.

11. In October 2015, as part of the review, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board (the Board) made a 24 hours, seven days a week alcohol ban on McManus Park, to replace the previous ban made under the legacy Auckland City Council Liquor Control in Public Places Bylaw 2004. McManus Park adjoins Ōtāhuhu.

12. The Board resolved as follows:

“b), xxxviii. Retains the ban at McManus Park as per the board’s proposal and extend to include the shared driveway, as the panel is of the opinion that sufficient evidence of a high level of harm or disorder associated with alcohol at this location exists, and sets the hours of this ban to 24 hours, 7 days a week”

(Resolution number MT/2015/164, resolution b), xviii)

13. The Board made this decision, based on the following:

· data from the New Zealand Police that indicated levels of alcohol-related crime or disorder in the area supported the retention of the previous 24 hours, seven days a week (at all times) alcohol ban for McManus Park.

· the community views from over 34 submissions were generally supportive of alcohol bans as a means of addressing alcohol-related crime and disorder

· community views in submissions received by the Maungakiekie - Tāmaki Local Board also supported the use of alcohol bans. One submission directly relating to McManus Park cited broken glass and alcohol-related litter being left in the park and in nearby residents' yards from often noisy gatherings before the car park is closed in the evenings. This evidence is provided in Attachment B.

· a community focussed solution was suggested to regularly close the gates to the McManus Park car park in the evening (Attachment B).

14. The Maunga Authority, which provides direction to the council on the management of the Tūpuna Maunga, supports the making of an alcohol ban for the Maunga. In March 2015, it resolved to:

· declare all Tūpuna Maunga alcohol-free at all times

· write to the council recommending that it support this alcohol-free status through its alcohol ban review process (Resolution 5 from hui 6).

Decision for the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

15. Part of the ban area, specifically the access roads of Ōtāhuhu (Mount Richmond) that adjoins McManus Park, form part of the Tūpuna Maunga. This means that the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee is responsible for decision-making for this part of the alcohol ban. In recognition of these shared decision-making delegations, the Board resolved as follows:

“k), xviii., 2. requests that the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee make a 24 hours, 7 days a week alcohol ban for that part of the access road to Ōtāhuhu (Mount Richmond) adjoining McManus Park (map 12, Attachment C, page 195 of the agenda)”

(Resolution number MT/2015/164)

Decision-making considerations

16. In making an alcohol ban, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee must be satisfied that it complies with a range of statutory and bylaw requirements. This includes the following requirements outlined in Clause 7(2) of the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (Attachment B):

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

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

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

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

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

o 24 hours, seven days a week (at all times alcohol ban)

o 7.00pm to 7.00am daily (evening alcohol ban)

o 10.00pm to 7.00am daylight saving and 7.00pm to 7.00am outside daylight saving (night time alcohol ban)

o 7.00pm on the day before to 7.00am on the day after any weekend, public holiday or Christmas/New Year holiday period (weekend and holiday alcohol ban).

New evidence received since the request

17. The access way servicing the McManus Park car park extends behind a row of residential properties and connects with the car parks associated with the local clubrooms, including the Otahuhu Leopards Rugby League Club, which is at the northern end of the vehicle access road.

18. Staff have consulted with the police, local residents and the Otahuhu Leopards Rugby League Club about on-going issues in the car park area from alcohol consumption and associated disorder.

19. The area has experienced a history of graffiti, vandalism and burglaries. Anecdotal evidence from the club indicates that this may be linked to the area being attractive to people gathering in their cars in the car park to drink alcohol, leaving behind large amounts of litter (including broken glass) and playing loud music until the early hours of the morning.

20. Although the police are aware of community concerns about safety in the area they have not been able to provide data of any crime occurring as a result of alcohol consumption in public places. According to the police, the area presents many challenges for enforcement, including:

· multiple access and escape points

· the secluded nature of the area from Mount Wellington Highway

21. Members of the rugby league club are engaged in community-focused solutions to manage alcohol harm from drinking in the car park area. This includes:

· the regular cleaning up of alcohol-related litter (including broken glass) from the car park

· encouraging groups who are drinking in the area to move on, by highlighting the presence of alcohol ban signage in the car park area.

22. If the alcohol ban is not reinstated, these signs will be removed before next summer, making it more difficult for the club to deter cars from parking in the area to drink alcohol.

23. The disorder being observed in the area can be reasonably associated with drinking alcohol in the area. It is heaviest over the summer months and begins in the early evening and can go late into the night.

24. The council has also consulted with contractors operating over the entire maunga late at night (undertaking rabbit control). Although the contractors have witnessed peculiar behaviours late at night and have voiced concern about safety on the maunga itself. They have been unable to confirm whether alcohol was causing or making this situation worse.

Options

25. The following reasonably practicable options have been identified and analysed by staff with particular reference to the decision making criteria in paragraph 17.

Option	Pros	Cons	Risk assessment
1. Status quo - Do not amend the alcohol ban on Ōtāhuhu (Mount Richmond)	no change to status quo	· will result in on-going disorder associated with alcohol consumption along the car parks and access road adjoining McManus Park	no risk of legal challenge. Highest risk of issues escalating over summer 2016-17 (with existing signs scheduled to be removed in the coming months).
2. Adopt a 24 hours, seven days a week alcohol ban for that part of the access road servicing McManus Park	· meets the decision making considerations in paragraph 17 · is not seen to place unreasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms to possess or consume alcohol · aligns to local board resolution.	· would still allow alcohol to be consumed on the access road and car park servicing the club rooms adjoining Bert Henham Park. This area is more secluded from the street and is popular when the gates at McManus Park are closed. Residents will likely continue to be impacted.	low risk of legal challenge. High risk of on-going management issues.
3. Adopt a 24 hours, seven days a week alcohol ban for the access road and car park areas adjoining McManus Park and Bert Henham Park	· meets the decision making considerations in paragraph 17 · will help address alcohol-related crime and disorder associated with vehicles in the area · will enable a consistent enforcement regime across the whole area · ensures consistent messaging to both residents and visitors in the area · is not seen to place unreasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms to possess or consume alcohol · is consistent with local board request.	· could result in people drinking on the maunga itself or on the sports surfaces at the base of the maunga, or to other car parking areas outside the investigation area.	medium risk of legal challenge. This risk would likely be outweighed by the benefits of a more responsive control on the consumption of alcohol in public places in relation to car parks on this side of the maunga.

Staff recommendation to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

26. Staff recommend that the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee adopt Option 3, to apply a 24 hours, seven days a week alcohol ban on the access road adjoining McManus Park and extending to the car park areas around the club rooms adjoining Bert Henham Park. This area is shown in red on Attachment A

27. This would help address alcohol-related crime and disorder in areas commonly accessed by vehicles, improve enforcement action and present a consistent message to both residents and visitors.

Risk Management

28. If no alcohol ban is made, crime or disorder resulting from drinking is likely to continue. Issues may become worse once the alcohol ban signs, scheduled for removal, are taken down.

29. There is a risk that the decision to apply an alcohol ban may be challenged in the High Court. This risk is considered to be very low and defendable, provided that:

· evidence of site specific alcohol-related crime and disorder is well documented to ensure the new national requirements are met

· including the same level of evidence and the same analysis criteria used to adopt other alcohol bans in the area.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

30. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board consider a 24 hours, seven days a week alcohol ban on the access road that services McManus Park is justified, and has requested the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee adopt the same alcohol ban on its portion of the area.

31. The board have previously noted that alcohol bans on maunga within their local board area should have alcohol bans with hours of operation consistent with nearby parks and reserves.

Māori impact statement

32. Māori made up 16 per cent of the local board area in 2013. A high proportion of these Maori are rangatahi (under 25) who are at risk of alcohol-related harm resulting from drinking in public places.

33. 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 and the Auckland Plan that was developed with Māori.

34. Mana whenua representatives supported alcohol bans in principle at two hui held in March 2015. Representatives recognised the importance of non-regulatory approaches to reduce alcohol-related harm.

Implementation

35. If the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee decide to make an alcohol ban on that part of Ōtāhuhu providing vehicle access to McManus and Bert Henham Park, new signage will be erected and council’s website will be updated.

36. No action is required if the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee decide not to make an alcohol ban.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Map of area	63
b View	Alcohol Control Byalw 2014, Clause 7(2)	65
c View	Submission on McManus Park	67

Signatories

Authors

Daniel Pouwels - Principal Policy Analyst

Belinda Hansen - Team Leader Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

10 May 2016

Update on bylaws development and information on the 2016/17 work programme

File No.: CP2016/08006

Purpose

1. To provide the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee with an update on bylaws-related policy work undertaken in the past six months, and to present a work programme for the 2016/2017 financial year.

Executive Summary

2. In Auckland Council’s first five years, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee’s focus was on reviewing and integrating 140 legacy bylaws. By 31 October 2015, 20 integrated bylaws had been developed and adopted.

3. Now that the review and integration of legacy bylaws is complete, staff supporting the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee have shifted their focus to:

· developing local controls, enabled through the adopted bylaws

· developing new bylaws to cover topics where legacy councils did not have bylaws

· responding to legislative changes introduced or proposed by central government

· planning for the first cycle of formal bylaw reviews.

4. This report identifies a number of bylaws-related projects for 2016/2017. The majority of these will require decisions to be made by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee (or an equivalent committee in Auckland Council’s next term) during the 2016/2017 financial year.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee:

a) receive the report on the bylaws work programme for 2016/2017.

Comments

Background

5. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee’s priority for Auckland Council’s first five years was reviewing and integrating 140 legacy bylaws. By 31 October 2015, the following 20 integrated bylaws had been developed and adopted:

· Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012

· Dog Management Bylaw and Policy on Dogs 2012

· Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012

· Solid Waste Bylaw 2012

· Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

· Trade Waste Bylaw 2012 (administered by Watercare Services)

· Election Signs Bylaw 2013

· Food Safety Bylaw 2013

· Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013

· Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

· Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014

· Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014

· Outdoor Fires Bylaw 2014

· Animal Management Bylaw 2015

· Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015

· Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

· Signage Bylaw 2015

· Stormwater Bylaw 2015

· Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015

· Waste Water and Water Supply 2015 (administered by Watercare Services).

6. The Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 was the last integrated regional bylaw to be developed. Its adoption by the Governing Body in September 2015 signalled the completion of the integrated bylaw review programme.

Progress update: October 2015 to April 2016

Local controls enabled through adopted bylaws

7. Bylaws can contain provisions that enable the development of local controls. Controls are typically simpler to adopt and amend than bylaws, and, in most circumstances, approval for these controls can be delegated.

8. Regional bylaws that contain specific provisions for developing controls adopted by Auckland Council include:

· the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013:

o enables the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to adopt safety-related controls recommended by local boards

· the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014:

o enables local boards to adopt and amend local alcohol bans

o enables local boards to implement local temporary alcohol bans

o enables the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to adopt alcohol bans on regional parks

· the Policy on Dogs 2012:

o requires all local boards to review local dog access rules on beaches and foreshore areas

o enables local boards to review and amend dog access rules in local parks.

9. Local controls progressed in the last six months include:

· advice and decision-making on set net controls for Arkles Bay and Omaha Beach

· amendments to extend the coverage of five local alcohol ban areas to adjacent local boards

· three temporary alcohol bans for events held in summer 2015/2016

· reviews of local dog access rules in eight local board areas.

Responding to legislative changes

10. All bylaws must be developed in accordance with the relevant enabling legislation. When the government introduces or amends legislation which impacts on these bylaw making powers, the council needs to respond to these changes. In the last six months, Auckland Council has made submissions to the relevant select committee on:

· proposed changes to the Health Act through the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill

· proposed changes to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 through the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill.

11. Staff provided advice to the Committee which made changes to the Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013 to ensure consistency with the Food Act 2014, which came into force in March 2016.

Work programme for 2016/2017

12. The 2016/2017 work programme includes work on a range of local controls, the development of two new bylaws, and reviews of existing bylaws.

Local controls

13. Work planned for the 2016/2017 financial year relating to local controls includes:

· completing reviews of local dog access rules in eight local board areas

· beginning reviews of local dog access rules in regional parks and the three remaining local board areas

· developing a standard process for handling requests for new local alcohol bans

· making recommendations on the development of major event alcohol bans.

New bylaw: air quality

14. In mid-2015, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee decided to progress an air quality bylaw. The air quality bylaw will incorporate existing provisions relating to domestic indoor fires in the Auckland Region Plan: Air, Land and Water, as this plan will lapse when the Unitary Plan becomes operative. Staff aim to consult on and adopt a new air quality bylaw by late 2016 or early 2017.

15. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee also asked staff to consider alternative, non-regulatory approaches to improving Auckland’s air quality. In response, staff have:

· commissioned a third party to update data on air quality and emissions

· commissioned research on the social impacts of air pollution in Auckland

· drafted an action plan for non-regulatory interventions, subject to resourcing.

New bylaw: freedom camping

16. The Freedom Camping Act was introduced in August 2011. It enables local authorities to develop bylaws that specify:

· areas in its district or region where freedom camping is prohibited

· areas in its district or region where freedom camping is restricted

· what restrictions apply in areas where freedom camping is restricted.

17. Staff are currently scoping the development of a new Auckland Council freedom camping bylaw. If the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee decides to progress this bylaw, the bylaw is expected to be complete by the end of the 2017 calendar year.

Bylaw reviews

18. The Local Government Act requires all new bylaws to be reviewed five years after they have been adopted.

19. Auckland Council adopted six bylaws in 2012; reviews of these bylaws will commence in 2017. During the 2016/17 financial year staff will:

· provide advice to Auckland Transport on the review of its speed limit and traffic bylaws

· provide advice to Watercare on its Trade Waste Bylaw 2012

· begin reviewing the Dog Management Bylaw and Policy on Dogs 2012

· begin research into underlying social problems associated with begging activity, for the 2017 review of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

· review how delegations under the traffic bylaw, the signage bylaw and the alcohol control bylaw operate

· review the Solid Waste Bylaw 2012. On-site wastewater provisions will be incorporated into this review.

20. The review of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 is planned for the 2017/2018 financial year.

Legislative changes

21. The Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill’s purpose is to enable (but not require) local authorities to create bylaws permitting shops to open in all or part of their districts on Easter Sunday. If the Bill passes into law, a report will be presented to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to determine whether, and when, Auckland Council should develop such a bylaw. Staff note it is unlikely that a bylaw would be completed ahead of Easter 2017.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

22. This report does not raise any specific issues relating to local boards.

23. Many of the individual projects listed in this report have implications for local boards, and appropriate engagement with local boards will occur on a case-by-case basis.

Māori impact statement

24. This report does not raise any specific issues relating to Māori.

25. In undertaking work on each topic listed above, staff will consider whether that topic is of special interest or relevance to Māori, and, if so, the most appropriate way to engage with Māori. Where appropriate, this may be linked to consultation on related topics through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan or other initiatives.

Implementation

26. This report identifies a number of bylaws-related projects for 2016/2017. The majority of these will require decisions to be made by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee (or an equivalent committee in the next term of council) during the 2016/2017 financial year.

27. The report identifies a work programme and timelines that can be delivered within current resourcing and budgets. Bringing projects forward or adding to the identified work programme would require work to be reprioritised or additional resources to be identified.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws
Authorisers	Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

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