I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Thursday, 9
March 2017
9.30am
Room 1, Level
26
135 Albert Street
Auckland
|
|
Regulatory Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Cr Wayne Walker
|
|
|
Members
|
Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
|
|
|
|
Cr Richard Hills
|
|
|
|
Cr Daniel Newman, JP
|
|
|
|
Cr Dick Quax
|
|
|
|
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
|
|
|
|
IMSB Chair David Taipari
|
|
|
|
Cr John Watson
|
|
|
|
IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-officio
|
Mayor Hon Phil Goff, JP
|
|
|
|
Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore
|
|
(Quorum 5 members)
|
|
|
Tam White
Senior Governance Advisor
3 March 2017
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156
Email: tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
The committee is responsible for regulatory hearings
(required by relevant legislation) on behalf of the council. The
committee is responsible for appointing independent commissioners to carry out
the council’s functions or delegating the appointment power (as set out
in the committee’s policy). The committee is
responsible for regulatory policy and bylaws. Where the
committee’s powers are recommendatory, the committee or the appointee
will provide recommendations to the relevant decision-maker.
The committee’s key responsibilities include:
· decision-making (including through a hearings process) under the
Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation
· hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996
· decision-making under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
· hearing and determining matters regarding drainage and works on
private land under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002
(this cannot be sub-delegated)
· hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws
· receiving recommendations from officers and appointing independent
hearings commissioners to a pool of commissioners who will be available to make
decisions on matters as directed by the Regulatory Committee
· receiving recommendations from officers and deciding who should make
a decision on any particular matter including who should sit as hearings
commissioners in any particular hearing
· monitoring the performance of regulatory decision-making
· where decisions are appealed or where the committee decides that the
council itself should appeal a decision, directing the conduct of any such
appeals
· considering and making recommendations to the Governing Body
regarding the regulatory and bylaw delegations (including to Local Boards)
· regulatory fees and charges
· recommend bylaws to Governing Body for consultation and adoption
· 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, including performing the
delegations made by the Governing Body to the former Regulatory and Bylaws
Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 in relation to dogs and GB/2014/121 in
relation to alcohol.
· engage with local boards on bylaw development and review
·
adopting or amending a policy or policies and
making any necessary sub-delegations relating to any of the above areas of
responsibility to provide guidance and transparency to those involved.
Not all decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991
and other enactments require a hearing to be held and the term
“decision-making” is used to encompass a range of decision-making
processes including through a hearing. “Decision-making”
includes, but is not limited to, decisions in relation to applications for
resource consent, plan changes, notices of requirement, objections, existing
use right certificates and certificates of compliance and also includes all
necessary related decision-making.
In adopting a policy or policies and making any
sub-delegations, the committee must ensure that it retains oversight of
decision-making under the Resource Management Act 1991 and that it provides for
councillors to be involved in decision-making in appropriate circumstances.
For the avoidance of doubt, these delegations confirm the
existing delegations (contained in the chief executive’s Delegations
Register) to hearings commissioners and staff relating to decision-making under
the RMA and other enactments mentioned below but limits those delegations by
requiring them to be exercised as directed by the Regulatory Committee.
Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:
All Bylaws
Biosecurity Act 1993
Building Act 2004
Dog Control Act 1996
Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
Gambling Act 2003;Land Transport Act 1998
Health Act 1956
Local Government Act 1974
Local Government Act 2002
Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009
Resource Management Act 1991
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
Waste Minimisation Act 2008
Maritime Transport Act 1994
Related Regulations
Powers
(i) All
powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.
Except:
(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot
delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)
(b) where the committee’s
responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only.
(ii) Power
to establish subcommittees.
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
Committee
09 March 2017
|
|
ITEM TABLE
OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 9
2 Declaration of
Interest 9
3 Confirmation
of Minutes 9
4 Petitions 9
5 Public Input 9
6 Local Board
Input 9
7 Extraordinary
Business 9
8 Notices of
Motion 10
9 Dog Management
Review 11
10 Endorse approach to the
Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw review 17
11 Adoption of a Regulatory
Committee Policy 23
12 Resource Consent Appeals:
Status Report 9 March 2017 37
13 Consideration of
Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
14 Procedural
Motion to Exclude the Public 49
C1 New Resource Consent Appeal -
Devonport Peninsula Precincts Society Incorporated v Auckland Council - 7-37
Ngataringa Road, 1-88 Wakakura Crescent and 29 Lake Road, Devonport 49
C2 New Resource Consent Appeal:
Stride Holdings v Auckland Council - North Harbour route of proposed Titirangi
to Albany Watermain ‘NH2’. 49
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had 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 Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Thursday, 9 February 2017, including the
confidential section, 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
Committee
09 March 2017
|
|
Dog
Management Review
File No.: CP2016/24964
Purpose
1. To
seek approval to commence a review of the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw
2012 and Policy on Dogs 2012.
Executive
summary
2. The
Governing Body adopted the Dog Management Bylaw (the Bylaw) and Policy on Dogs
(the Policy) in 2012. The Governing Body delegated the requirement to
review dog access rules at local beach and foreshore areas to local boards, and
at regional beach and foreshore areas to the Parks, Recreation and Heritage
Forum (GB/2012/157).
3. To
implement the Governing Body decision, the council started with the
local dog access reviews, in 2013. It was intended that the regional
elements of the review would follow.
4. To
date the council has completed dog access reviews in 17 local board
areas. Four local dog access reviews remain.
5. In
2016, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board
deferred its review to 2016/17. Staff will complete
this review between March and November 2017.
6. The Franklin, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Manurewa local boards
also deferred their reviews to coincide with a review of regional dog access
rules anticipated for 2017.
7. Under
the Local Government Act 2002, the council is also required to complete a
review of the Bylaw and Policy and make any changes by November 2019.
8. This
report proposes a consolidated approach for managing the various components of
the dog programme.
9. Under
this approach, staff would commence a review of the Bylaw and Policy. This
would include:
· a
review of dog access issues at regional beaches, foreshore areas, and parks,
prioritising the Franklin, Manurewa and Maungakiekie- Tāmaki local board
areas
· an
analysis of emerging issues, such as complexity of dog access rules across the
region.
10. This approach
responds to resolutions made by local boards, manages emerging issues across
the region, and is a pragmatic and efficient use of resources.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) agree to commence
an overall review of the effectiveness of the Dog Management Bylaw 2012 and
Policy on Dogs 2012, which will include:
i) a
review of dog access issues at regional beaches, foreshore areas, and parks;
prioritising the Franklin, Manurewa and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki
local board areas.
ii) an
analysis of emerging issues such as complexity of dog access rules across the
region.
|
Comments
Background
11. In November
2012, Governing Body adopted the Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (the
‘Bylaw’) and the Policy on Dogs 2012 (the
‘Policy’). At that time, the Governing Body delegated
decision-making about dog access rules (GB/2012/157) as follows:
· that
the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum will review dog access rules on any
beach and foreshore areas that fall under regional decision-making delegations
· that
local boards will review dog access rules on any local beach and foreshore
areas for which local boards have delegated authority.
12. The
delegations state that these reviews could include changes to dog access rules
in regional parks and local parks, respectively; though this is not required.
13. The Parks,
Recreation and Heritage Forum no longer exists. Under the council’s
current Terms of Reference, the regional component of the delegations sits with
the Regulatory Committee. Decisions about local dog access rules remain
within local board delegations.
Review of
dog access rules
14. To date, the
council has completed local access reviews in 17 local board areas.
15. Four
local boards opted to defer their reviews as follows:
· Māngere-Ōtāhuhu
Local Board deferred its review until 2016/17 (MO/2016/29). Staff will complete
this review between March and November 2017
· Franklin,
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Manurewa local boards deferred their reviews to
coincide with a review of regional parks, anticipated in 2017 (resolution
numbers: FR/2015/200; MT/2016/74; MR/2015/225).
16. It
was intended that the regional elements of the review, i.e. regional beach and
foreshore, regional parks, would be completed after the local reviews.
17. Operational
rules are in place for local and regional beaches, foreshore areas and parks,
even for areas that have not yet been reviewed. Staff are aware there are
some issues associated with these rules, and the implementation of the
Bylaw. In the previous political term, elected members, including local
boards, indicated that these issues should be addressed through a review of the
Bylaw and Policy.
Review of
Bylaw and Policy
18. Under the
Local Government Act 2002, the council is required to review each of its new
bylaws within five years of adoption. If the council has not completed
the review within seven years of the initial date of adoption, the bylaw will
be automatically revoked.
19. This means
the council must complete a review of the Bylaw and make any changes by
November 2019. Under the Dog Control Act 1996, the council will need to
review the Policy at the same time.
Recommended approach
20. In order to
manage the various elements of the work programme, staff propose an overall
review of the effectiveness of the Bylaw and Policy.
21. This would
include the following actions between March - December 2017:
· confirm
the approach and timelines for the Bylaw and Policy review
· review
dog access issues at regional beaches, foreshore areas, and parks, prioritising
the Franklin, Manurewa and Maungakiekie- Tāmaki
local board areas
· initial
analysis of emerging issues, such as complexity of dog access rules across the
region.
22. Staff
recommend this approach as it:
· consolidates
the various components of the dog review programme into a single, comprehensive
review
· responds
to emerging issues associated with the Bylaw and Policy such as complexity of
dog access rules across the region
· responds
to the resolutions made by the Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu,
Manurewa and Maungakiekie- Tāmaki local boards
(FR/2015/200; MO/2016/29; MT/2016/74; MR/2015/225) and the Governing Body
· is
a pragmatic and efficient use of resources; existing staff resources do not
allow a concurrent review of local dog access rules for four local boards,
regional beach and foreshore areas, as well as the Policy and Bylaw review.
Impacts and risks
23. The following table outlines the impacts and
risks associated with the proposed approach:
|
Impact
|
Risks
|
Mitigation
|
|
· the
Franklin, Manurewa and the Maungakiekie- Tāmaki
local boards would not complete their local dog access reviews before the
Bylaw and Policy review, as originally intended
|
· no
changes to current dog access
· no
changes to dog access rules for new areas of wildlife concern
|
· operational
rules are currently in place and these protect current sensitive wildlife
areas
· staff
will investigate if there are new sensitive wildlife areas in these local
boards
· if
required, staff will investigate procedure for a change in dog access rules
to protect these areas. there are wildlife issues
|
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
24. Staff will
review local dog access for Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board in
2016/2017 in accordance with its resolution (MO/2016/29).
25. The Franklin,
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Manurewa local boards chose to postpone their
local dog access reviews to coincide with the review of regional parks’
rules. Under the proposed approach, staff would undertake background research
into regional and local dog access rules in these areas from March 2017.
Māori impact statement
26. This report
outlines a recommended process to undertake the dog access review programme and
has no specific impact on Māori.
27. As part of the 2013-2016 local dog
access reviews, feedback from mana whenua representatives focused on the
ability of iwi to determine dog access on marae, dog control; responsible dog
ownership, and ensuring the
protection of sensitive ecological areas, including wildlife areas.
28. To give
effect to this feedback, staff will continue to identify sensitive ecological
areas, key wildlife protection areas and areas of cultural significance when
conducting the dog access reviews.
29. Staff will
consult with mana whenua representatives on dog related issues as part of any
review.
Implementation
30. Staff will advise local boards of the
Regulatory Committee’s preferred approach.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst
Belinda Hansen - Team Leader Social Policy and Bylaws
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services
|
|
Regulatory
Committee
09 March 2017
|
|
Endorse approach to the Public Safety and Nuisance
Bylaw review
File No.: CP2017/01990
Purpose
1. To
endorse the approach to the review of the Auckland Council Public Safety and
Nuisance Bylaw 2013.
Executive
summary
2. The
Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (the Bylaw) regulates
public behaviour that may threaten public safety, or which causes nuisance to
other people.
3. Section 158(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires bylaws to
be reviewed within five years of being passed. However, at the Regulatory and
Bylaws Committee meeting of 10 May 2016 councillors
requested staff to commence an early review of the Bylaw (RBC/2016/12).
4. Staff
are seeking endorsement to proceed with the following approach to the Bylaw
review:
· adopt the following questions to define the scope for the review:
o was the policy intent of the Bylaw met when managing issues of
public safety and nuisance?
o are there regulatory or non-regulatory alternatives to the Bylaw, in
addressing public safety and nuisance issues?
o are there new public safety and nuisance issues that need to be
considered for inclusion in the Bylaw?
o does council have capacity to continue enforcing compliance under
different growth scenarios for public safety and nuisance over the next 10
years?
· cluster
the issues covered by the Bylaw into five groups to facilitate efficient and
effective consultation and analysis
· analyse begging and car window washing as separate issues of high
importance, due to the high levels of public concern and media interest they
have generated
· proceed with evidence gathering through:
o analysis of council complaints data
o focus group research with people with a high level of interest in
the Bylaw issues
o attitudes and perceptions research with a representative sample of
the public
o modelling of issues under different city growth scenarios, and cost
benefit analysis.
· consult with local boards on research findings.
5. A
review findings report will be reported to the Regulatory Committee at the end
of 2017 or early 2018, with recommendations to either confirm, amend or revoke
the Bylaw.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) endorse
the approach to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw review as contained in
this report.
|
|
|
Comments
Background
6. The Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (the
Bylaw) regulates behaviour in public places that may
threaten public safety, or which causes nuisance to other people. A summary of
the issues addressed in the current bylaw is included in Attachment A.
7. The Bylaw was passed on 22 August 2013 (GB/2013/84) and came into
force on 26 May 2014. Auckland Transport also passed a mirror Auckland
Transport Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 at this time.
8. Section 158(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires bylaws to
be reviewed within five years of being passed. However, at the Regulatory and
Bylaws Committee meeting of 10 May 2016 councillors
requested staff to commence an early review of the Bylaw (RBC/2016/12).
9. Auckland
Transport has signalled a willingness to consider a review of the Auckland
Transport Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 in parallel with this review.
Approach to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw
review
10. In line with legislative requirements for a bylaw review under the
Local Government Act 2002, the following proposed questions define the scope
for the review:
· was the policy intent of the Bylaw met when managing issues of
public safety and nuisance?
· are there regulatory or non-regulatory alternatives to the Bylaw, in
addressing public safety and nuisance issues?
· are there new public safety and nuisance issues that need to be
considered for inclusion in the Bylaw?
· does council have capacity to continue enforcing compliance under
different growth scenarios for public safety and nuisance over the next 10
years?
11. The following are out of scope for the review:
· provisions or activities covered by other bylaws - for example
outdoor commercial activities covered under the Trading and Events in Public
Places Bylaw 2015
· the design, efficiency or effectiveness of central government or
non-governmental initiatives designed to address public safety and nuisance
issues
· the form of any subsequent bylaw amendments (if applicable). This
will be part of a separate follow-on project if required.
Methodology for the review
12. The review will be evidence based and will hold fairness and
transparency as overarching and guiding principles.
13. Staff have begun the discovery phase of the review through
interviews with internal and external stakeholders, preliminary data
organisation and background research.
14. Staff propose the following methodological steps to the review for
Regulatory Committee approval:
· cluster the issues into the following five groups, to facilitate
efficient and effective analysis:
o graffiti
vandalism; mind-altering substances; playing a public address system or
instrument in public; reckless skateboarding/ scootering; lighting outdoor
fires; letting off fireworks
o packing
of goods in public places; erecting structures in public places; fly-posting/
advertising on council property
o dangerous
fencing; vegetation encroachment; depositing or removing materials from council
property, damage to public property; street naming and numbering of buildings
o vehicles
on beaches; set netting controls on beaches
o begging
activity; car window washing.
· analyse begging and car window washing as separate issues of high
importance, due to the high levels of public and media concern they have
generated
· proceed with the following evidence gathering activities:
o analysis of council complaints data
o focus group research with people with a high level of interest in
issues (including business owners, beach users, young people, recent migrants, Māori and
Pasifika communities)
o attitudes and perceptions research with a representative sample of
the public, on public safety and nuisance issues
o modelling of issues under different city growth scenarios, and cost
benefit analysis of the enforcement costs under these scenarios.
· consolidate research into issue papers.
15. A review findings report will be reported to the Regulatory
Committee at the end of 2017 or early 2018, with recommendations to either
confirm, amend or revoke the Bylaw.
Next steps
|
Date
|
Activity
|
|
March 2017
|
· consultation with Regulatory Committee and decision sought to proceed
|
|
April – July 2017
|
· research and stakeholder interviews
|
|
Aug. – Oct. 2017
|
· local board engagement
|
|
Oct. – Nov. 2017
|
· drafting of final report
|
|
Dec. 17- Feb 2018
|
· findings, options and recommendations
|
16. A follow-on
project will implement the final decision of this committee. This will include
formal public consultation on any decision to confirm, amend or revoke the
Bylaw.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
17. There will be
an opportunity for interested local board members to input to the review process.
First, cluster workshops will be offered to local boards next month to provide
an opportunity to discuss high priority public safety and nuisance issues.
Second, local board members will be offered the opportunity to participate in
focus group meetings during the research phase of the project.
18. Local boards
will be formally consulted on the issue papers produced at the conclusion of
the research phase. Local board input will inform the findings, options and
recommendations that go forward to the Regulatory and Bylaws
Committee for a decision.
Māori
impact statement
19. The Bylaw is of particular
relevance to Māori in realising the four
areas of wellbeing identified under the Schedule of Issues of Significance to Māori
and the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau, 2014.
Under the ‘social’ pillar of the Māori Plan in particular, key objectives are that:
· Māori communities are connected and safe
· whānau wellbeing and resilience is
strengthened.
20. The issues covered under the Bylaw directly impact the
ability to foster safe and flourishing Māori whānau and communities. The two high priority
issues of begging and car window washing also impact directly upon Māori
in the following ways:
· Māori
are over-represented amongst those who engage in begging activities in the
inner city
· Māori
youth are also more likely to engage in car window washing at road
intersections.
21. Māori are therefore
more likely than others to have an encounter with the Bylaw.
22. It is proposed that the review establish a comprehensive plan for
engagement with Māori,
including with those engaged in the activities of
begging and car window washing. Discussions are underway with council Te
Waka Angamua staff on facilitating effective Māori engagement for the review, and
exploratory meetings have been held with external Māori service providers
over brokering engagement with Māori.
Implementation
23. There are no
implementation issues.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Public safety and nuisance issues covered by the Bylaw
|
21
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Peter Chaudhry - Principal Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services
|
|
Regulatory
Committee
09 March 2017
|
|
|
Regulatory
Committee
09 March 2017
|
|
Adoption of a Regulatory Committee Policy
File No.: CP2017/02197
Purpose
1. To
introduce and gain approval for the attached Regulatory Committee Policy.
Executive
summary
2. The
Committee is invited to receive and adopt a Regulatory Committee Policy. The
Policy incorporates the operational policy and sub delegations for the
decision-making responsibilities that lie within the areas of the
Committee’s responsibilities.
|
Recommendation
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) adopt
the Regulatory Committee Policy.
|
Comments
3. The
Regulatory Committee has been delegated wide responsibility under a range of
legislation including responsibilities relating to hearings, regulatory policy
and bylaws. The implementation of a Committee policy creates an effective and
transparent means of implementing the oversight role of the Committee and
distinguishing it from the operational aspects of decision making undertaken by
commissioners and staff.
4. The Committee primarily has a governance and oversight role across
the areas within its terms of reference. Through its Policy, it can distinguish
its policy making (governance) functions from the operational matters of
statutory hearing and decision making. These operational functions can be
delivered effectively by commissioners and staff. For example the Committee
will appoint the pools of commissioners who will be available for alcohol
licensing and resource management decision making, but will leave the
appointment of those commissioners to individual hearings to staff who will
make those appointments in accordance with the guidance and direction provided
by the Policy.
5. The
Regulatory Committee Policy builds on the strengths of the predecessor Hearings
Committee Policy that was developed and implemented during the previous two
terms of Council. The refreshing and revision of the Policy recognises both the
wider functions of the Regulatory Committee in matters of planning and resource
consenting, dog control and alcohol regulation; and the benefits to be gained
from having a clearer distinction between governance and operational functions.
It will help to ensure that operational matters within the oversight of the
Committee remain consistent, transparent and efficient.
6. The
policy provides a more simplified and streamlined process for the division of
decision making responsibility and determining who the decision maker should
be. The delegation for decision making, subject to statutory
limits, is allocated to a level that best suits the decisions that need to be
made and reflects the operational nature of regulatory decision making, as
contrasted with plan and policy development and approval, which fits more
within the governance sphere.
7. This guidance in the operation and division of decision making
acknowledges the professionalism of qualified commissioners and staff working
within the alcohol licensing, dog control and resource management environments.
8. The policy further aligns with that of the Chief Executives
Delegation Register that provides for sub-delegations to hearing commissioners
and council staff.
9. The
streamlining of processes will help in the timeliness of resource consent
decision making in light of the Resource Management (Discount on Administrative
Changes) Regulations 2010.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
10. The
Policy recognises the various ways in which Local Boards interface with
regulatory matters. Local Boards can address the Committee directly on any
agenda item. For a matter that may affect the well-being of a local board
community, processes are provided where the views and preferences can be
expressed to those delegated the responsibility of regulatory decision making.
The policy further covers where Local Board members may become involved as a
commissioner for resource management matters that proceed to hearing.
Māori
impact statement
11. The policy
recognises the knowledge of tangata whenua and that mana whenua are specialists
in determining their values and associations. The policy therefore notes how
staff should consult on matters of significance to Maori as part of a decision
making process.
Implementation
12. The policy provides an understanding and guidance for elected
members and staff. Delegations to a sub-committee, hearing commissioners and
staff allows for efficient and timely decision-making.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Regulatory Committee Policy
|
25
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services
|
|
Regulatory
Committee
09 March 2017
|
|
|
Regulatory
Committee
09 March 2017
|
|
Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 9 March 2017
File No.: CP2017/02541
Purpose
1. To
provide an update of all current resource consent appeals lodged with the
Environment Court.
Executive
summary
2. This
report provides a summary of current resource consent appeals to which the
Auckland Council is a party. It updates our report of 31 January 2017 to the
Regulatory Committee.
3. If
committee members have detailed questions concerning specific appeals, it would
be helpful if they could raise them prior to the meeting with Robert Andrews
(phone: 353-9254) or email: robert.andrews@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) in the
first instance.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) receive
the Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 9 March 2017.
|
Comments
4. As
at 28 February 2017, there are 20 resource consent appeals to which Auckland
Council is a party. These are grouped in their legacy district planning areas
as set out in Attachment A. Changes since the last report and new
appeals received are shown in bold italic text.
5. The
Resolutions Team continue to resolve these appeals expeditiously. In the period
since preparing the previous status report, there have been five new appeals
and two appeals resolved.
3. The
appeal by Devonport Peninsula Precincts Society Incorporated
is against the Council’s granting of resource consents
relating to a proposed retirement village by Rymans Health in Devonport.
Concerns expressed within the appeal relate to the bulk, scale and dominance of
the building associated with the village.
4. The
new appeal, Stride Holdings Limited v Auckland Council relates to the grant of
consent to the Watercare Services Limited North Harbor 2 Watermain. The
appellant is an owner of land in Massey affected by the proposed location,
construction and operation of the watermain.
5. A
further appeal Pine Harbour Holdings Limited v Auckland Council is an appeal by
the applicant against several conditions attached to the grant of subdivision
and land use consents that provides for 27 lots and 27 dwellings.
6. Appellants
S. and R. Allen have appealed against the council decision to refuse consent
for a self-storage facility. The council’s refusal related to the scale
and locational impact on rural character and amenity values and the application
being contrary to the objectives and policies of the rural zone.
7.
The final appeal from submitters P. & A. Scanlon relates to the conditions
of consent associated with the grant of a 44 residential lot subdivision in
Upper Harbour Drive, Greenhithe.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
8. Not
applicable.
Māori
impact statement
9. The
decision requested of the Regulatory Committee is to receive this progress
report rather than to decide each appeal.
10. The Resource
Management Act 1991 includes a number of matters under Part 2, which relate to
the relationship of Tangata Whenua to the management of air, land and water
resources. Maori values associated with the land, air and freshwater
bodies of the Auckland Region are based on whakapapa and stem from the long
social, economic and cultural associations and experiences with such taonga.
Implementation
11. Environment
Court appeal hearings can generate significant costs in terms of commissioning
legal counsel and expert witnesses and informal mediation and negotiation
processes seek to limit these costs. Although it can have budget
implications, it is important that Auckland Council, when necessary, ensure
that resource consents maintain appropriate environmental outcomes and remain
consistent with the statutory plan policy framework through the appeal process.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Current Resource Consent Appeals at 28 February 2017
|
39
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services
|
|
Regulatory
Committee
09 March 2017
|
|
|
Regulatory
Committee
09 March 2017
|
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) exclude
the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general
subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the
reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific
grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.
This
resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or
interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be
prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of
the meeting in public, as follows:
C1 New
Resource Consent Appeal - Devonport Peninsula Precincts Society Incorporated v
Auckland Council - 7-37 Ngataringa Road, 1-88 Wakakura Crescent and 29 Lake
Road, Devonport
|
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each
matter
|
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)
|
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this
resolution
|
|
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be
likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for
withholding exists under section 7.
|
s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary
to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
In particular, , the report contains information that
could compromise the council in undertaking without prejudice negotiations of
this appeal that is before the Environment Court.
|
s48(1)(a)
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be
likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for
withholding exists under section 7.
|
C2 New
Resource Consent Appeal: Stride Holdings v Auckland Council - North Harbour
route of proposed Titirangi to Albany Watermain ‘NH2’.
|
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each
matter
|
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)
|
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this
resolution
|
|
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be
likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for
withholding exists under section 7.
|
s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary
to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
In particular, the report contains information relating to
an Environment Court appeal and the disclosure of information may prejudice
the council's position in regards to negotiations and the potential settlement
of the appeal.
|
s48(1)(a)
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be
likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for
withholding exists under section 7.
|
