I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Thursday, 14 September 2017 9.30am Room 1, Level
26 |
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 |
|
|
MSB Chair David Taipari |
|
|
Cr John Watson |
|
|
IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox |
|
|
|
|
Ex-officio |
Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP |
|
|
Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore |
|
(Quorum 5 members)
|
|
Maryke Fouché Governance Advisor
11 September 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 14 September 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
5.1 Public Input - Ambury Properties Limited - 72 Tidal Road direct referral request 9
5.2 Public Input - East Coast Bays RSA - gaming machine relocation 9
6 Local Board Input 10
6.1 Puketāpapa Local Board Input - Local Alcohol Policy Update Memo 14 August 2017 10
6.2 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Input - Local Alcohol Policy 10
7 Extraordinary Business 10
8 Notices of Motion 11
9 Notice of Motion - Cr Watson - East Coast Bays RSA Relocation of Gambling Machines Exemption 13
10 Determination of an Objection to the construction of the Wastewater Pipeline at 3A Alma Crescent to service 54 Clevedon Rd, Papakura. 31
11 Request for Direct Referral by Ambury Properties Limited - 72 Tidal Road, Mangere 67
12 Regulatory Compliance Prioritisation 167
13 Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Review 2017 189
14 Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 14 September 2017 203
15 Release of Regulatory Committee Confidential Decision 15 June - Appointment of independent hearing commissioners 215
16 Release of Regulatory Committee Confidential Decision 15 June -Appointment of District Licensing Committee chairs and members 2017-2020 217
17 Release of Regulatory Committee Confidential Decision 15 June -Designation of independent commissioners as duty commissioners to determine resource consent applications 219
18 Regulatory Committee Summary of Information Items - 14 September 2017 221
19 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
20 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 229
C1 Decision on outcome of appeals and next steps for the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy 229
C2 Deliberations on an objection to the construction of a wastewater pipeline at 3A Alma Crescent to service 54 Clevedon Road 229
1 Apologies
Apologies from Chairperson L Cooper and Mayor P Goff have 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, 10 August 2017, 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 Governance 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.
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.
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
Under Standing Order 2.5.1 a Notice of Motion has been received from Cr John Watson for consideration under item 9.
Regulatory Committee 14 September 2017 |
Notice of Motion - Cr Watson - East Coast Bays RSA Relocation of Gambling Machines Exemption
File No.: CP2017/19219
1. In accordance with Standing Order 2.5.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Councillor John Watson for inclusion on the agenda for the Regulatory Committee meeting being held on day, Thursday 14 September 2017.
2. Cr John Watson proposes to move the following motion, seconded by Cr Daniel Newman. The notice is attached as Attachment A. Supporting information is attached as Attachments B and C.
That the Regulatory Committee: a) grant an exemption under section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 to the East Coast Bays RSA to relocate nine of its sixteen gambling machines to the Browns Bay Bowling Club, due to exceptional circumstances.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Notice of Motion |
15 |
b⇩ |
RSA Letter |
27 |
c⇩ |
Browns Bay Community Hub Letter |
29 |
Signatories
Author |
Maryke Fouche - Democracy Services Graduate |
Authoriser |
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services |
14 September 2017 |
Determination of an Objection to the construction of the Wastewater Pipeline at 3A Alma Crescent to service 54 Clevedon Rd, Papakura.
File No.: CP2017/17988
Purpose
1. To hear and determine an objection to the installation of a wastewater line and connection under section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974.
Executive summary
2. This report accompanies the hearing of an objection pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act, 1974 (“the Act”). The proposed development (Lot 2) at 54 Clevedon Rd, Papakura does not have a wastewater connection to council’s network. It requires the construction of a new public wastewater pipeline to an existing wastewater manhole, within the neighbouring property at 3A Alma Crescent, Papakura.
3. The applicant and council consider this to be the only practical route. The applicant endeavoured, however was unable to obtain consent for the proposed works from Mr Kam Chan and Ms K (Shirley) Chow, the objectors and owners of 3A Alma Crescent. Council has since served Notice under the Act on these neighbours to enable the work to be carried out.
4. Mr Chan and Ms Chow objected to the notice. Subsequent council facilitated negotiations have not been successful.
5. Section 460 of the Act provides a right to be heard by a committee of Council. Delegation to undertake the hearing of the objection lies with the Regulatory Committee.
6. The Regulatory Committee must hear the objection and determine whether or not to endorse the works.
That the Regulatory Committee: a) hear and determine the objection by the owners of 3A Alma Crescent, Papakura pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974, and
b) endorse the proposed construction of the wastewater pipeline and connection through the neighbouring land at 3A Alma Crescent, Papakura as the only practical route, pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 and as referenced on plans Resource Consent No. R/SUB/2010/108635 and Plans A14221/1 Dwg 1 rev. 4 & Dwg 2 rev. 3, engineering approved 28 / 01/ 2016.
|
Comments
Background
7. In November 2010, Council approved a resource consent for the proposed subdivision and development at 54 Clevedon Rd, Papakura. Lot 2 is proposed to be serviced by constructing a new public wastewater pipeline to an existing wastewater manhole, within the neighbouring property at 3A Alma Crescent, Papakura.
8. An aerial photo and wastewater services for the immediate neighbourhood, plans of the subdivision, the proposed public wastewater line, connection and long section are provided as Attachment A.
9. Mr Ian Gibson (Airey Consultants Ltd), agent for Mr Neyyathuruthi Pillai (owner of 54 Clevedon Road) has endeavoured but failed to negotiate access with the owners of 3A Alma Crescent, to construct the public wastewater pipeline and connect to the existing wastewater manhole within their property. Consequently, Mr Pillai has requested Council to exercise its powers under the Act to enable the works to be carried out.
10. The works are proposed to be undertaken by an open-trench method as outlined in the letter dated 27 March 2017 by the applicant’s agent and provided as Attachment B. Included are photos taken by council’s engineer of the area at 3A Alma Crescent in which the works will take place.
11. Notice under the Act has twice been served on the neighbours, with Mr Chan and Ms Chow advising both times in writing that they object to the proposed works. These Notices’ and objections are provided as Attachment C.
12. Council staff initially facilitated negotiations and following the second notice engaged Viren Sharma from TERRA Consultants to facilitate negotiations between the parties to reach settlement. These attempts by council to resolve the matter have been unsuccessful. Table 1: summarises the activities and negotiations undertaken to date.
Table 1.
2014 - 2016 |
Over this period attempt made by the applicant and later discussions facilitated by council between the applicant and the affected property owner to obtain the consent for the proposed works. These negotiations were unsuccessful. |
6/05/2016 |
A ‘Notice on Intention to Construct a Drain on Private Land’ served on the affected property owners of 3A Alma Crescent, Papakura |
16/05/2016 |
Objection received from owners of 3A Alma Crescent, discussions were held and settlement not reached. |
13/02/2017 |
A 2nd ‘Notice on Intention’ is served on the property owners of 3A Alma Crescent |
1/03/2017 |
Objection received.
|
March/April 2017 |
TERRA Consultants (Viren Sharma) engaged by Auckland Council to facilitate and seek an amicable settlement. Explanation of Council’s role and the s460 process provided. |
02/04/2017 |
Viren Sharma & Stella Miao (mandarin translator) meet with the owners of 3A Alma Crescent on site. Concerns raised about proposed works disrupting their lifestyle and devaluing their property.
|
05 to19/04/2017 |
A number of emails from Shirley Chow seeking rescheduling of set meetings due to work commitments. |
01/05/2017 |
Applicant puts forward a compensation offer of $4,000 to help reach settlement. This offer was emailed to the objectors. |
18/05/2017 |
Email advising that the compensation offer had been declined. |
29/05/2017 |
After discussions with applicants agent, sought feedback from the objectors seeking an indication of the amount being sought as compensation. This indication was declined. |
30/05/2017 |
Correspondence with the objectors seeking to progress negotiations, advising that the applicant may withdraw the compensation offer if the matter proceeds to a hearing, and informing that council is not empowered to award compensation as part of a hearing process. |
31/05/2017 |
Email from objectors stating that the email sent on 29/05/2017 is still valid i.e. ‘...they will not initiate an acceptable amount of financial compensation..’ |
12/06/2017 |
Mr Gibson requests Council to proceed to a hearing. |
13. Negotiations with the owners of 3A Alma Crescent have proved to be difficult to arrange due to their work commitments and the meeting held and subsequent correspondence has not reached an agreed outcome. The family advises that they work seven (7) days a week.
14. The key objections noted in the objection email and letter is a concern from disturbance or damage from installing the waste water line and man hole. They further state that there appear to be other ways to connect albeit not as direct or cheap.
15. Copy of the objection email dated 16/05/2016 and the objection letter dated 1/3/2017 are contained within Attachment C.
16. At the meeting held at 3A Alma Crescent on 2nd April 2017, the objectors re-iterated their strong objection regarding the proposal. In addition, they outlined additional concerns around disruption to lifestyle and devaluation to the property with the construction of the waste water pipeline.
17. The objectors also advised that no financial compensation had been offered over the two years that they had been in negotiations regarding the proposed works. In response to this feedback, the applicant put forward a compensation offer of $4,000 which was later declined. Despite repeated requests to provide an indication of the amount being sought to reach settlement, they have not provided any indication or made any counter-offers for the amount being sought to settle. The correspondence with the objector and financial offer made are provided as Attachment D.
Consideration
Best Practical Option
18. The owner of 54 Clevedon Rd has met council’s expectations of seeking all endeavours to obtain an agreement to install the services prior to requesting the council to use the powers of section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974. Mr Gibson as agent for Mr Pillai, has sought to negotiate access to the neighbouring property to undertake drainage works and council has also sought to facilitate a mutually acceptable arrangement.
19. The applicant has also investigated a number of alternative servicing options and a summary of these alternate routes are set out as Attachment E. In summary these are;
(1) The option of a wastewater line to the existing manhole in 4 Shirley Avenue. This will be over 50 meters in length, involve crossing Shirley Road and require three additional manholes in order to change direction and pass-by around the current dwelling at 4 Shirley Road. The approval of three parties at 4 and 4A Shirley Road and 52 Clevedon Road will be necessary.
(2) The option of a wastewater line down the length of Shirley Avenue (approximately 70 meters). This was discounted as not practical. It will lead to a manhole being within the carriageway and future road sealing will likely lead to a poorer surface and driver experience. It would duplicate the current south to north line from the manhole in 3A Alma Road for little purpose or public gain.
(3) The third option involves a line extension through 1 and 1A Alma Crescent. This is also far less practical in being over twice the connection length as the 3A Alma option and requiring multiple consents.
20. These alternatives are considered as inferior against the council’s infrastructure standards that seek the shortest and most direct route where possible as a means to minimise future maintenance costs. The proposal also seeks to replace an existing private connection.
21. The applicant and council consider this to be the only practical route for the wastewater servicing of 54 Clevedon Rd. Veolia as the council’s wastewater service provider has already confirmed its acceptance of the connection and the adequacy of capacity of the existing public wastewater line.
22. The owner of 54 Clevedon Rd will be required to build the works in accordance with an approved engineering works approval.
Committee Consideration
23. Within the framework of the Regulatory Committee’s Terms of Reference from the Governing Body, the Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for “Hearing and determining the matters regarding drainage and works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002. This delegation cannot be sub delegated”. Copy of Section 460 of the 1974 Act and Schedule 12 of the 2002 Act (that sets out a process however not directly applicable to private connections) are provided as Attachment F.
24. At the hearing, both the applicant and the objector can present their evidence in support of their positions. After hearing all the evidence and the relevant information, the Regulatory Committee then has to make a decision. There is no right of appeal of the decision of the Regulatory Committee.
Local board views and implications
25. The Local Board is not advised of service connection requests under the Act. Further the determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of 3A Alma Crescent, Papakura.
Māori impact statement
26. Under Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974, Iwi are not considered a relevant affected party unless they are land owners through which a proposed drain is to be constructed.
Implementation
27. The costs of council staff and consultants and the hearing are met by the applicant.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Application Location Aerial and Plans |
37 |
b⇩ |
Construction metholodogy and site photos |
43 |
c⇩ |
Notices and Objections dated 16 May 2016 & 1st March 2017 |
47 |
d⇩ |
Correspondence with objectors and financial offer |
51 |
e⇩ |
Alternative routes |
61 |
f⇩ |
Section 460 & Schdule 12 Local Government Act |
65 |
Signatories
Authors |
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager |
Authorisers |
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services |
14 September 2017 |
Request for Direct Referral by Ambury Properties Limited - 72 Tidal Road, Mangere
File No.: CP2017/18910
Purpose
1. To advise the Regulatory Committee of a request for direct referral to the Environment Court of the resource consent applications lodged by Ambury Properties Limited and to seek a determination on whether or not to agree to the request.
Executive summary
2. Ambury Properties Limited has lodged resource consent applications for a bed and foam manufacturing facility (the facility) which will use and store hazardous substances, discharge contaminants into the air and require land disturbance to the base of Crater Hill at 72 Tidal Road, Mangere. The consents are referenced as BUN60081843 (LUC60290847 - Land Use, DIS60278235 – Regional Stormwater, DIS60277563 – Regional Air Quality and DIS60277566 – Regional Wastewater) and LUC6030115 (land disturbance within an outstanding natural features overlay),
3. The applications referenced BUN60081843 have been publically notified at the applicant’s request and application referenced LUC6030115 has been publicly notified following a determination to do so by independent commissioner.
4. The applicant has requested under s87D of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) that the Council agree to the applications being directly referred to and determined by the Environment Court in accordance with s87E of the RMA.
5. Staff recommend that the Council declines the request for direct referral to the Environment Court.
That the Regulatory Committee: a) decline the request by Ambury Properties Limited for direct referral of the applications to the Environment Court pursuant to section 87E of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following reasons: i) the resource consent applications are predominantly a local issue, with a total of 12 submissions predominantly from submitters in the local Mangere area; ii) those submitters will be able to participate in a decision-making process at a Council hearing on this local project and with a Manukau venue for the hearing; iii) submitters include lay people, who will likely be unfamiliar with the Environment Court process, and will be required to become section 274 parties to participate in this more formal process, including possible cross-examination; iv) the determination of the application is dependent upon a mix of both technical expert evidence and non-technical evaluative assessment that is suitably heard at first instance at Council level; v) there is insufficient indication of certainty that a Council decision being appealed to the Environment Court, either by the applicant or any submitters given the nature of feedback received through pre-lodgement public consultation process and given the matters raised in the 12 submissions received; and vi) if the decision made by the Council is appealed, the Council hearing process would have led to a refinement of the issues to then allow for a more focused and efficient Environment Court process such as mediation and caucusing that may avoid the need for hearing.
|
Comments
6. Sections 87C to 87I were inserted into the RMA by the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009 and provide an alternate process and streamlined decision-making for notified applications.
7. Section 87D of the RMA allows an applicant to make a request to Council for a resource consent application to be determined by the Environment Court (the Court), bypassing the Council hearing stage.
8. Section 87E of the RMA sets out how a request under section 87D is to be handled by the consent authority being the Council (refer Attachment A).
9. In summary, Council must make a decision on the direct referral by either:
(a) Agreeing to direct referral of the application to the Court where the applicant, Council’s reporting officers and submitters will be heard. The Court will then make the decision relating to the proposal; or
(b) Declining to refer the application to the Court and the decision following a hearing is made by the Council in the first instance. The applicant can object to this decision to decline the direct referral request under the provisions of section 357A(1)(e) of the RMA.
10. The 15 working day timeframe from receipt of the request under section 87E(6) within which to make a decision ends on 18 September 2017.
11. The RMA does not provide any criteria for determining whether or not to agree to a direct referral. However, matters for consideration based on previous cases where direct referral has been sought are discussed within this report.
The applications
12. The applications prepared for Ambury Properties Limited propose to construct and operate a bed and foam manufacturing facility at 72 Tidal Road, Mangere. The operation of which will be undertaken by the New Zealand Comfort Group Limited (the NZCGL). The establishment of this facility will assist NZCGL to expand its operations as both its existing facilities in Otahuhu and Avondale are operating beyond their respective capacities. A locality plan and development plans are contained in Attachments B and C.
13. The intended development will use and store hazardous substances, discharge contaminants into the air and requires land disturbance at the base of Crater Hill. The development comprises of a building of approximately 53,000m2 gross floor area that consists of a factory, foam plant, manufacturing base, warehouse storage, staff amenities, trade showroom and offices.
14. Infrastructure connections and measures for water supply, fire protection, air quality controls, wastewater, and stormwater management, treatment and drainage are also proposed. Along with these there will be five vehicle crossings, internal carriageways, four main loading / delivery areas, 337 car parking spaces and 12 bicycle spaces.
15. Comprehensive landscaping along the perimeter of the site is also proposed. This includes a natural vegetation buffer along the western riparian margin, a 4 metre wide landscape strip along the front yard and a 5 metre wide landscape strip along the southern boundary. Mitigation planting is proposed within the site, in the car park, and in the area west of the office and dispatch building as well as in the south-eastern corner.
16. Three wall mounted signs on the northern and western elevations of 10m in length and 3.6m in height, a roof sign and four (three 3m and one 4m) high illuminated sign pillars next to the vehicle crossings are proposed.
17. Site security measures include fencing to all boundaries, access controls, alarm systems and illumination – LED lighting poles in parking areas and along Tidal Road.
18. The facility will staff a maximum of 350 people and operate 24 hours, Monday to Friday for the manufacturing component, 8am to 6pm for the officer/showroom and outside operational hours for security monitoring.
19. The application overall is a discretionary activity under the Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part 2016 (the AUP(OP)).
20. The application referenced BUN60081843 was received on 10 January 2017. Following a section 92 receipt of further information, public notification of this package of applications occurred on 24 July 2017. A total of seven submissions were received, five of which are in opposition and two are neutral.
21. The application referenced LUC6030115 was received on 1 June 2017. Following a section 92 receipt of further information, a duty commissioner under delegated authority made a decision to publicly notify this application on 24 July 2017. Public notification of this application occurred on 7 August 2017 and a total of five submissions were received, four in opposition and one neutral.
Background to the applications
22. The subject site is zoned Business Light Industry in the AUP(OP). This zoning had been secured through the development of the Puhinui Structure Plan including public and stakeholder participation within this process. A submission to the notified version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan by the New Zealand Comfort Group Limited (NZCGL) also supported this zone change.
23. There have been five packages of consent applications underpinning the subject proposal, and those include:
· Package 1, Stage 1 enabling works, being earthworks and remediation of soil contamination – approved.
· Package 2, Stage 2 enabling and stream works, being further earthworks, stream works, and infrastructure and vegetation restoration – approved.
· Package 3, Tree removals within an outstanding natural feature (Crater Hill) being a row of shelter belt trees along the south-western boundary – approved.
· Package 4, Main facility – referenced BUN60081843.
· Package 5, Final component of the enabling works at the base of Crater Hill – referenced LUC6030115.
24. Package 4 and 5 are the subject of this direct referral request.
Requests for Direct Referral
25. On 22 December 2016, the applicant’s solicitor requested that the subject applications by Ambury Properties Limited be referred to the Court for determination under section 87D of the RMA (refer Attachment D). The reasons for the request by the applicant are as follows:
· “The project is very substantial with significant economic benefits upon completion, but with significant economic downsides associated with delay. Direct referral…[will] enable a more rapid determination of the applications than if a council consent decision is the subject of appeal…[and will] eliminate the possibility of Environment Court appeals…”
· “The direct referral will benefit Ambury Properties Limited / NZCGL, its employees and the Auckland economy…”
· “The project is very large in scale and involves a broad range of resource management issues. Close evaluation of a large amount of technical expert evidence under direct referral will enable this evidence to be efficiently and effectively managed via the Environment Court mediation / dispute resolution and caucusing and tested via cross-examination in a more efficient manner…”
· “The opportunity for substantive council input and the quality of that input would not be compromised by the direct referral to the Environment Court.
· “There will be no adverse effects on submitter participation by the use of the direct referral process. Submitters are likely to derive benefit from Court processes in relation to complex air and risk related issues.”
26. The Council officer recommendation to the Committee for the 9 February 2017 meeting was to decline the request. The main reasons included the early stage of the application in the statutory process i.e. pending notification and outstanding matters for clarification under the section 92 process. Those provided insufficient understanding of the proposal and the issues to support the request for direct referral. The applicant’s solicitor therefore withdrew the request prior to the Committee meeting.
27. On 28 August 2017, the applicant’s solicitor made another request for the bundled application and the separate land use consent by Ambury Properties Limited be referred to the Court for determination under section 87D of the RMA (refer Attachment E).
28. The reasons for the request by the applicant predominantly remained the same as those outlined in the initial request. Those include the following reasons:
· The proposal giving rise to a complex range of potential adverse effects and resource management issues.
· The complex range and nature of potential effects including those raised in submissions.
· The ability for submitters to make an appeal to the Court and the delays that process will cause should appeals be received.
· The number and nature of submissions, and the likelihood of a Council decision being appealed.
· There being no effect on submitter participation by the use of the direct referral process, and the benefits submitters are likely to gain to complex air and risk related issues.
· The opportunity for Council input and that quality of the input will not be compromised.
· The substantial commercial operation and economic benefits the development will bring to Mangere and the Auckland region, and the ability to realise those benefits from an early construction.
Assessment of the Request
29. A basic tenet of this section of the RMA is that the direct referral process streamlines decision making for large scale and /or complex applications that are likely to come before the Court on appeal, saving time and costs for both applicants and submitters.
30. In determining whether to agree with the request by the applicant for direct referral in this instance, matters which the Committee may wish to consider include:
· the reasons that the applicant has provided in making the direct referral as set out in paragraph 28 above and the volume of expert evidence;
· whether the decision is likely to be appealed;
· whether there are procedural or technical advantages in direct referral;
· what effects there may be as a result of the referral on Council or submitters;
· the economic benefits of the proposal and implications of the direct referral for an early 2018 construction timeframe; and
· whether costs and timeframes will be reduced by direct referral.
31. The reasons provided by the applicant for seeking direct referral are outlined above and set out in their letter of request at Attachment E. Beyond those reasons the RMA contains no criteria or other matters to be considered in making a decision under section 87E.
32. The Council has not set any policy framework for its own consideration of direct referral requests but has considered a small number of other requests in recent years. Matters raised in those requests along with those of this referral are canvassed below. They have stated that potential for appeal to the Court exists, and have shown that the role and importance of technical evidence in determining the consents are relevant.
33. Council staff generally agree with the applicant’s reasons for their request, however believe there is lack of evidence to indicate appeals are probable given the findings outlined in the application materials, information submitted under the further information request process, and the scope of the submissions received.
Likelihood of Appeal
34. The public notification of the applications attracted 12 submissions from nine submitters with six submitters requesting to be heard and one not disclosing whether they wish to be heard. As such, a hearing will be required. Given that the submitters are opposed along with the matters raised, an appeal to the Court is possible were consent to be granted. Despite the possibility of appeal, it is uncertain whether direct referral would be an efficient use of the Court’s resources given that the issues raised in the submissions are localised. If the issues in contention were to be heard at a Council hearing then it can be expected that all those matters can be refined and narrowed, with only those submitters or the appellant dissatisfied with the Council decision requiring the Court’s time through the appeal process.
Procedural or Technical Advantages of Direct Referral
35. The direct referral process would avoid a potential duplication of process whereby there would be first a Council hearing, then a hearing by the Court. The Court’s assisted mediation and processes can be advantageous in dealing with issues of complexity and contention in relation to the proposal.
36. The complexity of the application may bring forward competing specialist evidence that will have a strong bearing on the decision to be made, particularly with regards to air quality, hazardous substances and cultural and natural heritage matters. The Court’s expert caucusing processes can be better suited to narrowing the range of matters that are in contention prior to a Court hearing than those of a Council hearing process.
37. However, the requirement in section 103B of the RMA for technical evidence to be pre-circulated prior to a Council hearing has resulted in a more thorough testing of technical evidence and overall a more efficient hearing process. Likewise, the opportunity for a pre-hearing meeting, if the applicant chooses, improves the understanding of the application by submitters and efficiency of the council hearing.
38. With regards to previous applications where Council has agreed to the request for direct referral, the direct referral process does not appear to have resulted in a more timely determination. Having a Council hearing can narrow the issues in contention in the first instance, and making for a timely and cost-efficient Court process if the decision was to be appealed. In these situations most appeals are resolved by consent between the parties rather than being reheard by the Court. The reality of direct referral avoiding a two hearing process is not one borne out by experience. Less than 10% of resource consent appeals to Auckland Council decisions are reheard by the Court.
Implications for Submitters and Council
39. Submitters will have an opportunity to become involved in the Court process by lodging an application to become a ‘section 274 party’ or party to the Court proceedings.
40. Despite the best efforts of the Court, submitters can find Court proceedings a more daunting prospect than Council hearings and given that the submitters are generally located in Mangere or nearby, having to travel in to the Environment Court for mediations and meetings may prove problematic for submitters to be actively involved.
41. Generally, the observational views of lay submitters, particularly those familiar with their local environment, are best pursued via a Council hearing. The history of the zone change through the development of the Puhinui Structure Plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan demonstrate extensive community involvement through the entirety of development of these plans including active participation at the appeal stage. This indicates that submitters may not be deterred by the cost and formality of the Court process. A summary of the submissions is provided as Attachment F.
42. Where there is no “first instance” hearing at Council level, Council’s position at a Court hearing is a bit ambiguous. As there is no Council decision and position to defend the Council becomes reliant on its planner and experts in forming its position supported by legal submissions. The submitters also do not have a Council decision to support or oppose and therefore more may get involved at the Court, to defend a particular position. A direct referral can result in extensive cross-examination by multiple parties with a far longer and more expensive hearing to allow for participation by all affected parties.
43. There should be no implications for Council in regards to costs. Experience to date shows that the Court will expect the applicant to pay for the typically more extensive processing, provision of evidence and legal oversight with Council’s cost application. Such a costs application can however be challenged and payment is not guaranteed.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
44. The Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board was provided with copy of the referral request on 25 January 2017 and a response was received on 7 February 2017 that did not support the direct referral process. The reasons provided include:
· A Council hearing process is more accessible to the local people.
· The Court process may be a barrier to the public due to its formal and structured process.
· The role of the local board and their input is not formalised the same way as that for a Council hearing process.
45. During the notification period comments have also been received from the Mangere-Otahuhu and the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Boards and those comments are opposed to the proposal. The representations made by the local boards will be included in the planner’s assessment and reporting on the applications to a council hearing. However as they are not formal submissions the local boards could not take those views further if the applications were directly referred to the Court.
Māori impact statement
46. Prior to lodging the resource consent applications for this site, the applicant undertook consultation with mana whenua groups who have an interest in this area. Consultation with Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngati Te Ata and Ngati Tamaoho has continued thereafter and throughout the earlier packages of consents.
47. The applicant has also entered into a memorandum of understanding with Te Akitai Waiohua to formalise their ongoing relationship and engagement.
48. As part of the resource consent process, council notified all mana whenua groups of these applications who have an interest in the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board area. The groups included:
49. Since advising all mana whenua groups of the applications in January 2017, the following responses have been received:
· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua defer interest to Te Akitai Waiohua.
· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki rely upon haukaunga mana whenua to engage with Council and assess the proposal, and confirmed no further interest.
· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei confirmed the proposal being outside their primary area of interest and confirmed no further engagement is necessary.
50. Following public notification of the applications, two submissions have been received from mana whenua groups - Ngati Te Ata and Te Akitai Waiohua. The submissions oppose the applications and raise concerns regarding a lack of engagement, water quality, protection of the outstanding natural feature and view shafts, cumulative effects of the proposal and Part 2 of the RMA.
Implementation
51. In light of the implications of the request for direct referral, it is considered appropriate for the Regulatory Committee to determine whether the application should be directly referred to the Court, rather than Council officers.
52. Should the Council accept the direct referral request from the applicant and enter into the required process, the applicant must still decide after receipt of a Council report whether to proceed to the Court. Should the applicant determine not to do so, the application would fall back to the Council for determination.
53. Should the Council accept the officer recommendation to reject the direct referral request from the applicant, the applicant will be able to object to that decision under section 357A(1)(e) of the RMA.
54. If the matter is referred council staff will prepare a report on the application and will charge its standard processing costs for this work. Once in front of the court the RMA expects that any additional council costs of a Court hearing will be covered by the applicant.
55. Having regard to the nature of the application and submissions received, it is my opinion that the utilisation of the direct referral provisions of the Act may deter the submitters from having their concerns heard. It would also possibly focus the specialist matters of consideration to a point that important local issues are not completely represented. Although there may be some merit to proceeding with direct referral to the Environment Court, it is recommended that the request be declined.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Sections 87D and 87E of the Resource Management Act 1991 |
75 |
b⇩ |
Location Plan |
77 |
c⇩ |
Site Plan and Perspectives of Development |
79 |
d⇩ |
Direct Referral request 22 December 2016 |
83 |
e⇩ |
Direct Referral request 28 August 2017 |
157 |
f⇩ |
Summary of Submissions |
163 |
Signatories
Authors |
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager Natalie Bedggood - Principal Planner Hearings & Resolutions |
Authorisers |
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services |
Regulatory Committee 14 September 2017 |
87D Request for application to go directly to Environment Court
Under section 87D, an applicant may make a request for direct referral as follows:
(1) The applicant must request the relevant consent authority to allow the application to be determined by the Environment Court instead of by the consent authority.
(2) The applicant must make the request in the period—
(a) starting on the day on which the application is made; and
(b) ending 5 working days after the date on which the period for submissions on the application closes.
(3) The applicant must make the request electronically or in writing on the prescribed form.
Section 87E of the Resource Management Act 1991
Under section 87E, Council must make a decision on a request for direct referral as follows:
(4) If the consent authority determines under section 88(3) that the application is incomplete, it must return the request with the application without making a decision on the request. Section 88(4) and (5) apply to the application.
(5) If the consent authority receives the request after it has determined that the application will not be notified, it must return the request.
(6) If the consent authority receives the request before it has determined whether the application will be notified, it must defer its decision on the request until after it has decided whether to notify the application and then apply either subsection (4) or (5).
(7) If the consent authority decides not to notify the application, it must return the request.
(8) If the consent authority decides to notify the application, it must give the applicant its decision on the request within 15 working days after the date of the decision on notification.
(9) In any other case, the consent authority must give the applicant its decision on the request within 15 working days after receiving the request.
(10) No submitter has a right to be heard by the consent authority on a request.
(11) If the consent authority returns or declines the request, it must give the applicant its reasons, in writing or electronically, at the same time as it gives the applicant its decision.
(12) If the consent authority declines the request under subsection (5) or (6) the applicant may object to the consent authority under section 357A(1)(e).
14 September 2017 |
Regulatory Compliance Prioritisation
File No.: CP2017/12703
Purpose
1. To seek approval to transform how compliance activities are prioritised and responded.
Executive summary
2. The Regulatory Services Directorate conducts compliance under a number of significant statutes, including the Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004 and Local Government Act 2002. Secondary regulations and bylaws add to compliance obligations.
3. The volume of compliance activities is significant, with over 120,000 requests for service received by Auckland Council. Demand for compliance services is increasing. Volumes increased between 8 to 25% in the year ending December 2016, with resource management breaches and noise complaints experiencing significant increases.
4. The current approach to compliance is disjointed leading to inconsistent practice and a variable experience for customers. In addition, demand for compliance services is increasing at a significant annual rate. Significant improvement in how compliance services are delivered for Aucklanders is required.
5. This will be accomplished by strengthening the compliance approach, re-organising service models and working smarter through technology. The outcome will be that interventions are informed by risks to public safety and health, risks to the environment, and risks to building infrastructure.
6. All regulatory compliance activities will be consolidated into a single Regulatory Compliance unit, creating a central point of accountability. Four teams will be created, aligned to the increasing complexity of the compliance problem and the significance of the intervention necessary.
7. Supporting the structural change will require a prioritised, risk-based approach to compliance. Enabling a fairer, safer and healthier Auckland requires responding quickly and effectively to non-compliance where the greatest impact on public health and safety and environmental values is evident.
8. Response rates will be set according to risk and harm, with service levels reported every six months to the Regulatory Committee. Matters deemed high risk will see a rapid response. Low risk breaches will be responded to with less urgency.
9. Pro-active compliance activities including education campaigns and significant enforcement action will also be reported.
That the Regulatory Committee: a) endorse the shift to a strengthened compliance approach that: i) takes an evidence led approach to regulation. ii) allocates resources to addressing breaches that cause high harm. iii) ensures interventions are proportionate to the risk at stake, paying close attention to the effectiveness of our efforts in reducing harm. iv) sets service levels according to risk and harm.
|
Comments
10. The Regulatory Services Directorate has identified a need to transform the way it delivers regulatory compliance services. This entails taking a more evidence-led and risk-based approach to responding to alleged breaches of rules and regulations.
11. Staff presented to the Regulatory Committee in December 2016 the Customer Enabled Compliance change programme. This paper updates the Committee on the conclusion of the design phase of the Programme and seeks endorsement of a key aspect of the implementation requirement; a risk-based prioritisation approach to compliance.
Compliance activities
12. The Regulatory Services Directorate conducts compliance under a number of significant statutes. These include the Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004, Local Government Act 2002, Health Act 1958, Food Act 2014, Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and Dog Control Act. Secondary regulations and bylaws adds to compliance obligations
13. The volume of compliance activities is significant, accounting for over half of the requests for service received by Auckland Council each year. In the order of 55,000 noise complaints were made in 2016/17 financial year, 40,000 animal management complaints, 13,000 alleged breaches of council bylaws, 10,000 resource management investigations were initiated, and 4,000 building compliance matters responded to.
14. Demand for compliance services is increasing. Volumes increased between 8 to 25% in the year ending December 2016, with resource management breaches and noise complaints experiencing significant increases.
Regulatory Services current approach to compliance
15. Compliance services are currently distributed across three regulatory departments; Licensing and Compliance Services, Resource Consents and Building Control.
16. The key issues/challenges with the current approach:
· No formal mandate for a risk-based approach means that compliance incidences are responded to as they arise with little emphasis on gathering and reviewing intelligence. This limits the detection of emerging problems and application of a strategic, prioritised response to compliance.
· Different approaches to compliance exist within each department, which ensures customers experience a variable level of service and inconsistent outcomes.
· Differing characterisation of risks and harms. Whilst each department has developed an understanding of the risk and harms associated within its discipline, there is no visibility over the entire enterprise meaning resource is not necessarily focussed on the highest overall risks.
· Processes, structures, information and systems are designed to support regulatory silos, but breaches commonly encountered often span multiple regulations. With no unifying approach and a range of responses, it’s sometimes difficult to establish primary accountability for resolving compliance issues.
Customer Enabled Compliance – a new approach to an enduring challenge
17. The Customer Enabled Compliance change programme has determined that our compliance operation must transform in order to address the challenges currently experienced and those anticipated in the near future.
18. Specifically we propose to:
1. Improve the Service Model
2. Strengthen the Compliance Approach
3. Work Smarter through technology
Improve the Service Model
19. All regulatory compliance activities are being consolidated into a single Regulatory Compliance unit. This results in the creation of a central point of accountability for a substantial proportion of the requests for service received by the Council each year (approx. 120K+ per year and growing).
20. Four teams will be created, aligned to increasing complexity of the compliance problem and significance of the intervention necessary.
1. Compliance Dispatch; all requests for service will be centrally managed to ensure jobs are assessed and triaged before allocation to the appropriately skilled staff. Dispatch will oversee workflows and queue management. Equally important, this team will oversee the safety of staff in the field.
2. Compliance Response; four highly mobile, multi-disciplined teams that respond to service requests that can be resolved through a single intervention without requiring legal remedies. Early and effective resolution prevents escalation and allows investigative resource to be directed to issues of greater technical complexity, where legal recourse is likely.
3. Monitoring & Investigations; a specialised service dedicated to problems that require greater discretion, technical specialism and investigative expertise. This service includes scheduled monitoring of activities consented under the Resource Management Act.
4. Targeted Initiatives; a team of specialists accountable for leading targeted compliance projects. Projects will be determined through gathered, mandated and resourced through the Compliance Work Programme. Projects may use a broad spectrum of intervention tools from education campaigns to the mobilisation of enforcement teams; tailoring approaches to tackle the root cause.
Strengthen the Compliance Approach
21. Regulatory practice has evolved considerably over the last three decades, largely due to an improved understanding of the role of regulation in affecting behaviour and the effectiveness of different regulatory interventions in achieving desired outcomes. Focus is required on prioritising harms that carry the biggest risk/societal impact.
22. The regulatory triangle illustrated below is a core tenant of modern regulatory practice, with the scale of interventions increasing with increasing harm and attitude to compliance. This approach is supported by rigorous operating principles of consistency, proportionality, fairness, transparency and value for money.
23. Adopting a prioritised, risk-based compliance approach will ensure:
· We take an evidence led approach to regulation.
· We allocated resources to addressing breaches that cause high harm.
· Interventions are tailored to each harm, considering the unique circumstances of individual situations
· The interventions applied are proportionate to the risk at stake, paying close attention to the effectiveness of our efforts in reducing harm
24. Service levels will be set according to risk and harm. Matters deemed high risk will see a rapid response, within 30 minutes. For example, a building veranda above a public walkway in imminent risk of collapse, or an ongoing discharge of toxic substances to significant natural area. Low risk breaches will be responded to with less urgency, three to five days unless extenuating circumstances exist.
25. Compliance service levels, response times and resolution rates will be reported every six months to the Regulatory Committee. Pro-active compliance activities including education campaigns and significant enforcement action will also be reported.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
26. Whilst there is considerable regionally consistency in compliance activities, there are matters greater importance and relevance to different local boards. A variation of the compliance activity report will be cascaded to local boards for their information.
Māori impact statement
27. A modern regulatory compliance system focused on addressing high risks and harms is responsive to Maori. Maori engage with the present regulatory compliance system as customers but importantly also as kaitiaki and as kaiarahi.
28. The Customer Enabled Compliance change programme has developed the operating principles to transform how compliance is delivered for Auckland. This has been an internal exercise drawing on expertise from within Regulatory Services. The Programme will consult with Mana Whenua to assist with the establishment of regulatory settings that rank harms and risks in terms of priority to Maori. The results will form a component of the Compliance Work Programme, reported back to Mana Whenua on an agreed frequency.
Implementation
29. Three phases of work span the next 10 months:
a) Phase 1: Foundation; activity is focused on designing and setting the service requirements. The work contributes to the design of the target operating model (blueprint) and the programme level business case (completed).
b) Phase 2: Development; activity will be focused on development and testing through pilot projects, developing and embedding new capability and standardisation of activity (underway).
c) Phase 3: Large scale service model change/transition; the emphasis be on scaling up the implementation of bigger system dependent changes, sustaining earlier change and realisation of efficiency benefits (Go Live Oct 2017, will scale up July 2018).
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Customer Enabled Compliance Prioritisation Framework |
173 |
Signatories
Author |
Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services |
Authoriser |
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services |
14 September 2017 |
Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Review 2017
File No.: CP2017/14164
Purpose
1. To determine the outcome of the statutory review of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw.
Executive summary
2. The Regulatory Committee agreed that a statutory review of the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013, Te Ture ā-Rohe Marutau ā-Iwi me te Whakapōrearea 2013 (the Bylaw) be completed by September 2017 [REG/2017/18].
3. Community engagement and research undertaken between March and August 2017, aimed at a robust and representative view of the Bylaw, found that overall:
· public tolerance of others behaviour and expectations about what the Bylaw can achieve vary widely and are not always well aligned with our legislative role, powers and resource
· the Bylaw is largely ineffective at addressing problem behaviours associated with complex social needs (e.g. begging and car window washing)
· the Bylaw is effective at setting general expectations for appropriate behaviour in public places and this can be improved through increased clarity and communication.
4. Staff consider that based on the community engagement and research, analysis of review findings and assessment against legislative criteria, the Bylaw overall:
· is the most appropriate way of addressing many safety and nuisance problems:
a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address many public safety and nuisance behaviours, including to fill regulatory gaps, to clearly state the behavioural expectations and better manage the impacts of certain activities
the Bylaw is no longer the most appropriate way of addressing behaviours associated with window washing, graffiti, and fish or fish offal. Recent legislation for car window washing, an established and successful graffiti eradication programme, and the Litter Act 1979 for fish remains are more effective than the existing bylaw.
· is not the most appropriate form of bylaw and requires amendment:
the form of Bylaw is not the most appropriate. The form of bylaw clauses for 17 behaviours require amendment to be more appropriate and improve councils ability to effectively address safety and nuisance issues. Legacy bylaw provisions need be revoked to implement improved bylaw form. Significant re-drafting and/or amendments to other Auckland Council bylaws may be required.
the general form of the Bylaw also requires amendment to be easier to communicate, to support future infringement notices, and be more focused on council controlled public places. This could result in re-drafting all bylaw clauses.
· is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990:
the Bylaw can have implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in terms of freedom of movement and expression. However, these limitations are considered to be justified and not inconsistent with the Act.
5. Staff recommend that the Bylaw be amended to be more effective and efficient, and to repeal matters relating to car window washing, graffiti, fish or fish offal, and to revoke the legacy bylaws.
That the Regulatory Committee: Bylaw appropriateness and form a) determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way and form to address safety behaviours that could arise from interfering with lifesaving equipment and that this clause of the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 can be retained. b) determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the following behaviours, but that the form of the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 is not appropriate and requires amendment: i) intimidating or nuisance begging in a public place ii) wilful obstruction, disturbance or interference iii) using an instrument or personal address system iv) reckless use of any “material or thing” v) nuisance or dangerous fencing vi) mind-altering substances in public vii) fly-posting viii) lighting of outdoor fires ix) setting off fireworks x) damage in any public place xi) obstructions in any public place xii) restricting access to parks or beaches xiii) set-netting and other beach recreational activity controls xiv) vehicles on parks and beaches xv) possessing or using a weapon xvi) other additional controls for parks and beaches xvii) street naming and numbering on buildings. c) determine that the general form of the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 is not appropriate and requires amendment to improve levels of public understanding and compliance. This could result in re-drafting all bylaw clauses including the single item to be retained in (a). d) determine that a bylaw is not the most appropriate way to address the following behaviours and that these bylaw clauses in the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 can be repealed: i) washing a vehicle (car window washing) ii) graffiti iii) cleaning or leaving fish or fish offal on a beach. New Zealand Bill of Rights e) determine that the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 may have implications for freedom of movement and expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. These implications are justified and not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Implementation f) approve that the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 be amended as indicated in Attachment B to give effect to (a), (b), (c) and (d). g) to implement improvements to the form of bylaw clauses relating to fencing in (b)(v), approve that the following bylaws be revoked through a statutory consultation process: i) clause 12.1 of the Papakura District Council Public Places Bylaw 2008 ii) clause 15.2(b) of the Waitakere City Council Public Places Bylaw 2010 iii) clause 3.1(a) of the Manukau City Consolidated Bylaw 2008: Chapter 5 - Construction, Development, Street Damage and Vehicle Crossings. h) request a statement of proposal be provided to the Regulatory Committee to implement (f) and (g). i) agree that when staff report back to the Regulatory Committee with the statement of proposal, it will also identify any further changes to (a), (b), (c) or (d). |
Comments
Background
Bylaws must be reviewed to determine if they are still fit for purpose
6. A statutory review of the Bylaw needs to be completed by 22 August 2018.
7. On 9 March 2017 the committee agreed an early review completion date for the Bylaw of September 2017 [REG/2017/18].
8. The Bylaw addresses a range of behaviours in five bylaw sections:
· nuisance, safety and behaviour
· damage
· obstructions
· additional controls for parks and beaches
· street naming and numbering of buildings.
9. The scope of the Bylaw review also includes the following legacy bylaw provisions relating to fencing:
· clause 12.1 of the Papakura District Council Public Places Bylaw 2008
· clause 15.2(b) of the Waitakere City Council Public Places Bylaw 2010
· clause 3.1(a) of the Manukau City Consolidated Bylaw 2008: Chapter 5 - Construction, Development, Street Damage and Vehicle Crossings.
10. The Local Government Act 2002 sets out the procedure and nature of a bylaw review (legislative criteria). The council is required to determine whether the Bylaw:
· is the most appropriate way of addressing the problem
· is the most appropriate form of bylaw
· has implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
11. Council
can consider whether the Bylaw should be confirmed, amended, revoked, or
replaced. Council must consult the public before making a final decision. A
statutory consultation process is required.
12. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have similar public safety and nuisance bylaws. This approach seeks to ensure consistent rules apply irrespective of whether the behaviour is the responsibility of Auckland Council or Auckland Transport.
13. Auckland Transport has not commenced a review of their bylaw.
Analysis
14. To assist council in its response to the Bylaw review staff have undertaken:
· community engagement and research
· analysis of qualitative and quantitative data to produce the Bylaw review findings
· assessment of the Bylaw against legislative criteria.
Community engagement and research process
Engagement and research aimed at robust and representative view of the Bylaw
15. To provide a robust and representative view of the Bylaw review, staff undertook engagement and research activities between March and August 2017. There was a focus on begging and car window washing as high profile community topics. Activities included:
· face to face interviews with 32 key stakeholders and council advisory panel meetings[1]
· Business Improvement District cluster meetings and a short survey
· small group interactive sessions with local board members at three cluster workshops
· Māori engagement at five hui with whanau, rangatahi and community groups
· engagement with Māori and Pasifika youth from South Auckland on begging (53 participants) and car window washing (67 participants) using ‘UpSouth’
· engagement with two current car window washers in South Auckland
· analysis of 25,000 calls to service about the Bylaw in 2015 and 2016
· qualitative and quantitative research about the attitudes and perceptions of public safety and nuisance from more than 2,000 households
· ‘lived experience’ research in collaboration with a non-government organisation to obtain the views and experiences of 10 people who beg in the central city
· an independent review of council’s approach to bylaw enforcement and staff views
· comparative research on the approach of other national and international authorities.
The Bylaw review findings
Public tolerance of others behaviour and expectations about what the Bylaw can achieve vary widely, and is not always well aligned with our legislative role, powers and resource
16. The review findings report has been prepared and is provided in Attachment A. The review findings overall are summarised below.
17. Community tolerance and expectations about councils role needs to be better managed and the Bylaw requirements need to be communicated in a more accessible way:
· a wide spectrum of understanding and tolerance exists about what constitutes ‘nuisance’ and threat to public safety
· perceptions that bylaws are a ‘cure-all’ for behaviour where they have a low tolerance
· there is a ‘perception gap’ amongst the public about what council can do, particularly where New Zealand Police (Police) responses are constrained
· staff have limited enforcement powers under the bylaw which is not well understood
· in reality staff have limited bylaw enforcement powers and rely heavily on voluntary compliance using a graduated enforcement approach
· bylaw and compliance staff face health and safety risks while enforcing the bylaw
· public safety and nuisance concerns will escalate as the city continues to grow and intensify and council will need to manage expectations.
18. The Bylaw is not effective at addressing behaviour associated with complex social needs:
· it is largely ineffective at addressing behaviours amongst marginalised and vulnerable people (e.g. begging and car window washing)
· begging and car window washing communities are complex and diverse, and there is a wide spectrum of issues, needs and behaviours around these activities making them difficult to manage depending on community tolerance.
19. The Bylaw can be effective at setting expectations for appropriate behaviour in public places, however improvements are needed to:
· more clearly define ‘nuisance’, ‘public place’ and ‘obstruction’
· reduce duplication with other bylaws and legislative controls
· reduce confusion and jurisdictional issues e.g. the Police, Auckland Transport.
Assessment against legislative criteria
Staff used the review findings to assess the behaviours in the Bylaw against legislative criteria
20. The process used in the assessment of the review findings to meet legislative criteria is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Illustration of analysis of public safety and nuisance behaviours
Summary of staff recommendations on options to retain, amend or repeal
21. An in-depth assessment of bylaw clauses against legislative criteria and staff recommendations on whether to retain, amend or repeal a clause[2] is contained in Attachment B.
22. A summary of staff recommendations is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of staff recommended options to respond to the review findings
Bylaw topics |
Option 1 (retain) |
Option 2 (amend) |
Option 3 (repeal) |
Nuisance, safety and behaviour |
- |
- |
- |
1. Intimidating or nuisance begging |
|
ü |
|
2. Washing windows (car window washing) |
|
|
ü |
3. Wilful obstruction, disturbance or interference |
|
ü |
|
4. Using an instrument or personal address system |
|
ü |
|
5. Reckless use of any “material or thing” Includes skateboards, drones, vehicle, bicycle, motorised scooter, model aircraft, roller skates or roller blades, shopping trolley or similar object |
|
ü |
|
6. Nuisance or dangerous fencing |
|
ü |
|
7. Mind-altering substances in public |
|
ü |
|
8. Graffiti |
|
|
ü |
9. Fly-posting |
|
ü |
|
10. Lighting of outdoor fires |
|
ü |
|
11. Setting off fireworks |
|
ü |
|
12. Damage in any public place Includes to council property, water courses or stormwater drains; or from placing or removing structures, matters, materials, trees or vegetation |
|
ü |
|
13. Obstructions in any public place Includes from materials, structures, vegetation, doors or gates and goods |
|
ü |
|
Additional controls for parks and beaches |
- |
- |
- |
14. Restricting access to parks or beaches Includes to prevent damage, ensure public safety, allow maintenance or exclusive use; or from entering a park or beach that is closed to the public, engaging in prohibited activities or obstructing a recreational activity |
|
ü |
|
15. Set-netting and other beach recreational activity controls |
|
ü |
|
16. Vehicles on parks and beaches Includes driving, parking, leaving, or causing an obstruction to an entrance, thoroughfare, park, beach, track, boat ramps or boat launching facility |
|
ü |
|
17. Possessing or using a weapon |
|
ü |
|
18. Cleaning or leaving fish or fish offal on a beach |
|
|
ü |
19. Interfering with safety or lifesaving equipment |
ü |
|
|
20. Other additional controls for parks and beaches Includes animals, gates, and activities prohibited by a parks management plan or other regulation |
|
ü |
|
21. Street naming and numbering on buildings |
|
ü |
|
Note: bolded text in the above table are sections in the bylaw.
Retain
Retain the clause about interfering with lifesaving equipment
23. Staff recommend the Bylaw retain the clause about interfering with lifesaving equipment. There have been no reported incidents, however there is sufficient safety concerns to justify its retention.
Amend
Amend intimidating or nuisance begging in a public place clause
24. Staff recommend amending the intimidating or nuisance begging in a public place clause to improve its focus on behavior that causes obstruction.
25. Prosecution under the bylaw has not been effective. However, the Bylaw clause has enabled complementary non-regulatory initiatives. These initiatives leverage compliance with the Bylaw clause to encourage passive begging.
26. These initiatives have helped to reduce the overall number of incidences of aggressive and nuisance begging. Better regulating begging behaviour that causes an obstruction would strengthen the bylaw clause.
Amend the majority of behaviours in the bylaw to improve effectiveness and bylaw form
27. Staff consider that the majority of behaviours in the Bylaw are still an appropriate way to address public safety and nuisance issues. Staff recommend amending the following clauses of the Bylaw to improve their effectiveness:
· wilful obstruction, disturbance or interference
· using an instrument or personal address system
· reckless use of any “material or thing”
· nuisance or dangerous fencing
· mind-altering substances in public
· fly-posting
· lighting of outdoor fires
· setting off fireworks
· damage in any public place
· obstructions in any public place
· restricting access to parks or beaches
· set-netting and other beach recreational activity controls
· vehicles on parks and beaches
· possessing or using a weapon
· other additional controls for parks and beaches
· street naming and numbering on buildings.
28. General improvements to the clauses above include to:
· set clearer behavioural expectations
· improve certainty of what is being manged through a bylaw clause and what is not
· support compliance and use of the graduated response approach
· provide better alignment with legislation, bylaws, Auckland Unitary Plan, and other guidelines.
29. Legacy bylaw provisions will need be revoked to implement improved bylaw form relating to nuisance and dangerous fencing behaviour.
Amendments needed to improve the general form of the Bylaw
30. Through the review process, staff identified opportunities to improve the general form of the Bylaw. These improvements include amending the Bylaw to:
· be communicated easier. Possible opportunities to achieve this include dividing the Bylaw into smaller issues-based sections, changing the structure to put the substantive content first, simplifying the language, and greater use of visuals
· reflect a strict liability offence where appropriate. This may improve future opportunities to issue infringement notices for certain behaviours. Amending the Bylaw does not mean the council will be able to issues infringement notices. Central government must first make the necessary regulations under the Local Government Act 2002. To date central government has not made any such regulations
· apply where appropriate to only council controlled public places rather than all public places (including those privately owned)
· manage behaviours on land controlled by Auckland Council and not Auckland Transport.
Repeal
Repeal car window washing clause.
31. Staff recommend repealing the car window washing clause. The recently passed Land Transport Amendment Act 2017 prohibits pedestrians washing or offering to wash vehicles on a road unless the vehicle is legally parked.
32. Police have powers to either prosecute offenders or issue infringement fines. In addition, Police have powers under the Summary Offences Act 1981 to deal with aggressive and intimidating behaviour that constitutes a threat to public safety. These statutory provisions provide more effective enforcement powers than possible under a bylaw (including the existing bylaw clause).
Repeal clauses relating to graffiti and fish remains
33. Staff recommend that the Bylaw is no longer required to manage issues for graffiti and fish or fish offal. An established and successful graffiti eradication programme, and the Litter Act 1979 for fish or fish offal are more effective than the existing bylaw.
Summary
Staff recommend that a bylaw is appropriate, but that the existing bylaw requires amendment to be more effective and efficient
34. Staff consider that based on the community engagement and research, analysis of review findings and assessment against legislative criteria, the Bylaw overall:
· is the most appropriate way of addressing many safety and nuisance problems:
a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address many public safety and nuisance behaviours, including to fill regulatory gaps, to clearly state the behavioural expectations and better manage the impacts of certain activities
the Bylaw is no longer the most appropriate way of addressing behaviours associated with window washing, graffiti, and fish or fish offal. Recent legislation for car window washing, an established and successful graffiti eradication programme, and the Litter Act 1979 for fish remains are more effective than the existing bylaw.
· is not the most appropriate form of bylaw and requires amendment:
the form of Bylaw is not the most appropriate. The form of bylaw clauses for 17 behaviours require amendment to be more appropriate and improve councils ability to effectively address safety and nuisance issues. This may include significant re-drafting and/or amendments to other Auckland Council bylaws
the general form of the Bylaw also requires amendment to be easier to communicate, to support future infringement notices, and be more focused on council controlled public places. This could result in re-drafting all bylaw clauses
legacy bylaw provisions need be revoked to implement improved bylaw form relating to nuisance and dangerous fencing because these matters can be included in an amendment to the Bylaw.
· is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990:
the Bylaw can have implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in terms of freedom of movement and expression. However, these limitations are considered to be justified and not inconsistent with the Act.
35. Staff recommend that the Bylaw be amended to be more effective and efficient, to repeal matters relating to car window washing, graffiti, fish or fish offal, and to revoke the legacy bylaws.
Risks and mitigation
36. If the staff recommendations are approved, the council may be criticised by some stakeholders about:
· the amount of evidential data available to inform decision making
· the scope of engagement, particularly with local boards and Māori.
37. These risks can be mitigated by providing clear communication of the council requirement to consult the public before confirming or making any changes to the Bylaw.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
38. Engagement with local boards took place at the cluster workshops in March 2017 using small group interactive sessions. The purpose of the workshops was to provide local board members an opportunity to identify current public safety and nuisance behaviours and potential regulatory and non-regulatory solutions. The Waitematā Local Board independently chose to provide written feedback.
39. Local board member views are contained throughout the findings in Attachment A. In general, local board members considered that all behaviours addressed in the bylaw remain of concern to varying degrees. Significant concerns related to behaviours addressed under the nuisance, safety and behaviour category (particularly in regards to intimidating begging and car window washing).
40. Local board members expressed an interest in providing feedback on the findings. However, this was not possible due to the revised process in order to meet the earlier reporting date set by the Regulatory Committee (Attachment C). There will be an opportunity to provide feedback on the statement of proposal and draft bylaw through the special consultative procedure process.
Māori impact statement
41. Staff sought to engage with Māori using a collaborative process to gain insight as to the public safety and nuisance behaviours affecting or concerning Māori in Auckland.
42. An experienced Māori engagement consultant assisted staff to identify stakeholders with whom to engage. Five interactive hui were held with whanau, rangatahi and community from:
· Te Kaha o te Rangatahi Trust
· Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o nga Maungarongo
· Kootuitui Whānau, Papakura
· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei whānau
· Ranui Action Project.
43. Specific behaviours such as begging and car window washing may have a greater impact on Māori given the higher proportion of Māori engaged in these activities. Similarly environmental controls, i.e. parks and beaches, may have a greater significance given the role of Māori as kaitiaki of the land.
44. Māori expressed a view that a number of other behaviours addressed in the bylaw were not of significant importance to Māori.
45. Māori expressed a desire for, and willingness to assist in, collaborative community and whanau based approaches to the management of both social and environmental behaviours. Further key findings include:
· there was a strong focus on protecting and enhancing the environment
· safety for children and the importance of a child-safe environment was a significant concern
· empathy and understanding for the underlying poverty and hardship and high tolerance for those who engage in begging and window washing activity
· an expectation for greater respect from authorities and others, for Māori land, Māori protocol and Tikanga Māori.
46. The engagement findings are in line with the values that underpin the Māori Plan as they relate to:
· Whanaungatanga: Māori communities are connected and safe
· Rangatiratanga: Māori are actively participating and demonstrating leadership and in the community
· Kaitiakitanga: Whanau wellbeing and resilience is strengthened and Maori are kaitiaki of the environment.
47. The staff recommendations seek to align with the social and environmental priorities of the Auckland Plan and the Māori Plan of:
· enhancing Maori leadership and participation in decision making and the community
· whanau wellbeing and resilience is strengthened
· ensuring a sustainable future environment.
Implementation
48. If the staff recommendations are approved, the council must consult the public before making a final decision and the following steps will occur:
· draft an amended bylaw
· develop a graduated enforcement model for the amended bylaw
· draft a statement of proposal for approval by the Regulatory Committee and Governing Body for the purposes of the special consultative procedure.
49. As staff develop the amended bylaw, changes may be identified to the recommendations to retain, amend or repeal certain bylaw clauses. Staff will report to the Regulatory Committee if this happens.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Attachment A Findings Report (278 pages) (Under Separate Cover) |
|
b⇨ |
Attachment B Assessment of behaviours and opportunities (54 pages) (Under Separate Cover) |
|
c⇨ |
Attachment C Memo to Regulatory Committee (6 pages) (Under Separate Cover) |
|
d⇨ |
Attachment D Auckland Council and Auckland Transport public safety and nuisance bylaws (23 pages) (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Katherine Wilson - Policy Analyst - Social Policy & Bylaws Ashleigh Pihema - Policy Analyst – Social Policy & Bylaws Peter Chaudhry – Principal Policy Analyst – Social Policy & Bylaws |
Authorisers |
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services |
Regulatory Committee 14 September 2017 |
Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 14 September 2017
File No.: CP2017/18806
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 July 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.
That the Regulatory Committee: a) receive the Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 14 September 2017.
|
Comments
4. As at 31 August 2017, there are 22 resource consent appeals to which Auckland Council is a party. These are grouped by Local Board Area geographically from north to south 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 five appeals have been resolved.
6. The two new appeals by SKP Inc. and R. Walden oppose council’s grant of consent for the construction and operation of a marina at Kennedy Point, Waiheke. Both appeals assert that the grant of consent is contrary to the relevant planning documents and the Part II matters of the Resource Management Act.
7. The New Zealand Retail Property Group appeal opposes a condition that seeks a road front upgrade (berm /footpath) as part of a subdivision that creates a site for a new church on Fred Taylor Drive in Westgate.
8. The appeal by a neighbour Tsai-Fen Hsieh, opposes the grant of consent to a 6-level apartment block approved within a Special Housing Area in Meadowbank Road, Meadowbank. The development exceeds height and the height to boundary rule adjacent to the appellant’s property.
9. The other new appeal is to the decline of a non-complying 2-lot subdivision of a 40-ha site in the Rural – Rural Coastal Zone on the Clevedon-Kawakawa Bay Road.
10. Court hearings over the past month have included those for Ahuareka Trustees, Butterbee Childcare Limited and Matakana Coast Trial Trust. These are noted in Attachment A.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
11. Not applicable.
Māori impact statement
12. The decision requested of the Regulatory Committee is to receive this progress report rather than to decide each appeal.
13. 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
14. 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.
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Current Resource Consent Appeals as at 1 September 2017 |
205 |
Signatories
Author |
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager |
Authorisers |
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services |
14 September 2017 |
Release of Regulatory Committee Confidential Decision 15 June - Appointment of independent hearing commissioners
File No.: CP2017/17244
Purpose
1. To release the Regulatory Committee’s decision of 15 June 2017 regarding the appointment of independent hearing commissioners to the open minutes.
Executive summary
2. At its meeting on 15 June 2017 the Regulatory Committee resolved as follows:
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) approve the following 54 people as independent hearings commissioners for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2020:
Alan Pattle |
Heike Lutz |
Lee Beattie |
Richard Blakey |
Alan Watson |
Hugh Leersnyder |
Leigh McGregor |
Richard Knott |
Barry Kaye |
Ian Boothroyd |
Les Simmons |
Robert Scott |
Basil Morrison |
Ian Munro |
Louise Wickham |
Russell Karu |
Bridget Gilbert |
Janine Bell |
Mark Farnsworth |
Ruth Bartlett |
Cherie Lane |
John Kirikiri |
Matt Riley |
Sharon De Luca |
Craig Shearer |
Juliane Chetham |
Melean Absolum |
Sheena Tepania |
Dave Sergeant |
Julie Bevan |
Michael Parsonson |
Shona Myers |
David Hill |
Justine Bray |
Nigel Mark-Brown |
Trevor Mackie |
David Mead |
Karyn Kurzeja |
Pamela Peters |
Vaughan Smith |
Edward (David) Wren |
Karyn Sinclair |
Peter Reaburn |
Wayne Donovan |
Gavin Lister |
Kevin Mahon |
Philip Brown |
William (Bill) Smith |
Gina Sweetman |
Kim Hardy |
Rebecca Macky |
William Kapea |
Greg Hill |
Kitt Littlejohn |
|
|
b) note that these appointments are subject to the candidates’ criminal history checks from the Ministry of Justice being satisfactory.
Restatement
c) agree that the successful candidate appointments will be made public once criminal history checks have been completed and successful candidates have been advised and confirmed acceptance of their appointment.
That the Regulatory Committee: a) note the release the decision of the Hearings Committee of 15 June 2017 regarding the appointment of independent hearings commissioners 2017-2020.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author |
Maryke Fouche - Democracy Services Graduate |
Authoriser |
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services |
Regulatory Committee 14 September 2017 |
Release of Regulatory Committee Confidential Decision 15 June -Appointment of District Licensing Committee chairs and members 2017-2020
File No.: CP2017/17250
Purpose
1. To release the Regulatory Committee’s decision of 15 June 2017 regarding the appointment of District Licensing Committee chairs and members 2017-2020.
Executive summary
2. At its meeting of 15 June 2017 the Regulatory Committee resolved as follows:
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) appoint the following 16 people as Auckland District Licensing Committee members for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2020:
Andrew Baker |
June Kearney |
Apulu Reece Autagavaia |
Katia Fraser |
Bernard Kendall |
Kenneth Taylor |
Dan Lynch |
Margaret Miles |
Gavin Campbell |
Michael Goudie |
Glenda Fryer |
Motekiai Pahulu |
Gwen Bull |
Patricia Reade |
Jenny Verry |
Stewart Heine |
b) appoint the following two elected members as Auckland District Licensing Committee chairpersons for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2020:
Andrew Baker |
Margaret Miles |
c) recommend that Chief Executive Stephen Town appoints the following four people as District Licensing Committee commissioner chairpersons for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2020:
Bernard Kendall |
Katia Fraser |
Gavin Campbell |
Michael Goudie |
d) note that these appointments are subject to the candidates’ criminal history checks from the Ministry of Justice being satisfactory
Restatement
e) agree that the successful candidate appointments will be made public once criminal history checks have been completed and successful candidates have been advised and confirmed acceptance of their appointment.
That the Regulatory Committee: a) note the release of the decision of the Regulatory Committee of 15 June 2017 regarding the appointment of the District Licensing Committee chairs and members 2017-2020.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author |
Maryke Fouche - Democracy Services Graduate |
Authoriser |
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services |
Regulatory Committee 14 September 2017 |
Release of Regulatory Committee Confidential Decision 15 June -Designation of independent commissioners as duty commissioners to determine resource consent applications
File No.: CP2017/17255
Purpose
1. To release the Regulatory Committee’s decision of 15 June 2017 regarding the designation of independent commissioners as duty commissioners to determine resource consent applications.
Executive summary
2. At its meeting of 15 June 2017 the Regulatory Committee resolved as follows:
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) designate, in accordance with clause 3.3. of the Regulatory Committee Policy, the following independent commissioners to act as duty commissioners for the period from 1 July 2017 until 30 June 2018:
i. Lee Beattie
ii. Richard Blakey
iii. Justine Bray
iv. Mark Farnsworth
v. David Hill
vi. Greg Hill
vii. Barry Kaye
viii. Cherie Lane
ix. Leigh McGregor
x. Ian Munro
xi. Robert Scott
xii. Dave Serjeant
b) delegate, in accordance with clause 3.6 of the Regulatory Committee Policy, to the Resolutions Team Principal Planners and Manager the authority to assign additional or alternate commissioners beyond the “duty” group but from the approved list of independent commissioners, as may be necessary to the unavailability and/or depending on particular skills or knowledge required for a particular resource consent application or section 357 objection determination.
c) delegate, in accordance with clause 3.3 of the Regulatory Committee Policy, to the Resolutions Team Principal Planners and Manager the authority to assign one or more duty commissioner to make decisions on resource consent applications where no hearing is required.
Restatement
d) agree that the report and resolutions be re-stated in the open section of the minutes once the duty commissioners have been advised and confirmed acceptance of their appointment.
That the Regulatory Committee: a) note the release of the decision of the Hearings Committee of 15 June 2017 regarding the designation of independent commissioners as duty commissioners to determine resource consent applications.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author |
Maryke Fouche - Democracy Services Graduate |
Authoriser |
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services |
Regulatory Committee 14 September 2017 |
Regulatory Committee Summary of Information Items - 14 September 2017
File No.: CP2017/17458
Purpose
1. To note progress on the forward work programme. (Attachment A).
2. To provide a public record of memos, workshop or briefing papers that have been distributed for the Committee’s information since 6 July 2017.
Executive summary
3. This is regular information-only report which aims to provide public visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are required.
4. The following papers were circulated to members:
· 14 August 2017 – memo re: Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority decision
5. The workshop papers and any previous documents can be found on the Auckland Council website at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/
· at the top of the page, select meeting “Regulatory Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;
· under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.
6. Note that, unlike an agenda decision report, staff will not be present to answer questions about these items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.
That the Regulatory Committee: a) receive the information report. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇩ |
Regulatory Committee Forward Work Programme |
223 |
Memo re: Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority decision (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Author |
Maryke Fouche - Democracy Services Graduate |
Authoriser |
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services |
Regulatory Committee 14 September 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 Decision on outcome of appeals and next steps for the Provisional Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy
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)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. In particular, the report contains information that has been prepared for the purposes of potential litigation along with legal advice on options and policy positions that would disadvantage the council if they were made public prior to decisions being made and the conclusion of all court proceedings. |
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 Deliberations on an objection to the construction of a wastewater pipeline at 3A Alma Crescent to service 54 Clevedon Road
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 delibrerations of the decision could compromise the council in undertaking without prejudice negotiations of this objection pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act. |
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. |
[1] Disability Advisory Panel, Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel, Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel, Rainbow Advisory Panel, Rural Advisory Panel, and Senior Advisory Panel. The Youth Advisory Panel was engaged through a survey.
[2] Retain means keeping the existing bylaw clause as it is currently worded.
Amend means to either change the wording of the existing bylaw clause, or to repeal and replace the existing bylaw clause. The amended bylaw clause may be relocated to another bylaw. The bylaw intent may or may not change.
Repeal means to delete the bylaw clause and rely on alternative regulatory or non-regulatory options.