Agenda of Regulatory Committee

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

12 October 2017

Determination of an Objection to the Construction of a Private Stormwater line through 25A Martin Crescent and 92A Ocean View Road Northcote to service 88 Ocean View Road Northcote.

File No.: CP2017/20458

Purpose

1. To hear and determine an objection to a private stormwater line connection under section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974.

Executive summary

2. The owner of 88 Ocean View Road, Northcote, Heng Ing Trust, (the Trust”) propose to subdivide the site into two residential lots. The property does not have a connection to council stormwater drains. The applicant proposes to connect to an existing council stormwater manhole located within 92A Ocean View Road via a new line across 25A Martin Crescent, Northcote.

3. Chris Howell & Associates the engineering consultants for the applicant have considered a number of stormwater drainage options to service the site. The proposal to connect to the existing stormwater manhole within 92A Ocean View Road, Northcote across 25A Martin Crescent is considered by the engineers of both owner and council to be the only practical route.

4. The Trust has been unable to obtain consent from the owner of 25A Martin Crescent, Mr. Gordon Chan to install the stormwater line through their property. The Trust has requested council to exercise its power under section 460 of the Local Government Act 1976 (“the Act”) to enable the work to be carried out. Council has since served Notice under the Act on the neighbour to enable the work.

5. Section 460 of the Act provides a right to be heard by a committee of council. The Committee must hear the objection and decide whether or not to endorse the work.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) hear and determine the objection by the owner of 25A Martin Crescent, Northcote, pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974; and

b) subject to the hearing of the objection, resolve under section 460(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 that the proposed stormwater line through 25A Martin Crescent and 92 Ocean View Road, Northcote, is the only practical route as shown on the Chris Howell & Associates drawing 15009 sheet C02 revision B, dated 8 July 2014 and the Council’s Engineering Approval ENG60060435 by letter of 16 August 2017.

Comments

Background

6. The owner of 88 Ocean View Road, Northcote is the Heng Ing Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust has applied under section 460 of the Act for the council to determine that the proposed installation of a stormwater pipe across 25A Martin Crescent (Lot 2 DP 379000) and connecting to an existing council manhole within 92 Ocean View Road (Lot 1 DP 135747) is the only practical route available for connection of the private drain to the public stormwater network.

7. A location aerial of the relevant properties and plans of the precise route along the northern boundary of 25A Martin Crescent, as shown in the Chris Howell & Associates drawing 15009 sheets C01 revision C and C02 revision B dated 8 July 2014, are contained in Attachment A.

8. The pipe is needed to serve the proposed two lot subdivision at 88 Ocean View Road as development of the site requires that stormwater discharges to the council’s reticulated public stormwater system. The property at 25A Martin Crescent through which the pipe will pass contains a single dwelling and is otherwise fully developed.

9. Since 2015 the applicant and their engineer have considered a number of servicing options. The Chris Howell & Associates design report dated 6 October 2015 sets out the various options considered in Attachment B.

10. The Trust lodged an Engineering Approval application (reference BEA4016570) to undertake the work to install the stormwater line based on Option 2. This has since been approved as per Engineering Approval of 16 August 2017 in Attachment C. While written approvals for property access were obtained from the owners of 92 and 92A Ocean View Road, no approval was obtained from Mr Gordon Chan, owner of 25 Martin Crescent.

11. The Trust and its consultants have consulted with Mr. Chan in writing and meetings in person over a period of two years to date in order to obtain written consent to undertake the work. A copy of relevant pertinent communication demonstrates that Mr. Chan has been fully informed of the extent of work and alternative options and this is provided as Attachment D. The Trust has not been able to obtain consent.

12. The Council’s senior development engineer has also consulted with Mr.Chan and his lawyer on numerous occasions over the past eighteen months and has not been able to facilitate approval.

13. Council appointed Dave Serjeant of Merestone Ltd, an independent commissioner, to facilitate an agreement to permit the work across 25A Martin Crescent. The facilitation was not successful and by email of 30 March 2017 the mediator proposed that the matter be set down for a hearing. The mediator presented his report dated 12 April 2017, confirming that he has not been able to obtain agreement from Mr. Chan. These communications are provided as Attachment E.

14. The council’s Senior Development Engineer, Mr Cedric Daniel, met with Mr. Chan and his lawyer Arthur Loo on Monday 20 June 2016 to explain the works and the s460 LGA hearing process.

15. Under the letter of 20 June 2017 Council formally notified Mr. Chan of the intention to construct the stormwater drain under section 460 of the Act as provided in Attachment F. No written objection to this notice has been received from Mr. Chan. Irrespective of this the matter needs to be determined by council as Mr. Chan has not provided written approval. Notice of this hearing has been provided to Mr. Chan and Arthur Loo, his solicitor and Mr. Chan retains the right to be heard.

Consideration

Only Practical Option

16. The owner of 88 Ocean View Road, Northcote, has met council’s expectations of seeking all endeavours to obtain an agreement to install the stormwater line prior to requesting the council to use the powers of Section 460 of the Act. Chris Howell & Associates as agents for the Trust have attempted to negotiate access to the neighbouring property to undertake drainage works and council’s engineer and mediator have also sought to facilitate a mutually acceptable arrangement.

17. Chris Howell & Associates has also investigated a number of alternative servicing options and a summary of these alternative routes and their locations on a plan are set out in their design report as Attachment B. In summary these are:

18. Option 1: A line across the rear of 2/90 Ocean View Road to an existing cesspit that would have only involved one party however was found not to be practical due to the location of a storm water detention tank directly in the path.

19. Option 2: A line across the rear of 25A Martin Crescent as presented in this report as the only practical option.

20. Option 3 & 4: Alternative lines southward through either 1/23 and 2/23 Martin Crescent or 25 and 25A Martin Crescent, however neither were found to be a practical option as the line to which either would connect is already at capacity for its catchment.

21. Option 5: A line north-east across 86 Ocean View Road however it is at a higher level and would not provide full servicing of the proposed site without pumping and this line is also at capacity. This is not considered to be a practical option.

22. Chris Howell & Associates and council’s engineer therefore consider that the line through 25A Martin Crescent to be the only practical route given the topography of the area and/or the capacity constraints and obstacles to possible alternative routes.

23. The alternative route option design report by Chris Howell & Associates was provided to Mr. Chan and his solicitor by letter dated 21 June 2017. (Attachment D).

24. A methodology has been presented to minimise disruption. This provides for no trenching or the need for machinery access within the boundary of 25A Martin Crescent.

25. Council’s development engineer supports Option 2 as the only practical route. It has accordingly issued the Engineering Approval on 16 August 2017 as the only practical route compliant with Council’s Stormwater Code of Practice Version 2.0 dated 1 November 2015, and subject to the written approval of Mr. Chan of 25A Martin Crescent.

Committee Consideration

26. 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 applications for private drainage works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974. This delegation cannot be sub-delegated”. Copy of Section 460 of the 1974 Act is provided as Attachment G.

27. At the hearing, both the applicant and the objector/s 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 against the decision of the Regulatory Committee.

Local board views and implications

28. The Local Board is not advised of service connection requests under the Act. Further, the determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owner Mr. Chan of 25A Martin Crescent, Northcote.

Māori impact statement

29. Under section 460 of the Act, Iwi are not considered a relevant affected party unless they are land owners through which a proposed drain is to be aligned. Council staff are not aware of any matters pertinent to the site or route that may be of interest to Maori. There are no sites or places of significance to Mana Whenua recorded in the Unitary Plan for the site, along the route or nearby.

Implementation

30. All costs for this process and hearing are to be met by the owner of 88 Ocean View Road Northcote.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location Aerial and Stormwater Plan	15
b ⇩	Alternate Design Options Considered	19
c ⇩	Engineering Works Approval	23
d ⇩	Correspondence	35
e ⇩	Mediators Report	73
f ⇩	Notice under Section 460 Local Government Act 1974	77
g ⇩	Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974	79
h ⇩	Photo of rear yard at 25A Martin Crescent	81

Signatories

Author

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 October 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.

Recommendation/s

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).

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Customer Enabled Compliance Prioritisation Framework	89

Signatories

Author	Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services
Authoriser	Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 October 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.

Recommendation/s

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:

· 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

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:

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.

Attachments

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 and Bylaws

Ashleigh Pihema - Policy Analyst – Social Policy and Bylaws

Peter Chaudhry - Principal Policy Analyst – Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 October 2017

Request to Appoint Independent Hearing Commissioners for Plan Changes 1, 2 and 4 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2017/20348

Purpose

1. To request the appointment of Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan Changes 1, 2 and 4 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 1 & 2 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) were publicly notified on 3 August 2017 with the closing date for submissions being 31 August 2017. Plan Change 4 was publicly notified on 28 September 2017 with a closing date for submissions of 26 October 2017.

3. Proposed Plan Change 1 – Rezoning of council owned properties that have been cleared for sale, seeks to rezone eleven parcels of land from one of the open space zones or road (walkway and accessway) to a range of business and residential zones as part of Panuku Development Auckland’s (Panuku) property rationalisation process.

4. Proposed Plan Change 2 Aotea Square partial zone change, seeks to rezone a 334m² portion of Aotea Square from Open Space – Civic Spaces to Business – City Centre zone to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Civic Administration Building at 1 Greys Avenue, Auckland Central.

5. Proposed Plan Change 4 – Administrative Plan Change, seeks to correct errors and anomalies identified in the Unitary Plan and to update the zoning of land recently vested as reserve.

6. Four submissions have been received to Plan Change 1 and three (all in support) to Plan Change 2. Plan Change 4 is still open for submissions.

7. Feedback from iwi during consultation prior to public notification of plan changes 1, 2 and 4 was that a hearings commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori should be appointed for the hearings of these plan changes. Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Incorporated are a submitter to Plan Change 1 and have raised an issue relating to the Pūkaki portage.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint two independent commissioners, at least one of which as an understanding of tikanga Māori, to hear submissions and make a decision on Plan Changes 1 & 2 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

b) appoint up to three independent commissioners, at least one of which has an understanding of tikanga Māori, to hear submissions and make a decision on Plan Change 4 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

c) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments to the hearing panels in resolutions a) and b) in the event that a member of the hearings panel is unavailable.

Comments

Plan Change 1

8. Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team in the Community Facilities department have identified eleven Council owned parcels of land currently zoned either open space or shown as road (roads are not zoned under the Auckland Unitary Plan) which are surplus to requirements and have been cleared for disposal. Given the land is no longer required as open space or road, a new appropriate zoning is required to allow the future owners to make use of the land. Plan Change 1 proposes residential and/or business zones where appropriate. The proposed new zones are typically the zoning of the adjacent land.

9. Four submissions have been received to Plan Change 1.

Plan Change 2

10. Auckland Council has entered into a development agreement to enable the Civic Administration Building to be restored by a private sector led development process. The council agreed that the sale to a developer would also include immediately adjacent land to enable a viable commercial proposal to be formulated that could assist the developer meet the high costs of addressing the Civic Administration Building.

11. A small area of the land that has been included in the Development Agreement with Civic Lane Limited (the developer) has an Open Space – Civic Spaces zone. Plan Change 2 proposes to rezone this 334m² strip to Business – City Centre zone. Most of the subject 334m²for rezoning has been formed as a carpark since the construction of the Civic Administration Building. The balance of the open space zoned land is a planted bank and the small remainder forms part of the access to the Civic Administration Building.

12. The development scheme for the land subject to the Development Agreement includes a building where the open space zoning currently exists. Of the 334m² of land with the open space zoning, 175 m²of the proposed plan change area will be occupied by a proposed Whare Tapere buildingand the remaining landwill remain publicly accessible as part of the new plaza and pedestrian links through the redeveloped site.

13. Three submissions (all in support) have been received to Plan Change 2.

Plan Change 4

14. Plan Change 4 proposes to correct technical errors and anomalies in all parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (except for regional coastal provisions). The proposed plan change also includes updating the zoning of recently vested land where appropriate.

15. The proposed plan change does not seek to alter the outcomes of any of the objectives and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Neither does it seek to introduce any new objectives, policies, rules, zoning, or other methods or new additions to the maps or schedules, from that which is already included in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

16. The closing date for submissions to Plan Change 4 is 26 October 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

Plan Change 1

17. Panuku’s land disposal process involves consultation with the relevant local boards. Responses from the relevant local boards were considered as part of the disposal process and are covered in each of the disposal recommendation reports that have been presented to either the Regional Development and Operations, Regional Strategy and Policy or Finance and Performance Committees. No additional consultation with Local Boards has occurred on the actual plan change, as this was the primary opportunity for the views of Local Boards to be considered by the Governing Body.

Plan Change 2

18. The subject site for the proposed plan change for the Civic Administration Building development was part of the land disposal rationalisation process which involved the Waitematā Local Board. During the development of the masterplan the Waitematā Local Board were invited to the committee briefing which outlined the masterplan and the required plan change. The planning team also discussed the proposed plan change with the Waitematā Local Board on 22 June 2017.

Plan Change 4

19. Due to the administrative scope and avoidance of policy implications of the proposed plan change, limited consultation was undertaken with local boards on the development of this plan change. In April 2017, a memo was sent to local boards to advise on this proposed plan change and invite local board members to advise of any errors or anomalies that they may have identified.

20. In August 2017, a further memo was sent to local boards as an update that the proposed plan change would be considered for public notification by the Planning Committee at its September meeting. The memo also included the matters that are included in the proposed plan change.

Māori impact statement

Plan Change 1

21. Panuku’s property rationalisation process involves consultation with Mana Whenua. Responses from the relevant iwi were considered as part of the disposal process. These are covered in each of the disposal recommendation reports that have been presented to either the Regional Development and Operations, Regional Strategy and Policy or Finance and Performance Committees.

22. Feedback from Ngāti Whatua during consultation with iwi authorities prior to notification of proposed plan change 1 was that a hearings commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori would be required for the hearing of this plan change.

23. Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Incorporated are a submitter to Plan Change 1 and have raised an issue relating to the properties at 8R Gee Place, Mangere and 70R Tidal Road, Mangere and the nearby Pūkaki portage.

Plan Change 2

24. Panuku established a Mana Whenua Working Group for the Civic Admistration Building project. The group included representatives from Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngaati Whanaunga, Te Akitai Waiohua and Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara. Panuku held a hui in September 2016 and a second hui was held on 7 November 2016 where Mana Whenua were generally supportive of the Whare Tapere building.

25. Panuku held a third hui on 12 June 2017 where the proposed plan change was discussed as being necessary to enable the development of the Whare Tapere building. Mana whenua remain supportive of the Whare Tapere building.

Plan Change 4

26. The proposed plan change corrects technical errors and anomalies and includes corrections to Schedule 12: Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

27. In June 2017, council staff informed iwi authorities about the proposed Administrative Plan Change and that a draft copy will be provided for feedback. Nine out of the 19 iwi authorities indicated an interest to see a draft copy of the plan change prior to notification. Accordingly, a draft copy of the proposed plan change was provided to iwi authorities in the Auckland region on 21 August 2017. Advice from iwi authorities was expected by 13 September 2017.

28. Advice received from iwi authorities on the draft proposed plan change was reported back to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member for any changes to the proposed plan change to be made.

29. Feedback during consultation with iwi authorities prior to notification of proposed plan change 4 was that a hearings commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori would be required for the hearing of this plan change

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team leader - Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

[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.

Chairperson	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Wayne Walker
Members	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	IMSB Chair David Taipari
	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox

Ex-officio	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
	Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

Author	Maryke Fouche - Democracy Services Graduate
Authoriser	Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services