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.

1 Apologies

Apologies from Mayor P Goff, Cr R Hills and Cr S Stewart 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, 12 October 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the 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.

5.1 Public Input: Smokefree Bylaw

Purpose

1. The following speakers will address the meeting regarding the Smokefree bylaw:

· Cherry Morgan on behalf of the Cancer Society Auckland Division

· Dr Brad Novak, Auckland Regional Public Health Service Medical Officer of Health and Dean Adam, Health Improvement Manager

· George Thomson, Research Associate Professor, University of Otago.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) receive and note the public input presentations from Cherry Morgan on behalf of the Cancer Society Auckland Division, Dr Brad Novak and Dean Adam on behalf of the Auckland Regional Public Health Service and George Thomson, University of Otago regarding the Smokefree bylaw.

5.2 Public Input - East Coast Bays RSA - gaming machines relocation

Purpose

1. Scott Evans, Manager and Kerry Kay, President of the East Coast Bays RSA will address the committee in support of their application for council consent to operate nine gambling machines at the Browns Bay Bowling Club, situated at 784 Beach Road, Browns Bay.

2. Supporting documents for the RSA presentation are attached.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) receive and note the public input presentation from the East Coast Bays RSA, Scott Evans and Kerry Kay regarding their application for gaming machines relocation.

Attachments

a Supporting documents in support of the East Coast Bays RSA application............................................................................................ 199

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

7 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

8 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Regulatory Committee

09 November 2017

Determination of an Objection to the Construction of a Private Wastewater line through 85, 85A & 89 Fairview Avenue, Fairview Heights to service 91 Fairview Avenue, Fairview Heights.

File No.: CP2017/22608

Purpose

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

Executive summary

2. The owner of 91 Fairview Avenue, Fairview Heights, the Shahalieen Family Trust (“the Trust”), propose to construct a minor residential unit on the rear of their property. The property does not have a connection to council wastewater drains. The Trust proposes a connecting extension from an existing council manhole located within 85 Fairview Avenue via a new line across 85 Fairview Avenue, 85A Fairview Avenue and 89 Fairview Avenue, Fairview Heights to serve their property.

3. Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd, consultants for the Trust, has considered a number of options to service the site. The proposal to connect from the existing wastewater manhole within 85 Fairview Avenue is considered by both the owner’s and council’s engineers to be the only practical route.

4. The Trust has been unable to obtain consents from the owner of 85 Fairview Avenue, Tracey Jiang and 85A Fairview Avenue, Wenchao Huang. The Trust has requested council to exercise its power under section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 (“the Act”) to enable the work to be carried out. Council has since served Notice under the Act on these neighbours.

5. Tracey Jiang, 85 Fairview Heights and Wenchao Huang, 85A Fairview Avenue have not responded to the notices. 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 works.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) hear and determine the objections by the owners of 85 Fairview Avenue and 85A Fairview Avenue, Fairview Heights, 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 wastewater connection route across 85, 85A and 89 Fairview Avenue to service 91 Fairview Avenue Fairview Heights, is the only practical route as shown on Thurlow Consulting Engineers drawings no. 15287 sheets DA-02 revision 01 and DL-02 revision 00.

Comments

Background

6. The owner of 91 Fairview Avenue, Fairview Heights is the Shahalieen Family Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust has applied under section 460 of the Act for the council to determine, that the proposed installation of a wastewater pipe from an existing council manhole within 85 Fairview Avenue across 85, 85A and 89 Fairview Avenue is the only practical route and available connection to serve 91 Fairview Avenue.

7. A locational aerial of the relevant properties and plans of the proposed wastewater route from the existing manhole (shown in the Thurlow drawing 15287 sheets DA-02 revision 01 and DL-02 revision 00) are contained in Attachment A.

8. The Trust lodged an Engineering Approval application (reference BEA4018405) 21 July 2016 to undertake the work to install the wastewater line. This has since been approved on 16 August 2017 and provided as Attachment B. While approval was obtained from the property owner of 89 Fairview Avenue, no consents were obtained from the owners of 85 Fairview Avenue, Tracey Jiang and 85A Fairview Avenue, Wenchao Huang.

9. The properties at 85 (Lot 3 DP 488476) and 85A Fairview Avenue (Lot 4 DP488476) both contain recently constructed single dwellings and these sites are now fully developed.

10. The Trust and its consultants have consulted with the property’s owners Tracey Jiang and Wenchao Huang in writing and by phone over a period of 18 months to date in order to obtain their consent to undertake the work. A copy of relevant pertinent communication demonstrates that both Tracey Jiang and Wenchao Huang have been fully informed of the extent of works and alternative routes considered, and this is provided as Attachment C. The written communication has been sent to various addresses listed for the respective owners. The Trust has not been able to obtain consent.

11. The Council’s senior development engineer has also consulted with these landowners on numerous occasions over the past twelve months and has not been able to facilitate approval. The landowners have objected to Council’s engineer making further contact with them. Attachment C also refers to the attempts by Mr Barry Kaye, council’s independent facilitator engaged to seek a resolution. However these attempts were also unsuccessful. Under email of 26 May 2017 the facilitator proposes that the matter be set down for a hearing.

12. The council is satisfied that the owner of 91 Fairview Avenue, has met its expectations of seeking all endeavours to obtain an agreement to install the wastewater line. Under letter of 20 June 2017 Council formally notified Tracey Jiang (85 Fairview Avenue) and Wenchao Huang (85A Fairview Avenue) of the intention to construct the wastewater line under section 460 of the Act. Attachment D contains these notices’ (that attached copies of the proposed wastewater line and section 460 of the Act) to the various addresses recorded for these owners.

13. No response has been received following notification of 20 June 2017. Irrespective of this the matter needs to be determined by council as the written approvals have not been obtained. Notice of this hearing has been provided to Tracey Jiang and Wenchao Huang and they retain the right to be heard.

Consideration

Only Practical Option

14. The existing wastewater manhole within 85 Fairview Avenue and the associated reticulation was installed as a condition of a seven lot subdivision of 83 Fairview Avenue. This consent SC3023556 was issued on 15 December 2014 and the servicing plans (“Property Partners” drawing 601 revision D) and the Watercare Services Limited letter of 25 November 2014 are provided in Attachment E.

15. The installation of the manhole was a specific requirement to serve the upstream catchment of 89 to 97 Fairview Avenue, Fairview Heights as the dwellings on these properties rely on on-site waste disposal.

16. The Mark Hatten of Thurlow Consultants, section 460 application report dated 11th July 2016, sets out the design consideration for the required wastewater reticulation, Attachment F.

17. Only two other options were considered at that time in this report at page 5. The direct route across 89 and 85A Fairview Avenue to the manhole in 85 Fairview Avenue was adopted as it was the only practical route.

18. A longer alternate route using a long radius bend (diagram at the back of the Thurlow report) across 89 Fairview Avenue to avoid traversing 85A Fairview Avenue was not approved by Watercare. Long radius bends are not permitted for wastewater as they create maintenance problems.

19. The third theoretical route marked yellow in the diagram on page 5 of the Thurlow report is not possible given the steepness of the site topography. Since preparing this report a dwelling has been established on 85A Fairview which also physically prevents this route.

20. Thurlow Consulting Engineers and council’s engineer therefore consider that the line through 89, 85 & 85A Fairview Avenue to be the only practical route. A methodology has been presented as the least intrusive route for the wastewater connection. This provides for no trenching within the boundary of 85A Fairview Avenue.

21. For quick reference the plans showing the routes of these alternate options are shown in Attachment G.

Committee Consideration

22. 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 H.

23. At the hearing, both the applicant and the objectors 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

24. The Local Board is not advised of service connection request under the Act. Further, the determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of 85 Fairview Avenue, Tracey Jiang and 85A Fairview Avenue, Wenchao Huang.

Māori impact statement

25. 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 that may be of interest to Maori. There are no sites or places of significance to Mana Whenua recorded in the Auckland Unitary Plan for the site, along the route or nearby.

Implementation

26. All costs for the process and hearing are to be met by the owner of 91 Fairview Avenue.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location Aerial of relevant properties and plans of proposed route.	17
b ⇩	Engineering approval	21
c ⇩	Communications with neighbouring property owners	29
d ⇩	Notices under section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974	59
e ⇩	Subdivision & Engineering Approval SC3023556, 83 Fairview Avenue dated 20 January 2015	63
f ⇩	Section 460 application and design report (Thurlow Consultants 11 July 2016.)	75
g ⇩	Plans of alternative routes	89
h ⇩	Section 460 LGA 1974	91
i ⇩	Photos for neighbouring property at 85 Fairview Avenue taken 2 November 2017	93

Signatories

Author

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

09 November 2017

Application by the East Coast Bays RSA Incorporated

File No.: CP2017/22649

Purpose

1. To seek a decision on a request by the East Coast Bays Returned Services Association Incorporated to grant an exception to the Council’s Class 4 Gambling (Pokie) Venue Policy.

Executive summary

2. On 15 June 2017 the Regulatory Committee reaffirmed Auckland Council’s Class 4 Gambling (Pokie) Venue Policy (the Policy). Specifically, the Committee resolved to:

“……retain the existing Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy, with no changes ……”

3. In making this decision the Committee reconfirmed the following:

· A ‘sinking lid’ policy on the number of venues.

· A ‘sinking lid’ policy on the number of gaming machines.

· No relocations of class 4 venues.

· Limited provisions for mergers of club venues.

4. On 13 September 2017 the East Coast Bays Returned Services Association Incorporated (the RSA) applied to Auckland Council for consent to operate 9 gaming machines as a new class 4 venue at the premises of the Browns Bay Bowling Club 784 Beach Road East Coast Bays.

5. The RSA’s application for consent was considered by council staff and subsequently declined.

6. Staff made this decision based on the following considerations:

· The Policy prohibits the establishment of new class 4 venues in Auckland.

· The application does not comply with the ‘merger of club venue’ requirements of the Policy as the Browns Bay Bowling Club does not hold a class 4 venue licence of their own.

· The Policy does not include provision for exemptions.

7. The RSA formally requests the Committee make an exception to the Policy and grant consent.

8. The RSA state that “Section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) allows for the Auckland Council to make an exception to the policy in extenuating circumstances.”

9. The RSA advise the extenuating circumstances as:

“…the crucial and unique causative factor for the ECB RSA, being in the position that it has found itself, was the downturn in patronage due to the fire in 2015. The ECB RSA has simply never recovered from that.”

10. The interpretation of Section 80 by the RSA is not entirely accurate. Rather Section 80 stipulates that:

(1) If a decision of a local authority is significantly inconsistent with … any policy adopted by the local authority … the local authority must when making the decision clearly identify –

(a) The inconsistency; and

(b) The reasons for the inconsistency; and

(c) Any intention of the local authority to amend the policy to accommodate the decision.

11. Should the Committee uphold the decision to decline consent then the existing class 4 venue licence is likely to lapse as the existing premise has been sold to an entity not involved in the provision of gambling services.

12. If the Committee were to reverse the decision to decline consent it must at the same time state how that decision is inconsistent with the Policy, the reasons for the inconsistency and whether they intend to make amendments to the Policy to accommodate the decision.

13. A decision to grant the consent will trigger a requirement for the RSA to go through a licensing process with the Department of Internal Affairs. The RSA must meet all the criteria set out at section 67 of the Gambling Act 2003 before securing a new class 4 venue licence.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) agree that its response to the application by the East Coast Bays RSA Inc. is to either

i) endorse the staff decision to decline consent for the East Coast Bays RSA Inc. to establish a new class 4 gambling venue at 784 Beach Road East Coast Bays.

ii) grant an exception to the Class 4 Gambling (Pokie) Venue Policy permitting the East Coast Bays RSA Inc to establish a new class 4 gambling venue at 784 Beach Road East Coast Bays.

b) note that if the decision is to grant an exception (a(ii)) reasons will need to be given.

Background

14. In May 2015, the East Coast Bays RSA clubrooms at 13- 15 Bute Road, Browns Bay were damaged by fire. The clubrooms continued to operate while the damaged part of the premises was being rebuilt. The clubrooms have at all relevant times been licensed as a class 4 gambling venue. The RSA has operated 16 gaming machines at the premises.

15. The clubrooms reopened in April 2016. The RSA advise that while the rebuild was taking place the patronage of the clubrooms and subsequent income declined. The RSA say this was due to the fire clean up and the residual smell which offered an uninviting environment.

16. The RSA further advise the reopening of the premises did not restore the membership or income.

17. The RSA subsequently agreed with the Browns Bay Bowling Club to engage in a long term initiative to establish a Browns Bay Sport and Community Hub at the premises of the Bowling Club at 784 Beach Road Browns Bay.

18. In October 2016 the RSA resolved to sell the premises at Bute Road and investigate a merger with the Browns Bay Bowling Club. The premises sold in August 2017 with possession passing to the purchaser in January 2018.

Application, decision and exception subsequently sought

19. On 13 September 2017 they applied to Auckland Council for territorial consent under section 98(b) of the Gambling Act 2003 to move 9 of its 16 electronic gaming machines to the premises of the Browns Bay Bowling Club 784 Beach Road East Coast Bays.

20. The RSA’s application for consent was considered by senior council staff. Staff determined that the Policy prohibits the establishment of any new class 4 venues. The application cannot proceed under the merger provisions of the Policy as the Browns Bay Bowling Club does not hold a class 4 venue licence. Further, the Policy also does not make any allowance for a departure from the Policy, and given that, the decision was that territorial consent could not be granted.

21. A consequence of the decision is the likely expiry of the existing class 4 licence as the premise the RSA occupy has been sold to an entity not involved in the provision of gambling services.

22. The RSA now asks the Committee, notwithstanding the decision already made, to make an exception to the Policy and grant territorial consent to them to establish a class 4 gambling venue at 784 Beach Road East Coast Bays. The RSA at paragraph 4.2 of their application have submitted:

“ … that the crucial and unique causative factor for the ECB RSA, being in the position that it has found itself, was the downturn in patronage due to the fire in 2015. The ECB RSA has simply never recovered from that.”

23. In support of a decision allowing the gaming machines to be moved to a new venue the RSA has amongst other things submitted:

· The RSA’s gaming machines have a comparatively lower turnover of money gambled in comparison to other class 4 gaming venues in Auckland, and that this takes place in an area of relatively low deprivation.

· The RSA proposes a reduction in the number of gaming machines from the present 16 to a maximum of 9.

· Gambling harm is minimised in clubs because only members can gamble and the RSA has oversight of the gambling with staff who are trained to monitor the gambling.

· All profits made from the gambling are spent on authorised purposes such as running costs, wages, ANZAC day expenses, and grants.

· The RSA is an important part of the community that must continue to operate in the future.

Legislative framework

24. The Gambling Act 2003 treats clubs that operate gaming machines differently from societies that host gaming machines at pubs and other public venues. The Department of Internal Affairs requires clubs to have rules about membership, election of officers, and purposes and operations of the club. Also, a club is expected to have been in existence before an application is made for a class 4 gambling licence.

25. Under the Gambling (Harm Reduction) Amendment Act 2013, policies reviewed after 2013 must consider a relocation policy. A relocation policy sets out if and when Auckland Council will grant consent for a new venue within its district to replace an existing venue within the district.

Policy Intent

26. Auckland Council’s Class 4 Gambling (Pokie) Venue Policy, as reconfirmed by the Regulatory Committee in June 2017 [REG/2017/50], seeks to:

• control the growth of gambling in Auckland

• minimise the harm caused by gambling in Auckland.

27. In making this decision, the Regulatory Committee confirmed the following:

• a ‘sinking lid’ policy on the number of venues

• a ‘sinking lid’ policy on the number of gaming machines

• no relocations of class 4 venues

• limited provisions for mergers of club venues.

28. The rationale and intent of the Policy is to effectively manage the social impacts of gambling and reduce harm by overall reducing the number of gambling venues and machines in Auckland.

29. New Venue or relocation: Rule 1 of the Policy is clear that there is no provision for the establishment of new class 4 gambling venues or for a current venue to relocate. This applies to both club and non-club venues. Any decision to approve a new venue would be a departure from the policy.

Section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002

30. If a decision is made that departs from the Policy and its ‘sinking lid’ policy position then the requirements of section 80 of the Local Government Act need to be satisfied. The Committee will have to identify the inconsistency with the Policy, the reasons for the inconsistency and any intention to amend the Policy.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

31. Although not consulted for this particular item, local boards were consulted in relation the Policy itself and those consultations were reported to the Committee at its 15 June 2017 deliberations.

Māori impact statement

32. The Māori impact statement provided to the Committee on 15 June 2017 when considering the Policy was:

· “Reducing the problem gambling prevalence rates for Māori is a goal highlighted in the Auckland Plan. High deprivation areas throughout Auckland have the highest concentration of gambling venues and pokie machines (Auckland Plan, Directive 1.7)

· Māori are more likely than other ethnicities to engage in gambling activities associated with problem gambling. The New Zealand 2012 National Gambling Study (2014) estimated that problem gambling prevalence rate is the highest (2.3 per cent) for Māori compared to 1.6 per cent for Pacific island communities and 0.7 per cent for Asian communities

· Māori communities often bear additional costs as a result of problem gambling, including erosion of whanau values, the negligence of care giving responsibilities, and the loss of cultural capital.

· The disproportionate prevalence of Māori in problem gambling is linked to higher levels of deprivation. The Ministry of Health (2009) established that people living in the most deprived areas are more likely to become problem gamblers and are five times more likely to become problem gamblers than those living in the least deprived communities.

33. During the review, staff conducted key informant interviews with Māori health providers to ensure Māori views were incorporated into the findings.

Implementation

34. Should the Committee determine to grant an exception to the Policy then two considerations are triggered. The Committee may conclude that the circumstances that led to their decision are unique to this situation and an exemption is granted on a one-off basis. Alternatively, the Committee may conclude the circumstances described are not particularly unusual and therefore amendments to the Policy may subsequently be required. The triggers will depend on the decision of the Committee and the reasons for it.

35. In the event that a revision of the Policy was preferred, staff would need to:

• identify changes to the Policy that would improve the council’s ability to manage the impact of gambling.

• draft a new policy and statement of proposal to be approved for public notification by the Governing Body.

• use the special consultative procedure to consult with the public on the proposed changes.

• report back to the Governing body for a final decision on the amended policy.

36. This process is not budgeted, would take approximately six months and require other priority policy work to be deferred.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	East Coast Bays RSA application to operate gamiming Machine	105
b ⇩	Response to East Coast Bays RSA application	117

Signatories

Author

Rob Abbott - Manager Alcohol Licensing

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

09 November 2017

Investigation of a bylaw to complement the Auckland Council Smokefree Policy

File No.: CP2017/21073

Purpose

1. To seek a decision on whether or not to proceed with the development of a draft smokefree bylaw for consultation with the public.

Executive summary

2. In September 2016, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee requested that staff investigate how a bylaw could complement the Auckland Council Smokefree Policy. The Smokefree Policy was amended on 17 October 2017 [ENV/2017/142].

3. Section 20 of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 allows the council to make a bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002 to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety from harms associated with tobacco smoke.

4. There is sufficient evidence to justify regulatory intervention to prohibit smoking where exposure to second-hand smoke poses a high to medium health risk. The Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 currently manages high risk settings. The medium risk settings relating to public places are the public transport network, street trading areas, and specific types of events.

5. The options for addressing these problems are:

· Option one: maintain the status quo, using the Smokefree Policy and Implementation Plan to normalise smokefree environments throughout Auckland - particularly in areas of high prevalence. Activities include: raising awareness about health risks and working with other organisations to improve voluntary compliance

· Option two: develop a draft smokefree bylaw for public consultation to ban smoking in public transport, street trading areas, and events settings.

6. Staff recommend Option one: status quo as it has the highest positive ranking against the assessment criteria and is the most appropriate approach to managing the health risk of second-hand smoke in public places. This option also:

· includes sufficient tools (licenses, approvals and voluntary) for the council to achieve compliance with smokefree conditions in the medium risk areas identified

· avoids using punitive approaches towards smokers aligning with the approach in the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990.

7. The key trade-off between the two options is the strength of the deterrent approach. Option two: a bylaw, would create a stronger deterrent to stop smoking in public places than Option one: status quo.

Recommendation

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) Agree to maintain the status quo and decline to proceed with the development of a smokefree bylaw to complement the council’s Smokefree Policy.

Comments

Background

8. Tobacco is a legal consumer product. The Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 controls the sale and marketing of tobacco products and bans the smoking of tobacco in indoor workplaces and in certain public places, including health care and education facilities.

9. The Auckland Plan has identified action on tobacco smoking as a priority, particularly in the Southern Initiative area^{^[1]}.

10. The Auckland Council Smokefree Policy and Implementation Plan (the Smokefree Policy) has a target to make Auckland smokefree by 2025. According to the Ministry of Health, New Zealand will be on track to achieve this target if smoking prevalence^{^[2]} reaches 10 percent by 2018. The smoking prevalence rate across Auckland in 2016 was 14.2 per cent. In some communities within Auckland, such as Māori and Pacific Island communities the rate is much higher (36.5 and 35.5 per cent respectively).

11. In August 2016, the council requested that staff strengthen the Smokefree Policy with a focus on communities with high prevalence. It also requested an investigation to see whether a bylaw could complement the policy [REG/2016/66]. A strengthened policy was adopted by the Environment and Community Committee in October 2017 [ENV/2017/142].

Decision making requirements

12. Auckland Council has the power to make a smokefree bylaw using section 145(b) of The Local Government Act 2002. That provision gives local authorities the power to make bylaws for the purposes of protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety.

13. Section 20 of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 also allows a local authority to make bylaws under section 145b of the Local Government Act 2002 to provide greater protection from tobacco smoke than is provided for in that act.

14. Section 155(1) of The Local Government Act 2002 requires that a local authority must, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.

15. The Regulatory Committee has the delegated authority to recommend bylaws to the Governing Body for consultation and adoption. This includes the authority to recommend a smokefree bylaw that covers Auckland’s transport system.

16. The council has responsibilities under the Health Act 1956 to manage public health.

The council is not the only actor working towards a smokefree target.

17. The largest investment towards the smokefree 2025 target comes from central government.

18. Central government uses evidence-based policy, consistent with the World Health Organisation Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. Activities funded by central government include:

· product advertising restrictions

· taxation policy

· customs duties and excise taxes

· enforcement against those responsible for smokefree environments

· referral and cessation services to increase quitting amongst smokers

· health promotion and education to increase prevention.

Problem definition

Problems associated with smoking in public that do not justify new regulatory intervention

19. As part of the problem definition, staff have identified some problems associated with smoking in public that do not justify new regulatory intervention. These problems are already managed by existing regulation, or there is no or little evidence of harm to justify additional regulatory intervention. Table 1 provides a summary.

Table 1. Summary of problems not justifying further regulatory intervention

Perceived problem	Outcome of investigation
Cigarette litter	Improved outcomes are achievable with increased investment in: · waste infrastructure · the use of infringement powers under the Litter Act 1979.
Fire hazard from smouldering cigarettes	Improved outcomes are achievable with increased investment in: · infrastructure · enforcement of the Outdoor Fires Bylaw 2014.
Outdoor smoking on private property	Smoking on private property, not associated with places of employment, is a legal activity. The council is not able to regulate for this. Smoking on private property associated with employee and visitor health risks are managed by the Smoke-free Environments Act 2015.
E-cigarettes	There are community concerns about the public health risks associated with e-cigarettes. Currently there is no evidence that vapour associated with e-cigarettes has a public health risk. International research on this issue is emerging, and currently suggests that e-cigarettes are not a gateway to tobacco smoking. National policy is currently under development to regulate the sale and supply of e-cigarettes.
Visual exposure to tobacco smoke	There are anecdotal views that visual exposure to tobacco smoking can influence recent ex-smokers to relapse into smoking. Young people who live, work and recreate in places with high smoking prevalence will be visually exposed to tobacco smoke more frequently. Evidence shows that visual exposure to tobacco smoking by best-friends, family and celebrities can influence on experimentation and adoption rates of children.

Second-hand smoke exposure from outdoor smoking can lead to serious health conditions, depending on the nature and regularity of the exposure

20. In 2000, it was estimated that in New Zealand, 20 deaths and 1000 hospitalisations could be attributed to second-hand smoke exposure each year.

21. Second-hand smoke is made up of over 4,000 chemicals, at least 70 of which are known carcinogens making up a toxic cloud in outdoor conditions. Second-hand smoke clouds are made up of gas and solid particles small enough to penetrate the deep lung tissue and enter the blood system. Once absorbed into the blood, the chemicals begin to cause damage to arteries and trigger an immunity response.

22. Staff have identified the following categories of harm likely to result from varying levels of exposure over an adult’s life:

· no health impact - or the health impacts are effectively avoided

· minor physical irritation, such as sore eyes/throat – usually experienced from large concentrations in close proximity. For asthmatics, this can be highly hazardous

· acute health problems, such as reduced immunity, impeded blood flow – these occur with regular (daily), brief exposure (>15 minutes) even at low concentrations (>1μg-3 of nicotine) and are reversible if exposure abates

· chronic conditions, such as cancer, lung and heart disease – these occur with regular (daily), brief exposure (>15 minutes) even at low concentrations (>1μg-3 of nicotine) over many years.

23. A second-hand smoke cloud quickly dissipates in outdoor settings after the last cigarette is extinguished. For a single smoker, this is approximately nine minutes after the cigarette is first lit. The harmfulness of a cloud increases with:

· increasing concentrations of smokers

· low/no wind conditions

· how enclosed an outdoor area is

· closer proximity to source.

The scale and nature of the problem varies in different circumstances

24. Evidence on outdoor tobacco smoke concentrations across a number of settings shows that the scale and severity of health risks increases:

· with the length and regularity of exposure to second-hand smoke

· in areas with high smoking prevalence – the likelihood of an exposure of some kind is higher, as is the likelihood of encountering high concentrations of nicotine

· for populations at special risk, including children, those with respiratory illness or other risk factors for cardiovascular disease, risks are higher than for healthy adults.

25. Non-smokers can experience varying forms of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. A risk-based approach to managing public place settings, outlined in Figure 1, has been used in this analysis.

Avoidance generally effective where practical

Figure 1 Public health risks depend on exposure and impact

26. High risk settings, relate to contaminated indoor or outdoor workplaces where concentrations and exposure is higher. Avoidance is difficult. These settings are currently managed under the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990.

27. Medium risk settings, relate to areas where exposure to second-hand smoke may lead to harm. Avoidance is generally effective to manage this. Staff have identified three settings where avoidance is difficult and due to the health risks, there may be sufficient evidence to justify regulatory intervention to prohibit smoking. These setting are summarised in Table 2 below.

28. Low risk settings include areas where people can be exposed to second-hand smoke, and the nature of the exposure can cause physical irritation and nuisance.

29. In many circumstances, this can be effectively avoided. These settings include: large open space areas, such as beaches, parks, town centres and many pedestrian areas.

Table 2. Public place human health risk assessment from outdoor tobacco smoke

Setting	Nature of exposure	Risk assessment
Public transport network · bus shelters · train station platforms · ferry terminals · urban transport interchange areas, e.g. Britomart.	A non-smoking commuter is likely to be breathing variable concentrations of second-hand smoke regularly and for more than brief periods, up to five times a week. This exposure occurs: · at bus shelters and train station platforms · walking with other smokers to and from stations in crowded streets · on vehicles contaminated by smokers who continue to emit second-hand smoke for 60 seconds after their last puff.	medium
Street trading areas · the area defined in street trading licence conditions · adjoining public space areas.	Patrons of bars, cafes and restaurants with a street trading licence, especially in semi-enclosed and wind-protected areas: · are exposed to irregular and often fleeting exposures, that can be harmful for already at risk populations · in Auckland’s night-time economy, these exposures are likely to be in stronger concentrations and for longer periods.	medium
Specific events	There are some events in public spaces that have high attendance and limited space. Avoidance of second-hand smoke in these situations is difficult.	medium

Options

30. Two options have been identified to respond to the problem of second-hand smoke in medium risk areas.

Option one: Status quo:

31. Option one: the status quo: use the Smokefree Policy and Implementation Plan to manage public health risks. Under this option, the scope of the council’s role would primarily be that of a monitor, educator and partner

32. The Smokefree Policy seeks to normalise smokefree environments and denormalise smoking. It prioritises action in areas with high smoking prevalence and the implementation plan has specific actions designed to work in different settings and for different communities.

33. The Smokefree Policy activities anticipated to contribute most to managing the public health risks identified above include:

· making public places, including urban centres, neighbourhood shops, beaches, parks, reserves and council facilities smokefree (signage, messaging, event permit, lease conditions, street stencils)

· adding a new condition on all licenses issued under the Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2013 to be smokefree – this would involve:

an applicant agreeing to maintain a smokefree environment and being inspected to ensure compliance

if the council receives complaints from the public this could result in:

§ a licensee receiving support to improve compliance

§ warnings where compliance has not improved

§ having their licence revoked if the licensee fails to take the necessary steps.

· an action plan for communities with high smoking prevalence, including Māori and Pacific Island communities

· support for local, community-driven initiatives.

Impact – education and awareness to achieve voluntary compliance

34. The Smokefree Policy specifies how the council whānau will use the tools at its disposal, and work with other agencies to work towards its smokefree target. The Smokefree Policy uses a range of approaches to raise awareness and improve voluntary compliance by attempting to influence social norms – including through signage.

35. At public events, council facilities, and on the public transport network, council staff and contractors will monitor smokefree areas. In other areas, compliance monitoring will rely on voluntary compliance.

36. Under the status quo, voluntary compliance is achieved by working with others to educate smokers about the rules and to encourage smokers to get help to quit. This is consistent with national policy which avoids targeting smokers with punitive approaches.

37. The impact of the Smokefree Policy is limited by the available funding for the implementation plan. The policy also relies on voluntary compliance by smokers and through agreements, licences and permits.

Implementation - working with others

38. The Smokefree Policy has been developed with close input from a range of stakeholders and has a high degree of buy-in to support successful implementation.

39. Collaboration with public health agencies to increase integration with cessation services is expected to begin in 2018. The council will work with public health agencies, business associations and the community to raise awareness of the health risks and reduce the barriers to cessation.

40. The Smokefree Policy is already operative and supported with funding in the Auckland Council Annual Plan 2017-18. Some activities in the implementation plan are dependent on future funding decisions through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Option two: A bylaw that prohibits smoking in areas to protect public health

41. Option two: a smokefree bylaw: that prohibits smoking in areas to protect public health. Under this option, a bylaw will be drafted to target specific areas where harm is likely to increase the risk of acute and chronic illness of non-smokers.

42. This option would build on the status quo. Council would play a regulatory role, as well as monitoring, educating and partnering roles.

43. This option involves drafting a smokefree bylaw for public consultation. The draft bylaw would identify specific settings where smoking is prohibited, including the public transport network, street trading areas and specific events. This is similar to how Melbourne City Council implements its Activities Local Law 2009 to ban smoking in certain areas.

44. The bylaw would be targeted at those smoking. This is different to the approach taken in the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990, which targets those who manage or control the space. For example, in street trading areas under the status quo, compliance targets those who are the licence holder to keep the area smokefree – rather than a bylaw which would target the smoker.

45. Identifying specific events and/or event types that pose a medium health risk may be difficult. Further engagement on a draft bylaw with internal staff and other stakeholders will help identify a practical approach.

Impact - require compliance through monitoring, education and enforcement

46. A bylaw goes beyond establishing social norms to introduce a legal standard of behaviour, consistent with public health evidence and public views. It also acts as a legally enforceable deterrent to maintain smokefree public places through voluntary compliance.

47. It is unlikely that staff will be able to respond to complaints which result in witnessing the non-compliant activity.

48. A smokefree bylaw would not be enforceable with an infringement penalty. The council could prosecute a smoker in the district court. If convicted, a smoker can be liable for a fine of up to $20,000. Based on previous experience with prosecutions for breaches of bylaws, this action would be unlikely to result in any fine actually being issued by the court.

49. A bylaw, in itself may not be sufficient to change smoking behaviour. Whānganui District Council recently revoked its smokefree bylaw in favour of greater emphasis on non-regulatory approaches. This was due to growing smoking prevalence in the district despite the bylaw being operative for seven years.

50. In contrast, a bylaw could achieve voluntary compliance. Otago University surveys identified support amongst the smoker community for stronger tobacco control measures. Support was strongest amongst those of lower socio-economic status.

51. A bylaw would likely impact some user groups more than others, including smokers:

· living and working in lower socio-economic areas where prevalence is higher

· with disabilities who may have to travel further to smoke

· with mental illness who require more support to change behaviour

· who live, work or recreate with other smokers and require more support to change behaviour.

52. The unintended impacts of a bylaw could include:

· high public expectations about complaint response and enforcement activity

· public confusion about the status of land covered by the policy and by the bylaw

· managing displacement of smokers into areas not covered by the bylaw

· conflict between smokers and non-smokers.

Implementation within financial constraints

53. There are potential new costs with the implementation of a smokefree bylaw. The costs will depend on how the graduated enforcement model [REG/2017/93] is applied to the bylaw. Costs could include

· patrols: up to $70 per hour using contractors

· signage: $30-60,000

· compliance through education and awareness: $40,000

· prosecution activity: $5-7,000 per case.

Summary of options

Assessment criteria

54. Staff have assessed both options to determine the preferred approach to manage health risks from exposure to second-hand smoke in public places.

· Reduces public health risks for non-smokers: Does the approach provide a level of certainty that behaviours will change and reduce the public health risks identified

· Legislative requirements: Is the approach consistent with the council’s role and obligations under legislation?

· Risk of unintended consequences: Are there likely to be risks (other than health risks) with a high probability of eventuating, or high impact if they do eventuate?

· Cost-effective: Will the approach effectively address the problems identified?

Table 3. Criteria assessment

	Criteria	Option one Status quo	Option two A bylaw	Summary
Reduces public health risks for non-smokers		ü	üü	· Both options contribute to the normalisation of smokefree public places · A bylaw goes beyond establishing social norms to introduce a legal standard of behaviour consistent with public health evidence and public input. It also acts as a legally enforceable deterrent to maintain smokefree public places.
Achieves legislative requirements		ü	ü	· The status quo is consistent with legislative requirements, including public health management and cost effectiveness · A bylaw that controls smoking in areas identified as medium to high risk will be proportionate and fair. The risk of legal challenge can be managed with evidence based decision making.
Manages risk		üü	ü	· There is a higher likelihood that a bylaw will increase conflict between smokers and non-smokers due to the perception that a bylaw enshrines a non-smoker’s right to clean air. This may create unsafe conditions · The public may have unreasonable expectations about enforcement activity and the expansion of controls to manage displacement caused by prohibitions.
Cost-effective		ü	û	· A bylaw will be more costly to implement and is more likely to put pressure on other bylaw compliance areas and other Smokefree Policy activities without new funding. · The Smokefree Policy is reviewed annually to ensure cost-effectiveness towards the smokefree by 2025 target.

Rating against criteria	üü	ü	û	-
Rating against criteria	Good rating	Medium rating	Poor rating	Neutral

Staff recommendation

55. Staff recommend Option one: status quo as it has the highest positive ranking against the assessment criteria and is the most appropriate approach to managing the health risk of second-hand smoke in public places. This option also:

· includes sufficient tools (licenses, approvals and voluntary) for the council to achieve compliance with smokefree conditions in the medium risk areas identified

· avoids using punitive approaches towards smokers aligning with the approach in the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990.

56. Option two could complement the Smokefree Policy. In addition to using licences and approvals to increase voluntary compliance, a smokefree bylaw would add a stronger deterrent to influence smoker behaviour.

57. The key trade-off between the two options is the strength of the deterrent approach. Option two: a bylaw, would create a stronger deterrent to stop smoking in public places than Option one: status quo.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

58. Local boards provided their views on option one during the development of the Smokefree Policy and Implementation Plan.

59. Relevant feedback on the Smokefree Policy and Implementation Plan included strong support for the Smokefree Policy and a request for a more proactive communication strategy to promote smokefree public spaces (working directly with communities and sector stakeholders to support local initiatives).

60. If the committee decides to pursue Option two, the bylaw making process would include opportunities for local boards to provide views and consider implications for local communities.

Māori impact statement

61. Throughout the development of its Smokefree Policy, the council has engaged with mana whenua and taken advice from Hāpai Te Hauora, a public health provider with a central government contract to support smokefree outcomes for Māori across New Zealand.

62. Both options identified in this report demonstrate principles consistent with achieving tūpeka kore through leadership, the normalisation of smokefree environments and raising awareness about the public health impacts of tobacco smoke.

63. The council is currently undertaking research about what can be done to reduce smoking amongst Māori and other communities with high rates of smoking prevalence as part of the Smokefree Policy. This work will occur regardless of the option progressed by the Regulatory Committee.

Implementation

Next Steps

64. If Option two is chosen a draft statement of proposal will be presented to the Regulatory Committee and the Governing Body for approval. This will include a graduated enforcement approach and compliance and enforcement costs for implementation of a bylaw. The draft bylaw would be subject to legislative consultation and decision making process. Approval for compliance and enforcement funding required to implement the bylaw if adopted could be sought through an Annual Plan or unbudgeted expenditure process.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Daniel Pouwels - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

09 November 2017

Animal Management 2017 Annual Report

File No.: CP2017/21607

Purpose

1. To receive an update on the activities of the Animal Management Unit and to note the completion of the 2016/2017 Animal Management Annual Report prepared pursuant to the s10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

Executive summary

2. The primary legislative responsibility of Animal Management is the enforcement of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act). The Act gives territorial authorities the powers to regulate dogs, enforce controls and penalise irresponsible dog owners. This involves responding to and investigating breaches of the Act, and the use of various enforcement tools to help achieve compliance, as well as educating and informing dog owners and the community about the Act and Council bylaws.

3. The Animal Management Strategy 2015-2025 covers four main activity areas: customer experience, animal welfare, community experience and regulation and enforcement. The last two activities have a direct significance in the reduction of dog attacks.

4. Highlights of the 2016/2017 year include:

· The consistent re-homing of all adoptable dogs through Council owned and operated animal shelters.

· 99.5% of priority one requests responded to within 60 minutes. This equates to 14,787 of the 37,699 service requests received.

· A menacing dog de-sexing program (TXT2DESEX) was implemented from $290,000 of funding awarded to Auckland Council by central government as part of the National Action Plan to Reduce the Risk and Harm of Dog Attacks. This will allow council to de-sex a further 1000 menacing dogs at no cost to the dog owner.

· Auckland Council has been a major contributor to reviewing and providing feedback for the proposed Draft Dog Control Amendment bill for the Department of Internal Affairs.

· In-housing Animal Management has achieved a combined savings of $1.6 million in the financial years FY16 to FY17.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) adopt the 2016/17 Animal Management Annual Reports.

b) note that the Animal Management Annual Report is required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 and staff will provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of Local Government.

Comments

5. The key objectives for Animal Management are:

i) Keeping Aucklanders safe from animal related nuisance and harm.

ii) Keeping dog a positive part of the life of Aucklanders.

iii) To give each of the dogs in our care the best possible chance at a positive outcome.

iv) To create the world’s most liveable city and exceptional value for money for Aucklanders.

Operations

6. The Animal Management in-house model includes field and shelter services, supported by a regional dispatch team as well as dedicated specialists.

7. This model has now operated for two full financial years and has achieved combined savings of $1.6M.

8. 8416 dogs were impounded in 2016-2017, 60% were returned to their owners. This is a reduction of 198 dogs than in 2015/2016. This reduction can be attributed to an increase in dogs registered and the added convenience for dog owners to pay registration fees directly to an Animal Management Officer.

9. One hundred percent of adoptable dogs were re-homed again this year (n=545 dogs); reinforcing staff’s consistent achievement since in-housing.

10. Regrettably, 2846 dogs were humanely euthanized. The majority were of a menacing classification where returning to owner was not possible and re-homing not permitted.

Menacing and Dangerous Dogs

11. Menacing type dogs are still over represented in Auckland’s shelter statistics. This is particularly so at the Manukau Animal Shelter where 80% of dogs impounded being of an American pit-bull terrier type.

12. On 22 September 2016, the Hon Louise Upston, Associate Minister of Local Government announced that Cabinet had agreed to a National Strategy to reduce the risk and harm of dog attacks in New Zealand. This two-year Strategy takes a three-pronged approach which includes legislative change, an education campaign designed to change New Zealand’s culture around dogs, and the improvement of best practice guidance for animal control officers.

13. As a result of the National Action Plan, Central Government provided $850,000 funding for the purpose of subsidising neutering programs for high risk dogs. An application from Auckland Council was successful to have grants approved for a total of $290,000 of this funding.

14. Auckland Council Animal Management and Legal Services departments have been requested to provide expert feedback on operational and technical matters in implementing the amended legislation proposal for the Department of Internal Affairs.

Future Focus

15. A key focus for 2017/2018 will be to further reduce dog related harm, this will be achieved by

· Identifying and utilising community groups and local channels to identify most effective methods of communicating with targeted areas. Specific attention will also be dedicated to groups which may have increased barriers to compliance such as those with financial hardship, differing cultural perception of animal ownership or where English is not their first language.

· Animal Management will continue to place emphasis on the importance of de-sexing dogs in the next year, in efforts to stem the flow of dogs entering the shelters. Planned activities include contributing towards a community campaign and continuing with the ‘text2desex’ campaign for menacing dogs made possible with the national government funding.

· Improve current at-risk worker presentation content to ensure relative and quality of training, design and produce take away and office reference material

· Provide simple tailored dog safety messaging aligned to within the home environment.

· Implementing the changes in legislation and the enforcement of the obligations and restrictions on the owners of high risk dogs. This applies to both dogs automatically determined as menacing in schedule 4 of the Act and dogs whose behaviour leads to their classification as menacing or dangerous.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16. Some local boards (predominantly in South and West Auckland) are over-represented in incidences of dog aggression, roaming and unregistered dogs. These areas have been identified and resources have been allocated to target a more proactive programme of work, aimed at prevention.

Māori impact statement

17. This report does not focus on Māori communities or local Iwi specifically. However, the Animal Management Unit recently piloted education sessions focussed on responsible dog ownership with Ngāti Whātua o Ōrakei (at their request). Subsequently there have been discussions with other mana whenua and the Māori Wardens on doing similar sessions around the rest of Tāmaki.

Implementation

18. There are no implementation issues as this is an annual report presentation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2017 Auckland Council Animal Management Report	133

Signatories

Author

Nikki Marchant-Ludlow – Manager Animal Management

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

09 November 2017

Update on the proactive boarding house inspections in South Auckland

File No.: CP2017/21608

Purpose

1. To provide an update on the proactive boarding houses inspections programme.

Executive summary

2. The fourth round of proactive inspections of boarding houses has been conducted in South Auckland. These inspections have reinforced the benefits of the “targeted initiatives approach” and support the Regulatory Committee’s recent endorsement for a strengthened approach to compliance by ensuring that interventions are proportionate, focused on areas of high harm and risk.

3. The inspections again included building and fire safety, environmental health and sanitation, and Auckland Unitary Plan requirements. Inspections were undertaken in conjunction with the New Zealand Fire and Emergency Service and the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Unit of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

4. Thirteen boarding houses were inspected; seven for the first time, with the remainder a follow up to their initial inspection in 2015. It was notable that boarding houses previously inspected had better compliance levels than the boarding houses inspected for the first time.

5. Breaches observed included unauthorised changes to the use of buildings, unauthorised building work, fire safety issues, poor cleanliness, mould growth, overcrowding and poor maintenance.

6. The next round of proactive inspections will be undertaken in November 2017, focused on boarding houses located in Central Auckland.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) receive the update on the proactive boarding house inspections in South Auckland.

Background

7. The three previous rounds of proactive inspections have resulted in boarding houses with increased compliance levels relating to building safety, environmental health, and sanitation and resource management regulations.

8. The regulatory standards for boarding houses are provided by the Building Act 2004 and the Building Code 1992, the Health Act 1956 and the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Methodology

9. A list of target boarding houses was determined based on intelligence held by Auckland Council and MBIE, with input from other agencies.

10. Thirteen boarding houses were chosen for inspection from a list of sixty boarding houses in South Auckland. Six were previously inspected.

11. Inspection notification letters were sent to all sixty boarding houses to encourage the operators to take measures to ensure compliance with existing legislation.

12. The thirteen boarding houses to be inspected were sent notification letters with 5-10 days prior to inspection. A contingency plan was established in the event that a boarding house would require immediate closure due to extremely unsafe conditions.

Inter-agency Collaboration

13. On-site inspections were carried out jointly by council compliance staff, the New Zealand Fire and Emergency Service and Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Unit of MBIE.

Results

14. It was notable that properties which had been inspected previously were more compliant than those inspected for the first time. Of the six boarding houses re-inspected as part of this project, four had no compliance issues and the remaining two had some minor issues relating to maintenance and unconsented work.

15. For the seven boarding houses inspected for the first time, three properties breached environmental health requirements. Non-compliance included poor cleanliness, mould growth, and overcrowding.

16. Five properties with initial inspections were non-complaint with the building code, which resulted in “Notice’s to Fix” being issued under the Building Act 2004. The issues were specific to unauthorized change of use of a building or unauthorized building work.

17. Three properties with initial inspections breached the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Unitary Plan requirements. Non-compliance related to “breach of site coverage, additional cabins on site, breach of boundary rules and lack of pedestrian markings.

18. MBIE advised that most of Tenancy Agreements audited did not have adequate statements relating to insulation, lacked information required by the Act or contained clauses that were inconsistent with the Act. Two boarding house owners were required to take action to ensure that they were meeting their obligations relating to tenants bonds.

19. Council staff are working with boarding house owners to remedy the breaches. Re-inspections will be undertaken to ensure that full compliance is achieved.

Contribution to outcomes

20. This is the fourth annual inspection of boarding houses, building on previous operations in South and West Auckland. The quality of boarding houses inspected is markedly improved compared with previous years, particularly for the ones which had been inspected previously.

21. The severity of non-compliance is also less than previously observed. Non-compliance was assessed on the risk of significant harm to tenants, with landlords required to immediately address shortcomings. Failure to do so would have resulted in strict enforcement action. Compliance has been achieved to date through issuance of statutory notices rather than prosecution. The latter however will remain an option in the event of willful non-compliance.

22. Staff have previously advised of the adequacy of the existing regulatory regime to address the conditions of boarding houses in Auckland. These inspections reinforce this advice of adequate regulatory tools. This position is further strengthened with the collaboration of MBIEs Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Unit and the New Zealand Fire Service.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. The Mangere-Otahuhu and Otara-Papatoetoe local boards have been strong advocates of improved boarding house conditions. Council staff together with MBIE attended the Mangere-Otahuhu Local board workshop in September to discuss roles, responsibilities and the proactive inspections of boarding houses.

24. The Mangere-Otahuhu and Otara-Papatoetoe local boards will be provided with the results of the latest inspections.

Māori impact statement

25. This proactive compliance programme aims to improve living conditions and protect the rights of tenants. Maori tend to be over-represented tenants of boarding houses. Ensuring greater compliance with relevant statutes and regulations will improve living conditions in boarding houses and thus enhance the rights of tenants, including Maori.

Implementation

26. Working collaboratively with MBIE was of benefit to both organisations. There is agreement that further proactive inspections will include MBIE compliance staff.

27. The next round of proactive inspections will be undertaken in November 2017, focused on boarding houses located in Central Auckland.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Mervyn Chetty – Manager Environmental Health

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

09 November 2017

Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 5 (Whenuapai) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2017/21951

Purpose

1. To request the appointment of Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Proposed Plan Change 5 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Executive summary

2. Proposed Plan Change 5 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) was publicly notified on 21 September 2017 and submissions closed on 19 October 2017.

3. The plan change seeks to rezone approximately 360 hectares of mostly Future Urban zoned land at Whenuapai to a mix of business and residential zones. As well as the rezoning, the proposed plan change adds a new precinct, a historic heritage area at Clarks Lane and the Stormwater Management Area Flow Control to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

4. A total of 51 primary submissions have been received to Proposed Plan Change 5, including two late submissions.

5. The primary submissions raise a mixture of concerns about infrastructure, environmental issues, noise, general planning matters and reverse sensitivity effects on the Whenuapai Airbase. It is considered appropriate that the hearings panel be made up of three commissioners with expertise in those areas.

6. Iwi were consulted prior to public notification of Proposed Plan Change 5 and no iwi requested that a hearings commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori be appointed for the hearing of this plan change. Nevertheless, the Committee may wish to appoint a commissioner with an understanding of the perspectives of local iwi and hapū to the panel.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner as chair and three other commissioners, one with expertise in planning and one with an understanding of tikanga Māori, to hear submissions and make a decision on Proposed Plan Change 5 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

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

Comments

7. Proposed Plan Change 5 seeks to rezone land in the Future Urban zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). The proposed plan change area is approximately 360 hectares, comprising approximately 113 hectares of industrial land and 247 hectares of residential zones. The residentially zoned land has development capacity for approximately 4,000 houses.

8. As well as the rezoning which can be seen in Attachment A, the plan change also proposes changes to the following sections of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part):

· Chapter I Precincts – inclusion of a new precinct I616 Whenuapai 3 Precinct which addresses staging of subdivision and development, transport, stormwater management, development in the neighbourhood centre zone, coastal erosion risk, biodiversity, open space, reverse sensitivity effects on the Whenuapai Airbase and aircraft engine testing noise.

· Chapter L Schedule - 14.1 Table 1 Places, 14.1 Table 2 Areas, 14.2.13 Clarks Lane Historic Heritage Area

· Chapter M Appendices - Appendix 17 – to incorporate the Whenuapai 3 Precinct Stormwater Management Plan into the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) by reference

· additions to the Historic Heritage Overlay

· additions to the controls map, the Storm Water Management Area Flow Control -1(SMAF-1) is added to the plan change area.

9. Proposed Plan Change 5 was publically notified on 21 September 2017 and submissions closed on 19 October 2017. A total of 51 primary submissions have been received to Proposed Plan Change 5 including two late submissions.

10. The primary submissions raise a mixture of concerns about infrastructure, environmental issues, noise, general planning matters and reverse sensitivity effects on the Whenuapai Airbase. It is therefore recommended that submissions to Proposed Plan Change 5 be heard by a panel of three commissioners with expertise in those areas.

Local board views and implications

11. The Henderson Massey and Upper Harbour Local Boards have been engaged during the preparation of this plan change. The local boards were briefed in March 2017 on the Planning Committee report seeking approval for the draft plan change. A further memo was provided to the local boards in August 2017 advising the Boards that the plan change was to be considered by the Planning Committee at its September 2017 meeting. Both Local Boards have expressed their approval for continuing the plan change process, and identified noise from the Whenuapai Airbase as a key matter to be addressed.

12. Both local boards will be updated when notification of further submissions has closed and an indicative timeline for the rest of the plan change process is available.

Māori impact statement

13. The latest census data shows that 9.9 percent of the population in the wider Whenuapai area identify as Māori, however the number of Māori living within in the plan change area is unknown.

14. All nine iwi with interest in the area were contacted at the beginning of the structure plan process. Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara and Te Kawerau a Maki have worked in partnership with council to develop cultural values assessments that helped inform the structure plan and the preparation of the proposed plan change.

15. Council has undertaken site visits with Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara and the iwi representatives have met with council’s Healthy Waters staff to discuss storm water management in Whenuapai.

16. On 11 May 2017 all nine iwi with an interest in the area were emailed the draft plan change and asked for their comment. They were also asked to indicate whether it was appropriate to have a commissioner on the hearings panel with an understanding of tikanga Māori and the perspectives of local iwi and hapū. Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua deferred their interests in the area to Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara. Other iwi did not respond. Nevertheless, the Committee may wish to appoint a commissioner with an understanding of the perspectives of local iwi and hapū to the panel.

17. On 2 August 2017 council contacted the nine relevant iwi with a copy of the draft proposed plan change and asked for comments, and again whether they would like a commissioner on the hearings panel who has an understanding of tikanga Māori and the perspectives of local iwi and hapū.

18. Subsequent meetings were held with Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara on 21 August 2017 and with Te Kawerau a Maki on 22 August 2017 to run through the proposed plan change. Issues raised in these meetings centred around environmental and water quality concerns.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed zoning map	159

Signatories

Author

Anne Bradbury - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

09 November 2017

Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 3 (Stockade Hill Viewshaft) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2017/22347

Purpose

1. To request the appointment of Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Proposed Plan Change 3 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Executive summary

2. The purpose of the plan change is to protect views of the Hauraki Gulf from Stockade Hill, Howick. The plan change also seeks to recognise the strong visual relationship between Stockade Hill and the Hauraki Gulf and the associated historic heritage values of the views, therefore preserving an important piece of history for Howick.

3. Proposed Plan Change 3 was publicly notified on 10 August 2017 with the closing date for submissions being 7 September 2017. The summary of submissions was notified on 12 October with a closing date for further submissions being 27 October 2017.

4. 199 primary submissions have been received to PPC 3 including two late submissions. The committee will be updated at the meeting on the number of further submissions received.

5. The primary submissions raise a mixture of planning and landscape matters. It is considered appropriate that the hearings panel be made up of three, with expertise in landscape and planning matters, to hear submissions and make a decision on Proposed Plan Change 3.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner as chair and two commissioners, with expertise in landscape and planning matters, to hear submissions and make a decision on Proposed Plan Change 3 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

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

Comments

6. The purpose of Proposed Plan Change 3 is to protect views of the Hauraki Gulf from Stockade Hill, Howick. The plan change also seeks to recognise the strong visual relationship between Stockade Hill and the Hauraki Gulf and the associated historic heritage values of the views, therefore preserving an important piece of history for Howick. In summary, the plan change proposes:

i) Deletion of a local public viewshaft over Crawford Reserve (Map 11.1 from Schedule 11- Local Public View Schedule).

ii) Addition of a new viewshaft under the local public views overlay from the top of Stockade Hill into Schedule 11- Local Public View Schedule.

iii) Introduction of a new blanket height restriction area within the local public views overlay and associated rules (Chapter D16).

iv) Amendments to Regional Policy Statement policies to recognise the protection of views of the coastal environment from public open spaces, in particular, public open spaces scheduled as historic heritage places (Chapter B4.3).

7. Proposed Plan Change 3 was publicly notified on 10 August 2017 with the closing date for submissions being 7 September 2017. The summary of submissions was notified on 12 October with a closing date for further submissions being 27 October 2017.

8. 199 submissions have been received to Proposed Plan Change 3 including two late submissions. Council has granted waiver to the two late submissions under Section 37 and 37A of the Resource Management Act 1991.

9. The period for the receipt of further submissions was still open at the time of writing this report and the committee will be updated on the number of further submissions received at the meeting.

10. Key issues raised in the submissions are:

i) protection of the 360 degree views from Stockade Hill, including views from Ridge Road;

ii) recognising Stockade Hill as an Outstanding Natural Feature and views as Outstanding Natural Landscape;

iii) rezoning of properties on Mellons Bay from Mixed Housing Urban to Single House zone; and

iv) objection to the ‘Blanket Height Restriction Area’ within the Local Public Views overlay.

11. The submissions to Proposed Plan Change 3 raise a mixture of planning and landscape matters. It is therefore recommended that submissions to Proposed Plan Change 3 be heard by a panel of four commissioners with expertise in legal, landscape and planning matters.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. The Howick Local Board was briefed during the development of the plan change on the extent and provisions of the Proposed Plan Change 3 prior to notification. The local board generally supported the approach taken.

Māori impact statement

13. In accordance with clause 3 and 4A of the Schedule 1 to the RMA, consultation has been undertaken (prior to the formal notification of the proposed plan change) with the following groups that have identified interest in the area.

- -Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki	- Ngāti Tamaoho
- Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua	- Te Akitai Waiohua
- Waikato-Tainui	- Ngāti Paoa
- Ngāti Whanaunga	- Ngāti Maru
- Ngāti Tamaterā	- Te Patukirikiri

14. All above mana whenua groups were provided with a summary of the draft plan change (text and maps) for their consideration. Representatives from Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki and Waikato-Tainui confirmed (in response to this pre-notification consultation) that they had no concerns relating to the proposed plan change.

15. A copy of the proposed plan change was circulated to all 19 iwi authorities as part of public notification. No submissions have been received from any of groups on Proposed Plan Change 3.

16. Stockade Hill is recognised in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) by way of schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage. Stockade Hill has been scheduled as ID 1268, a Category B place for its historical, knowledge, aesthetic and contextual values. Within this schedule Stockade Hill has also been identified as an archaeological feature and a place of Māori interest or significance.

17. Proposed Plan Change 3 recognises the strong visual relationship between Stockade Hill and the Hauraki Gulf and the associated historic heritage values do not undermine any Māori values associated with Stockade Hill.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Vrinda Moghe - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

09 November 2017

Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Private Plan Change 6 (Auranga B1) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2017/22728

Purpose

1. To request the appointment of Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Private Plan Change 6 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Executive summary

2. The Private Plan Change seeks to rezone approximately 83.05 hectares of land [referred to as Auranga B1 land] from Future Urban Zone under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to a mix of residential - Mixed Housing Urban [70 ha] and Mixed Housing Suburban [13 ha] zones to provide for approximately 1300 new dwellings.

3. The Auranga B1 land is located west of Drury township within the Rural Urban Boundary, and is currently zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The Auranga B1 area is adjacent to an approved Special Housing Area site (Drury 1 precinct).

4. The Private Plan Change proposes to extend the adjacent Drury 1 precinct by applying the existing operative Drury 1 precinct provisions with minor amendments, to the new rezoned Auranga B1 land which will be identified by way of a new Precinct Plan 2. The change relates to the addition of two new objectives, four new policies [including Policy 14 which relates to offsetting adverse effects on ecological values on the Drury Islands Recreation Reserve] and new assessment criteria to the operative Drury 1 precinct which will also apply to the new Auranga B1 area [Precinct Plan 2].

5. Private Plan Change 6 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) was publicly notified on 19 October 2017 and the closing date for submissions is 17 November 2017.

6. Given the applicant’s time constraints and Committee timings, a request to appoint Commissioners should be considered at this stage. At the time of writing, no submissions have been received to Private Plan Change 6.

7. In terms of hearing commissioners, as there are changes in overlays, zones and precinct provisions proposed, at least one commissioner with planning expertise should be appointed. Given iwi’s extensive involvement in the plan change process, a hearing commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori should also be appointed for the hearing of this plan change.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner as chair, and three additional commissioners, with at least one with expertise in planning, and one with an understanding of tikanga Māori, to hear submissions and make a decision on Private Plan Change 6 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

b) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments to the hearings panels in the event that a member of the hearings panel is unavailable and/or make additional appointments as appropriate.

Comments

8. Work on the Auranga development is being undertaken in stages. The planning framework for Auranga A is operative [this was granted under the Special Housing Area legislation (provisions) in August 2016] and has been incorporated into the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) as the Drury 1 precinct. Construction is underway. The Private Plan Change proposals have been developed to extend and add to the Precinct 1 provisions.

9. The Private Plan Change request for Auranga B1 land was accepted by the Planning Committee on 5 September 2017. Further consideration and assessments have continued prior to notification and will continue up to and during the subsequent hearing.

10. The Private Plan Change proposes to extend the adjacent Drury 1 precinct by applying the existing operative Drury 1 precinct provisions, with minor amendments, to the new rezoned Auranga B1 land. The Auranga B1 land lies adjacent to the Drury 1 precinct on the northern side of Bremner Road and on the eastern side of Jesmond Road and west of Drury township.

11. The plan change proposes to add two new objectives, four new policies [including Policy 14 which relates to offsetting adverse effects on ecological values on the Drury Islands Recreation Reserve] and new assessment criteria to the operative Drury 1 precinct which will also apply to the new Auranga B1 area [Precinct Plan 2]. The new objectives and policies address coordinated infrastructure planning and provision and consideration of restoration of the Drury Creek Islands Recreation Reserve; the new assessment criteria address the required upgrades to the intersection of State Highway 22 and Jesmond Rd. Changes to the zoning map will also be required to insert Mixed Housing Suburban/Urban and to extend the boundary of the Drury 1 Precinct.

12. Notwithstanding that the closing date for submissions has not yet passed, given the timings of the Regulatory Committee and the applicant’s requested timeline to progress the plan change, it is considered appropriate to resolve to appoint Commissioners at this stage. At the time of writing no submissions have been received to Private Plan Change 6.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. Karaka and Drury Limited (KDL) is the applicant for the Private Plan Change. KDL has regularly updated the chair and deputy chair of Franklin Local Board on the proposed private plan change since June 2016. Both the Franklin and Papakura Local Board chairs have been involved in the process and both chairs provided feedback to the Planning Committee at the time the committee accepted the plan change request in September 2017. Both local boards were advised of the public notification date of 19 October for the plan change and will be consulted by staff prior to the completion of the Hearing Report.

Māori impact statement

14. Karaka and Drury Limited have been engaging with iwi since the Auranga A development was initiated in late 2014 and this has continued with this plan change proposal in accordance with the requirements of clause 4A of Schedule 1 and section 32(4A) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

15. Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata and Te Akitai Waiohua have advised that they are interested parties and have been kept informed, both prior to and following lodgment of the Private Plan Change. The Section 32 report and Cultural Impact Assessment addendum summarises the advice received from the above iwi regarding the Private Plan Change and sets out the applicant’s response to that advice, on matters which have been identified as important to iwi.

16. Impacts on Māori will be considered in the Hearing Report and during the course of the Hearing.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Vanessa Leddra – Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

[1] Defined by the Manurewa, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board areas

[2] People are considered to be daily smokers if they smoke every day, and have smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime

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
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services