I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Thursday, 12 April 2018

9.30am

Room 1, Level 26
135 Albert St
Auckland

Komiti Whakahaere ā-Ture /

Regulatory Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore
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 Wayne Walker
	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox

Ex-officio	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

(Quorum 5 members)

Maea Petherick

Senior Governance Advisor

6 April 2018

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156

Email: maea.petherick@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

The committee is responsible for regulatory hearings (required by relevant legislation) on behalf of the council. The committee is responsible for appointing independent commissioners to carry out the council’s functions or delegating the appointment power (as set out in the committee’s policy). The committee is responsible for regulatory policy and bylaws. Where the committee’s powers are recommendatory, the committee or the appointee will provide recommendations to the relevant decision-maker.

The committee’s key responsibilities include:

· decision-making (including through a hearings process) under the Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation

· hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996

· decision-making under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

· hearing and determining matters regarding drainage and works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002 (this cannot be sub-delegated)

· hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws

· receiving recommendations from officers and appointing independent hearings commissioners to a pool of commissioners who will be available to make decisions on matters as directed by the Regulatory Committee

· receiving recommendations from officers and deciding who should make a decision on any particular matter including who should sit as hearings commissioners in any particular hearing

· monitoring the performance of regulatory decision-making

· where decisions are appealed or where the committee decides that the council itself should appeal a decision, directing the conduct of any such appeals

· considering and making recommendations to the Governing Body regarding the regulatory and bylaw delegations (including to Local Boards)

· regulatory fees and charges

· recommend bylaws to Governing Body for consultation and adoption

· appointing hearings panels for bylaw matters

· review local board and Auckland water organisation proposed bylaws and recommend to Governing Body

· set regulatory policy and controls, including performing the delegations made by the Governing Body to the former Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 in relation to dogs and GB/2014/121 in relation to alcohol.

· engage with local boards on bylaw development and review

· adopting or amending a policy or policies and making any necessary sub-delegations relating to any of the above areas of responsibility to provide guidance and transparency to those involved.

Not all decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 and other enactments require a hearing to be held and the term “decision-making” is used to encompass a range of decision-making processes including through a hearing. “Decision-making” includes, but is not limited to, decisions in relation to applications for resource consent, plan changes, notices of requirement, objections, existing use right certificates and certificates of compliance and also includes all necessary related decision-making.

In adopting a policy or policies and making any sub-delegations, the committee must ensure that it retains oversight of decision-making under the Resource Management Act 1991 and that it provides for councillors to be involved in decision-making in appropriate circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, these delegations confirm the existing delegations (contained in the chief executive’s Delegations Register) to hearings commissioners and staff relating to decision-making under the RMA and other enactments mentioned below but limits those delegations by requiring them to be exercised as directed by the Regulatory Committee.

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

All Bylaws

Biosecurity Act 1993
Building Act 2004
Dog Control Act 1996
Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
Gambling Act 2003;Land Transport Act 1998

Health Act 1956
Local Government Act 1974
Local Government Act 2002
Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009
Resource Management Act 1991
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
Waste Minimisation Act 2008

Maritime Transport Act 1994
Related Regulations

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only.

(ii) Power to establish subcommittees.

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 9

2 Declaration of Interest 9

3 Confirmation of Minutes 9

4 Petitions 9

5 Public Input 9

6 Local Board Input 9

7 Extraordinary Business 10

8 Notices of Motion 10

9 Public safety and nuisance bylaw review direction for any changes 2018 11

10 Findings of Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 Review 41

11 Request to Appoint Hearings Panel for Notices of Requirement from Auckland International Airport. 159

12 Request to Appoint Independent Hearing Commissioners for Private Plan Change 8 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) 163

13 Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 11 (Three Kings Precinct ) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 167

14 Request to Appoint an Independent Hearing Commissioner for Private Plan Change 9 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) 171

15 Compliance with the conditions of their alcohol licence by taverns having electronic gaming machines 175

16 Regulatory Committee Summary of Information Items - 12 April 2018 177

17 Objection against a Menacing Dog Classification - Jack 195

18 Objection against a Menacing Dog Classification - Bree 237

19 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

20 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 279

C1 Deliberations on objection against a Menacing Dog Classification - Jack 279

C2 Deliberations on objection against a Menacing Dog Classification - Bree 279

1 Apologies

An apology from Chairperson Cr L Cooper has been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 8 March 2018, 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.

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

6 Local Board Input

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

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

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

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Public safety and nuisance bylaw review direction for any changes 2018

File No.: CP2018/04451

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve the outcome of the statutory review and the direction of any changes to nine issues within the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. To enable the Regulatory Committee to decide on the statutory review and direct changes to the Bylaw, as instructed staff have assessed the Bylaw issue by issue using Local Government Act 2002 criteria.

3. The Bylaw contains 49 issues. Staff will report on the issues at consecutive Regulatory Committee meetings from March to June 2018. This report provides an assessment of nine issues about damage and obstructions.

4. Staff recommend that the Regulatory Committee direct staff as part of the statutory review of the Bylaw to include the following in a statement of proposal:

· revoke clauses about damage to council property, and damage to public places from placing of structures, opening drains or disturbing surfaces

· amend clauses about damage to water courses, storm water drains or channels, rock, shingle, sand, trees and vegetation

· amend clauses about obstructions.

5. Taking this approach will revoke bylaw clauses for issues already better addressed in existing legislation and ensure the remaining bylaw clauses are more effective and efficient now and in the future.

6. There is risk of public confusion between the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport public safety and nuisance bylaws. Auckland Transport has not yet commenced the review of its Bylaw.

7. The recommendations for all nine issues in this report adopt different approaches that could create public confusion, make compliance difficult and reduce effectiveness of both bylaws. Staff will continue to work with Auckland Transport to mitigate this risk through public communication and the Auckland Transport Bylaw review.

8. If the recommendations are approved, staff will use the decisions from this, previous and subsequent reports to prepare a statement of proposal for approval by the Regulatory Committee. Public notification will follow, before the Governing Body makes a final decision.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

As required by section 160(1) of the Local Government Act 2002

a) determine that a bylaw is not the most appropriate way to address the following matters in public places:

i) damage to council property (clause 7(1)(a))

ii) damage from placing a structure, opening a drain or disturbing a surface (clause 7(1)(c))

b) determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the following matters in public places:

i) damage to a water course, storm water drain or channel (clause 7(1)(b))

ii) depositing, moving or removing rock, shingle, sand, vegetation, material or artefact (clause 7(1)(d))

iii) removing or damaging trees or vegetation (clause 7(1)(e))

iv) exemptions to maintaining the grass verge (clause 7(2)) and utility network operators (clause 7(3))

v) obstructions from materials or structures (clause 8(1)(a))

vi) obstructions from buildings, structures, or tents (clause 8(1)(b))

vii) obstructions from vegetation (clause 8(1)(c))

viii) obstructions from doors or gates (clause 8(1)(d))

ix) exemptions for temporary tents or structures for shade purposes (clause 8(2).

c) determine that the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 does not give rise to any unjustified implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

d) determine that the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 is not the most appropriate form of bylaw.

As provided for in section 160(3) of the Local Government Act 2002

e) request a statement of proposal that amends the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 as detailed in Attachment A that:

i) revokes bylaw clauses about issues in (a)

ii) amends bylaw clauses about issues in (b)

iii) amends the general form of the bylaw as detailed in this report.

Horopaki / Context

The Local Government Act 2002 states the requirements for a statutory bylaw review

9. A statutory review of the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013, Te Ture ā-Rohe Marutau ā-Iwi me te Whakapōrearea 2013 (the Bylaw) must be completed by 22 August 2018 (section 158 Local Government Act 2002).

10. To complete the statutory review council must decide whether the Bylaw^{^[1]}:

· is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues contained in the Bylaw

· is the most appropriate form of bylaw

· gives rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

11. Following the outcome of the statutory review, council can propose that the Bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked, or replaced^{^[2]}.

Staff will seek a decision on the outcome of the statutory review and direction for any changes in parts

12. As instructed staff will report on issues in the Bylaw at consecutive Regulatory Committee meetings from March to June 2018. Attachment C identifies which issues will be addressed at each of these meetings. This approach supports decision making on a complex bylaw that contains 49 issues.

13. The report for each meeting will seek a decision on both the statutory review and direction for any changes.

14. The Regulatory Committee at its meeting in March 2018 made decisions on six Bylaw issues related to street naming, building and property numbers, car window washing, safety or lifesaving equipment, fireworks, and storing or packing goods (resolution REG/2018/15).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. This report contains an assessment of the nine Bylaw issues about damage and obstruction using criteria contained in the Local Government Act 2002.

Staff recommend revoking two issues, amending seven issues, and making general improvements to the bylaw form

16. Tables 1 and 2 present the outcome of the statutory review and direction for any changes. The full assessment of each clause is contained in Attachment A.

17. Through the statutory review process, opportunities to improve the general form of the Bylaw have been identified. For the issues in this report, this relates to drafting clauses that better reflects the issue, and simplifying the language to be easier to read and understand.

Table 1: Damage to public places - Summary of statutory review and any changes

Bylaw issue	Recommended outcome of statutory review			Recommended direction for any changes
Bylaw issue	Bylaw appropriate to address issue?	Bylaw form appropriate?	No unjustified Bill of Rights implications?	Recommended direction for any changes
Damaging, removing, interfering with council property Clause 7(1)(a), 7(3)	û	û	ü	Revoke clause
Polluting, damaging, obstructing a water course, storm water drain or channel Clause 7(1)(b), 7(3)	ü	û	ü	Amend clause
Placing a structure, opening a drain or disturbing a surface Clause 7(1)(c), 7(3)	û	û	ü	Revoke clause
Depositing, moving or removing matters and materials Clause 7(1)(d), 7(3)	ü	û	ü	Amend clause
Removing or damaging trees or vegetation Clause 7(1)(e), 7(2), 7(3)	ü	û	ü	Amend clause

Table 2: Obstructions in public places - Summary of statutory review and any changes

Bylaw issue	Recommended outcome of statutory review			Recommended direction for any changes
Bylaw issue	Bylaw appropriate to address issue?	Bylaw form appropriate?	No unjustified Bill of Rights implications?	Recommended direction for any changes
Placing or leaving materials or structures in a public place Clause 8(1)(a)	ü	û	ü	Amend clause
Constructing a building or structure and erecting a tent Clause 8(1)(b), 8(2)	ü	û	ü	Amend clauses
Vegetation encroachment Clause 8(1)(c)	ü	û	ü	Amend clause
Hanging a door or gate that encroaches on a public place Clause 8(1)(d)	ü	û	ü	Amend clause

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

18. Local boards were engaged in cluster workshops in March 2017. Local board members consider that all issues in the Bylaw remain a concern to varying degrees.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statementEngagement provides a comprehensive picture of Māori perspectives

19. Staff used culturally appropriate, collaborative engagement to identify the impact of public safety and nuisance behaviours on Māori.

20. Five hui were held with whānau, rangatahi and community from:

· Te Kaha o te Rangatahi Trust

· Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o ngā Maungarongo

· Kootuitui Whānau, Papakura

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei whānau

· Ranui Action Project.

21. Māori expressed the following key views:

· importance of child safety and a child-safe environment

· need to protect and enhance the environment

· need for greater respect for Māori land and Tikanga Māori by authorities and the public.

Environmental controls impact Māori more than others

22. Environmental controls for areas such as parks and beaches under the bylaw are likely to have a greater impact on Māori because of the role of Māori as kaitiaki (guardians).

23. Staff analysis and advice in Attachment A includes a Māori impact criterion.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24. The cost of the bylaw review and implementation will be met within existing baselines.

Ngā raru tūpono / RisksPublic confusion from differences in Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Bylaws

25. Auckland Transport has a similar public safety and nuisance bylaw for 15 issues that occur on the Auckland transport system. However, Auckland Transport has not yet commenced its bylaw review.

26. There is a risk of public confusion if different approaches are adopted to address similar issues that fall under either authority’s jurisdiction (including all nine issues in this report). This could create uncertainty, making compliance difficult and reducing the effectiveness of the Bylaw.

27. This risk was identified at the beginning of the review process. Staff will continue to engage with Auckland Transport to mitigate this risk either through public communication or the Auckland Transport Bylaw review.

Some stakeholders may be concerned that some issues would no longer be regulated

28. Some stakeholders may be concerned that revoking certain bylaw clauses may mean those issues are no longer addressed. This could be mitigated by:

· explanatory notes about how these issues remain regulated under other legislation

· encouraging public feedback through the special consultative procedure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

29. Staff will use the decisions from this, previous and subsequent reports to meet the requirements of section 160(3) Local Government Act 2002, including:

· preparing a statement of proposal which will include an amended bylaw and compliance approach

· reporting to the Regulatory Committee recommending that the Governing Body adopts the statement of proposal for the purposes of public consultation and appoints a panel to consider public submissions.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Statutory review and direction for any changes	17
b ⇩	Key legislation	37
c ⇩	Memo on timing and content of advice to Committee	39

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Pania Elliot - Principal Policy Analyst

Magda Findlik - Principal Policy Analyst

Fereti Lualua - Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Osborne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Findings of Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 Review

File No.: CP2018/03625

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the findings of the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 statutory review and approve a report back on options that respond to the findings.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. To enable the Regulatory Committee to complete a statutory review of the Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw), staff prepared a findings report (Attachment A) as a first step. Key findings from the review report are:

· services that contact the body continue to pose health risk, including the transfer of viral and bacterial infections, cancer and injury to the body

· new services emerge at a fast pace and not all are appropriately regulated by the Bylaw

· the Bylaw and its implementation have effectively minimised most public health risks

· stakeholders agree the bylaw minimises public health risks and could be improved

· health risks are managed by licenses and minimum standards.

3. Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings report. There is reputational risk that service operators become concerned about suggested improvements in the findings report and their opportunity to provide feedback. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation processes.

4. Staff propose to report back on options responding to the findings at the May 2018 meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) endorse the findings in the “Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013: 2018 Review Findings Report” (Attachment A), in particular that:

i. services that contact the body continue to pose health risks that require regulating

ii. the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 has been effective in managing these risks, but it could be improved.

b) request an options report responding to the findings in (a), towards completing the statutory review of the Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013.

Horopaki / Context

5. The Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013, Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakamaru Hauora 2013 (Bylaw) aims to minimise public health risks to people.

6. The Bylaw focuses on body contact services by establishing a regulatory framework that:

· defines four service types: services that pierce the skin, risk breaking the skin, risk burning the skin and other specified services

· identifies which service types require a licence (all except other specified services)

· identifies which service types must comply with minimum standards (all services)

· enables minimum standards to be adopted in a separate code of practice (Code)

· identifies exemptions (e.g. health practitioners).

Figure 1: Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 framework

7. The Bylaw framework uses service types to create broad categories which can cover new services as they emerge. This is supported by the Code which provides detailed minimum standards for specific services and can be amended by the Regulatory Committee.

8. The Bylaw is aligned with strategic directions in the Auckland Plan. It aims to minimise health risks while retaining conditions where people can access services, businesses can operate, and taonga are protected in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out the requirements for a statutory review

9. Auckland Council must complete a statutory review of the Bylaw by 27 June 2018.^{^[3]} To complete the statutory review the council must determine whether:^{^[4]}

· a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues contained in the Bylaw

· the Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw

· the Bylaw gives rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

10. Following the statutory review, the council can propose the Bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked or replaced using a public consultative process.^{^[5]}

Staff prepared a findings report as a first step in reviewing the health and hygiene bylaw

11. Staff engaged with a wide-range of stakeholders and carried out research as a first step in the statutory review between September 2017 and February 2018.

12. The findings from this engagement and research are contained in the “Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013: 2018 Review Findings Report” (Attachment A).

13. Engagement and research used a variety of methods and stakeholders:

· face-to-face interviews with health experts, council staff, Māori health providers, tā moko artists and non-governmental organisations

· interactive workshops with Environmental Health Unit officers and industry

· advisory panels meeting, including the Pacific Peoples and Rainbow Communities

· cluster workshops with local boards

· mana whenua and mataawaka marae committees responsible for administering tā moko practice, interviews with tā moko artists and Māori health organisations

· Pacific peoples’ engagement at a Pasifika Tatau Talanoa (Pacific tattooing workshop)

· research on health risks, and domestic and international approaches to regulation

· analysis of data from council, ACC, WorkSafe, Health and Disability Commissioner.

14. The engagement and research provides information to help council understand the nature of the problem now and in the future, the bylaw effectiveness and whether individual services that pose health risks are appropriately regulated.

“Many [young people] will put cost before health and hygiene safety” Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. The report identifies the following key findings.

16. Services that contact the body continue to pose health risks. Complaints, ACC data and health expert interviews show services that contact the body continue to pose health risks (e.g. beauty and health treatments, tattooing). Health risks include the transfer of viral and bacterial infections, cancer and injury to the body.

17. New services are emerging at a fast pace (e.g. eyeball tattoo and laser treatments) and not all are appropriately regulated by the Bylaw.

18. The Bylaw and its implementation have been effective in minimising most public health risks. There is evidence of reduced ACC injury claims and better compliance with best practice standards for some services. However, claims related to manicure/pedicure services have increased.

19. Inspections of licensed premises show 95 per cent of operators comply with the Code. However, unlicensed operators are a concern to stakeholders and may pose further health risks.

20. “The Bylaw provides the only spotlight on those industries” Stakeholders consider the bylaw is still an appropriate way to minimise public health risks, and could be improved. There is a strong consensus among stakeholders that a bylaw is necessary. The Bylaw is currently the only regulatory method that proactively minimises health risks. Stakeholders suggested improvements include:

· service type definitions to include eyeball tattoo, vaginal laser treatment, massage, water play parks and “splash pads”

· improving exemptions to better reflect tā moko practice

· requiring operators to display health licences

· updating the Code (e.g. for dermal filler injections, scarification and body modification).

21. Health risks are managed by licenses and minimum standards Stakeholders engagement and research indicate that the current Bylaw requirement for specific service types (e.g. services that pierce the skin, risk breaking the skin, risk burning the skin or other specified services) to be licensed and/or comply with minimum standards is appropriate.

22. The Bylaw does not give rise to any unjustified New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 implications. The Bylaw can have implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in terms of freedom of expression. However, these limitations are justified and not inconsistent with the Act because they are proportionate to the serious public health risks that services can pose.

Conclusion

23. The findings report establishes that services still pose health risks and that while the Bylaw has been effective at minimising most of those risks, it could be improved.

24. Staff recommend that the Committee endorse the findings and request an options report. This approach will enable the findings to be used to complete the statutory review and to develop options on whether to confirm, amend, revoke or replace the Bylaw.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

25. Local board members participated in cluster workshops in October 2017 and were supportive of the Bylaw. Members were mainly concerned about unlicensed operators, particularly tattooists and manicure/pedicure services.

26. Southern local board members are particularly interested in how the Bylaw regulates traditional Pacific tattoo, which is of great significance to members of their communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

27. The Bylaw has significance for Māori as providers and users of body contact services.

“Tā moko is a traditional practice that has been passed down for numerous generations. Its designs weave stories, genealogy and history through a culturally unique blend of communication and art” 28. Tā moko or traditional Māori tattoo is of great cultural and spiritual significance and is recognised as a taonga and has significance under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Written feedback was sought from 32 mana whenua and mataawaka marae committees, responsible for administering tā moko practice. Staff also interviewed tā moko artists and members of Māori health organisations.

29. Māori stakeholders are supportive of the current exemption for tā moko but consider removing the reference to non-commercial would better reflect current practice. Māori stakeholders consider referencing the Treaty of Waitangi would clarify the exemption. The options report will consider these concerns.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

30. The cost of the Bylaw review will be met within existing baselines.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

31. There is reputational risk that service operators become concerned about suggested improvements in the findings report and their opportunity to provide feedback. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation processes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

32. If approved, staff will prepare an options report to confirm, amend, revoke or replace the Bylaw. This report will be presented for consideration at the May 2018 meeting.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013: 2018 Findings Report	47
b ⇩	Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013	145

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Julia Harker - Policy Analyst

Bonnie Apps - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Request to Appoint Hearings Panel for Notices of Requirement from Auckland International Airport.

File No.: CP2018/02550

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear and make recommendations on the Notices of Requirement from Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) for Designations 1100 and 1102 contained in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Council has received two Notices of Requirement from AIAL to alter Designations 1100 and 1102 in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). The purpose of the Notices of Requirement is to alter the length and location of the proposed second runway (which Designation 1100 currently provides for); and update the relevant technical and safety requirements for the existing and the proposed runway.

3. The Notices of Requirement were notified on 15 February 2018. A total of 41 submissions have been received.

4. The submissions raise a mixture of planning and transportation issues, and issues of significance to Mana Whenua. It is recommended that the panel hearing the Notices of Requirement consist of three commissioners with combined expertise in these areas. Noting that the expansion of the Auckland International Airport is a matter of high public interest, it is also recommended that a Councillor or Local Board member be nominated as a member of the hearings panel.

5. Three Local Boards (Ōrākei, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe) provided written feedback on the Notices of Requirement. The concerns raised by the Local Boards include: adequate funding of the Auckland Community Trust; retention of the Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group; management of transport and aircraft noise effects; and the need for consultation with Mana Whenua in relation to the impacts on historical, cultural and natural heritage.

6. Council has received submissions from Te Ākitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust, Makaurau Marae Māori Trust and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Inc on the Notices of Requirement. These submissions raise concerns regarding the adverse effects of the proposal on the relationship of Mana Whenua with its whenua taonga.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint three independent commissioners, with expertise in planning, transportation and mana whenua matters, to hear and make recommendations to the Requiring Authority on the Notices of Requirement from Auckland International Airport Limited for Designations 1100 and 1102 contained in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

b) appoint one Local Board member or a Councillor to be part of the hearings panel to hear and make recommendations to the Requiring Authority on the Notices of Requirement from Auckland International Airport Limited for Designations 1100 and 1102 contained in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

c) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments to the hearings panel (as contained in clauses a and b above) in the event that a member of the hearings panel is unavailable.

Horopaki / Context

7. On 14 August 2017, AIAL lodged two Notices of Requirement to alter Designations 1100 and 1102 in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) with Auckland Council.

8. The Notice of Requirement relating to Designation 1100 seeks to amend that Designation to facilitate the changes to both the length and location of Auckland Airport’s second runway, currently provided for in that Designation. AIAL seeks to extend the northern runway from 2,150 metres to 2,983 metres. AIAL also seeks to shift the northern runway 72 metres north of its designated location to increase the separation distance between the northern and southern runways to 2,022 metres.

9. As a result of the proposed changes to Designation 1100, alterations are also required to Designation 1102, which relate to various technical and safety requirements for the Airport’s runways, including Runway End Protection Areas (REPA) and Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS). These are necessary to comply with the requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority.

10. The Notices of Requirement to alter Designations 1100 and 1102 were notified on 15 February 2018. The submission period closed on 15 March 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. Council has received a total of 41 submissions to the Notices of Requirement, including one late submission. Council has granted waiver to the late submission under Section 37 and 37A of the Resource Management Act 1991.

12. The key issues raised in the submissions are:

i) adverse effects of aircraft noise on the community.

ii) adverse effects on the relationship of Mana Whenua with its whenua taonga.

iii) adverse effects on the transport system.

13. The submissions to the Notices of Requirement raise a mixture of planning and transportation issues, and issue of significance to Mana Whenua. It is therefore recommended that the panel hearing the Notices of Requirement consist of three commissioners with combined expertise in these areas. Noting that the expansion of the Auckland International Airport is a matter of high public interest, it is also recommended that a Councillor or Local Board member be appointed as a member of the hearings panel.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

14. Twelve Local Boards are affected by the spatial extent of the Notices of Requirement:

i. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

ii. Ōtara-Papatoetoe

iii. Howick

iv. Franklin

v. Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

vi. Puketāpapa

vii. Manurewa

viii. Albert-Eden

ix. Whau

x. Ōrākei

xi. Waitākere Rangers

xii. Papakura

15. All twelve Local Boards have a representative on the Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group, which was set up under the conditions of Designation 1100. This is an independently chaired group that makes recommendations to Auckland International Airport on aircraft noise issues and concerns that arise from the Airport’s operations and activities.

16. As part of the public notification process, all Local Boards were advised of the Notices of Requirement from AIAL. Noting that Local Boards do not have a separate legal standing from Auckland Council, they cannot formally submit on Notices of Requirement.

17. However, the process enables Local Boards to provide written feedback stating their views on the Notices of Requirement. Council has received written feedback from the following Local Boards:

i. Ōrākei Local Board

ii. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

iii. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

18. The key matters raised by the above mentioned Local Boards include:

i. Auckland Community Trust funding be reviewed to ensure funding levels reflect on-going costs to the community and home owners imposed by the effects of the Auckland Airport.

ii. The Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group be retained, with adequate funding, and its terms of reference extended to include all issues arising from the changes to the second runway.

iii. Impacts on historical, cultural and natural heritage.

iv. Environmental impacts of noise, pollution and disturbances.

v. Coordinated management of transport effects.

vi. Consideration of potential flight paths for the second runway and the need for greater dispersal of flights, reduction of noise pollution and aircraft fuel emissions particularly over residential areas.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

19. The supporting documents for the Notices of Requirement include a Cultural Effects Assessment Report. The report documents the engagement with Mana Whenua and cultural effects assessment undertaken by AIAL in preparing the Notices of Requirement.

20. AIAL received Cultural Values Assessments from Te Ākitai Waiohua, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority, Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho. These Cultural Values Assessments were used to inform the assessment of alternative locations for the proposed second runway. AIAL also undertook a wider engagement process with ten other Mana Whenua groups.

21. Council has received submissions from Te Ākitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust, Makaurau Marae Māori Trust and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Inc on the Notices of Requirement. These submissions raise concerns regarding the adverse effects of the proposal on the relationship of Mana Whenua with their whenua taonga.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

22. The cost of the hearing process for the Notices of Requirement is able to be recovered from Auckland International Airport.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

23. Individuals are appointed to the Council’s pool of Independent Hearing Commissioners due to their qualifications, skills, experience and professionalism. A small number of Local Board members and Councillors that hold the Ministry for the Environment’s Good Decision-Making accreditation may also sit as commissioners. These processes, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making and help avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

24. The key next steps involve:

· contacting the appointed Independent Hearing Commissioners to check their availability

· notifying submitters of the hearing dates and venue

· providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report

· Independent Hearing Commissioners conduct the hearing

· Council decision released.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Sukhdeep Singh - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Request to Appoint Independent Hearing Commissioners for Private Plan Change 8 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)

File No.: CP2018/03545

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Private Plan Change 8 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Private Plan Change request seeks to rezone land adjoining Māngere Road from Special Purpose – School to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings, and land adjacent to Hospital Road from Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings and Single House zones to Special Purpose – School.

3. Prior to the Private Plan Change request being limited notified on 7 December 2017, King’s College consulted with mana whenua groups which were identified as having an interest in land subject to the request.

4. Four submissions have been received on the Private Plan Change request. The submissions raise a mixture of planning, transport and urban design matters. It is considered appropriate that the hearings panel be made up of three independent commissioners, with expertise in planning, transport and urban design matters, to hear submissions and make a decision on the Private Plan Change request.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint up to three independent commissioners, with expertise in planning, transport and urban design matters to hear submissions and make a decision on Private Plan Change 8 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 hearing panel is unavailable.

Horopaki / Context

5. On 31 October 2017, King’s College lodged a Private Plan Change request to rezone two land parcels, one to the north east of the main campus and the other to the south of the main campus, namely:

· the Māngere Road land parcel (3.11 ha) located north east of the main school campus and fronting Māngere Road. This is proposed to be rezoned from Special Purpose – School zone to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings; and

· the Hospital Road land parcel (1.55ha) adjoining the southern end of King’s College main campus which is currently owned by the Royal Auckland Golf Club and contains an existing clubhouse and parking. This is proposed to be rezoned from Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings and Single House to Special Purpose – School zone.

6. The purpose of rezoning the Māngere Road land parcel from Special Purpose – School, to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings, is to enable residential development of a density that optimises the efficient use of land that has become surplus to school requirements. The rezoning of the Hospital Road land parcel from Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings and Single House to Special Purpose – School zone will enable various education activities to occur in an integrated and consolidated manner with the adjacent main campus.

7. The Private Plan Change request was limited notified on 7 December 2017 with the closing date for submissions being 26 January 2018. The summary of submissions was notified on 1 March 2018 with a closing date for further submissions being 15 March 2018.

8. Four submissions have been received on the Private Plan Change request. Key issues of concern raised by submitters relate to the proposed rezoning of land adjoining Māngere Road from Special Purpose – School zone to Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings, and consequential effects on the existing road network and the residential amenity of adjoining sites.

9. Submitters have raised a mixture of planning, transport and urban design matters. It is therefore recommended that submissions on the Private Plan Change request be heard by a panel of up to three commissioners with expertise in planning, transport and urban design matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10. Analysis and advice will be provided in the Council Officer’s hearings report (section 42A report) for the Private Plan Change request.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

11. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards were briefed on the Private Plan Change request after it was lodged with the Council. In response, the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board confirmed that they had no objections to the Private Plan Change, while the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board expressed their support for the Private Plan Change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

12. Prior to the Private Plan Change request being limited notified, and pursuant to clauses 3 and 4A of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991, King’s College consulted with the following mana whenua groups which were identified as having an interest in land subject to the request:

Ø Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua	Ø Ngāti Tamaoho
Ø Ngāti Whatua o Orakei	Ø Te Akitai ki Waiohua
Ø Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki	Ø Te Ahiwaru Waiohua
Ø Te Kawerau ā Maki	Ø Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua
Ø Waikato-Tainui	Ø Ngāti Paoa
Ø Ngaati Whanaunga	Ø Ngāti Maru
Ø Ngāti Tamaterā

13. Feedback was received from Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua requesting their engagement when future development proposals are received for land subject to the Private Plan Change request. Ngāti Whanaunga also provided a cultural assessment in support of the Private Plan Change request which was included with the documents lodged by King’s College.

14. The mana whenua groups with an interest in land subject to the Private Plan Change request were directly notified of the request when it was limited notified on 7 December 2017. No submissions have been received on the Private Plan Change request from any of these mana whenua groups.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

15. The cost of the hearing process for the Private Plan Change is able to be recovered from King’s College.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

16. Individuals are appointed to the Council’s pool of Independent Hearing Commissioners due to their qualifications, skills, experience and professionalism. A small number of Local Board members and Councillors that hold the Ministry for the Environment’s Good Decision-Making accreditation may also sit as commissioners. These processes, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making and help avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

17. The key next steps involve:

· contacting the appointed Independent Hearing Commissioners to check their availability

· notifying submitters of the hearing dates and venue

· providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report

· Independent Hearing Commissioners conduct the hearing

· Council decision released.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Nicholas Lau - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 11 (Three Kings Precinct ) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2018/03551

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan Change 11 (Three Kings Precinct) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Plan Change seeks to amend the operative Three Kings Precinct in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to address certain issues as a result of an appeal to the Environment Court on Plan Change 372 (PC372) under the former Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section). The Environment Court process occurred concurrently with the Auckland Unitary Plan process. This Plan Change is to bring greater consistency between the two processes. It also reflects an agreement which was reached between Fletcher Residential Limited (FRL) and South Epsom Planning Group and Three Kings United Group (the Societies), the appellants that originally opposed Plan Change 372.

3. The Plan Change was limited notified on 20 February 2018 with the closing date for submissions being 20 March 2018. The summary of submissions was limited notified on 26 March 2018 with a closing date for further submissions being 11 April 2018. The committee will be updated at the meeting on the number of further submissions received.

4. Eight primary submissions on the Plan Change have been received including one late submission. The submissions raise a mixture of planning, transport, landscape and urban design matters. It is considered appropriate that the hearings panel be made up of three independent commissioners, with expertise in planning, urban design or landscape, and transport matters, to hear submissions and make a decision on the Plan Change.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint up to three independent commissioners, with expertise in planning, urban design or landscape, and transport matters to hear submissions and make a decision on Plan Change 11 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

Horopaki / Context

5. Fletcher Residential Limited (FRL) lodged a private plan change request relating to the Three Kings Quarry area on 28 July 2017. The private plan change was considered and adopted by Council as a Council plan change on 5 September 2017 (Planning Committee Resolution PLA/2017/113).

6. Plan Change 11 seeks to amend the operative Three Kings Precinct to address certain issues as a result of an appeal to the Environment Court on plan change 372 (PC372) under the former Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section). The Environment Court process occurred concurrently with the Auckland Unitary Plan process. This Plan Change is to bring greater consistency between the two processes and reflects an agreement which was reached between Fletcher Residential Limited (FRL) and South Epsom Planning Group and Three Kings United Group (the Societies), the appellants that originally opposed Plan Change 372.

7. Fletcher Residential Limited and the Societies agreed that certain elements that were addressed through the PC372 Environment Court process and interim decisions should be included in the Three Kings Precinct of the Auckland Unitary Plan. These elements include:

i) Imposing a minimum ground level on the floor of the quarry (known as the “riu”) to reduce the height difference between the development area and the Three Kings Town Centre.

ii) Recognising and providing protection to five volcanic remnant features.

iii) Introducing a new volcanic sightline from the south-eastern bluff to the Tātua o Riu-ki-uta (Big King).

iv) Allowing additional height on buildings along Mt Eden Road and at the corner of Mt Eden Road and Grahame Breed Drive.

v) Including planning controls for a whare manaaki (a meeting, educational and cultural facility for Tangata Whenua).

vi) Imposing a non-complying activity status for a range of activities which infringe critical activity or development rules which could compromise the overall development outcomes of the precinct.

vii) Rezoning small areas of land and correcting errors on zoning boundaries.

8. The Plan Change was limited notified on 20 February 2018 with the closing date for submissions being 20 March 2018. The summary of submissions was limited notified on 26 March 2018 with a closing date for further submissions being 11 April 2018. The committee will be updated at the meeting on the number of further submissions received.

9. Eight primary submissions to the Plan Change have been received including one late submission. Key issues of concern raised by submitters relate to the maximum building height, vehicle access restrictions onto arterial roads, rezoning Open Space land to Terrace Housing and Apartment Building (THAB), realignment of the precinct boundary, protection of views to Te Tātua a Riukiuta (Big King) and the non-complying activity status for a range of activities.

10. Submitters have raised a mixture of planning, urban design, landscape and transport matters. It is therefore recommended that submissions on the Plan Change be heard by a panel of up to three commissioners with expertise in these matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. Analysis and advice will be provided in the Council Officer’s hearings report (section 42A report) for the Plan Change.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

12. The Puketapapa Local Board has been involved in earlier non-statutory and statutory planning for Three Kings. The board considered a private plan change request by Fletcher Residential Limited at a workshop on 3 August 2017 and recommended that the Planning Committee adopt the plan change request. On 7 December 2017, a workshop was held to provide the board with an update on the content of the proposed plan change. On 1 February 2018 feedback was received from the board on the notification of the plan change before it was notified on 20 February. Staff will contact the Puketapapa Local Board prior to the completion of the section 42A report to confirm whether the Local Board wishes to provide formal feedback in respect of the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

13. Prior to the Plan Change being limited notified, and pursuant to clauses 3 and 4A of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991, Fletcher has undertaken consultation with the Tupuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority and the following mana whenua groups who have indicated an interest in the precinct as follows:

Ø Ngāti Whatua;

Ø Ngāti Maru;

Ø Ngāti Te Ata;

Ø Ngāti Tamaoho; and

Ø Te Akitai Waiohua.

14. In addition to the above, the proposed plan change information seeking input was sent to all 19 iwi authorities in September 2017 and on notification.

Ø Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki	Ø Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara
Ø Ngāti Manuhiri	Ø Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei
Ø Ngāti Maru	Ø Te Ahiwaru Waiohua
Ø Ngāti Paoa	Ø Te Akitai Waiohua
Ø Ngāti Rehua	Ø Te Kawerau a Maki
Ø Ngāti Tamaoho	Ø Te Patukirikiri
Ø Ngāti Tamaterā	Ø Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua
Ø Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua	Ø Te Uri o Hau
Ø Ngati Wai	Ø Waikato-Tainui
Ø Ngaati Whanaunga

15. No feedback was received from mana whenua on the draft plan change and on limited notification of the plan change.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

16. The cost of independent hearing commissioners can be managed within the existing Plans and Places Department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

17. Hearing commissioners are appointed from the pool of independent commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience. A small number of Local Board members that hold the Good Decision Making accreditation may also sit as commissioners. These processes, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making and avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

18. The key next steps involve:

· contacting the appointed Independent Hearing Commissioners to check their availability

· notifying submitters of the hearing dates and venue

· providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report

· Independent Hearing Commissioners conduct the hearing

· Council decision released.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Panjama Ampanthong - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Request to Appoint an Independent Hearing Commissioner for Private Plan Change 9 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2018/03766

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to request the appointment of an Independent Hearing Commissioner to consider and make decisions on Private Plan Change 9 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Private Plan Change 9 is a request from Goodman Property Trust to rezone 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie from Business Park zone to Mixed Use zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

3. The request also seeks the removal of the Business Park zone Office Control - Great South Road, 47,000m² Gross Floor Area (GFA) cap from the subject site.

4. Prior to the Private Plan Change request being limited notified on 25 January 2018, Goodman Property Trust consulted with mana whenua groups which were identified as having an interest in land subject to the request.

5. No primary submissions or further submissions have been received on the Private Plan Change. Pursuant to Section 42A of the Resource Management Act, a report has been prepared outlining the Private Plan Change. An Independent Hearing Commissioner is required to be appointed to make decisions in respect of the Private Plan Change.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner, with expertise in planning and transport matters to make a decision on Private Plan Change 9 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Horopaki / Context

6. On 5 October 2017, Goodman Property Trust lodged a Private Plan Change request to rezone a 3867m² site spread across three allotments at 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie, from Business Park zone to Mixed Use zone. The site is situated immediately to the south of the Millennium Centre complex. The request also seeks the removal of the Business Park Zone Office Control - Great South Road, 47,000m² Gross Floor Area (GFA) cap from the subject site.

7. The purpose of rezoning 614-616 Great South Road, Ellerslie, from Business Park zone to Mixed Use zone is to enable the more efficient development of the site including potential residential development.

8. The development and efficient use of the site has also been limited by the Business Park zone Office Control - Great South Road, 47,000m² Gross Floor Area (GFA) cap. This cap applies across the whole of the Business Park zone, including the neighbouring Millennium Centre site. As the GFA cap has been maximised on the Millennium Centre site, it effectively means that any office development at 614-616 Great South Road would require a Non-Complying resource consent.

9. The rezoning of 614-616 Great South Road from Business Park zone to Mixed Use zone will enable more efficient development of the site with a range of activities.

10. The Private Plan Change request was limited notified on Thursday 25 January 2017 with the closing date for submissions being Friday, 23 February 2018. No submissions or further submissions were received on Private Plan Change 9.

11. As no submissions have been received it is recommended the Private Plan Change 9 request be heard by a single commissioner. Preferably the commissioner will have expertise in transport and urban design matters, as these were issues raised in the Section 32 report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

12. Analysis and advice is provided in the hearings report for the Private Plan Change request prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

13. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board was briefed on the Private Plan Change request before it was lodged with the Council. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board confirmed that it had no objections to the Private Plan Change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

14. Prior to the Private Plan Change request being limited notified, and pursuant to clauses 3 and 4A of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991, Goodman Property Trust consulted with the following mana whenua groups which were identified as having an interest in land subject to the request:

Ø Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki	Ø Ngāti Whatua Orakei
Ø Ngāti Maru	Ø Te Akitai Waiohua;
Ø Ngāti Paoa	Ø Te Kawerau ā Maki
Ø Ngāti Tamaoho	Ø Te Patukirikiri;
Ø Ngāti Tamaterā	Ø Ngaati Whanaunga
Ø Ngāti te Ata	Ø Te Ahiwaru.
Ø Waikato‐Tainui	Ø Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara
Ø Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua

15. Feedback was received from Ngāti te Ata who prepared a cultural response report in relation to the Private Plan Change. Ngāti te Ata did not raise any issues in relation to the proposed plan change and did not submit during the notification process. Waikato-Tainui requested that the proposal be assessed against the Waikato-Tainui Iwi Management Plan. This assessment was undertaken focusing on the ecological impact of the proposal. The applicant’s review of the plan and assessment, considered that the proposed rezoning was consistent with the Waikato‐Tainui Environmental Management Plan objectives. Waikato-Tainui concurred with the assessment and indicated it had no issues in relation to the request. Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua supports the proposal. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Whātua Ōrakei indicated they had no issue with the proposal.

16. The mana whenua groups with an interest in land subject to the Private Plan Change request were directly notified of the request when it was limited notified on 25 January 2018. No submissions have been received on the Private Plan Change request from any of these mana whenua groups.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

17. The cost of the hearing process for the Private Plan Change request is able to be recovered from Goodman Property Trust.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

18. Individuals are appointed to the Council’s pool of Independent Hearing Commissioners due to their qualifications, skills, experience and professionalism. A small number of Local Board members and Councillors that hold the Ministry for the Environment’s Good Decision-Making accreditation may also sit as commissioners. These processes, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making and help avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

19. The key next steps involve:

· contacting the appointed Independent Hearing Commissioner to check his/her availability

· Independent Hearing Commissioner considers the Private Plan Change and the council’s Section 42A report

· Council decision released.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Roger Eccles - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Compliance with the conditions of their alcohol licence by taverns having electronic gaming machines

File No.: CP2018/03895

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To advise the Committee of the work being done by alcohol licensing inspectors to ensure that taverns hosting electronic gaming machines (pokies) are complying with the conditions of their alcohol licence.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The alcohol licensing Inspectorate has over time received reports from the public that some taverns that host electronic gaming machines seem to be principally in the business of providing gambling rather than providing alcohol and other liquid refreshments.

3. These reports tend to support the observations made by Auckland Council licensing inspectors.

4. The inspectorate has on 3 occasions in the past opposed the renewal of alcohol licences where it was believed that the business of the tavern was principally gambling. In each case the renewal of the licence has been declined by the Auckland District Licensing Committee (ADLC). One premises was in Papakura, one was in Mangere East and the third was in Papatoetoe.

5. The Gambling Compliance Unit of the Department of Internal Affairs also receives information from time to time alleging that alcohol licensed premises are conducting business more as a gambling venue than a tavern.

6. An initial list of premises was compiled based on knowledge of alcohol licensed premises and information obtained from external sources.

7. Twenty eight premises are now subject to further investigation to determine whether licensees are principally in the business of providing gambling and therefore potential breach of their licence to sell and supply alcohol.

8. Where sufficient evidence is obtained then opposition to the renewal of that premises alcohol licence will be lodged with the ADLC.

9. The Inspectorate currently has 1 opposition lodged with the ADLC against the renewal of a licence with a further 10 reports in preparation. Five of these will be reported within the next month, with all likely to be opposed.

10. Of the premises we have investigated, are investigating or will be investigating:

· 1 is in the North Shore Ward

· 2 are in the Waitakere Ward

· 1 is in the Eden Albert Ward

· 1 is in the Orakei Ward

· 3 are in the Maungakiekie - Tamaki Ward

· 12 are in the Manukau Ward

· 3 are in the Te Irirangi Ward

· 4 are in the Manurewa – Papakura Ward

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) Notes the actions being taken by alcohol licensing inspectors to ensure that taverns hosting electronic gaming machines (pokies) are complying with the conditions of their alcohol licence.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Rob Abbott - Principal Specialist Alcohol Licensing

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Objection against a Menacing Dog Classification - Jack

File No.: CP2018/04309

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To determine the objection by Ms Rebecca Maud of the menacing classification issued for her dog Jack.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) provides that the Auckland Council may classify a dog as menacing when the Council considers that a dog poses a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal or protected wildlife because of:

i) Any observed or reported behaviour of the dog; or

ii) Any characteristics typically associated with the dogs breed or type.

3. Where a dog is classified as menacing, the owner of the dog must:

a) Not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place, or in any private way, without being muzzled; and

b) Must, if required by the territorial authority, within 1 month, produce to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a veterinarian certifying:

i) That the dog is or has been neutered; or

ii) That for reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a fit condition to be neutered before a date specified in the certificate; and

4. The Auckland Council Animal Management Team classified Jack as a menacing dog following an attack on another dog at Maddills Farm Recreational Reserve in Kohimarama.

5. Ms Maud has objected to the Council’s decision and pursuant to section 33D of the DCA. The matter is now before the Committee for a decision as to whether to uphold or rescind the menacing classification of Jack.

6. In making its determination the committee must have regard to:

a) The evidence which formed the basis for the decision to classify Jack menacing;

b) The matters relied on by Ms Maud in support of her objection and

c) Any other relevant matters.

7. Auckland Council must give written notice to the owner of its decision and the reasons for its decision.

8. Staff advise the menacing classification should be upheld based on the evidence of the recent attack and prior menacing history.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) Hear and determine the objection to the menacing dog classification by Ms Maud by either:

i) upholding the menacing classification, or

ii) rescinding the menacing classification.

Horopaki / Context

9. At approximately 5.00pm on Sunday, 10 September 2017 Ms Maud’s dog Jack allegedly attacked another dog at Maddills Farm Recreational Reserve in Kohimarama.

10. Animal Management investigated. Statements were obtained from the complainant which detailed the attack, refer to Attachment A.

11. At approximately 6.15pm officers went to Ms Maud’s property and spoke to her about the attack, refer to Attachment B.

12. A formal statement was taken from Ms Maud on 12 September 2017, refer to Attachment C.

13. The evidence compiled upheld the allegation that Jack attacked the complainant’s dog. A decision was subsequently made in accordance with section 33A of the DCA to classify Jack as menacing. The classification was issued on 12 September 2017, refer to Attachment D.

14. The decision was also made to issue an infringement notice to Ms Maud (notice number 61000049076) under s53(1) of the DCA for failing to keep her dog under control, refer to Attachment E.

15. On 21 November 2017 Ms Maud wrote to the Auckland Council objecting to the menacing classification for her dog Jack, refer to Attachment F.

16. On 19 January 2018 Auckland Council advised Ms Maud that Council will not rescind the menacing classification and the reasons why, refer Attachment G.

17. Ms Maud formally requested a hearing on 19 January 2018 at 11.36am, refer Attachment H.

18. Jack has a history of complaints, refer Attachment J. Ms Maud was previously issued a menacing classification for Jack and an infringement notice on 2 May 2017 for failing to control her dog. The facts of that incident involved Jack attacking another dog.

19. Ms Maud asked the Council to reconsider the earlier classification and infringement, which officers did and resolved to revoke the classification and infringement. Copies of relevant documents are attached, refer Attachment I.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

20. Staff advise the menacing classification should be upheld.

21. The previous classification was rescinded on advice from the dog owner that there would be no repeat of menacing behavior. Regrettably, a further incident has occurred resulting in injury to another dog.

22. The risk to public safety and to other dogs will be eliminated if Ms Maud’s dog is muzzled in public.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

23. This report relates to classification of a menacing dog. The views of local boards have not been sought for this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

24. The content of this report has no adverse effects of Maori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25. There are no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26. There are no risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

27. To uphold the decision held by the committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Complainants statement	199
b ⇩	AMO investigation statement	203
c ⇩	Ms Mauds statement (dog owner)	207
d ⇩	Councils classification letter to Ms Maud	211
e ⇩	Councils infringement notice to Ms Maud	213
f ⇩	Ms Mauds objection to classification	217
g ⇩	Councils reply re Ms Mauds objection	221
h ⇩	Ms Mauds request for a Hearings	223
i ⇩	Previous manancing classficiations	225
j ⇩	History of complaints	227

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Amber Blundell, Acting Team Leader, Animal Management Central-East

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Objection against a Menacing Dog Classification - Bree

File No.: CP2018/04394

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine the objection by Ms Kristina Pennell against the menacing classification issued for her dog Bree.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Section 33C of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) provides that the Auckland Council must classify a dog as menacing when the Council has reasonable grounds to believe the dog is wholly or predominantly an American Pit Bull Terrier type.

3. Where a dog is classified as menacing, the owner of the dog must:

(a) Not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place, or in any private way, without being muzzled; and

(b) Must, if required by the territorial authority, within 1 month, produce to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a veterinarian certifying:

i) That the dog is or has been neutered; or

ii) That for reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a fit condition to be neutered before a date specified in the certificate; and

4. The Auckland Council Animal Management Team assessed Ms Pennell’s dog Bree as wholly or predominantly an American Pit Bull Terrier type and consequently resolved to classify Bree as a menacing dog.

5. Ms Pennell has objected to the Council’s decision and pursuant to section 33D of the DCA, the matter is now before the Committee for a decision as to whether to uphold or rescind the menacing classification of Bree.

6. In making its determination the committee must have regard to:

(a) The evidence which formed the basis for the decision to classify Bree menacing ; and

(b) The matters relied on by Ms Pennell in support of her objection and

7. Auckland Council must give written notice to the owner of its decision of the objection and the reasons for its decision.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) Hear and determine the objection to the menacing dog classification by Ms Pennell.

b) By either:

i) Upholding the menacing classification, or

ii) Rescinding the menacing classification.

Horopaki / Context

8. On 10 April 2017 the registration of Bree was transferred to Auckland Council from another territorial authority.

9. On 20 September 2017 a formal notice addivsing of Bree’s classification as a menacing dog was issued and sent to Ms Pennell, refer attachment A.

10. On 22 September 2017 Ms Pennell’s sister (Ms Barbara McDonald) called Animal Management and spoke to the Team Leader Western Animal Management Shelter regarding the notice. Ms McDonald disputed the classification and it was arranged to bring Bree to the Animal Shelter to have a breed assessment.

11. On 2 October 2017 Ms Pennell took Bree into the Animal Shelter and it was assessed by both the Team Leader and the Senior Kennel Attendant.

12. Both officers concluded that Bree identified as an American Pit Bull Terrier type, refer attachments B.

13. Photographs were taken of Bree during the assessment, refer attachment C.

14. In the following days there were text exchanges between the Team Leader and Ms McDonald, refer attachment E.

15. On 6 October 2017 Ms Pennell emailed Auckland Council to object to the menacing classification, refer attachment E.

16. Further email correspondence was made between Ms Pennell and Animal Management regarding the decision and Ms Pennell’s objection.

17. On 29 November 2017 Animal Management emailed Ms Pennell informing her that the decision was made to uphold the classification, refer attachment F.

18. Formal statements from both officers were created for the file, refer attachments G.

19. The file was given to the Team Leader Southern Animal Shelter to arrange a further assessment for Bree.

20. On 8 March 2018 the Team Leader and Kennel Attendant arrived at an organised time to Ms Pennell’s property and undertook a breed assessment.

21. Both officers concluded that Bree was of an American Pit Bull type, refer attachments H.

22. Ms Pennell subsequently confirmed that she wanted to appeal the decision.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

23. Staff advise the menacing classification should be upheld.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

24. This report relates to classification of a menacing dog. The views of local board have not been sought.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25. The content of this report has no adverse effect on Maori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26. There are no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27. There are no risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. To uphold the decision held by the committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Classification	241
b ⇩	Council Breed Assessments (Whitaker & Sherman)	245
c ⇩	Photo's of Bree	249
d ⇩	Text exchanges between Ms Whitaker & Ms McDonald	257
e ⇩	Objection email from Ms. Pennell	267
f ⇩	Councils letter upholding classification to Ms. Pennell	269
g ⇩	Statements from Ms Whitaker & Mr Sherman	271
h ⇩	Council Breed Assessments (Gerbich & Fearn)	275

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Louise Palmer, Team Leader Western Animal Management Shelter

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 April 2018

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 Deliberations on objection against a Menacing Dog Classification - Jack

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the deliberations of the decision could compromise the council in undertaking without prejudice negotiations of this objection pursuant to section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C2 Deliberations on objection against a Menacing Dog Classification - Bree

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

In particular, the deliberations of the decision could compromise the council in undertaking without prejudice negotiations of this objection pursuant to section 33C of the Dog Control Act 1996

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

[1] Section 160(1) and (2) Local Government Act 2002. This section can be viewed in Attachment B.

[2] Section 160(3) Local Government Act 2002. This section can be viewed in Attachment B.

[3] Local Government Act 2002, section 158.

[4] Local Government Act 2002, section 160(1) and (2).

[5] Local Government Act 2002, section 160(3).

Author	Maea Petherick - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services