Agenda of Regulatory Committee

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

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Thursday, 10 May 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 Josephine Bartley
	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

3 May 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.

1 Apologies

Apologies from Deputy Chairperson BC Cashmore and Cr E Collins 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 April 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

10/05/2018

Health and Hygiene Bylaw Review 2018 and direction for any changes

File No.: CP2018/06225

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek a determination on the outcome of the statutory review on the Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 and make a decision about its future.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. To enable the Regulatory Committee to determine the outcome of the statutory review of the Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw) and decide its future staff have completed an options report.

3. On 12 April 2018 the committee endorsed the statutory review findings on the Bylaw (REG/2018/1) and approved a report back on options.

4. Staff recommend the Regulatory Committee determine that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage health and hygiene issues.

5. Staff also recommend that the council agree Option two: amend current bylaw framework and separate code to better manage health and hygiene issues. This will further minimise health risks to people using services that involve contact with the human body by:

· covering a broader range of services including massage, water play parks and splash pads, and services that risk breaking or burning membranes

· requiring operators to display a health licence

· making the tā moko exemption clearer

· better recognising traditional Pacific tattoo.

6. Amendments to the existing bylaw framework are supported by Environmental Health officers and stakeholders, who consider the existing approach to be effective and certain.

7. Reputational risk that service operators will be concerned about amending the bylaw and having an opportunity to provide feedback. This is mitigated by future public consultation.

8. If approved, staff will prepare a statement of proposal and amended bylaw for approval by the Regulatory Committee and Governing Body. Public notification will follow, before a final decision is made by the Governing Body.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) agree that council has completed its statutory review of the Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 in accordance with section 160(1) Local Government Act 2002 and determine that the outcome of the review is that:

i) a bylaw is the most appropriate way to minimise the health risks for people using services that involve contact with the human body.

ii) the Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 is not the most appropriate form of bylaw because it does not properly regulate certain services.

iii) the Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

b) agree that Option two: amend current bylaw framework and separate code is the preferred option to better manage health and hygiene issues that responds to the statutory review findings.

c) request a statement of proposal that amends the Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 as detailed in Attachment A for Option two: amend current bylaw framework and separate code.

Horopaki / Context

The Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 aims to minimise public health risks

9. The Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013, Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakamaru Hauora 2013 (Bylaw) aims to minimise public health risks to people using services that involve contact with the human body (e.g. beauty and health treatments, body modification).

10. The Bylaw aligns with the Auckland Plan, including the strategic direction to “improve the education, health and safety of Aucklanders, with a focus on those most in need.”

11. The Bylaw establishes a regulatory framework (Figure 1) that:

· uses service types to create broad categories to cover new services as they emerge

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

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

· identifies exemptions (e.g. health practitioners)

· enables minimum standards for specific services to be adopted in a separate code of practice (Code). The Code can be amended by the Regulatory Committee to cover new services or changes to existing services as they emerge.

Figure 1: Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 framework

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out the Bylaw statutory review requirements

12. Auckland Council must complete a statutory review of the Bylaw by 27 June 2018.^{^[1]} To complete the statutory review the council must determine whether:^{^[2]}

· 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 and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

13. Following the statutory review, the council can propose the Bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked or replaced using a public consultative process.^{^[3]}

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

14. On 12 April 2018 the committee endorsed the statutory review findings on the Bylaw and approved a report back on options (REG/2018/2). Staff used the findings and committee resolutions to help complete the statutory review and develop options for consideration.

Assessment against Local Government Act 2002 statutory review requirements

A bylaw is the best way to minimise health risks

15. The findings identify that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to minimise health risks for people using services that involve contact with the body. Health risks include transfer of blood-borne diseases, melanoma and bodily injury.

16. A bylaw enables council to proactively minimise health risks for people who use these services, and provides certainty and guidance for businesses about acceptable practices. This supports council’s duty to improve, promote and protect public health under the Health Act 1956.^{^[4]}

The Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 is not in the most appropriate form

17. The findings identify that the Bylaw is not the most appropriate form of bylaw. The Bylaw:

· does not cover existing and new services that pose a public health risk (massage, waterplay parks and splash pads, and services that risk breaking or burning membranes)

· does not appropriately regulate eyeball tattoo considering the very high-risk of permanent damage to eyesight.

The Bylaw does not give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 implications

18. There are potential limitations to freedom of expression. However, these limitations are justified because of the significant health risks the Bylaw seeks to minimise. Therefore, there are no implications under and the Bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Assessment of options in response to the Local Government Act 2002 statutory review

19. Staff identified three options in response to the findings of the statutory review:

· Option one: status quo – no changes to current bylaw framework and separate code

· Option two: amend current bylaw framework and separate code

· Option three: new risk-based bylaw framework and separate code

20. Staff discounted Option four (respond to complaints using Health Act 1956) as it does not respond to the problem addressed by the Bylaw or the objective of minimising health risks.

21. Staff assessed each option against assessment criteria that reflect the core objective of minimising health risks, as well as council’s statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002.^{^[5]}

22. Table 1 provides a summary of the full assessment contained in Attachment A. The “ü” and “x” reflect the impact of the option against each criterion relative to other options. For instance, the more “ü”, the better the option.

Table 1: Summary of assessment of options

	Effectiveness at minimising health risks	Efficiency at minimising health risks
Option one: status quo – no change to current bylaw framework supported by Code	ü	üü
Option two: amend current bylaw framework supported by Code	üü	üü
Option three: new risk-based bylaw framework supported by Code	üü	×

23. Staff recommend Option two: amend the current bylaw framework as it:

· further minimises health risks by covering a broader range of current and new services, including services that risk breaking or burning membranes, water play parks and splash pads, and massage

· improves on the status quo (Option one) which is effective and certain

· is more efficient than Option three because it can be achieved without additional resourcing or implementation costs

· would make the tā moko exemption clearer

· would better recognise traditional Pacific tattoo

· would require operators to display a health licence.

24. Option three: risk-based bylaw framework would also further minimise health risks and cover any unanticipated future services without requiring a bylaw amendment. However, the key trade-offs are:

· risk of incorrectly classifying services because of a lack of reliable data

· operational risks as a risk-based approach is untested for these industries

· additional resourcing, expert advice and implementation costs. The estimated starting cost for initial expert advice is $70,000.

25 Staff consider the risk of future services not being covered under Option two is small and can be mitigated by amending the Bylaw. In addition, both Options two and three would require updates to the Code to ensure there are minimum standards for new services.

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

26. Local board members participated in cluster workshops (October 2017) and support the current Bylaw. Members concerned about unlicensed operators, tattooists and manicure/pedicure services.

27. Bylaw regulation of traditional Pacific tattoo is significant for Southern local board members and their communities. Option two provides better recognition of the cultural significance of traditional Pacific tattoo.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

28. The Bylaw has significance for Māori as providers and users of services. Tā moko has great cultural and spiritual significance and is recognised as a taonga protected under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Staff sought written feedback 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 support the current exemption for tā moko but consider removing the reference to “non-commercial” would better reflect practice. Māori stakeholders consider referencing Te Tiriti o Waitangi would clarify the exemption. The proposed Option two amendments would address these concerns.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

31. The cost of the Bylaw review and implementation will be met within existing baselines.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

32. Reputational risk that service operators will be concerned about amending the bylaw and having an opportunity to provide feedback. This is mitigated by future public consultation.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

33. If the recommendations in this report are approved, staff will prepare a:

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

· report to the Regulatory Committee to recommend the Governing Body adopt the statement of proposal for the purposes of public consultation and to appoint a panel to consider public submissions.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 Review: 2018 Options Report	17

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

10/05/2018

Findings of the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws review

File No.: CP2018/05556

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the findings of the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws review and begin the process to revoke the four legacy on-site wastewater bylaws.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. To complete a statutory review of four legacy on-site wastewater bylaws (the legacy bylaws) in Rodney, North Shore, Waiheke and Papakura, staff have prepared a review findings report.

3. The findings report confirms that while failing on-site wastewater systems are still polluting waterways, the legacy bylaws are not required to address this issue.

4. Staff recommend that the Committee agree to revoke the legacy bylaws as:

· the Auckland Unitary Plan and existing legislation already regulate on-site wastewater systems, and the legacy bylaws provide no additional regulation

· existing legislation has stronger enforcement powers than the legacy bylaws

· enforcement officers and local boards identified that there is no need for the legacy bylaws.

5. There is a reputation risk in revoking the legacy bylaws. The public may think that the council is reducing regulations managing pollution of waterways. This can be mitigated through clear public communication about existing rules and regulations.

6. If approved, staff will prepare a Statement of Proposal for the June 2018 committee meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) endorse the findings report, “Review of On-site Wastewater Bylaws: Findings Report April 2018” (Attachment A)

b) agree to begin the process to revoke the following on-site wastewater legacy bylaws:

i) all clauses of the Auckland City Council Bylaws: Bylaw No. 29 (Waiheke Wastewater Bylaw 2008) (i.e. the whole legacy bylaw)

ii) residual clauses of the North Shore City Bylaw 2000: Part 20 Wastewater

iii) residual clauses of the Rodney District Council General Bylaw 1998: Chapter 20 Wastewater Drainage

iv) residual clauses of the Papakura District Council Wastewater Bylaw 2008.

c) request that a Statement of Proposal to revoke the four legacy council bylaws referred in (b) above be prepared for approval.

Horopaki / Context

The legacy bylaws were intended to be replaced by the Auckland Unitary Plan

7. In October 2015 the Governing Body^{^[6]} confirmed the following legacy bylaws to preserve their requirements until the relevant provisions of the then Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan became operative:

· North Shore City Bylaw 2000	· Rodney District Council 1998
· Waiheke Wastewater 2008	· Papakura District Council Wastewater Bylaw 2008

8. The legacy bylaw provisions were developed by former councils to ensure that septic tanks and domestic wastewater treatment systems are properly installed and maintained to prevent system failure and pollution.

The Local Government Act 2002 requires a statutory review of the legacy bylaws

9. Auckland Council must complete a statutory review of the legacy bylaws by 31 October 2020^{^[7]}. To complete the statutory review, council must determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way^{^[8]} of addressing on-site wastewater problems.

10. To undertake the statutory review of the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws, staff undertook research and engagement within council and prepared a findings report.

11. The findings from this engagement and research are contained in the “Review of On-site Wastewater Bylaws: Findings Report April 2018” (Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

On-site wastewater systems are still polluting waterways

12. The review findings confirm that there is still a problem to be managed. On-site wastewater system failure does contribute to the pollution of the region’s waterways.

13. High levels of Escherichia coli (E. coli) readings across the region’s waterways provide evidence of contamination. It is likely that failure of on-site wastewater systems contributes. DNA testing has shown human faecal waste is a contributing E. coli source which links the contamination to on-site wastewater failure.

14. Water quality monitoring is limited in the region. Many coastal settlement areas with large numbers of on-site wastewater systems, such as Leigh, Whenuapai and Sandspit, are not monitored.

15. The resulting contamination poses significant public health risks and negatively impacts on the ecological health of waterbodies and aquatic life in affected areas.

16. Customer calls^{^[9]} to council regarding neighbours’ malfunctioning on-site wastewater systems (leaks, overflows, smells) also confirm that systems fail.

Auckland Unitary Plan and existing legislation regulate on-site wastewater systems

17.

Several pieces of legislation work in tandem to regulate different aspects of on-site wastewater systems as seen in the diagram below.

18. The Auckland Unitary Plan, Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004, and Health Act 1956 provide provisions to cover all aspects of on-site wastewater regulation including design, installation, operation and maintenance.

19. The legacy bylaws regulate issues that are already addressed by the Auckland Unitary Plan and existing legislation. Staff have identified that there is no regulatory gap.

Existing legislation has more enforcement power than the on-site wastewater bylaws

20. The Auckland Unitary Plan (through the Resource Management Act 1991) and the Building Act 2004 provide stronger enforcement requirements compared to the legacy bylaws. This includes the ability to inspect systems, issue infringements, serve notices to stop and/or remedy, recover costs and prosecute.

21. The legacy bylaws under the Local Government Act 2002 have no power to issue infringement notices, so fines can only be issued on conviction.

22. Engagement with council’s enforcement officers identified there is no need for the legacy bylaws to manage on-site wastewater issues.

The legacy bylaws not appropriate way to address on-site waste water pollution issues

23. A summary of the assessment of retaining or revoking the legacy bylaws against legislative requirements under the Local Government Act 2002 is included in Attachment B.

24. The legacy bylaws are not the most appropriate way to address pollution problems caused by on-site wastewater system failure. They are no longer effective or efficient in their management of these issues.

25. The legacy bylaws are not fit for the future as they duplicate provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan and other legislation.

26. Staff advise that the legacy bylaws no longer fulfil a regulatory purpose in the management of pollution problems caused by on-site wastewater system failure.

27. Staff recommend that the legacy bylaws should be revoked to rely on the more effective and efficient way of controlling standards for on-site wastewater systems through compliance with the Auckland Unitary Plan and other legislation.

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

28. In December 2017 the Local Board Chairs’ Forum discussed the legacy bylaw review. Six local boards requested individual workshops which were held in February and March 2018 with Rodney, Great Barrier, Waitakere, Waiheke, Franklin and Upper Harbour local boards.

29. The key matters raised through the local board engagement were:

· no extra regulatory tools are needed, utilise the existing enforcement powers

· current rules and regulations need to be explained and communicated more simply

· increase environmental monitoring and improve knowledge base

· consider maintenance incentives for owners who cannot afford system upkeep.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

30. The health of Auckland’s river and water systems is significant to Māori as water is seen as the essence of all life. As other regulations help protect water, the legacy bylaw review will not have an impact on Māori above the status quo.

31. Representatives of the mana whenua and mataawaka communities have expressed interest in being engaged during formal public consultation on this issue.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

32. Costs relating to the special consultative procedure will be covered within existing budget. These costs would be incurred whether the bylaws were retained or revoked.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

33. If council revokes the legacy bylaws, there is a risk that the public will view this as a reduction in regulations managing pollution of waterways. This will be mitigated through clear public communication about the existing rules and regulations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

34. If the Committee agrees to revoke the legacy bylaws, staff will prepare a Statement of Proposal for approval at the June 2018 committee meeting.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Review of On-site Wastewater Bylaws: Findings Report April 2018	43
b ⇩	Legislative review assessment of legacy on-site wastewater bylaws	103

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Maclean Grindell - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

10 May 2018

Regulatory Committee

10 May 2018

Review of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

File No.: CP2018/04788

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To determine the outcome of the statutory review and direct any changes to eight issues within the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. To enable the Committee to determine the outcome of the statutory review and direct any changes to eight issues about nuisance in the Bylaw, staff have undertaken an assessment against regulatory criteria.

3. The Bylaw contains 49 issues. Committee decision making on these issues is being undertaken at business meetings from March to June 2018.

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

· revoke public place clauses about noise nuisance, mind-altering substances, intimidating or nuisance begging, graffiti, posters, signs, or advertising devices

· amend public place clauses about wilful obstruction, disturbance or interference, use of any material or thing, fences, and lighting fires.

5. Taking this approach will revoke bylaw clauses for issues better addressed in existing regulations. The remaining amended bylaw clauses will ensure effective and efficient management of the issues now and in the future.

6. The recommendations for all eight issues in this report could create public confusion and reduce compliance and effectiveness of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport public safety and nuisance bylaws. Staff will continue to work with Auckland Transport to mitigate this risk including clear public communications.

7. A statement of proposal will be prepared using the decisions covering all 49 issues for approval by the Committee and the Governing Body. Public consultation and hearings 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) noise nuisance (clause 6(1)(b))

ii) mind-altering substances (clause 6(1)(e))

iii) intimidating or nuisance begging (clause 6(1)(f))

iv) graffiti, posters, signs or advertising devices (clause 6(2)(a)).

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

i) wilful obstruction, disturbance or interference (clause 6(1)(a))

ii) use of any material or thing (clause 6(1)(c))

iii) fences (clause 6(1)(d))

iv) lighting fires (clause 6(2)(b)).

c) determine that the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 does not give rise to any unjustified implications and is not inconsistent with 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

Need to determine Bylaw appropriateness and bill of rights implications

8. Under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002, 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.

9. To complete the statutory review, Council must decide whether the Bylaw^{^[10]}:

· 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.

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

49 Bylaw issues being reported for direction on statutory review and changes to approach

11. On 12 October 2017 the Committee considered the statutory review findings report titled ‘Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Review Findings Report 2017’. As instructed at this meeting staff are reporting on 49 Bylaw issues at committee meetings from March to June 2018 (refer Attachment C). The report for each meeting will seek a decision on the statutory review and the direction for any changes in the approach to issues presented.

12. Previous decisions on six issues were made in March 2018 (REG/2018/15) and nine issues in April 2018 (REG/2018/20).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Staff recommend: revoke five issues, amend three issues, and simplify language

13. This report contains an assessment of the eight bylaw issues about nuisance using criteria contained in the Local Government Act 2002 (refer Table 1). The full assessment of each clause is contained in Attachment A.

14. The review process has identified opportunities to improve the general form of the Bylaw. The assessment in this report relates to drafting clauses to better reflect the issues and simplify the language for easier reading and understanding.

Table 1: Nuisance 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?	Bylaw satisfies Bill of Rights assessment?	Recommended direction for any changes
wilful obstruction, disturbance or interference Clause 6(1)(a)	ü	û	ü	Amend clause
noise nuisance Clause 6(1)(b)	û	û	ü	Revoke clause
use of any material or thing Clause 6(1)(c)	ü	û	ü	Amend clause
fences Clause 6(1)(d)	ü	û	ü	Amend clause
mind-altering substances Clause 6(1)(e)	û	û	ü	Revoke clause
intimidating or nuisance begging Clause 6(1)(f)	û	û	ü	Revoke clause
graffiti, posters, signs or advertising devices Clause 2(a)	û	û	ü	Revoke clause
lighting fires Clause 2(b)	ü	û	ü	Amend clause

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

15. Staff held cluster workshops with local boards in March 2017. Local board members consider that all issues in the Bylaw remain a concern to varying degrees.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

17. Five hui were held with whānau, rangatahi and members from Te Kaha o te Rangatahi Trust,Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o ngā Maungarongo, Kootuitui Whānau, Papakura, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei whanau and Ranui Action Project.

18. Māori expressed the following key views:

· importance of child safety and a child-safe environment

· better protect and enhance the environment

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

19. 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).

20. Māori are more likely to be represented amongst the begging community and Māori stakeholders were amongst those likely to be more sympathetic toward those who beg.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

23. 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 eight issues in this report). This could create uncertainty, reduce compliance and Bylaw effectiveness.

24. 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.

25. Some stakeholders may be concerned that revoking bylaw clauses means that some issues are no longer addressed. Council can mitigate this through clear explanations about decisions and encouraging public questions and feedback.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

26. Staff will seek Committee and Governing Body approval to a statement of proposal, amended bylaw and compliance approach. This will be followed by public consultation, hearings and final decision making by Governing Body.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Key legislation	109
b ⇩	Statutory review and direction for any changes	111
c ⇩	Memo on timing and content of advice to Committee	129

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

10 May 2018

Regulatory Committee Summary of Information Items - 10 May 2018

File No.: CP2018/06723

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update to the committee of all resource consent appeals lodged with the Environment court (Attachment A)

2. To note the progress on the forward work programme (Attachment B)

3. To provide a public record of memos, workshops or briefing papers that have been distributed for the Committee’s information since 12 April 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

4. This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide public visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are required.

5. The workshop papers and any previous documents can be found on the Auckland Council website at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

· at the top of the page, select meeting “Regulatory Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

· under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’

6. The following paper was circulated to members:

· 16 April 2018 – memo re: Annual Review of Regulatory Committee Policy

· 9 April 2018 – update re: the legal challenges facing the Auckland Council Provisional Local Alcohol Policy.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) receive the information report

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Region-wide appeals report and register	133
b ⇩	Regulatory Committee - Forward Work Programme	147
c ⇨	Workshop - Review on Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Annual Review of Regulatory Committee Policy (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Update on legal challenges facing the Auckland Council Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (Under Separate Cover)