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, 14 June 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	Cr Bill Cashmore
Members	Cr Josephine Bartley
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	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

7 June 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

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 10 May 2018, 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

14 June 2018

Trade Waste Bylaw Findings Report - (from Watercare)

File No.: CP2018/08051

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the findings of the Trade Waste 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 Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw), staff prepared a findings report (Appendix A of Watercare’s report) as a first step. Key findings from the review report are:

· trade waste discharges continue to pose a risk to the public wastewater system, people and the environment

· the Bylaw has been efficient and effective in managing risk

· stakeholders consider the Bylaw as the most appropriate way to protect the public wastewater system, people and the environment, however some further improvements could be made

· risks are managed by the classification of trade waste, maximum discharge standards, agreements and management plans

· a number of improvements to the Bylaw were identified.

3. Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings report. There is reputational risk that industry stakeholders may 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 July 2018 meeting.

5. The full Trade Waste Bylaw Findings Report – (from Watercare) is attached to this report as Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) Endorse the findings in the “Auckland Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2013: 2018 Review Findings Report”(Appendix A of Watercare’s report), in particular that:

i. trade waste discharge continue to pose risks that require regulating

ii. the Auckland Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 has been effective in managing 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 Trade Waste Bylaw 2013.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Watercare Trade Waste Bylaw Findings Report	13

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

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

Regulatory Committee

14 June 2018

PDF Creator

Regulatory Committee

14 June 2018

Review of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

File No.: CP2018/09400

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To determine the outcome of the statutory review and direct any changes to 22 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 22 issues in the Bylaw, staff have undertaken an assessment against regulatory criteria.

3. The Bylaw contains 49 issues. Previous Committee decision making on issues has been undertaken at business meetings from March to May 2018. Decision making on these last 22 issues will complete the statutory review.

4. Staff recommend the Committee direct staff to include the following in a statement of proposal:

· revoke clauses about gates in parks, cleaning or leaving fish on a beach, and damage to council property within the road corridor

· amend park and beach clauses about access, recreational beach activities and controls, aircraft, prohibited or restricted activities, vehicles, weapons, traps or instruments of a dangerous nature, animals, and boats.

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

6. The recommendations for 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 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) gates in parks (clause 9(5)(i))

ii) cleaning or leaving fish on a beach (clause 9(5)(p))

iii) damage to council property within the road corridor (clause 7(1)(a)).

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

i) access to parks and beaches (clauses 9(1), (2), (5)(a))

ii) recreational beach activities and controls (clauses 9(3), (4), (7))

iii) aircraft on a park or beach (clause 9(5)(b)(i)(ii))

iv) prohibiting or restricting activities on a park or beach (clauses 9(5)(c), (d), (g), (h))

v) vehicles on parks (clauses 9(5)(e), (f), (j))

vi) weapons, traps, or instruments of a dangerous nature on parks (clause 9(5)(k))

vii) removing, harming, killing, releasing or losing control of any animal on parks (clause 9(5)(l))

viii) vehicles on beaches (clause 9(5)(m))

ix) leaving a boat on a beach (clauses 9(5)(n)(i)(ii), (o)).

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.

f) agree that the determinations in (a) to (d) above, and in resolutions REG/2018/15, REG/2018/20 and REG/2018/38 completes the statutory review of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 in accordance with section 160(1) Local Government Act 2002.

Horopaki / Context

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

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:

· 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. Details of the statutory requirements are contained in Attachment B.

Bylaw issues are being reported on for statutory review and changes to approach in parts

12. The Committee on the 12 October 2017 considered the statutory review findings report titled ’Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Review Findings Report 2017’. As instructed at that meeting staff are reporting on 49 Bylaw issues at committee meetings from March to June 2018. 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.

13. Previous decisions on six issues were made in March 2018 (REG/2018/15), nine issues in April 2018 (REG/2018/20) and eight issues in May 2018 (REG/2018/38).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Staff recommend: revoke three issues, amend 19 issues, and make general improvements

14. Table 1 contains an assessment of the 21 bylaw issues about parks and beaches using criteria contained in the Local Government Act 2002. The full assessment of each clause is contained in Attachment A.

Table 1: Issues on parks and beaches - 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
prohibit or restrict access to parks and beaches Clauses 9(1), (2), (5)(a)	ü	û	ü	Amend
recreational beach activities and controls Clauses 9(3), (4), (7)	ü	û	ü	Amend
aircraft on a park or beach Clauses 9(5)(b)(i)(ii)	ü	û	ü	Amend
prohibit or restrict certain activities on a park or beach Clauses 9(5)(c), (d), (g), (h)	ü	û	ü	Amend
vehicles on parks Clauses 9(5)(e), (f), (j)	ü	û	ü	Amend
gates in parks Clause 9(5)(i)	û	û	ü	Revoke
weapons, traps, or instruments of a dangerous nature on parks Clause 9(5)(k)	ü	û	ü	Amend
removing, harming, killing, releasing or losing control of any animal on parks Clause 9(5)(l)	ü	û	ü	Amend
vehicles on beaches Clause 9(5)(m)	ü	û	ü	Amend
leaving a boat on a beach Clauses 9(5)(n)(i)(ii), (o)	ü	û	ü	Amend
cleaning fish or leaving fish offal on a beach Clause 9(5)(p)	û	û	ü	Revoke
Damaging, removing, interfering with council property* Clause 7(1)(a), 7(3)	û	û	ü	Revoke*

*Staff recommend damage in road corridor be addressed using existing legislation

15. Staff recommend that an Auckland Council bylaw is not the most appropriate way to address damage to council property within the road corridor. Council can instead rely on section 232 Local Government Act 2002, refer Attachment C.

16. Taking this approach will streamline council regulations with no change to the customer experience. Damage will continue to be repaired, complaints will continue to be investigated, and penalties will apply where appropriate.

17. The above recommendation is in response to the committee’s decision on 12 April 2018. The decision excluded the revocation of the bylaw clause about damage within the road corridor pending this report to clarify the role of Auckland Transport (REG/2018/20).

Staff recommend general improvements to the bylaw form

18. The review process has identified opportunities to improve the general form of the Bylaw.

19. Staff have identified a general need for the Bylaw as a whole to better reflect the issues, to simplify the language for easier reading and understanding, and to use controls for greater flexibility and responsiveness.

20. Staff also recommend that amendments be made to the application of the Bylaw. The Bylaw would be amended to only address issues not covered in other bylaws and allow exemptions by people in control of a public place. For additional information refer Attachment D.

21. Taking this approach will avoid duplication and potential for inconsistency with other bylaws with no change to the customer experience. Complaints will continue to be investigated, and penalties applied where able and appropriate.

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

22. 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

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

24. 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 whanau and Ranui Action Project.

25. Māori expressed the following key views:

· importance of child safety and a child-safe environment

· need to protect and enhance the environment

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

26. 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).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

28. Auckland Transport has a similar public safety and nuisance bylaw for eight issues in this report that occur on the Auckland transport system. Auckland Transport has not yet started its bylaw review.

29. There is a risk of public confusion if different approaches are adopted to address similar issues that fall under either authority’s jurisdiction. This could create uncertainty, reduce compliance and Bylaw effectiveness.

30. 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.

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Statutory review and direction for any changes	105
b ⇩	Key legislation	133
c ⇩	Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw and the Road Corridor	135
d ⇩	Application (scope) of Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw	139

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

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

14 June 2018

Findings of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 Review

File No.: CP2018/09157

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the findings of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 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 Policy on Dogs 2012 (the Policy) and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (the Bylaw), staff prepared a findings report (Attachment A) as a first step. Key findings from the report are:

· the Dog Control Act 1996 sets out provisions for the care and control of dogs. These are enforced through the Policy and Bylaw.

· there is a continuing need to ensure the problems cause by dogs are minimised

· regional inconsistency has it made it difficult to understand and enforce dog management

· a comprehensive communication approach could benefit the public in understanding dog management, including dog access rules.

3. There is a risk that the public will perceive that local dog access rules are also being reviewed. Clearly communicating what is in and not in scope of the review will mitigate this risk.

4. To respond to the Policy and Bylaw review findings and to complete the requirements of the statutory review, staff will report back by August 2018 with:

· an options report further detailing amendments to the Policy and Bylaw

· a separate options report on dog access rules in regional parks.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) endorse the findings the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012: 2018 Findings Report (Attachment A), in particular that:

i) regulation is required the minimise the problems caused by dogs to ensure that dogs remain a positive part of life in Auckland

ii) the current Policy and Bylaw are effective in managing dogs, however these could be improved.

b) agree that staff report back on options report responding to the findings in (a), towards completing the statutory review of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012.

c) agree that staff report back on options for dog access rules in regional parks.

Horopaki / Context

5. Council staff were directed by the Regulatory Committee in March 2017 to commence an overall review of the effectiveness of the Policy and Bylaw (REG/2017/16). This includes:

· a review of dog access rules at regional beaches, foreshores and parks, and prioritising the remaining four local boards who have not reviewed local access rules

· an analysis of emerging issues such as the complexity of dog access rules across the region.

6. The Dog Control Act 1999 (the Act) ensures the care and control of dogs. Under the Act, Auckland Council is required to have a policy on dogs.

7. The Act also enables the council to have a Bylaw to implement aspects of the Policy.

8. The Act lists several provisions that must be covered in a policy and may be included in a bylaw.

9. The purpose of Auckland Council’s Policy on Dogs 2012, Kaupapa mo nga Kuri 2012 (the Policy) is to:

· maintain opportunities for dog owners to take their dogs into public places

· adopt measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs.

10. The Dog Management Bylaw 2012, Ture ā-Rohe Tiaki Kuri 2012 (the Bylaw) gives effect to the Policy. See Figure 1 for the relationship between dog management regulations.

Figure 1: Relationship between dog management regulations

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

11. Under the Local Government Act 2002, a new bylaw must be reviewed within five years. The review of the Policy and Bylaw are outside of this timeline; therefore, a new Bylaw will need to be adopted at the end of this review process.

12. This new Bylaw and Policy will need to be adopted and in force by November 2019, to avoid any regulatory gap.

13. To complete the statutory review, the council must determine:

· if the Policy form is the most appropriate approach to achieve its intent

· if the current Policy is meeting the legislative requirements

· if the Bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues related to dog management

· if the Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw^{^[1]}

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

14. Following the statutory review, council can propose the:

· Bylaw be replaced in either its current form or with amendments or be revoked

· Policy remain in its current form or be amended.

15. A statement of proposal and special consultative procedure would follow the decision made by council.^{^[2]}

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

17. The findings report is provided in full in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

18. The findings report identifies the following key findings:

Global Findings

19. Dog management in Auckland is still required as shown by the following statistics:

· in 2016/2017 there were 96,699 registered dogs in Auckland

· in 2016/2017 Animal Management officers responded to 37,699 complaints about dogs. The top three complaints include: roaming dogs, barking and unregistered dogs

· in 2017, ACC reported 4,438 dog-related injuries in Auckland, amounting to $1,147,527 in paid claims

· approximately, 66 per cent of dog-related injuries are not reported.

20. The Policy and Bylaw meet their intent to actively manage issues with dogs but could be improved.

21. Stakeholders generally support improved regional consistency of the Policy and Bylaw rules.

22. The role of education is important to stakeholders and the public regarding how to stay safe around dogs and how to keep your dog obedient in public.

1. Responsible dog ownership

23. Being a responsible dog owner is a theme that overlaps with various parts of dog management.

24. There are aspects of responsible dog ownership that could be improved within the Policy and Bylaw, these include:

· referring to the Code of Welfare (Dogs) under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to strengthen and promote the welfare of dogs

· improving the ability to ensure uncontrolled dogs are neutered

· restricting the number of dogs per dog walker

· standardising the process for obtaining a Multiple Dog Ownership Licence across the region.

Dangerous and menacing dogs

25. The classification of dangerous and menacing dogs are defined by the Dog Control Act 1999.

26. Council has limited ability to change or amend the definitions, however there are aspects of dog and owner classification that could be considered for improving safety:

· requiring owners of dangerous dogs to undertake a dog obedience course

· incentivise probationary and disqualified owners to undertake dog obedience courses by offering a reduction in the restriction periods for these classifications and/or the availability of the Responsible Dog Ownership Licence.

Dog access principles

27. Dogs should continue to be integrated into public places, however there is an opportunity to clarify dog access rules and establish a unified approach across the region. This could be achieved by considering:

· a regionally consistent:

o time and season rule for parks, beaches, and foreshores

o default rule (under control on leash in all other public places)

o approach when developing designated dog exercise areas.

· an extension of the temporary provisions in the Policy and Bylaw to include the environmental protection of flora.

Regional Parks

28. Regional parks are currently operating under legacy bylaw dog access rules and require revision through this review.

29. The key finding of the review relating to regional parks was the opportunity to improve dog management by aligning rules across all regional parks. These could be also aligned with the local dog access rules that require greater regional consistency.

30. The specific rules in each regional park are currently being reviewed in more detail and will be reported at the August 2018 meeting.

Communications

31. Current dog access rules are complex, and the wide variations of signs make these difficult to understand and enforce.

32. The information that is contained on the council’s website is not always consistent with the signage on location or the actual rules contained in the Bylaw.

33. There is an opportunity to leverage council tools more effectively to ensure access rules are clear and linked to dog management information.

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

34. Cluster workshops were held with local board members in November 2017. Informal feedback from these workshops is summarised in Attachment B. Views of the local boards on three aspects of the review: responsible dog ownership, the classification of dogs and their owners and dog access principles have been incorporated into the findings report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

35. The public perception survey undertaken to inform a part of this review provided separate insights from participants that identified as Māori. These insights are reflected in the findings report and are significantly different from the general sample.

36. Consultation with members of the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum identified the following concerns:

· the cost of registration is a deterrent for some Māori and the known benefits are minimal to the owner. An amnesty on fees for a limited time may help increase registration.

· regional park dog access is inconsistent across the region, which can be confusing for visitors.

· a wide range of communication channels should be used for communities to have an understanding and awareness of dog registration, responsible dog ownership and dog access rules.

· enforcement of dangerous and menacing dogs should focus on dog welfare and educating communities on the relevant regulations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

37. The Policy and Bylaw review and response is funded within current baselines.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

38. There is a risk that the public will expect local dog access rules to be reviewed as part of this work. This will be mitigated by clearly communicating that council is undertaking a regional review of the Policy and Bylaw.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

39. To respond to the Policy and Bylaw review findings and to complete the requirements of the statutory review staff will prepare a report back for August 2018 meeting:

· an options report to amend the existing Policy and Bylaw

· an separate options report on the review of dog access rules in regional parks.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012: 2018 findings report.	151
b ⇩	Summary of Local Board cluster workshops	249

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

14 June 2018

Regulatory Committee

14 June 2018

Attachment B: Summary of Local Board Cluster Workshops, November 2017

Area of Review	What’s working well	Areas for improvement
Responsible dog ownership	· Online registration · Education programs are effective and have a positive impact · Responsible dog owners pick up after their dogs, keep their dogs under control · Responsible dog ownership program is good · Multiple dog ownership works well and has had a positive impact	· Registration is too expensive · Need amnesty programs · More education about how to behave around dogs for children and others · Education about the cost of dogs, feeding, care, how to be a responsible owner · Compulsory training for all dog owners · Make dog education as part of the registration process · Need more facilities to make it easier for owners to pick up after their dog (bins, bags) · Better control for wandering dogs · Consideration for dogs under control in rural verses urban dogs · Controlling dogs in off-leash areas · Promote the Responsible Dog Ownership Program, need awards · Difficult to find information about program and dog access rules, dog parks · Lack of enforcement of bylaw and policy · Need better and mandatory enforcement · Should be one rule for multiple dog ownership
Classification of dogs and their owners	· Education programs in schools work well · Neuter requirement is good · Use social media (e.g. Facebook) to identify uncontrolled dogs on the coast	· improve owner responsibility and education. For example, education around, breeds, breeding, natural instincts of dogs and control of dogs · dangerous dogs need exercise, need more off leash designated dog exercise areas · designated dog exercise areas should be fenced to ensure dangerous dogs do not escape · greater enforcement, honorary dog rangers could assist with education and enforcement tips · wandering and roaming dogs are a problem to stock (chickens, sheep)
Dog access principles	· Use of social media (Facebook, online community boards) for complaints by dog owners and to communicate dog access rules · Lots of progress on off leash areas, lots of parks · Off leash areas and designated dog exercise areas are good	· Consistency around time and season, should be the same across Auckland · time and season should consider wildlife and should be suitable to location · more designated dog exercise areas – currently not balanced throughout the region · designated off leash areas should be fenced · need consistency on what under control means · dog signage should be clear, accurate, · maps for dog walking could be integrated with other signage (cycling, walking) · dog access around the coast is a problem, interaction with wildlife, polluted waterways · sometimes environmental protection seems extreme · designated swimming areas in the water · dog access rules need to be simple · balance the needs of dog owners and other users

Regulatory Committee

14 June 2018

Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 7 (Additions to Heritage Schedule) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2018/07489

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan Change 7 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Plan Change 7 proposes the addition of 49 historic heritage places to Schedule 14 of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). It was notified on 16 November 2017 and has since received 357 submissions and 119 further submissions. These submissions include a mixture of support and opposition to the plan change and are generally specific to a place or area proposed for inclusion.

3. Council needs to appoint Hearing Commissioners to continue the plan change process. Because the plan change is focused on heritage and planning matters and is of high public interest, the appointment of commissioners with expertise in heritage and planning are recommended, as well as a Local Board member or Councillor.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint up to three Independent Commissioners, with expertise in planning and heritage matters, to hear submissions on Plan Change 7 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

b) appoint one Local Board member or a Councillor to be part of the Hearing Panel to hear submissions on Plan Change 7 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

c) delegate to the Hearing Panel appointed in a) and b), the authority to make decisions on the Plan Change;

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

Horopaki / Context

4. The purpose of Plan Change 7 is to add 49 historic heritage places (46 individual historic heritage places and three historic heritage areas) to Schedule 14 of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

5. Plan Change 7 was publicly notified on 16 November 2017 with the closing date for submissions being 9 February 2018. The plan change received 357 submissions and 119 further submissions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

6. Council has received 357 submissions to Plan Change 7. The issues raised in the remaining submissions include:

i) support for the plan change, both overall and for specific historic heritage places to be included in Schedule 14.1

ii) opposition to the plan change, requesting specific historic heritage places be removed from Schedule 14.1

iii) the impact the scheduling of historic heritage places may have on the value of a property, and on the ability to develop it in the future.

7. One hundred and nineteen further submissions were also received, which variously supported or opposed the main submission points.

8. The submissions and further submissions raise a mixture of planning and heritage issues. It is recommended that the panel hearing Plan Change 7 consist of three commissioners with combined expertise in these areas. Noting that the protection of heritage 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

9. The places that are proposed to be added to the Heritage Schedule through Plan Change 7 sit within multiple Local Board areas within the region. These local boards include: Waitematā, Franklin, Upper Harbour, Ōrakei, Papakura, Albert-Eden, Whau, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki.

10. Prior to notification, local boards were advised of Plan Change 7 and invited to provide their views. Three local boards submitted feedback on the plan change: Waitematā, Ōrākei, and Franklin Local Boards. The Waitematā and Ōrakei boards support specific parts of the plan change. The Franklin Local Board generally supports the recognition of historic heritage values but requests careful consideration of the financial implications of the plan change for Waiuku.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

11. The 49 historic heritage places included in Plan Change 7 have been identified primarily for their built heritage values. None of them have been identified as being a Place of Māori Interest or Significance in Schedule 14.1.

12. In July 2017, council staff contacted iwi authorities associated with Auckland to advise them about Plan Change 7 and ask whether they wished to receive a copy of the draft plan change prior to notification. Included in this letter was a request to consider whether it was appropriate to appoint a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori. Four iwi authorities responded and requested a copy of the draft plan change which was provided to them. These iwi authorities were:

· Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust

· Waiohua – Te Ahiwaru – Makaurau

· Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority & Settlement Trust

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

13. All iwi authorities were sent a copy of the plan change when it was notified. No submissions from iwi authorities were received. No request was received to appoint a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

14. The cost of Independent Hearing Commissioners can be managed within the existing Democracy Services Department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

15. Hearing Commissioners are appointed from the pool of Independent Commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience. A small number of elected 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

16. The key next steps involve:

· contacting the appointed Hearing Commissioners to check their availability

· notifying submitters of the hearing dates and venue

· providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report

· Hearing Commissioners conduct the hearing

· Council decision released.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Tanya Sorrell - Team Leader Built & Cultural Heritage Policy

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

14 June 2018

Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 10 (errors, anomalies and information update) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2018/08454

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan Change 10 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Plan Change 10 proposes to amend 146 historic historic heritage places that are scheduled in Schedule 14 of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). It was notified on 25 January 2018 and has since received 19 submissions and 5 further submissions. These submissions include a mixture of support and opposition to the plan change and are generally specific to a place or area proposed for inclusion.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint up to three Independent Commissioners, with expertise in planning and heritage matters, to hear submissions on Plan Change 10 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part);

b) appoint one Local Board member or a Councillor to be part of the Hearing Panel to hear submissions on Plan Change 10 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

c) delegate to the Hearing Panel appointed in a) and b), the authority to make decisions on the Plan Change; and

d) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments to the Hearing Panel (as contained in clause a) and b) above) in the event that a member of the hearing panel is unavailable.

Horopaki / Context

4. The purpose of Plan Change 10 is to amend 146 historic heritage places in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) Historic Heritage Overlay, as identified in Schedule 14.1, Schedule 14.2 and the GIS viewer/planning maps. The amendments will correct errors and update place information.

5. Plan Change 10 was publicly notified on 25 January 2018. Submissions to the plan change closed on 8 March 2018, and further submissions closed on 4 May 2018. Plan Change 10 received 19 submissions and 5 further submissions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

6. Council has received 19 submissions to Plan Change 10. The issues raised in the remaining submissions include:

i) support for the plan change

ii) request further amendments to the identification and therefore the protection of an historic heritage place, including changes to the extent of place

iii) remove a place from the schedule.

7. Five further submissions were also received, which variously supported or opposed the main submission points.

8. The submissions raise a mixture of planning and heritage issues. It is recommended that the panel hearing Plan Change 10 consist of three commissioners with combined expertise in these areas. Noting that the protection of heritage 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

9. The scheduled places that are proposed to be amended through Plan Change 10 sit within multiple Local Board areas within the region. These local boards include: Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Ōrakei, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau.

10. Prior to notification, the relevant local boards were advised of Plan Change 10 and invited to provide their views. No feedback was received.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

11. All historic heritage places included in Plan Change 10 have been identified primarily for their built heritage values. None of them have been identified as being a Place of Māori Interest or Significance in Schedule 14.1.

12. In July 2017, council staff contacted iwi authorities associated with Auckland to advise them about Plan Change 10 and ask whether they wished to receive a copy of the draft plan change prior to notification. Included in this letter was a request to consider whether it was appropriate to appoint a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori. Four iwi authorities responded and requested a copy of the draft plan change, which was provided.

These iwi authorities included:

· Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust

· Waiohua – Te Ahiwaru – Makaurau

· Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority & Settlement Trust

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

14. The cost of Independent Hearing Commissioners can be managed within the existing Democracy Services Department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

15. Hearing Commissioners are appointed from the pool of Independent Commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience. A small number of Elected 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

16. 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

Authors

Tanya Sorrell - Team Leader Built & Cultural Heritage Policy

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

14 June 2018

REGULATORY COMMITTEE FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2017 This committee is responsible for regulatory hearings, appointing independent commissioners and for the development of regulatory policy and bylaws.
#	Area of work	Reason for work	Regulatory Committee role (decision or direction)	Budget/ Funding	Expected timeframes Highlight financial year quarter and state month if known
					FY18	FY19
					12 April 10 May 14 June	12 July 9 Aug 13 Sept		4 Oct 8 Nov	Feb Mar

	Alcohol Licensing	Report on the revenue received and the costs incurred for the alcohol licensing process – required by regulation 19 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013.	Note that the majority of alcohol licensing costs were recovered from the existing default licensing fees regime for the twelve months to July 2017. Confirm continuance of the default licensing fees regime. Review the default licensing fees regime after a suitable period of time has elapsed following the implementation of the Local Alcohol Policy.	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1		Q2	Q3
	Animal Management	Report on Animal Management activities for the year ending June 2018 as required by s10a of the Dog Control Act 1996	Note that the Animal Management Annual Report is required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 and staff will provide the 2017/18 report to the Secretary of Local Government	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1		Q2 (Nov)	Q3
	Earthquake Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011-2016 Review	2011 - Auckland Council was required under s131 of the Building Act 2004 to adopt a policy on earthquake prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings						Q2 (Nov)
	Freedom camping	Explore the need for and options for regulating freedom camping in Auckland	· Receive options report following the completion of the research and pilot. (July 2017) · If a regulatory response is required then the committee will: o Recommend statement of proposal to Governing Body. o Establish the hearings panel for deliberations on submissions. o Recommend final draft of bylaw to governing body for adoption. Progress to date: An overview programme was presented on 10/08/2017 Item 9 REG/2017/72 resolution REG/2017/72 SCP process	Review is within current baselines. Funding proposals will be required for any recommendations that require capital or operational upgrades.	Q4	Q1 (Aug)		Q2	Q3
	Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw review	Legislative requirement to review bylaw within 5 years. Committee resolution to “commence the review of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 at an early date”.	· Receive report following the completion of the bylaw review. (Dec ’17 – Feb ‘18) · Recommend statement of proposal to Governing Body. (Q2 or Q3 – FY18) ^# · Establish the hearings panel for deliberations on submissions. (Q2 or Q3 – FY18) · Recommend final draft of bylaw to governing body for adoption. (Q4 – FY18) · Report was considered on 12 Oct. the item was deferred REG2017/94 · Workshop held on 8 February 2018 time to consider each of the issues covered in the bylaw in more detail · A report on the outcome of statutory review and the direction of any changes to six issues was considered on 8 March 2018 REG/2018/15 Progress to date: A report on the review and direct any changes to eight issues within the bylaw was considered on 10 May 2018 REG/2018/36 A report on the outcome of statutory review and the direction of any changes to nine issues was considered on 12 April 2018 REG/2018/20 ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Length of time required to draft the statement of proposal will depend on the scope of amendments requested following the review findings	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1 (Mar18)	Q2		Q3 (Mar18)
	Dog management Bylaw and Policy on Dogs.	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	· Receive report following the completion of the bylaw review. (November 2017) · Recommend statement of proposal to Governing Body. ^# · Establish the hearings panel for deliberations on submissions. · Recommend final draft of bylaw to governing body for adoption. Progress to date: Workshop held April 2018 – to seek informal guidance on a few potentially contentious issues related to dog management ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.		Q4	Q1		Q2 (tbc)	Q3
	Health and Hygiene Bylaw	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	Workshop on potential option in Feb or Mar 18 tbc) Progress to date: May 2018 - Options Report item 9 and resolution REG/2018/36 findings of the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 statutory review report to April 2018 REG/2018/21
	Solid Waste Bylaw review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	· Decision on timing and scope of the review. (December 2017) · Reporting on findings and any potential amendments will not be until 2018.		Q4	Q1		Q2	Q3
	Legacy on-site wastewater bylaw review	To complete a review of four legacy on-site wastewater bylaws(legacy bylaws) in Rodney, North Shore, Waiheke and Papakura	May 2018 - report on the Findings of the Legacy on-site wastewater bylaw review and resolution REG/2018/37		Q4 (TBC)
	Boarding Houses Inspection	Update on the Auckland proactive boarding houses inspections programme. Increase inspections from one to a minimum of three per year.	· For information An update on the initiative was provided at the 15 June meeting item 12 resolution REG/2017/51 item 12 update on boarding house inspections item 11 Next two proactive inspections will be conducted with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employments in August and October 2017 November agenda report was deferred to the February meeting. Progress to date: An update on the proactive boarding houses inspections programme at the February 2018 meeting item 11 resolution REG/2018/5		Q4	Q1		Q2 (Nov)	Q3 (Feb)
	Resource Consents Appeal Update	To provide oversight of the appeals received to resource consent decisions.	Information purposes Monthly updates - Memo	N/A	Q4	Q1		Q2	Q3
	The Regulatory Committee Policy	Reporting on and monitoring of commissioner appointments	Information purposes Memo monthly		Q4	Q1		Q2	Q3
	The Regulatory Committee Policy	Annual review of commissioner pool	Decision: review RMA commissioner pool Memo Quarterly		Q4	Q1 (Aug)
	The Regulatory Services Directorate	Report on: · progress implementing the Food Act 2014 · insights into the performance, opportunities and risk of the Resources Consents Dept · progress implementing the Regulatory Compliance programme · update of Building control activity	For information only: 6 monthly update			Q1 (Aug)