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, 12 July 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 Sharon Stewart, QSM
	IMSB Chair David Taipari
	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox

Ex-officio	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

(Quorum 5 members)

Maea Petherick

Senior Governance Advisor

6 July 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 an apology from Cr E Collins 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, 14 June 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.”

Regulatory Committee

12 July 2018

Submission of the Trade Waste Bylaw Options - July 2018

File No.: CP2018/11173

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek a determination on the outcome of the statutory review of the Auckland Council Trade Waste 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 Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw) and decide its future; staff have completed an options report.

3. On 14 June 2018 the committee endorsed the statutory review findings on the Bylaw (REG/2018/42) and approved a report back on options.

4. Staff, recommend that the Regulatory Committee determine that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage trade waste issues.

5. Staff, also recommend that the council agree to Option two: amend current bylaw framework to better manage trade waste issues. This will further minimise trade waste risks to the health and safety of people, the environment, and the wastewater system by:

· ensuring that all trade waste dischargers are covered

· ensuring all risks are appropriately identified and controlled

· removing areas of unnecessary regulation

o ability for low risk conditional trade waste customers to be reclassified

o strengthening areas of identified weakness

· provisions to better control fats, oils and grease

o extension of the prohibited substances schedule

· providing clarification

o removal of all matters relating to transitional consents

o ensuring all activities fit into either deemed, conditional or prohibited trade waste categories.

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

7. There may be a reputational risk that trade waste dischargers will be concerned about amending the bylaw, and not have 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 Trade Waste 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 risks to the health and safety of people, the environment, and the wastewater system.

ii) the Auckland Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 is not the most appropriate form of bylaw because it does not properly regulate certain trade waste discharges.

iii) the Auckland Council Trade Waste 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 2: amend current bylaw framework is the preferred option to better manage trade waste issues that responds to the statutory review findings.

c) request a statement of proposal that amends the Auckland Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 as detailed in Attachment A of the agenda report for Option 2: amend current bylaw framework

Horopaki / Context

9. The Auckland Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2013, Te Ture ā-Rohe Waipuru a Mahi 2013 (Bylaw) aims to minimise the health and safety of people, the environment, and the wastewater system from trade waste discharges (e.g. metal finishers, industrial liquid waste processors, food manufacturers).

10. The Bylaw aligns with the Auckland Plan, including the strategic direction to ensure

· Auckland’s infrastructure is future proofed

· the health and safety of Aucklanders

· the creation of conditions for a resilient economy through innovation, employment growth and raised productivity.

11. The Bylaw seeks to minimise risk to people, the wastewater treatment system and the environment from trade waste discharges by establishing a regulatory framework (Figure 1) that:

· classifies trade waste into three risk categories: deemed (low risk), conditional (high risk) and prohibited (extreme risk)

· identifies what type of trade waste discharges require an agreement to discharge to the public wastewater system

· identifies maximum discharge limits for pollutants present in trade waste discharges

· provides for agreement holders to develop and implement trade waste management plans to manage trade waste discharges.

Figure 1: Trade Waste 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 22 August 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 14 June 2018 the committee endorsed the statutory review findings on the Bylaw and approved a report back on options (REG/2018/42). 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 risks associated with trade waste discharges

15. The findings identify that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to minimise risks to people, the wastewater treatment system and the environment from trade waste discharges. Risks include harm to people and property associated with the discharge of toxic, flammable or explosive substances.

16. A bylaw enables council (through Watercare) to proactively minimise the risks posed by trade waste discharges, and provides certainty and guidance for trade waste dischargers about acceptable practices. This supports council’s duty to improve, promote and protect public health under the Health Act 1956.^{^[4]}

The Bylaw is not in the most appropriate form

17. The findings identify that while the form of the Bylaw is well accepted it is not the most appropriate form of bylaw as a number of improvements could be made. The Bylaw:

· does not adequately control all trade waste discharges ( discharges of fats, oils and grease, ground water discharges)

· does not adequately cover new substances banned under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

· does not provide comprehensive guidance on maximum discharge limits for a large number of substances.

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

18. There are no implications 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 five options in response to the findings of the statutory review:

· Option 1: Status quo – no changes to current bylaw framework utilising agreements

· Option 2: Amend current bylaw framework utilising agreements

· Option 3: New bylaw framework utilising consents.

20. Staff discounted Option 4 (new bylaw framework utilising consents and fees) due to the increased cost of implementation and the significant change required to an established and certain approach to setting water and wastewater charges.

21. Staff also discounted Option 5 (revoke the Bylaw and rely on existing legislative provisions and negotiated agreements) as it does not respond to the problem addressed by the Bylaw or the objective of minimising risks.

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

23. 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 1: Status quo – no change to current bylaw framework utilising agreements	ü	ü
Option 2: Amend current bylaw framework utilising agreements	üü	üü
Option 3: New risk-based bylaw framework utilising consents	ü	ü

24. Staff recommend Option two: Amend the current bylaw framework as it:

· further minimises risks by strengthening weaknesses in the current Bylaw such as improved control on discharges of fats, oils and grease

· improves on the status quo (Option 1) which is effective and certain

· is more efficient than Option 3 because it can be achieved without additional resourcing or implementation costs

· provides improved guidance through the extension of schedules for deemed and conditional activities

· removes unnecessary regulation by providing for conditional trade waste discharges to be classified as deemed following a risk assessment.

25. Option 3: New bylaw framework utilising consents would also further minimise risks. However, the key trade-offs are:

· a breach of contract enforcement option would not be available and a higher burden of proof (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to balance of probabilities) would be required

· reconfiguration of management systems, documentation and collateral would be required

· costs would be incurred to change management systems and collateral

· changes are likely to create uncertainty and concern with trade waste dischargers.

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

26. Local board members participated in interactive sessions in November and December 2017 and were supportive of the Bylaw. Members expressed concern about overflows from low risk businesses that discharge fats, oils and grease. Recommended improvements will facilitate better control of dischargers of fats, oils and grease.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

27. The Bylaw has significance for Māori, in particular the risks that trade waste discharges pose on people and the environment. In addition to concerns related to fats, oils and grease Maori stakeholders also expressed concern about the storage of hazardous wastes on industrial sites and discharges from car wreckers and boat hard stands. Existing controls within the Bylaw provide adequate protection for discharges from these sources to the wastewater system while discharges to the environment are beyond the remit of the Bylaw.

28. On the 12 October 2017, the review of the Trade Waste Bylaw was presented to the Kaitiaki Managers Group. Following this meeting a Kaitiaki Reference Group was formed, and a meeting was held with the reference group on 22 November 2017. The findings of the reference group was reported back to the Kaitiaki Managers Group on 7 December 2017.

29. The Kaitiaki Managers Group are supportive of the current Bylaw approach to ensure that trade waste discharges are adequately controlled.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

30. The cost of the Bylaw review will be met primarily by Watercare Services Ltd

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

31. There is reputational risk that trade waste dischargers become concerned about amending the bylaw and having opportunity to provide feedback. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

· Statement of proposal which will include an amended bylaw

· 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 ⇩	Auckland Council Trade Waste Bylaw Review: 2018 Options Report	17
b ⇩	Auckland Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2013	43
c ⇩	Kaitiaki Managers and Reference Groups	67

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Peter Rogers – Watercare Services Ltd

Merle Smuts – Watercare Services Ltd

Lindsay Wilson – Watercare Services Ltd

Authorisers

Shane Morgan – Watercare Services Ltd

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 July 2018

Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 Statement of Proposal

File No.: CP2018/11278

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To recommend the Governing Body adopt the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw) statement of proposal for public consultation and make a decision to appoint a panel to deliberate and make recommendations on feedback received.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. To enable the Regulatory Committee to implement its decision to amend the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 (REG/2018/36), staff have prepared a statement of proposal.

3. The statement of proposal aims to better minimise health risks to people using services that contact the body by improving the existing Bylaw. Services include beauty and health treatments, tattoo, body piercing and swimming pools.

4. The proposed Bylaw implements the following changes:

· requiring services that pierce, or risk breaking or burning tissue (not just the skin) to be licensed

· requiring therapeutic massage, water play parks and splash pads to meet minimum standards

· banning eyeball tattooing unless carried out by a qualified health practitioner

· introducing rules that services must display a licence

· clarifying rules about traditional tattooing (tā moko and traditional Pacific tattoo).

5. Staff recommend the committee make the necessary determinations so the Governing Body can adopt the statement of proposal for public consultation and to appoint a panel.

6. Taking this approach will commence the process to amend the Bylaw.

7. If the committee approves the recommendations, there may be concerns about the proposed amendments to the Bylaw. This risk will be mitigated by the opportunity to give feedback during public consultation.

8. If the committee and Governing Body approve the recommendations, public consultation on the statement of proposal will follow. Public consultation is currently scheduled from 26 August to 1 October 2018.

9. The proposed panel will consider any feedback, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body, who will make the final decision on any amendments to the Bylaw.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) note that this committee completed the statutory review of the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 and:

i) determined a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to protect the public from health risks posed by services that contact the body

ii) determined the current Bylaw is not the most appropriate form of bylaw because it does not properly regulate certain services

iii) gave directions to prepare amendments to the current Bylaw.

b) recommend the Governing Body adopt the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report for public consultation and confirm that the amended Bylaw contained within this attachment:

i) is the most appropriate form of bylaw

ii) does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

c) recommend the Governing Body forward the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report to local boards and advisory panels for their views.

d) appoint the chair and two panel members selected from councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events, to deliberate and make recommendations to a meeting of the Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report.

e) delegate authority to the Regulatory Committee chairperson to make replacement appointments to the panel if a member of the panel is unavailable.

f) delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to appoint staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events.

g) delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to make any amendments to the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.

Horopaki / Context

10. The Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013, Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakamaru Hauora 2013 (Bylaw) aims to minimise health risks to people using services that contact the body. Services include beauty and health treatments, tattoo, body piercing and swimming pools.

Regulatory Committee agreed to amend the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013

11. The Regulatory Committee requested staff commence the process to amend the Bylaw in May 2018 (REG/2018/36).

12. The process leading up to this decision is summarised below.

12 April 2018

(REG/2018/21)

Regulatory Committee endorses the review findings (Attachment B) that:

· services that contact the body still pose risks to public health

· the Bylaw has been effective in managing these risks, but it could be improved.

10 May 2018

(REG/2018/36)

Regulatory Committee completes the statutory review of the Bylaw and determines (Attachment C):

· a bylaw is the most appropriate way to minimise public health risks

· the Bylaw is not the most appropriate form of bylaw as it does not properly regulate certain services

· the Bylaw complies with the New Zealand Bill Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights).

10 May 2018

(REG/2018/36)

Regulatory Committee instructs staff to draft an amended Bylaw (Option two) after considering the following main options (Attachment C):

· Option one: status quo – no change to current bylaw

· Option two: amend current bylaw

· Option three: new risk-based bylaw framework.

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out the process to amend the Bylaw

13. Council must use the special consultative procedure to amend the Bylaw as the amendments could significantly impact the public, particularly service operators.

14. This requires Council to:^{^[6]}

· determine that the proposed Bylaw meets form and Bill of Rights criteria

· adopt a statement of proposal, including the proposed Bylaw, for public feedback

· decide on any amendments to the Bylaw after having considered public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Staff have prepared a statement of proposal in line with statutory requirements

15. Staff have drafted a statement of proposal and proposed Bylaw (Attachment A). This implements the decision to amend the Bylaw, in accordance with statutory requirements and best practice drafting guidelines.

16. The proposed Bylaw would ensure public health is better protected through broader coverage of services that contact the body and would be clear and enforceable.

17. Staff consider the proposed Bylaw has no implications and is not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. There are potential limitations to freedom of expression. Staff consider that these are justified because of the significant health risks the Bylaw seeks to minimise.

Table 1: Summary of major proposed changes to the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013

Proposed amendment	Reason for proposed change
Requiring services that pierce, risk breaking or burning tissue (not just the skin) to be licensed.	Services that contact tissues that are not skin (such as vaginal laser treatments) are not currently covered in the Bylaw but have the same risk as services that are currently required to be licensed.
Requiring therapeutic massage, water play parks and splash pads to meet minimum standards.	Massage, public water play parks and splash pads are not currently covered in the Bylaw but have the same risk as services (such as swimming pools) that are currently required to comply with minimum standards.
Banning eyeball tattoo unless carried out by a qualified health practitioner.	Eyeball tattoo is very high-risk and may cause permanent blindness. Only certain health practitioners are qualified to perform this service, (including ophthalmologists or eye specialists).
Requiring service operators to display a licence.	Gives customers confidence that the operator follows minimum standards to minimise risks to their health.
Clarifying the existing ability of marae to authorise tā moko artists.	Better reflects current practice.
Clarifying the existing requirement for traditional Pacific tattoo artists to be licensed.	Better recognises traditional Pacific tattoo as a culturally significant practice that is distinct from commercial tattoo services.

Staff recommend the Committee appoint a panel and staff

18. Staff recommend that the committee appoint a chair and two members of a Governing Body committee to a panel. The panel attends ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate, deliberates and makes recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal.

19. It is also recommended that staff be delegated authority to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate or in case a panel member cannot attend.

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

20. Local board member views were sought during the statutory Bylaw review. The statement of proposal provides better recognition of the cultural significance of traditional Pacific tattoo to address concerns from southern local board members and their communities.

21. Local Boards will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the statement of proposal. Local Boards can provide feedback:

· in writing between 26 August and 1 October 2018

· to the panel at a workshop in late September 2018.

22. Local Boards can contact Social Policy and Bylaws staff to register for the workshop.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

23. 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.

24. The proposed amendment to the Bylaw better reflects tā moko practice and clarifies the existing ability of marae to authorise tā moko artists to address concerns from Māori stakeholders.

25. The proposed amendment has been drafted in Te Reo Māori to reflect the significance of tā moko for Māori, as well as the authorising role of marae. There is an explanatory note in English that also references Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26. Public consultation and implementation costs will be met within existing baselines.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27. If the committee approves the recommendations, there is a risk that service operators will be concerned about proposed amendments to the Bylaw. This risk will be mitigated by the opportunity to give feedback during public consultation.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. If the Committee and Governing Body approve the recommendations, public consultation on the statement of proposal will follow. Public consultation is currently scheduled from 26 August to 1 October 2018. ‘Have Your Say’ events will take place during the public consultation period instead of holding a formal hearing after submissions close.

29. The panel will consider any feedback during a publicly notified deliberation meeting. The panel will make its recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will decide whether to accept the panel recommendations and officially make any amendments to the Bylaw.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 Statement of Proposal	75
b ⇩	Regulatory Committee April decision (findings report)	113
c ⇩	Regulatory Committee May decision (options report)	233

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Julia Harker - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 July 2018

Regulatory Committee

12 July 2018

Legacy On-site Wastewater Bylaws Statement of Proposal

File No.: CP2018/11671

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To recommend the Governing Body adopt the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws statement of proposal for public consultation and make a decision to appoint a panel to deliberate and make recommendations on feedback received.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Staff have prepared a statement of proposal (Attachment A) to enable the Regulatory Committee to implement its decision to revoke four legacy on-site wastewater bylaws (REG/2018/37).

3. The legacy bylaws regulated the installation and management of septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems. The rules applied in the former areas of Waiheke, North Shore City and Papakura and Rodney district councils.

4. The statement of proposal implements the bylaw review findings the committee endorsed:

· failing on-site wastewater systems contribute to water pollution and require management

· the Unitary Plan and other legislation effectively regulate on-site wastewater systems

· the legacy bylaws are no longer needed to address wastewater pollution problems.

5. Staff advise the committee to recommend the Governing Body adopt the statement of proposal for public consultation. This will start the public process to revoke the legacy bylaws. Appointing a panel for “Have Your Say” events and deliberation is also recommended.

6. There is a reputation risk that during consultation the public may think that council is reducing regulations managing pollution of waterways. This risk will be mitigated through information and engagement activities that highlight the current regulations in the Auckland Unitary Plan and existing legislation. Regulatory and water quality staff will be part of engagement activities.

7. If the committee and the Governing Body approve the recommendations, public consultation on the statement of proposal will follow. Public consultation is currently scheduled for 1 August to 31 August 2018.

8. The panel will consider any feedback and make recommendations. The Governing Body will make the final decision about whether to revoke the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) note that this committee completed the statutory review of the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws and:

i) endorsed the review findings determining that the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws are no longer needed as the Auckland Unitary Plan and existing legislation regulate on-site wastewater systems

ii) gave directions to revoke the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws

b) recommend the Governing Body adopt the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report, for public consultation and confirm the revocation of the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws including:

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) appoint the chair and two panel members selected from councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to attend “Have Your Say” events, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report.

d) delegate authority to the Regulatory Committee chairperson to make replacement appointments to the panel if a member of the panel is unavailable.

e) delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to appoint staff to receive public feedback at “Have Your Say” events.

f) delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to make any amendments to the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report to correct errors, omissions, or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or Governing Body.

Horopaki / Context

9. The four legacy on-site wastewater bylaws regulated the installation and maintenance of septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems. The rules applied in the former areas of Waiheke, North Shore City and Papakura and Rodney district councils.

Regulatory Committee agreed to revoke the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws

10. The Regulatory Committee requested staff commence the process to revoke the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws in May 2018 (REG/2018/37). This decision was based on the “Review of On-Site Wastewater Bylaws: Findings Report April 2018’ that the committee endorsed (Attachment B).

11. The statement of proposal implements the bylaw review findings the committee endorsed:

· failing on-site wastewater systems contribute to water pollution and require management

· the Unitary Plan and other legislation effectively regulate on site wastewater systems

· the legacy bylaws are no longer needed to address wastewater pollution problems

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out the process to revoke a bylaw

12. Council must use the special consultative procedure to revoke the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws as it is identified as a matter being of significant interest to the public^{^[7]}.

13. This requires Auckland Council to:^{^[8]}

· adopt a statement of proposal to revoke the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws for public feedback

· make a final decision on whether to revoke the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws after considering public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Staff have prepared a statement of proposal in line with statutory requirements

14. Staff have drafted a statement of proposal that implements the decision to revoke the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws in accordance with statutory requirements.

15. The statement of proposal outlines that the operative Auckland Unitary Plan and existing legislation^{^[9]} provide on-site wastewater regulation for the whole of Auckland region. The legacy on-site wastewater bylaws provide no additional regulation and are not needed.

Staff recommend the committee appoint a panel and staff

16. Staff recommend that the committee appoint a chair and two panel members selected from councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board. The panel will be required to attend “Have Your Say” events as appropriate, deliberate, and make recommendations to the Governing Body.

17. It is also recommended that staff be delegated authority to receive public feedback at “Have Your Say” events as appropriate or in case a panel member cannot attend.

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

18. In December 2017 the Local Board Chairs’ Forum discussed the legacy on-site wastewater bylaw review. Six local boards requested individual workshops which were held with Rodney, Great Barrier, Waitakere, Waiheke, Franklin and Upper Harbour local boards.

19. The individual workshops with the six local boards identified there is no need for the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws.

20. Local Boards will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the statement of proposal. Local Boards can provide feedback to the panel at a workshop currently scheduled at Town Hall Council Chambers on 28 August.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

21. 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 protect water, revoking the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws review will not have an impact on Māori above the status quo.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

22. The bylaw public consultation and implementation will be met within existing baselines.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

23. There is a reputation risk that the public may think that council is reducing regulations managing pollution of waterways. This risk will be mitigated through information and engagement activities that highlight the current regulations in the Auckland Unitary Plan and existing legislation. Regulatory and water quality staff will be part of engagement activities.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

24. If the Regulatory Committee and Governing Body approve the recommendations, public consultation on the statement of proposal will follow. Public consultation is currently scheduled for 1 August to 31 August 2018. “Have Your Say” events will take place during the public consultation period instead of holding a formal hearing after submission date.

25. The panel will consider any feedback during public deliberations before making recommendations to the Governing Body at its October 2018 meeting.

26. The Governing Body will consider the panel recommendations and make a final decision about whether to revoke the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Legacy On-site Wastewater Bylaws Statement of Proposal	265
b ⇩	May committee agenda report, minutes, On-site Wastewater Bylaws Findings Report	273

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Maclean Grindell - Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

12 July 2018

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Designation of independent commissioners as duty commissioners to determine resource consent applications - Report under Urgency	339

Regulatory Committee

12 July 2018

Regulatory Committee Summary of Information Items 12 July 2018

File No.: CP2018/12267

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update of all current 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 14 June 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

4. The is a regular information-only report which aims to provide 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’ form the drop-down 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:

· 13 June 2018 – memo re: Council’s approach in the management of methamphetamine contamination following the release of the report by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.

7. Note that, unlike an agenda decision report, staff will not be present to answer questions about these items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) receive the Regulatory Committee information report 12 July 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Region-wide appeals report and register	345
b ⇩	Regulatory Committee - Forward Work Programme	361
c	Councils approach in the management of methamphetamine contamination (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

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

Regulatory Committee

12 July 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 2018 – Due to the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, Auckland Council’s management of earthquake-prone buildings now falls under the national policy and methodology set by MBIE. Our ongoing work programme for issuing statutory EPB notices, receiving seismic assessments, and identifying residual potential EPBs is being carried out on this basis. Note that dangerous and insanitary buildings continue to have their own local policy that is now under the management of Regulatory Compliance.	Update the Committee on the progress made in implementing Auckland Council’s regulatory obligations with regard to earthquake-prone buildings within its jurisdiction.					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 · 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 · A report on the review and direct any changes to eight issues within the bylaw was considered on 10 May 2018 REG/2018/36 Progress to date: A report to determine the outcome of the statutory review and direct any changes to 22 issues was considered on 14 June 2018 REG/2018/43 ^#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. · Workshop held April 2018 – to seek informal guidance on a few potentially contentious issues related to dog management Progress to date: A report 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 14 June 2018 REG/2018/44 ^#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)

[1] Local Government Act 2002, section 158.

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

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

[4] Health Act 1956, section 23.

[5] Local Government Act 2002, sections 3, 10, 14 and 155.

[6] See Local Government Act 2002, ss 83, 83AA, 86, 155, 156, 160(3) and Auckland Council Governing Body Terms of Reference (GB/2016/237).

[8] Local Government Act 2002, s83, s86, s156, s160(3)

[9] Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004, Health Act 1956