Agenda of Regulatory Committee

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

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

The committee’s key responsibilities include:

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

· hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996

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

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

· hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws

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

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

· monitoring the performance of regulatory decision-making

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

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

· regulatory fees and charges

· recommend bylaws to Governing Body for consultation and adoption

· appointing hearings panels for bylaw matters

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

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

· engage with local boards on bylaw development and review

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

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

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

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

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

All Bylaws

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

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

Maritime Transport Act 1994
Related Regulations

Powers

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

Except:

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

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

(ii) Power to establish subcommittees.

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

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

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

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

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

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

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

Members of the meeting

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

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

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

Independent Māori Statutory Board

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

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

Staff

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

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

Local Board members

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

Council Controlled Organisations

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

1 Apologies

Apologies from Mayor P Goff and Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore have been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 8 November 2018, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

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

6 Local Board Input

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

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

6.1 Hibibscus and Bays Local Board - Auckland Council Policy on Dogs and Dog Management Bylaw Statement of Proposal

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Chair, Julia Parfitt, will speak to the Regulatory Committee regarding the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs and Dog Management Bylaw Statement of Proposal.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) thank Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Chair, Julia Parfitt for her input in relation to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs and Dog Management Bylaw Statement of Proposal.

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

14 February 2019

Request to appoint Independent Hearings Commissioners to hear submissions on Plan Changes 14, 15, 16 and 17, to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)

File No.: CP2018/24019

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To appoint Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on:

· Proposed Plan Change ‘14’ - Improving consistency of provisions in Chapter D Overlays, Chapter E Auckland-wide, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 2, Appendix 17 and the Viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (‘PC14 Auckland-wide and Overlays’); and

· Proposed Plan Change ‘15’ – Improving consistency of provisions in Chapter F Coastal, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 7 and the Viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (‘PC15 Coastal’); and

· Proposed Plan Change ‘16’ – Improving consistency of provisions in Chapter H Zones and Chapter J Definitions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (‘PC16 Zones’); and

· Proposed Plan Change ‘17’ – Improving consistency of provisions in the Viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (‘PC17 Unitary Plan Viewer’).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan changes 14 – 17 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (‘Auckland Unitary Plan’) were publicly notified on 29 November 2018. The closing date for submissions was 31 January 2019.

3. The four plan changes seek to address known technical issues and anomalies to improve consistency across the Auckland Unitary Plan while retaining the current policy direction.

4. 88 submissions have been received across the four plan changes in total:

· PC 14 Auckland-wide and Overlays: 21 submissions

· PC 15 Coastal: 11 submissions

· PC 16 Zones: 36 submissions

· PC 17 Unitary Plan Viewer: 20 submissions

5. For logistical reasons it is proposed to split the hearing of submissions of the plan changes into two hearings. It is proposed that PC 15 Coastal and PC 17 Unitary Plan Viewer be heard in late April/May followed by a separate hearing on PC 14 Auckland-wide and Overlays and PC 16 Zones.

6. For consistency in decision making it is proposed that the chair of the hearings panel remain the same across the plan changes and be supported by up to two Commissioners with legal and planning experience to make decisions on the plan changes. It is proposed that the decisions on all of the plan changes be released together after the conclusion of the second hearing.

7. Iwi authorities were contacted in July 2018 to seek their views on whether a Commissioner with understanding of tikanga Maori is required for the hearing of the plan changes, however no response was received.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint an independent hearings commissioner to chair the independent hearings panel hearing submissions on Plan Change 14-17 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

b) appoint two commissioners with legal or planning experience to hear the submissions on Plan Change 15 and Plan Change 17 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

c) appoint two commissioners with legal or planning experience to hear the submissions on Plan Change 14 and Plan Change 16 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

d) delegate to the independent commissioners appointed in clauses a), b) and c), the authority to make decisions on the Plan Changes;

e) delegate to the chair of the Regulatory Committee the authority to make replacement appointments if necessary.

Horopaki

Context

8. Since the Unitary Plan became operative in part on 15 November 2016, the council has been registering and assessing potential errors and issues that have been identified by both staff and members of the public.

9. The four plan changes seek to address the identified technical issues to improve consistency across the Auckland Unitary Plan. Amendments are proposed within Chapter D Overlays, Chapter E Auckland-wide, Chapter F Coastal, Chapter H Zones, Chapter J Definitions and Chapter M Appendices, and to address mapping anomalies within the Unitary Plan Viewer. Amendments within Chapter I Precincts are limited to 11 diagrams where a consequential amendment is required as a result of a proposed change to the Unitary Plan Viewer.

10. A technical issue is where a change is required so that the Unitary Plan will function in the way it was intended. A mapping anomaly is where there is an issue with the spatial application of zones, overlays, controls or precinct boundaries. For instance, the zone or precinct may not follow road or property boundaries leading to an unintended “split zoning”.

11. The proposed plan changes seek to address technical issues and mapping anomalies only and will not affect the policy direction of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

12. On the 6^th of November 2018 the Planning Committee approved the notification of Plan Changes 14- 17. Notification subsequently occurred on 29 November 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Submissions on Plan Change 14-17 closed on 31 January 2019. 88 submissions have been received across the four plan changes in total:

· PC 14 Auckland-wide and Overlays: 21 submissions

· PC 15 Coastal: 11 submissions

· PC 16 Zones: 36 submissions

· PC 17 Unitary Plan Viewer: 20 submissions

14. The submissions are currently being summarised and a summary of submissions for each plan change will be notified in mid-February 2019.

15. For logistical reasons it is proposed to split the hearing of submissions of the plan changes into two hearings. PC15 and PC17 are smaller plan changes with only 11 and 20 submissions respectively. It is proposed that these could be heard first in April (subject to the availability of commissioners). PC14 and PC16 are larger plan changes with a cross over in submitters. It is proposed that these could be heard together in May 2019 (subject to the availability of commissioners).

16. For consistency in decision making it is proposed that the chair of the hearings panel remain the same across the plan changes and be supported by up to two Commissioners with legal and planning experience to make decisions on the plan changes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17. Plans and Places staff have worked extensively with the wider Council Group and Council Controlled Organisations throughout the identification of issues with the Auckland Unitary Plan and the development of the subsequent plan changes.

18. Plans and Places staff will continue to seek the input of the wider Council Group and Council Controlled Organisations in forming a response to submissions in the hearings report.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

19. In October 2017, a memo was sent to local boards to advise on this proposed plan change and invite local board members to advise of any technical issues that they may have identified.

20. In August – September 2018, subsequent memos were sent to local boards providing an overview of the proposed plan changes and specifically identifying the mapping amendments relevant to each local board. Staff offered to answer any questions or meet with local boards to discuss any aspects of the plan changes. Two local boards sought clarification on amendments proposed that would affect their local board area.

21. Local boards were invited to provide written comments on the plan changes through the feedback processes established with Local Board Services. No feedback was received from local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. In October 2017, Council staff informed iwi authorities about the proposed plan changes and invited them to advise about any issues they may have with the current provisions in the Unitary Plan ahead of formal consultation.

23. In July 2018, Council staff wrote again to enquire as to whether they were interested in seeing the draft plan change prior to notification and their views on whether a commissioner with tikanga understanding will be required for the hearing of these plan changes. No response was received.

24. In August – September 2018, subsequent memos were sent to Iwi providing draft copies of the proposed plan changes and Section 32 Evaluations reports. Staff offered to meet with Iwi to discuss the proposed plan changes. The only response received was from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei who were supportive of the proposed plan changes. A hui was held with the planning representative from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to go over the key points kanohi ki te kanohi.

25. Iwi authorities were notified of the proposed plan changes. No submissions were received from Iwi authorities however, a submission has been received from the Tūpuna Maunga Authority.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. The cost of the plan change is part of Plans and Places operational budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. There are no risks associated with the recommendations made in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. Delegation is sought to enable the independent commissioners to hear the submissions and make decisions on the plan changes. Once a decision has been made and the appeal period has lapsed, the Auckland Unitary Plan will be updated.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Rebecca Sanders - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

James Hassall – Director Regulatory Services (Acting)

Regulatory Committee

14 February 2019

Hearing on the Proposed Margan Avenue Land Exchange

File No.: CP2019/00101

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To appoint an independent commissioner to hear submissions on the proposed land exchange at Margan Avenue, New Lynn in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Council undertook consultation on a proposed land exchange at Margan Avenue in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

3. A total of 83 submissions were received. 77 opposed the proposed land exchange.

4. Staff recommend that the Regulatory Committee appoint an independent commissioner to hear the nine submitters who requested to present in support of their submission.

5. The independent commissioner will make a recommendation to the Environment and Community Committee for a decision.

6. There is a low risk of a judicial review of Auckland Council decision-making processes if council follows the statutory process.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner to hear submissions and make a recommendation to the Environment and Community Committee on the proposed land exchange of 295m² of Margan Reserve, New Lynn for 295m² of adjacent land at 5 Clinker Place, New Lynn.

Horopaki

Context

7. In August 2018, the Environment and Community Committee approved the notification of a proposed exchange of 295m² of Margan Reserve with private land under section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 [ENV/2018/102 refers]. Figure 1 below illustrates the two land parcels that were proposed to be exchanged.

8. The land exchange was expected to have positive benefits to the community including:

· providing a road, pedestrian and cycle connection from Margan Avenue to New Lynn centre and the train station

· enabling a fragmented piece of Margan Reserve to be incorporated into a larger strip along Margan Avenue.

Figure 1: The proposed area of reserve to be exchanged

77 submitters opposed the exchange and nine submitters have requested to present at a hearing

9. The four-week notification period closed on 16 November 2018. A total of 83 submissions were received. Of these, six supported the proposed land exchange while the remaining 77 were opposed.

10. The nature of objections to the proposed land exchange is in relation to the loss of trees, in particular pohutukawa trees, to accommodate the access road.

11. Nine of the objecting submitters requested to present in support of their submission at a hearing.

12. Section 120 of the Reserves Act outlines the right of an objector to request in writing to present in support of their submission at a hearing.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. As the proposed land exchange involves council owned land, staff recommend that the Regulatory Committee appoint an independent commissioner to hear the nine submitters.

14. The independent commissioner will make a recommendation on the proposed land exchange to the Environment and Community Committee following the hearing.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. There are no council group impacts arising from the hearing process.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

16. The Whau Local Board resolved at its meeting on 22 November 2017 that it supported the notification of the proposed land exchange [WH/2017/140 refers].

17. Community views were sought through the public notification process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. Consultation with mana whenua was undertaken as part of the Reserves Act process.

19. The iwi consulted were Te Kawerau ā Maki, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, Te Akitai Waiohua and Ngāti Tamaterā.

20. No objections to the proposal were received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. The applicant has previously agreed to cover all costs associated with the land exchange.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

22. Any risk of judicial review of council decision-making processes is minimised if the statutory requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 process are followed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

23. Staff will work with the independent commissioner to convene suitable dates for the hearing and notify the nine submitters accordingly.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emma Golightly - Team Leader - Parks and Recreation Policy

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

James Hassall – Director Regulatory Services (Acting)

Regulatory Committee

14 February 2019

Auckland Council Policy on Dogs and Dog Management Bylaw Statement of Proposal

File No.: CP2019/00308

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend to the Governing Body that it adopt the Auckland Council’s New Policy on Dogs and Dog Management Bylaw 2019 statement of proposal.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Staff have prepared a statement of proposal to amend the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (Attachment A). The proposal, draft policy and bylaw implement the committee’s decisions [REG/2018/78, REG/2018/79], and meet statutory requirements.

3. The statement of proposal aims to improve dog management in Auckland, by making the following changes:

· reorganising the policy and bylaw information into user friendly themes

· removing duplication from the bylaw, which will also simplify amendment processes

· reducing confusion about dog access rules and improve voluntary compliance by:

o presenting the rules in the schedule in a consistent manner

o applying a consistent time and season definition and multiple dog ownership rule

· addressing emerging issues around dog management by:

o including specific reference to the Code of Welfare

o extending environmental protection to include flora

o clarifying delegations and process for additional designated dog exercise areas

o clarifying the enforcement of neutering uncontrolled dogs

o clarifying council jurisdictional power on privately-owned public spaces

o promoting responsible dog ownership of menacing dogs

o reviewing dog access rules in regional parks.

4. There is a low reputational risk to council of being criticised for relitigating recently made decisions by local boards that impact local dog access rules. This will be mitigated by communicating the benefits of consistent dog access rules across the region.

5. Public engagement is scheduled to take place from 1 April 2019 to 10 May 2019. A panel will consider feedback, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body for the final approval and adoption.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) recommend that the Governing Body adopt the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report for public consultation and confirms that the draft bylaw:

i) is the most appropriate and proportionate way to implement aspects of the policy

ii) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

b) recommend that the Governing Body forwards to local boards and advisory panels:

i) the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report for their views

ii) this agenda report and attachments for their information.

c) appoint a minimum of three panel members, including a chair, from councillors and the Independent Maori Statutory Board to:

i) attend ‘Have Your Say’ events

ii) deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body based on public feedback on the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report.

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

e) delegate authority through the chief executive to staff approved by a manager responsible for bylaws 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 the Governing Body.

g) rescind the previous direction to “apply dog access rules that protect wildlife in Mahurangi Regional Park to allow dogs under control on-leash on Mita Bay Loop Track and prohibited from Cudlip Point Loop Track, and that a dog-friendly campground be created” [REG/2018/79] and instead retain the status-quo rules for the Mahurangi Regional Park.

Horopaki

Context

6. Under the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act), Auckland Council must adopt a policy on dogs. A bylaw can implement aspects of a policy.

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

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

· adopt measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs.

8. The Dog Management Bylaw, Ture ā-Rohe Tiaki Kuri 2012 (the current Bylaw) gives effect to the current Policy by:

· regulating public places where a dog may be taken and the means to control the dog

· limiting the number of dogs that may be kept on any premises

· requiring immediate removal of dog faeces in a public place

· prohibiting female dogs in season from public places

· requiring a dog to be neutered if it has not been kept under control on more than one occasion.

Regulatory Committee agreed to amend the current Policy and Bylaw

9. In November 2018, the committee requested staff amend the current Policy and Bylaw and provided direction for amendments to the current Policy [REG/2018/78] and to the dog access rules in regional parks [REG/2018/79].

10. The process leading up to this decision is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Decisions by the Regulatory Committee to date

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

11. The council must use the special consultative procedure to amend the current Policy and Bylaw, as amendments could significantly impact the public, particularly dog owners.

12. This requires Council to:

· determine that the proposed Bylaw meets Bill of Rights criteria

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

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

13. Staff have drafted a statement of proposal including the proposed Policy and Bylaw (Attachment A). The statement of proposal implements the council decision to amend the Policy and Bylaw. It has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements and best practice regulatory drafting guidelines.

14. The proposed Policy and Bylaw would ensure improved dog management through clear and consistent requirements.

15. Staff consider that the proposed Bylaw is not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. There are potential limitations to the freedom of movement of dog owners, when accompanied by their dog. Staff consider that this limitation is justifiable for the following reasons:

· it protects the safety of children and minimises conflict between dogs and other people

· it is only the dog restricted access to public places not the owner

· exemptions are included for those dependent on dogs for their mobility.

16. Table 1 summarises the rationale for the proposed amendments.

Table 1: Summary of proposed changes to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012

Proposed amendment	Reason for proposed change	Change in Policy	Change in Bylaw
Organisation of Policy content	The proposed policy has been reorganised into user friendly themes. It also better highlights the relationship between the Policy and the Bylaw, and clearly states what is expected of dog owners and what activities Auckland Council will undertake to manage dogs.	ü
Removal of duplicate information	Schedules 1 and 2 are duplicated in the current Policy and Bylaw. These have been removed from the proposed Bylaw and are now contained in the proposed Policy only. This change will also make it easier for local boards to make future amendments to local dog access rules.	ü	ü
Reference the Code of Welfare for dogs	The Code of Welfare for Dogs from the Animal Welfare Act 1999 is now referenced in the proposed policy. Reference to the code highlights owner obligations. These are already used by council staff.	ü
Time and season definition 10am to 7pm from Saturday of Labour Weekend to 31 March	The purpose of a time and season rule is to minimise the conflict between dogs, their owners and other users of busy, public places. Thirteen local boards have requested variations to the time and season definition contained within the current Policy and only one local board is using the current definition in areas within their local board. The council wants to standardise the time and season definition to make it easier for the public to know when dogs are allowed on the beaches that use the time and season rule. Local boards will still determine where a time and season rule will be applied.	ü
Clarifying council’s jurisdiction on privately owned public spaces	Schedule 1 of the current Policy identifies dog access rules for council-controlled public places. Dog access to public places not under control of council is prohibited, unless permission is obtained by the person in charge of that place or there is signage indicating that dogs are allowed. An explanatory note has been added to the proposed policy to clarify that public places under co-governance arrangements are considered privately-owned public spaces, therefore governed by this rule, unless they are specifically stated in Schedule 2.	ü
Standardise the way local dog access rules are organised in Schedule 2	The current Policy assumes a default rule of ‘dogs being under control on leash’. Local boards have introduced rules into Schedule 2 which have created different default rules for their areas. Schedule 2 of the proposed policy no longer contains different default rules. Rules are presented in a consistent format which will make it easier for owners to know where they can take their dog. This will not change the types of access rules that are currently applied to any local beach, park or reserve.	ü
Increased protection for flora that are vulnerable to dogs	Council is proposing to extend its ability to make temporary changes to dog access rules to protect flora vulnerable to dogs, such as kauri.	ü	ü
Owners will only require a multiple dog ownership licence for more than two dogs in properties zoned as urban residential in the Unitary Plan	The current Policy and Bylaw have different rules for multiple dog ownership depending on where the dog owner lives. The proposed Policy and Bylaw standardises the rule across Auckland. Most residential properties are adequate to home two dogs, however greater issues tend to arise where three or more dogs are kept on a property. The purpose of the licence is to ensure these aspects of dog welfare are addressed.		ü
Encouraging responsible dog ownership for menacing dog owners	The proposed Policy allows for owners of dogs classified as menacing, to have their dog’s classification reviewed if they provide evidence of completing a dog obedience course and if the owner has not obtained any infringements in relation to the dog within a 12-month period. The removal of classification of the dog is at the discretion of council. This change is intended to incentivise dog owners to modify their dog’s behaviour and promote responsible dog ownership.		ü
Requirement to neuter an uncontrolled dog	The proposed bylaw includes an explanatory note to clarify that owners who do not comply the with current requirement to neuter their dog, if it is not under control on more than one occasion over a 12-month period, may be subject to an infringement and would still be required to neuter their dog.		ü
Clarifying intent of owners picking up after their dog	Clause 11 of the Bylaw requires owners to immediately pick up after their dog after it defaecates. This section has been reworded to clarify the intent of this clause.		ü
Amendments to regional parks	Implement the following: · a standard time and season definition of 10.00am to 7.00pm from the Saturday of Labour Weekend to 31 March · a standard lambing season rule to prohibit dogs from 1 July to 1 December · amend dog access rules to protect wildlife.	ü

Review of dog access rules in Mahurangi Regional Park

17. In November 2018, the committee agreed to amend the dog access rules in Mahurangi Regional Park to make Culdip Point Loop Track prohibited, Mita Bay Loop Track on leash, and to create a dog friendly campground [REG/2018/79].

18. Staff recommend rescinding this decision and retaining the status quo dog access rules in Mahurangi Regional Park for now which are: dogs are allowed under control on a leash on the coastal area around Opahi Bay, Mita Bay beach, and on the Culdip Point Loop Track (outside of lambing season). The statement of proposal anticipates this decision.

19. The reason for this recommendation is:

· Mahurangi Regional Park staff have advised that the additional development required to bring the Mita Bay Loop Track up to a standard for on-leash dog walking is more than anticipated

· budget has not yet been identified to complete work on the Mita Bay Loop Track

· dog owners would not have access to a useable track within Mahurangi Regional Park

20. When infrastructure improvements are made to Mita Bay Loop Track in the future, then the Regulatory Committee could consider amending the access rules at that time. This would require public consultation and a decision from the Regulatory Committee to amend the rule in Schedule 2 of the adopted Policy.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. Proposed changes to dog management in public places will not have a direct impact Council Controlled Organisations.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

22. Local board member views were sought during the review of the current Policy and Bylaw, through cluster workshops and 21 local board workshops. Local boards will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the statement of proposal and directly to the panel at a meeting to be held in May 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. Views from members of the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum were sought during the review of the current Policy and Bylaw. A summary of this feedback and how it was used to inform the review is summarised in the reports presented to the committee on 8 November 2018. Māori will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Policy and Bylaw through public engagement.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. Public engagement costs are budgeted. Changes to dog access rules would result in the development of new signage which is not within current budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. There is a low reputational risk to council of being criticised for relitigating recently made decisions by local boards that impact local dog access rules. This will be mitigated by communicating the benefits of consistent dog access rules across the region.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. The next steps for the current Policy and Bylaw review are outlined in in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Timeframe and actions to complete the current dog Policy and Bylaw review

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Statement of Proposal	27
b ⇩	Dog Management Bylaw 2012 - track changes	129

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Shilpa Mandoda - Principal Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

James Hassall – Director Regulatory Services (Acting)

Regulatory Committee

14 February 2019

PDF Creator

Regulatory Committee

14 February 2019

PDF Creator

Regulatory Committee

14 February 2019

Findings of Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 Review

File No.: CP2019/00765

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the findings of the Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 review and request a report on options that responds to the findings.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the Regulatory Committee to complete the review of the Auckland Council Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 (Bylaw), staff have prepared a findings report (Attachment A). Key findings from the review report are:

· council has a responsibility to promote waste management and minimisation

· the Bylaw is identified in the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018: Working Together for Zero Waste as one tool to help reduce harm from residual waste

· harm from residual waste remains a significant issue in Auckland and in the context of the Bylaw includes issues related to domestic waste, resource recovery sites, fill sites, hazardous waste, litter and illegal dumping

· the Bylaw is still necessary and effective (within the constraints of the resources available and current legislation) and could be improved.

3. Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings report and request an options report. Taking this approach will progress the review to allow consideration of options on whether to propose a new bylaw (and what form of bylaw) or to allow the Bylaw to expire.

4. If the findings report is endorsed, there is a low risk that some members of the waste industry may express concern about suggested improvements, council’s role or engagement to date. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation processes.

5. Staff propose to report on options at the March 2019 meeting of this committee.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) endorse the findings in the “Solid Waste Bylaw 2012: 2019 Review Findings Report” (Attachment A of the agenda report) and the development of an options report that responds to the findings.

Horopaki

Context

6. The Auckland Council Solid Waste Bylaw 2012, Te Ture Ā Rohe Para Māro 2012 (Bylaw) was adopted by the Governing Body on 25 October 2012 (GB/2012/140).

7. The Bylaw seeks to support waste management and minimisation, protect health and safety, and manage litter and nuisance in public places (Figure 1) by:

· providing a framework for the collection, transportation and disposal of waste

· establishing a licensing system for waste collectors, waste facility operators and operators of donation collection points

· enabling the adoption of operational controls

· requiring a waste management and minimisation plan for events and multi-unit developments

· addressing the risk of litter from unaddressed mail, donation bins and abandoned shopping trolleys

· managing litter receptacles and waste nuisance.

8. Issues related to litter and illegal dumping are addressed under the Litter Act 1979.

9. The Bylaw is aligned with the strategic directions in the Auckland Plan by implementing the the Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para I Tāmaki Makaurau 2018, Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 (Waste Plan).

The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Local Government Act 2002 set out bylaw making requirements

10. The Bylaw will expire on 25 October 2019.^{^[1]} Council must determine whether a bylaw is necessary, well drafted and meets the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Waste Plan.^{^[2]}

11. Following the review, the council can propose a new bylaw or propose to allow the Bylaw to expire using a public consultative process.^{^[3]}

Staff prepared a findings report as the first step in reviewing the Bylaw

12. Between September and December 2018 staff engaged with a range of stakeholders and carried out research as the first step in the review. The findings from this engagement and research are contained in the “Auckland Council Solid Waste Bylaw 2012: 2019 Review Findings Report” (Attachment A). Research and engagement methodology included:

· face-to-face interviews, interactive workshops or on-line surveys with council staff, non-governmental organisations, waste collectors and operators of waste facilities

· cluster workshops with local boards

· hui with mana whenua and mataawaka representatives

· sample survey of residents living in multi-unit developments

· a literature review and analysis of council databases.

Figure 1: Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 framework

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The findings report identifies the following key findings.

14. Waste continues to impact the environment, public health and safety and cause litter and nuisance. Waste expert interviews and data identify a variety of problems, such as:

· contamination of recyclable waste

· litter from overflowing waste bins

· litter and illegal dumping near donation collection bins

· damage to reusable inorganic items

· poor waste management and minimisation at events and in multi-unit developments

· a lack of data about waste types and volumes to assist in waste planning

· danger from disposal of hazardous waste

· obstruction of footpaths from bins

· misuse of public litter bins

· odour and vermin from accumulation of waste.

15. The Bylaw and its implementation has helped address problems related to waste. There is limited data, but anecdotally:

· compliance with licence conditions is anecdotally estimated at 99 per cent

· industry accords for unaddressed mail and shopping trolleys encourage voluntary compliance

· waste management and minimisation plans for multi-unit developments and events encourage behavioural change.

16. However, unlicensed waste operators and a lack of effective penalties is a concern to stakeholders that can reduce Bylaw effectiveness. It can be challenging to identify offenders and penalties are prescribed in national legislation (not the Bylaw).

17. Stakeholders consider the Bylaw is still needed and could be made more certain, easier to understand and workable. There is strong stakeholder consensus that the Bylaw provides consistent expectations and helps implement the Waste Plan alongside other measures. Stakeholder suggested improvements include:

· addressing improper disposal of waste such as medical waste and emerging issues, for example, use of privately supplied flexi-bins

· assessing practicalities of waste plans for events that generate little or no waste

· removing unnecessary Bylaw clauses, for example, inorganic waste collection due to changes in service provision

· improving licence requirements and reporting on waste data

· reducing ambiguity, emphasising waste minimisation and reducing wordiness.

18. The Bylaw does not give rise to any unjustified implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Bylaw could potentially limit rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, for instance, the freedom of expression in relation to unaddressed community notice mail. However, any limitation is justified. The issues addressed in the Bylaw are related to its purpose and are regulated proportionally, and no more than is necessary. For instance, exceptions in relation to unaddressed mail allow for industry accords and delivery of election material and public newspapers.

19. The Bylaw is not inconsistent with the Waste Plan. The Waste Plan identifies regulation (specifically the Bylaw) as one tool to reduce harm from residual waste. All issues the Bylaw currently regulates are aligned with the goal to reduce harm from residual waste. The Waste Plan also identifies the review of the Bylaw as an action.

Staff recommend the committee endorse the findings and request an options report

20. The findings report establishes that waste still impact the environment, public health and safety and cause litter and nuisance, and that while the Bylaw has helped address those problems, it could be improved.

21. Staff recommend the committee endorse the findings report and request an options report. This approach will enable the findings to be used to develop options on whether to propose a new bylaw (and what form of bylaw) or to allow the Bylaw to expire.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. The Bylaw impacts the operations of a number of council units involved in waste, resource management and events. Input was sought through face-to-face meetings and an online survey. Council units suggest improvements to the Bylaw such as alignment with the Unitary Plan and Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw, and clarification of clean-fill licensing.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

23. Local board members participated in cluster workshops held in November 2018. Members support the Bylaw alongside other measures such as product stewardship and education. Main concerns included contamination, illegal dumping and hazardous waste disposal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. The Bylaw has particular significance for Māori as kaitiakitanga of Papatuanuku. Input was sought from mana whenua and mataawaka at a facilitated hui in November 2018.

25. Mana whenua and mataawaka are supportive of the current Bylaw. That said, better alignment with Te Ao Māori (for example, requiring treatment of hazardous waste at source) and a greater focus on product stewardship, education and community-focused programmes is considered necessary.

The options report will consider these concerns.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. The cost of the Bylaw review and implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. There is a low risk that some members of the waste industry may express concern about suggested improvements, council’s role or engagement to date. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation processes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. If approved, staff will prepare an options report for the committee’s meeting on 14 March 2019. The March report will explore options on whether to propose a new bylaw (and what form of bylaw) or to allow the Bylaw to expire.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Council Solid Waste Bylaw 2012: 2019 Review Findings Report	215

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Magda Findlik - Principal Policy Analyst

Elizabeth Osborne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

James Hassall – Director Regulatory Services (Acting)

Regulatory Committee

14 February 2019

PDF Creator

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 14 February 2018	359
b ⇩	Forward Work Programme	373

Regulatory Committee

14 February 2019

REGULATORY COMMITTEE FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2018 / 2019 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 4 October 2018 Report 2017/2018 Animal Management Annual Report prepared pursuant to s10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 minute REG/2018/70	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1	Q2 (Oct)	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 Key milestones Nov 2018 - Proposal Late Nov 2018 – mid Feb 2019 - Public consultation April 2019 - Public deliberations May 2019 – Panel’s recommendation to Governing Body	· 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. · An overview programme was presented on 10/08/2017 Item 9 REG/2017/72 resolution REG/2017/72 SCP process · 9 August 2018 report to provide a presentation updating the development of a bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 – minute REG/2018/58 Progress to date 13 September 2018 - report to seek direction on the content of the statement of proposal for the management of freedom camping– minute REG/2018/64 Progress to date 8 November 2018 - report To recommend that the Governing Body adopt the freedom camping in vehicles statement of proposal and draft bylaw for public engagement and appoint a panel to consider feedback, deliberate and make recommendations – minute REG/2018/77	Review is within current baselines. Funding proposals will be required for any recommendations that require capital or operational upgrades.	Q4	Q1 (Aug) (Sept)	Q2 (Nov)	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”. Key milestones: Oct 2017 – Findings Mar-Jun 2018 – Options Aug 2018 – workshop Sept 2018 – Proposal Nov 2018 - Public Feedback Jan to Feb 2019 – Panel deliberations Mar 2019 – amended bylaw adopted	· 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 · 8 Feb 2018 - workshop - seeking preference’s to which clauses of the bylaw should be retained, amended or revoked. - seeking agreement in principle to draft recommendations against 6 key topics, will also highlight next steps, timing and process requirements for completion of the PSN review. · 8 March 2018 - A report on the outcome of statutory review and the direction of any changes to six issues was considered – minute REG/2018/15 · 12 April 2018 - A report on the outcome of statutory review and the direction of any changes to nine issues was considered – minute REG/2018/20 · 10 May 2018 - A report on the review and direct any changes to eight issues within the bylaw was considered - minute REG/2018/36 · 14 June 2018 - A report to determine the outcome of the statutory review and direct any changes to 22 issues was considered on - minute REG/2018/43 9 August 2018 - workshop to discuss outstanding concerns members have on rural fences, ashes, mana whenua beach access, set-netting criteria and obstructions Progress to date: 13 September 2018 a report to recommend that the Governing Body adopt the public safety and nuisance bylaw statement of proposal for public consultation and appoint a panel to deliberate and make recommendations on feedback received – minute REG/2018/65 27 September 2018 a report to Governing Body to receive the recommendations from the Regulatory Committee to adopt the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Statement of Proposal. · Public consultation - scheduled for 26 October to 2 December 2018 · make recommendations to Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal ^#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.
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. 14 June 2018 - 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 - minute REG/2018/44 Progress to date: 8 November 2018 - A report To seek approval for amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and the Dog Management Bylaw 2012. – minute REG/2018/79 ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.		Q4	Q1 (Aug)	Q2 (Nov)	Q3 (tbc)
Health and Hygiene Bylaw	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	· 12 April 2018 findings report to endorse the findings of the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 statutory review and approve a report back on options that responds to the findings. Minute REG/2018/21 · 10 May 2018 - Options Report - to seek a determination on the outcome of the statutory review on the Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 and make a decision about its future - minute REG/2018/36 · 12 July 2018 – report 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 – minute REG/2018/51 Progress to date: 26 July 2018 report went to Governing Body - to receive the recommendations from the Regulatory Committee and adopt the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 Statement of Proposal – minute - GB/2018/120 Next steps: · Public consultation - scheduled for 26 August to 1 October 2018 · make recommendations to Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal
Solid Waste Bylaw review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years. Key milestones: Sept-Dec 2018 - research and engagement Feb 2019 – findings report to Regulatory Committee March 2019 – options report to Regulatory Committee April 2019 – proposed bylaw June 2019 – public feedback July 2019 – panel deliberation By August 2019 – Governing Body to adopt bylaw	· Decision on timing and scope of the review. (December 2017) · Reporting on findings and any options amendments will not be until late 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	· 10 May 2018 - report to endorse the findings of the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws review and begin the process to revoke the four legacy on-site wastewater bylaws - minute. REG/2018/37 · 12 July 2018 - report 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 – minute REG/2018/52 Progress to date: 26 July 2018 report went to Governing Body - to receive the recommendations from the Regulatory Committee and adopt the Legacy On-site Wastewater Bylaws Statement of Proposal – minute - GB/2018/121 Next steps: · Public consultation scheduled for 1 August to 31 August 2018 · make recommendations to Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal		Q4 May	Q1 (July)	Q2	Q3
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: 8 February 2018 report to provide an update on the proactive boarding houses inspection programme - minute 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 quarterly		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		Q4 (May)	Q1 (Sept)
Alcohol Control Bylaw review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	A report on findings and options will be considered in late 2018.				Q2 (Nov TBC)

[1] Section 158 and 160A of the Local Government Act 2002.

[2] Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, section 56(2) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

[3] Section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Chairperson	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Deputy Mayor 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

Author	Suad Allie - Governance Advisor
Authoriser	James Hassall – Director Regulatory Services (Acting)