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 Deputy Chairperson BC Cashmore and Cr S Stewart 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, 11 April 2019, 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

09 May 2019

Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw review 2019 and direction for any changes

File No.: CP2019/06106

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on the preferred statutory option to progress the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 11 April 2019 the Regulatory Committee completed the statutory review findings on the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) and the Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014 (Code) and requested a report back on options.

3. The statutory options are presented and assessed against criteria to help the committee decide whether to confirm, amend, revoke or replace the Bylaw.

4. Staff recommend that the committee agree that Option two – amend Bylaw is the most appropriate response to the statutory review findings. Taking this approach will:

· help minimise public safety risks, distress, nuisance, damage to property and heritage, and interference with ground maintenance and operational activities from the use of council cemeteries and crematoria by the public and contractors

· improve on the status quo (Option one) by using best practice drafting to make the Bylaw easier to understand

· is more flexible than Option three – replace Bylaw as rules are contained in a code

· more effectively and efficiently regulate third parties than Option four – revoke Bylaw.

5. There is a low risk that stakeholders or the public may express concern about the preferred option. This risk will be mitigated by future public engagement.

6. If approved, staff will prepare a statement of proposal, amended Bylaw and updated Code for approval by the Regulatory Committee and Governing Body in early 2020. Public engagement will follow, before a final decision is made by the Governing Body.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) agree that Option two: amend current framework Bylaw and update Code is the most appropriate way to respond to the statutory review findings on the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014.

b) request a statement of proposal that amends the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 as detailed in Attachment A of the agenda report for Option two: amend current framework Bylaw and update Code.

Horopaki

Context

The Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 enables council to manage activities at council cemeteries and crematoria

7. The Te Ture ā-Rohe mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku 2014, Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) was adopted by the Governing Body on 31 July 2014 (GB/2014/67).

8. The Bylaw seeks to manage activities at 55 council cemeteries and three crematoria by providing a framework that enables detailed rules to be made in a separate code.

9. The Arataki Tikanga mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku 2014, Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014 (Code) contains detailed rules on burial, Wāhi Tapu Māori Areas, cremation, disinterment, monuments, adornments, ground maintenance and record keeping.

10. The Bylaw does not regulate activities outside of council cemeteries and crematoria, including the scattering of ashes in parks and waterways.

11. The Bylaw is aligned with strategic directions in the Auckland Plan 2050 including providing accessible services and social infrastructure that are responsive in meeting people's evolving needs.

Bylaw statutory review completed and found it is needed and requires updating

12. On 11 April 2019 (REG/2019/19) the committee completed its statutory review of the Bylaw and endorsed the review findings that:

· a bylaw about council cemeteries and crematoria is still the most appropriate way to manage activities that may cause public safety hazards, damage to property and unnecessary distress to mourners or relatives

· the current Bylaw does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

· the current bylaw framework approach that enables detailed rules to be made in a separate code is appropriate but requires updating to reflect current best practice drafting standards.

13. The committee requested an options report to help decide how best to respond to the key findings and consider whether the Bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked or replaced.^{^[1]}

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Ongoing problems with public safety, nuisance and ground maintenance

14. The Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 Options Report 2019 (refer attachment A) defines the problem, objectives, outcomes and options. This includes a description of the pros, cons and risks of each option.

15. Staff used the findings report to develop options that respond to current and future problems that the bylaw needs to address:

· public safety risks, distress, nuisance, damage to property and heritage, interference with ground maintenance and operational activities

· current practice is not reflected in the Code

· difficulties ensuring compliance with the Code and varied application of the Code rules at each cemetery.

16. The key activities causing issues at council cemeteries and crematoria are:

· ground maintenance problems from unsecured adornments

· public safety issues from improperly installed monuments

· antisocial behaviour such as drinking and driving on grass in cemeteries which disturbs the public.

17. Four statutory options are outlined to help address the problems. The options also need to respond to the policy outcome for the Bylaw, which is that council cemeteries and crematoria are well maintained and operated in a way that is respectful of public needs.

Statutory options

18. Staff identified the following options to achieve the outcome sought:

· Option one: status quo – retain current framework Bylaw and update Code

· Option two: amend current framework Bylaw and update Code

· Option three: replace current Bylaw – new bylaw containing updated Code rules

· Option four: revoke current Bylaw – rely on Burial and Cremation Act 1964, agreements and conditions of entry.

19. Staff assessed each option against assessment criteria. They reflect the core objective for the use of council cemeteries and crematoria to minimise public safety risks, distress, nuisance, damage to property and heritage, interference with ground maintenance and operational activities. The criteria also reflect council’s statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002.^{^[2]}

Table 1: Summary of assessment of options

	Effectiveness at minimising public safety risks, distress, nuisance, damage to property and heritage, and interference with ground maintenance and operational activities	Efficiency at minimising public safety risks, distress, nuisance, damage to property and heritage, and interference with ground maintenance and operational activities
Option one: status quo - retain current framework Bylaw and update Code	ü	üü
Option two: amend current framework Bylaw and update Code (Recommended)	üü	üü
Option three: replace current Bylaw – new bylaw containing updated Code rules	ü	×
Option four: revoke current Bylaw – rely on Burial and Cremation Act 1964 powers, agreements and conditions of entry	×	××

Key: “ü” and “×” reflect the impact of the option against each criterion relative to other options. For instance, the more “ü”, the better the option.

20. Option two – amend Bylaw scores most favourably against the assessment criteria. This improves on Option one – status quo which also scores well against the criteria. The strength of both of these options is the flexible Bylaw framework that embeds everyday practice into a Code which can be readily amended.

21. Staff recommend Option two – amend bylaw as it:

· helps minimise public safety risks, distress, nuisance, damage to property and heritage and interference with ground maintenance and operational activities from the use of council cemeteries and crematoria by the public and contractors

· improves on the Option one – status quo by using best practice drafting to make the Bylaw easier to understand

· is more flexible than Option three – replace Bylaw as rules are contained in a code. Option three:

cannot be amended by resolution of the Regulatory Committee

more difficult to tailor the content and format to user needs than a code of practice

· more effectively and efficiently regulates third parties than Option four – revoke Bylaw.

22. The key trade-off between the recommended Option two – amend Bylaw and Option one – status quo is a lost opportunity to update the Bylaw drafting to improve public understanding and compliance.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. The Bylaw impacts the operation of council units involved in cemeteries, crematoria and heritage. Input was sought through face-to-face meetings and a workshop. Council units are aware of the impacts of possible changes to the Bylaw and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. The review is important to local boards that have operational cemeteries in their local board area, particularly the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board which has delegated authority over operational cemeteries. Staff attended individual workshops with five local boards which expressed specific interest in the Bylaw. Members raised issues regarding adornments, maintenance and anti-social behaviour in cemeteries. Option two (recommended) would address these concerns in the updated Code rules.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. The Bylaw has particular significance for Māori as urupā are wāhi tapu. Staff sought input from mana whenua at the Parks Kaitiaki Forum and individual hui. A workshop was held with the Waikumete Urupā Komiti who have delegated authority at Waikumete Cemetery.

26. Māori community-based consultants sought feedback from mataawaka kaumatua and kuia at a community event.

27. Māori raised concerns about adornments, ash scattering (particularly in waterways) and the need for more land for mana whenua and council urupā.

28. The Governing Body resolved in March 2019 to address the issue of ash scattering in public places through the Environment and Community Committee (GB/2019/22). This Bylaw review is limited to activities in council cemeteries and crematoria.

29. Key bylaw-related concerns include uncertainty about the role of the Waikumete Urupā Komiti under the Bylaw and Code. Option two (recommended) would address this concern in the updated Code rules.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. There is a low risk that stakeholders or the public may express concern about the preferred option. This risk will be mitigated by future public engagement through consultation on a statement of proposal.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. If approved, staff will prepare a statement of proposal which will include an amended Bylaw and updated Code. A report to the committee in early 2020 will recommend the Governing Body adopt the statement of proposal for public feedback. The report will also seek to appoint a panel to consider public feedback.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 Options Report 2019	17

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Julia Harker - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

James Hassall - Director Regulatory Services (Acting)

Regulatory Committee

09 May 2019

Alcohol Control Bylaw review 2019 options for any changes

File No.: CP2019/06536

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on the preferred statutory option to progress the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. On 11 April 2019 the committee completed the statutory review findings on the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) and requested a report back on options.

3. The statutory options are presented and assessed against criteria to help the committee decide whether to confirm, amend, revoke or replace the Bylaw.

4. Option two - amend Bylaw scores most favourably against the assessment criteria. It also responds to the problem definition about litter, public urination, vandalism and intimidation caused or made worse by the consumption of alcohol in certain public places.

5. Staff recommend Option two - amend Bylaw is it will:

· retain a regulatory tool that can help reduce crime or disorder in certain public places caused or made worse by alcohol consumed there

· improve on the status quo by including event venue alcohol bans, clarifying adoption of temporary alcohol bans, removing clauses that duplicate legislation and making the Bylaw easier to understand

· retain delegated decision-making of alcohol bans by resolution with local boards.

6. There is a low risk that stakeholders or the public may express concern about the recommended Option two - amend Bylaw. The concern may be the lack of harm prevention and ability to use alcohol bans more widely. This risk will be mitigated by public communication about the limitations of alcohol bans under government legislation.

7. The committee may also decide to advocate to government to change alcohol ban legislation to prevent alcohol harm and associated public safety issues. This may also help mitigate public concern.

8. If approved, staff will prepare a statement of proposal and amended bylaw for approval by the committee and Governing Body in early 2020. Public engagement will follow, before a final decision is made by the Governing Body.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) agree that Option two: amend the current Bylaw is the most appropriate option to respond to the statutory review findings on the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014.

b) request a statement of proposal that amends the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 as detailed in Attachment A of the agenda report for Option two: amend the current Bylaw.

Horopaki

Context

The Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 aims to reduce alcohol-related harm in public places

9. The Te Ture a Rohe Whakararata Waipiro 2014, Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) aims to reduce crime or disorder in certain public places caused or made worse by alcohol consumed there. The Bylaw establishes a regulatory framework that:

· enables alcohol bans to be made by resolution of delegated authorities that are then enforced by the New Zealand Police

· sets out decision-making criteria, some of which are legislative

· identifies exceptions

· enables signage requirements to be made by resolution.

10. The Bylaw aligns with strategic directions in the Auckland Plan 2050 including ‘Belonging and Participation’ - Focus Area 1 to “create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in and enjoy community and civic life.”

A statutory review of the Bylaw found needs to be improved

11. On 11 April 2019 (REG/2019/19) the committee completed its statutory review of the Bylaw and endorsed the review findings that:

· a bylaw about the consumption or possession of alcohol in public places is still the most appropriate way to address crime or disorder in certain public places caused or made worse by alcohol consumed there

· the current bylaw does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

· the current bylaw structure and wording could be improved.

12. The committee requested an options report to help decide how best to respond to the key findings and consider whether the Bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked or replaced.^{^[3]}

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Staff recommend amending the Bylaw to respond to the statutory review findings

13. The options report for the 2018 review of the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (refer attachment A) defines the problem, objectives, outcomes and options. This includes a description of the pros, cons and risks of each option.

14. Staff used the findings report to develop options that respond to the current and future problem that the bylaw needs to address.

15. This problem definition sets out a simple statement about the current crime or disorder caused or made worse by the consumption of alcohol in certain public places.

Problem definition

The current and future problem remains “crime or disorder caused or made worse by the consumption of alcohol in certain public places”, for example:

· noise nuisance

· litter

· public urination

· vandalism

· theft, such as mugging

· intimidation

· violence.

There is no reliable data available about the scale and magnitude of public drinking in Auckland. However, on-going demand for alcohol bans and stakeholder narratives show crime and disorder still occurs in certain public places that are associated with frequent, heavy drinking. Stakeholders also consider the scale of the problem may increase in the future as Auckland’s population and urban density increases.

These problems affect nearby residents and users of the space by interrupting sleep, reducing the recreational or visual amenity of the space, placing them in direct danger of physical harm and making people feel unsafe more generally.

16. Four statutory options are outlined to help address the problems. The options also need to respond to the policy outcome for the Bylaw, which is that the public are protected from crime or disorder in public places caused or made worse by alcohol consumed there.

Statutory options

17. Staff identified the following options to achieve the outcome sought:

· Option one: status quo – retain Bylaw that makes alcohol bans by resolution

· Option two: amend the current Bylaw – improve the status quo

· Option three: replace the current Bylaw – new bylaw that contains all alcohol bans

· Option four: revoke Bylaw – no bylaw and instead rely on other existing methods.

18. Staff assessed each option against assessment criteria. They reflect the core objective to reduce crime or disorder in certain public places caused or made worse by alcohol consumed there. The criteria also reflect council’s statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002.^{^[4]}

Table 1: Summary of assessment of options

	Effectiveness at reducing crime or disorder in certain public places caused or made worse by alcohol consumption there	Efficiency at reducing crime or disorder in certain public places caused or made worse by alcohol consumption there
Option one: status quo - retain the current Bylaw that makes alcohol bans by resolution	ü	ü
Option two: amend the current Bylaw - improve the status quo (Recommended)	üü	üü
Option three: replace the current Bylaw - new bylaw that contains all alcohol bans	üü	ûû
Option four: revoke Bylaw – no bylaw and instead rely on other existing methods	ûû	ûû

Key: “ü” and “×” reflect the impact of the option against each criterion relative to other options. For instance, the more “ü”, the better the option.

19. Option two - amend Bylaw scores most favourably against the assessment criteria. It also responds to the problem definition about litter, public urination, vandalism and intimidation caused or made worse by the consumption of alcohol in certain public places.

20. Based on analysis against assessment criteria and the pros and cons of each option, staff recommend Option two: amend the current Bylaw as it:

· retains a regulatory tool that (to varying degrees) can help reduce crime or disorder in certain public places caused or made worse by alcohol consumed there

· improves on the status quo by including event venue alcohol bans, clarifying adoption of temporary alcohol bans, removing clauses that duplicate legislation and making the Bylaw easier to understand

· retains delegated decision-making of alcohol bans by resolution with local boards.

21. Staff consider that the key trade-offs between the recommendation Option two - amend Bylaw and the other options are as follows:

· Option one - status quo is less effective, contains unnecessary provisions, is hard to follow, and does not include event venue alcohol bans

· Option three - replace Bylaw is less efficient because any future alcohol bans would require a bylaw amendment which is less responsive than a resolution.

22. Staff consider Option four - revoke Bylaw to be the least effective option. This option would remove a regulatory tool that helps reduce crime and disorder in over 700 alcohol ban areas.

Changes to legislation required to enable greater alcohol harm prevention

23. Committee members during their consideration of the findings report on 11 April 2019 sought advice on how council could make wider use of alcohol bans. This was in response to findings about the difficulties in gathering evidence and the desire for alcohol bans to prevent alcohol harm and associated public safety issues.

24. Preventing harm through alcohol bans would require changes to the Local Government Act 2002. The most beneficial changes would reduce evidence requirements as set out in sections 147A and 147B of the Act. A key change would be to the policy intent of the Act to include alcohol harm prevention.

25. The committee could request that the Chair of the Regulatory Committee advocate this case to the Minister of Local Government on behalf of the Regulatory Committee.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. Council units are aware of the options for the future of the Bylaw.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. The Bylaw is important to local boards as they have authority to make local alcohol bans. The main view of local board members was to retain local board decision-making authority. Option two (recommended) would retain local board decision-making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. The Bylaw has significance for Māori as users and kaitiaki of public spaces. Māori are also over-represented in alcohol-related hospital visits, justice system and as victims of crime.

29. Input was sought from Mana Whenua and Māori organisations. Māori health advocacy organisations, Te Puni Kōkiri and the Maunga Authority support the use of alcohol bans as a tool to reduce alcohol-related harm. Recommended Option two - amend Bylaw would retain and improve council’s approach to alcohol bans.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. There is a low risk that stakeholders or the public may express concern about the recommended Option two - amend Bylaw. The concern may be the lack of harm prevention and ability to use alcohol bans more widely. This risk will be mitigated by public communication about the limitations of alcohol bans under government legislation.

32. The committee may also decide to advocate to government to change alcohol ban legislation to prevent alcohol harm and associated public safety issues. This may also help mitigate public concern.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. If approved, staff will prepare a statement of proposal, including an amended Bylaw. A report to the committee in early 2020 will recommend the Governing Body adopt the proposal for public feedback. The report will also seek to appoint a panel to consider public feedback.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Options report for the 2018 review of the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014	33

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bonnie Apps - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

James Hassall - Director Regulatory Services (Acting)

Regulatory Committee

09 May 2019

Request to appoint Independent Hearings Commissioners to hear submissions on Plan Change 18, to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)

File No.: CP2019/05244

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of Independent Hearings Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan change 18 - Tāmaki Open Space Rezoning.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan change 18 seeks to rezone parts of three reserves in Tāmaki. These are:

· Taniwha Reserve

· Maybury reserve- west and

· Boundary Reserve.

3. The rezoning of these three reserves has been identified in the Tāmaki Open Space Network Plan, which guides land exchanges and rezoning of open space within the Tamaki regeneration area. The aim of land exchanges and rezoning in the Tāmaki regeneration area is to improve the quality of open space and facilitate development.

4. The Tāmaki Open Space Network Plan identifies a sustainable and a quality open space network for Tāmaki, which includes a programme of rezoning and land exchange. The rezoning of these three reserves is the first plan change in a series of plan changes to deliver the network plan.

5. Plan change 18 was notified on 21 February 2019 and the submission period closed on 22 March 2019. A total of 20 submissions were received and nine submitters would like to be heard.

6. Plan change 18 was notified for further submissions on 12 April 2019 and the submission period closes on 4 May 2019.

7. It is proposed that two independent hearings commissioners, with legal or planning experience, are appointed to hear and make decisions on Plan change 18.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint an independent hearings commissioner, with legal or planning experience, to chair the independent hearing panel for Plan Change 18 to the Auckland Unitary Plan

b) appoint one commissioner with legal or planning experience to hear the submissions on Plan Change 18 to the Auckland Unitary Plan

c) delegate to the independent commissioners appointed in clauses (a) and (b), the authority to make decisions on Plan Change 18 to the Auckland Unitary Plan

d) delegate to the Chair of the Regulatory Committee the authority to make replacement appointments if necessary.

Horopaki

Context

Background to Plan Change 18- Tāmaki Open Space Rezoning

8. Plan Change 18 – Tāmaki Open Space Rezoning is the first plan change as part of a wider programme of land exchanges and rezoning across the Tāmaki regeneration area.

9. The Tāmaki regeneration area is an area of urban regeneration led by the Tāmaki Regeneration Company. The Company is joint venture between central government and Auckland Council to deliver 7,500 homes and community facilities over the next 25 years.

10. Land exchanges and rezoning across this regeneration area seek to improve the quality of open space and facilitate development.

11. In some instances, the configuration of parcels of open space and residential zoned land does not lend itself to its intended purpose. For instance, land currently zoned open space cannot be used for recreational activities or land better suited to residential uses cannot be used as such. Land exchanges and rezoning facilitates and progresses appropriate and efficient use of the parcels of land.

12. To facilitate better configuration of open space, the Tāmaki Open Space Network Plan was developed to deliver a sustainable and a quality open space network for Tāmaki. It also guides land exchanges and rezoning in the Tāmaki regeneration area.

13. Plan change 18 is the first plan change for land exchanges and rezoning in this area.

14. Plan change 18 seeks to rezone parts of three reserves. These reserves are:

· Taniwha Reserve

· Maybury reserve- west

· Boundary Reserve

15. Attachment A of this report contains the plan change maps.

Public notification of Plan Change 18- Tāmaki Open Space Rezoning

16. On 27 November 2019, the Planning Committee approved the notification of Plan change 18.

17. Plan change 18 was subsequently notified on 21 February 2019 and the submission period closed on 22 March 2019. A total of 20 submissions were received and nine submitters would like to be heard.

18. Public notice for further submissions occurred on 12 April 2019 and the further submissions period closes 4 May 2019. More submitters may want to be heard as a result of the further submissions process.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. Given the small scale of the plan change and number of submissions received, it is proposed that submitters are heard over one day, at the availability of the commissioners.

20. It is also proposed that the hearings panel is comprised of two independent hearings commissioners, with legal or planning experience, to hear and make decisions on Plan change 18.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. Staff from the Plans and Places Department worked extensively with Panuku Development Auckland in progressing Plan change 18.

22. Panuku Development Auckland is one of Auckland Council’s representatives in this joint venture with Tāmaki Regeneration Company.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. The three reserves in this plan change are within the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

24. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has been involved in the development of the Tāmaki Open Space Network Plan.

25. On 12 June 2018, a workshop was held with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board to seek feedback on the proposed rezoning of open space land (including parts of these three reserves) in the Tāmaki regeneration area. The local board subsequently endorsed the proposed rezoning of parts of these three reserves on 24 July 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. Staff engaged with mana whenua in June 2018 to seek feedback on the rezoning of these three reserves (as well as other open space reserves).

27. There were no comments from mana whenua on the proposed changes to these three reserves.

28. As part of ongoing engagement with mana whenua, the Tāmaki Regeneration Company holds monthly and specific mana whenua engagement on neighbourhood development within the Tāmaki regeneration area.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. The cost of this plan change is part of the Plans and Places Department’s operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. Delegation is sought to enable the independent commissioners to hear the submissions and make decisions on the plan change. Once a decision has been made and the appeal period has lapsed, the Auckland Unitary Plan will be updated. The plan change will be made operative once any appeals are resolved.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Plan Change 18: Proposed Plan Change Maps - Tamaki	49

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jasmin Kaur - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

James Hassall - Director Regulatory Services (Acting)

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Region-wide appeals	57
b ⇩	Appeals status report	67
c ⇩	Forward Work Programme	69

Regulatory Committee

09 May 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
				FY19	FY19	FY19	FY20
				Oct – Dec 4 Oct 8 Nov	Jan-Mar 14 Feb 14 March	Apr – Jun 11 April 9 May 13 June	Jul – Sep 11 July 8 Aug 12 Sept
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.
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.	Q2 (Oct)	Q3	Q4	Q1
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)	Q3	Q4	Q1
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 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.	Q2 (NOV)
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 ^#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.	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1
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 Progress to date: 14 February 2019 – a report to recommend to the Governing Body that it adopt the Auckland Councils New Policy on Dogs and dog Management Bylaw 2019 Statement of proposal – minute REG/2019/6 ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.		Q2 (Nov)	Q3 (Feb)	Q4	Q1
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		Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1
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. Progress to date: 14 February 2019 - a report to endorse the findings of the Solid Waste Bylaw 2012 review and request a report on options that responds to the findings. Minute REG/2019/7 14 March 2019 – a report to request a statement of proposal that makes a new bylaw. Minute REG/2019/12 14 March 2019 – a report to determine outcome of review and decide whether to make changes. Minutes REG/2019/12		Q2	Q3 (Feb & Mar)	Q4	Q1
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		Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1
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		Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1
Resource Consents Appeal Update	To provide oversight of the appeals received to resource consent decisions.	Information purposes Monthly updates - Memo	N/A	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1
The Regulatory Committee Policy	Reporting on and monitoring of commissioner appointments	Information purposes Memo quarterly		Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1
The Regulatory Committee Policy	Annual review of commissioner pool	Decision: review RMA commissioner pool Memo Quarterly		Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1
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		Q2	Q3 (Mar)	Q4	Q1
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	Q3	Q4	Q1
Trade Waste Bylaw 2013 – Statement of Proposal	Approve statement of proposal	Progress to date: 14 March 2019 report to recommend to Governing Body to adopt statement of proposal – minute REG/2019/11				Q4

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

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

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

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

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
	Cr Paul Young

Ex-officio	Mayor Hon Phil Goff

Author	Maea Petherick - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	James Hassall - Director Regulatory Services (Acting)