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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 23 June 2020

10.00am

Room 1, Level 26
135 Albert St
Auckland

 

Kōmiti Whakahaere ā-Ture /

Regulatory Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Josephine Bartley

 

Members

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

 

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

 

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

 

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

 

IMSB Chair David Taipari

 

 

Member Glenn Wilcox

 

 

Cr Paul Young

 

Ex-officio

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

 

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Maea Petherick

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

 

18 June 2020

 

Contact Telephone: 021583018

Email: maea.petherick@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

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

 

The committee’s key responsibilities include:

 

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

·         hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996

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

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

·         hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws

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

·         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)

·         recommending bylaws to the Governing Body for consultation and adoption

·         reviewing local board and Auckland water organisation proposed bylaws and making recommendations to the Governing Body

·         appointing panels to hear and deliberate on public feedback related to regulatory policy and bylaw matters

·         deciding regulatory policies that are not otherwise the responsibility of another committee

·         deciding regulatory policies, standards and controls associated with bylaws including those delegated to the former Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 (dogs) and GB/2014/121 (alcohol)

·         receiving local board feedback on bylaw and regulatory policy 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, certificates of compliance, regulatory policy and bylaws 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 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

Health Act 1956

Land Transport Act 1998

Local Government Act 1974

Local Government Act 2002

Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009

Maritime Transport Act 1994

Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

Resource Management Act 1991

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

Waste Minimisation Act 2008

 

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.

 

 

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        9

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   9

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               9

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          9  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    9

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          9

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                9

8          Approval to commence recruitment for independent resource management commissioners for the 2021-2023 term                                                                     11

9          Appointment of Hearing Commissioners - Proposed Plan Change 36 - Open Space (2019) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)                                         17

10        Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Private Plan Change 37 (666 Great South Road, Ellerslie) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)              23

11        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Appointing hearing commissioners for Plan Change 39 - Change of zoning in Cadness Loop Reserve area, Northcote 27

12        Request to appoint Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 40 (Rezoning of land at Clayden Road, Warkworth)                                                                                     31

13        Request to appoint Hearing Commissioners for a joint hearing of Plan Change 42 (Auckland Regional Landfill - Wayby Valley) and the notified resource consent applications for the Auckland Regional Landfill                                                      37

14        2020 Review of the Local Approved Products Policy 2015 (Psychoactive Substances)                                                                                                                  43

15        Findings of the Signage Bylaw 2015 Review                                                            59

16        Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 Review Options Report                                         221

17        Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw Review options                          265

18        Resource Consents: Quarterly Hearings Report 23 June 2020                           293

19        s460 LGA report for stormwater and wastewater connections                           303

20        Objection against a Menacing Dog Classification - Mr Brian Cooke                   527

21        Objection to a menacing dog classification - Mr Adam Palmer                           591

22        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

23        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               631

C1       Appeals to Plan Change 25 (Private) - Warkworth North                                      631  

 


1          Apologies

 

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

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 17 March 2020, 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

23 June 2020

 

Approval to commence recruitment for independent resource management commissioners for the 2021-2023 term

File No.: CP2020/07804

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the process of recruitment for a list of independent commissioners to make decisions under the Resource Management Act.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council contracts independent commissioners to hear and make decisions under delegated authority on a range of resource management matters. The contracts for commissioners are due to expire on 31 December 2020 and the following three-year term commences on 1 January 2021.

3.       On 12 November 2019 (GB/2019/119), Governing Body approved a six-month extension to the current term of independent commissioner contracts, thereby extending the date of expiry from 30 June 2020 to 31 December 2020.

4.       This report seeks approval to appoint a selection panel comprising one councillor, one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and two senior staff members to examine and assess new and existing candidates and make recommendations to the Regulatory Committee for appointments. The proposed advertising and recruitment programme includes improvements on previous processes.

5.       Staff propose that the independent commissioners’ structure comprises 55-60 commissioners representing specialist knowledge in eight subject areas including approximately 20 senior commissioners with expertise in chairing hearing panels.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      approve the recommended process for recruiting independent commissioners for
1 January 2021 to 31 December 2023 

b)      approve two pathways for commissioner recruitment which use robust assessment processes

c)      approve using a selection panel to finalise a list of recommendations to the Regulatory Committee

d)      appoint a selection panel comprising one councillor, one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and any two of the following senior staff managers:

i)        General Manager Plans and Places (or their delegate)

ii)       General Manager Resource Consents (or their delegate)

iii)      General Manager Democracy Services (or their delegate)

iv)      Manager Public Law (or their delegate)

 

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       Auckland Council commissioners sit on hearing panels and make decisions under delegated authority for a range of resource management matters, including applications for resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement.

7.       A commissioner with Reserves Act experience may also be appointed by a local board to sit on a panel with elected members who make recommendations for matters under the Reserves Act. This is an emerging workstream which is expected to require a small number of appointments over the next seven to ten years.

8.       In July 2017, 54 appointments were made to the commissioner pool and during the term four commissioners have left the pool.  A smaller number of commissioners within the pool also act as duty commissioners and determine applications which do not necessitate a hearing. 

9.       This report seeks approval to recruit approximately 60 commissioners to meet the requirement of expertise in each specialist category, to allow for new appointments to join the panel, and to identify senior commissioners who have extensive chairing experience who self-select as mentors for emerging chairs.

10.     Following approval from Governing Body (GB/2019/119), contracts for independent commissioners were extended for six months to allow the independent commissioner recruitment programme to follow the recruitment of the Auckland District Licensing Committee. The contracts held by current commissioners expire on 31 December 2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11.     Commissioners are recruited for their qualifications and experience in resource management matters and their specialised areas of expertise. The expert skills of the commissioners ensures a balance of knowledge and understanding for the decision-making process.

12.     The categories of expertise in the existing pool that contribute to the decision making are:

·    Air Quality

·    Ecology

·    Engineering

·    Landscape

·    Legal

·    Planning

·    Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi

·    Urban Design 

13.     The proposal is to implement two pathways in the recruitment programme to strengthen the process by acknowledging and regarding any previous interviews, tenure, experience and performance of the existing commissioners and ensuring that a robust interview process is in place for the recruitment of new commissioners. 

14.     Commissioners appointed to the pool via either pathway do not have a guarantee of appointment to a hearing panel. There is a robust process of assessing suitability for appointments to a hearing, including consideration of chairing and decision-writing expertise, specialist knowledge, and participation in quality practice processes which council implements to ensure performance measures are achieved.

 

Pathway A

15.     Commissioners in the current pool may be reappointed if they wish to and they meet the council’s requirements for commissioner expertise and performance.

16.     Staff propose that existing commissioners are asked to submit an application in the form of an expression of interest if they wish to continue in the commissioner role. In this pathway, the selection panel will finalise the selection criteria, examine and assess the applications, and confirm the names of candidates recommended for reappointment.

17.     The rationale for this approach is that all current commissioners have been through at least one round of the established formal interview process.

18.     Of the existing commissioners, 28 have served since 2010 and interviewed successfully on three occasions. A further 19 were initially appointed in 2014/2015 and have been successful in two interview rounds. The remaining seven commissioners were successful at interview and appointment in 2017.   

Pathway B 

19.     Staff propose that new candidates are required to enter into the application, shortlisting and interview process that is consistent with all new commissioner appointments.

20.     The rationale for this approach is that it follows the established process for selecting suitable candidates for the role and appointing new people to the panel, and it ensures that the pool is continually refreshed.

Selection panel

21.     The proposed makeup of the selection panel is four members including:

·    one Councillor, with a second councillor available for backup

·    one representative from the Independent Māori Statutory Board 

·    two senior staff members.

22.     The proposed panel of elected members and senior council staff have expertise in resource management and represent the balance of knowledge and experience required for recommending appointments to the commissioner pool.  

Timeline

23.     The proposed timeline is:

Dates (2020)

Activity

23 June

Decision of Regulatory Committee

29 June

Advertising: call for applications

20 July

Applications close

Week of 27 July

Shortlisting meeting

August - September

Interviews

September

Reference checks

Week of 21 September

Panel decides recommendations

13 October

Regulatory Committee makes appointments

November - December

Contracts issued and returned

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24.     There are no climate or environmental impacts arising from the decision-making processes relating to this report. The minor impacts from the greenhouse gas emissions relating to travel associated with appointments to hearing panels are minimised by holding hearings as close as possible to the site relating to the application.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25.     The proposed recruitment programme to select independent commissioners does not impact other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of the report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26.     Local Boards provide input and feedback to applications for resource management applications and able to appear at hearings to present community views and interests. 

27.     Local board members who are also accredited resource management commissioners may be appointed to hearing panels.

28.     The recommended appointments for the 2021-2023 term include people with experience in local reserve matters and knowledge of local board reserve management plans, who may be appointed by local boards to chair hearing panels.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29.     All resource management commissioners are expected to have an understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Te Ao Māori. 

30.     Iwi commissioners with expertise in matauranga Māori and tikanga Māori are appointed to panels for all matters where a matter covers areas of significance to Māori to ensure better and more informed decisions are made. 

31.     All accredited commissioners are required to have knowledge of Mana Whakahone agreements and the requirements of Subpart 2, sections 58L to 58U of the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017.

32.     A member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board participates on the selection panel to ensure that the panel is guided when making decisions and that the interests and concerns of Māori communities are reflected in decisions.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.     Applicants for resource consents meet the costs associated with the hearing when the work is completed. In a small number of applications, the applicant may be Auckland Council.

34.     The hearing costs associated with private plan changes are met by the applicant. The hearing costs for notices of requirement are met by the requiring authority.

35.     The hearing costs for a public plan change are met by council’s Democracy Services Department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36.     Successful candidates will undergo Ministry of Justice checks, which is a standard requirement. As new appointments are subject to this check being satisfactory, all appointments are not made public until this process has been completed.

37.     A robust recruitment process which includes reference checks ensures that qualified commissioners are recommended for appointment.

38.     Each commissioner makes a conflict of interest declaration prior to each hearing.

39.     A robust programme of monitoring and assessment of commissioner performance is ongoing throughout the term of appointment and is included all contract agreements.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40.     After approval on the recruitment process is granted, staff will commence the programme of work as set out in the timeline.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jessica Carter - Principal Advisor Hearings

Authorisers

Steve Van Kampen - Governance Support Manager

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Appointment of Hearing Commissioners - Proposed Plan Change 36 - Open Space (2019) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2020/03012

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To request the appointment of Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make a decision on Proposed Plan Change 36 – Open Space (2019) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Independent Hearing Commissioners are sought for the above proposed plan change. The commissioners will hear submissions and make a decision on the proposed plan change.

3.       Auckland Council undertakes an annual open space plan change to update the Auckland unitary Plan’s open space zones. Plan Change 36 (PC36) is the third such plan change since the Unitary Plan became operative in part in 2016.

4.       PC36 has three components – the rezoning of land recently vested or acquired to an appropriate open space zone, the correction of “open space” related zoning errors or anomalies and the rezoning of land on behalf of Panuku Auckland which has been approved by the Auckland Council for disposal.

5.       PC36 was publicly notified on 28 November 2019. Twenty-two submissions were received. A summary of submissions was notified on 27 February 2020. One further submission was received. There is a mix of support for (9 submissions in support and 2 submissions in support but seeking changes) and opposition to (11 submissions) the plan change.

6.       Submissions in opposition to the plan change are primarily related to the rezoning of two of Panuku’s land parcels – 28-30 Pilkington Road, Mt Wellington and 3 Kings Road, Panmure.

7.       The submitters in opposition to the rezoning of the above sites raise the following issues:

·    Volcanic viewshaft (buildings under a THAB zoning could project into the viewshaft);

·    Heritage area and proposed new zoning (impact on the setting of nearby historic heritage places);

·    Tamaki Open Space Network Plan (loss of 2000sqm of open space zoned land);

·    Climate change resilience (3 Kings Road is a flat open space which has low flood risk – it could provide some adaptability or resilience for future flooding);

·    Current use and development (currently used as a carpark and relied on by adjacent uses);

·    Loss of parking in Panmure and impact on the centre and businesses;

·    Congestion (additional development on the rezoned sites will result in more cars on the road); and

·    Increase in population (requires town centre carparks).

8.       Commissioners with expertise in open space, planning, transport and urban design are therefore requested.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      appoint at least two independent commissioners, with expertise in open space, planning, transport and urban design to hear submissions and make decisions on Proposed Plan Change 36 – Open Space (2019) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

b)      delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments to the hearing panel in clause a) in the event that a member of the panel is unavailable.

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       Auckland Council undertakes an annual open space plan change to update the Auckland Unitary Plan open space zones. Plan Change 36 is the third such plan change since the Auckland Unitary Plan became operative in part in November 2016.

10.     Plan Change 36 (PC36) has three components:

i)        rezoning of land recently vested and/or acquired as open space so that the land reflects its purpose, function and intended use

ii)       correcting open space zoning errors and anomalies

iii)      rezoning of nine land parcels as part of Panuku Auckland’s land disposal and rationalisation process

11.     Approximately 200 new land parcels are either vested or acquired as reserve/open space annually and are required to be rezoned within the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Auckland Unitary Plan).  In addition, a small number of zoning errors associated with open space have been identified by the community and council officers.  Panuku’s land disposal and rationalisation process also requires the rezoning of land (typically from open space or road to another zone) prior to its sale.

12.     It is important that land intended as open space is appropriately zoned to provide for its intended use and development or protection. Conversely, land that is no longer required as open space requires an alternative zoning.

13.     To address the above matters efficiently and in a cost-effective manner, these proposed changes have been bundled together into one Proposed Open Space Plan Change.

14.     The rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space applies an appropriate open space zoning, either because of subdivision or purchase during the past year. The proposed zoning reflects the land’s open space qualities and intended use and development.

15.     The Plan Change also includes a small number of zoning errors or anomalies (16 land parcels) involving open space zones. These include land that has been zoned open space in error or conversely open space that requires an appropriate zoning. These errors have been identified by either the public or by staff.

16.     This is also the third proposed plan change involving the rezoning of open space zoned land considered surplus to requirements. Plan Change 1 involved the rezoning of eleven land parcels and Plan Change 13 ten land parcels respectively.  Panuku in conjunction with Auckland Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team in the Community Facilities Department have identified a further nine council owned land parcels currently zoned open space or shown as road which are surplus to requirements and have been approved for disposal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17.     Plan Change 36 – Open Space (2019) is an Auckland Council initiated plan change. It was publicly notified on 28 November 2019 with a closing date for submissions on 30 January 2020. A summary of submissions was public notified on 27 February 2020 with a closing date of 12 March 2020.

18.     Twenty-two submissions and one further submission were received in relation to the plan change. There is a mix of support for (9 submissions in support and 2 submissions in support but with amendments requested) and opposition to (11 submissions) the plan change.

19.     Submissions in opposition to the plan change are primarily on two of Panuku’s land parcels – 28-30 Pilkington Road, Mt Wellington and 3 Kings Road, Panmure.

20.     The submitters in opposition to the rezoning of the above sites raise the following issues:

·    Volcanic viewshaft (buildings under a THAB zoning could project into the viewshaft);

·    Heritage area and proposed new zoning (impact on the setting of a nearby historic heritage place – Stone Cottage);

·    Tamaki Open Space Network Plan (loss of 2000sqm of open space zoned land);

·    Climate change resilience (3 Kings Road is a flat open space which has low flood risk – it could provide some adaptability or resilience for future flooding);

·    Current use and development (currently used as a carpark and relied on by adjacent uses);

·    Loss of parking in Panmure and impact on the centre and businesses;

·    Congestion (additional development on the rezoned sites will result in more cars on the road); and

·    Increase in population (requires town centre carparks).

21.     Given the issues raised in the submissions, commissioners with expertise in open space, planning, transport and urban design are required.

22.     Analysis of the issues raised in submissions and recommendations will be provided in the section 42A hearing reports for the commissioner’s consideration.

23.     The commissioners will hear the submissions and make a decision on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24.     As this report is recommending a procedural step (the appointment of commissioners), there are no impacts on climate change.

25.     Plan Change 36 does however result in a significant net gain of land being zoned open space across the region. This provides additional opportunity for tree planting to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the plan change will result in additional local reserves that are accessible and useable, thus encouraging local use and mitigating the need to travel elsewhere for recreation purposes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26.     The following council departments/groups have been involved in the proposed plan change and will continue to be involved prior to and during the hearings – Parks Policy, Healthy Waters, Panuku and Plans and Places (Auckland – wide).

27.     Panuku also liaises with all affected council departments and CCO’s, including Auckland Transport prior to any land disposal.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28.     As part of the plan change process, memos are sent to relevant local boards advising them of the proposed plan change and providing them with the opportunity to provide feedback. Local board views were received in respect of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board.

29.     Local boards also have the opportunity to provide feedback prior to the commencement of hearings. Feedback received from local boards will be included in the section 42A report for the hearing.

30.     Rezoning of recently acquired and vested land as open space will have positive effects for local communities.  It will enable land to be used and developed (where appropriate) for its intended purpose.

31.     In relation to Panuku’s land disposal process, local board feedback was considered as part of the disposal process and covered in the disposal recommendation reports to the Finance and Performance Committee.

32.     Submitters to the plan change however have raised issues around the loss of carparking associated with the proposed rezoning of 28-30 Pilkington Road and 3 Kings Road.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33.     Clause 3(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the RMA, states that local authorities shall consult with tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities, during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.

34.     Clause 4A of Schedule 1 to the RMA states that local authorities must:

· provide a copy of a draft proposed policy statement or plan to iwi authorities to consider

· have regard to feedback provided by iwi authorities on the draft proposed policy statement or plan

· provide iwi authorities with sufficient time to consider the draft policy statement or plan.

35.     A draft copy of the plan change was sent to all Auckland’s 19 mana whenua entities on 10 September 2019, as required under the Resource Management Act.

36.     No submissions were received from iwi either prior to or on full notification of the plan change.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37.     The cost of independent hearing commissioners is covered by the Democracy Services department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38.     Hearing commissioners are appointed from the pool of independent commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience.  A small number of elected members who hold the ‘Good Decision-making’ accreditation may also sit as commissioners.  These processes, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making and help avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39.     Council staff will commence preparations for the hearings to take place.

40.     The key next steps involve:

·    Appointing the Independent Hearing Commissioners (Regulatory Committee 23 June 2020);

·    Preparing the Section 42A Hearing Report;

·    Notifying the submitters of the hearing date and venue;

·    Providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report;

·    Independent Hearing Commissioners conducting the hearing; and

·    Release of Council’s decision.

41.     The appeal period commences after the decision is released.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Private Plan Change 37 (666 Great South Road, Ellerslie) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2020/06390

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To request the appointment of Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Private Plan Change 37 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Private Plan Change seeks to rezone land at 666 Great South Road from Business Park to Business – Mixed Use, to introduce a height variation control for the site to provide for a building height of 44m and to remove the site from the Central Park Precinct.

3.       Five primary submissions were received on the Private Plan Change request.  The submissions raise a mixture of planning and transport matters.  Whilst no submissions have been formally withdrawn, the applicant is close to resolving all the submissions points raised by the submitters.

4.       It is considered appropriate that two independent commissioners, with expertise in planning and transport are appointed to consider matters raised in submissions and make decisions on the private plan change request.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      appoint two independent commissioners, with expertise in planning and transport to consider submissions and make decisions on Proposed Plan Change 37 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

b)      delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make a replacement appointment in the event that the appointee in clause a) is unavailable.

 

Horopaki

Context

5.       CP Auckland LP lodged a private plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) on 25 September 2019.  On 22 November 2019 the private plan change was considered and accepted by the council.

6.       The purpose of the Private Plan Change is to enable a greater mix of activities mixed use on the site at 666 Great South Road, including residential activity.

7.       Specifically, the Private Plan Change seeks to:

·        rezone 1.3577ha of land within the Central Park Precinct at 666 Great South Road from Business Park to Business – Mixed Use;

·        introduce a height variation control for the site to provide for a building height of 44m;

·        remove the site from the Central Park Precinct; 

·        modify the parking provisions; and

·        delete the existing maximum FAR and GFA limits for development within the precinct. 

8.       The Private Plan Change was publicly notified on 5 December 2019.  After the closing date for submissions on 5 February 2020, five primary submissions were received.  The  summary of submissions was publicly notified on 27 February 2020.  After the closing date for further submissions on 11 March 2020, two further submissions were received.

9.       Submitters have raised a mixture of planning and transport matters.  Whilst no submissions have been formally withdrawn, the applicant is close to resolving all the submissions points raised by the submitters. On this basis it is recommended that submissions on the Private Plan Change request be considered by two independent commissioners with expertise in planning and transport matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10.     Analysis of the issues raised in submissions and recommendations will be provided in the section 42A hearing report for the proposed plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

11.     This is a procedural report seeking appointment of a decision maker. The decision to appoint has no impact on climate change or greenhouse gas emissions.  

12.     The final decision on the proposed private plan change will be made in accordance with statutory processes set out in the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). These include consideration of the effects of the proposal on climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

 

13.     The applicant’s infrastructure report indicates that there are no water or wastewater issues associated with the proposal. Watercare has been sent a copy of the private plan change request and has not raised any issues.

 

14.     Healthy Waters has advised that the applicant’s infrastructure report adequately addresses the key matters in relation to stormwater management and flooding. It acknowledges that the site sits within the extensive flood plain and any development is likely to increase the flood levels within the site due to the loss of flood storage. The site is currently nearly 100% impervious.  As the private plan change does not seek to make changes in impervious area, Healthy Waters is satisfied that there would be no downstream effect from the proposed plan change. 

15.     Healthy Waters also indicates that the effects in relation to flooding as a result of any future development could be addressed and the flood risk assessed through the resource consent process.


 

16.     Auckland Transport indicates that the site is uniquely located near the primary school, fire station, train station, bus interchange and proximity to the Ellerslie town centre, the private plan change request needs to carefully consider potential effects in relation to operation and safety impacts on the local network.  Auckland Transport has raised that there is an opportunity to improve pedestrian and cycle facilities and reduce parking spaces given the site proximity to the Ellerslie Railway Station and town centre.

17.     Whilst a submission was received from Auckland Transport on the proposal, the submission points raised are being addressed and resolved by the applicant.

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

Local impacts and local board views

18.     The applicant provided a summary of the proposed private plan change to the Maungakiekie Tāmaki local board and offered to meet the local board to discuss the details of the plan change.  The local board advised that it had no concerns with the proposed plan change.

19.     The views of the Maungakiekie Tāmaki local board were sought as part of the public notificationNo feedback was received from the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     The applicant has engaged with all 19 mana whenua entities in Tāmaki Makaurau.  A summary of the proposed private plan change was sent to all of the mana whenua providing opportunity for queries and feedback before the plan change request was lodged with the council.  One response was received from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki who advised that they have no objection to the proposal.  No responses have been received from other mana whenua.

21.     All relevant iwi authorities were formally notified of the proposed plan change as part of the public notification procedure under the RMA. No submissions were received from any mana whenua group during the submission period.  

22.     In addition to notification Council considered the requirements under s.34(A)(1A) of the RMA as to whether or not the Private Plan Change would require a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori. It is considered that the proposal has no impact on Maori greater than the general public and therefore it is not recommended that a commissioner with tikanga experience be appointment to be the decision maker in this case.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23.     The cost of independent hearing commissioners will be recovered from CP Auckland LP.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24.     Hearing commissioners are appointed from the pool of independent commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience.  A small number of elected members who hold the ‘Good Decision-making’ accreditation may also sit as commissioners.  These processes, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making and help avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25.     Council staff will contact the appointed independent hearing commissioners to check their availability. The appointed commissioners will then be requested to issue directions as to whether a hearing is required.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Panjama Ampanthong - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Appointing hearing commissioners for Plan Change 39 - Change of zoning in Cadness Loop Reserve area, Northcote

File No.: CP2020/07564

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To request the appointment of a Hearing Commissioner to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan Change 39 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Plan Change 39 proposes to amend the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (‘AUP’) GIS zoning maps on 1367 square metres of land in Cadness Street, Northcote, from Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone (‘OS-IR zone’) and public road to Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone (‘THAB zone’), and 1986 square metres of adjacent land in Cadness Street, Northcote, from THAB zone and public road to OS-IR zone.

3.       The plan change recognises land exchanges and road stopping processes that have been concluded in order to implement the creation of a new Kāinga Ora housing development block together with an enlarged and reconfigured Cadness Loop Reserve. These features are identified in the approved Kāinga Ora Northcote development masterplan.

4.       The plan change was notified (limited notification) on 27 February 2020 and re-notified on 5 March 2020 due to an error in notification documents. Two submissions were received, in support of the plan change. There were no further submissions received.

5.       Hearing Commissioners are required to be appointed to decide the plan change process. Given the limited extent of the proposed plan change and only supportive submissions having been received, it is recommended that one commissioner will be sufficient. The plan change is focussed on planning matters and is of public interest. Therefore, the appointment of a commissioner with expertise in planning is recommended.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      appoint one Independent Hearing Commissioner, with expertise in planning, to hear submissions and make the council’s decision on Plan Change 39 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

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

 

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       The purpose of Plan Change 39 is to amend the AUP zoning maps to reflect an approved land exchange between Kāinga Ora and Auckland Council, land purchases by Kāinga Ora and Auckland Council, and approved road stopping in Cadness Street, Northcote. The change in zoning will enable the development of new housing on a reconfigured block of THAB zoned land and an enlarged reserve on OS-IR zoned land.

7.       Plan Change 39 was notified (limited notification) on 27 February 2020. However, upon notification an error was observed in the online documents whereby an incorrect earlier version of the Section 32 report had been included along with the absence of the correct plan change summary.

8.       The plan change was re-notified on 5 March 2020 with the closing date for submissions being 2 April 2020. The plan change received two submissions and no further submissions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9.       Auckland Council has received two submissions to Plan Change 39. These submissions were in support of the plan change. In addition to supporting the plan change, the submission from Kāinga Ora seeks a consequential amendment such that the Height Variation Control of 19.5 metres terminating across THAB-zoned sites at the southern end of the existing Cadness Loop Reserve should be extended to cover the whole reconfigured block up to the future Cadness Loop Reserve boundary that is proposed to be THAB zone.

10.     No further submissions were received.

11.     The submission from Kāinga Ora raises a planning issue with respect to additional building height enablement through an extension of the area covered by the Height Variation Control. It is recommended that the panel hearing Plan Change 39 consist of one commissioner who has expertise in planning.

12.     The recommendation to engage only one hearing commissioner reflects the very localised nature of the plan change, that it addresses matters of zoning and extent of Height Variation Control only, and that only two submissions (both in support of the change) have been received, with no further submissions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13.     The decision to appoint independent hearing commissioners is an administrative one and does not have any associated climate change impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14.     Discussions were undertaken with Auckland Transport prior to notification, due to the status of road stopping processes and impact upon the local road network of the proposed plan change. Auckland Transport acknowledged the road stopping process was proceeding appropriately and supported the proposed zone changes when the plan change was adopted and modified by the Planning Committee of the council in July 2019.

15.     Responses were also received in support of the adopted and modified plan change from Healthy Waters, Community and Social Policy with regard to reserve reconfiguration, and from the Auckland Design Office.

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

Local impacts and local board views

16.     The proposed plan change involves places within one local board area; Kaipātiki Local Board.

17.     The local board has been informed and involved in the development of plans for the Northcote housing development at every stage since HLC (now Kāinga Ora) initiated the development project in 2016.

18.     Kaipātiki Local Board members were informed of the proposed plan change by memo in June 2019, at that stage submitted as a private plan change request. The Chair and Deputy Chair of the Kaipātiki Local Board expressed their support for the initial private plan change proposal, and also again expressed support for the modified plan change that was subsequently adopted by the Planning Committee in July 2019.

19.     The Kaipātiki Local Board had a further opportunity to provide their views on the plan change when it was notified on 27 February 2020 and re-notified on 5 March 2020. Any views provided by the local board will be considered alongside submissions as part of hearing and decision process on the plan change. At this point in time there has been no further response from the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     Due to the comprehensive nature of the Northcote redevelopment by Kāinga Ora, consultation on the private plan change request took place in conjunction with wider discussions and consultation with iwi relating to the Northcote Awataha Greenway Design Guidelines and housing development master plan preparation.

21.     Kāinga Ora has been engaging with a mana whenua forum in relation to the Northcote development and the greenway since 2017. The mana whenua forum involves representatives from Ngāti Whātua, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Marutūahu and Ngāti Paoa. Design input of mana whenua into the Kāinga Ora housing masterplan has occurred at various points in the past three years and is continuing to progress.

22.     The draft modified plan change adopted by the council, along with the draft Section 32 evaluation report, was provided to iwi authorities in September 2019. The correspondence also sought iwi’s views on whether there was interest to appoint a commissioner with tikanga Māori. No response was received.

23.     All iwi authorities were notified directly when the plan change was publicly notified. No submissions from iwi authorities were received. No request was received to appoint a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24.     The cost of an Independent Hearing Commissioner will be managed within the existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25.     Hearing Commissioners are appointed from the pool of Independent Commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience. A small number of elected members that hold the Good Decision-Making accreditation may also sit as commissioners. These processes, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making and avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26.     The next steps involve:

·    Contacting the appointed Hearing Commissioner to check their availability

·    Notifying submitters of the hearing date and venue

·    Providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report

·    Hearing Commissioner conducts the hearing

·    Auckland Council decision released.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Todd Elder - Planner

Authorisers

Warren Maclennan - Manager Planning - North/West

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Request to appoint Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 40 (Rezoning of land at Clayden Road, Warkworth)

File No.: CP2020/07510

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To appoint Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on (private) Plan Change 40 Warkworth – Clayden Road to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Private Plan Change 40 seeks to rezone approximately 102ha of land in northern Warkworth from Future Urban and Light Industry zoning to a mix of residential, business and Countryside Living zones. Additionally, it seeks to introduce new precinct provisions and extend Stormwater Management Area Flow Controls over the subject area. The site is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

3.       Twelve primary submissions were received on the private plan change request. The submissions primarily relate to stormwater, transport and traffic, biodiversity, landscape effects, reverse sensitivity effects and the efficacy of the proposed precinct provisions.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      appoint three independent commissioners, with expertise in planning, transport and stormwater to hear submissions and make decisions on (private) Plan Change 40 Warkworth – Clayden Road to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

b)      delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments to the hearing panel in clause a) in the event that a member of the panel is unavailable.

 

 

Horopaki

Context

4.       Warkworth Land Company, White Light Trust Limited, Kaurilands Trust Limited, Rob Mills and P & L Richards lodged a private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) in October 2019.  On 24 February 2020 the private plan change was accepted for processing and public notification by delegated authority.

5.       Plan Change 40 seeks to rezone approximately 102ha of land in the Warkworth North area from Future Urban and Light Industry zoning to a mix of residential, business and Countryside Living zones. Additionally, it seeks to introduce new precinct provisions and extend Stormwater Management Area Flow Controls over the subject area. The site is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

6.       The private plan change was publicly notified on 27 February 2020 and twelve primary submissions were received.  The council’s summary of submissions was publicly notified on 30 April 2020 and 28 May 2020 thus far, six further submissions have been received.

7.       The focus of the submissions relates to stormwater, transport and traffic, biodiversity, landscape effects, reverse sensitivity effects and the efficacy of the proposed precinct provisions.

Figure 1: Local context


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 2: Warkworth – Clayden Road subject area (outlined in red)

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8.       Commissioners are now required to hear and make a decision on the submissions received and the plan change itself. Analysis and advice relating to the private plan change itself will be provided in the council’s hearing report (section 42A report), which will be provided to the commissioners in due course.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

9.       The decision to appoint independent hearing commissioners is an administrative one and does not have any associated climate change impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

10.     Watercare was notified of the private plan change and has made a submission seeking a decision that ensures that timing of development is aligned with the provision of wastewater and water services to the area and the cost of the design and construction of the local wastewater and water infrastructure is covered by the applicant. This matter will be addressed in the hearing report and considered by the appointed hearing commissioners.

11.     Auckland Transport was notified of the private plan change and has made a submission seeking a decision that amends the precinct provisions to further address transport infrastructure and traffic effects. This matter will be addressed in the hearing report and considered by the appointed hearing commissioners.

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

Local impacts and local board views

12.     The private plan change will be reported separately to the Rodney Local Board to provide the opportunity for it to set out it views (if any) on the merits of the private plan change. These views can then be incorporated into the planning report to the Hearing Commissioners appointed. The appointment of the commissioners is not a matter for which the local board has any responsibility.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

13.     The applicant invited Ngāti Manuhiri to provide feedback on the proposal prior to submitting the private plan change request to council. Ngāti Manuhiri produced a cultural impact assessment for the Warkworth Structure Plan, and they advised that this could be relied on as part of the plan change preparation.

14.     Auckland Council notified 19 iwi authorities of the private plan change and invited them to express if in their view a hearings commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and the perspectives of local iwi or hāpu would be required. No submissions were received from the 19 iwi bodies, nor did any recommend that a commissioner with expertise in tikanga be appointed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

15.     The cost of the private plan change, including the cost of commissioners, will be recovered from Warkworth Land Company, White Light Trust Limited, Kaurilands Trust Limited, Rob Mills and P & L Richards.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

16.     Hearing commissioners are appointed from the council’s pool of independent commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience.  This process, in addition to staff reporting, ensures a high-quality of informed decision-making and helps to avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

17.     Council staff will commence preparation for a hearing to take place.  The key next steps involve:

·        contacting the appointed Independent Hearing Commissioners to check their availability;

·        notifying submitters of the hearing dates and venue;

·        preparing and subsequently providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report;

·        Independent Hearing Commissioners conduct the hearing; and

·        Council decision release.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Peter Vari - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Request to appoint Hearing Commissioners for a joint hearing of Plan Change 42 (Auckland Regional Landfill - Wayby Valley) and the notified resource consent applications for the Auckland Regional Landfill

File No.: CP2020/06566

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To appoint Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions in a joint hearing on Plan Change 42 (Private) Auckland Regional Landfill – Wayby Valley and the notified resource consent applications for the Auckland Regional Landfill (both by Waste Management New Zealand Limited).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Plan Change 42 seeks to add a new Auckland Regional Landfill precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) consisting of objectives, policies, and rules providing for a landfill development, along with amendment of the planning maps. The location of the precinct is shown in figures 1 and 2.

3.       The land is also the subject of district and regional resource consent applications (lodged) to construct and operate a new regional landfill in Wayby Valley. The applicant requested that both processes run jointly, and that the applications be publicly notified.

4.       Submissions closed on both applications on 26 May 2020. Council received 776 submissions on the resource consents and 195 submissions on PC42. The focus of submissions across both the resource consent applications and PC42 was on the potential effects of a landfill on water, transport, mana whenua values, as well as on indigenous flora and fauna, noise, smells, and neighbouring land.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      appoint up to four independent commissioners, with knowledge and expertise in planning, mana whenua values, water quality/hydrology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, and transport to hear submissions and make decisions in a joint hearing on Plan Change 42 (Private) Auckland Regional Landfill – Wayby Valley and the notified resource consent applications for the Auckland Regional Landfill.

b)      delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments to the hearing panel in clause a) in the event that a member of the panel is unavailable.

 

 


 

 

Horopaki

Context

Private Plan Change request

5.       Waste Management New Zealand Limited (‘WMNZ’) lodged a private plan change request with council on 14 August 2019. The plan change seeks to add a new Auckland Regional Landfill precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) consisting of objectives, policies and rules providing for a landfill development, along with amendment of the planning maps.

6.       The plan change was accepted by the Planning Committee on 13 March 2020 to be notified for submissions and is now referred to as Plan Change 42 (‘PC42’).

7.       The proposed precinct in PC42 covers an area of approximately 1,020ha of land comprising a number of legal titles purchased by WMNZ. A location map of the precinct is shown in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1: High-level location plan of the proposed Auckland Regional Landfill precinct

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A close up of a map

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Detailed location plan of the proposed Auckland Regional Landfill precinct

 

Resource consent application

8.   Prior to lodging the private plan change request, WMNZ lodged resource consent applications for both regional and district consents (on 30 May 2019) to construct and operate a new Class A regional landfill in Wayby Valley, adjoining Dome Valley, and requested that the applications be publicly notified.

 

Difference between the two processes

9.   While both the resource consent applications and PC42 deal with the same overall matter, being a regional landfill on the subject property, they are quite different and separate legal processes.

10. The resource consent process assesses a specific and detailed proposal for a landfill. If granted the landfill could then be established and operate on the site. In contrast, PC42 is a higher-level process that sets up a framework in the AUP to identify on the planning maps the site for a potential landfill. If approved, PC42 would not directly enable a landfill to be established without a further resource consent process. However, the precinct provisions do enable a different activity status for a resource consent for a landfill (discretionary as opposed to non-complying).


 

 

11. PC42 therefore seeks to set up the plan provisions that a future new or altered landfill resource consent application could be assessed against. It is important to note that the resource consent applications currently being processed will be assessed against the current AUP provisions rather than PC42. The PC42 provisions have no legal effect until they are made operative.

While private plan changes and notified resource consents are normally quite separate processes, in this case they are being processed together. This is due to the overlapping content matter between the resource consents and PC42, and the high public interest in the proposed landfill. A joint process was also requested by WMNZ.  It is likely that a joint hearing will be held given the efficiencies this brings, however, the detail still needs to be considered further and finalised.

Notification and submissions

12. On 26 March 2020 the resource consent applications and PC42 were jointly notified, with submissions closing on 26 May 2020. At the close of the submission period the council had received 776 submissions on the resource consent and 195 submissions on PC42.

13. The focus of submissions across both the resource consent applications and PC42 is on the potential effects of a landfill on:

·    Surface water and groundwater quality from leachate (and potential effects on the Hoteo River and Kaipara Harbour)

·    Transport

·    Mana whenua values

·    Indigenous flora and fauna

·    Human health

·    Neighbouring land (noise, smells, dust, lighting and visual effects) 

·    Land values

14. A number of submitters also referred to the proposal being inconsistent with the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) and the Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (2018). Many submitters also sought that alternative waste management solutions be found, rather than a landfill.

15. Due to the Covid-19 lockdown period coinciding with the notification period, it is highly likely that a number of late submissions will be received. WMNZ and the council have already signalled to the public that late submissions (up to a point) are likely to be accepted. Due to the large number of submissions already received and the breadth of the issues raised, it is unlikely that any late submissions will raise new issues (not previously referred to in another submission).

16. Submissions on PC42 will now be summarised and notified (in late June) as part of the further submission process.  The resource consent application does not require a further submission stage, and therefore it will remain on-hold at the request of WMNZ in the interim. 

Joint hearing

17. A hearing is likely to be held towards the end of 2020, but pre-hearing caucusing and/or mediation may occur before the hearing. Therefore, the appointment of commissioners now will enable the commissioners to give directions for any pre-hearing meetings.


 

18.       Normally, the appointment of hearing commissioners for a notified resource consent application would not come to the Regulatory Committee, as such matters are delegated to council officers. However, in this case there will probably be a joint hearing of the private plan change and the resource consents. Therefore, the commissioners appointed for PC42 will be granted delegated authority to also decide the resource consent applications.  This would have significant advantages with just one group of commissioners reading the substantial, complex and over-lapping application/request material, and making decisions that would reduce the risk of any inconsistencies.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19.     Commissioners are now required to hear submissions and make a decision on both PC42 and the resource consents (including responding to submissions received). Analysis and advice relating to the private plan change and the resource consents will be provided in two separate hearing reports (section 42A reports) from council. These will be provided to the commissioners and submitters in due course.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20.     The decision to appoint independent hearing commissioners is an administrative one and does not have any associated climate change impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21.     Watercare has made a submission to both the resource consent and PC42 seeking that any decision avoid where practicable, and otherwise minimise potential adverse effects on the Regional Aquifer. This matter will be addressed in the hearing report and considered by the appointed hearing commissioners.

22.     Auckland Transport has made a submission to both the resource consent and PC42 seeking that transport effects are addressed and that the legal roads located within the precinct must be considered. These matters will be addressed in the hearing report and considered by the appointed hearing commissioners.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23.     The private plan change will be reported separately to the Rodney Local Board to provide the opportunity for it to set out it views (if any) on the merits of the private plan change. The Rodney Local Board has already given feedback on the resource consent application. These views can then be incorporated into the planning reports to the hearing commissioners appointed. The appointment of the commissioners is not a matter for which the local board has any responsibility.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24.     WMNZ consulted with a number of iwi prior to submitting the private plan change request to council. Ngāti Manuhiri have prepared a Cultural Values Assessment for the project highlighting the potential cultural effects. WMNZ is working with Ngāti Manuhiri to respond to the matters raised in their CVA. WMNZ acknowledges that Ngāti Manuhiri may have additional concerns, not necessarily encapsulated in that CVA. The Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust lodged submissions seeking that the resource consent and PC42 be declined.

25.     Whilst WMNZ has only received one CVA for the resource consent application to date, engagement with other iwi has also been occurring Similar areas of interest and concern have been raised at hui with other iwi, in particular the potential effects on water bodies such as the Hōteo River and the Kaipara Harbour.

26.     The other iwi to lodge submissions on PC42 are Ngāti Whatua Orakei, Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua, and Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara.

27.     The council notification process for PC42 sent advice of the plan change to all 21 iwi groups in Auckland. Given the submissions and involvement from iwi it is appropriate that a commissioner with experience in mana whenua values be appointed to the hearing panel.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28.     The cost of the private plan change, including the cost of commissioners, will be recovered from WMNZ.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29.     Hearing commissioners are appointed from the council’s pool of independent commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience.  This process, in addition to staff reporting, ensures a high-quality of informed decision-making and helps to avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30.     Council staff will commence preparation for a hearing to take place.  The key next steps involve:

·    contacting the appointed Independent Hearing Commissioners to check their availability;

·    requesting the views of the Rodney Local Board;

·    notifying submitters of the hearing dates and venue;

·    preparing and subsequently providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report;

·    Independent Hearing Commissioners conduct the hearing; and

·    Council decision released.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ryan Bradley - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

2020 Review of the Local Approved Products Policy 2015 (Psychoactive Substances)

File No.: CP2020/03370

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To decide the outcome of the review of Auckland Council’s Local Approved Products (Psychoactive Substances) Policy 2015.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In April 2015 Auckland Council adopted a Local Approved Products Policy (the Policy) made under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. A statutory five-year policy review is required which staff have undertaken.

3.       The usual review process involving research and stakeholder engagement was not possible as there are no approved products and the Policy has never been used.

4.       To enable a decision staff undertook desktop research and spoke with Alcohol Licensing, Ministry of Health and Medsafe. Key findings of the review were:

·    future legislative changes could impact the Policy, but they are uncertain

·    there is no cost to retain the Policy

·    public consultation is needed to revoke it.

5.       This information was used to assess the options of whether to retain or to revoke the Policy.

6.       Staff recommend the Regulatory Committee retains the Policy. Auckland Council would retain the ability to control where approved products are sold (likelihood of product approval remains low), or if the Policy is required subject to the outcome of the cannabis referendum in 2020. There is also less cost and resourcing required to retain the Policy.

7.       Retaining the Policy avoids the reputational risk that Council is deregulating psychoactive substances.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      retain the Local Approved Products Policy 2015.

 

Horopaki

Context

Legislation banned many previously unregulated substances - unless proven low risk

8.       In the early 2000s, new kinds of recreational drugs such as party pills or legal highs became available in New Zealand. Their number and type increased rapidly. By 2013, there were over two hundred unregulated psychoactive substances available, including synthetic cannabinoids[1].

9.       The Psychoactive Substances Act (the Act) came into force in 2013. The Act aimed to protect health and minimise harm by making some low risk products available in a regulated market. Any unapproved substances are deemed illegal.

Auckland’s policy to regulate where low risk substances are sold is due for review

10.     Under the Act Auckland Council (Council) adopted a Local Approved Products Policy in April 2015 (Attachment A). The Policy outlines where licenses to sell approved products will not be granted including high deprivation areas, the central city, neighbourhood centres and within 100m of marae.

11.     Auckland Council Alcohol Licensing helped develop the Policy and has responsibility for its implementation.

12.     The Policy must be reviewed every five years and is now due for review. The Policy remains in effect when due for review or being reviewed.[2]

The Policy has not been used because there are no approved products

13.     An amendment to the Act in 2014 prohibited animal testing in support of product applications.  As there is currently no other way to prove products are low risk, no psychoactive substances are approved for sale.

14.     The Manager of Alcohol Licensing confirmed there have been no applications and the Policy has never been used.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.     The impact of the Policy cannot be assessed because it has never been used. There are also few stakeholders to engage (for example no retailers).

16.     To assist the Regulatory Committee with their decision staff did desktop research and spoke with Manager Alcohol Licensing, the Ministry of Health and Medsafe. The key findings are outlined below.

Future legislative changes could impact the Policy - but they are uncertain

17.     The Ministry of Health reviewed the Act in 2018 and found it did not function as intended. The report recommended amendments be made alongside wider reform of recreational drug legislation [3]. There are no plans to work on this until at least after the September 2020 general election.

18.     As part of the general election a referendum will ask voters if they support the proposed Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill (the Bill).[4] The Bill, currently a draft, has a placeholder for describing how it will interact with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2003. The Bill does not mention territorial involvement or if or how the location of premises licensed to supply cannabis may be controlled.

19.     Medsafe confirmed no significant developments for testing products have been made. The likelihood that any products will be approved remains low.

There is no cost to Council to retain the policy - public consultation is needed to revoke it

20.     Council can retain or revoke the Policy.

21.     Alcohol Licensing confirmed the Policy has no operational costs while it is unused. They report little public awareness of the Policy including no enquiries or applications.

22.     A decision to revoke the Policy would require public consultation under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Table one – options assessment

 

Effectiveness at protecting the health of and minimising the harm to users and vulnerable populations.

Efficiency at protecting the health of and minimising the harm to users and vulnerable populations.

 

Retain Policy

(Recommended)

 

ü

·      Retains ability to control where products are sold.

ü

·      No cost to Council while not in use

·      No special consultative procedure required.

 

Revoke Policy

 

×

·      Council would not have a policy in place if products were to be approved in future.

 

×

·      Costs associated with public consultation.

·      Proposed change may be incorrectly viewed by the public as deregulation or part of the cannabis referendum.

23.     Staff recommend the Policy is retained. This would allow Council to retain control of where products are sold if any are approved in the future (likelihood low) or it is required subject to the outcome of the cannabis referendum in 2020. It also avoids the resource and costs of public consultation required to revoke the Policy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24.     The Policy has no climate impact while it is not in use.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25.     Alcohol Licensing is responsible for implementing the Policy. The Manager and Principal Specialist were engaged as part of the review. They support retaining the Policy to ensure Council could respond efficiently if products were approved. They also think proposing to revoke the Policy may send an inconsistent message to the public about the risk of harm from psychoactive substances.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26.     The Policy has no local governance impact and is of low interest to local boards while not in use.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27.     The impacts are unknown while the Policy is not in use.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28.     No consultation is needed to retain the Policy and there are no operational costs when the Policy is not being used.

29.     A decision to revoke the Policy would require public consultation under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This would require staff resources to plan and undertake the engagement, which are provided within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30.     There is a low reputational risk that revoking the Policy would signal that council is deregulating psychoactive substances.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31.     There are no next steps required if the Policy is retained. Public engagement will be undertaken if a decision is made to revoke the Policy.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local Approved Product Policy 2015

49

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Bonnie Apps - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Findings of the Signage Bylaw 2015 Review

File No.: CP2020/04191

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To endorse the findings of Te Ture a Rohe mo nga Tohu 2015, Signage Bylaw 2015, and to request a report on high-level options that responds to the findings.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council and Auckland Transport staff jointly prepared this findings report to enable the Regulatory Committee to complete a review of the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signage Bylaw 2015.

3.       The report has the following key findings.

·    The Bylaw will expire on 28 May 2022.

·    Auckland Council and Auckland Transport must decide if a bylaw is still required and, if so, adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

·    There are ongoing signage issues in Auckland. For example, portable signs such as sandwich boards continue to create safety risks for pedestrians. There is a case for continuing to regulate signs to minimise their negative impacts. 

·    The Bylaw is part of a complex regulatory framework for managing signage issues. This framework also includes the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 and the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part.

·    This regulatory framework could be simplified to make it easier to find and apply the standards for signs.

·    The Bylaw’s effectiveness could be improved by updating the signage standards and by making them easier to understand.

4.       Staff recommend the committee endorse the findings report and request a high-level options report about the regulatory framework for managing signs in Auckland, including to:

·    combine all signage standards into a single bylaw or the Auckland Unitary Plan

·    combine signage standards from the Signage Bylaw 2015 and the Election Signs Bylaw 2013 into a single bylaw

·    redistribute signage standards between the Signage Bylaw 2015 and the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Taking this approach will complete the findings review process.

5.       There is a low risk that stakeholders or the public may express concern about suggested improvements or engagement to date. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation on any proposal in response to the findings in this report.

6.       The Regulatory Committee established a joint working party to consider the statutory options in response to these findings.[5] Auckland Transport have proposed that two members of the Auckland Transport Board join the working party. Staff recommend the committee agree to this request.


 

7.       If approved, staff will develop high-level options that respond to the findings about the regulatory framework. Following a decision on the high-level options, staff would prepare an additional options report on the detail for the chosen framework, and if required any subsequent proposal and public consultation.  

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      endorse the ‘Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signage Bylaw 2015: 2020 Review Findings Report’ in Attachment A of the agenda report

b)      request that Auckland Council and Auckland Transport staff, as delegated by their respective Chief Executive, jointly prepare a high-level options report about the regulatory framework for managing signs in Auckland, including to:

i)        combine all signage standards into a single bylaw or the Auckland Unitary Plan

ii)       combine signage standards from the Signage Bylaw 2015 and Election Signs Bylaw 2013 into a single bylaw

iii)      redistribute signage standards between the Signage Bylaw 2015 and Auckland Unitary Plan

c)      agree to any request from Auckland Transport to appoint two members of the Auckland Transport Board to the joint working group established by the Regulatory Committee in resolution REG/2020/3 to consider statutory options in response to findings from the review.

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw enables the regulation of signs on or visible from public places

8.       Te Ture a Rohe mo nga Tohu 2015, the Signage Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw), is a joint bylaw between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport that was adopted respectively on 28 May (GB/2015/35) and 26 May 2015.[6] 

9.       The Bylaw seeks to regulate signage in a way that:

·      provides for the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on roads and public places by limiting obstruction and distraction caused by signage

·      protects the public from nuisance, and from harm or damage caused by the poor maintenance or abandonment of signage

·      assists in enhancing, maintaining and promoting the visual amenity value of Auckland’s cultural character and its built and natural environments

·      assists in enabling the economic benefits to Auckland that signage provides

·      assists in protecting roads and other public assets from damage or misuse.

10.     The Bylaw contains specific regulations for each of the following types of signs:

·    Static illuminated signage

·    Portable signage

·    Stencil signage

·    Free standing signage

·    Changeable message signage

·    Poster signage

·    Banners

·    Veranda signage

·    Wall Mounted signage

·    Window signage

·    Signage advertising commercial sexual services

·    Real estate signage

·    Vehicle signage

·    Community event signage

·    Regional and major event signage

11.     The Bylaw does not regulate all types of signage in Auckland.

·      The Auckland Unitary Plan regulates billboards,[7] comprehensive development or re-development signage, signage on or near a scheduled historic heritage place, and signage subject to district plan rules for the Hauraki Gulf Islands.[8]

·      The Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 regulates election signage.

·      The Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 regulates traffic control devices. 

12.     The Bylaw is aligned with the following strategic directions in the Auckland Plan 2050.

Auckland Plan Outcome

Direction or Focus Area

Belonging and Participation

Direction 1: Foster an inclusive Auckland where everyone belongs.

Focus area 1: Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in and enjoy community and civic life.

Alignment: Reduces activities that could cause safety risks.

Transport and Access

Direction 3: Maximise safety and environmental protection.

Focus area 6: Move to a safe transport network free from death and serious injury.

Alignment: Gives safety a high priority in decision-making.

Focus area 5: Better integrate land-use and transport.

Alignment: Encourages street design that supports quality, vibrant urban amenity.

Opportunity and Prosperity

Direction 1: Create the conditions for a resilient economy, through innovation, employment growth and raised productivity.

Focus area 2: Ensure regulatory planning and other mechanisms support business, innovation and productivity growth.

Alignment: Helps Aucklanders participate in the economy via a straightforward, responsive and consistently applied regulatory process with no unnecessary time or financial costs.

The Local Government Act 2002 requires the bylaw to be reviewed

13.     The Bylaw will expire on 28 May 2022.[9] Auckland Council and Auckland Transport must decide whether a bylaw about signage is still required and, if a bylaw is required, adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.[10]

14.     Any new bylaw must be well drafted, meet the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and be adopted using a public consultative process.[11]

15.     If the Bylaw is no longer required, council can decide to allow the Bylaw to expire using a public consultative process.

A findings report and joint working party are the first steps in reviewing the Bylaw

16.     Between August 2018 and May 2019, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport staff carried out engagement and research to develop a findings report (Attachment A). This included informal feedback from local board members, engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka through community networks, meetings with internal and external stakeholders, and engaging communities through online surveys. 


 

17.     The Regulatory Committee established a joint working party to consider the statutory options in response to these findings.[12] The working party is comprised of Councillor Efeso Collins, Councillor Shane Henderson, Margi Watson (chair, Albert-Eden Local Board), Mike Turinsky (member, Howick Local Board) and Independent Māori Statutory Board Member Glenn Wilcox.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Signs continue to create issues which need to be managed

18.     Signs continue to have the potential to cause harm and create nuisance:

·      real estate signs continue to be the most complained-about type of sign, with the council proactively investigating a significant number that breach the Bylaw

·      stakeholders representing groups living near illuminated signs perceive that these signs emit too much light and that this interferes with sleep

·      about a third of Aucklanders would prefer that signs were less visually intrusive and created less clutter

·      many stakeholders indicated a preference for continuing (or increasing) the regulation of signage nuisances

·      the size and location of signs distract drivers and obstruct their visibility. Driver distraction — not necessarily due to signs — is a contributing factor in 15 per cent of accidents nationally

·      council treats complaints about portable signs, such as sandwich boards on footpaths, as high-priority safety risks to pedestrians

·      signage complaints appear to have only decreased slightly since 2015, with 3580 signage complaints in the 18 months to May 2019.

There are potential opportunities to improve the regulatory framework for managing signs  

19.     The Bylaw is part of a complex regulatory framework for managing signage issues.

·      The current regulatory framework for signs in Auckland involves Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, two bylaws (the Signage Bylaw 2015 and Election Signs Bylaw 2013), and the Auckland Unitary Plan.

·      In addition, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) regulates signs on motorways and state highways.

·      With the exception of signs advertising commercial sexual services, the content of signs is currently managed under a combination of the Human Rights Act 1993 and the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, and by the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority.

20.     The complexity of this framework has created confusion and duplication.

·      Stakeholders are confused about whether to refer to the Bylaw, the Auckland Unitary Plan, or to other regulations to find information about specific signs.

·      Sign-users often have to refer to both the Unitary Plan and the Bylaw in order to determine what rules apply to their sign.

·      The Bylaw contains some potentially unnecessary material that is regulated by other entities.

21.     A high-level options report could investigate whether the regulatory framework’s current split between the Bylaw, the Unitary Plan and the Election Signs Bylaw is the most appropriate way to manage signs in Auckland.

·      Alternative frameworks could involve a single set of regulations in a bylaw or the Unitary Plan, or a re-balanced combination of these two tools.

·      It is possible to regulate signs solely under the Unitary Plan — this would be similar to most other New Zealand councils.

The Unitary Plan could address concerns about how signs affect visual amenity more directly and allow officers to issue infringement fines.

A bylaw, however, can address concerns about signs for commercial sexual services and allows officers to seize non-complying signs (for example, sandwich boards).

·      Any investigation of these opportunities should account for the differences in mandate, enforcement powers and penalties between bylaws and the Unitary Plan, Auckland Council's and Auckland Transport's different responsibilities, and the need for regulatory frameworks to be effective and efficient.

The Bylaw may have helped address problems with signage, but it could be improved

22.     The current Bylaw may have helped address nuisance and public safety concerns, created safe opportunities for people to meet, and indirectly supported business.

·      While data limitations make it hard to reach a definitive conclusion, the Bylaw may have contributed to an apparent slight reduction in signage complaints since 2015. 

·      The Bylaw provides for signage promoting national, regional and community events.

·      The Bylaw uses permitted activity standards to minimise compliance costs and provides for exemptions to accommodate new forms of signage.

23.     The Bylaw’s effectiveness could be improved by updating signage standards and making them easier to understand.

·     The Bylaw could include rules in the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 so there are fewer documents to refer to.

·     The Bylaw could better define the roles of Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Local Boards, and its purpose in relation to visual amenity and economic benefits.

·     The Bylaw could be made easier to understand by using plain language, diagrams and current best practice drafting standards.

·     The Bylaw currently does not have specific rules for some types of signage technology that have emerged since 2015. Examples include illuminated real estate signs and Bluetooth ‘beacons’.[13]

·     Other improvements for investigation in an options report relate to illuminated signs, portable signs, wayfinding signs, real estate signs and event signs.

The Bylaw is valid, reasonable, and does not give rise to any unjustified New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 implications

24.     The Bylaw is not ‘repugnant’ or ’unreasonable’, as it does not conflict with any other New Zealand statutes, and its benefits to safety, nuisance, public assets and visual amenity are proportionate to how it limits Aucklanders’ rights to display signs.

25.     The Bylaw places moderate and proportionate limits on the right to freedom of expression to achieve its purposes. These limits are reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

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

26.     This report establishes that signage issues in Auckland remain, and that both the current regulatory framework and (if required) the Bylaw could be improved.

27.     Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings report and request a high-level options report about the regulatory framework for managing signs in Auckland, including to:

·      combine all signage standards into a single bylaw or the Unitary Plan

·      combine signage standards from the Signage Bylaw 2015 and Election Signs Bylaw 2013 into a single bylaw

·      redistribute signage standards between the Signage Bylaw 2015 and Auckland Unitary Plan.

Taking this approach will complete the findings review process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28.     The Bylaw does not directly impact climate change. For example, the Bylaw focuses on ensuring the brightness levels of illuminated signs and changeable message signs are safe and do not create nuisances as opposed to regulating the sign’s energy use.

29.     Any options that respond to the findings in this report would need to be consistent with the strategic direction of reducing emissions in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 and Auckland Council’s Climate Action Framework.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30.     The Bylaw impacts the operations of the Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Unit, which administers and enforces the Bylaw.

31.     The Bylaw also impacts all council operations which involve advertising and promotions. This includes Auckland Transport, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development  and Panuku Development Auckland, who must comply with the Bylaw when they are installing permanent or temporary signage.

32.     Relevant staff provided feedback to the review and suggested improvements to the Bylaw. For example, whether to be more permissive about temporary signs for council events in parks and whether to permit electronic signs in parks and reserves. The options report will take these views into account.

33.     Auckland Transport have proposed that two members of the Auckland Transport Board join the joint working party to consider these findings. This would be an efficient way for decision-makers from both organisations responsible for the joint Bylaw to evaluate the statutory options. Staff recommend the committee agree to this request.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34.     Local board members provided informal feedback on the Bylaw at cluster workshops in November 2018. The main concerns included that changeable message signs near street signs and traffic lights create safety risks, unsafe signs should be replaced or renewed, and the standards for illuminated signs may be inappropriate. The options report will take these views and the views of the joint working group into account.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

35.     Signs have the potential to harm and cause nuisance to all Aucklanders, including mana whenua and mataawaka.

36.     Signage issues that the Bylaw regulates is of low significance to Māori.[14] For example, integrating Te Reo Māori in signage is an issue of significance but the Bylaw does not have the mandate to commit the council group to this. The integration of Te Reo Māori in signage is being addressed as an operational (as opposed to a bylaw) matter.

37.     For the findings, the views of people identifying as Māori were sought as part of obtaining feedback from community networks. This feedback primarily identified inappropriate signage standards and ways to improve them. The options reports will consider these views.

38.     Staff will engage with mana whenua and mataawaka on any proposal through the public consultative process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40.     There is a low risk that stakeholders or the public may express concern about suggested improvements or engagement to date. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation on any proposal in response to the findings in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41.     The Regulatory Committee established a joint working party to consider the statutory options in response to the review findings.[15] The working party is comprised of Councillor Efeso Collins, Councillor Shane Henderson, Margi Watson (chair, Albert-Eden Local Board), Mike Turinsky (member, Howick Local Board), Independent Māori Statutory Board Member Glenn Wilcox and (if approved) two members of the Auckland Transport Board.


 

42.     If approved, staff will develop high-level options that respond to the findings about the regulatory framework. Following a decision on the high-level options, staff would prepare an additional options report on the detail for the chosen framework and, if required, any subsequent proposal and public consultation (refer diagram below).

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Signage Findings Report and Appendices

69

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 Review Options Report

File No.: CP2020/04199

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek a decision on the preferred statutory option to progress the Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Urungi Āhuru 2014, Auckland Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       To enable the Regulatory Committee to determine the outcome of the Navigation Safety Bylaw review and decide its future, staff have completed an options report.

3.       On 17 March 2020 the committee endorsed the review findings on the 10 topics contained in the Bylaw (REG/2020/16) and requested a report back on options. Key review findings included that issues relating to most topics continue to occur and that a Bylaw is still necessary but could be improved.

4.       This report focusses on options about whether a new bylaw is required to address each of the 10 topics, and if any changes to the rules within each topic are needed. A new bylaw (as opposed to an amended bylaw) must be made because the current bylaw will expire on 31 July 2021. Any new bylaw would improve on the current bylaw structure and wording.

5.       Staff recommend that the committee direct staff to prepare a statement of proposal that:

·    makes a new bylaw to address new and continuing issues related to nine topics listed in recommendation/s (a)

·    does not make a bylaw about licensing of commercial vessels for hire or reward as this is more appropriately regulated in other existing legislation

·    makes changes to some rules within the nine topics, including making new rules about novel craft, clarifying rules about swimming and events, and updating rules about speed and Ōrākei Basin.

6.       Taking this approach will commence the process to adopt a new and easier to understand bylaw. It will better implement the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Maritime Rules.

7.       There is a low risk that some members of the commercial and recreational boating industry may express concern about the proposal. This is mitigated by future public engagement.

8.       If approved, staff will prepare a statement of proposal for approval by the Regulatory Committee and Governing Body. 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 a new bylaw is the most appropriate way to address navigation safety issues related to:

i)    personal floatation devices on recreational vessels

ii)   general navigation safety requirements

iii)   activities

iv)  operating requirements

v)   licenses, permits and administrative matters

vi)  large vessels

vii) specific restrictions in lanes, zones and areas

viii) tankers, hazardous cargoes, hazardous works, fuel oil transfers and dangerous materials

ix)  pilot and pilot exempt master operations.

b)      agree that a navigation safety bylaw is no longer required for the issuing of licenses for commercial vessels for hire reward.

c)      request that staff as delegated by the Chief Executive prepare a Statement of Proposal that:

i)    makes a new navigation safety bylaw under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Local Government Act 2002

ii)   cover the matters detailed in the paragraph 22 table and Appendix 1 of Attachment A of the agenda report for the topics in (a) of this agenda report.

 

Horopaki

Context

The Navigation Safety Bylaw regulates activities on Auckland’s navigable waters

9.       The Governing Body adopted the Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Urungi Āhuru 2014, Auckland Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 on 31 July 2014 (GB/2014/66).

10.     The Bylaw seeks to protect the public from safety risks and nuisance, and to manage the use of Auckland’s navigable waters.

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

12.     The Bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework that includes the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Maritime Rules that impose national standards for water safety.

The Bylaw expires in 2021 and if still needed, must meet certain statutory requirements

13.     The Bylaw will expire on 31 July 2021. The council must decide whether a bylaw about navigation safety is still required, and (if a bylaw is required) adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.[16]

14.     Any new bylaw must be well drafted, meet the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Local Government Act 2004, and be adopted using a public consultative process.[17]

15.     If the Bylaw is no longer required, council can decide to allow the Bylaw to expire using a public consultative process.

The Regulatory Committee endorsed Bylaw review findings and requested options

16.     On 17 March 2020 (REG/2020/16) the committee endorsed the review findings on the 10 topics in the Bylaw. Key findings were:

·    issues relating to navigation safety are still occurring on Auckland’s navigable waters

·    a bylaw is a key tool in addressing locally and regionally specific issues

·    a bylaw about navigation safety is the most appropriate way to protect public health and safety, and manage public nuisance and misuse of space on Auckland’s navigable waters

·    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.

17.     The committee also requested an options report to help decide how best to respond to the findings and consider whether to make a new bylaw or allow the current Bylaw to expire.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Staff used the findings report to develop an options report

18.     Staff used the findings report to develop the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 Options Report 2019 in Attachment A. This included defining the problem, objectives, and outcomes sought for 2020 and beyond, developing options for each of the 10 topics in the Bylaw, and assessing each option against assessment criteria that reflect the objectives.

The problem, objectives and outcomes are related to public safety, nuisance and damage

19.     Based on the findings, the problems, objectives and outcomes identified in 2014 can be redefined as follows:

Problems on Auckland’s navigable waters:

·    Preventable drowning fatalities due to people not carrying or wearing PFDs on recreational vessels, especially vessels six metres and under in length

·    Risks and occurrences of injury and fatalities, collisions, and accidents due to unsafe vessels or actions of persons in charge of a vessel

·    Preventable drowning fatalities, injuries, collision and damage from people undertaking varying activities and navigating vessels on certain areas of Auckland’s navigable waters or in certain environmental conditions

·    People swimming in areas reserved for vessel activities such as berthing and departing a wharf creating risk of fatalities and injuries, and nuisance and danger for vessels

·    Boats and jet skis being operated in reserved swimming areas and diving without dive flags creating risks of fatalities, injuries, nuisance and danger

·    New issues not covered by the Bylaw have arisen, including new/novel craft such as hydrofoils and motorized surfboards creating significant risks to public safety as these craft are predominately used on popular beaches.

 

Scale and magnitude of the problem

·    Auckland has the highest proportion of recreational ‘boaties’ nationally. 34 per cent (520,101) of adult New Zealanders who are involved in recreational boating reside and carry out boating activities in Auckland.

·    The Port of Auckland is New Zealand’s busiest receiving around 1,500 commercial vessels per year (including more than 150 cruise ships). Freight demand for exports and imports is likely to increase with population growth.

·    In 2017 there were around 6 million passenger journeys on Auckland’s ferries, this number has anecdotally increased and is expected to continue to in line with population growth and tourism.

·    The number of events on the water is set to increase in areas such as Devonport, Takapuna and Ōrākei coinciding with the 36th America’s Cup in March 2021.

In line with increasing usage of Auckland’s navigable waters there are ongoing incidents occurring:

·    Between 2009 and 2019 the total number of incidents increased by 57 per cent from 117 to 184 annually. This included incidences of collision, explosion, fire, grounding, damage, injuries or fatalities[18].

·    Preventable drowning fatalities occurring during recreational and non-recreational activities for the five-year period ranged from 12 in 2015 to 14 in 2019.

 

Statutory options to respond to the outcome sought include a new bylaw

20.     Staff identified the following options for each of the 10 topics in the current Bylaw to achieve the outcome sought:

·    Option 1: Status quo - rely on other existing regulations (no Navigation Safety Bylaw)

·    Option 2: New Navigation Safety Bylaw

21.     Staff assessed each option for each of the 10 topics against assessment criteria that reflect the core objective, as well as council’s statutory duties under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Local Government Act 2002.

22.     The table below provides a summary of the full assessment contained in Appendix 1 of Attachment A. For each topic in the full assessment is a description of the what the current bylaw does, how it is implemented, the statutory authority, the issues and outcomes sought both now and in 2013, assessment of two options and recommendations. Topics found on pages 10 – 36 of Attachment A.

Bylaw topics

Summary of staff assessment

Recommended direction for any changes

Bylaw appropriate to address issues?

Existing Bylaw structure and wording appropriate?

Bylaw valid and consistent with New Zealand Bill of Rights?

1.     Personal floatation devices on recreational vessels

ü

û

ü

·    Adopt new bylaw that retains similar rules to current Bylaw that are easier to understand.

2.     General Navigation Safety Requirements

ü

û

ü

·    Adopt new bylaw, that retains similar rules to current Bylaw that are easier to understand, with the following exceptions:

·    Amend speed limits, including the Waitematā harbour to help minimise dangerous wake from vessels.

·    Remove duplication with existing legislation in relation to the protection of marine mammals.

3.     Activities

ü

û

ü

·    Adopt new bylaw, retains similar rules to current Bylaw that are easier to understand, with the following exceptions:

·    Clarify rules about swimming and events

·    Make new rules about novel craft.

4.     Operating Requirements

ü

û

ü

·    Adopt new bylaw, that retains similar rules to current Bylaw that are easier to understand.

5.     Licenses, Permits and Administrative Matters

ü

û

ü

·    Adopt new bylaw, that retains similar rules to current Bylaw that are easier to understand, with the following exceptions:

·    Make new rules to further reduce safety risks, nuisance and misuse of space issues from anchored vessels.

6.     Large Vessels

ü

û

ü

·    Adopt new bylaw, that retains similar rules to current Bylaw that are easier to understand.

7.     Specific Restrictions in Lanes, Zones and Areas

ü

û

ü

·    Adopt new bylaw, that retains similar rules to current Bylaw that are easier to understand, with the following exceptions:

·    Make new rules to address issues at Ōrākei Basin and the Ports of Auckland.

8.     Tankers, Hazardous Cargoes, Hazardous Works, Fuel Oil Transfers and Dangerous Materials

ü

û

ü

·    Adopt new bylaw, that retains similar rules to current Bylaw that are easier to understand.

9.     Pilot and Pilot Exempt Master Operations

ü

û

ü

·    Adopt new bylaw, that retains similar rules to current Bylaw that are easier to understand.

10.  Licensing of Commercial Vessels for Hire or Reward

û

û

û

·    No bylaw.

·    Rely on Health and Safety at Work (Adventure Activities) Regulations 2016.

·    Rely on Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw to license and regulate the hiring of commercial vessels from council controlled public places.

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

A new bylaw is recommended to be made for nine of the 10 topics in the current Bylaw

23.     Staff recommend that a new bylaw be made for nine of the 10 topics in the current Bylaw. A new bylaw for the above topics would be the most appropriate way to help protect public safety, protect the public from nuisance and protect public assets from damage. A new bylaw would:

·    help minimise the risk of preventable drowning fatalities and nuisance on Auckland’s navigable waters

·    help manage the use of space on Auckland’s navigable, for example managing events spaces and how and where vessels operate, and activities occur

·    help minimise risks of injuries, fatalities, accidents, collision, discharges, damage and obstruction

·    better align with the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Maritime rules

·    be easier to understand than the current Bylaw and meet current bylaw drafting standards

·    provide an opportunity for greater deterrence through higher infringement fines compared to equivalent Maritime Rules

·    be authorised by statute, not repugnant to other legislation, or be unreasonable

·    not give rise to any implications and would not be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

·    not be inconsistent with the Maritime Transport Act 1994, Maritime Rules, Resource Management Act 1991 or Auckland Unitary Plan.

24.     A new bylaw is not required for licensing of commercial vessels for hire and reward because since 2017 this matter has been addressed by relying on other existing regulations, including the Health and Safety at Work (Adventure Activities) Regulations 2016.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25.     The Bylaw does not directly impact climate change. The Bylaw focuses on safety and nuisance rather than the emissions from vessels. The impacts of climate change (for example, sea level rise and extreme weather events), may impact on matters regulated in the Bylaw for example the location of moorings.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26.     The Bylaw impacts the Harbourmaster and team who implement the Bylaw, and the operations of several council teams involved in licensing, resource management, events, marine and environmental servicing, and public transport (ferry operations).

27.     Relevant staff provided feedback to the review through face-to-face meetings, and suggested improvements addressed in the options report. Council teams 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

28.     Local board members participated in cluster workshops held in March 2019. Members support the Bylaw working in conjunction with other measures, for example education from external water safety organisations.

29.     The main concerns of members included people not complying with the Bylaw, nuisance and safety around structures (for example, swimming around wharves) and licensing and registration of personal watercraft and larger vessels, all of which have been addressed in the options report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30.     The Bylaw can contribute to the Māori Plan’s key directions and aspirations by supporting safe recreational, cultural and economic activities on Auckland’s navigable waters.

31.     The Bylaw regulates a number of activities undertaken by Māori for example, waka ama, other cultural or sporting events on the water and the operation of commercial vessels.

32.     Mana whenua and mataawaka organisations were engaged during the review and indicated a preference to provide feedback on any proposed changes to the Bylaw through a public consultation process. The opportunity to provide feedback will be tailored to ensure a broad spectrum of Māori views are captured during the public consultative process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33.     The cost of reviewing the Bylaw and implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34.     There is a low risk that stakeholders or the public may express concern about the options proposed. This risk will be mitigated by future public consultation on the proposed new bylaw.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35.     If approved, the next steps are shown in the diagram below.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 Review Options report

233

 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Bayllee Vyle – Policy Advisor

Fereti Lualua - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw Review options

File No.: CP2020/07894

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek a decision on the preferred statutory option to progress the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā Rohe Whakarato Wai me te Pae Kōtuitui Wai Para 2015, Auckland Council Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       To enable the Regulatory Committee to determine the outcome of the Auckland Council Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 review and decide its future, staff have completed an options report.

3.       On 28 May 2020 the Emergency Committee endorsed the Bylaw review (EME/2020/81) and requested a report back on options. Key review findings included that issues of damage, misuse and interference with water supply and wastewater networks continue to occur and that a bylaw is still necessary but could be improved.

4.       Staff assessed statutory options against assessment criteria to help the committee decide whether to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the Bylaw.

5.       Staff recommend that the committee request the preparation of a statement of proposal that improves the current Bylaw by amending it (Option 2) because:

·    it retains a regulatory tool that addresses the problems by protecting the water supply and wastewater network from damage, misuse and interference (illegal connections)

·    it improves on the status quo (Option one) by building on the existing practices while incorporating the lessons learnt from the review to increase Bylaw effectiveness and match best practice standards for bylaw writing

·    it clarifies existing provisions to include illegal water use, emerging and problematic waste, what constitutes illegal connection and addresses more risks of physical damage and obstructed access for public assets on private property

·    it focuses on interactions with the public assets and relies on the Watercare customer contract to address all legal connections to the public network.

6.       Taking this approach will commence the process to update the Bylaw and make it easier to understand.

7.       There is a low risk that some members of the infrastructure industry may express concern about suggested improvements, Watercare’s role or stakeholder engagement to date. This risk will be mitigated by future public engagement.

8.       If approved, staff will prepare a statement of proposal for approval by the Regulatory Committee and Governing Body. 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 improving the current Auckland Council Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 by amending it (Option 2) is the most appropriate way option to respond to the statutory review findings endorsed by the Emergency Committee on 28 May 2020.

b)      request that Watercare staff as delegated by Watercare Chief Executive prepare a statement of proposal that amends the Auckland Council Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 as detailed in Attachment A for Option 2 (improves the current Bylaw by amending it) of the agenda report.

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       The Governing Body adopted the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā Rohe Whakarato Wai me te Pae Kōtuitui Wai Para 2015, Auckland Council Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw) on 25 June 2015 (GB/2015/62). The Bylaw is administered by Watercare Services Limited.

10.     The Bylaw seeks to protect the water supply and wastewater networks by:

·    requiring authorisation from Watercare to connect to or disconnect from the water supply or wastewater network and enabling Watercare to refuse connections where there is insufficient network capacity

·    ensuring appropriate standards for any new infrastructure under Watercare's control

·    protecting the quality of the water supply and prohibiting illegal use from hydrants

·    managing work near the water supply and wastewater network to protect it from damage

·    allowing for restricting the water supply to maintain enough drinking water, in the event of drought or other emergency

·    managing inflows and illegal dumping of material into the wastewater network to avoid wastewater overflows.

11.     The Bylaw is aligned with the strategic directions in the Auckland Plan 2050 to “improve the education, health and safety of Aucklanders, with a focus on those most in need” and to “grow a business friendly and well-functioning city”.

12.     The Bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework. Issues related to access to private property are addressed under the Local Government Act 2002 while those related to the compliance with water quality are addressed under the Health Act 1956.

13.     In addition, uniquely to Auckland, Watercare has a contractual relationship with its customers. This enables the Bylaw to focus on matters relating to the impact of household and businesses’ behaviours on the public assets, while the customer contract addresses the rights and obligations for each customer’s water and wastewater connection.


 

The Regulatory Committee endorsed Bylaw review findings and requested options

14.     On 28 May the Emergency Committee (EME/2020/81) completed the statutory review of the Bylaw and endorsed the review findings:

·    a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to protect Auckland’s water sources and water supply and wastewater networks from damage, misuse and interference

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

·    the current Bylaw approach to focus on the impacts of behaviours on the public assets and to rely on customer contracts to address matters related to connections to the public network is appropriate but could be improved.

15.     The committee requested the options report to help decide how best to respond to the key findings and consider whether the Bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked or replaced.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

From the findings report, staff developed an options report

16.     Staff used the findings report to develop the Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 Options Report 2020 in Attachment A. This included defining the problem, objectives, and outcomes sought for 2020 and beyond, development and assessment of each option against assessment criteria.

The problem, objectives and outcomes are related to damage, misuse and interference

17.     Based on the findings, the problems, objectives and outcomes identified in 2015 remain:

·    current problem - the interference with, damage to and misuse of the water sources and water and wastewater networks, leading to damage to the infrastructure as well as water shortage and public health risks

·    objectives – to protect the public water supply and wastewater networks (including associated land) from damage, misuse and interference; to assist in the provision of reliable, safe and efficient water supply and wastewater services in Auckland; and to protect the health of people using the water supply or wastewater network

·    outcome – to protect the public water and wastewater system, people and their immediate surroundings form adverse effects of water contamination, water shortages, or physical damage to the public water supply or wastewater networks.

18.     The scale of interference with water and wastewater networks has increased due to the growth of Auckland (increasing number of applications of connection, digging near and damage to the pipes) and consumption habits (disposal of wipes in wastewater pipes).

Statutory options to respond to the outcome sought include improving the Bylaw

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

·    Option one - continue the current Bylaw (status quo)

·    Option two - improve the current Bylaw by amending it to address issues raised in the findings report

·    Option three - replace the current Bylaw with a new bylaw

·    Option four - no bylaw (revoke the Bylaw and rely solely on existing legislative provisions, Watercare customer contracts and voluntary compliance)

20.     Staff assessed each option against assessment criteria that reflect the core objective of minimising risks, as well as council’s statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002.

21.     The table below provides a summary of the full option assessment in Attachment A.

 

Protect the public water supply and wastewater networks from damage, misuse and interference

Help provide reliable, safe and efficient water supply and wastewater services

Protect the health of people using the network

Option one: status quo - continue the current Bylaw

Option two: improve the current Bylaw by amending it [Recommended]

✔✔

✔✔

✔✔

Option three: create a new bylaw

Option three is included for completeness but as the research and consultation did not indicate the content of any totally new bylaw (aside from Option 2 amendments), it cannot be analysed against the criteria.

Option four: Revoke the Bylaw and have no bylaw

✘✘

✘✘

             The ‘ and reflect the impact of the option against each criterion: the more , the better the option.

22.     Staff also assessed the suggested Bylaw improvements raised in the findings report to identify key amendments that would form part of Option two (improve current Bylaw by amending it).

23.     The table below provides a summary of the assessment of suggested Bylaw improvements in the Attachment A.

Suggested improvement areas for inclusion in Option two (Amend Bylaw)

Recommended direction for any changes

Wastewater recycling

Not to be pursued through bylaw amendments.

Community water supply schemes

Amend Bylaw to clarify that clauses 6 and 11 apply also to community supply schemes.

Greenfield developments and construction sites

Amend Bylaw to make the types of illegal water use more explicit by defining any unmetered point (including hydrants and service leads) as illegal use.

Water consumption in apartments

Not to be pursued through bylaw amendments.

Prohibited waste and emerging contaminants

Amend Bylaw to include emerging and problematic waste.

Protection of assets from intentional threats

Not to be pursued through bylaw amendments.

Rights to physical access

Amend Bylaw to include obstruction of access points to water and wastewater assets and interference with water or wastewater networks.

Safe digging practices

Not to be pursued through bylaw amendments.

Restricted works

Amend Bylaw to specify the types of restricted works.

Existing offences

Amend Bylaw to explain more clearly the consequences of breaching each clause.

Liability for costs associated with delays

Amend Bylaw to clarify that Watercare is not liable for costs associated with delays as a result of a non-compliant asset.

Water quality protection

Not to be pursued through bylaw amendments.

Enforcement powers

Not to be pursued through bylaw amendments.

Review of definitions for clarity

Amend Bylaw to align definitions with those in the Watercare wastewater code of practice.

Staff recommend improving the current Bylaw by amending it

24.     Staff recommend Option two – improve the current Bylaw by amending it, as:

·    it retains a regulatory tool and addresses the problem by protecting the water supply and wastewater network from damage, misuse and interference (illegal connections)

·    it improves on the status quo (option 1) by building on the existing practices while incorporating the lessons learnt from the review to increase Bylaw effectiveness, clarity (making some clauses more specific), and matching 2020 best practice for bylaw writing

·    it focuses on interactions with the public assets and relies on the Watercare customer contract to address all legal connections to the public network.

25.     Staff consider that the key trade-off between the recommended Option two (improve the Bylaw by amending it), and other options are:

·        Option one (status quo) would be effective as it is today but it but gaps have been identified as part of the review and effectiveness can be increased through best-practice bylaw writing, clarification, and capturing emerging trends

·        Option three (make a new bylaw) is not justified, as no alternative approach emerged from the research and consultation, and the possible new regulatory environment doesn’t create a need for a change in the existing approach

·        Option four (revoke the Bylaw and have no bylaw) is the least effective option and would significantly undermine Auckland Council and Watercare’s ability to address identified problems by creating legislative gaps and largely relying on voluntary compliance. This option would create public health issues almost immediately.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26.     By limiting damage to public pipes, the Bylaw reduces the need for concrete pipe repairs and the amount of carbon embedded in network operations and maintenance.

27.     By imposing water use restrictions in case of an emergency or a drought, the Bylaw enables Auckland’s water supply for essential needs while addressing a changing climate such as hotter days and changing rainfall patterns.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28.     The Bylaw impacts the operations of many Watercare teams in charge of the operations and the planning of water sources, water and wastewater networks. It also impacts some Auckland Council teams involved in compliance and stormwater management. Relevant staff provided feedback to the review through face-to-face meetings and online engagement.

29.     Watercare and Council teams suggest improvements to the Bylaw, enhancing its ability to protect the water supply and wastewater network.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30.     Local Board and Council teams suggest improvements to the Bylaw, enhancing its ability to protect the water supply and wastewater network.

31.     Communication was received from one local board in relation to wastewater overflows, a matter unrelated to Bylaw, and already covered by the Resource Management Act 1991.

32.     This low interest in the Bylaw review is consistent with the Auckland Council’s classification of the Bylaw as low impact and low interest to local boards under the agreed principles and processes for Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019.

33.     An update on the findings and options stages were included in Watercare’s Local Board communications in June 2020.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34.     The Bylaw can contribute to the Māori Plan’s key directions and aspirations of Manaakitanga (Improve Quality of Life "Satisfaction with our environments and standard of living") and Kaitiakitanga (Ensure Sustainable Futures "lntergenerational Reciprocity") by ensuring the public water supply and wastewater network is future proofed and not contaminated or damaged, which would be detrimental to the people and the natural environment.

35.     Input by mana whenua was sought at a special hui of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum in January 2020. The main concerns related to environmental issues beyond the bylaw scope such as archaeological sites and clarifications of asset ownership and responsibilities.

36.     Staff sought input by mana whenua on the proposed options in June 2020. A meeting with the Chair of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum confirmed his support of the direction taken and recommended a written update at the June forum to carry on the engagement.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38.     There is a low risk that some members of the infrastructure industry may express concern about suggested improvements, Watercare’s role or stakeholder engagement to date. This risk will be mitigated by future public engagement.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39.     If approved, the next steps are shown in the diagram below.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2015 Water Wastewater Bylaw review options

277

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Roseline Klein – Head of Water Value, Watercare

Mark Bishop – Principal Policy Planner, Watercare

Authorisers

Shane Morgan – Chief Operations Officer, Watercare

Steve Webster – Chief Infrastructure Officer, Watercare

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Resource Consents: Quarterly Hearings Report 23 June 2020

File No.: CP2020/03990

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide a quarterly update of regulatory hearings under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report provides a summary of resource consent hearings held in the two quarterly periods 1 July 2019 to 31 December 2019 and the commissioners appointed to those hearings.  

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      receive the Resource Consents: Quarterly Hearings Report 23 June 2020

 

 

Horopaki

Context

3.       The Regulatory Committee holds the responsibility for regulatory hearings required by relevant legislation. The majority of these fall within the area of resource consents and notices of requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991.The Committee oversees  who the decision maker(s) should be in relation to the matters that need to be heard, and the position to be taken in regards to any appeals of those decisions.

4.       The delegation to appoint hearing commissioners has been delegated to staff. Guidance for the assignment of commissioners to a particular hearing follows clauses 3.7 to 3.12 of the Regulatory Committee Policy. The staff in assigning commissioners must therefore take into account the nature and issues raised by an application, and hence the need for particular expertise including mataurangi Maori and tikanga Maori.

5.       Local Board members as commissioners can also be considered for matters that are significant or contentious. Over the past year there has been a marked take up by Local Boards seeking to express their views and preferences at hearings. To avoid any perceived conflict of interest, Local Board members have not been appointed as hearing commissioners in these circumstances and there has been a corresponding drop off of Local Board members sitting as hearing commissioners.

6.       The assignments of the hearing commissioners for the past two three-month periods, are as set out in Attachment A. The assignments occur well in advance of the hearing and therefore an assigned alternate will often be part of the actual hearing panel due to availability.      

7.       The reporting of resource consent appeals occurs separately as part of a monthly up-date appeals report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8.       To receive the report as provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

9.       Not applicable.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

10.     Not applicable.

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

Local impacts and local board views

11.     Local Boards are not involved with the appointment of commissioners.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

12.     The decision requested of the Regulatory Committee is to receive this report rather than appoint commissioners to hearings. The Committee policy at 3.7 includes “the desirability of appointing a person with relevant expertise in mataurangi Maori and tikanga Maori” as a consideration in the appointment of hearing panel members. Further policy 3.8 states “Where a matter covers areas of significance to Maori, council staff will consult with IMSB staff on the appointments”.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

13.     The cost of independent hearing commissioners is covered by the applicants of those applications that are required to be heard.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

14.     Not applicable.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

15.     Not applicable.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A: Hearings Held – 1 July 2019 to 31 December 2019.    

301

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robert Andrews - Principal Specialist Planning

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

s460 LGA report for stormwater and wastewater connections

File No.: CP2020/05691

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To consider the objection to the Construction of a Public Stormwater and Wastewater lines through 2 Wakeling Avenue Te Atatu (Lot 1 DP 44646) to serve 227 Te Atatu Road Te Atatu South (Lot 5 DP31444).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The engineering approval ENG60324639 for stormwater and wastewater connections was issued under letter of 8 November 2018 for the works associated with the landuse consent application LUC60326206. (Attachment A). An amendment letter was issued on 28 November 2018. (Attachment A)

3.       A landuse resource consent LUC60326206 was approved on 22 February 2019 for 23 one-bedroom residential apartments and associated carparking targeting retired individuals and couples. (Attachment B)

4.       The current dwelling stormwater discharges to ground and does not comply with Council’s Stormwater Code of Practice as it discharges to ground and does not discharge to the public reticulation which is located within Wakeling Avenue. The proposed development consent conditions require the installation of a stormwater management system to discharge to public reticulation via the access way of the adjoining property at 2 Wakeling Avenue.

5.       The current dwelling wastewater discharges to the public line within the adjoining property at 2 Wakeling Avenue.  The proposed development consent conditions requires an upgrade to the existing connection to an existing manhole located withing the access way of 2 Wakeling Avenue.

6.       The applicant’s consultant Paul Culley of MSC Consulting Group Ltd has been in communication with Robert and Frances Cawley (owners of 2 Wakeling Avenue Lot 1 DP 44646) via various forums and letters since February 2018 and has not been able to obtain approval for the stormwater connection. (Attachment C)

7.       Following consultation Council’s Principal Engineer Hock Lee he confirmed approval of the engineering approval ENG60324639 for the installation of a public stormwater and wastewater connections to the public reticulation via 2 Wakeling Avenue. (Attachment D)

8.       Council’s senior development engineer (Cedric Daniel) met with the landowners and their daughter (Cheryl Martin) on Wednesday 10 July 2017 to discuss the proposed stormwater and wastewater Works. (Attachment D The Cawley’s main concerns was access during works and reinstatement of damage to access way. The extent of works was explained and requirement for maintaining access and reinstatement of damage was confirmed.

9.       Council engaged Dave Serjeant an accredited Independent Hearings Commissioner to mediate approval of the stormwater connection. (Attachment E).

10.     During the mediation process the Cawleys requested that all communication be conducted via their solicitor David Gill.

11.     During the mediation process Dave Serjeant and Council proposed that the applicant reconsider a commercial agreement considering the impact of these works.

12.     Under email and letter of 13 March 2020 the applicant presented and approval request that included financial compensation. (Attachment C)

13.     No response was forthcoming following further communication with the Cawley’s solicitor (D Gill).

14.     Under email of 23 April 2020 Dave Serjeant presented his mediation report confirming that he was no able to mediate approval for the required stormwater and wastewater connections. (Attachment E)

15.     The proposed connection route is the shortest, most practical, least intrusive and only route available for the connections.

16.     The stormwater line will be directionally drilled to avoid the disruption of open trench excavation installation.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      hear and determine the objections by the owners of 2 Wakeling Avenue (Lot 1 DP 44646), pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974; and

b)      subject to the hearing of the objection, resolve under section 460(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 that the proposed stormwater and wastewater connections route across 2 Wakeling Avenue, is the only practical route as shown on MSC Consulting Group Ltd engineers drawing 39450 sheets RC400 revision E C400 revision C.

 

Horopaki

Context

17.     <Enter text>

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18.     The owners of 227 Te Atatu Road Te Atatu South are The Ridge Lifestyle LP – Andrew Body director  (“the Applicant”). The Applicant has applied under section 460 of the Act for the council to determine, that the proposed installation of stormwater and wastewater pipes and connections to an existing Council public lines via the 2 Wakeling Avenue access way being the only practical route and available connections to serve 227 Te Atatu Road,

19.     A locational aerial of the relevant properties and plans of the precise route is shown on MSC Consulting Group Ltd engineers drawing 39450 sheets RC400 revision E C400 revision C, are contained in Attachment B.

20.     The Applicant lodged an Engineering Approval application (reference ENG60324639) on 8 August 2018 to undertake the work to install the stormwater and wastewater connections. This has since been approved under letter of 8 November 2018 subject to landowner approval of 2 Wakeling Avenue provided as Attachment A. Landowners of 2 Wakeling Avenue (Robert and Frances Cawley) have not approved the connection.

21.     The ‘Applicant’ and its consultants have consulted with the property’s owners (Robert and Frances Cawley) in writing and by phone over a period of 24 months to date in order to obtain their consent to undertake the work. A copy of relevant pertinent communication demonstrates that both Robert and Frances Cawley have been fully informed of the extent of works and this is provided as Attachment C. The written communication has been sent to the address listed for the respective owners as well as email communication. The ‘Applicant’ has not been able to obtain consent.

22.     Under email of 21 July 2019 from Paul Culley of MSC Consultant to Cheryl Martin (R & F Cawley daughter) Paul set out a detailed explanation of the proposed construction methodology. Attachment C

23.     The Council’s senior development engineer has also consulted with these landowners and has not been able to facilitate approval.

24.     Attachment E also confirms the attempts by Mr. Dave Serjeant, council’s independent facilitator engaged to seek a resolution. However, these attempts were also unsuccessful. Under report of 22 April 2020 the mediator proposes that the matter be set down for a hearing. 

25.     The Council is satisfied that the owners (‘Applicant’) of 227 Te Atatu Road, have met its expectations of seeking all endeavors to obtain an agreement to install the stormwater and wastewater connections.

26.     The approved stormwater and wastewater reticulation provides the required connections for 227 Te Atatu Road which is an improvement on the current situation as this site currently discharges stormwater onto 2 Wakeling Avenue the property of Robert and Frances Cawley. Attachment A provides approved details of the proposed upgrade works.

27.     Details of landowners is provided under Attachment C

28.     Copies of S460 LGA 1974 are provide under Attachment F

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29.     The extent of the works are of a localised minor nature that does not require climate change consideration.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30.     Within the framework of the Regulatory Committee’s Terms of Reference from the Governing Body, the Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for “hearing and determining applications for private drainage works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974. This delegation cannot be sub-delegated”. Copy of Section 460 of the 1974 Act is provided as Attachment F.

31.     At the hearing, both the applicant and the objectors can present their evidence in support of their positions. After hearing all the evidence and the relevant information, the Regulatory Committee then has to make a decision. There is no right of appeal of the decision of the Regulatory Committee.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32.     The Local Board is not advised of service connection requests under the Act. Further, the determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners Robert and Frances Cawley of 2 Wakeling Avenue.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33.     Under section 460 of the Act, Iwi are not considered a relevant affected party unless they are land owners through which a proposed drain is to be aligned. Council staff are not aware of any matters pertinent to the site that may be of interest to Maori. There are no sites or places of significance to Mana Whenua recorded in the Unitary plan for the site.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34.     All costs for this process and hearing are to be met by the owners of 227 Te Aatatu Road Te Atatu South.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35.     The proposed reticulation will improve the upstream stormwater management and reduce sheet flow discharged impact on downstream property at 2 Wakeling Avenue and provide for the required stormwater and wastewater connections.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36.     The installation of the public stormwater and wastewater reticulation will be undertaken by Council upon the Hearing approval of the proposed works.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Engineering Apprpoval ENG60324639

311

b

Landuse Consent LUC60326206

333

c

A Body MSC Consultants Consultation with R & F Cawley

445

d

Council Officer Consultation

466

e

Mediator Consultation

466

f

S469 LGA 1974

466

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cedric Daniel - Senior Development Engineer

Authorisers

Hock Lee – Principal Engineer

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 



Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 



Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Objection against a Menacing Dog Classification - Mr Brian Cooke

File No.: CP2020/08076

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To hear and determine the objection by Mr Brian John Cooke against the menacing classification issued for his dog Jack.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Section 33C of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) provides that the Auckland Council must classify a dog as menacing when the Council has reasonable grounds to believe the dog belongs wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4. They include:

i)    Breed of dog;

a)   Brazilian Fila;

b)   Dogo Argentino;

c)   Japanese Tosa; or

d)   Perro de Presa Canario.

ii)   Type of dog

a)   American Pit Bull Terrier

3.       Section 3333E of the DCA provides that where a dog is classified as a menacing dog, the owner of the dog:

a)   Must not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place, or in any private way, without being muzzled; and

b)   Must, if required by the territorial authority, within 1 month, produce to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a veterinarian certifying:

i)    That the dog is or has been neutered; or

ii)   That for reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a fit condition to be neutered before a date specified in the certificate; and

c)   where a certificate under paragraph (b)(ii) is produced to the territorial authority, must produce within 1 month after the date specified in that certificate, a further certificate under paragraph (b)(i).

4.       The Auckland Council Animal Management Team resolved to classify Jack a menacing dog.

5.       Mr Cooke has objected to the Council’s decision and pursuant to section 33D of the DCA, the matter is now before the Regulatory Committee for a decision as to whether to uphold or rescind the menacing classification of Jack.

6.       In making its determination the committee must have regard to:

a)   The evidence which formed the basis for the decision to classify Jack menacing; and

b)   The matters relied on by Mr Cooke in support of his objection; and

c)   Any other relevant matters.

7.       Auckland Council must give written notice to the owner of its decision of the objection and the reasons for its decision.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      hear and determine the objection to the menacing dog classification by Mr Cooke, by either:

i)    uphold the menacing classification; or

ii)   rescinding the menacing classification

 

 

Horopaki

Context

8.       Jack was previously owned by Samantha Lee Wright who registered Jack as an American Staffordshire Terrier.

9.       Auckland Council considers American Staffordshire Terriers to be of the Pit Bull type therefore classifies them menacing by breed. The American Staffordshire is exempt from the menacing classification only if a three generation NZ Kennel Club registered pedigree certificate is provided.

10.     On 28 July 2017 a Notice of Classification of Jack being classified as menacing by breed was issued and sent to Ms Wright, refer attachment A.

11.     No objection to the classification was filed by Ms Wright.

12.     On 10 April 2019 Mr Cooke filed a Dog owner change of ownership form for Jack at Auckland Council, refer attachment B.

13.     On 10 April 2019 Mr Cooke also submitted a new registration form for Jack and registered Jack as an American Staffy cross English Bull, refer attachment C.

14.     At the time of registration Mr Cooke was advised that Jack had previously been classified as menacing. Mr Cooke advised the shelter staff that he would object to that classification.

15.     On 18 June 2019 a notice classifying Jack as menacing by breed was issued and sent to Mr Cooke, refer attachment D.

16.     On 27 June 2019 Mr Cooke emailed his objection to this classification to the Silverdale Animal Shelter, refer attachment E.

17.     The shelter staff arranged for Mr Cooke to bring Jack into the shelter on 19 July 2019 to have Jack’s breed assessed.

18.     On 19 July 2019 Mr Cooke took Jack into the Silverdale Animal Shelter where the dog was assessed by both Ms Kelsey Purcell, the Silverdale Animal Shelter Manager, and Nikki Cripps, the Senior Shelter Officer Operations.

19.     Both Ms Purcell and Ms Cripps concluded that Jack identified as an American Pit Bull Terrier Type dog, refer attachments F and G.

20.     Mr Cooke sent an email to Animal Management contesting the assessment and advising that his dog’s primary breed was a Mastiff, refer attachment H.

21.     Animal Management invited Mr Cooke for a second assessment of Jack’s breed.

22.     On 30 September 2019 Mr Cooke took Jack into the Henderson Animal Shelter where it was assessed by both Ms Louise Palmer, the Henderson Animal Shelter Manager, and Ms Donna Wright, a Kennel Officer.

23.     Both Ms Palmer and Ms Wright concluded that Jack identified as an American Pit Bull Terrier type dog, refer attachments I and J.

24.     Photographs were taken at the assessment, refer attachment K.

25.     After the assessment Mr Cooke was served a letter advising him of the results and the decision to uphold the classification based on the assessments, refer attachment L.

26.     On 7 October Mr Cooke confirmed that he wanted to appeal the decision via email on the basis that his dog is ¾ American Bulldog and ¼ English Bull Terrier, refer attachment M.

27.     On October 2019 Mr Cooke was served a letter explaining the results and the decision to uphold the classification based on the assessments at the Silverdale animal shelter, refer attachment N.

28.     On 29 October Mr Cooke confirmed that he still wanted to appeal the decision, refer attachment O.

29.     Formal statements from Ms Purcell, Ms Cripps, Ms Palmer and Ms Wright were created for the file, refer attachments P, Q, R, and S.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

30.     Staff advise the menacing classification should be upheld.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31.     There are no identified climate impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32.     There are no identified impacts.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33.     This report relates to classification of a menacing dog.  The views of local boards have not been sought for this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34.     The content of this report has no adverse effects on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35.     There are no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36.     This is a menacing dog classification, there are no risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37.     To uphold the decision of the committee.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

First menacing classification notice  - 28 July 2017

466

b

Change of ownership form - 10 April 2019

466

c

Registration form - 10 April 2019

466

d

Second menacing calssification notice - 18 June 2019

466

e

Objection to classification - 27 June 2019

466

f

Ms Purcell breed assessment - 19 July 2019

466

g

Ms Cripps breed assessment - 19 July 2019

466

h

Email Mr Cooke disputing assessments - 19 July 2019

466

i

Ms Palmer breed assessment - 30 September 2019

466

j

Ms Wright breed assessment - 30 September 2019

466

k

photographs of Jack

466

l

Letter to Mr Cooke with assessment results - 30 September 2019

466

m

Email from Mr Cooke with assessment - 7 October 2019

466

n

Letter to Mr Cooke with assessment results - 8 October 2019

466

o

Email from Mr Cooke objecting to assessment and requesting hearing - 29 October 2019

466

p

Ms Purcell formal statement

466

q

Ms Cripps formal statement

466

r

Ms Palmer formal statement

466

s

Ms Wright formal statement

466

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Louise Palmer – Animal Shelter Manager

Authorisers

Sarah Anderson – Manager Animal Management

James Hassall - General Manager, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Objection to a menacing dog classification - Mr Adam Palmer

File No.: CP2020/08081

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To hear and determine the objection by Mr Adam Palmer against the menacing classification issued for his dog Bonnieville.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) provides that if the Auckland Council considers that a dog may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal or protected wildlife because of any observed or reported behaviour of the dog, then Auckland Council can classify the dog as menacing.

3.       Section 33E of the DCA provides that where a dog is classified a menacing dog, the owner of the dog:

a)   Must not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place, or in any private way, without being muzzled; and

b)   Must, if required by the territorial authority, within 1 month, produce to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a veterinarian certifying:

i)    That the dog is or has been neutered; or

ii)   That for reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a fit condition to be neutered before a date specified in the certificate; and

c)   Where a certificate under paragraph (b)(ii) is produced to the territorial authority, must produce within 1 month after the date specified in that certificate, a further certificate under paragraph (b)(i).

4.       The Auckland Council Animal Management Team considered that Bonnieville may pose a threat to any person or domestic animal because of two incidents that were reported to Auckland Council of Bonnieville attacking another dog and resolved to classify Bonnieville as a menacing dog.

5.       Mr Palmer has objected to the Council’s decision and pursuant to section 33D of the DCA, the matter is now before the Committee for a decision as to whether to uphold or rescind the menacing classification of Bonnieville.

6.       In making its determination the Committee must have regard to:

a)   The evidence which formed the basis for the decision to classify Bonnieville menacing; and

b)   The matters relied on by Mr Palmer in support of his objection; and

c)   Any other relevant matters.

7.       Auckland Council must give written notice to the owner of its decision of the objection and the reasons for its decision.


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      Hear and determine the objection to the menacing dog classification by Mr Palmer, by either:

i)    Uphold the menacing classification; or

ii)   Rescinding the menacing classification

 

 

Horopaki

Context

8.       On 26 May 2019 Auckland Council received a complaint regarding a dog attacking the complainant’s dog.

9.       The complainant provided Auckland Council with a formal statement which included a description of the attacking dog and its owner, refer attachment A.

10.     The complainant also provided Auckland Council with the number plate for the car owned by the dog owner and photographs of the car, refer attachment B.

11.     On 29 May 2019 Auckland Council received another complaint from the same complainant that the same dog had attacked his dog in the same park.

12.     The complainant provided Auckland Council with a formal statement, refer attachment C.

13.     Auckland Council undertook investigations and ascertained that the car belonged to Mr Palmer and the offending dog was Bonnieville, refer attachment D.

14.     The Animal Management Officer involved in the investigation provided two formal statements for the investigation file, refer attachment E and F.

15.     In line with Animal Management graduated enforcement policy, the Animal Management Team resolved to issue Mr Palmer with two infringement notices under section 53 of the DCA for failing to control Bonnieville on 26 and 29 May 2019 respectively, and to classify the dog as menacing by deed.

16.     On 10 June 2019 a Notice classifying Bonnieville as menacing by deed was issued and sent to Mr Palmer, refer attachment G.

17.     Mr Palmer disputed both infringements at the District Court and the cases were set down for a trial where Auckland Council and Mr Palmer could present their evidence.

18.     Mr Palmer also sent Auckland Council a letter of objection of the menacing classification, refer attachment H.

19.     On 8 January 2020 after hearing evidence the District Court found that Bonnieville had attacked the complainant’s dog on both instances and ordered Mr Palmer to pay a fine of $100 on each charge.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20.     Staff advise the menacing classification should be upheld.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21.     This is a menacing dog classification. There is no climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22.     This is a menacing dog classification. There are no council group impacts.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23.     This is a menacing dog classification.  The views of the local boards have not been sought.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24.     This is a menacing dog classification and has no adverse effect on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25.     This is a menacing dog classification. There are no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26.     This is a menacing dog classification. There are no risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27.     To uphold the decision of the committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Complainant formal statement – 26 May 2019

595

b

Photographs of Mr Palmers car

601

c

Complainant formal statement – 29 May 2019

605

d

Registration details of the car in attachment B

613

e

Unkovich statement 1

615

f

Unkovich statement 2

619

g

Menacing classification

623

h

Objection to menacing classification

625

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Petra Unkovich – Animal Management Officer

Authorisers

Sarah Anderson – Manager Animal Management

James Hassall - General Manager, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

     

 


Regulatory Committee

23 June 2020

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Regulatory Committee

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Appeals to Plan Change 25 (Private) - Warkworth North

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains a recommended change to the council position on some of the appeals on Plan Change 25 (Private) – Warkworth North.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

   



[1] Review of Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, Ministry of Health, 6 December 2018, Appendix One

[2] Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, section 69(5)

[3] Review of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, Ministry of Health, 6 December 2018, page 7

[4] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/referendums-website-and-initial-cannabis-bill-launched

[5] Resolution number REG/2020/3.

[6] Auckland Transport Board Meeting 26 May 2015, Agenda item no. 10.1.

[7] Billboards are signs whose content is not related to the main use of the sign’s location.

[8] Auckland Council District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section – Operative 2013.

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

[10] Section 155 Local Government Act 2002.

[11] Section 155, 156 Local Government Act 2002.

[12] Resolution number REG/2020/3.

[13]   Bluetooth beacons enable businesses to send advertisements and notifications to nearby people who have Bluetooth-enabled phones.

[14]  Independent Māori Statutory Board (2017). Schedule of Issues of Significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau and Māori Plan 2017.

[15] Resolution number REG/2020/3.

[16] Section 155 Local Government Act 2002  

[17] Section 155, 156 Local Government Act 2002 and section 33M Maritime Transport Act 1994  

[18] It is important to note that not all activities that result in fatalities are the related to matters regulated under the Bylaw. However, the data helps to show the type and frequency of similar or closely related incidents and fatalities occurring on Auckland’s navigable waters.