Agenda of Regulatory Committee

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

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

The committee’s key responsibilities include:

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

· hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996

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

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

· hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws

· 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

13 October 2020

2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report

File No.: CP2020/13883

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) requires each territorial authority to report on its dog control policy and practices and to provide specific statistical information.

2. This report acts as a medium for this statutory requirement, and to provide an update to all stakeholders on the activities and performance of the Auckland Council Animal Management unit.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The 2019-2020 registration year proved to be remarkably different from the previous year. Our team’s routine work was significantly affected during part of the year by the COVID-19 lockdown period and the progression through the subsequent lower alert levels.

Total dogs

4. As the Auckland region continues to grow, the 2019-2020 registration year has seen a 1.4% increase in the total number of known dogs in Auckland, which has gone from 110,969 in the previous year to 112,530 in this year – an increase of 1,561 dogs.

5. Our ongoing focus on dog registration compliance has achieved a 94.4% success rate, which is 1.7% lower than the previous year. This result may be partially attributed to the temporary closure of all service centres, animal shelters, and other places of registration during part of the year, but also to less proactive measures taken due to the lockdown.

Harm caused by dogs

6. The highest priority for our team is still to keep all Aucklanders and visitors to our city safe from harm caused by dogs. The fantastic effort by our field services teams has seen a reduction in all aggression-related incidents, with 31 fewer attacks on people, and 48 fewer attacks on other animals.

7. This is a total reduction of 4.7% on all dog attacks. Incidents where dogs behaved aggressively to people or other animals, but didn’t result in an attack, also decreased by 6% from 1,649 in the previous year to 1,547 this year.

New Policy and Bylaw

8. On 1 November 2019, the new Policy on Dogs 2019 and the Dog Management Bylaw 2019 came into effect. The aim of the new policy and bylaw were mostly to create regionally consistent rules and controls for multiple-dog ownership, ‘time and season’ rules for dog access in public places, and new rules for some of our regional parks.

High-risk dogs

9. It is a high priority for our team to get full compliance from dog owners with high-risk dogs, which includes menacing and dangerous dogs. At the end of the registration year, a total of 4,745 dogs were classified as menacing, and 26 dogs were classified as dangerous. This is an increase of 7.7% in menacing dogs, but a 10.3% reduction in dangerous dogs.

10. Overall compliance with the neutering requirement for all menacing and dangerous dog classifications has decreased by 3.3% from the previous year.

11. This result can likely be attributed to the closure of most veterinary clinics during the lockdown period, as well as the temporary suspension of the council’s subsidised neutering campaign.

Dealing with COVID-19

12. As essential workers, our field and shelter teams had to find new ways of interacting with customers and other stakeholders, while also keeping their own health and safety a top priority.

13. Our frontline officers had to wear all required PPE and abide by all safety guidelines during the course of their duties. The majority of dogs that were impounded after been found roaming were returned to their owners, rather than taken to a shelter.

14. From the start of the lockdown period, no enforcement action was taken against dog owners who could not comply with the neutering requirement of a menacing dog classification due to the unavailability of veterinarians. The reprieve period was extended until the end of the financial year, which caused a result in overall compliance that is 2.8% lower than the target set for the year.

15. All our animal shelters were closed to the public, but shelter staff continued to provide the best possible care for all dogs and other animals in the shelters, and also very effectively utilised this time to finish outstanding projects and maintenance at the shelters.

16. During level 3, the shelter staff also put measures in place to keep them and the public safe, and they implemented ‘contactless’ dog returns at the shelter to reunite dogs with their owners in a safe way.

17. The Barking Complaints team continued to provide advice and assistance to dog owners and complainants during the lockdown period. Other Animal Management specialists also continued to support the team remotely, using various online platforms and tools.

Field services

18. Field officers responded to 24,636 requests for service during the year, which is 11% lower than the previous year. However, our field teams substantially increased their proactive work relating to beaches, parks, reserves and other public places, and visits to these areas increased from 1,202 to 2,943 – an increase of 145% from the previous year.

19. The majority of proactive beach patrols during the summertime was conducted by interns, whose services were funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

Shelters

20. A total of 5,492 dogs were impounded this year in the Auckland animal shelters. This is a decrease of 19% from the previous year.

21. A total of 372 dogs were adopted from our shelters, which is another fantastic result. The majority (68%) of all impounded dogs were returned to their owners.

Barking team

22. Nuisance barking complaints had a sharp decline at the start of the lockdown – this is believed to be due to the fact that most dog owners were home and able to control their dogs better.

23. Barking complaints decreased by 14.7% compared to the previous year. Our team of Barking Complaint Advisors responded to 5,810 barking complaints and issued 256 nuisance abatement notices during the year.

Community education

24. During the first part of the year, our team attended several community events, like Pet Expo and Movies in Parks to promote responsible dog ownership, but unfortunately the majority of planned events were cancelled later in the year due to the effects of COVID-19.

25. Given the new limitations as a result of the ongoing threat of COVID-19, the Animal Management team will be looking at new ways to do community education and to promote responsible dog ownership.

Future projects

26. Later in the 2020-2021 registration year, Animal Management will facilitate a project to increase compliance with the microchipping requirement of the Dog Control Act 1996 for all dogs born after 1 July 2006. Details of the project will be announced later in the year.

27. Animal Management is committed to improving processes and work practices – both to ensure a safe Auckland, but also to provide our services at the lowest cost possible. Over the next year we will be looking at all ways that we can assist the organisation to save money and maximise resources.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) adopt the 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report

b) note that the Animal Management Annual Report is required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996. The report will be published on the Auckland Council website and a link to the report will be forwarded to the Department of Internal Affairs.

Horopaki

Context

28. On 1 November 2019, the new Policy on Dogs 2019 and the Dog Management Bylaw 2019 came into effect.

29. The objective of the new policy on dogs is to keep dogs as a positive part of the life of Aucklanders by:

• maintaining opportunities for owners to take their dogs into public places,

• adopting measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs, and

• protecting dogs from harm and ensuring their welfare.

30. Together, the new policy and bylaw will:

• provide a consistent approach to multiple dog ownership,

• provide a consistent definition of the time and season rule that apply at beaches,

• apply a standard lambing season rule in regional parks,

• extend the council’s ability to protect our plant life,

• amend dog access rules for the protection of wildlife in Glenfern Sanctuary, Muriwai Regional Park, Long Bay Regional Park and Whatipū, Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, and

• incentivise responsible dog ownership for owners of dogs that have been classified as menacing due to their behaviour (Section 33A of the Act)

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

31. Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) requires each territorial authority to report on its dog control policy and practices and to provide specific statistical information.

32. This report acts as a medium for this statutory requirement, and to provide an update to all stakeholders on the activities and performance of the Auckland Council Animal Management unit.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. There is no climate impact associated with the 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. There are no council group impacts associated with the 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

35. There are no local board impacts associated with the 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. Animal Management have formed a working relationship with the Tupuna Maunga Authority. We now have access to the maunga for proactive patrols as well as responding to complaints. While we had hoped to run registration and education sessions at marae, unfortunately these did not happen in part due to COVID19. We hope to pick these up again.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

37. There are no financial impacts resulting from the 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report. This report has been reviewed by Kevin Smith, Manager Financial Advisory & Reporting.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. There are no risks or mitigations associated with the 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39. That the 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report is accepted by the committee. Then the report will be published on the Auckland Council website and a link to the report will be forwarded to the Department of Internal Affairs.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Animal Management Annual Report 2019-2020 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Christo van der Merwe, Principal Specialist Animal Management, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Authorisers

Sarah Anderson – Manager Animal Management, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

James Hassall - General Manager, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

13 October 2020

Proposal to make a new bylaw about Navigation Safety

File No.: CP2020/13862

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Governing Body adopt a proposal to make a new bylaw about navigation safety for public consultation and appoint a bylaw panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Regulatory Committee requested a new bylaw about navigation safety in June 2020 (REG/2020/30).

3. The Bylaw expires on 31 July 2021. Council must adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

4. Staff seek a recommendation that the Governing Body adopt for public consultation the attached Statement of Proposal containing a new bylaw about navigation safety.

5. The new bylaw continues to minimise the risk of accidents, nuisance and damage within Auckland’s navigable waters. It complies with statutory requirements, is appropriate and is not inconsistent with key legislation.

6. The main proposals implement the committee’s decision to make a new bylaw and make further improvements identified during the drafting process as follows:

· increase the maximum speed limit on the Waitemata Harbour Zone to 18 knots to allow faster movement of public transport vessels, but still ensure travel at a safe speed

· clarify existing rules, including about swimming, events and support vessels (further improvement)

· make new rules about novel craft (for example a motorised surfboard)

· amend existing rules about carrying a means of communication on vessel, to carrying at least two independent forms of communication on a vessel (further improvement)

· align rules about the use of Ōrākei Basin with current accepted practices

· remove rules about licensing of commercial vessels for hire and marine mammal protections as these are more appropriately addressed in separate legislation

· update the format and wording of the rules to be easier to read and understand.

7. Local board views were sought in August and September 2020. All those with a view supported public consultation on the Statement of Proposal.

8. There are risks that the proposal does not reflect the views of the public and that a COVID-19 outbreak prevents in-person public consultation. These risks are partly mitigated by the opportunity for public feedback, online or phone-based ‘Have Your Say’ events and bylaw panel deliberations.

9. Adoption of the Statement of Proposal will start the statutory process to make a new bylaw including public consultation scheduled from mid-November 2020 to February 2021. A bylaw panel will consider any public feedback, deliberate, and make recommendations to the Governing Body in May 2021. A final decision is expected to be made in June 2021.

10. It is noted that updated maps will be added to proposal reported to the Governing Body.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) note that this committee completed the review of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 in June 2020 and determined that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address navigation safety issues within Auckland’s navigable waters.

b) recommend that the Governing Body adopt the statement of proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report for public consultation, and confirm that the proposed new Auckland Council Navigation Bylaw 2021:

i) is the most appropriate form of bylaw

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

iii) it is not inconsistent with the Maritime Transport Act 1994, Maritime Rules, Resource Management Act 1991 or Auckland Unitary Plan.

c) recommend the Governing Body forward to the Independent Māori Statutory Board the statement of proposal in (b) for their advice.

d) recommend the Governing Body forward to local boards this agenda report and attachments for their information.

e) recommend the Governing Body delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws the matters in (h)(iii).

f) appoint a chair and two bylaw panel members selected from the Governing Body and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events and to deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal in (b).

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

h) delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws:

i) to appoint staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events

ii) to amend the proposal in (b) to update the table and maps in the Auckland Council Navigation Bylaw (Specific Areas and Conditions of Use) Control 2021

iii) to amend the proposal in (b) to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.

Horopaki

Context

The Navigation Safety Bylaw and controls regulate activity on Auckland’s navigable waters

11. Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Urungi Āhuru / Auckland Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 and associated controls make rules that seek to minimise the risk of accidents, nuisance and damage within Auckland’s navigable waters.

12. The rules are administered by the Harbourmaster using a graduated approach to compliance. This includes the use of infringement fines as an alternative to prosecution.

13. The Bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework that includes the:

· Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Maritime Rules that impose national water safety rules

· Resource Management Act 1991 to protect the environment

· Marine Mammal Protection Act 1978 and regulations to protect marine mammals.

14. The Bylaw expires on 31 July 2021. Council must adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

The Regulatory Committee decided to make a new bylaw and associated controls

15. The Regulatory Committee requested staff commence the process to make a new bylaw on 17 March 2020 (REG/2020/31). This decision followed completion of statutory bylaw review findings and options under the Local Government Act.^{^[1]}

16. Council must use the special consultative procedure to make a new bylaw, including to:^{^[2]}

· determine that the new bylaw meets legislative criteria

· adopt the statement of proposal, including the proposed new bylaw, for public consultation

· decide on any bylaw amendments after having considered public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The proposal makes a new bylaw about navigation safety

17. The Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) implements the committee’s decision to make a new bylaw about navigation safety and to make further improvements identified during the drafting process. The new bylaw improves on the current bylaw to minimise the risk of accidents, nuisance and damage within Auckland’s navigable waters.

Main proposals	Reasons for proposal
Increase the maximum speed limit on the Waitematā Harbour Zone to 18 knots (currently 12 knots)	· to allow public transport vessels to operate at higher speeds to maximise public transport in a safe way · views from the public will be considered during consultation on a range of speed limits including the status quo (12 knots).
Clarify existing rules, including swimming, events and (New) support vessels	· to improve certainty.
Make new rules about novel craft, for example a motorised surfboard	· to help minimise safety risks.
(New) Amend existing rules about carrying a means of communication on vessel, to carrying at least two independent forms of communication on a vessel	· help minimise safety risks.
Align rules about the use of Ōrākei Basin with current accepted practices	· to reflect the current practices displayed on the signs at the Basin. No changes are proposed to the current use.
Remove rules about Commercial Vessels for Hire and Reward	· to avoid duplication with the Health and Safety at Work (Adventure Activities) Regulations 2016.
Remove rules about speed around Marine Mammals	· to avoid duplication with the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1992.
Update the format and wording of the Bylaw and associated controls	· to align with current best practice drafting standards · to make the rules easier to read and understand.

The proposal complies with statutory requirements and best practice drafting

18. The proposed new bylaw has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements as:

· it will help minimise the risk of accidents, nuisance and damage on navigable waters

· it is authorised by statute, not repugnant to other legislation and not unreasonable

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

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

· it will be easy to read and understand.

Staff recommend the committee commence the process to make a new bylaw

19. Staff seek the Regulatory Committee to recommend that the Governing Body adopt the attached Statement of Proposal containing the new bylaw for public consultation, including:

· the further improvements identified during the drafting process

· updates to the table and maps in the proposed Auckland Council Navigation Bylaw (Specific Areas and Conditions of Use) Control 2021.

20. The Committee is requested to appoint a bylaw panel of three to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the proposal.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. There are no implications for climate change arising from this decision.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. The proposal impacts the operation of the Harbourmaster and other council teams involved in resource management, events and public transport (ferry operations). These teams are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. Staff sought the views of all local boards on a draft proposal in August and September 2020.

25. 21 local boards provided views, most in support of public consultation. A summary of local board views, staff responses and any changes made to the proposal are in Attachment B.

26. Nine local boards suggested changes including to reduce the proposed speed limit increase of 18 knots on the Waitematā Harbour Zone. They also suggested amendments to Bylaw definitions (such as sailboard and board sports), and to address issues regarding marine life.

27. Staff updated the draft proposal to specifically seek public feedback regarding the speed increase. Staff have also amended Bylaw definitions to ensure that it covers activities relating to sailboards and board sports. Other suggested changes such as addressing issues relating to marine life are not recommended as the Bylaw is not the appropriate tool.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. 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.

29. 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. The Bylaw continues the same level of regulation which supports safe recreational, cultural and economic activities on Auckland’s navigable waters.

30. During the review, mana whenua and mataawaka 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

31. There are no financial implications arising from this decision as public notification and engagement costs are provided within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32. There is a low risk that the proposal does not reflect the views of the public and that a COVID-19 outbreak prevents in-person public consultation. These risks are partly mitigated by the opportunity for public feedback, online or phone-based ‘Have Your Say’ events and bylaw panel deliberations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Statement of Proposal to make a new navigation bylaw and associated controls	23
b ⇩	Views of local boards	173

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Fereti Lualua - Policy Analyst, Community & Social Policy

Bayllee Vyle – Policy Analyst, Commmunity & Social Policy

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

13 October 2020

Regulatory Committee

13 October 2020

Review findings and options for the Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw

File No.: CP2020/14494

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To agree the outcome of the review of the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Tahu Āhuru Noa te Ahi i Waho / Auckland Council Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw) and to decide whether to revoke the Bylaw.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the Regulatory Committee to complete the review of the Bylaw and decide whether to revoke it, staff have prepared a finding report and assessed options.

3. Key review findings are that:

· problems with outdoor fires (such as the risk of fires spreading from outdoor activities or other hazards, smoke nuisance, and the need for fire bans) remain

· the Bylaw however is no longer used to address these problems

· the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 transferred responsibility for most of the problems addressed in the Bylaw to Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ)

· since 2016 the remaining Bylaw rules about smoke nuisance have been regulated under the Auckland Unitary Plan.

4. Staff identified the three options to address these findings:

· Option one: rely on other existing regulations and allow the Bylaw to lapse.

· Option two: rely on other existing regulations, revoke the Bylaw in relation to matters regulated by FENZ and use the special consultative procedure in relation to smoke nuisance.

· Option three: rely on other existing regulations, revoke the Bylaw in relation to matters regulated by FENZ and allow the remainder of the Bylaw to lapse (RECOMMENDED).

5. Staff recommend option 3: rely on existing legislation, revoke parts of the bylaw and allow the remainder to lapse, as it:

· removes duplication and inconsistencies with the FENZ Act 2017 and Auckland Unitary Plan (E14)

· complies with legislative obligations to revoke bylaws inconsistent with the FENZ Act 2017

· requires the least amount of council resource.

6. Implementing the recommended option requires the committee to make the necessary determinations to commence the statutory process to revoke parts of the Bylaw and allow part of the Bylaw to lapse. This would:

· not change to how council responds to outdoor fire complaints

· remove regulatory duplication and inconsistency

· avoid unnecessary resource and expense on public consultation.

7. There is a low risk of public concern about a lack of transparent decision making in allowing the Bylaw to lapse. The risk can be mitigated through effective communication on the internet and with customers about the use of other regulatory tools.

8. If the committee and Governing Body approve the recommended Option: three, staff will publicly notify the decision and update the Bylaw and council website.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) agree that a bylaw is no longer the most appropriate way to protect public health, safety, property and the environment from outdoor fires.

b) agree that option three (rely on other existing regulations and revoke the Bylaw by resolution in relation to matters regulated by FENZ and allow the remainder of the Bylaw to lapse on 18 December 2021) as detailed in Attachment B of the agenda report is the preferred option to protect public health, safety, property and the environment from outdoor fires.

c) recommend the Governing Body:

i) revoke the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Tahu Āhuru Noa te Ahi i Waho / Auckland Council Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw 2014, with exception of clauses 1, 2 and 8(a)(iii), as the remainder are now the responsibility of Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

ii) allow the remaining parts of the bylaw identified in (c)(i) that are addressed through Auckland Unitary Plan to lapse on 18 December 2021.

Horopaki

Context

The outdoor fire bylaw aims to protect public health, safety, property and environment

9. The Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe Tahu Āhuru Noa te Ahi i Waho / Auckland Council Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw 2014 was adopted by the Governing Body on 18 December 2014 (GB/2014/153).

10. The Bylaw aims to reduce the risk of fire spreading and threat to life, property and environment by putting controls around lighting conditions for outdoor fire activities.

11. The Bylaw sought to address three problems:

· the potential risk of fire spreading from outdoor fire activities

· limitations on Auckland Council’s ability to impose a total fire ban during periods of extreme fire hazard

· the potential risk of fire spreading from other fire hazards.

The Bylaw expires in 2021 and there are statutory requirements if still needed

12. The Bylaw will expire on 18 December 2021.^{^[3]} If a new bylaw is needed council must determine that the new bylaw meets legislative criteria and decide whether to adopt the new bylaw following public feedback.^{^[4]} Alternatively, council can propose to revoke the current Bylaw^{^[5]} or allow it to expire.

13. If the Bylaw is inconsistent with the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 (FENZ Act 2017) council must revoke or amend the Bylaw.^{^[6]}

Staff prepared a findings and options report to determine whether a bylaw is still needed

14. To assist the committee in deciding whether the Bylaw is still needed:

· staff engaged with a range of stakeholders and carried out research in mid-2020 to prepare a findings report on the review of the Bylaw (Attachment A)

· staff then conducted option analysis (Attachment B) that responds to the findings.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Outdoor fires are still a problem

15. Outdoor fires are used for different purposes, such as recreation, celebration, cooking and as a land management tool. Fire, for any purpose, requires safety and control measures to prevent spread, smoke nuisance or hazard.

16. The number of fire callouts are increasing annually. Between 2017 and 2020 callouts to Fire and Emergency New Zealand increased by 30 per cent.

17. Fire incident statistics from the New Zealand Fire Service show problems associated with outdoor fires have not changed. Between February 2013 – February 2014, most fire incidents occurred in Urban Fire Districts (85 per cent), the majority illegal or suspicious in nature.

18. Between 2014 – 2020 most of the fires reported were unlawful or suspicious. 89 per cent of unlawful fires reported were in urban areas while 11 per cent were in rural areas.

19. For urban areas the causes of outdoor fire incidents in 2014 were: rubbish fires, improper disposal of cigarette ash, and embers. These trends have continued under the current Bylaw.

20. In rural areas it was burn-offs for land management or agricultural purposes. These also continue to be the primary risk of fire spreading.

The regulatory framework for outdoor fires has changed significantly since 2016

21. Since the Bylaw was adopted the legislative and regulatory framework has changed.

22. In 2016 the Auckland Unitary Plan replaced District, City and Regional Plans.

23. In 2017, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 repealed the Fire Services Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977.

A bylaw about outdoor fires is no longer needed

24. While complaints occur regarding outdoor fire incidents across Auckland caused by burning of rubbish or vegetation, council compliance staff are no longer able to take enforcement action.

25. The FENZ Act 2017 transferred powers away from council to a single, amalgamated organisation, Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), by:

· repealing council-controlled fire seasons and open-air fire controls and taking a national approach^{^[7]}

· repealing bylaw creating powers in the Local Government Act 2002 for fires involving vegetation, open-air fires and fire hazard removal.^{^[8]}

26. Auckland Council is still responsible for addressing smoke nuisance and smoke risk to air quality and people. Although smoke nuisance can be regulated by the Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw, since 2016 council has taken enforcement action under regulations in the Unitary Plan.

Statutory options include allowing the Bylaw to lapse or to revoke the Bylaw

27. Staff have identified the following three options to address findings:

· Option one: rely on other existing regulations and allow the Bylaw to lapse on 18 December 2021

· Option two: rely on other existing regulations, revoke the Bylaw in relation to matters regulated by FENZ and use the special consultative procedure in relation to smoke nuisance.

· Option three: rely on other existing regulations and revoke the Bylaw by resolution for matters regulated by FENZ and allow the remainder of the Bylaw to lapse on 18 December 2021 (RECOMMENDED).

28. The following options were discounted:

· status quo (confirming the Bylaw) - as the Bylaw would be inconsistent with the FENZ Act 2017

· creating a new Bylaw – there is no regulatory gap for a new Bylaw to address

· amending the Bylaw – this would retain duplication and inconsistency with the Unitary Plan.

29. Staff assessed the options against effectiveness, efficiency and legislative compliance criteria (Attachment B).

30. Staff recommend option three: rely on existing legislation, revoke parts of the bylaw and allow the remainder to lapse, as it:

· removes duplication and inconsistencies with the FENZ Act 2017 and Auckland Unitary Plan (E14)

· complies with legislative obligations to revoke bylaws that are inconsistent with the FENZ Act 2017

· requires the least amount of council resource

· avoids unnecessary public consultation on regulations that are no longer used and for problems already addressed in other existing regulations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31. The preferred option three for the future of the Bylaw does not create any climate change impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32. Operational staff commented that the Bylaw has not been used since 2017 and is no longer required.

33. Enforcement officers use the Unitary Plan to address smoke nuisance. It allows staff to issue abatement notices and infringement notices, which is more effective and efficient than the powers issued to council under the Local Government Act 2002 to enforce the Bylaw.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34. The Bylaw was assessed to have low community interest.

35. Bylaws that are of low community interest do not require local board consultation at the findings or options stage.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. In 2014, mana whenua were supportive of fire control measures that would assist with protecting forestry areas owned by Māori. The main issue was the potential impact a total fire ban might have on the use of hāngi.

37. Staff analysed the Māori Plan for Tamaki Makaurau, the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum Strategic Plan, iwi management plans, and Māori engagement conducted for the review of Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw to identify any new areas of interest for Māori. No new matters were identified.

38. The following table outlines how outdoor fire regulations and legislation address matters of importance for Māori.

Hāngi are an important part of tikanga Māori and are an effective way of cooking large amounts of food for significant events.

· The operative part of Auckland Unitary Plan (section 14), permits cooking or heating outdoor using fuel (contain less than 0.5 percent sulphur by weight and does not cause offensive or objectionable smoke beyond the site boundary) in residential, business, rural areas.

· FENZ can approve outdoor fires during total fire bans required for significant community or cultural events, such as hāngi for tangihanga.

Matariki is an important part of tikanga Māori.

· Fireworks in public places are regulated under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013.

Māori are kaitiaki of the land.

· FENZ has the power to impose a fire season that restricts the use of all fire in open-air to prevent the spread of fire.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

39. There are no financial implications arising from this decision. Any public notification and engagement costs are provided within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. The following risks have been identified:

If…	Then…	Mitigation	Risk level
Council decides to let the Bylaw lapse (recommended option)	Council could be perceived as not providing transparent decision making as there would be no public consultation to remove the Bylaw.	Mitigation through effective communication on internet and with customers on other regulations.	Low risk, as the Bylaw is not enforced.
Council decides to amend the Bylaw	Council could be perceived to be overregulating by keeping part of a bylaw that is duplicated under other regulations.	Risk would need to be accepted because Council would be duplicating regulations.	Medium risk as council complaints are decreasing.
Council decides to create a new bylaw or Council decides to revoke the Bylaw	Council could be perceived to be wasting resource and residents’ time in consulting on regulations that duplicates existing regulations.	Risk would need to be accepted as the process is proscribed by legislation.	Medium risk as consultation would raise awareness of the Bylaw and potential areas of duplication.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. If the committee and Governing Body approve the recommendation Option three, (rely on other existing regulations and revoke the Bylaw by resolution in relation to matters regulated by FENZ and allow the remainder of the Bylaw to lapse) staff will publicly notify the decision and update the Bylaw and council website. Amendments to the Local Government Act 2002^{^[9]}, as a result of the FENZ Act 2017, means that public consultation is not required.

42. If the committee and Governing Body decide Option one: (rely on other existing regulations and allow the Bylaw to lapse) no action is required

43. If the committee and Governing Body decide Option two: (rely on other existing regulations, revoke the Bylaw in relation to matters regulated by FENZ and use the special consultative procedure in relation to smoke nuisance) staff will commence consultation on revoking clause 8a-iii. This provision sits outside the scope of the FENZ Act 2017, and therefore requires public consultation under section 152A of the Local Government Act 2002.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Findings report	187
b ⇩	Attachment B - Options analysis	245

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Antonia Butler - Policy Manager

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

13 October 2020

Review findings of the Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2020/14468

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To agree the findings of the Ture ā-Rohe Hokohoko, Whakahaerenga i ngā Wāhi Tūmatanui / Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 review and to request an options report that responds to the findings.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Staff have prepared a findings report to enable the Regulatory Committee to complete a review of the Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 (the Bylaw).

3. The Bylaw will expire on 26 February 2022. Council must decide whether a bylaw is still required and (if a bylaw is still necessary) adopt a new bylaw before the expiry date to avoid a regulatory gap.

4. Key findings from the review are:

· a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage trading activities (including micromobility), events and filming in council-controlled public places that may cause safety risks, create public nuisance or contribute to the misuse of public places

· the Bylaw is well-used, and there is a high level of compliance with approvals and widespread awareness of Bylaw rules among operators

· the Bylaw fills a regulatory gap through its approval process and complements other regulations (for example events and filming that do not require resource consents)

· potential improvements to the existing Bylaw include merging some trading activities, separating filming from events and including specific rules for micromobility

· other potential improvements include amending definitions, exemptions, the title and conditions to make the Bylaw easier to understand by a wide range of audiences.

5. Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings in this report, determine that a bylaw is still needed, and request an options report. Taking this approach will progress the review to allow consideration of options on what a new bylaw would regulate and how.

6. If approved, staff will develop options that respond to the findings in this report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) endorse the ‘Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015: 2020 Findings Report’ in Attachment A of this agenda report.

b) agree that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage trading activities (including micromobility), events and filming in public places.

c) request that staff as delegated by the Chief Executive prepare an options report in response to the findings in Attachment A of this agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw allows trading, events and filming in council-controlled public places while protecting public safety and minimising public nuisance and misuse of public places

7. Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Hokohoko, Whakahaerenga i ngā Wāhi Tūmatanui / Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 was adopted by the Governing Body on 26 February 2015 (GB/2015/4).

8. The Bylaw regulates trading (including micromobility), events and filming in council-controlled public-places through an approval process (a license or permit). Approval condition minimise negative effects of these activities on the public (see figure below).

9. Auckland Transport has a mirror bylaw to regulate street trading (including micromobility) and other activities on the Auckland Transport System (for example roads and footpaths) for transport-related purposes. Council’s Bylaw applies to other council-controlled public places such as parks and civic spaces. Since 1 February 2018, Auckland Council Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Unit is also responsible for enforcing compliance with the Auckland Transport mirror Bylaw.

10. The Bylaw is supported by several operational guidelines, policies, protocols and codes to ensure a consistent approach to Bylaw implementation across the Auckland region.

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

Outcome	Direction
Belonging and Participation	Direction 2: Improve health and wellbeing for all Aucklanders by reducing harm and disparities in opportunities. Alignment: The Bylaw supports and provides public spaces for recreation, arts, sports and cultural community-led events which are accessible to everyday lives.
Transport and Access	Direction 2: Increase genuine travel choices for a healthy, vibrant and equitable Auckland. Alignment: The Bylaw enables the use of new mobility devices (through active transport modes for short trips) which have lower environmental impacts and use existing networks.
Māori Identity and Wellbeing	Direction 4: Showcase Māori identity and vibrant Māori culture. Alignment: The Bylaw enables a programme of Māori local and regional events celebrating Māori identity and heritage (through art and digital story telling).
Opportunity and Prosperity	Direction 1: Create conditions for a resilient economy through innovation, employment growth and productivity. Direction 2: Attract and retain skills, talent, and investment. Alignment: The Bylaw supports emerging sectors such as the screen and creative industries (through innovation and entrepreneurship that attracts international filming, events and visitors, and by creating a city rich in arts and culture that attracts people).

12. The Bylaw forms part of a wider regulatory and strategic framework that includes central government legislation, local plans and strategies, and other bylaws (see figure below).

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out the Bylaw review requirements

13. The Bylaw will expire on 26 February 2022. The council must decide whether a bylaw about trading, events and filming in public places is still required, and (if a bylaw is necessary) adopt a new bylaw before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

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.

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

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

16. Between February and September 2020 staff carried out engagement and research to develop a findings report (Attachment A). This included:

· face-to-face and Skype meetings

· questionnaires and online surveys

· communication with internal/external stakeholders, Māori and operators.

17. The COVID-19 response resulted in less face-to-face interaction than originally planned.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Problems still need to be managed and micromobility devices pose a new issue

18. Complaints data indicate that problems identified in 2015 remain. The number of complaints received is relatively low (an average of about 27 a month).

19. Problems relate to safety risks and nuisance from:

· obstructions, nuisance from restricted path of travel, litter, noise, limited parking, location overuse and intimidation or general misuse of council-controlled public places

· the use of micromobility device: collisions, near-misses, excessive speed or rider safety.

20. Footpath users with vision and hearing impairments, accessibility needs, the elderly and children are particularly impacted by cluttered or obstructed paths of travel.

The Bylaw is well-used and operator awareness of the rules is relatively high

21. Licence and permit data show consistent demand for approvals with over 2,800 licenses and 9,300 permits issued since 2015.

22. An industry survey indicates that most operators are aware they need approval to operate.

23. 86 per cent of survey respondents knew about the Bylaw and comply with approval conditions.

24. Departments administering the Bylaw focus on proactive mitigation of risks resulting in few warnings or reviews of approvals.

25. Complaints data show that the public are aware of the Bylaw.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on trading, events and filming

26. All license and permit holders have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in a reduction in applications and complaints.

27. Working from home arrangements have shifted demand for goods and services away from the city centre towards neighbourhoods.

There are limitations to how the Bylaw regulates micromobility

28. The Bylaw does not specifically regulate micromobility devices because the activity did not exist at the time the Bylaw was made. Licensing of rental e-scooters started in 2018 and has since expanded to include e-bikes.

29. The Bylaw cannot:

· control where users ride or park such as use of devices on cycle paths attached to roads

· require the use of helmets, or set speed limits as regulated in Road User Rules

· assess the suitability of devices as regulated by central government.

The Bylaw is still necessary but could be improved

30. The key finding from the review of the Bylaw is that is still necessary for managing problems associated with trading and events in public places and could be improved.

31. Potential bylaw improvements identified for investigation as part of any options report include:

· making specific rules for micromobility (currently regulated under mobile trading rules)

· merging some existing trading activities such as busking and pavement art under a street performance section to make the Bylaw easier to read and understand

· separating filming from events, as filming does not directly involve the general public and therefore presents less risk to public safety.

32. Other potential improvements include updates to definitions, the title, exemptions, conditions and other matters to make the Bylaw easier to understand by a wide range of audiences.

Alternative regulatory approaches exist but do not replace the Bylaw

33. Alternative regulatory approaches related to the use of council-controlled public places exist.

34. These approaches complement the Bylaw but do not replace it. The Bylaw is still necessary but could be improved.

35. Plan Change 43 to the Auckland Unitary Plan recognizes the role of the Bylaw to regulate temporary activities below the threshold where a resource consent is required.

The Bylaw does not give rise to any unjustified Bill of Rights implications and is not inconsistent with other legislation

36. The Bylaw could potentially limit rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, however, any limitation is justified. The Bylaw addresses matters related to its purpose and regulates proportionally and no more than necessary.

Staff recommend the committee endorse the findings, determine a bylaw is still needed and request an options report

37. This report establishes that issues caused by trading (including micromobility), events and filming in public places remain.

38. The Bylaw is still necessary, appropriate and useful but could be improved.

39. Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings in this report, determine the Bylaw is still needed, and request an options report.

40. The review findings will be used to develop options on what a new bylaw would regulate and how.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

41. The Bylaw does not directly impact climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42. The Bylaw directs the operations of several council departments and council-controlled organisations such as Auckland Council’s Licencing and Regulatory Compliance Unit, Arts Community and Events Unit, Environmental Health, Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development and Screen Auckland.

43. Relevant staff provided feedback to the review and suggested technical improvements to definitions, the Bylaw title, conditions and other matters. Any improvements to the effective and efficient operation of the Bylaw will be detailed in any options report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

44. This Bylaw has impact on local governance as it regulates activities on council-controlled public places.

45. The Regulatory Committee established a joint working party that includes two local board members to provide views on statutory options in response to the findings. All local boards will have an opportunity to provide their views on the Statement of Proposal.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

46. Feedback from mana whenua and some Māori license and permit holders highlighted a particular interest and concern for environmental impacts such as ineffective waste management and the limited level of enforcement. There was however general support for activities (events) that promote whānau wellbeing and health.

47. Staff will proactively engage with mana whenua and mataawaka during any future public consultation to ensure Māori are able to provide their views on any new bylaw.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. There are no financial implications to council from a decision to complete the statutory review. Any options report will be completed within current budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

49. There is a low risk that some people may express concern about the suggested improvements or stakeholder engagement to date as contained in this report. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation on any proposed changes to the Bylaw.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50. Auckland Transport has yet to formally confirm when they will partner with the council in the review of their mirror Bylaw. Council staff will continue to encourage joint review and share our findings and progress with Auckland Transport. Auckland Council will continue to review its Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 within the scope of its responsibilities to avoid a regulatory gap.

51. If approved, the next steps for the trading and events bylaw review is shown below.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015: 2020 Findings Report	259

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Magda Findlik - Principal Policy Analyst

Sam Bunge - Graduate Policy Advisor

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Elizabeth Osborne - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

13 October 2020

Regulatory Committee

13 October 2020

Gambling Venue Policies Review 2020

File No.: CP2020/13834

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to retain Auckland Council’s current gambling venue policies.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Legislation requires Auckland Council to have a class 4 pokie venues policy and a TAB venue policy. These policies must be reviewed every three years.

3. Staff undertook research and key stakeholder engagement to prepare a findings report. Key findings are:

· the current pokie venue policy is helping to reduce the number of pokie venues and machines in Auckland, including in high deprivation areas. This is helping to mitigate gambling harm and is likely helping to reduce the harm that gambling causes.

· the current TAB venue policy is not currently having an effect. The number of venues has dropped well below the current cap, because different methods of TAB gambling are more favourable.

4. Staff recommend the committee retains both policies so council:

· continues minimising gambling harm using the regulatory powers available in the most efficient way

· complies with legislative requirements to have two policies.

5. TAB NZ may choose to open new venues. The risk of significant numbers opening is low, as the venue model is no longer favourable with TAB.

6. If approved, staff will confirm the policies with the Department of Internal Affairs and advise stakeholders of the decision.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) accept the findings of the review of Auckland Council’s gambling venue policies.

b) retain the Class 4 Gambling (pokie) Venue Policy 2013.

c) retain the Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy 2013, updating its name and venue definition to the Racing Industry Act 2020 terms.

Horopaki

Context

Council has a small role in regulating class 4 pokie and racing board venues

7. Gambling in New Zealand is regulated by the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Industry Act 2020 and enforced nationally by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). Local government has a small regulatory role in:

· class 4 pokie venues: non-casino venues with electronic gaming machines commonly referred to as pokies

· TAB venues: venues owned by TAB NZ where TAB racing and sports betting is the primary activity.

8. Under the legislation councils must have a class 4 pokie venue policy and a TAB venue policy. These policies determine if and under what circumstances a council will give consent for a new venue to be established. Territorial Authority consent is required before DIA will license any new class 4 pokie venue or racing or sports betting venue.

9. These policies must be reviewed every three years. They do not cease to have effect if due for review or being reviewed.^{^[10]}

Current policies aim to control gambling growth and minimise harm

10. In July 2013, Auckland Council (council) adopted the Class 4 Gambling Pokie Venue Policy^{^[11]} and New Zealand Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy (pokie venue policy and TAB venue policy, Attachments A and B).^{^[12]} Council reviewed the policies in 2016 and retained them both with no changes.^{^[13]}

11. The policies share two objectives: control the growth of gambling and minimise the harm caused by gambling in Auckland. Table 1 below summarises the current policies.

Table 1: Summary of current gambling venue policies

Rule	Class 4 Pokie Venue Policy	Racing Board TAB Venue Policy
New venues	Sinking lid No consent for new venues.	Cap Consent given to a maximum of 43^{^[14]}.
Location	N/A	Proximity rule - no venues within 50 metres of places of worship, schools or early childhood centres.
Mergers	Two licensed club venues may merge if they reduce the sum of their machines by 1/6^th.	N/A
Relocation	No relocation.	Venues may move if above conditions are met.

The review provides opportunity to assess effectiveness and efficiency of the policies

12. The statutory review provided an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the policies at controlling gambling growth and harm. As well as to respond to any changes since 2016.

13. To complete the review staff conducted desktop research including a literature review, statistical analysis and engagement with key stakeholders.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. Findings from research and stakeholder engagement are in Attachment B. Key findings are summarised in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Key findings

Pokie venue policy

The number of pokie venues in Auckland has decreased by

13% since 2016.

Slot Machine Lose

Coins Auckland pokie revenue increased by

2% per year

until the COVID-19 shutdown.

51% of the total clients assisted for gambling in Auckland 2019/20 identified pokies as the primary gambling mode.

Over half of clients assisted for pokies in Auckland live in southern wards.

The policy is helping to minimise the harm that gambling causes by preventing an increase and reducing the number of venues. It is also likely that if continued long-term, this contributes to reducing gambling related harm in Auckland.

TAB venue policy

The number of TAB venues in Auckland has decreased by 10, or 30% since 2016.

There are now 24.

14 of these also host pokie machines.

Annual revenue is stable.

There are also 39 self-service and 40 staffed outlets in pubs and clubs.

The number of clients seeking help for TAB gambling in Auckland has decreased by 131, or 19% since 2016.

13% of total clients assisted identified TAB as the primary gambling mode.

Pacific peoples are over-represented in those seeking help for TAB gambling.

The policy is not helping to control the growth of gambling. Venue numbers have decreased further below the current cap for other reasons. Any significant future growth in betting is likely to be outside council’s control.

15. Three changes of interest have occurred since the last review, but they do not give cause to change the content of the policies. The changes are summarised in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Changes since the last review

Stakeholder views

16. Staff undertook targeted engagement. Gambling industry organisations and the harm minimisation sector chose to engage at this stage.

17. The gaming industry says the number of venues has decreased enough and seek a cap at the current numbers. The industry also seeks a relocation policy allowing venues to move under certain criteria.

18. The harm minimisation sector commends the sinking lid policy and ask that it be retained. They are unanimously opposed to a relocation policy in Auckland. Hāpai te Hauora suggest removing the ability for club venues to merge and developing a target number of venues for Auckland.

19. TAB NZ prefer the cap at 43 TAB venues be retained. Hāpai te Hauora find the cap high for the current context. Problem Gambling Foundation do not see any value in reducing the cap because the risk of TAB venues opening is marginal and new social outlets can be opened despite a lower cap.

Pokie venue policy options

20. Staff have assessed the following options in response to pokie venue findings:

· Option 1 Status quo - retain current pokie venue policy

Under this option, there would be no change to council’s policy intent or objectives. Council continues to apply a sinking lid approach. Pokie venues will not be able to relocate. Club venues will still be permitted to merge if they reduce their combined total number of machines by 1/6th.

· Option 2 Enhanced status quo - amend the pokie venue policy to:

– include a target number of venues for Auckland in its’ purpose

– prevent pokie club venues from merging.

Under this policy there would be no change to council’s policy intent, but the objective would be to apply additional levers to reduce the number of machines faster.

21. The option of removing either policy was discounted, as both policies are required under legislation. Table 2 below summarises the options assessment.

22. Staff assessed these options against effectiveness and efficiency criteria. Staff also identified risks, advantages and disadvantages. A full assessment is in Attachment C. A summary is in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Pokie venue assessment summary

Option / Criteria

Effectiveness at controlling the growth of gambling

Effectiveness at minimising gambling harm

Efficiency

Option 1: status quo retain pokie venue policy.

(recommended)

ü Number of pokie venues and machines likely to continue gradually decreasing.

ü Number of people experiencing pokie gambling harm unlikely to increase and may continue to decrease.

ü Low cost. Occasional resource for responding to requests for pokie club venue mergers and exemptions.

Option 2: amend the pokie venue policy to identify a target for the number of venues in Auckland.

ü As above. Nil additional impact on effectiveness. Council can only prevent new venues opening.

ü Council will not miss opportunities to reduce the number of machines further if club venues decide to merge.

× Club venues may choose not to merge preferring to retain all their pokie machines so an opportunity for decrease in the number of pokie venues is lost.

× Public and council resource for consultation for marginal benefit because unlikely to create any further reduction in harm.

Pokie venue policy recommendation

23. Staff recommend Option 1: retain the pokie venue policy. This ensures that council continues contributing to minimising gambling harm using the regulatory powers available in the most efficient way.

24. The policy is reducing the number of venues and machines and contributing to reduction in harm which is likely to continue if the policy is retained.

25. The end goal of the policy would not be further clarified; however, this does not impact the effectiveness of the policy at minimising harm. It also avoids the costs and risks associated with public consultation at this time.

TAB venue policy options

26. Staff have assessed the following options in response to the TAB venue findings:

· Option 1: status quo - retain current TAB venue policy

Under this option the policy intent and objectives would not change. Council would leave the existing cap of 43 venues in place and maintain the proximity rule. TAB NZ could increase the number of primary activity betting venues they have, if they were not within 50 metres of schools or places of worship.

· Option 2: lower cap - amend the policy to a lower cap

Under this option the policy intent would not change. A new cap would be determined to reflect the current context as opposed to the current cap number which reflects the number of venues in Auckland in when the policy was adopted in 2013.

27. Staff assessed these options against effectiveness and efficiency criteria. Staff also identified risks, advantages and disadvantages. A full assessment is in Attachment C. A summary is in Table 3 below.

Table 3: TAB venue assessment summary

Option / Criteria

Effectiveness at controlling the growth of gambling

Effectiveness at minimising gambling harm

Efficiency

Option1: retain TAB venue policy

(recommended)

No current effect on gambling growth.

ü Prevents any new venues being located within 50 metres of the nearest boundary of a church or other place of worship, a marae, a school or early childhood education centre.

No cost.

Option 2: amend the TAB venue to a lower cap.

No impact. Any growth of betting is likely to be from revenue streams outside Council’s control.

ü As above, but no additional impact. Any growth of betting is likely to be from revenue streams outside Council’s control.

× Public and council resource for consultation for nil benefit because this type of venue’s numbers are unlikely to increase.

TAB venue policy recommendation

28. Staff recommend Option 1: status quo - retain the TAB venue policy to:

· continue contributing to minimising gambling harm using the regulatory powers available to council in the most efficient way

· comply with legislative requirements to have both policies.

29. TAB venues have decreased, and revenue is stable. The number of people seeking help for TAB gambling has also decreased. New venues opening, and especially any significant number of venues opening is very unlikely because this type of venue is not cost efficient for TAB NZ.

30. Council could consult the public about a new, lower cap for the current context but imposing new restrictions is disproportionate to these findings. It would also incur cost and resource for consultation that is unlikely to result in any further decrease in harm.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31. The policies do not directly impact climate change. The policies regulate whether new gambling venues may be established, but not their energy use.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32. Alcohol licensing are responsible for implementing the policy. They support the recommended options to retain the sinking lid pokie venue policy and cap at 43 TAB venue policy.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. Manurewa Local Board and Māngere-Otahuhu Local Boards have included initiatives to work with communities and key partners to reduce gambling harm in their draft local board plans.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34. Staff met and received a submission from Māori public health body Hāpai te Hauora, who hold a national service contract for gambling harm prevention. Their views are expressed in the findings report and were considered in the option analysis.

35. Mana whenua and several other urban Māori advocacy organisations, were offered the opportunity to engage but chose not to at this time. A full list of contacts for the review is in Attachment C.

36. Because the number of venues is likely to decrease under the pokie venue policy, retaining it aligns with the Kaitiakitanga outcome of the Māori Plan:

· Whānau wellbeing and resilience are strengthened focusing on social equity and whānau wellbeing.

37. Retaining the policies is likely over time to reduce the gambling harm that Māori whānau, hapu and iwi currently disproportionately experience in Auckland.

“We believe a sinking lid policy is currently the best intervention to prevent future generations from facing the same level of gambling harm that whanau Māori experience in contemporary society.” – Hapai te Hauora

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. There are no financial implications. Completing the statutory review, retaining the current gambling policies, or amending the policies and undertaking the special consultative procedure (staff time and public notification) can be accommodated within the current budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39. Risks and mitigation are summarised in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Risks and mitigation

If…	Then…	Mitigation
Stakeholders perceive council to be deciding policy without public input.	This may negatively affect council’s reputation for transparency.	Staff could mitigate this by communicating the reasons for the decision.
Council does not lower the cap on TAB venues.	TAB NZ may choose to open new venues.	The risk of significant numbers opening is low, as the venue model is no longer favourable with TAB. The cost associated with refreshing the policies is disproportionate to the significance of this risk or its impact should it eventuate.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

40. If the committee resolves to keep the policies staff will confirm the policies with the Department of Internal Affairs and communicate the decision to stakeholders.

41. If the committee resolves to amend either of the policies staff will prepare a statement of proposal for the Committee to adopt for public consultation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Class 4 (Pokie) Venues Policy 2013	375
b ⇩	Racing Board (TAB) Venues Policy 2013	379
c ⇩	2020 Gambling Venue Policies Review - Findings Report	383
d ⇩	2020 Gambling Venue Policies Review - Options Report	425

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Bonnie Apps - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

13 October 2020

Signage Bylaw 2015 Review High-Level Options Report

File No.: CP2020/14600

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on the preferred regulatory framework for managing signs in Auckland and the preferred option to regulate signage outside off-licence premises.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable the Regulatory Committee to decide on the preferred regulatory framework for managing signs and to regulate off-licence premises signage, staff have completed a high-level options report (Attachment A).

3. On 23 June 2020 the Committee endorsed the findings on the review of Te Ture a Rohe mo nga Tohu / the Signage Bylaw 2015 and requested a report back on options (REG/2020/30). Key review findings included that there are ongoing signage issues in Auckland, but that the Bylaw is part of a complex regulatory framework that could be simplified.

4. At the same meeting, the Committee requested advice on an effective option to respond to Auckland-based public health organisations’ concerns about the exposure of young people to alcohol marketing outside off-licence retail premises.

5. In relation to the regulatory framework for signs, staff recommend that the Committee:

· adopt Option 2: Enhanced status quo which would combine the Signage Bylaw 2015 and the Election Signs Bylaw 2013 but leave the existing signage rules in the Unitary Plan, and request that staff prepare a detailed options report based on this approach

· request that the detailed report also explore options to simplify the rules in the new combined Signage Bylaw

· recommend that options to redistribute sign rules between the bylaw and the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part be explored further as part of the next signage bylaw and Unitary Plan reviews.

6. In relation to regulating off-licence premises signage, staff recommend that the Committee:

· adopt Option 3: Prioritise proactive enforcement as an interim operational response

· progress Option 4: Banning off-licence signage on public land by requesting staff investigate this further as part of developing the detailed options report.

7. Taking this approach will:

· reduce the number of bylaws and provide for some simplification of the rules in the short term, while also signaling the need for a future work programme to consider Unitary Plan changes in the longer term

· ensure off-licence retailers comply with existing signage rules in the short term, while exploring a ban on alcohol marketing on public land as a longer-term response.

8. There is a low risk that stakeholders or the public may express concern about decisions or engagement to date. This risk is partly mitigated by public consultation on any future proposal in response to the high-level options in this report

9. If approved, staff will prepare a detailed options report to improve the regulation of signs in the new single signage bylaw. This report will have regard to the improvements suggested in the findings report and previously endorsed by the Committee.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) endorse the ‘Signage Bylaw 2015 High Level Options Report 2020’ in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) agree that Option 2: Enhanced status quo as contained in Part A of Attachment A of the agenda report is the preferred regulatory framework to manage signs in Auckland.

c) agree that Option 3: Prioritise proactive enforcement and Option 4: Banning off-licence signage on public land as contained in Part B of Attachment A of the agenda report are the preferred option to regulate off-licence signage in Auckland.

d) request that staff as delegated by the Chief Executive prepare a detailed options report to implement decisions under (b) and (c) above.

e) endorse the consideration of Option 5: By sign type and Option 6: By location as part of the future signage bylaw and Unitary Plan reviews.

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw is part of a wider regulatory framework to address problems caused by signs

10. Te Ture a Rohe mo nga Tohu 2015 / the Signage Bylaw 2015 Bylaw was jointly made by Auckland Council’s Governing Body on 28 May 2015 (GB/2015/35) and by the Board of Auckland Transport on 26 May 2015.

11. The Bylaw’s objective is to address the impact of signs on public safety and visual amenity, and to prevent signs from causing nuisance, damage or misuse of public places.

12. Taking a joint approach to signage regulation is efficient because, while signs can cause similar problems regardless of their location and purpose, Auckland Transport has specific responsibilities for transport-related signs and signs on or visible from the transport system.

13. The outcomes sought from the Bylaw align with strategic directions in the Auckland Plan 2050, including moving to a safe transport network, creating inclusive public places and a quality compact urban form, and creating a resilient Auckland economy.

14. The Bylaw is part of a wider regulatory framework that includes the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 and the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part.

The Regulatory Committee endorsed Bylaw review findings and requested options

15. In 2019 staff conducted a review of the Signage Bylaw 2015. On 23 June 2020, the Regulatory Committee endorsed the review findings (REG/2020/30). Key findings were:

· there are ongoing signage issues in Auckland relating to safety, nuisance and amenity, and 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 that 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.

16. At that meeting, three Auckland-based public health organisations proposed that the Committee introduce new restrictions in the Signage Bylaw specifically for off-licence premises to help reduce children and young people’s exposure to alcohol marketing.

17. The Committee requested that Auckland Council and Auckland Transport staff jointly prepare a report (Attachment A) setting out high-level options for:

· simplifying the regulatory framework for managing signs in Auckland

· regulating signage related to off-licence alcohol stores to reduce community exposure to alcohol brand and retailer advertising in Auckland.

The joint working group has provided feedback on the high-level options report

18. The Committee appointed a joint working group to consider statutory options in response to the findings from the review (REG/2020/3 and REG/2020/30). The joint working group includes representatives from the Committee, local boards, Auckland Transport and the Independent Māori Statutory Board. Staff will table this group’s views at the meeting.

19. While this report has been prepared in consultation with Auckland Transport it represents the views of Auckland Council staff. Auckland Transport staff provided input at the joint working group and will report separately to the Auckland Transport board. Any differences in approaches will be addressed in the detailed options report.

The Bylaw expires in 2022 and if still needed, must meet certain statutory requirements

20. The Bylaw will expire on 28 May 2022. Following the consideration of this review, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport will need to decide whether to revoke the Bylaw using the special consultative procedure or make a new bylaw.

21. If the Bylaw is no longer required, the council can decide to allow the Bylaw to expire using a public consultative process. If a new bylaw is required, it must be adopted before that date to avoid a regulatory gap.

22. Any new bylaw must be well drafted, meet the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Local Government Act 2002, and be adopted using a public consultative process.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Staff prepared an options report on the regulatory framework and alcohol signage

23. The Signage Bylaw 2015 High Level Options Report 2020 (Attachment A) builds on the findings report. The options report contains two parts. Each part outlines the relevant problem, objectives and outcomes relating to high-level options for signage regulation.

24. Part A also:

· describes the existing regional and national frameworks for regulating signs

· compares the advantages and disadvantages of the different regulatory tools

· assesses six options for simplifying the regulatory framework against criteria.

25. Part B also:

· summarises the evidence linking exposure to alcohol marketing with alcohol-related harm, focusing on external signage and branding of off-licence retail premises

· notes that staff have not been able to substantiate reports of widespread non-compliance by off-licence retailers with existing signage rules

· outlines the outcome of previous reviews of alcohol marketing at the national level

· assesses eight options for regulating off-licence retailer signage against criteria.

Part A: Six options to simplify the regulatory framework and improve sign management

26. Staff investigated options for simplifying the regulatory framework, while taking into account the following constraints:

· council and Auckland Transport have mutually exclusive jurisdictions relating to signs

· bylaws and the Unitary Plan have different regulatory purposes and powers, and both are needed to cover all signage impacts and locations (public and private property).

27. Staff compared bylaws and the Unitary Plan in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency and fairness as regulatory tools, and with regard to the council’s statutory obligations.

28. From this analysis, staff identified six options for simplifying the regulatory framework.

Option		Brief description of option
1	Status quo (two bylaws + Unitary Plan)	Keep the current distribution of sign rules between regulatory tools.
2	Enhanced status quo (one bylaw + Unitary Plan)	Keep the current distribution of sign rules between regulatory tools but combine the Signage Bylaw and Election Signs Bylaw.
3	Single joint bylaw only	Move all sign rules into a single joint signs bylaw.
4	Unitary Plan only	Move all sign rules into the Unitary Plan.
5	Redistribute rules between tools based on ‘best fit’ by sign type	Redistribute sign rules between a joint bylaw and the Unitary Plan, based on which tool offers the most effective enforcement powers to manage the impact of each sign-type.
6	Mirror most rules in both tools and regulate based on location	Mirror most rules in a bylaw and the Unitary Plan and manage based on whether a sign is on council-controlled public land (bylaw regulates) or private property (Unitary Plan regulates).

Options assessed for their effectiveness, efficiency and fairness

29. Staff completed a comparative assessment of the six options against three assessment criteria – effectiveness, efficiency and fairness – represented by the following scores:

PP	P	o	O	OO
Very good	Good	Average/neutral	Poor	Very poor

Outcome of comparative assessment

Option	Effectiveness	Efficiency	Fairness
1: Status quo	ü	o	o
2: Enhanced status quo	ü	ü	o
3: Combine rules in a single bylaw	û	ü	û
4: Combine rules in the Unitary Plan	û	û	o
5: Redistribute rules by sign type	PP	o	ü
6: Redistribute rules by location	ü	û	PP

30. Staff also considered the time and cost involved in implementing each option. This is significant because all options that alter current rules in the Unitary Plan would require a plan change, which would take between three and six years to complete. As a result, the council would still need to make a new bylaw in the interim to avoid a regulatory gap.

Option 2 is recommended to simplify the regulatory framework in a reasonable timeframe

31. Staff recommend Option 2: Enhanced status quo because it:

· simplifies the regulatory framework by consolidating rules about election signs into the same bylaw as other temporary signs with similar impacts

· retains the effectiveness and fairness of the status quo while also being the easiest to implement, maximising the efficient use of council time and resources

· provides further opportunity to reduce confusion by improving the rules themselves.

32. Staff also recommend further consideration of Option 5: By sign type and Option 6: By location during the next bylaw or Unitary Plan reviews. These options are the most effective and most fair, respectively, but because of the time and cost involved in implementation they would be more appropriately investigated at that time.

33. Staff do not recommend:

· Option 1: Status quo as there is little advantage to retaining two separate bylaws

· Options 3: Bylaw-only and 4: Unitary Plan-only as they do not maximize the advantages of the different tools, and both tools are necessary to cover all signage impacts (safety, nuisance and amenity) and locations (public land and private land)

Part B: Off-licence retailer signs and branding may contribute to alcohol-related harm

34. The objective of increasing regulation of off-licence retailer signage and branding is to reduce exposure to alcohol marketing and therefore alcohol-related harm.

35. Local and international research confirms the view put forward by public health organisations that there is a direct causal link between high exposure to alcohol marketing in general and increased alcohol consumption and associated harm, especially for young people.

36. However, an initial evidence review has not identified a strong enough link between alcohol-related harm and marketing by off-licence retailers specifically to justify the significant and targeted restrictions that have been suggested.

37. Alcohol regulation is largely a central government responsibility. Independent national reviews were commissioned to revisit the rules for alcohol marketing and sponsorship in 2010 and 2014. On each occasion the government decided not to strengthen regulation in this area, despite being recommended to do so.

38. Imposing restrictions that go significantly beyond national regulatory requirements without strong supporting evidence may create legal risk for the council.

Eight options to reduce community exposure to alcohol marketing by off-licences

39. Staff identified eight options to achieve the objective. The approach suggested by the public health organisations is represented by Option 8.

Option		Brief description
1	Status quo	No change to sign rules for off-licence retailers and no additional action.
2	Advocacy	Advocate to central government for tighter national restrictions on alcohol marketing and/or legislative authority and direction to determine this locally.
3	Enforcement	Prioritise proactive enforcement of off-licence retailers’ compliance with existing sign rules. Supply data about breaches to District Licensing Committees for use in licensing renewal decisions.
4	Public land ban	Ban off-licence retailers from displaying alcohol marketing signs on all council-controlled public places, including portable signs on footpaths.
5	Restrict size/no.	Restrict the number and size of signs allowed outside off-licence premises.
6	Restrict content	Restrict signs outside off-licences to objective product information only.
7	Ban marketing	Ban all alcohol marketing signs outside off-licences (store branding only).
8	Neutral colours	Ban all alcohol marketing signs and require premises to use neutral colours.

40. Staff assessed each option for its potential to reduce alcohol-related harm based on the available evidence, and for its likely effectiveness, efficiency, validity and legal risk:

Option	Reduce harm	Effectiveness	Efficiency	Validity	Legal risk
1. Status quo	O	O	PP	PP	PP
2. Advocacy	?	o	P	PP	PP
3. Enforcement	o	o	o	PP	PP
4. Public land ban	o	P	o	PP	P
5. Restrict size / no.	P	P	O	o	O
6. Restrict content	P	P	O	O	OO
7. Ban marketing	P	PP	OO	OO	OO
8. Neutral colours	P	PP	OO	OO	OO

Staff recommend Option 3: Enforcement as an immediate operational response

41. Staff recommend Option 3: Prioritise proactive enforcement as an immediate operational response. This extra compliance activity would however require reprioritisation of limited enforcement resources, where possible.

42. Staff also recommend additional investigation into Option 4: Banning off-licence signage on public land, as this is within the council’s jurisdiction to implement and aligns with the objective. Staff would need to further investigate whether such a ban could legitimately target off-licence retailers.

43. Staff do not recommend:

· Option 1: Status Quo because it would not reduce alcohol marketing by off-licences

· Option 2: Advocacy because previous recommendations to tighten national regulation have met with limited success

· Options 5 to 8 because they would:

o only limit alcohol marketing by one category of business, which would impose significant compliance costs but may not achieve a corresponding reduction in alcohol-related harm

o potentially be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, creating legal risk for the council

o be more appropriately discussed within the context of local or national alcohol policy and regulation.

44. If the Committee still wishes to explore Options 5 to 8, it can direct staff to undertake a more thorough evidence review, develop detailed rules and cost their implementation, analyse impacts and seek further legal advice. This work would be independent of the Signage Bylaw review.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

45. The Bylaw does not directly impact climate change. Any detailed options will need to align 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

46. The Bylaw impacts the operations of the Licensing and Regulatory Compliance Unit, which administers and enforces the Bylaw, and impacts all council operations which involve advertising and promotions (for example events). Relevant staff provided feedback to the review and suggested improvements to the Bylaw. The detailed options report will take these views into account.

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

Local impacts and local board views

47. Local board members provided informal feedback on the Bylaw at cluster workshops in November 2018. The main concerns related to specific signs, rather than the regulatory framework or off-licence retailer signage. The detailed options report will take these views into account. Two local board members were also appointed to the joint working group. The views of the working group will be tabled at the meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48. Signs have the potential to cause harm and nuisance to all Aucklanders, including Māori. People identifying as Māori presented views during the review that related to specific signs, rather than the regulatory framework or off-licence retailer signage. These views will be taken into account in the detailed options report.

49. Although regulating signage is not formally identified as an issue of significance for mana whenua and mataawaka, a representative of the Independent Māori Statutory Board sits on the joint working group. Staff will also undertake formal engagement with Māori on the Statement of Proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50. The cost of reviewing the regulatory approach to signage will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. There is a low risk that stakeholders or the public may express concern about decisions or engagement to date. This risk is partly mitigated by public consultation on any future proposal in response to the high-level options in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. If the recommendations are approved, staff will prepare a detailed options report to improve the regulation of signs in the new single signage bylaw. This report will have regard to the improvements suggested in the findings report and previously endorsed by the Committee.

53. The next steps for the signage bylaw review are shown in the diagram below.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Signage Bylaw 2015 High-Level Options Report 2020	447

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

13 October 2020

Attachment A: for 13 October 2020

RODNEY – Local Board Area (1 Appeal)

Appellants	Jeanette Schimanski	Received	31 October 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000284 Council: BUN60333190 (LUC60332929, DIS60333191, DIS60333193 and DIS60334294)
Applicant:	Northland Waste Limited
Site address	183 Sandspit Road, Warkworth
Other parties	There are four s274 parties
Description	Appeal to resource consents granted to allow the applicant to to construct and operate a waste minimisation and sorting facility. The appellant owns an adjoining property that is to be subdivided to create three sites.
Iwi comments	None received
Status	Court-assisted mediation took place on 11 February 2020. The matter has since been resolved via an agreed set of consent conditions and the Court issued a Consent Order on 11 September 2020 that settles the appeal.

HENDERSON - MASSEY – Local Board Area (2 Appeals)

Appellant	Signature Developments Limited	Received	4 August 2020
References	ENV-2020-AKL-000143 Council: BUN30581068
Applicant:	Signature Developments Limited
Site address	3 Pua Street, Massey
Other parties	N/A
Description	An appeal to the decline by council to establish and operate an early learning centre. The centre is proposed to accommodate up to 120 children and with 22 full time equivalent staff. The site is located in the Light Industry Zone where care centres are a Discretionary Activity. The application was declined due to reverse sensitivity effects and the activity being contrary to objectives and policies for the zone.
Iwi comments	N/A
Status	*Mediation date set for 27^th October. Council and the applicant are arranging a without prejudice ‘pre-mediation’ meeting.*

Appellant	Megadairy Limited	Received	17 April 2020
References	ENV-2020-AKL-000037 Council: BUN30581068
Applicant:	Yogi Divine Society NZ (Inc)
Site address	28-30 Waipareira Avenue, Henderson
Other parties	N/A
Description	An appeal by a submitter in relation to a hearing panel’s decision on behalf of council to grant consent to construct and operate a community cultural centre.
Iwi comments	N/A
Status	Mediation occurred 31 July. Parties seemed willing to come to an agreement. Section 274 party and the consent holder are discussing a draft settlement agreement.

WAITAKERE – Local Board Area (1 Appeal)

Appellant	Trustees of Forest Trust and Successors	Received	19 July 2018
References	ENV-2018-AKL-000145 Council: SUB-2011-63
Site address	199 Anzac Valley Road, Waitakere
Other parties	None
Description	Appeal against hearing decision to uphold in part and dismiss in part a section 357 objection to conditions and costs of a subdivision resource consent (SUB-2011-63)
Iwi comments	The application did not trigger any requirement for a Cultural Impact Assessment or raise any iwi or Treaty issues.
Status	Appeal lodged on 26 July 2018. Environment Court decision to refuse appeal issued 18 December 2018. Appealed to the High Court however there is now a five-year stay imposed by the Court against any current or new appeals lodged by P. Mawhinney of the Forest Trust. *No change.*

ALBERT-EDEN –Local Board Area (1 Appeal)

Appellant	Panuku Development Auckland v Auckland Council	Received	04 September 2018
References	ENV-2017-AKL-000176 Council – LUC60303721 & DIS60303722
Site address	198-202 and 214-222 Dominion Road and 113-117 Valley Road, Mt Eden
Other Parties	Pacific Fringe Ltd, Astrid Modrow, Chris King, John Cram, Julie Singh, June Beaumont, Krish Jayaratne, LE & JE Whiley, Michael Wang, Nancy Smith, Peter Lange, Roger Bannan, Robert Dexter, Richard Peters, Ruth Batten, Stuart Wong, Walter Kelland, Valerie Turner
Description	Appeal against a hearing commissioner’s decision to refuse resource consent for a mixed-use development comprising four new buildings with 102 residential units, nine retail units and 115 carparks. The commissioner’s grounds for refusal related to the bulk and scale of the proposal and the associated visual, shading and dominance effects, and the adverse effects on Special Character values from the loss of the Universal Building (a character-supporting building).
Iwi comments	The application did not trigger any requirement for a Cultural Impact Assessment, attract submissions from Iwi or raise Treaty issues.
Status	Appeal regarding a development that has generated media, political and local interest. Council has met on a without prejudice basis with the appellant (18 and 24 September 2018). Court assisted mediation occurred on 31 October 2018, no agreement reached between the parties. Further informal discussion between the parties (December 2018). Second court-assisted mediated occurred on 16 January 2019. Mediation agreement reached – subject to various conditions being satisfied. Council to report back to the Court as to progress by 15 February 2019. A number of the s274 parties have requested further time to consider their positions. Council has filed a memorandum with the Court seeking a judicial conference on the first available date after 15 March 2019. Pre-hearing conference scheduled for 2 April 2019. The pre-hearing conference held on 2 April 2019 confirmed that the matter will proceed to a hearing on or after 15 July 2019. A timetable for evidence exchange has been issued. The Court has issued a notice of hearing confirming that the hearing will commence of 19 August 2019. Hearing commenced 20 August and was adjourned 27 August 2019. Closing submissions to be filed with the Court by 25 September 2019. The Court issued an interim decision on 9 March 2020. The Court determined that the parties should be given an opportunity to reconsider what is proposed to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse construction noise and vibration effects in accordance with the issues the Court has identified as problematic in the section of its interim decision about construction noise and vibration issues. A court-facilitated meeting between the parties was held on 23 June 2020. Further expert conferencing is scheduled for 1 July 2020 and a second court-facilitated meeting is scheduled for 22 July 2020. The second court-facilitated meeting was held on 4 August 2020. The parties were unable to reach agreement on a revised set of conditions to address noise and vibration issues. The parties are to circulate memoranda outlining their final positions. The memoranda, and any reply by Panuku, will all be provided to the Court by Panuku on 2 September 2020.

WAIHEKE –Local Board Area (3 Appeals)

Appellants	Cable Bay Wines Ltd v Auckland Council	Received	2 February 2018
References	ENV-2017-AKL-000010 Council – LUC60127798
Site address	12 Nick Johnston Drive, Waiheke Island
Applicant	Cable Bay Wines Limited
Other parties	Stephen & Suzanne Edwards, Julie Loranger & Lindsay Niemann, Michael & Christine Poland.
Description	Cable Bay appeal Council’s decision to refuse retrospective consent relating to the unlawful establishment and use of an additional dining area known as ‘The Verandah’. The principal issues in contention relate to the scale and intensity of the activity and the general amenity / noise effects associated with the use of the structure.
Iwi comments	The application was limited-notified to neighbours. No iwi group indicated a need for a cultural impact assessment. The Hearing Commissioners considered the application in accordance with the requirements of the RMA 1991 and in particular, Part 2 of the RMA.
Status	The Environment Court directed court-assisted mediation after the expiry of the section 274 period on 15 March 2018. Three s274 parties have joined. Environment Court mediation held on 2 July 2018 on both the consent appeal and the enforcement order application. No agreements reached between the parties. Caucusing between noise experts to on 5 July 2018. No agreement reached at second mediation. The Court has confirmed a joint resource consent appeal and enforcement order hearing commencing on 7 November 2018. The appellant’s evidence is due by 7 September and the Council’s evidence is due by 21 September. Council to call Planning and Noise expert witnesses. Council’s evidence was filed with the Court on 21 September 2018. The hearing commenced on 7 November 2018 and an interim decision on the resource consent was issued on 21 November to convey the Court’s refusal of part of the application, particularly in relation to the use of the lawn for outdoor dining and drinking, and make further directions about the refinement of conditions of consent to aspects of the proposal which might attract consent. An interim decision on the application for enforcement order was issued on 28 November 2018 ordering Cable Bay to undertake various steps to limit their activities. The Court intends that the orders will substantially mirror the final resource consent conditions. Further monitoring and testing work order by the Court is ongoing. A second interim decision on the resource consent appeal was issued 22 February 2019 confirming the Court’s earlier decision to refuse consent in part. Further collaborative noise monitoring and assessment has been undertaken by the parties’ acoustic engineers and a report on this work is to be provided to the Court by 8 March 2019. This will assist the court in determining whether or not consent can be granted to a modified proposal for the restaurant, alfresco dining and outdoor functions. A judicial teleconference held on 28 March 2019. A further 1-2-day hearing to be scheduled after June. The Court has indicated that the hearing will resume for 2 days in the week of 26 August 2019. A timetable for evidence exchange issued. Evidence has been exchanged and the hearing was re-convened on 29 and 30 August 2019. The court issued a third interim decision on 15 October 2019, indicating that consent to the activity is possible, subject to the finalisation of conditions after the grant of any building consents and resolution of the dispute about ongoing conditions attaching to the 2006 consent. The parties are to provide their comments to the Court on the remaining issues by 29 November 2019. The Court issued a fourth interim decision on 10 June 2020 following consideration of the various sets of consent conditions put forward by the parties, confirming that consent is likely to be granted in part, subject to the finalisation of conditions as set out in the interim decision. The Court’s released its final decision on 17 September 2020 and confirming that the conditions, consulted between the parties, provided balance, clarity and enforceability. The Council has previously determined that the enforcement proceeding could be discontinued on the grant of the new consent. Matters now finalised.

Appellants	1.Walden v Auckland Council 2.SKP Incorporated v Auckland Council	Received Received	9 June 2017 9 June 2017
References	ENV-2017-AKL-000076 ENV-2017-AKL-000077 CIV-2020-404- 000096 Council – R/LUC/2017/489, R/REG/2017/65
Site address	Donald Bruce Road, Kennedy Point, Waiheke Island
Applicant	Kennedy Point Boat Harbour Limited
Other parties	Over 30 parties have joined the appeal under section 274 of the RMA.
Description	Two separate appeals opposing the construction, maintenance and use of a 186-berth marina within the coastal marine area adjacent to Kennedy Point. The marina includes floating attenuators for wave protection and floating pontoons for car parking, office and a public/café building. The council hearing canvased a large range of issues and potential effects including landscape, traffic and transport, ecology.
Iwi comments	The applicant consulted with iwi, including Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust and Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust. A cultural values assessment was provided by Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust and a cultural impact assessment from Ngai Tai ki Tamaki. Iwi sought to have input into conditions, but no submissions were lodged by iwi. The independent hearing commissioners had regard to all the information before them and considered the application in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements and in particular Part 2 of the RMA 1991.
Status	The Environment Court has set down the appeals for a court-assisted mediation on 4 and 7 August 2017. Mediation on 4 and 7 August 2017 has now been completed. Mediation narrowed down some issues but did not resolve all the issues for the appellants and request for adjournment, all the section 274 parties. A timetable for exchange of evidence, caucusing of expert witnesses and Environment Court hearing date has been confirmed. All evidence and witness caucusing are complete with the hearing set for the week of 26 February 2018. Hearing commenced on Monday 26 February 2018. Hearing completed. Environment Court decision received dated 30 May 2018 granting consent to the application for a marina subject to a comprehensive set of conditions. On 31 August 2018 appellant Save Kennedy Point Inc.(SKP) filed a late appeal to High Court and an application for re-hearing in the Environment Court for reasons of lack of consultation by the applicant and Council with Ngati Poao Trust Board. High Court declined SKP Inc. application to appeal to the High Court out of time on 24 April 2019. Further reasons filed by SKP Inc on 12 August 2019 and 23 August 2019 relating to cultural grounds, traffic and costal processes. On September 2019 SKP Inc also files request to recuse the Judge, adjournment and inclusion of Maori Land Court Judge on the Court panel. Environment Court in a decision dated 5 October 2019, declined the request for recusal of the judge, adjournment of hearing and appointment of a Maori land Court judge. In a decision dated 13 December 2019, the Environment Court declined SKP Inc. application for a rehearing. At the same time Ngati Paoa Trust Board’s earlier application to join the Environment Court proceedings was also declined. SKP Inc. appealed the Environment Court decisions to the High Court on 24 January 2020. The High Court in its decision dated 19 June 2020 has dismissed the appeal by SKP. SKP has now sought leave to appeal the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal.

WAITEMATĀ–Local Board Area (2 appeals)

Appellant	Govind Agarwal	Received	3 July 2020
References	ENV-2020-AKL-000081
Site address	74-80 Wellesley Street West, Auckland
Applicant	Hotel Grand Chancellor (Auckland) Limited
Other parties	None
Description	An appeal by a neighbour submitter against a decision to consent an application to demolish existing buildings & construct & operate a new hotel in a 12-storey building plus partial basement. Issues raised include proximity and loss of sunlight to apartments in the adjacent building.
Iwi comments	The application did not trigger any requirement for a Cultural Impact Assessment or raise any iwi or Treaty issues.
Status	New appeal. A judicial teleconference was held on 5 August 2020. Directions were made to the applicant to circulate a statement of issues by 19 August 2020, with the Council to add to the statement by 26 August 2020, and the appellant to do the same by 11 September. A timetable to a hearing has been set. A s116 application has been made to allow demolition of the existing building on the site to commence in an advance of the appeal being resolved.

Appellants	Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki v Auckland Council Te Ākitai O Waiohua, Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Te Patukirikiri, And Ngāti Maru v Auckland Council Ngāti Whātua Orakei Whaia Maia Limited v Auckland Council	Received	30 January 2019 30 January 2019 31 January 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000014 - withdrawn ENV-2019-AKL-000015 - withdrawn ENV-2019-AKL-000016
Site address	31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central
Other Parties	Ngāti Te Ata
Description	Appeal against the decision of hearing commissioners to grant resource consents for the redevelopment of existing pile moorings within the Westhaven Marina, including land reclamation, installation of new pile berths, a new car park, and a new observation deck and public open space area
Iwi comments	The applications were publicly notified. Submissions from appellant iwi were received, along with other iwi who have not lodged an appeal against these decisions.
Status	ENV-2019-AKL-000014 and ENV-2019-AKL-000015 were withdrawn on 13 January 2019. Mediation scheduled with remaining appellant (Ngāti Whātua Orakei Whaia Maia Limited) and s274 parties on the 29 April 2019. Mediation for 29 April cancelled at the agreement of all parties, appeal will proceed to a hearing, to be held on or after 19 August. A s116 application was made to allow consents to commence while appeal is determined, this was approved by EC on the 27 March 2019. Following a judicial conference in late June it was determined that: · The Westhaven Marina appeal, and the related Mooring Dolphin appeal will be heard together; · A declaration will be filed by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei that addresses the jurisdictional issue as to whether the Environment Court has the jurisdiction to determine primacy issues where relating to the wording of consent conditions. This will be determined prior to the appeal proceedings being heard. *The current status is that the appeal remains on hold.* The Court has released its decision on the preliminary jurisdictional question of primacy of mana whenua status regarding the setting of mana whenua conditions of consent. This decision has been appealed by iwi groups to the High Court.

ORAKEI –Local Board Area (1 appeal)

Appellants	Drive Holdings Limited v Auckland Council	Received	21 October 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000283 BUN60324987
Site address	75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 and 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, and 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay
Applicant	Drive Holdings Limited
Other parties	A. Nathan, S. O. Family Trust, Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association Inc, Support Mission Bay Inc.
Description	An appeal against a decision to refuse an application to construct a mixed-use development comprising basement carparking, servicing, storage and circulation areas, seven multi-level buildings, commercial, entertainment and residential activities.
Iwi comments	The resource consent application was publicly notified and determined by commissioners in accordance with the RMA. No submissions from iwi.
Status	New appeal. The first mediation occurred on 5 February 2020. The appellant advised that design changes would be explored and presented to the parties ahead of the second mediation scheduled for 16 March 2020. They were unable to promote the settlement of the appeal. A Court directed pre-hearing conference will be held on 30 August 2020 to discuss the outstanding issues and make timetable directions required to progress the appeal to a hearing.

HOWICK–Local Board Area (1 appeal)

Appellant	Box Property Investments Limited	Received	9 September 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000176
Site address	30 & 40 Sandspit Road and 2 & 4 Reydon Place, Shelly Beach, Auckland
Other Parties	Reydon Place Residents Society Incorporated; Howick Ratepayers and Residents Assn.
Description	An appeal against a decision declining an application for consent for a 71-unit residential development.
Iwi comments	- The application was limited-notified to neighbours. No iwi group indicated a need for a cultural impact assessment. The Hearing Commissioners considered the application in accordance with the requirements of the RMA 1991 and in particular, Part 2 of the RMA.
Status	Appeal proceeded to a brief mediation on 26 November 2019. The appellant has informed the court that they seek to place the appeal on hold and explore a revised design by way of new application. The applicant has now lodged a revised application with council for a 60-unit development with a request for notification and direct referral. The alternative application is presently open for public submission.

PAPAKURA – Local Board Area (2 Appeals)

Appellant

HFT Limited

Received

25 May 2020

References

ENV-2020 -AKL 000053

- Council – BUN60304805, LUC60304921, SUB60328123

Site address

28 Inlet Road, Takanini

Applicant

HFT Limited

Other parties

- Stuart Monteith

Description

An appeal against a decision to decline consent for the construction and establishment of 17 two storey units across three blocks that will contain a mix of industrial, residential, office and storage activities. Each unit is proposed to provide for a mix of activities within the unit either being a combination of industrial and residential or industrial and commercial (office/storage) on a Business- Light Industry Zone site. The consent was publicly notified, with 2 submissions in opposition received and 7 in support.

Iwi comments

No iwi group indicated a need for a cultural impact assessment and no submissions were received from iwi. The commissioners considered the application in accordance with the requirements of the RMA 1991 and in particular Part 2 of the RMA

Status

New appeal - mediation set down for 13 July 2020. Mediation was held and the matter is going forward to a hearing. An evidence exchange timetable has been filed with the Court. Revised plans have been received and evidence exchange is proceeding, as scheduled.

Appellant

Wallace Group Limited, BJ Wallace Trust and SJ Wallace Trust

Received

14 March 2019

References

ENV-2019-AKL 000043

- Council – LUC60311805, DIS60303201, DIS60303159

Site address

3 Popes Road, Takanini

Applicant

Alpha Dairy Limited

Other parties

- Spark NZ Ltd

Description

- An appeal against a decision to grant consents for the construction, operation and maintenance of a new dairy processing facility for the production of infant formula on a Business- Light Industry Zone site with an area of 22,372m². The consent was publicly notified, with 4 submissions in opposition received.

Iwi comments

Status

Mediation set down for 28 May has since been vacated. High Court proceedings on related matters scheduled for October 2019. High Court hearing held 7-9 October. Further report to the Environment Court on the appeal required 10 days following the release of the High Court decision. Decision of the High Court on CIV-2018-404-2455 was issued on 30 June and therefore a minute to the Env Court will be filed imminently. The consent holder has applied to Council to surrender their consents which will close the appeal matter. The consents have been surrendered and the appeal has been closed.

REGIONAL – (2 Appeals)

*Appellants*	*1. Protect Aotea v Auckland Council* *2. Protect Our Gulf Incorporated v Auckland Council*	*Received*	*1 September 2020*
*References*	*1. ENV-2020-AKL-155* *2. ENV-2020-AKL -157* *BUN60388750*
*Applicant*	*Ports of Auckland Limited*
*Other parties*	*K Klink, Society for the Protection of Aotea Community and Ecology Inc.*
*Description*	Appeals against a decision of Auckland Council to grant applications by Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) to undertake capital and maintenance dredging works in the Waitemata Harbour. The dredging of 2,500,000m3 of seabed material will be from the Rangitoto Channel and Fergusson approaches and with maintenance dredging of 75,000m3 over any 5-year period. The dumping is to occur outside the CMA authorised by separate EEZ Act consent from the EPA.
*Iwi comments*	The resource consent application was publicly notified and determined by commissioners in accordance with the RMA. Submissions from Iwi raised matter of Te Ao Maori and inter-connectiveness (cause and effect) between the dredging and dumping activities, that these occur in different rohe and dredging damages nor restores the mauri of the moana.
*Status*	New appeals. Section 274 period has closed. A minute from the Court released 17 September 2020 directs that the appeals will be managed and heard together and seeks as to whether parties are willing to engage in mediation. The minute also notes that the appeals appear to raise procedural or jurisdictional issues and seeks from the parties whether these should be considered and determined prior to any substantive hearing.

Regulatory Committee

13 October 2020

Kōmiti Whakahaere ā-Ture / Regulatory Committee
Forward Work Programme 2020

This committee deals with regulatory hearings, appointing independent commissioners and for the development of regulatory policy and bylaws.

The full terms of reference can be found here.

Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Expected timeframes Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2020
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Alcohol Licensing Licensing & Regulatory Compliance	Report on the revenue received and the costs incurred for the alcohol licensing process – required by regulation 19 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013.	Note that the majority of alcohol licensing costs were recovered from the existing default licensing fees regime for the twelve months to 30 June Confirm continuance of the default licensing fees regime Review the default licensing fees regime after a suitable period of time has elapsed following the implementation of the Local Alcohol Policy
Animal Management Licensing & Regulatory Compliance	Report on Animal Management activities for the year ending August/Sept 2020 as required by s10a of the Dog Control Act 1996	Note: that the Animal Management Annual Report is required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 and staff will provide the 2019/2020 report to the Secretary of Local Government
Boarding Houses Inspection Licensing and Compliance Services	Update on the Auckland proactive boarding houses inspections programme. Increase inspections from one to a minimum of three per year.	Update: memo to Regulatory Committee and the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee
Earthquake Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011 -2016 Review Building Consents	2011 - Auckland Council was required under s131 of the Building Act 2004 to adopt a policy on earthquake prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings 2018 – Due to the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, Auckland Council’s management of earthquake-prone buildings now falls under the national policy and methodology set by MBIE. Our ongoing work programme for issuing statutory EPB notices, receiving seismic assessments, and identifying residual potential EPBs is being carried out on this basis. Note that dangerous and insanitary buildings continue to have their own local policy that is now under the management of Regulatory Compliance.	Update: on the progress made in implementing Auckland Council’s regulatory obligations with regard to earthquake-prone buildings within its jurisdiction. July 2020 decision							ü
BYLAWS
Alcohol Control Bylaw review Community & Social Policy	This Bylaw provides the structure for creating alcohol bans. Individual boards use it to make decisions about local bans. Council has a statutory obligation to review this Bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002.	Recommend a Statement of Proposal to the Governing Body to amend bylaw. Appoint Bylaw Panel to make recommendations to the Governing Body on the proposal after hearing and deliberating on public feedback and local board input. Development of proposal to amend bylaw to commence in February 2020. April 2019 decision May 2019 decision September 2020 decision									ü
Animal management Bylaw Review Community and Social Policy	This Bylaw promotes responsible animal ownership, including minimising impact on neighbours, the public and preventing damage.	Decision on whether a bylaw still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw (findings and options reports). March 2020 decision.			ü
Bylaw Review 2020-22 initiation Community and Social Policy	Initiation of new bylaw reviews. Includes ‘Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws - Agreed Principles and Processes 2019’ Council has a statutory obligation to periodically review its bylaws.	Decision on the initiation of bylaw reviews that must be completed by October 2022. Report will for each bylaw: · set out scope · legislative constraints/enablers (if any) · relevance to LBs · proposed process (including LB involvement) · key timeframes · public consultation approach whether a joint working group for early bylaw/policy development is proposed and initiate appointment process if necessary. February 2020 decision		ü
Cemeteries Bylaw Review Community and Social Policy	This Bylaw and code of practice protects health and safety and minimises potential offensive behaviour. Council has a statutory obligation to review this Bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002.	Recommend a Statement of Proposal to the Governing Body to amend bylaw. Appoint Bylaw Panel to make recommendations to the Governing Body on the proposal after hearing and deliberating on public feedback and local board input. Development of proposal to amend bylaw to commence in February 2020. April 2019 decision May 2019 decision. September 2020 decision									ü
Freedom Camping Community and Social Policy	This Bylaw replaces legacy requirements to manage freedom camping in vehicles, under the Freedom Camping Act. The legacy bylaws expiry on 29 October 2022.	Decision on options to progress a council approach for a Statement of Proposal on freedom camping in vehicles. Governing Body October 2020										Governing Body
Gambling Policy Reviews Community and Social Policy	The Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Act 2003 (the Acts) regulate gambling in New Zealand. The Acts require the policies to be reviewed every three years. Auckland Council (Council) first adopted these policies in 2013. Council reviewed them in 2017, found they were generally effective and retained both with no changes The next reviews are due 15 June 2020	Decision: start of the Class 4 Gambling (pokie) Venue Policy and the Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy reviews in 2020 March 2020 decision.			ü
Navigation Safety Bylaw Review	This Bylaw sets out the rules for all vessels and people using Auckland's waters to ensure their safety. Council has a statutory obligation to review this Bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002.	Decision on whether a bylaw still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw (findings and options reports). March 2020 decision . June 2020 decision			ü			ü
Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw Review Community and Social Policy	This Bylaw applies to a range of outdoor fire activities, including outdoor cooking and heating fires, sky lanterns, traditional cooking fires, open air fires and incinerator fires. This Bylaw expires on 18 December 2021 and must (if necessary) be replaced to avoid a regulatory gap.	Decision on whether a bylaw is still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw (findings and options reports).
Property Maintenance Nuisance Bylaw Review Community and Social Policy	This Bylaw requires private property to be maintained well enough that doesn't create a nuisance or risk health and safety. Council has a statutory obligation to review this Bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002.	Decision on whether a bylaw still needed. September 2020 decision									ü
Signage Bylaw Review Community and Social Policy	This is a joint bylaw with Auckland Transport that regulates promotional signs to ensure public safety and prevent nuisance from poorly maintained or located signage.	Decision on whether a bylaw still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw (findings and options reports). June 2020 decision						ü
Stormwater Bylaw Healthy Waters	The primary purpose of the Bylaw is to regulate land drainage including to protect, manage and maintain an efficient and effective public stormwater network, as well as the ensure the maintenance and operation of private stormwater systems.	Decision on whether a bylaw is the most appropriate regulatory tool to protect Auckland’s stormwater networks July 2020 decision							ü
Trading and Events Bylaw Review Community and Social Policy	This Bylaw regulates businesses and events that use public spaces to make sure everyone can use them fairly and safely. This Bylaw expires on 22 February 2022 and must (if necessary) be replaced to avoid a regulatory gap.	Decision on whether a bylaw is still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw (findings and options reports).
Traffic Bylaw Review Community and Social Policy	This Bylaw regulates the use of vehicles on council-controlled land that is not part of the Auckland transport system, like parks and beaches. This Bylaw expires on 25 June 2022 and must (if necessary) be replaced to avoid a regulatory gap.	Decision on whether a bylaw still needed. Project scoping to commence December 2019.										Deferred July 2021
Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015 Watercare	This bylaw protects Auckland’s water sources, water supply and wastewater networks from damage, misuse and interference. This Bylaw will expire on 25 June 2022 and council must (if a bylaw is still necessary) make a new bylaw to avoid a regulatory gap	Decision on whether a bylaw is still need and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw (findings and options reports). Due to COVID-19 the findings report went the Emergency Committee in May May 2020 Decision June 2020 Decision					Emergency Comittee	ü

Resource Consents Appeal Update Resource Consents	To provide oversight of the appeals received to resource consent decisions.	Information purposes Monthly updates		ü	ü	Cancelled	Cancelled	ü	ü	No meeting	ü
The Regulatory Committee Policy Democracy Services	The Policy incorporates the operational policy and sub delegations for the decision-making responsibilities that lie within the areas of the committee’s responsibilities. Review District Licensing Committee (DLC) and Independent Resource Management Act (RMA) commissioner pools.	Decision: adopt the updated Regulatory Committee Policy July 2020 decision Decision: approve the appointment of the District Licensing Committee and the selection process and appointments of independent resource management commissioners for 2021 to 2024. April 2020, due to COVID19 appointment of District Licensing Committee went go to Emergency Committee DLC Commissioners - November 2019 decision. Emergency Committee April 2020 decision RMA Commissioners – June 2020 decision				Emergency Comittee	Cancelled		ü
The Regulatory Services Directorate Director Regulatory Services	Report on: · progress implementing the Food Act 2014 · insights into the performance, opportunities and risk of the Resources Consents Dept · progress implementing the Regulatory Compliance programme · transformation activity update · building consents and control · resource consents and regulatory engineering	For information only: 6 monthly updates

Completed

Lead Department

Area of work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Decision

Food Bylaw Review

Community and Social Policy

This Bylaw requires food businesses registered with the council to display a food safety grade certificate.

This Bylaw expires on 22 May 2020 and must (if necessary) be replaced to avoid a regulatory gap.

Bylaw Panel appointed (REG/2019/39) Councillors Newman (Chair), Mulholland and Young and IMSB member Wilcox) to deliberate on public feedback and local board input and make recommendations to the Governing Body.

Progress to date: Decision that a bylaw is still needed, that the current bylaw should be replaced, and proposal adopted in July 2019 (REG/2019/39 and GB/2019/70).

Due COVID-19 the decision went to the Governing Body

30 April 2020 decision.

Resolution number GB/2020/36

MOVED by Cr D Newman, seconded by Cr T Mulholland:

That the Governing Body:

a) acknowledge the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food businesses, and their employees.

b) approve the Bylaw Panel recommendations on the proposed new Food Safety Information Bylaw 2020 in Attachment A and Attachment B of the agenda report.

c) confirm that the Food Safety Information Bylaw 2020 in Attachment C of the agenda report:

i) is the most appropriate way to protect public health from foodborne illness

ii) is the most appropriate form of bylaw

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

d) adopt the Food Safety Information Bylaw 2020 in Attachment C of the agenda report.

e) approve the distribution of this agenda report and associated minutes to local boards for their information.

f) delegate authority through the Chief Executive to staff responsible for bylaws to make any amendments to the Bylaw in Attachment C of the agenda report to correct errors or omissions.

CARRIED ON VOICES

Regulatory Committee

13 October 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 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Photographs of Mr Palmers car (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Complainant formal statement – 29 May 2019 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Registration details of the car in attachment B (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Unkovich statement 1 (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Unkovich statement 2 (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Menacing classification (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Objection to menacing classification (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shaun Murray - Team Leader Animal Management West, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Authorisers

Sarah Anderson – Manager Animal Management, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

James Hassall - General Manager, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

13 October 2020

Objection for Wastewater connection for 21 Lincoln Road Henderson

File No.: CP2020/14352

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider the objection to the Construction of a Public Wastewater line to connect to the public manhole located within the boundary of 4 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson to serve 21 Lincoln Road Henderson.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A subdivision resource consent BUN60348313 was approved on 24 March 2020 to undertake a 18 terraced dwelling subdivision. (Attachment A).

3. The existing dwelling wastewater discharges to the public manhole which is located within adjoining property at 4 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson.

4. The proposed 18 terraced unit development requires that the existing connection be upgraded from a 100mm to a larger 150mm connection as approved by Watercare.

5. The applicant engaged Antrim Consultants Ltd to provide an “Infrastructure Report” for the proposed development for the engineering approval ENG60348156 issued under letter of 22 January 2020. The site photos and Geomaps views illustrate the close proximity of the manhole to the boundary and minimal intrusion of the proposed works. (Attachment B).

6. During December the applicant communicated with the landowner at 4 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson without success and then requested Council to assist with communicating with the landowner to gain approval. (Attachment C).

7. Council’s senior development engineer (Cedric Daniel) then communicated with the landowner’s via telephone and emails but the landowner declined to meet. (Attachment C).

8. The landowners did not raise any concerns other than to state that they refused to approve the connection.

9. Council then engaged a mediator Dave Serjeant an accredited Independent Hearings Commissioner to mediate approval of the wastewater connection. (Attachment D).

10. Following various email communication Dave Serjeant confirmed that he was unable to obtain landowner approval.

11. Dave Serjeant presented his mediation report dated 24 September 2020 confirming that he was not able to mediate approval for the required wastewater connection. (Attachment D).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) hear and determine the objections by the owners of 4 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson, 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 wastewater connection to the existing manhole within 4 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson, is the only solution as shown on Antrim Consultants Ltd engineers drawing C.4 revision A.

Horopaki

Context

12. The owner of 21 Lincoln Road is Grant La Hood for “Citywide Homes Ltd” (“the Applicant”). The Applicant has applied under section 460 of the Act for the council to determine, that the proposed installation of a wastewater pipe and connection to an existing Council public manhole located within 4 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson as being the only suitable connection to serve 21 Lincoln Road.

13. A locational and aerial views of the precise connection detail is shown on Antrim Consultants Ltd engineers drawing C.4 revision A and Geomaps views. The site photos also demonstrate the close proximity of the manhole to the boundary and the minimal impact of these works. (Attachment B).

14. The Applicant lodged an Engineering Approval application (reference ENG60348156) on 4 November 2019 to undertake the work to install the wastewater and stormwater connections. This has since been approved under letter of 22 January 2020 subject to landowner approval of 4 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson. (Attachment B) Landowners of 4 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson have not approved the connection.

15. The ‘Applicant’ has consulted with the property’s owners in person, in writing and by phone over a period of months to obtain their consent to undertake the work. A copy of relevant pertinent communication demonstrates that the property owners 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 owners as well as via email and telephonic communication. The ‘Applicant’ has not been able to obtain consent.

16. Council’s senior development engineer has also consulted with the landowners and landowners have declined to meet and consequently has not been able to facilitate approval. (Attachment C).

17. Attachment D also confirms the attempts by Mr. Dave Serjeant, council’s independent mediator engaged to seek a resolution. However, these attempts were also unsuccessful.

18. Under report of 24 September 2020 the mediator proposes that the matter be set down for a hearing.

19. The Council is satisfied that the owners (‘Applicant’) of 21 Lincoln Road Henderson, have met its expectations of seeking all endeavors to obtain an agreement to install the wastewater connection.

20. The approved wastewater reticulation provides for the required wastewater connection for the proposed development at 21 Lincoln Road and has an insignificant impact on the adjoining property at 4 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson.

21. Details of landowners is provided under Attachment E.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. Currently the site at 21 Lincoln Road wastewater discharges to the existing public manhole within 4 Sel Peacock Drive via a 100mm line.

24. The proposed wastewater discharge connection is an upgraded 150mm line to the same existing manhole and is the only suitable manhole for the upgraded connection.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 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 4 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. Under section 460 of the Act, Iwi are not considered a relevant affected party unless they are landowners 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

30. All costs for this process and hearing are to be met by the owners of 21 Lincoln Road Henderson.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The proposed reticulation will provide the required connection upgrade and has been approved by Watercare and will have no impact on downstream owners.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. The installation of the public wastewater connection will be undertaken by Council upon the Hearing approval of the proposed works.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Subdivision BUN60348313	507
b ⇩	Engineering Approval ENG60348156	555
c ⇩	Communication	583
d ⇩	Mediation Report	613
e ⇩	Landowner Details	619
f ⇩	s460 LGA 1974	627

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Cedric Daniel - Senior Development Engineer
Authoriser	Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

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
	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Paul Young

Ex-officio	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

Date	Subject
2/10/2020	Memo - Update on Micromobility in Auckland
8/10/2020	Memo – Hearings held, hearing panels and hearing outcomes
8/10/2020	Memo – Provisional Local Alcohol Policy Update

Author	Maea Petherick - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services