Agenda of Regulatory Committee - Tuesday, 16 March 2021

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

16 March 2021

Stormwater Bylaw 2015 Review - Options Report

File No.: CP2021/00635

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on the preferred statutory option to progress the review of Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā, Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Regulatory Committee endorsed the findings of a review of Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā, Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 on 28 July 2020 (REG/2020/43) and requested a report back on options.

3. To enable the Regulatory Committee to determine the future of the stormwater bylaw, staff have now completed an options report based on the review findings (Attachment A).

4. Key review findings included that the Bylaw is still the most appropriate regulatory tool to protect Auckland’s stormwater network from damage and to regulate the operation of private stormwater systems, but could be improved.

5. Staff assessed statutory options against assessment criteria to help the Committee decide whether to choose: Option 1 (continue with the current bylaw), Option 2 (amend the bylaw), Option 3 (replace the Bylaw) or Option 4 (revoke the Bylaw).

6. Staff recommend that the Committee request the preparation of a Statement of Proposal that improves the current Bylaw by amending it (Option 2) because this option:

· retains a regulatory tool to protect the public stormwater network from damage, misuse, contamination, interference and nuisance, as well as to regulate the operation and maintenance of private stormwater systems

· improves on the current Bylaw (option 1 - status quo) by building on already understood and established processes, increasing operational effectiveness by incorporating lessons learnt from the previous five years of experience and aligning with current best practice bylaw writing standards for additional clarity

· would strengthen interaction with council processes in managing the stormwater network, enable better regulation of private stormwater systems, and further align with existing legislation.

7. Under this option staff will update the Bylaw by amending its wording and structure to make it more easily understood by a wide range of audiences.

8. There is a low risk that some stakeholders and the public may express concern about the proposed amendments. This will be mitigated by future public consultation on any amendments.

9. If approved, staff will prepare a Statement of Proposal for approval by the Regulatory Committee and the Governing Body. This will be followed by public engagement before a final decision is made by the Governing Body on the Bylaw.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) agree that improving the current Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015, Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 by amending it (Option 2) is the most appropriate way to respond to the statutory review findings endorsed by the Regulatory Committee on 28 July 2020 (REG/2020/43).

b) request that Healthy Waters staff as delegated by the Chief Executive prepare a Statement of Proposal that amends the bylaw in (a) as detailed in Attachment A of the agenda report for Option 2: amend the Bylaw.

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw regulates public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

10. The Governing Body adopted Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā, Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 on 30 July 2015 (GB/2015/78).

11. This approach replaced the operative and draft bylaws from the previous legacy councils.

12. The Bylaw seeks to regulate land drainage through the management and protection of private and public stormwater networks from damage, misuse, interference and nuisance.

13. The current Bylaw aligns with the Auckland Plan 2050 strategic direction including the growth and development strategy by ensuring that Auckland’s infrastructure keeps up with the pace and scale of growth.

The Bylaw is part of a wider regulatory framework

14. The Bylaw is part of a suite of regulatory tools utilised to manage stormwater and land drainage throughout the Auckland region, including the Resource Management Act 1991, Local Government Act 2002 and Local Government Act 1974.

15. The Bylaw is supported by operational guidelines and processes such as Engineering Plan Approvals which Council grants to developers for new private connections to the public stormwater network and vesting of public stormwater network for new developments.

16. Various Auckland Council teams such as Healthy Waters, Regulatory Compliance, and Regulatory Engineering works collaboratively to implement the Bylaw.

The Regulatory Committee endorsed Bylaw review findings and requested options

17. Auckland Council commenced the review of the Bylaw in 2020. On 28 July 2020, the Regulatory Committee endorsed the findings of the review report, including the following key findings (REG/2020/43):

· a bylaw is still the most appropriate regulatory tool to protect Auckland’s stormwater network from damage, misuse and interference, as well as to regulate the operation and maintenance of private stormwater systems

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

· the current Bylaw approach to manage land drainage for the public stormwater network and ensure maintenance and operation of private stormwater systems is appropriate but could be improved.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The problem, objectives and outcomes relate to damage, misuse, interference, nuisance

19. Based on the findings, the problem, objective and outcome can be defined as follows:

· current problem: the risks from damage, misuse, contamination, interference and nuisance to the public stormwater network, and inappropriately managed private stormwater systems

· objectives: to help minimise the risk of damage, misuse, contamination, interference and nuisance to the public stormwater network, and to effectively regulate private stormwater systems

· outcome: the public stormwater network is protected from damage, misuse, contamination, interference and nuisance, and private stormwater systems are effectively regulated.

20. The scale of land drainage issues and need of appropriate management increases in the Auckland region as developments and growth of the Auckland population continues.

Four options were analysed to respond to the outcome sought

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

· Option 1: continue with the Bylaw (status quo)

· Option 2: amend the Bylaw to address issues as identified in the findings

· Option 3: replace the Bylaw with a new bylaw to address issues

· Option 4: revoke the Bylaw and rely solely on other legislative provisions and voluntary compliance.

22. Table 1 below provides a summary of the assessment staff undertook against criteria detailed in the Options report (Attachment A).

Table 1. Analysis of options arising from the review of the Bylaw

Effectiveness at minimising risks to the stormwater network

Efficiency at minimising risks to the stormwater network

Validity of minimising risks to the stormwater network

Option 1: Continue with the Bylaw (status quo)

Effectively protects the network.

Efficient in providing reliable, safe and efficient land drainage.

Valid and is not inconsistent with other legislations or repugnant.

Option 2: amend the bylaw

Improves on effectiveness.

Improves on efficiency.

Builds on option 1.

Option 3: Replace the bylaw with new bylaw

Option 3 would presume a complete re-write of the bylaw, which has the potential to address some problems identified through the review, but also some risks of worse outcomes.

Option 4: Revoke the Bylaw

Introduces a significant risk to the public stormwater network.

Insufficient regulation to enable the appropriate management of land drainage.

This option would mean there is no bylaw to be valid or invalid.

23. Staff also assessed the suggested Bylaw improvements in the findings report to identify key amendments that would form part of Option 2 (amend the Bylaw).

Table 2 below provides a summary of the assessment of suggested Bylaw improvements. It also identifies some actions arising from the review that would be best progressed through other means.

Table 2. Summary of actions to respond to the findings report,

Suggested improvements	Action
Alignment with other legislations and regulations	Improve integration with Auckland Unitary Plan, Resource Management Act 1991, and Local Government Act matters.
Strengthen the interaction with existing council processes	Strengthen interaction with implementation processes such as approvals, plans and consents.
Review clause 25 breaches of the Bylaw	Improve existing enforcement provisions.
Clarify writing for the protection of public stormwater network	Improve protection of the stormwater network.
Vehicle crossings culverts causing drainage issues and not meeting standards	Outside scope of Bylaw review: Better addressed through other mechanisms by Auckland Transport.
Clarify and strengthen provisions for asset vesting	Improve vesting of public stormwater assets.
Landowner responsibilities	Clarify the provisions relating to landowner responsibilities.
Rural drainage maintenance and nuisance	Strengthen provisions for rural drainage issues.
Maintenance of private stormwater systems	Enable better regulation of private stormwater systems.
Review definitions for clarity	Align definitions for consistency.
Increase formal enforcement provisions - Infringements	Outside scope of Bylaw review: Requires central government regulations.
Infrastructure response to climate change and water sensitive design considerations	Recognize climate change to increase uptake of sustainable construction and enable climate framework and tools
Engineered overflow points of wastewater network	Review definitions and wording to identify engineered overflow points.
Align with Māori outcomes and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.	Enable more mana whenua participation in stormwater infrastructure matters, for example, through providing opportunities for mana whenua feedback to be considered in Engineering Plan Approval processes.
Drought resilience – regulating rainwater harvesting tanks and systems	Outside scope of Bylaw review: Better addressed through separate investigation initiated by Planning Committee.

Staff recommend improving the current Bylaw by amending it

24. Staff recommend that the Bylaw is amended (Option 2) to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. An improved bylaw is the most appropriate option as it would:

· retain a regulatory tool to protect the public stormwater network from damage, misuse, contamination, interference and nuisance, as well as to regulate the operation and maintenance of private stormwater systems

· it improves on the current Bylaw (option 1 - status quo) by building on already understood and established processes, increasing operational effectiveness by incorporating lessons learnt from the previous five years of experience and aligning with current best practice bylaw writing standards for additional clarity

· it would strengthen interaction with council processes in managing the stormwater network, enable better regulation of private stormwater systems, and further align with existing legislation.

25. Staff consider the key trade-off between Option 2 and the other options are:

· Option 1: continuing with the current Bylaw would be effective as it is today, but has gaps that could be addressed as identified in the review findings

· Option 3: replacing with a new bylaw is not sufficiently justified as there is no need for a fundamentally different form of bylaw to change the existing approach.

· Option 4: revoking the Bylaw would mean that some of Council’s existing powers to regulate the impact of development on stormwater would diminish. For example, our power to review Engineering Plan Approvals for new developments or require private device maintenance or removal of obstructions in the stormwater network would be decreased. This would create significant risks to Auckland Council’s abilities to protect the stormwater network to prevent flooding and negative environmental outcomes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. Effective management of stormwater contributes to increasing Auckland’s climate change resilience and adaptation to more extreme weather events.

27. The options report acknowledges the need for the Bylaw to consider climate change and align with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, Auckland’s Climate Plan, in relation to Key Move 3: make development and infrastructure climate-compatible.

28. Option 2 (amended Bylaw) and potentially Option 3 (a new bylaw) provide council with the opportunity to further consider future climate impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29. The Bylaw impacts the operations of Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters teams. It also impacts Auckland Council teams involved in the regulation, compliance and enforcement of stormwater such as the Regulatory Engineering and Regulatory Compliance departments.

30. Relevant staff from the council family including Auckland Transport and Watercare provided feedback to the review through interactive workshops and interviews.

31. The various Auckland Council teams and CCOs which are involved in or are impacted by the Bylaw amendments will have further opportunity to provide their views during public consultation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

32. Under the agreed principles and processes for Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, the Bylaw has been classified as low interest. It is also considered to be of no impact on local governance for local boards^{^[1]}.

33. All local boards will have an opportunity to provide their views on the Statement of Proposal through the public consultation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34. The Bylaw supports the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau’s key directions of Manaakitanga - Improve Quality of Life by managing land drainage, and could complement Rangatiratanga – Enhance Leadership and Participation by enabling mana whenua involvement through amended bylaw processes.

35. Mana whenua provided feedback during engagement on the review findings at the monthly Heathy Waters project day hui in April 2020. Operational kaitiaki representing the 19 iwi participate in the monthly hui. Amending the bylaw (Option 2) will enable the bylaw to further address the concerns raised by mana whenua, such as infrastructure developments without mana whenua input, and the enforcement and monitoring of public and private stormwater systems. For example, the bylaw could be amended to provide more opportunities for mana whenua feedback to be considered in Engineering Plan Approval processes.

36. Staff will proactively engage with mana whenua and mataawaka during any future public consultation to provide an opportunity to give their views on any amendments to the Bylaw.

37. Staff will proactively engage with mana whenua before releasing the Statement of Proposal. Mana whenua and mataawaka will also have an opportunity to provide feedback during future public consultation process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

39. There is a low risk that some members of the public or stakeholders may express concern about suggested improvements to the Bylaw or stakeholder engagement.

40. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation on any proposed changes to the Bylaw.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Stormwater Bylaw Options Report	19

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Emma Cowie - Relationship Advisor

Lucy Hawcroft - Senior Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

16 March 2021

Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 16 March 2021

File No.: CP2021/02152

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update of all current resource consent appeals lodged with the Environment Court.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This memorandum provides a summary of current resource consent appeals to which the Auckland Council is a party. It updates the report to the Regulatory Committee on 16 February 2021.

3. If committee members have detailed questions concerning specific appeals, it would be helpful if they could raise them prior to the meeting with Robert Andrews (phone: 09 353-9254) or email: robert.andrews@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) in the first instance.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) receive the Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 12 March 2021

Horopaki

Context

4. As at 8 March 2021, there are 17 resource consent appeals to which Auckland Council is a party. These are grouped by Local Board Area geographically from north to south as set out in Attachment A. Changes since the last report and new appeals received are shown in bold italic text.

5. The principal specialist planners - resource consents, continue to resolve these appeals expeditiously. In the period since preparing the previous status report on 3 February 2021, there has been one new appeal lodged and two resolved.

6. The new appeal is from Auckland Yacht & Boating Association, a submitter opposed to the grant of consent to establish a non- exclusive mooring at Pohutukawa Bay, Rakino Island. The appellant considers that a need for the mooring has not been demonstrated and alternative land-based or mooring options exist. The location is argued to severely restrict the usability for small craft seeking a sheltered anchorage in the bay.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

7. To receive the report as provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

8. The report provides an update of consent appeals and seeks no resolution or consideration of the merits associated with them.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

9. Not applicable.

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

Local impacts and local board views

10. Not applicable.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

11. The decision requested of the Regulatory Committee is to receive this progress report rather than to consider the relevance to Māori associated with each of the appeals at this time.

12. The Resource Management Act 1991 includes a number of matters under Part 2, which relate to the relationship of Tangata Whenua to the management of air, land and water resources. Maori values associated with the land, air and freshwater bodies of the Auckland Region are based on whakapapa and stem from the long social, economic and cultural associations and experiences with such taonga. These matters where relevant are considered with the resolution of the resource consent appeals.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

13. Environment Court appeal hearings can generate significant costs in terms of commissioning legal counsel and expert witnesses. Informal mediation and negotiation processes seek to limit these costs. Although it can have budget implications, it is important that Auckland Council, when necessary, ensure that resource consents maintain appropriate environmental outcomes and remain consistent with the statutory plan policy framework through the appeal process.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

14. Not applicable.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

15. Not applicable.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Current Resource Consent Appeals as at 8 March 2021	43

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Principal Specialist Planning

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Regulatory Committee Forward Work Programme	53

Regulatory Committee

16 March 2021

Kōmiti Whakahaere ā-Ture / Regulatory Committee
Forward Work Programme 2021

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 2021
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	no meeting	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 2021as 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 2020/2021 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 month focusing on high-risk boarding houses identified from complaint data.	Update: report to Regulatory Committee and the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee
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. If required, recommend a statement of proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel. Progress to Date: Findings Report 17 March 2020 Link to decision Options Report 17 November 2020 Link to decision

Construction Bylaw 2015

Community and Social Policy

Bylaw relates to construction activity on or near public places or infrastructure.

This Bylaw will expire on 29 October 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 needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

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 and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

Progress to Date:

Review and Findings Report 1 September 2020
Link to decision

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. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

Progress to Date:

Findings Report 23 June 2020
Link to decision

Options report 13 October 2020

Link to decision

Stormwater Bylaw

Healthy Waters / Community and Social Policy

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 still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

Progress to Date:

Findings Reports 28 July 2020
Link to decision

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. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

Progress to Date:

Findings Report 13 October 2020

Link to decision

Options Report 16 February 2021

Link to decision

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 is still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

Updated to commence January 2022

Wharves Bylaw 2015

Community and Social Policy

Bylaw relates to use of council-controlled wharves.

This Bylaw will expire on 29 October 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 needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

Resource Consents Appeal Update

Resource Consents

To provide oversight of the appeals received to resource consent decisions.

Information purposes

Monthly report

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

Progress to Date:

Provide the Regulatory Committee with an overview and an update on performance, opportunities and risks of Regulatory Services

17 November 2020
Link to powerpoint presentation

Completed

Lead Department	Area of work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	Decision
Community & Social Policy	Alcohol Control Bylaw review 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.	Finding Report 11 April 2019 Link to decision Options Report 9 May 2019 Link to decision Recommendation for Statement of Proposal 1 September 2020 Link to decision Adopt Statement of Proposal – Governing Body 29 October 2020 Link to decision
Licensing & Regulatory Compliance	Animal Management 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	Adopt the 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report Link to decision Link to 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report
Community and Social Policy	Bylaw Review 2020-22 initiation 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.	Initiation Report 18 February 2020 Link to decision
Community and Social Policy	Cemeteries Bylaw Review (Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014) 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.	Options Report 9 April 2019 Link to decision Direction Report 9 May 2019 Link to decision Proposal to amend 1 September 2020 Link to decision Adopt Statement of Proposal – Governing Body 24 September 2020 Link to decision Adopt the amended Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 link to decision
Building Consents	Earthquake Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011 -2016 Review 2011 - Auckland Council was required under s131 of the Building Act 2004 to adopt a policy on earthquake prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings 2018 – Due to the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, Auckland Council’s management of earthquake-prone buildings now falls under the national policy and methodology set by MBIE. Our ongoing work programme for issuing statutory EPB notices, receiving seismic assessments, and identifying residual potential EPBs is being carried out on this basis. Note that dangerous and insanitary buildings continue to have their own local policy that is now under the management of Regulatory Compliance.	Update: on the progress made in implementing Auckland Council’s regulatory obligations with regard to earthquake-prone buildings within its jurisdiction.	Approve submission 28 July 2020 Link to decision
Community and Social Policy	Food Bylaw Review	Appoint Bylaw Panel Decision on bylaw - Due to COVID19 the decision went to the Governing Body	Adoption 30 April 2020 Link to decision
Community and Social Policy	Freedom Camping 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.	Deferred to Governing Body

Lead Department

Area of work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Decision

Community & Social Policy

Alcohol Control Bylaw review

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.

Finding Report 11 April 2019
Link to decision

Options Report 9 May 2019
Link to decision

Recommendation for Statement of Proposal 1 September 2020
Link to decision

Adopt Statement of Proposal – Governing Body 29 October 2020
Link to decision

Licensing & Regulatory Compliance

Animal Management

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

Adopt the 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report

Link to decision

Link to 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report

Community and Social Policy

Bylaw Review 2020-22 initiation

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.

Initiation Report 18 February 2020
Link to decision

Community and Social Policy

Cemeteries Bylaw Review (Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014)

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.

Options Report 9 April 2019
Link to decision

Direction Report 9 May 2019
Link to decision

Proposal to amend 1 September 2020
Link to decision

Adopt Statement of Proposal – Governing Body 24 September 2020
Link to decision

Adopt the amended Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014

link to decision

Building Consents

Earthquake Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011 -2016 Review

2011 - Auckland Council was required under s131 of the Building Act 2004 to adopt a policy on earthquake prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings

2018 – Due to the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, Auckland Council’s management of earthquake-prone buildings now falls under the national policy and methodology set by MBIE. Our ongoing work programme for issuing statutory EPB notices, receiving seismic assessments, and identifying residual potential EPBs is being carried out on this basis.

Note that dangerous and insanitary buildings continue to have their own local policy that is now under the management of Regulatory Compliance.

Update: on the progress made in implementing Auckland Council’s regulatory obligations with regard to earthquake-prone buildings within its jurisdiction.

Approve submission 28 July 2020
Link to decision

Community and Social Policy

Food Bylaw Review

Appoint Bylaw Panel

Decision on bylaw - Due to COVID19 the decision went to the Governing Body

Adoption 30 April 2020
Link to decision

Community and Social Policy

Freedom Camping

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.

Deferred to Governing Body

Community and Social Policy

Gambling Policy Reviews

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.

Decision: start of the Class 4 Gambling (pokie) Venue Policy and the Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy reviews in 2020

Council reviewed in 2020, retain both with no changes.

start policy reviews 17 March 2020
Link to decision

findings review 13 October 2020

Link to decision

Community and Social Policy

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).

Findings Report 17 March 2020
Link to decision

Options Report 23 June 2020
Link to decision

Recommend statement of proposal 13 October 2020

link to decision

Adopt statement of proposal – Governing Body – 29 October 2020
Link to decision

Community and Social Policy

Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw Review

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.

Findings resulted in decision to revoke bylaw

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).

Findings and Options Report 13 October 2020
Link to decision

Review findings – Governing Body – 29 October 2020
Link to decision

Democracy Services

The Regulatory Committee Policy

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

Decision: approve the appointment of the District Licensing Committee and the selection process and appointments of independent resource management commissioners for 2021 to 2024.

Recruitment process for DLC Commissioners 12 November 2019 – Governing Body
Link to decision

30 April 2020, due to COVID19 appointment of District Licensing Committee went go to Emergency Committee
Link to decision

Appointment of DLC Committee 30 April 2020
Link to decision

Approval to commence recruitment RMA Commissioners 23 June 2020
Link to decision

Adoption of the Regulatory Committee policy 28 July 2020
Link to decision

Recommendation for the appointment of independent hearings commissioners
Link to decision

Watercare / Community and Social Policy

Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015

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. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

May 2020, due to COVID19 findings report went to Emergency Committee

Findings Report 28 May 2020-Emergency Committee
Link to decision

Review Options 23 June 2020
Link to decision

Recommendation for Statement of Proposal 16 February 2021

Link to decision

Adopt Statement of Proposal – Governing Body – 25 February 2021

Link to decision

Regulatory Committee

16 March 2021

Objection to Nuisance Abatement Notice

File No.: CP2020/16601

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine the objection against the Nuisance Abatement Notices (NANs) issued for dogs ‘Bubba’ and ‘Lolly’.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Section 55 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) provides that if Auckland Council receives a complaint regarding barking, and a dog control officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a nuisance is being caused by persistent and loud barking, then Auckland Council can:

(a) enter at any reasonable time upon the land or premises, other than a dwelling house, on which the dog is kept, to inspect the conditions under which the dog is kept; and

(b) whether or not a dog control officer or dog ranger makes such entry, give the owner of the dog a written notice requiring that person to make such reasonable provision on the property to abate the nuisance as shall be specified in the notice or, if considered necessary, to remove the dog from the land or premises.

3. A NAN issued under s55(1)(b) of the DCA requires the dog owner to abate the nuisance immediately by carrying out the requirements set in the NAN.

4. The Auckland Council Animal Management Team resolved to issue a NAN on the objector for each of her dogs following multiple complaints regarding the dogs’ loud and persistent barking over multiple days.

5. The objector has objected to the council’s issuing of the NANs and pursuant to section 55(2) of the DCA, the matter is now before the Committee for a decision as to confirm, modify or cancel the NANs pursuant to section 55(3) of the DCA.

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

(a) The evidence which formed the basis for the decision to issue the NANs; and

(b) The matters relied on by the Objector in support of her objection; and

7. Auckland Council must give written notice to the dog owner of its decision on the objection and if the effect of the decision is to modify the requirements of the NAN, then it shall set out those requirements as so modified.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) Hear and determine the objection to the nuisance abatement notices by the objector;

b) By either:

(i) Upholding the Nuisance Abatement Notices; or

(ii) Rescinding the Nuisance Abatement Notices; or

(iii) Modifying the Nuisance Abatement Notices.

Horopaki

Context

8. Auckland Council have received multiple complaints over a few years regarding the objector’s dogs’ loud and persistent barking and the nuisance that the barking has caused. Auckland Council have attempted to work with the objector to abate the nuisance.

9. On 20 July 2020 Auckland Council received a further complaint regarding the objector’s dogs’ barking.

10. The complainant provided Auckland Council with a formal statement which included a description of the nuisance it was creating. (Refer attachment A)

11. Auckland Council received an additional two complaints regarding the objector’s dogs’ barking and the nuisance it was causing on 21 July 2020 and 28 July 2020. (Refer attachment B and C)

12. On 4 August 2020 Auckland Council sent a Notice of Barking Complaint and advice to the objector (Refer attachment D)

13. On 5 August 2020 Auckland Council received a formal statement from a neighbour complaining about the dogs’ barking. (Refer attachment E)

14. The objector provided a statement responding to the complaints. (Refer attachment F)

15. On 12 August 2020 Auckland Council received another complaint regarding the objector’s dogs’ barking and the nuisance it was causing on 11 August 2020. (Refer attachment G)

16. On 13 August 2020 the complainant provided 4 video recordings of the objector’s dogs’ barking on diverse occasions. These recordings are available on request.

17. On 13 August 2020 Auckland Council issued a warning notice to the objector regarding the dogs’ barking. (Refer attachment H)

18. The objector declined the opportunity to respond to the complaints.

19. On 26 August 2020 Auckland Council received another complaint regarding the nuisance caused on 22 August 2020 by the objectors dogs’ loud and persistent barking. (Refer attachment I)

20. On 6 September 2020 the objector provided Auckland Council with a statement in response to the complaints. (Refer attachment J)

21. On 10 September 2020 Auckland Council issued a NAN for each of the objector’s dogs because the Animal Management Officer, Deborah Lawrie, had reasonable grounds to believe that the persistent and loud barking and howling of the dogs was causing a nuisance. Ms Lawrie’s statements are attached (Refer attachment K and L)

22. On recommendation from the officer, the NANs were signed off by the Lead Animal Management Specialist, Denise Pieters. The NANs were served on the objector at the address. (Refer attachment M and N)

23. The objector objected to both NANs. (Refer attachment O).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. Officers advise that the nuisance abatement notice should be upheld.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. Due to the nature of the report and the hearing there is no climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. Due to the nature of the report and hearing there is no council group impacts and views.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. Due to the nature of the report and hearing the views of the local boards have not been sought.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. The content of this report has no adverse effect on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. This is an objection to a nuisance abatement notice. There are no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. Due to the nature of the report and hearing, there are no risks to mitigate.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. To uphold the decision of the committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	A Comp statement 28 July 2020 re 20 July 2020	65
b ⇩	B Comp statement 28 July 2020 re 21 July 2020	67
c ⇩	C Comp statement 29 July 2020 re 28 July 2020	69
d ⇩	D Notice of barking complaint 4 August 2020	71
e ⇩	E Neighbour statement 5 August 2020	73
f ⇩	F Objector statement undated	75
g ⇩	G Comp statement 12 August 2020 re 11 August 2020	77
h ⇩	H Warning notice 13 August 2020	79
i ⇩	I Comp statement 26 August 2020 re 22 August 2020	81
j ⇩	J Objector statement 6 September 2020	83
k ⇩	K Statement Lawrie 5 October 2020	87
l ⇩	L Supplementary statement Lawrie 6 November 2020	91
m ⇩	M NAN Bubba	93
n ⇩	N NAN Lolly	95
o ⇩	O Objection 10 September 2020_Redactions applied	97

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Deborah Lawrie, Animal Management, Licensing & Regulatory Compliance

Authorisers

Sarah Anderson, Licensing & Regulatory Compliance

James Hassall - General Manager, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

16 March 2021

Objection to Nuisance Abatement Notice 3

File No.: CP2021/01958

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine the objection against the Nuisance Abatement Notices (NANs) issued for dogs ‘Bubba’ and ‘Lolly’.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Section 55 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) provides that if the Auckland Council receives a complaint regarding barking, and a dog control officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a nuisance is being created by the persistent and loud barking, then Auckland Council can:

a) enter at any reasonable time upon the land or premises, other than a dwelling house, on which the dog is kept, to inspect the conditions under which the dog is kept; and

b) whether or not the dog control officer or dog ranger makes such entry, give the owner of the dog a written notice requiring that person to make such reasonable provision on the property to abate the nuisance as shall be specified in the notice or, if considered necessary, to remove the dog from the land or premises.

3. A NAN issued under s55(1)(b) of the DCA requires the dog owner to abate the noise nuisance immediately by carrying out the requirements set in the NAN.

4. The Auckland Council Animal Management Team resolved to issue a third set of NANs on the objector for both dogs following multiple complaints regarding the dogs’ barking.

5. The objector has objected to the Council’s issuing of this set of NANs and pursuant to section 55(2) of the DCA, the matter is now before the Committee for a decision as to confirm, modify or cancel the NANs pursuant to section 55(3) of the DCA.

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

(a) The evidence which formed the basis for the decision to issue the NANs; and

(b) The matters relied on by the objector in support of the objection; and

7. Auckland Council must give written notice to the dog owner of its decision of the objection and if the effect of the decision is to modify the requirements of the NAN, then it shall set out those requirements as so modified.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) Hear and determine the objection to the Nuisance Abatement Notices by the objector

b) By either:

(i) Upholding the Nuisance Abatement Notices;

(ii) Rescinding the Nuisance Abatement Notices; or

c) Modifying the Nuisance Abatement Notices.

Horopaki

Context

8. Auckland Council has received multiple complaints over a few years regarding the dogs’ barking and has attempted to work with the objector to reduce the nuisance that the barking could be causing.

9. The committee has heard of that on 10 September 2020 Auckland Council issued a NAN for each of the dogs because the Senior Bark Advisor (SBA), Animal Management Officer Debbie Lawrie, had reasonable grounds to believe that the persistent and loud barking and howling by the dogs was causing a nuisance.

10. Following the issue and service of that NAN, and on 3 December 2020 Auckland Council received a further complaint regarding the objector’s dogs’ barking.

11. The complainant provided Auckland Council with a formal statement which included a description of the nuisance it was creating. (Refer attachment A)

12. On 4 December 2020 Auckland Council issued a NAN (second NAN) for each of the objector’s dogs because Animal Management Officer (AMO) Gina Woolston, had reasonable grounds to believe that a nuisance was being created by the dogs’ persistent and loud barking. Ms Woolston’s statement is attached (Refer attachment B)

13. On recommendation by the officer, both the NANs were signed off by the Lead Animal Management Specialist, Denise Pieters. (Refer attachment C and D)

14. A copy of both the NANs were served on the objector by placing them in her mailbox at the residential address. (Refer attachment E)

15. No objection was received from the objector, however a statement via email was received. (Refer attachment F)

16. In total twelve complaints were received between the issue of the first set of NANs on 10 September 2020 and the issue of the third set of NANs on 10 February 2021. Apart from the second set of NANs, no action was taken. A further statement detailing the complaints and their outcome has been prepared by SBA Debbie Lawrie. (Refer attachment G)

17. On 3 February 2021 Auckland Council received a further complaint regarding the dogs barking.

18. The complainant provided Auckland Council with a formal statement which included a description of the nuisance it was creating. (Refer attachment H)

19. In anticipation of being issued with further NANs, the objector emailed objections to Auckland Council. (Refer attachment I)

20. On 10 February 2021 Auckland Council issued a NAN for each of the dogs because AMO Aatur Shah, had reasonable grounds to believe that the persistent and loud barking by the dogs was causing a nuisance. Mr Shah’s statement is attached (Refer attachment J)

21. On recommendation from AMO Shah, both the NANs were signed off by the Lead Animal Management Specialist, Denise Pieters. A copy of both the NANs were served on the objector. (Refer attachment K and L)

22. On 26 February 2021 the complainant provided Auckland Council with a supplementary statement in which he detailed the nuisance caused by the dogs’ persistent and loud barking. (Refer attachment M)

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. Officers advise that the nuisance abatement notice should be upheld.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. Due to the nature of the report and the hearing there is no climate impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Due to the nature of the report and hearing there is no council group impacts and views.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. This report involves an objection to nuisance abatement notices under the DCA. The views of the local board have not been sought.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. The content of this report has no adverse effect on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. This report involves an objection to nuisance abatement notices under the DCA. There are no financial implications to be considered.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. This report involves an objection to nuisance abatement notices under the DCA. There are no risks and mitigations to be considered.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. To uphold the decision of the committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	A Complainants Formal Statement 3 December 2020	103
b ⇩	B Animal Management Officer Woolston's Formal Statement 6 December 2020	107
c ⇩	C Second Abatement Notice for Lolly	109
d ⇩	D Second Abatement Notice for Bubba	111
e ⇩	E Proof of Service of Second Nuisance Abatement Notices	113
f ⇩	F Objectors Statement by Email	115
g ⇩	G Senior Barking Advisor Laurie's Statement 1 March 2021	119
h ⇩	H Complianants Formal Statement 5 February 2021	121
i ⇩	I Objection from Objector	123
j ⇩	J Animal Management Officer Shah's Statement 15 February 2021	127
k ⇩	K Third Nuisance Abatement Notice for Lolly	129
l ⇩	L Third Nuisance Abatement Notice for Bubba	131
m ⇩	M Complainants Supplementary Formal Statement 26 September 2021	133

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Deborah Lawrie – Senior Bark Advisor Animal Management

Authorisers

Sarah Anderson, Licensing & Regulatory Compliance

James Hassall - General Manager, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

[1] The decision-making responsibility for Te Arai Drainage District, the Okahuhura Drainage Area and the Glorit Drainage District was reallocated to the Governing Body on 9 December 2020 (GB/2020/140).

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	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

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