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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 17 August 2021

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Level 2, Auckland Town Hall
301 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Komiti Whakahaere ā-Ture /

Regulatory Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Josephine Bartley

 

Members

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

 

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

 

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

 

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

 

IMSB Chair David Taipari

 

 

IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox

 

 

Cr Paul Young

 

Ex-officio

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

 

Ex-officio

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Michelle Judge

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Governance Advisor

 

10 August 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 0211950262

Email: michelle.judge@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

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

 

The committee’s key responsibilities include:

 

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

·         hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996

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

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

·         hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws

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

·         deciding who should make a decision on any particular matter including who should sit as hearings commissioners in any particular hearing

·         monitoring the performance of regulatory decision-making

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

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

·         recommending bylaws to the Governing Body for consultation and adoption

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

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

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

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

·         receiving local board feedback on bylaw and regulatory policy development and review

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

 

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

 

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


 

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

 

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

 

All Bylaws

Biosecurity Act 1993

Building Act 2004

Dog Control Act 1996

Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

Gambling Act 2003

Health Act 1956

Land Transport Act 1998

Local Government Act 1974

Local Government Act 2002

Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009

Maritime Transport Act 1994

Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

Resource Management Act 1991

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

Waste Minimisation Act 2008

 

Related Regulations

 

Powers

 

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

Except:

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

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

(ii)        Power to establish subcommittees.


Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

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

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

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

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

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

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

 

Members of the meeting

 

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

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

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

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

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

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

 

Staff

 

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

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

 

Local Board members

 

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

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

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

 

 


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        9

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   9

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               9

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          9  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    9

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          9

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                              10

8          Proposal to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015                                                      11

9          Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 review options report             95

10        Proposal to make a new bylaw about signs                                                           117

11        Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 17 August 2021                              281

12        Review of the Forward Work Programme - Regulatory Committee                    297

13        Summary of Regulatory Committee Information - updates, memos and briefings - 17 August 2021                                                                                                                307

14        Objection to stormwater works at 9 Tawa Crescent, Manurewa                          309

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Apologies

 

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

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 6 July 2021, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

4          Petitions

 

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

 

 

5          Public Input

 

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

 

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

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

Proposal to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2021/07498

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To recommend the Governing Body adopt a proposal to amend Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā / Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 for public consultation and to appoint a Bylaw Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Regulatory Committee requested amendments to the Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 in March 2021 (REG/2021/12).

3.       Staff seek a recommendation that the Governing Body adopt the Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) containing amendments to the Bylaw for public consultation.

4.       The amended Bylaw continues to regulate land drainage through the management of private stormwater systems and protection of public stormwater network from damage, misuse, interference, and nuisance. The amendments comply with statutory requirements, are appropriate, and are not inconsistent with key legislation.

5.       The main amendments:

·        specifying controls, codes of practice, or guidelines for managing the public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

·        considering additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals under the Bylaw

·        requiring approvals for modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points into the stormwater network

·        restricting or excluding certain activities for parts of the stormwater network

·        updating Bylaw wording, format, and definitions

6.       There are risks that the proposal may not reflect the views of the public and that a COVID-19 outbreak could prevent in-person public consultation. These risks are partly mitigated by the opportunity for public feedback, including online, by phone and to an appointed Bylaw Panel.

7.       Adoption of the Statement of Proposal will start the statutory process to amend the Bylaw including public consultation scheduled to begin in September 2021. A Bylaw Panel will consider any public feedback, deliberate, and make recommendations to the Governing Body in March 2022. A final decision is expected to be made in April 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      note that this committee completed the review of the Stormwater Bylaw 2015 in July 2020 and determined that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address issues related to public stormwater networks and private stormwater systems.

b)      recommend the Governing Body adopt the Statement of Proposal to amend the Stormwater Bylaw 2015 in Attachment A of this agenda report for public consultation.

c)      recommend the Governing Body forward to the Independent Māori Statutory Board the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A for their advice.

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

e)      recommend the Governing Body delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for Healthy Waters to make any amendments to the Proposal in Attachment A to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.

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 to deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report.

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 of Auckland Council to a manager responsible for Healthy Waters to appoint staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events.

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw regulates public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

8.       The Governing Body adopted Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā, Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 on 30 July 2015 (GB/2015/78), which replaced the operative and draft bylaws from the previous legacy councils.

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

10.     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

11.     The Bylaw is part of a suite of regulatory tools used 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.

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

13.     Various Auckland Council teams such as Healthy Waters, Regulatory Compliance, and Regulatory Engineering work collaboratively to implement and enforce the Bylaw.

The Regulatory Committee requested to amend the Stormwater Bylaw

14.     The Regulatory Committee requested that staff commence the process to amend the Bylaw in March 2021 (REG/2021/12). This decision followed the completion of the statutory bylaw review under the Local Government Act 2002[1] and Regulatory Committee consideration of findings and options.

15.     The council must use the special consultative procedure to amend the Bylaw,[2] including to:

·        determine that the amended Bylaw meets legislative criteria

·        adopt a statement of proposal, including the proposed amended Bylaw, for public consultation

·        decide on any bylaw amendments following consideration of public feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The draft proposal makes amendments to the current Bylaw

16.     The Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) implements the committee’s decision to amend the Bylaw to improve the status quo.

17.     Table 1 summarises the main proposed amendments.

Table 1. Main proposals for the Stormwater Bylaw Statement of Proposal

Main proposals

Reasons for proposal

Specifying controls, codes of practice, or guidelines for managing the public stormwater network and private stormwater systems

·    to specify controls for private systems that connect and contribute to the public stormwater network

·    to set standards through the Guidance Documents and Code of Practice for the construction, operation and vesting of public stormwater assets.

Considering additional requirements for vesting of public assets and approvals under the Bylaw

·    to align standards of vested public assets to enable council to comply with the conditions of the Regionwide Stormwater Network Discharge Consent requirements, including stormwater management plans

·    to assess the carbon lifecycle associated with the construction and operation of new stormwater network assets

·    to consider mana whenua values in approvals.

Requiring approvals for modifications or new engineered wastewater overflow points into the stormwater network

·    to enable the council stormwater operator to formally assess and approve wastewater overflow that affects the operation of the public stormwater network and the outcomes of the Regionwide Stormwater Network Discharge Consent

·    to assist with protection of public health and safety when the overflow points activate.

Restricting or excluding certain activities for parts of the stormwater network

·    to protect public health and safety from activities such as fishing or kayaking in stormwater treatment devices such as ponds and wetlands.

Updating Bylaw wording, format, and definitions

·    to ensure that amended Bylaw is easier to read, understand and comply with

·    to clarify the recovery of costs associated with council staff inspection of private stormwater systems

·    to improve clarity of what constitutes a breach of the Bylaw, for example through a notice or approval

·    to comply with the best practice bylaw drafting standards.

The proposal complies with statutory requirements and current drafting practices

18.     The amended Bylaw has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements. The amended Bylaw:

·        helps further protect stormwater networks from damage, misuse, interference, and nuisance as well as improve the management of private stormwater systems

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

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

·        is not inconsistent with the Resource Management Act 1991, Auckland Unitary Plan, or Building Act 2004

·        will be easier to read and understand.

Staff recommend the committee commence the process to amend the Bylaw

19.     Staff seek the Regulatory Committee to recommend that the Governing Body adopt the attached Statement of Proposal containing the amended Bylaw for public consultation.

20.     The committee is requested to appoint a Bylaw Panel 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.     Effective stormwater management enhances Auckland’s response to climate change through resilience and adaptation to increased extreme weather events. Carbon emissions from constructed infrastructure also contribute to climate change. 

23.     This enables Council to help meet its climate change goals and align the amended Bylaw with the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, Auckland’s Climate Plan’s Built Environment priority.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24.     The Bylaw impacts the operations of Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters teams as well as teams involved in the regulation, compliance and enforcement of stormwater such as the Regulatory Engineering and Regulatory Compliance. Staff that are impacted have been consulted with and are aware of the proposals.

25.     Healthy Waters also worked closely with Watercare to consider the impact of the proposed amendments on the wastewater network and to align the Statement of Proposal with their review of the Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26.     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.[3]

27.     Interested local boards will have an opportunity to consider feedback from residents in their local board area and provide input to the Bylaw Panel.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28.     The Bylaw supports the IMSB Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau’s key directions of Manaakitanga - Improve Quality of Life by managing land drainage.

29.     Mana whenua provided feedback during engagement on the review findings at the monthly Heathy Waters project day hui in April 2020. The Bylaw was further discussed at the Infrastructure & Environmental Services Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Project Hui in May 2021. The main feedback from these hui related to concerns around infrastructure developments on Māori land, and the enforcement and monitoring of public and private stormwater systems that affect Te Mauri o te Wai.

30.     Mana whenua and mataawaka will have further opportunity to provide feedback during public consultation.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

32.     There are risks that the proposal may not reflect the views of the public and that a COVID-19 outbreak could prevent in-person public consultation.

33.     These risks are partly mitigated by the opportunity for public feedback, including online, by phone and to an appointed Bylaw Panel.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Stormwater Bylaw Statement of Proposal

17

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dean Yee – Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Authorisers

Craig Mcilroy – General Manager Healthy Waters

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 review options report

File No.: CP2021/10641

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek a decision on the preferred statutory option to the review of Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       To enable the Regulatory Committee to determine the future of the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw (Bylaw), staff have completed an options report.

3.       On 1 September 2020 the Committee endorsed the statutory review findings on the Bylaw and requested a report back on options (REG/2020/50).

4.         The Committee decided that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage specific activities on private property that may cause public health risk or nuisance.

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

6.         Based on analysis against assessment criteria and the pros and cons of each option, staff recommend option two (amend Bylaw) as the most favorable option as it:

·     retains a regulatory tool that (to varying degrees) can help reduce risks to safety and nuisances on private property caused or made worse by depositing materials, overgrown vegetation or abandoned buildings

·     fills a regulatory gap that requires cooling tower water systems associated with industrial processes to be registered and monitored for legionella bacteria

·     improves on the status quo (option one) by better clarifying the definition of nuisance and outlining the purpose of the Bylaw, removing clauses that duplicate legislation and making the Bylaw easier to understand.

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

8.       If approved, staff will prepare a Statement of Proposal (including amended Bylaw) for approval by the Regulatory Committee and Governing Body. Public engagement will follow, before a final decision is made by the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      agree that option two: amend Bylaw is the most appropriate option to respond to the statutory review findings on Te Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015.

b)      request that staff as delegated by the Chief Executive prepare a Statement of Proposal that amends the Bylaw in (a) as detailed in Attachment A.

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw regulates matters related to the maintenance of private properties

9.       The Governing Body on 24 September 2015 adopted Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Rawa me Ngā Mahi Whakapōrearea 2015 / Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 (GB/2015/104).

10.     The Bylaw seeks to protect public health and prevent nuisance by setting out:

·     general rules about property maintenance (overgrown vegetation, deposited materials, abandoned buildings and feeding of wild animals)

·     obligations for owners of industrial cooling water tower systems.

11.     The Bylaw aligns with strategic directions in the Auckland Plan 2050, including reducing risks to public health and minimise nuisance in increasingly intensified residential areas.

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

·     Property Law Act 2007 regulates vegetation on private property that can cause a danger or obstruct views

·     Litter Act 1979 regulates litter on private property and allows for its removal based on visual amenity

·     Summary of Offences Act 1981 regulates antisocial behaviour by people entering abandoned buildings on private property

·     Building Act 2004 regulates mechanical cooling tower systems associated with air conditioning or ventilation.

A statutory review of the Bylaw found that it needs to be improved

13.     On 1 September 2020 (REG/2020/50) the Committee completed its statutory review of the Bylaw and endorsed the findings that:

·     a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage specific activities and behaviour on private property to protect public health or prevent nuisance

·     the current Bylaw approach is appropriate, but its structure could be improved, for example by clarifying the definition of nuisance

·     the current Bylaw does not give rise to any unjustified Bill of Rights implications.

14.    The committee requested an options report to help decide how best to respond to the findings and consider whether the Bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked or replaced.[4]

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

15.     Staff used the findings report to develop the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 Options Report 2020 in Attachment A. This included defining the problem, objective and outcome sought for 2020 and beyond, developing options for each of the 5 topics in the current Bylaw and assessing each option against assessment criteria.

16.     Staff also developed options that respond to the current and future problem that the Bylaw needs to address, including a description of the pros, cons and risks related to each option.

 

The problem, objectives and outcomes are related to public health and nuisance

17.     Based on findings, the problem, objectives, outcomes can be defined as follows:

18.     The table below provides more detailed description of current and future problems and the scale and magnitude of the problem.       

Table 1: Current and future problems

Current and future problem

·    preventable accidents, injuries and nuisance from abandoned buildings

·    public health, safety and nuisance from overgrown vegetation and deposited materials.

Scale and magnitude of the problem

·    the number of complaints to council have increased each year over the period 2016 to 2018 (excluding ICTWS)

·    the number of complaints referencing overgrown vegetation have the highest totals. Complaints regarding abandoned buildings and deposited materials are increasing at the fastest rate

·    around two-thirds (2,735 responses) of all People’s Panel respondents had experienced one or more of the problems addressed by the Bylaw in the past year. Most of the nuisance was

·    the most common problem respondents reported experiencing was overgrown vegetation, representing 26 per cent of total respondents.

Statutory options

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

·     Option one: status quo – confirm (retain) current Bylaw

·     Option two: amend Bylaw – improve the status quo

·     Option three: replace Bylaw – a new bylaw approach to property maintenance

·     Option four: revoke Bylaw –rely on other existing methods (no Bylaw).

20.    Staff assessed each option against assessment criteria, which reflect the core objective to minimise the risk to the public health and to avoid nuisance to persons on neighbouring properties and public places from activities and behaviours on private properties.

 

 

 

 

 

            Table 2: Summary of assessment of options

Effectiveness*

Efficiency*

Valid and not inconsistent with legislation

Option one: confirm Bylaw

Option two: amend Bylaw

✓✓

✓✓

Option three: replace Bylaw

xx

Option four: revoke Bylaw

x

x

N/A

* Refers to effectiveness (in achieving the outcome) and efficiency (cost/benefit) at minimising the risk to public health and avoid nuisance to persons on neighboring properties and public places from activities and behaviours on private property.

 

21.     Based on analysis against assessment criteria and the pros and cons of each option, staff recommend option two (amend Bylaw) because it:

·     retains a regulatory tool that (to varying degrees) can help minimise the risk to public health and avoids nuisance to persons on neighbouring properties and public places from activities and behaviours on private property

·     improves on the status quo (option one) by:

clarifying the definition of ‘nuisance’ to make it easier to understand and enforce, including that the council cannot regulate visual amenity

clarifying registration and regulatory requirements for industrial cooling towers

reviewing the frequency of registration, testing and cleaning of industrial cooling towers 

amending Bylaw to reflect current best practice drafting standards.

22.     Staff consider the key trade-offs between the recommendation of option two – amend Bylaw and the other options as follows:

·     option one (confirm Bylaw) is not recommended. There are clear issues with the existing Bylaw that can be addressed by amending the Bylaw.

·     option three (replace Bylaw) is not recommended. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the existing regulatory approach needs to be fundamentally changed.

·     option four (revoke Bylaw) is the least effective option. It would create a regulatory gap that would result in greater risk of problems occurring.

23.     While an option to replace the Bylaw (option three) with amendments to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (PSN) was considered, it was excluded from further assessment because:

·     as a working alternative the amendments to the PSN Bylaw would not be straight-forward in relation to depositing material, overgrown vegetation and abandoned buildings on private property. The PSN Bylaw currently addresses safety and nuisance issues only on public places as opposed to similar issues arising on private property

·     furthermore, even if the amendments were minor, they would require significant changes to the PSN Bylaw to respond to private nuisances and health issues which could have both unintended implications in law and operationally. For example, the Bylaw could now potentially address bad behaviour on private property.

·     option two would enable the Bylaw to be updated by the Regulatory Committee in response to the current problems and improvements identified in the findings report (REG/2020/50).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24.     The Bylaw does not create a direct climate impacts, but climate change may affect the problems regulated by the Bylaw. In particular, higher average temperatures over the last decade may have given pests an advantage over native species and worsened Auckland’s pest problem. This trend is expected to continue in future. Warmer temperatures also exacerbate the growth of legionella bacteria.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25.     The Bylaw impacts the Regulatory Compliance team who implement the Bylaw, the Building Consents, Environmental Services and the Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS).

26.     Relevant staff provided feedback to the review through face-to-face meetings and interviews and suggested improvements addressed in the options report.

27.     Council teams are aware of the impacts of possible changes to the Bylaw and their implementation role.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28.     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.

29.     All local boards were consulted during the development of the findings report.

30.     Interested local boards will have an opportunity to consider feedback from residents in their local board area and provide input to the Bylaw Panel.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31.     The Bylaw has relevance to Māori as kaitiaki of Papatūānuku. The bylaw proposal provides some support to a key direction in the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau:

·     kaitiakitanga (ensuring sustainable futures), in relation to environmental protection.

 

32.     The bylaw aims to provide some protection to public space from pests.  However, two hui with Māori and a literature review of key documents did not identify specific or additional impacts on Māori outside of the defined problem. The health and nuisance issues which are the subject of the proposed amendments to the Bylaw are not identified in the Board’s ‘Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021-2025'.

33.       Mana whenua and mataawaka will be invited to provide further feedback during the public engagement process for the Statement of Proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35.     The following risks have been identified:

Table 3: Risks and mitigations

If…

Then…

Mitigation

Stakeholders or the public are opposed or concerned about the proposed options.

There may be negative attention to council about its Bylaw review processes and consultation to date.

Future opportunity for stakeholders and the public to provide feedback on the proposed Bylaw as part of the statutory public consultation process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015 Review Options Report

103

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Fereti Lualua - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

Proposal to make a new bylaw about signs

File No.: CP2021/08212

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To recommend the Governing Body adopt for public consultation a Statement of Proposal to make a new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Te Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls, and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Regulatory Committee (REG/2021/20) and Board of Auckland Transport (29/04/2021:18) requested a new joint bylaw about signs following a review of the current Signage Bylaw 2015.

3.       Staff seek a recommendation that the Governing Body adopt the attached Statement of Proposal containing a new bylaw and associated controls for public consultation.

4.       The proposal would continue to enable Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to jointly manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places,[5] the Auckland transport system and environment. The proposal complies with statutory requirements, is appropriate and is not inconsistent with key legislation.

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

·    combine the current Signage Bylaw 2015 and Election Signs Bylaw 2013

·    enable the display of election signs on places not otherwise allowed up to nine weeks prior to an election

·    allow the display of event signs on the same roadside sites as election signs

·    increase the current portable sign prohibited area to the entire City Centre Zone

·    increase the maximum area of flat wall-mounted signs in the Heavy Industry Zone to 6m2 (currently 2.88m2 for sale of a property and 5m2 for goods, services, or events)

·    add rules about signs that advertise temporary sales of goods such as ‘garage sales’

·    retain the intent of the rules in the current bylaws (unless otherwise stated) in a way that is up to date, more certain and reflective of current practice.

·    use a bylaw structure, format and wording more aligned to the Auckland Unitary Plan and current council drafting standards.

6.       Local board views on a draft proposal were sought in July 2021. Public consultation on the Statement of Proposal was supported in full by four local boards, 16 local boards supported the proposal with suggested changes and one local board deferred a decision.

7.       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, including online or phone-based ‘Have Your Say’ events, and at Bylaw Panel deliberations.

8.       Adoption of the proposal will start the statutory process to make a new bylaw and associated controls. Public consultation is scheduled from September to October 2021. A Bylaw Panel will consider any public feedback, deliberate, and make recommendations to the Governing Body and the Board of Auckland Transport in March 2022. A final decision will be made in April 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      note that this committee completed the review of the Signage Bylaw 2015 in June 2020 and determined that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage most signs in Auckland.

b)      recommend 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 and Auckland Transport Te Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls:

i)       are the most appropriate form of bylaw and controls

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

iii)     are not inconsistent with other Acts, regulations, rules, codes, or bylaws.

c)      recommend the Governing Body forward to the Independent Māori Statutory Board the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report 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 to make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.

f)       appoint a chair and two Bylaw Panel members selected from the Governing Body and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to a joint Bylaw Panel with Auckland Transport, to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events and to deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body and the Board of Auckland Transport on public feedback to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report.

g)      recommend that if at any time Auckland Transport decides not to proceed with a joint bylaw the Governing Body delegates authority to the Regulatory Committee chairperson and a manager responsible for bylaws to:

i)        amend the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A to remove clauses that apply on the Auckland transport system for transport-related purposes and all clauses related to the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013; and

ii)       make amendments to the Bylaw Panel such that it will be an Auckland Council only panel, rather than a joint Bylaw Panel with Auckland Transport, and will only need to report to the Governing Body and not the Board of Auckland Transport.

h)      delegate authority to the Regulatory Committee chairperson to make replacement appointments to the Bylaw Panel if a panel member is unavailable.

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

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

ii)       make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to insert or replace diagrams and pictures, correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee.

Horopaki

Context

9.       The proposed new Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Te Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu 2022 / Signs Bylaw 2022 and associated controls seek to manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places, the Auckland transport system and environment

10.     The proposed new Bylaw and controls:

·    would continue to enable Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to jointly manage signs in a single bylaw to avoid public confusion and inefficient administration that can result from having two separate bylaws that manage different aspects of signs

·    would continue to provide for signs related to activities on the same property subject to meeting certain conditions for their design, construction, and duration of display

·    would continue to limit signs unrelated to the day-to-day activities on the land it is located (for example signs on footpaths)

·    would continue to provide more opportunities to display signs about elections, polls and referendums during an election period that would not normally be allowed

·    would continue to be enforced by the Licencing and Regulatory Compliance unit using a graduated compliance model (information / education / enforcement)

·    would remain part of a wider regulatory framework[6]

·    must be adopted using a public consultative process and commence before 28 May 2022 to avoid a regulatory gap (the Signage Bylaw 2015 expires on 28 May 2022).

The proposal is the outcome of a statutory review of the current signage bylaw

11.     The Regulatory Committee (committee) and Board of Auckland Transport (board) requested staff commence the process to make a new bylaw and controls following a statutory review[7] of the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signage Bylaw 2015 (refer diagram below).


 

2015 Signage Bylaw review process

Diagram, text

Description automatically generated

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The proposal improves how Council manages signs in Auckland

12.     The Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) implements the decision of the committee and board to make a new bylaw and controls about signs and to make further improvements identified during the drafting process.

13.     The new bylaw and controls better manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places, the Auckland transport system and environment.

14.     The table below summarises the main proposals in comparison to the current bylaws:

 

Table 1: Main proposals and reasons for proposal

Main proposals

Reasons for proposals

· To make a new bylaw and associated controls that combine the current Signage Bylaw 2015 and Election Signs Bylaw 2013.

· The current bylaws will be revoked.

reduce confusion from having two bylaws about signs.

In relation to elections signs:

·   enable the display of election signs on places not otherwise allowed up to nine weeks prior to an election

·   to limit the display of election signs on places not otherwise allowed to nine weeks prior to an election

·   to clarify that election signs on private property must not be primarily directed at a park, reserve, or Open Space Zone

·   to remove the display of election signs related to Entrust.

·  clarify intention to provide more opportunities to display election signs during pre-election periods than would otherwise be allowed for a sign that does not relate to activities on the property

·  protect the amenity of parks, reserves and Open Space Zones

·  focus on more significant elections that currently use this form of advertising.

In relation to event signs:

·   to allow the display of event signs on the same roadside sites as election signs

·   to clarify that community event signs on sites associated with the community may only be displayed if the event is provided by a not-for-profit group.

provide opportunities to advertise major, regional, sub-regional and community events while reducing potential nuisance and clutter.

To increase the current portable sign prohibited area to cover the entire City Centre Zone.

prioritise the area for pedestrians and place-making activities, remove potential safety risks, nuisance, and clutter and to improve accessibility for mobility and vision-impaired pedestrians.

To increase the maximum area of flat wall-mounted signs in the Heavy Industry Zone to 6m2.

·  allow more visible display of information in an area which has a larger built form and a lower priority on amenity.

(Current maximum is 2.88m2 for sale of a property and 5m2 for goods, services, or events).

To add rules about signs that advertise temporary sales of goods.

·  provide for temporary events on residential properties, for example garage sales.

To retain the intent of the rules in the current bylaws (unless otherwise stated) in a way that is up to date, more certain and reflective of current practice. For example, to clarify:

·   that signs on boundary fences with an Open Space Zone require council approval

·   the placement of directional real estate signs to the ‘three nearest intersections’

·   that changeable messages relate to transitions between static images

·   that LED signs must comply with the relevant maximum luminance standards

·   that there is a limit of one commercial sexual services sign per premises.

 

·  retain the effect of rules considered to still be appropriate.

·  ensure rules are current, clear, and easier to understand and comply with.

To use a bylaw structure, format and wording more aligned to the Auckland Unitary Plan and current council drafting standards.

ensure rules are easier to understand and comply with, comply with current council bylaw drafting standards and to help future reviews of the Auckland Unitary Plan in relation to the most appropriate distribution of sign rules.

The proposal complies with statutory requirements

15.     The proposed new Bylaw and controls have been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements[8] to:

·    help manage the problems signs can cause in relation to nuisance, safety, misuse of public places, the Auckland transport system and environment

·    use a structure, format and wording that are easier to read, understand and comply with than the current bylaws about signs and meet council bylaw drafting standards

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

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

·    not be inconsistent with other Acts, regulations, and bylaws (refer footnote 2).

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

16.     Staff seek for the committee to recommend that the Governing Body adopt the attached Statement of Proposal containing the proposed new bylaw and controls for public consultation, including the further improvements identified during the drafting process. The further improvements are described in Appendix C of Attachment A as part of a high-level comparison between the proposed new and existing bylaws and controls about signs.

17.     Staff also seek for the committee to appoint three Auckland Council representatives to a joint Bylaw Panel with Auckland Transport. The Panel will attend ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body and the Board of Auckland Transport on public feedback to the proposal.

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

19.     If for any reason a joint bylaw is not able to progress, it is recommended that Auckland Council continue to progress a bylaw and associated controls for sign-related matters it is responsible for by 28 May 2022 to avoid a regulatory gap. This would include removal of all clauses that apply on the Auckland transport system for transport-related purposes and all clauses related to the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20.     There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report which recommends a draft bylaw for public engagement.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21.     The proposal impacts the operations of several council departments and council-controlled organisations. This includes Auckland Council’s Licencing and Regulatory Compliance Unit, Parks, Sports and Recreation Department, Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Transport.

22.     Relevant staff are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role, and the proposal is being developed jointly with Auckland Transport.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23.     The proposal impacts local governance, for example it regulates signs about community events and signs on local facilities and parks.

24.     Representative local board views were provided in April 2021 through a joint working group established by the Regulatory Committee and the Board of Auckland Transport.[9] Group members unanimously supported a new bylaw and controls that would be more aligned to the Auckland Unitary Plan and provided suggestions on the detailed content of the Bylaw.[10]

25.     The Regulatory Committee (REG/2021/20) and the Board of Auckland Transport (29/04/2021:18) considered these views in April 2021. The committee and board directed staff to draft a new bylaw and controls. Group suggestions on detailed content have been considered in preparing the draft proposal.

26.     Staff sought the views from local boards on the draft Statement of Proposal in July 2021. The proposal is supported in full by four local boards, 16 supported the proposal with suggested changes and one deferred a decision. A summary of these suggestions with staff responses and any changes made to the proposal are in Attachment B.

27.     Local boards will have further opportunity to provide their views on public feedback to the proposal formally by resolution to the Bylaw Panel in February and March 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28.     The proposal supports the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Auckland Plan 2050’s Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome and Schedule of Issues of Significance 2021 in terms of Rangatiratanga and Manaakitanga by:

·    supporting Māori who want to make their businesses uniquely identifiable and visible

·    enabling Māori to benefit from signs to promote and participate in community activities and events, share ideas and views, and engage in elections

·    protecting Māori and Tāmaki Makaurau’s built and natural environments from the potential harms that signs can cause

·    including opportunities for Māori to participate in decision-making processes.

29.     The proposal does not however require the use of te reo Māori on signs. While this is an issue of significance, there is no government legislation or council bylaw making powers to require use of te reo Māori. The council group does however adopt and implement policies to support the use of te reo Māori in council infrastructure, signs, communications, and publications.

30.     People identifying as Māori expressed views during the 2015 Signage Bylaw review. This feedback primarily identified ways to improve inappropriate signage standards. The proposal addresses those views by clarifying and updating standards.

31.     Staff will engage with mana whenua and mataawaka during the public consultative process to ensure Māori are able to provide their views on the proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

32.     There are no financial implications arising from decisions sought in this report. Costs associated with the special consultative procedure will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33.     The following risk has been identified in Table 2:

Table 2: Risks and mitigations

If...

Then...

Mitigation

The proposal does not reflect the views of the public or a COVID-19 outbreak prevents in-person public consultation.

There may be negative perception about the effectiveness of council’s consultation on the new Bylaw and associated controls, including during any disruption caused by COVID-19.

Public opportunity to provide feedback through a variety of engagement methods, including online, by phone, in-person and to an appointed Bylaw Panel.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34.     The Governing Body (in relation to the committee’s recommendation) and the Board of Auckland Transport (in relation to a separate report) will decide whether to independently adopt the proposal for public consultation in August 2021.

35.     The proposal will then be opened for public feedback which will be considered by the Bylaw Panel. A final decision will be independently made by the Auckland Council and the Board of Auckland Transport in April 2022 (refer to the diagram in Context).

36.     If the Board of Auckland Transport (when considering the Statement of Proposal, or at any time) decides not to proceed with a joint bylaw staff have made a recommendation that the Governing Body delegates authority to the Regulatory Committee chairperson and a manager responsible for bylaws to: 

·    remove clauses that apply on the Auckland transport system for transport-related purposes including the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013

·    change the membership of the Bylaw Panel to be an Auckland Council only panel.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Proposal to make a new signs bylaw and associated controls

127

b

Local board views on Statement of Proposal

269

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Victor Faletutulu - Graduate Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 17 August 2021

File No.: CP2021/11540

 

  

 

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 24 June 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: 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 17 August 2021.

 

Horopaki

Context

4.       As at 3 August 2021, there are 32 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 24 June 2021, there have been 16 new appeals lodged and one appeal resolved.

6.       Eight of the new appeals oppose the council’s decision to grant resource consents to Waste Management NZ Limited for the Dome Valley regional landfill facility at 1232 State Highway 1, Wayby Valley. The consents, including land use, discharge and water permits, are to establish the facility over a footprint of approximately 60 hectares, and with capacity to contain approximately 25.8 million m3 of municipal solid waste, and ancillary infrastructures. A separate private plan change (PC42) to create a new precinct for the regional landfill was heard at the same time but will be determined separately.

7.       The appeal from the applicant High Quality Limited is against council’s decision to refuse consent to operate a manufacturing activity assembling mobile cabins within a 1,505m2 shed on a rural lifestyle block. The activity proposed at 773 Great South Road Drury is located in the Future Urban Zone.

8.       Seven separate appeals are lodged against a decision of Auckland Council to grant regional resource consents to Watercare Services Ltd, to establish a replacement Huia Water Treatment Plant (“Huia WTP”) and reservoirs at a site in Woodlands Park Road and Manuka Road, Titirangi. The regional consents for earthworks, vegetation removal, stream works and managing contaminants in soil, are additional to the Outline Plan approvals of the physical structures that make up the WTP as the site is already designated for WTP purposes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9.       To receive the report as provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

10.     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

11.     Not applicable.

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

Local impacts and local board views

12.     Not applicable.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

13.     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.

14.     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

15.     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

16.     Not applicable.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

17.     Not applicable.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Current Resource Consent Appeals as at 3 August 2021

285

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robert Andrews - Principal Specialist Planning

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

Review of the Forward Work Programme - Regulatory Committee

File No.: CP2021/10425

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To review and note progress on the 2021 Regulatory Committee forward work programme appended as Attachment A.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The forward work programme for the Regulatory Committee was adopted by the committee at its meeting held on 1 September 2020.  It was agreed that the forward work programme would be reported for information and reviewed on a six-monthly basis.

3.       Due to the uncertainty of the meeting schedule during 2020, and the adoption of an Emergency Budget, the committee forward work programmes have not had a full review since originally being approved.

4.       The Governing Body has now adopted the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) and committee forward work programmes should reflect those decisions.

5.       All committees need to review their forward work programme, by the end of September, following the adoption to the budget each year. A further review needs to be carried out by the end of March each year.

6.       Following approval, all committee forward work programmes will be reported to the Governing Body in October and April each year, for oversight as per the Terms of Reference.

7.       To expedite the above process, it has been agreed to report the committee forward work programmes to the Governing Body at its meeting on 26 August 2021.

8.       The current forward work programme for the Regulatory Committee is appended as Attachment A.

9.       Specific amendments have been made since initial approval, as follows:

i)        reporting on the following items has been moved to the “completed” section of the document:

·    Gambling Policy Reviews

·    Navigation Safety Bylaw Review

·    Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw Review

·    The Regulatory Committee Policy

·    Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015

 

ii)       any new additions have been highlighted in red text

iii)      any deletions will be shown in strikethrough.

 

10.     Following the approval of the forward work programme, it will be reported to the Governing Body in October and April each year, for oversight as per the Terms of Reference.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      receive and review the progress on the 2021 forward work programme as appended in Attachment A.

b)      approve the forward work programme as agreed to at the meeting.

c)      review the work programme prior to the end of March 2022.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Forward Work Programme

299

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michelle Judge - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 August 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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Decision Report 11 May 2021

Link to decision

 

 

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boarding Houses Inspection

Licensing & Regulatory Compliance

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

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objection hearings under section 181 of the Local Government Act

The committee hears and determines objections to proposed stormwater works on private properties pursuant to section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002

Decision on whether the council can proceed with works on the public stormwater network on private land.

Hearings will be undertaken by the committee as the need arises.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Detailed Options report 20 April 2020

Link to decision

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Report 28 July 2020
Link to decision

Options Report 16 March 2021

Link to 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. 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

Decision report 11 May 2021

Link to decision

ü

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

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

 

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

Memo update: Hearings held April 2020 to March 2021

Link to memo

11 May 2021

Link to PowerPoint presentation

 

 

 

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

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 COVID-19 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 COVID-19 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

17 August 2021

 

Summary of Regulatory Committee Information - updates, memos and briefings - 17 August 2021

File No.: CP2021/09952

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memoranda or briefing papers that may have been held or been distributed to Regulatory Committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide public visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following memorandum has been distributed:

Date

Subject

8/7/21

Hearings held, hearing panels and hearing outcomes July 2020 - June 2021

 

4.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      receive the Summary of Regulatory Committee information memoranda and briefings – 17 August 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Memo - Hearings held, hearing panels and hearing outcomes July 2020 - June 2021 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michelle Judge - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

Objection to stormwater works at 9 Tawa Crescent, Manurewa

File No.: CP2021/10792

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To hear and determine an objection to proposed stormwater and wastewater works at 9 Tawa Crescent pursuant to section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       A developer has obtained approval from the council to connect a new development at 11 Tawa Crescent, Manurewa to the public stormwater and wastewater networks that are located on the neighbouring property at 9 Tawa Crescent.

3.       The proposed works involve the construction of a new six-metre wastewater pipe which will cross under the western boundary of 9 Tawa Crescent and a new twenty-eight-metre stormwater pipe under the driveway of 9 Tawa Crescent (see Attachment A – Engineering Planning Approval for both pipes).

4.       The landowner of 9 Tawa Crescent has refused the developer access to its property for this purpose. Council-led efforts to facilitate an agreement for access were unsuccessful.

5.       After undertaking a site inspection and considering the alternative options for the pipes, the council determined that the works constitute necessary public stormwater drainage and sewerage works. The council issued a notice under section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 informing the landowner of its intention to construct the works as a council project in January 2020 – see Attachment B.

6.       The landowner did not lodge an objection to the notice and the council informed the landowner in February 2020 that it would be proceeding with the works.

7.       Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the works were delayed for several months. In May 2021 the council notified the landowner and occupants that had arranged a works start date. When council contractors arrived at 9 Tawa Crescent the occupants refused to allow access.

8.       Following discussions with the occupants, the council issued a s.181(2) Local Government Act 2002 notice on the occupants of 9 Tawa Crescent on 11 June 2021 (see Attachment C). No objection was received. Further attempts to gain access to 9 Tawa Crescent have been refused by the occupants and landowner.

9.       Despite not receiving a formal objection to the works, Healthy Waters has requested that the occupants and landowner have an opportunity to present their grounds for objecting to the stormwater and wastewater works in a hearing before the Regulatory Committee.

10.     If the Regulatory Committee determines that the works should proceed, construction will begin in September 2021 (weather dependent). It is proposed that the pipes will be installed by both open trenching and directional drilling, and will take approximately seven days to complete.

11.     Once constructed, the wastewater pipe will be vested in Watercare Services Limited as a public wastewater asset and the stormwater pipe will be vested in the council as a public stormwater asset.

12.     It has been explained to the landowner that they have the right to claim injurious affection (if established) under the Public Works Act 1981.

13.     This report recommends that the Regulatory Committee endorse the proposed public stormwater and wastewater works at 9 Tawa Crescent to manage the stormwater and wastewater effects of the approved development at 11 Tawa Crescent.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      hear and determine the objections by the landowner and occupants of 9 Tawa Crescent according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

b)      resolve that the council will proceed with the extension of the public wastewater and stormwater networks from 9 Tawa Crescent to 11 Tawa Crescent (as shown in Attachment A to the agenda report), according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Horopaki

Context

14.     Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters department is responsible for managing and maintaining the public stormwater network in Auckland, much of which is located on private land. Watercare is responsible for managing Auckland’s public wastewater network.

15.     Section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 empowers the council to ‘construct works on or under private land or under a building on private land that it considers necessary for sewage and stormwater drainage’.

16.     Such works require either the prior written consent of the owner of the land, or that the council follows the process set out in Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

17.     Schedule 12 requires that affected owners and occupiers are provided with a description of the proposed works, including plans, and are given the opportunity to object to the works within one month of notification.

18.     If an objection is made, a hearing must be arranged. After hearing objections, the council must then determine to either abandon the works proposed, or proceed with the works proposed, with or without any alterations that the council thinks fit.

Enabling stormwater management on 11 Tawa Crescent

19.     A developer has been granted resource consent by Auckland Council’s regulatory department to subdivide a property at 11 Tawa Crescent. A condition of that resource consent is that the new development connects to the public stormwater and wastewater systems.

20.     The developer obtained engineering approval to connect its subdivision to the existing public stormwater manhole located in the driveway 9 Tawa Crescent, and to install a new wastewater manhole and connection on the existing public wastewater network located on western boundary of 9 Tawa Crescent (see Attachment A).

21.     To extend the public stormwater network it is proposed that 28-metre pipe will run under the driveway 9 Tawa Crescent property, along the fence line and connect into the existing manhole in the southern corner of the site. The pipe will be installed by directional drilling, however a drill pit will need to be dug in front of the stormwater manhole, which will be reinstated at the end of the project.

22.     The wastewater pipe will connect into the existing wastewater line which runs down the boundary of 11 and 9 Tawa Crescent. This connection will require a new manhole. The existing wastewater pipe will be exposed and cut, and then the new manhole will be placed over it. After that, the new wastewater pipe will be laid between the new manhole and the boundary with 11 Tawa Crescent. The trench and area around the new manhole will be backfilled and the lawn will be reinstated.

23.     The expected duration to carry out the work is seven days.

24.     The new stormwater pipe will be vested in Auckland Council as a public stormwater asset to be owned and maintained Healthy Waters once it is connected to the stormwater network. The new wastewater pipe and manhole will be vested in Watercare as public wastewater assets to be owned and maintained Watercare.

Objections received from landowners at 9 Tawa Crescent

25.     The landowner of 9 Tawa Crescent has refused to allow the developer to connect to the stormwater network via its property. The developer applied to the council to provide facilitation services to help reach an agreement with the landowner.

26.     Facilitation services commenced in September 2019, however, no agreement was reached. The council then analysed the developer’s works (as detailed below) and determined that the works are necessary public works, and that it would undertake the works itself as a council project under the powers of the Local Government Act 2002. This enables public works to be undertaken on private land without the owner’s consent, provided the requirements of the Act are met.

27.     The council issued a notice of its intention to construct the works to the landowner under section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 on 16 January 2020.

28.     Pursuant to schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, the landowner had until 17 February 2020 to formally object to the section 181 notice. No objection was received and on 20 February 2020 the council notified the landowner that it was proceeding with the works.

29.     As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic the project was delayed for a number of months. Once the project was due to re-start the council notified the landowner and occupants of the impending start date. Throughout this time period the council sent to the occupants various notifications detailing the impending start date for the works (see Attachment D – correspondence log).

30.     On 28 May 2021 the council contractor attempted to gain access to 9 Tawa Crescent, however the occupants refused access. After engaging with the occupants, on 11 June 2021 the council issued a further s.181 Local Government Act 2002 notice on the occupants and requested that if they wished to object to the works that they lodge a formal objection.

31.     Pursuant to schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, the occupants had until 12 July 2021 to formally object to the section 181 notice. No objection was received and on 15 July 2021 the council notified the landowner and occupants that it was proceeding with the works.

32.     On 19 July 2021 the council contractor attempted to access 9 Tawa Crescent to undertake surveying work, but was refused entry by the occupants. Despite not receiving a formal objection in writing, Healthy Waters has requested that this matter be heard before the Regulatory Committee and have notified the landowner and the occupants that they have an opportunity to present their case for objecting to the works in this forum.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

33.     The council is empowered to construct works on private land that it considers necessary for sewage and stormwater drainage. When determining the best solution for constructing new public infrastructure, the council looks at a range of possible options to achieve the required outcomes for the public good, and at the same time, to carefully balance any impacts on individual property owners.

Options for stormwater

34.     The council analysed three alternative alignments for connecting the development at 11 Tawa Crescent to the public stormwater system (see Attachment E).

35.     These options were:

·        option one: extending the public network from 9 Tawa Crescent (recommended option)

·        option two: extending the public network from 1/7 and 9 Tawa Crescent

·        option three: extending the public network from the road.

36.     The three options were analysed against relevant criteria as shown below in Table 1.         

Table 1. Analysis of stormwater alignment options against various criteria

 

Option 1

Extend from 9 Tawa Cres

Option 2

Extend across 1/7 and 9 Tawa Cres

Option 3

Extend to road

Significance

Affected property owners

1

2

0

Low

Interference with existing services

None

None

None

Medium

Disruption to property owners

Minor

Medium

Minor

High

Cost

$$

$$$

Additional manhole required

$$$

Medium

Construction risk

Low

Medium – close to existing structures on 1/7 Tawa Crescent

Medium – pump to be installed

High

Route to existing stormwater network

Most direct

28.2 m

Less direct

29 m

Least direct

50 m

Medium

Duplication of existing stormwater infrastructure

0%

0%

0%

 Medium

Access for future maintenance

Good

Good

Good

Low

Ability for third-party properties to connect to proposed infrastructure

Good

Good

Good

Low

Impact on future development

None

None

None

Medium

Stormwater solution achieved

Yes

Partially, connection on 1/7 is to a smaller capacity pipe

Temporary only – pumping not sustainable long term

High

Compliance with Stormwater Code of Practice

Yes

Yes

No – depending on pumping, gravity solution available

High

Key

 

 

 

 

Most positive

Moderately positive

Moderately negative

Most negative

Analysing options for stormwater management on 11 Tawa Crescent

37.     Option two is not the preferred option as it would involve connecting to a 150-diameter stormwater pipe, which is smaller than the proposed pipe size and therefore will not have the capacity to serve the wide catchment. The proximity of the existing dwelling to the proposed location of the new manhole presents a higher construction risk. The stormwater code of practice requires one-meter clearance from the outside of the manhole to any structure which may not be able to be achieved.

38.     Option three is not the preferred option as this would be going against the natural topography of the land which falls away from the road. This option would require pumping stormwater uphill. The Stormwater Code of Practice does not support pumping in this manner as it increases the risk of flooding and requires on-going maintenance.

39.     The council also considered a fourth option – do nothing. This would involve the council walking away from the situation and leaving the developer to continue to negotiate with the owner. This option is not supported, as it means the developer is likely to pursue either options two or three. As described above, these options would mean the council inherits surplus stormwater infrastructure which it has to maintain as part of the public network which does not comply with the Stormwater Code of Practice. It also increases the likelihood of 11 Tawa Crescent discharging stormwater in contravention of its resource consent.

40.     As demonstrated by the weightings set out in Table 1 above, option one is the preferred option for the following reasons:

·        the location of the connection is the most direct route to the existing stormwater network and the connection can be made into an existing manhole

·        the route does not interfere with any existing services

·        the location of the works does not affect any existing structures on the landowner’s property, resulting in minimal disturbance

·        the land proposed to be crossed is a driveway and not land that could be developed for housing or other structures

·        the pipe route is the most logical and direct to reach the connection point

·        the route does not duplicate existing stormwater infrastructure.

Options for wastewater management for 11 Tawa Crescent

41.     The council analysed two alternative alignments for connecting the development at 11 Tawa Crescent to the public wastewater system (see Attachment F).

42.     These options were:

·        option one: extending the public network from 9 Tawa Crescent (recommended option)

·        option two: extending the public network from 13 Tawa Crescent.

 

43.     The two options were analysed against relevant criteria as shown below in Table 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Analysis of wastewater alignment options against various criteria

 

Option 1

Extend from 9 Tawa

Option 2

Extend from 13 Tawa

Significance

Affected property owners

1

1

Low

Interference with existing services

None

None

Medium

Disruption to property owners

Minor

Medium

High

Cost

$$

$$$

Medium

Route to existing wastewater network

Most direct

 

Least direct

 

Medium

Duplication of existing wastewater infrastructure

0%

100%

 Medium

Compliance with Watercare Code of Practice

Yes

No – more direct route to network is available

High

Most positive

Moderately positive

Moderately negative

Most negative

Key

Analysing options for wastewater management on 11 Tawa Crescent

44.     Option two is not preferred as this alignment would involve a significantly longer length pipe and would duplicate existing wastewater infrastructure. This option is also in contravention of Watercare’s code of practice as there is a more direct route to the system available.

45.     Option one is the preferred option for wastewater due to the location of the connection being the most direct route to the existing network. The length of pipe will not affect any structures and will not limit the landowner from developing their property.

Negotiating with the landowners

46.     Negotiations with the landowner have been ongoing since early 2019. Initially negotiations were held directly between the developer and the landowner, with the council becoming involved from September 2019 onwards.

47.     The council has attempted to engage with the landowner to offer advice on the proposed works and broker an agreement but throughout this process has had no response from the landowner until access was attempted to undertake the works. 

48.     While no formal objection has been submitted by either the landowner or the occupants, Attachment G shows the emails and text messages received from both parties refusing access to the site.

Recommended drainage management options

49.     Staff recommend that construction of the proposed stormwater and wastewater works proceed at 9 Tawa Crescent in accordance with the preferred alignments for each pipe as detailed in this report.

50.     The works are necessary to enable development at 11 Tawa Crescent and to meet the council’s and Watercare’s stormwater and wastewater standards. Works are expected to take up to seven days to complete, and staff will work with the landowners to ensure minimal disruption occurs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

51.     Auckland Council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan on 21 July 2020. Some of the key elements of the plan include how we will adapt to climate change, taking a precautionary approach and preparing for our current emissions pathway and the prospect of a 3.5 degrees warmer region.

52.     One of the expected consequences of rising global temperatures is increased and more intense rainfall. To contribute to increasing Auckland’s resilience to climate change, the Auckland Council Stormwater Code of Practice requires all new infrastructure to be designed to deal with these expected impacts and severe weather events.

53.     The proposed pipe has been designed to cater for 10 per cent annual exceedance probability (1 in 10-year average recurrence interval) storm events, including allowance for climate change. This has the effect of making the network more resilient to storm events and reducing the likelihood of flooding of properties.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

54.     Auckland Transport assets will not be impacted by the proposed works if option one for both stormwater and wastewater is undertaken. Watercare has approved option one and granted it engineering planning approval – see Attachment A.

55.     Once constructed, the stormwater pipe will be vested in the council as a public stormwater asset and the wastewater pipe and manhole will be vested in Watercare Services Limited as public wastewater assets.

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

Local impacts and local board views

56.     The Manurewa Local Board has not been consulted on the proposed works, as the works will be constructed on private land and vested as regional stormwater and wastewater assets.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

57.     The developer has not consulted local iwi on the proposed stormwater works outlined in this report.

58.     Council staff notified iwi representatives of the proposed project through Healthy Water’s monthly email of all active Healthy Waters projects. Iwi representatives were asked to signal whether they would like to be engaged on this project, however, no feedback has been received from iwi to date.

59.     Improved water quality for Tāmaki Makaurau is a priority for mana whenua. The recommended option will contribute to a better functioning stormwater management system, reducing the impact of the development on water quality.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

60.     The recommended option is the most cost effective for the council, as it involves the shortest and most direct pipe alignments. If approved, the pipes will be constructed by the council, with costs of the works to be paid for by the developer upfront. 

61.     The council will be responsible for any proven injurious affection to private land pursuant to section 181(6) of the Local Government Act 2002, and the Public Works Act 1981. The likelihood of an injurious affection claim being brought is considered low.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62.     Staff have undertaken a systematic risk assessment. Key risks and proposed mitigations relating to the endorsement of option one are shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Risks and mitigations arising from option one: crossing land at 9 Tawa Crescent

Risk

Likelihood and consequence

Mitigation

Legal risk – Objectors argue that this is in fact a private pipe and the council ought to use section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 instead of section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Medium

The stormwater pipe will be vested in the council and the wastewater pipe in Watercare once constructed and will form part of the public stormwater and wastewater systems which the council and Watercare are responsible for maintaining. It is being built to the council’s standards for public infrastructure and will serve a wider catchment as the area develops further.

Financial risk – If the landowner appeals the Regulatory Committee’s decision, the council may become liable for the cost of defending a District Court case.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Low

Given that the Regulatory Committee and District Court’s decision-making discretion is limited only to questions of the works being necessary and compliance with legal process, and not matters of compensation, it is considered unlikely that an appeal would be brought. Even if it was, the risk of the council losing on appeal is considered low, due to the works being necessary, and the section 181 process being followed correctly.

If the landowner is unsuccessful in any legal challenge, they may be liable to pay court costs.

The Landowner could seek injurious affection (if evidenced) through the Land Valuation Tribunal, arguing that the public works have reduced the value of their property.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Low

The potential for an injurious affection claim is considered low in this case for the following reasons:

·    the proposed pipe does not involve the taking of any land

·    the area affected by the works is a concrete driveway. The residential home on 9 Tawa Crescent is far enough from the works that it is extremely unlikely that they would be impacted

·    the council will re-instate the land to the condition it was in prior to the works commencing.

If the landowner is unsuccessful, they will be liable to pay court costs.

Infrastructure risk - Low quality assets being vested to the council.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Low

The works will be undertaken by an approved council contractor who will have in place sufficient insurances to cover the risk of failure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

63.     If the Regulatory Committee determines to proceed with the project (under Schedule 12 clause 1(e)(ii)), the next step will be to notify the landowner and occupants in writing of the council’s intention to proceed with the works. The work is proposed to be undertaken in September 2021.

64.     The landowner and the occupants have up to 14 days to lodge a further appeal to the District Court. If this occurs, then the council’s Legal Services team will support this process. If no appeal is lodged, the council would look to proceed with the works in September 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Engineering planning approval for stormwater and wastewater

319

b

s.181 Local Government Act notice served on the landowner

323

c

s.181 Local Government Act notice served on the occupants

331

d

Correspondence log

339

e

Map showing alternative stormwater alignments considered

341

f

Map showing alternative wastewater alignments considered

343

g

Emails and text messages refusing access

345

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Leigh Steckler – Senior Commercial Negotiator

Haydn Ellis – Healthy Waters Specialist

Authorisers

Shaun McAuley – Commercial Partnerships Team Leader

Craig Mcilroy – General Manager Healthy Waters

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 





Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator







Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator







Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

17 August 2021

 

PDF Creator 

 



[1] Requirement of Local Government Act 2002, s158.

[2] Local Government Act 2002, s83, 83AA, 86, 155, 156, 160(3) and Auckland Council Governing Body Terms of Reference (GB/2016/237).

[3] 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).

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

[5]    For example, local parks, reserves and civic spaces.

[6] Resource Management Act, Auckland Unitary Plan, Auckland Council District Plan – Hauraki Gulf Islands Section, Electoral Act, Local Electoral Act, Electoral (Advertisements of a Specified Kind) Regulations, Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices, New Zealand Transport Agency (Signs on State Highways) Bylaw, New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority codes, Human Rights Act, Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw and Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw.

 

[8] See Local Government Act 2002, s83, 83AA, 86, 155, 156, 160(3) and Auckland Council Governing Body Terms of Reference   (GB/2016/237).

[9] Local board representatives were Margi Watson (Albert-Eden Local Board) and Mike Turinsky (Howick Local Board).

[10] Suggestions included: retaining the current size of signs advertising commercial sexual services in non-residential areas as there is insufficient evidence to justify a change; requiring council event signs to meet the Bylaw’s standards; clarifying requirements for landowner approval and the definition of community event; clarifying how election signs are regulated between parliamentary and local elections, and within and outside of the election period.