I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory and Safety Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Tuesday, 8 October 2024 9.00am Room 1, Level
26 |
Te Komiti mō te Waeture me te Haumaru / Regulatory and Safety Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Cr Josephine Bartley |
|
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Cr Lotu Fuli |
|
Members |
Houkura Member Edward Ashby |
|
|
Houkura Member Ngarimu Blair |
|
|
Cr Julie Fairey |
|
|
Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM |
|
|
Cr Mike Lee |
|
|
Cr Kerrin Leoni |
|
|
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM |
|
Ex-officio |
Mayor Wayne Brown |
|
|
Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP |
|
(Quorum 5 members)
|
|
Phoebe Chiquet-Kaan Governance Advisor
2 October 2024
Contact Telephone: 0274069656 Email: phoebe.chiquet-kaan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Regulatory and Safety Committee 08 October 2024 |
|
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies 5
2 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest 5
3 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes 5
4 Ngā Petihana | Petitions 5
5 Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input 5
5.1 Public Input: Auckland Indian Retailers Association - Rising Crime on Retailers in the Indian Community 5
5.2 Public Input: Josephine Sasa - Training and Education on Health and Hygiene Standards for Traditional Tāga Tatau / Traditional Tattooing 6
5.3 Public Input: Heart of the City and City Centre Residents Group - City Centre Safety 7
6 Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input 7
7 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business 7
8 Police priorities, activities, and issues across Tāmaki Makaurau 9
9 Findings from a review of Council's Health and Hygiene Code 11
10 Retrospective approval of Auckland Council’s Smokefree Submission 21
11 Animal Management Annual Report 2023-2024 23
12 Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 8 October 2024 31
13 Summary of Regulatory and Safety Committee information memoranda, workshops, and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 8 October 2024 35
14 Determination of an Objection to a Nuisance Abatement Notice by Renee Wipiiti 37
15 Proposed joint traffic-related bylaw for Auckland 43
16 Te Whakaaro ki ngā Take Pūtea e Autaia ana | Consideration of Extraordinary Items
1 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies
Accept the apology from Cr S Stewart for absence.
2 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest
3 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes
Click the meeting date below to access the minutes.
That the Regulatory and Safety Committee: a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 13 August 2024, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record. |
4 Ngā Petihana | Petitions
5 Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input
6 Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input
7 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business
Regulatory and Safety Committee 08 October 2024 |
|
Police priorities, activities, and issues across Tāmaki Makaurau
File No.: CP2024/13978
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To provide the Regulatory and Safety Committee with an overview of key NZ Police priorities, activities and issues across Tāmaki Makaurau.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. NZ Police Superintendent Scott Gemmell, Director Tāmaki Makaurau Partnerships; and Area Commander Grant Tetzlaff, Auckland Central, will attend to present to the committee on NZ Police priorities, activities and issues across Tāmaki Makaurau.
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:
a) whakamihi / thank NZ Police Superintendent Scott Gemmell and Inspector Grant Tetzlaff for their attendance.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Phoebe Chiquet-Kaan - Governance Advisor |
Authoriser |
Rachel Kelleher - Director Community |
Regulatory and Safety Committee 08 October 2024 |
|
Findings from a review of Council's Health and Hygiene Code
File No.: CP2024/13338
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To endorse the findings from a review of Auckland Council’s Health and Hygiene Code of Practice, initiate a statutory bylaw review and to request an options report.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Staff have prepared a findings report (Attachment A) to enable the Regulatory and Safety Committee to review Auckland Council’s Tikanga ā-Mahi Whakamaru Hauora 2013 | Health and Hygiene Code of Practice 2013 (Code).
3. The review started with the Code, but later expanded as issues were identified relevant to the Auckland Council Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakamaru Hauora 2013 | Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw). Key findings from the review include the following.
· The Bylaw and Code seek to minimise harms from health, appearance, wellbeing, cosmetic and beauty services (health and beauty services) in Auckland within a wider regulatory and strategic framework.
· Improvements to the Code should be made to address parts that are outdated, confusing or difficult to enforce. For example, updating technical standards superseded since the Code was made, clarifying where the Code is recommending best practice as opposed to setting standards, and addressing issues related to qualifications and competency as it is extremely difficult to verify whether they are real and appropriate.
· Improvements have also been suggested to the Bylaw. For example, to regulate new services not currently covered (for example fat freezing) and to remove colon hydrotherapy and acupuncture (for example there have been no ACC claims for colon hydrotherapy since 2008 and central government now regulates acupuncture).
4. Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings, initiate a statutory bylaw review and request an options report to respond to the findings and statutory review. Taking this approach will enable the consideration of statutory options to improve the whole regulatory framework, including improvements to the Bylaw, the Code, or both for some or all services.
5. There are moderate risks associated with the review process and targeted engagement to date. These risks can be mitigated by communicating that appropriate public feedback will be sought on any proposed changes to the Bylaw or Code and that there are manageable impacts from starting a statutory bylaw review (for example to costs or wider bylaw review programme).
6. If approved, staff will prepare a statutory bylaw review findings report and develop options in response to the findings and statutory review for the committee’s consideration in late 2024.
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:
a) ohia / endorse the findings in the ‘2024 Review Findings Report: Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Code 2014’ in Attachment A of this agenda report.
b) whakatuu / approve the start of the statutory review of the Auckland Council Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakamaru Hauora 2013 | Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 in accordance with the scope and timeframes outlined in the agenda report.
c) tono / request that staff, as delegated by the Chief Executive, prepare a report to complete the statutory bylaw review and develop options in response to both findings and statutory review.
Horopaki
Context
The Bylaw and Code seek to minimise the risk of physical harm to Aucklanders
7. The Governing Body on 27 June 2013 (GB/2013/66)[1] made the Auckland Council Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakamaru Hauora 2013 | Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw) and Tikanga ā-Mahi Whakamaru Hauora 2013 | Health and Hygiene Code of Practice 2013 (Code).
8. The Bylaw and Code seek to minimise the risk of physical harm to consumers and service providers from poor practices associated with health, appearance, wellbeing, cosmetic, swimming pool, and beauty services (health and beauty services) in Auckland.
9. The Bylaw’s main functions are to classify four types of services[2], require operators of certain services to be licenced, enable the council to make a separate Code of Practice, and require operators of certain services to meet the Code’s minimum standards (for example using sterilised equipment and obtaining consent from the consumer) (see Figure 1, below).
Figure 1: Main functions of the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013
10. The Regulatory and Community Safety Committee have authority to make the Code, and council’s Licensing and Environmental Health (LEH) Unit administer and enforce the Bylaw and Code.
11. The Bylaw and Code form part of a wider regulatory and strategic framework. This includes legislation, industry standards, council strategies and bylaws, and operational guidelines.
12. This framework means services with the potential to cause public health harms of national significance are regulated by central government (for example sun-beds) while services with potential lower-level harms are regulated at a local level (for example tattooing) or not at all (for example sleep pods).
Figure 2: Regulatory and strategic framework
The review started with the Code, but was later expanded to include the Bylaw
13. The then Regulatory Committee initiated the first review of the Code in 2022 (REG/2022/9). The Code review identified issues also relevant to the Bylaw. Staff expanded the review to include the Bylaw to enable the committee to decide whether to initiate an early statutory Bylaw review and to consider options to improve the whole regulatory framework.
14. Staff carried out research and engagement to complete the findings report in Attachment A, including:
· interviews, inspection ‘ride-alongs’, surveys, email input, phone calls and a workshop with relevant council units, stakeholders in the health and beauty industry including business operators and representative organisations, a traditional tools tattooist, Auckland’s public health service, and government agencies
· notification to 27 marae seeking views on how the tā moko exemption was working in practice and on the Code’s standards for traditional tools tattooing
· environmental scans of how comparable councils regulate health and beauty services
· data analysis of council complaints and licensing, Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) claims data, incident data from WorkSafe and the Health and Disability Commissioner.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Health and beauty services continue to create a risk of physical harm
15. Health and beauty services can cause physical harm to consumers and service providers from poor practices. Harms include Hepatitis B from tattooing, laser treatment burns and legionellosis from swimming pools. Poor practices include unsafe use of equipment, unhygienic cleaning of premises or sterilisation of equipment and not obtaining informed consent.
16. Available ACC data suggest harms in Auckland are towards the lower end of the scale[3]. For example, while manicure and pedicure services occur with a high frequency (50 ACC claims in 2023), most physical harms have a low impact (punctures, stings, minor infections or burns). High impact chemical burns are extremely rare (one ACC claim between 2014 and 2023).
17. However, there are significant limitations with the available data. For example, incidents may be unreported and ACC data does not capture HIV, skin cancer or legionnaires’ disease.
18. See Chapter 5 of Attachment A for more discussion of the problem.
The Bylaw and Code can help address the problems, but there are challenges
19. The Bylaw and Code seek to help minimise physical harm from health and beauty services (the objective). The Bylaw helps by requiring higher-risk services to be licenced. The Code helps by prescribing minimum standards that set clear and enforceable expectations on how health and beauty services are to operate.
20. There is evidence that the Bylaw and Code help achieve the objective.
· Operators of nearly all service types appear to be highly aware of the Code.
· In 2023/24, LEH corrected 733 non-compliance issues from 564 operators using the Code.
· Operators, industry associations and central government agencies support the Bylaw and Code as no other agency keeps an eye on harms not addressed at a national level.
21. However, there are challenges.
· It is difficult for any single regulator to maintain an up-to-date Code and have the required expertise to inspect all operators due to the wide variety of existing and new treatments, risk levels, technology, and required levels of operator experience.
· Consumers appear to have a low awareness of the Code. This may lead to under-reporting of problems and the inability of council to support operators.
· The number of unlicensed operators and the amount of harm they cause is unknown.
· It is extremely difficult for council to verify whether an operator’s qualifications are real and have given the operator appropriate skills to provide a service safely and hygienically.
22. See Chapter 7 for more discussion of how the Bylaw and Code can help.
Suggested improvements to the Bylaw and Code have been identified for investigation
23. The Bylaw and Code are currently not fit for purpose. Parts of the Bylaw and Code are outdated, while parts of the Code are confusing or difficult to enforce.
24. Improvements to be considered, include to:
· address issues related to qualifications and competency (for example deciding if it is council’s role to verify whether an operator’s qualifications are real and appropriate)
· update Australian / New Zealand technical standards that have been superseded since the Code was made
· resolve any contradictions, duplications in the Code (for example standardising rules for hand washing and gloves, in Standards 3(10) and 3(38) of the Code)
· remove colon hydrotherapy as there have been no ACC claims for colon hydrotherapy since 2008
· remove acupuncture as it is now regulated by central government legislation
· update the Bylaw to include standards for new services not currently covered (for example fat freezing, needle-free dermal fillers such as phinjections, and vampire facials)
· make the contents of the Code more certain and easier to understand and use (for example by using diagrams and more readable explanations, and clarifying where the Code is recommending best practice as opposed to requiring standards).
25. See Chapter 9 of Attachment A for a full list of suggested Bylaw and Code improvements.
There are two options to respond to the findings to improve the Bylaw and Code
26. Staff have identified two options in response to the findings that suggest improvements to the Bylaw and Code.
· Option 1: Amend Code only, in accordance with the initial mandate from the committee
· Option 2: Initiate an early statutory Bylaw review, to amend both Bylaw and Code.
27. Staff carried out a comparative assessment of the two options against criteria (see Table 1 below). This included a description of each option, how it would be implemented and its effectiveness, efficiency, validity and risks to help minimise physical harm from health and beauty services.
Table 1: Comparative assessment of options
Option description |
|
Option 1: Amend Code only · Amend Code to implement improvements identified in Chapter 9 of Attachment A, including: o updating technical standards (for example Australian / New Zealand standards that have been superseded since the Code was made) o making the Code easier to understand and use (for example by clarifying the difference between required standards and recommended best practice) o clarifying the amount of qualification and competency verification it is appropriate for council to conduct o correcting errors and inconsistencies.
|
Option 2: Initiate early statutory Bylaw review (recommended) · Consider options to confirm, amend, replace, revoke either the Bylaw or Code. · If retained, this would enable: o removing already-identified services that are either not causing harms at a level requiring regulation or that are regulated by central government (for example acupuncture). o adding standards for currently-unregulated services and new services not covered by the Bylaw’s current general service categories (for example fat freezing, vampire facials, phinjections (a needle-free dermal filler)) o Code improvements in Option 1. |
.
Option implementation |
|
Option 1: Amend Code only Administration · Regulatory and Safety Committee decide on any Code amendments
Process · Use statutory decision process to amend Code. · Committee request options report and proposal to implement recommended option (Oct 2024) · Committee adopt proposal and appoint Panel in early 2025 · Public consultation using Local Government Act 2002 (LGA02) Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) by mid-2025 · Views from interested local board on public feedback to proposal sought in mid-2025 · Panel deliberates on public feedback and make recommendations to committee · Committee adopt Panel recommendations and amended Code by late 2025. · Staff notify decision, publish amended Code, update public information and internal practices in late 2025 · LEH administer and enforce Bylaw and amended Code using modern regulator approach to compliance within existing budgets (refer to Chapter 4.2 of the Findings Report). |
Option 2: Initiate early statutory Bylaw review Administration · Regulatory and Safety Committee determine statutory Bylaw review and recommend Bylaw and Code amendments (if any) · Governing Body decide on Bylaw and Code amendments (if any) Process · Use a statutory decision process. · Committee initiate early statutory Bylaw review and request options report · Committee complete Bylaw review, decide preferred option and request proposal (if any) in late 2024 · Committee recommend Governing Body adopt proposal and appoint Panel in early 2025 · Public consultation using Local Government Act 2002 (LGA02) Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) by mid 2025 · Views from interested local board on public feedback to proposal sought in mid-2025 · Panel deliberates on public feedback and make recommendations to Governing Body · Governing Body adopt Panel recommendations and updated Bylaw and Code by late 2025. · Staff notify decision, publish updated Bylaw and Code, update public information and internal practices in late 2025 · LEH administer and enforce Bylaw and amended Code using modern regulator approach to compliance within existing budgets (refer to Chapter 4.2 of the Findings Report). |
..
Option assessment |
|
Option 1: Amend Code only Effectiveness ü Updates the standards to reflect current technical requirements and best practice. ü Makes the Code easier for operators and consumers to understand. ü Makes the Code easier for council to enforce. û Does not allow for consideration of removal of services that are causing lower-level harms, that central government now regulates or are inappropriate to regulate. û Does not allow consideration to regulate new potentially harmful services. Efficiency û Less efficient than Option 2 in the long-term û Does not take the opportunity to consider improvements to the Bylaw as a single process. Delays consideration of Bylaw improvements to 2028 using another review process and special consultative procedure. ü More efficient in the short-term, but not significantly so. Process may take up to three months less than Option 2 with costs. ü |
Option 2: Initiate early statutory Bylaw review Effectiveness ü More effective than Option 1. ü Enables all the effectiveness benefits of Option 1 (if the Code is retained), and ü Enables consideration of whether the Bylaw is still needed and fit for purpose, or whether improvements are needed to add or remove services for licensing or Code compliance requirements.
Efficiency ü More efficient than Option 1 in the long-term. ü Timely consideration of suggested improvements in a single process (as opposed to consulting on only the Code in 2025 and then Bylaw in 2028) ü An early Bylaw review extends the next review deadline until 2034 (currently 2028). û Less efficient than Option 1 in the short-term, but not significantly so. Process may take an extra 3 months to complete, but costs remain within existing budgets. |
Validity ü Code is authorised by the Bylaw · Any amendments will be assessed to ensure they are authorized, do not directly or indirectly conflict with any other New Zealand legislation, not unreasonable and do not give rise to any implications or inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Risks and risk mitigation · IF stakeholders or the
public are concerned about the review process or suggested improvements THEN council may be
perceived to be unresponsive to their views |
Validity ü Similar to Option 1, Bylaw and Code are authorised and any changes will be similarly assessed to ensure they are valid.
Risks and risk mitigation · Same as Option 1, and · IF the public or
stakeholders for this or other bylaws or public are concerned about
initiating an early bylaw review THEN there may be negative perceptions of
council’s efficient use of finite time and resources |
Staff recommend the committee endorse the findings, initiate a statutory bylaw review and request an options report
28. This report identifies suggested improvements to the Code and Bylaw for investigation.
29. Staff recommend that the committee endorse the findings report, initiate a statutory bylaw review and request options in response to both the findings and statutory review.
30. Taking this approach will enable staff to use the findings report and statutory bylaw review to help the committee consider statutory options to improve the whole regulatory framework.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
31. The Bylaw and Code do not directly address the climate change goals in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan and this decision has no specific climate impact. For example, the Bylaw and Code focus on ensuring that health and beauty services are provided in ways that minimise the risk of physical harm to consumers and service providers, rather than regulating the environmental impact of the equipment and processes used to provide these services.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
32. The Bylaw and Code are administered by the Licensing and Environmental Health Unit and impact the role of other council units such as the Building Consents team. Relevant units have provided feedback to the review and suggested improvements.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
33. The Bylaw and Code have no impact on local governance and generally low community interest. There is, however, specific interest in some local board areas in relation to culturally significant tattooing with traditional tools among Pasifika communities[4].
34. Based on the agreed principles and processes in the Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, views will be sought from local boards on public feedback to any proposal to a Bylaw Panel.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
35. The Bylaw and Code support wairuatanga (spirituality and identity), kaitiakitanga (guardianship) and whanaungatanga (relationships) in Houkura | the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Schedule of Issues of Significance by providing regulation that supports promoting a sense of identity, uniqueness and belonging, and that ensures Māori cultural wellbeing is future-proofed.
36. The Bylaw exempts non-commercial tā moko given under authority of an Auckland marae and given in accordance with tikanga Māori. This recognises the status of tā moko as a taonga under te Tiriti o Waitangi.
37. Staff notified 27 marae seeking views on how the tā moko exemption was working in practice and on the Code’s standards for traditional tools tattooing. No feedback was received.
38. Staff will engage with mana whenua and mataawaka on any proposal through the public consultative process.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
39. The cost of developing the options report will be met within existing budgets. The financial implications of any options will be addressed in the options report.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
40. The following risks have been identified:
If... |
Then... |
Mitigation |
Stakeholders or the public are concerned about the review process or suggested improvements, including questions around the effectiveness of the Bylaw. |
Council may be perceived to be unresponsive to their views or not fulfilling its statutory role to promote and protect public health (low reputational risk). |
Communication of future opportunity for stakeholder and public feedback on any proposed changes. |
Stakeholders for other bylaws or the public are concerned about initiating an early bylaw review. |
There may be a negative perception of the council about the time, resource and cost of a bylaw review and impact on council’s wider bylaw review programme (low reputational risk). |
Communication that there is little impact on council resource or wider programme because the Bylaw provides a simple framework that enables the adoption of the Code, any changes to the Code alone would have followed a similar public consultative process to a bylaw review and because the next Bylaw review date would be extended to 2034. |
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
41. If endorsed, staff will prepare a report in response to the findings report that completes a statutory bylaw review and develops options for the committee’s consideration in late 2024.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
2024 Review Findings Report: Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Code 2014 |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Steve Hickey - Senior Policy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager Louise Mason - General Manager Policy Rachel Kelleher - Director Community |
Regulatory and Safety Committee 08 October 2024 |
|
Retrospective approval of Auckland Council’s Smokefree Submission
File No.: CP2024/14719
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To retrospectively approve Auckland Council’s submission on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2).
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The government is seeking to strengthen the regulatory framework for vaping to curb the concerning rates of youth vaping and better protect young people.
3. The Bill amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 by:
· banning the manufacture, sale, supply, and distribution of disposable vapes
· increasing penalties for unlawful sales of regulated products to minors
· imposing retail visibility restrictions for vaping products
· including early childhood education centres in proximity restrictions for specialist vape retailers.
4. An Auckland Council submission (refer Attachment B) on the Bill was lodged with the Health Select Committee on 27 September 2024. The submission was approved jointly by the Chair and Deputy Chair of Council’s Regulatory and Safety Committee.
5. The draft submission was circulated for feedback to members of the then Regulatory and Community Safety Committee, Houkura and the Youth Advisory Panel.
6. The council supported all amendments proposed in the Bill. Council also recommended education, stronger enforcement, and several additional measures as part of a comprehensive, evidence-based strategy to reduce youth vaping.
7. The submission recognised that vaping is an important smoking cessation tool. It therefore supported the objective of reducing youth vaping while ensuring that we do not create unnecessary barriers for individuals who smoke to access vapes.
8. Overall, the council submission endorsed the passage of the Bill.
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Auckland Council's Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) Submissions |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
Ben Brooks - Senior Policy Manager Morgan Brown-Sharpe - Policy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason - General Manager Policy Lou-Ann Ballantyne - Acting Director Policy, Planning and Governance Rachel Kelleher - Director Community |
Regulatory and Safety Committee 08 October 2024 |
|
Animal Management Annual Report 2023-2024
File No.: CP2024/13971
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. This is the Auckland Council Animal Management annual report on dog control activities during the period of 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, as required by section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires each territorial authority to report on its dog control policy and practices, including specific statistical information on:
· number of registered dogs
· number of probationary and disqualified owners
· number of dogs classified as high-risk (dangerous and menacing under the Dog Control Act 1996)
· the number of complaints and infringement notices
· the number of prosecutions under the Dog Control Act 1996.
3. This report acts as a medium to meet this statutory requirement.
4. The statutory required statistical information in this report is summarised below:
· the known dog population in Auckland has increased to 135,546 dogs, with only 113,343 dogs registered by the end of June 2024 (83.6 per cent).
· there are 6438 dogs classified as menacing and 13 dogs classified as dangerous, with the number of reported dog attacks reaching 2846.
· there were 109 new prosecutions this year for serious breaches of the Dog Control Act 1996, with 8 appeals filed in higher courts.
· there were 37,558 requests for service for the Animal Management team across the reporting period.
5. Across this same reporting period, there were several initiatives undertaken to address the challenges presented by the above statistics:
· several adoption drives and community events occurred, resulting in an increased rate of shelter dog adoption compared to the previous reporting period
· a Proactive Animal Management team was created in 2023 to provide community education and advice, alongside patrolling schools and other high-risk areas. This team was also involved in several initiatives focused on engaging with Māori and Pasifika communities
· a ‘Dog Bite Prevention’ programme was developed with a focus on supporting high risk communities through education and patrolling initiatives.
· development of a memorandum of understanding with Kāinga Ora to address areas with high incident rates
· the Pukekohe Animal Shelter project, which aims to relieve capacity pressure on shelters in the area, alongside renovations to the shelters
· education to dog owners around responsible dog ownership.
6. The Dog Management Bylaw 2019 is currently under review. Local board views on dog control issues will be sought through this process, with public consultation occurring early in 2025.
7. If received, this report will be published on the Auckland Council website and a link to the report will be forwarded to the Department of Internal Affairs to achieve compliance with the statutory reporting requirement.
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:
a) whiwhi / receive the Animal Management Annual Report 2023 – 2024
b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Animal Management Annual Report is required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996, and that the report will be published on the Auckland Council website, and a link to the report forwarded to the Department of Internal Affairs.
Horopaki
Context
8. The objective of Animal Management is to keep dogs as a positive part of the life of Aucklanders by:
· maintaining opportunities for owners to take their dogs into public places,
· adopting measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs, and
· protecting dogs from harm and ensuring their welfare.
9. Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) requires each territorial authority to report on its dog control policy and practices and to provide specific statistical information on the following:
· the number of registered dogs in the territorial authority district
· the number of probationary owners and disqualified owners in the territorial authority district
· the number of dogs in the territorial authority district classified as dangerous under section 31 and the relevant provision under which the classification is made
· the number of dogs in the territorial authority district classified as menacing under section 33A or section 33C and the relevant provision under which the classification is made
· the number of infringement notices issued by the territorial authority
· the number of dog related complaints received by the territorial authority in the previous year and the nature of those complaints
· the number of prosecutions taken by the territorial authority under this Act.
10. This report acts as a medium for this statutory requirement, and to provide an update to all stakeholders on the activities and performance of the Auckland Council Animal Management unit.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Dog population
11. The known dog population in Auckland increased by 2.8 per cent to 135,546 dogs, with 113,354 individual dog owners as at the end of June 2024.
12. There were 113,343 dogs registered in Auckland at the end of June 2024, which is 83.6 per cent of all known dogs. This is a 4.6 per cent decrease in the registration rate (the number of registered dogs divided by the number of known dogs).
Dog attacks
13. The total number of dog attacks reported this year increased by 17 per cent to 2846. There were 155 more attacks on people and 254 more attacks on other animals reported this year. The increase is mostly due to more roaming dogs.
14. The Animal Management unit developed a long-term ‘Dog Bite Prevention’ programme, which has a strong focus on engaging with communities in high-risk areas; and promoting dog safety and responsible ownership across Tāmaki Makaurau.
15. Auckland Council initiated 109 new prosecutions during the year for serious breaches of the Dog Control Act 1996. There were 8 appeals filed in higher courts.
High-risk dogs
16. Auckland currently has 6438 dogs classified as menacing and 13 dogs classified as dangerous. This is a 19 per cent increase in the number of high-risk dogs.
17. The overall compliance rate with the requirement for menacing and dangerous dogs to be desexed was 69 per cent, which is 10 per cent lower than the previous year. Several free desexing campaigns and events have been held during the year to improve this rate of compliance.
18. The ability to seize dogs for non-compliance within these classifications is limited by availability of shelter space. Additional proactive initiatives are being included in the work programme to increase the number of desexed menacing dogs for 2024-2025.
Service response
19. Field teams responded to 37,558 requests for service during the year, which is 4257 more than the previous year – a 13 per cent increase.
20. A new Proactive Animal Management (Proactive) team was created late in 2023 and is responsible for regular patrols around schools and high-risk areas, as well as attending community events, giving dog safety presentations and promoting responsible dog ownership.
21. In addition to the work of the Proactive team, officers also performed 7607 patrols, property visits, and registration checks during the year.
22. Roaming or uncontrolled dogs have continued to increase. Officers responded to 15,146 reports about roaming dogs and 3673 reports of dogs behaving aggressively to people or other animals. These aggressive behaviour incidents increased by 21 per cent from the previous year.
23. A total of 5344 requests were received to collect stray dogs that were confined by members of the public.
24. Field officers responded to 903 incidents of stock roaming or straying on public roads.
25. Barking complaints decreased by one per cent this year. The unit investigated 6597 complaints about nuisance barking and issued 54 abatement notices.
26. Welfare-related complaints increased by 80 per cent during the year. This is in-part an indication of the increased financial hardship some dog owners are experiencing.
Shelter services
27. Shelter staff continue to provide a very high level of care to dogs for the time that they have them. They are committed to providing significant levels of support, creating enriching environments that support dog wellbeing, and enabling a positive experience for both customers and dogs.
28. There were 8306 dogs impounded this year in the three animal shelters in Auckland. This is an increase of 1710 from the previous year. The increased number of impounded dogs has resulted in the shelters operating at full capacity for almost the entire year, and at times throughout the year they were operating above their capacity.
29. The rate of impounded dogs claimed by their owners was 43 per cent this year, which is the lowest in a 10-year period. This has resulted in the euthanasia rate (48 per cent) being higher than the claim rate for the first time since Auckland Animal Management became a regional service in 2014.
30. Several adoption drives and community events were organised to raise awareness of the dogs in the shelters. These were extensively covered by the mainstream media, and other online platforms, with several interviews and appearances by unit staff and department leaders.
31. A total of 455 dogs were adopted from our shelters or transferred to rescue organisations, which is an increase of 19 per cent on the previous year– a very positive result from our shelter teams.
32. Staff are witnessing an increasing number of dogs that present challenging behaviours and / or fail to pass behavioural temperament tests. This impacts whether the dog is suitable for adoption and is able to be rehomed. Training, enrichment and other techniques are all employed by staff in order to give dogs the best chance of success where possible.
33. The total number of dogs euthanised at the three shelters increased by 53 per cent, which can mostly be attributed to the increased number of aggressive, roaming and unwanted dogs encountered.
34. Staff are also reporting an increase in the frequency of aggressive, threatening and unsafe behaviours by members of the public. This can include verbal abuse, threats to safety and security, and violent actions. Physical security features and processes are now included in all shelter sites.
Community events, supporting other agencies, education
35. There was excellent work undertaken by the Proactive team in the short time since its creation, with attendance at many community events, visits to schools, educational sessions for high-risk workers, as well as driving and promoting the Auckland Council free desexing campaign.
36. The Proactive team was also involved in many initiatives focused on engaging with Māori and Pasifika communities, and building strong relationships with local community leaders and social groups.
37. The comprehensive ‘Dog Bite Prevention’ campaign was introduced in 2023, which targets the communities most at risk of dog attacks with educational activities, free desexing, registration and microchipping services offered.
38. Three members of the Animal Management team were invited to Wellington in September 2023 to present at the New Zealand Institute of Animal Management Training Conference. They gave presentations on graduated enforcement, investigation and legislative powers, and the hierarchy of courts, which was a great opportunity for Auckland Council to collaborate with other territorial authorities.
Ongoing work and projects
39. The Animal Management team is currently working with Kāinga Ora to create a memorandum of understanding between the two organisations. This is anticipated to help address the high rate of offending and harm occurring in some areas of Auckland.
40. The Pukekohe Animal Shelter project is underway, which will relieve some of the pressure on the capacity of the three main shelters.
41. Extensive renovations are also being progressed for the three main shelters to increase capacity and to improve the health and safety of the shelter staff.
Responsible dog ownership
42. While most Aucklanders are doing the right thing, irresponsible dog ownership continues to be a major cause of roaming, dog attacks and aggression in Tāmaki Makaurau.
43. Animal Management continues to focus on educating dog owners around the need to keep dogs under control and contained at all times, and on the importance of registering, desexing and microchipping.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
44. There is no climate impact arising from the Animal Management Annual Report 2023 – 2024.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
45. There are no council group impacts arising from the Animal Management Annual Report 2023 – 2024.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
46. The Dog Management Bylaw 2019 is under review. Local board views on dog control issues will be sought through this process.
47. Public consultation of the proposed changes to the Dog Management Bylaw 2019 will occur early in 2025.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
48. The Animal Management unit developed a long-term ‘Dog Bite Prevention’ programme, which has a strong focus on improving Māori outcomes through engaging with communities in high-risk areas and promoting dog safety and responsible ownership across Tāmaki Makaurau.
49. The Proactive Animal Management team attended multiple community events, including Waitangi Ki Manukau, Pasifika, and the Ōtara Mātauranga festival, where they have been actively engaging with Māori and providing educational talks on ‘Keeping themselves, their whānau and their community safe’.
50. Animal Management continue to work with Tūpuna Maunga Authority (TMA) to increase foot patrols and reduce dog-related incidents at Maungawhau (Mount Eden), Te Kōpuke / Tītīkōpuke (Mount St. John) and Te Tatua Riukuita (Big King Reserve).
51. The team provided dog safety advice and support at the Ngā Hau e Whā o Pukekohe Marae for the recent whānau day, where many positive connections were made among the local community.
52. The Proactive Animal Management team recently started visiting kura in our most high-risk suburbs and teaching tamariki how to stay safe around dogs. Information is also provided for mātua (parents / guardians) and kaiako (teachers). This new initiative started in May 2024, and two schools have already been visited in Māngere and Papatoetoe.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
53. There are no financial impacts resulting from the Animal Management Annual Report 2023 – 2024. This report has been reviewed by the Commercial Finance Manager for Licensing and Compliance.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
If… |
Then… |
Mitigation |
The number of unregistered dogs continues to increase |
There will be a subsequent increase in the number of: · Roaming dogs · Dog attacks on people and animals · Requests for service · Dogs collected to come to animal shelters
|
Staff will continue to provide programming and services that: · Encourage desexing of dogs · Provide affordable desexing opportunities · Educates on dog safety · Encourages adoption of dogs · Utilises visible presence of field officers and responsiveness to urgent calls |
The known dog population in Auckland continues to increase |
There will likely be a subsequent increase in: · Barking and welfare related complaints · Pressure on animal shelter capacity · The number dogs classified as menacing
|
Staff will continue to provide programming and services that: · Encourages responsible dog ownership, including control, microchipping and registration · Encourages and promotes dog desexing · Engage and support the community · Proactively engage with peers across New Zealand to learn and promote best practice |
The public are concerned about the increased euthanasia rates for dogs over this reporting period. |
There may be negative perception of the council’s dog management work. |
Effective communication to the public that this is an area Council is aiming to continue to address through the development of initiatives such as: · the Proactive Animal Management team · dog Bite Prevention programme · dog owner education · memorandum of understanding with Kāinga Ora.
and that this is primarily occurring in the case where dogs are exhibiting aggressive behaviour, and not due to capacity limitations of shelters. |
The public are concerned about the capacity of current animal shelter provision in the city. |
There may be a negative perception around council’s ability to effectively manage this issue. |
Effective communication to the public around the current work to alleviate capacity pressure to shelters, including: · the Pukekohe Animal Shelter project · renovations to the three main shelters in the Pukekohe area. |
The public are concerned with the rise in aggressive behavioural / roaming incidents concerning dogs. |
There may be a negative perception around council’s ability to effectively influence dog ownership behaviours. |
Effective communication to the public that additional proactive initiatives aiming to increase desexing are being implemented into the 2024-2025 work programme, and that dog owner education initiatives (such as desexing campaigns and events) are being held to raise awareness. |
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
54. Providing that the Animal Management Annual Report 2023 – 2024 is received by the committee, the report will be published on the Auckland Council website and a link to the report will be forwarded to the Department of Internal Affairs.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Animal Management Report 2023 - 2024 |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Christo van der Merwe - Principal Specialist Animal Management |
Authorisers |
Eleanor Waitoa - Manager Animal Management Robert Irvine - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Rachel Kelleher - Director Community |
Regulatory and Safety Committee 08 October 2024 |
|
Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 8 October 2024
File No.: CP2024/14378
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
3. Noting that this is an update report, staff are not generally present to discuss it. If committee members have detailed questions concerning specific appeals, it would be helpful if they could raise them prior to the meeting with Robert Andrews (phone: 09 353-9254) or email: robert.andrews@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) in the first instance.
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:
a) whiwhi / receive the Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 8 October 2024.
Horopaki
Context
4. As at 24 September 2024, there are 33 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 26 July 2024, there has been one new appeal lodged and four resolved.
6. The new appeal from Tamaki Regeneration Limited relates to conditions of consent granted to construct and subdivide 84 dwellings on properties in Concord Place, Elstree Avenue and Taniwha Street, Glen Innes. There are three main conditions under appeal.
7. The first relates to flooding, that requires the MR2 catchment wide upgrade to be completed prior to the construction of additional impervious surfaces on the application sites. The others are conditions that relate to the inclusion of the esplanade walkway concept plans into the conditions and those requiring the walkway upgrade and landscaping. The upgrades occur in both the area of esplanade reserve width ‘top up’ to be vested and within the existing esplanade reserve. The appellant argues that the requirements to upgrade the reserve land is not directly connected to an adverse environmental effect.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
8. To receive the report as provided.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
9. 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
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
11. Not applicable.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
12. The decision requested of the Regulatory and Safety Committee is to receive this progress report rather than to consider the relevance to Māori associated with each of the appeals at this time.
13. 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. Māori 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
14. 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
15. Not applicable.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
16. Not applicable.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Resource Consent Appeals as at 24 September 2024 |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Robert Andrews - Principal Specialist Planning |
Authoriser |
Rachel Kelleher - Director Community |
Regulatory and Safety Committee 08 October 2024 |
|
Summary of Regulatory and Safety Committee information memoranda, workshops, and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 8 October 2024
File No.: CP2024/13796
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To receive a summary and provide a public record of memoranda, workshops and briefing papers that have been distributed to the Regulatory and Safety Committee.
2. To note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
3. This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to Regulatory and Safety Committee members via memoranda, workshops and briefings, where no decisions are required.
4. The following information items have been distributed:
Subject |
|
11/09/2024 |
Regulatory and Safety Committee Workshop Agenda and Notes - Auckland Transport & Auckland Council Joint Review of Auckland’s Traffic-Related Bylaws |
19/09/2024 |
Letter to Minister Upston, Minister for Social Development and Employment, relating to ongoing funding for food banks and addressing food insecurity |
01/10/2024 |
Hearings held, hearing panels and hearing outcomes October 2023 – September 2024 |
5. 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 relevant staff.
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:
a) whiwhi / receive the Summary of Regulatory and Safety Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings – 8 October 2024
b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the progress on the Forward Work Programme appended as Attachment A of the agenda report.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Regulatory and Safety Committee Forward Work Programme - 8 October 2024 |
|
b⇨ |
Regulatory and Safety Committee Workshop - Auckland Transport & Auckland Council Joint Review of Auckland’s Traffic-Related Bylaws Agenda and Notes |
|
c⇨ |
Letter to Minister Upston, Minister for Social Development and Employment, relating to ongoing funding for food banks and addressing food insecurity |
|
d⇨ |
Hearings held, hearing panels and hearing outcomes October 2023 – September 2024 |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Phoebe Chiquet-Kaan - Governance Advisor |
Authoriser |
Rachel Kelleher - Director Community |
Regulatory and Safety Committee 08 October 2024 |
|
Determination of an Objection to a Nuisance Abatement Notice by Renee Wipiiti
File No.: CP2024/13060
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To hear and determine the objection by Mrs Renee Wipiiti against a Nuisance Abatement Notice issued on 16 June 2024 pursuant to section 55(1)(b) of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA).
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Mrs Wipiiti is the primary owner of a male, tri-colour, fox terrier (smooth) dog called Jake. Jake is four years and five months old. Since June 2023, Animal Management has received several barking complaints involving the dog.
3. Section 55 of the DCA provides that upon receipt of a complaint about a dog barking or howling, a dog control officer may issue a Nuisance Abatement Notice to the owner of the dog if the officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a nuisance is being created by the loud and persistent barking or howling of that dog.
4. The DCA does not define 'loud' or 'persistent. They must be interpreted according to their general meaning and usage. The third edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'persistent' as: 'Of an action or condition: Continuous, constantly repeated'. 'Constantly' in turn means 'continually recurring'. 'Loud' means: 'Of sounds or voices: Strongly audible, striking forcibly on the sense of hearing'.
5. The DCA does not define 'nuisance’, but it is akin to a tort of private nuisance. For the purposes of the DCA a nuisance is created by the loud and persistent barking or howling of a dog if it unreasonably interferes, disrupts, or inhibits the activities ordinarily carried out by an occupant of residential property.
6. Nuisance is objectively determined on a balance of probabilities.
7. The probabilities in this case support the conclusion that the dog, namely Jake, is barking loudly and persistently, which is causing a nuisance to the complainant.
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:
a) whakaae / agree to hear and determine the objection to the Nuisance Abatement Notice, and
b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the staff recommendation is to uphold the Nuisance Abatement Notice.
Horopaki
Context
8. The Governing Body of the Auckland Council has delegated to the Regulatory and Safety Committee the responsibility for regulatory hearings. The regulatory hearings which the Regulatory and Safety Committee is responsible for include, amongst others, decisions under the DCA in relation to the consideration of objections under the DCA.
9. A Nuisance Abatement Notice is issued under section 55(1) of the DCA if the Auckland Council receives a complaint about barking dogs and upon investigation a dog control officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a nuisance is being created by the persistent and loud barking or howling.
10. The DCA does not define 'persistent' or 'loud'. Officers are guided by their general meaning and usage to determine whether barking is persistent and loud. According to the third edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:
i. 'Persistent' means: 'Of an action or condition: Continuous, constantly repeated'. 'Constantly' in turns means 'continually recurring'. It follows that continuous barking over a prolonged period, or periodical but consistent barking is regarded as persistent, and that intermittent or occasional barking is not persistent.
ii. 'Loud' means: 'Of sounds or voices: Strongly audible, striking forcibly on the sense of hearing'.
11. The DCA also does not define when the loud and persistent barking of a dog becomes a nuisance. It is however akin to a tort of private nuisance which is the unlawful interference with a specific person's use or enjoyment of the property they are occupying.
12. For the purposes of the DCA the nuisance caused by a barking or howling dog must be more than irritation or annoyance. It must be such that it unreasonably or unjustifiably interferes, disrupts, or inhibits the activities ordinarily carried out by an occupant of residential property.
13. There is no exact rule or formula for a dog control officer to determine when the barking or howling is unreasonable but, as with a tort, the objective standard of a reasonable person is applied. This means that a nuisance under section 55 of the DCA is created if an officer is satisfied on the established facts that the loud and persistent barking or howling would probably interfere with the average person's activities on their property.
14. A Nuisance Abatement Notice requires the owner of the dogs causing a nuisance to make reasonable provisions on their property to abate that nuisance. These provisions are stipulated in the Nuisance Abatement Notice. The owner is given a seven-day grace period to either comply with or object to the notice.
15. It is an offence under section 55(7) of the DCA if an owner who did not object to the notice, fails to comply with the provisions in the Nuisance Abatement Notice any time after the seven-day grace period.
16. An objection suspends the operation and enforcement of the Nuisance Abatement Notice. The objection may be directed at the reasonableness of the provisions prescribed in the Nuisance Abatement Notice, or it may question the grounds for issuing the Nuisance Abatement Notice.
17. In considering the objection to a Nuisance Abatement Notice, the Regulatory and Safety Committee must have regard to:
i. the evidence which led to the issuing of the notice
ii. any evidence that the objector and their witnesses may present during the hearing, and
iii. any other relevant matters.
18. Section 55(3) of the DCA determines that the Regulatory and Safety Committee may:
i. confirm the Nuisance Abatement Notice.
ii. modify the requirements stipulated in the Nuisance Abatement Notice, or
iii. cancel the Nuisance Abatement Notice.
Background
Earlier complaints
19. Mrs Wipiiti resides in a residential property in Eastern Beach, Auckland. She is the registered owner of a male, tri-colour, fox terrier (smooth) dog called Jake. Jake is four years and five months old.
20. During the period 29 April 2023 to May 2024, Animal Management received several complaints from an occupant of a neighbouring property about the loud and persistent barking of the dog:
i. RFS 8101264041 received 29 April 2023
The complainant said that the dog had been a nuisance for approximately one year. The dog was barking on and off throughout the day and would vary in times and length of barking. In one instance the dog barked for four hours straight. Occasionally the barking would happen at night.
On 3 May 2023, a Bark Advisor sent a Notification of Barking Complaint to the dog owner via email (refer Attachment A). The email included educational information (refer Attachment B).
On 3 May 2023, the dog owner responded and acknowledged receipt of the email (refer Attachment C).
ii. RFS 8101341254 received 26 August 2023
The complainant advised that there had been no improvement in the barking. They advised that the barking occurs between 7.00am and 11.00pm (at the latest), an average of 10 times a day for about 15 minutes at a time. The dog was reacting to movement and noise.
On 29 August 2023, a Barking Advisor sent an email to the dog owner notifying her of the complaint (refer Attachment D), including educational information.
The dog owner advised the Barking Advisor on 5 September 2023 that a bark box they had purchased arrived at their address.
The Barking Advisor contacted the complainant for an update. The complainant provided an update on 12 September 2023 that the barking had improved.
iii. RFS 8101386239 received 1 November 2023
A further complaint was received, and a survey was sent out to houses in the surrounding area. The complainant was asked to monitor the barking and note down dates, times and durations. An email was sent by the complainant on 27 November 2023 with these recorded (refer Attachment E).
A section 55 warning was sent to the dog owner (refer Attachment F).
iv. RFS 8101444075 received on 17 January 2024
A complaint is received that the dog was barking for long periods of time on the above date. The complainant advised the dog was good for about a month after the warning was sent out but has started back up again. No formal action was taken on this complaint as the Barking Advisor was not able to get in touch with the complainant on this occasion.
v. RFS 8101457904 received on 3 February 2024
On 3 February 2024, a further complaint was received. A property inspection job was created and carried out on 6 March 2024 remotely using specialist software. An email was sent to Mrs Wipiiti with the following recommendations to reduce any loud or persistent barking (refer Attachment G):
· bark box to be set up on the back fence, to be regularly moved along this fence
· walk the dog for at last 30 minutes twice a day
· toys to be changed out weekly
· visual barrier put up over back fence and front gate
· fully functioning anti bark collar to be on at all times when outside
· get further advice from a professional dog trainer.
Complaint resulting in a Nuisance Abatement Notice
21. On 31 May 2024, Animal Management received a further complaint about the barking of the dog (RFS 8101529430). A Barking Advisor interviewed the complainant and recorded their statement in writing, which was signed on 15 June 2024. The statement discloses that the dog was still barking loudly and persistently, and that it was causing a nuisance to the complainant (refer Attachment H).
22. On 17 June 2024, a Barking Advisor issued a Nuisance Abatement Notice in relation to Jake (Attachment I) and sent this via email to Mrs Wipiiti (Attachment J). This required Mrs Wipiiti to take the following steps to abate the noise nuisance caused by Jake barking within seven days of receipt of the notice:
i. When Jake is outside he must wear a fully functional, correctly fitted, effective, anti-bark collar (sonic, vibration or citronella).
ii. A fully functional, effective, sonic box / bark silencer / bark box device is to be put on the back fence of the property and is to be correctly working at all times.
iii. Jake is to be kept inside the house when not supervised, with no visibility to the shared driveway for example, he must not be able to see out of the doors or windows of the house.
iv. Put a visual barrier over the front steel gate.
v. Jake to be kept indoors between 8.00pm-7.00am every evening.
The Barking Advisor's formal statement about her investigation of the complaints is at Attachment K.
23. On 24 June 2024, Mrs Wipiiti objected to the Nuisance Abatement Notice on the basis that they had made the changes requested by the Barking Advisor and some further changes of their own.
24. Mrs Wipiiti also objected on the grounds that she believed her privacy had been breached by the complainant and the complainant was purposely upsetting her dog (Attachment L).
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
25. All dogs bark, however, fox terriers have a reputation for being talkative and barking more frequently. They are active dogs that must be exercised daily and contained properly.
26. Mrs Wipiiti states that she has a bark box by the fence, a remote-controlled bark collar and no visual access to the shared driveway. Mrs Wipiiti advised she also works from home five days a week, keeps her dog at the back of her property and the dog only goes out at night to go to the toilet.
27. The complainant states that the barking deprives them of the full use and enjoyment of their property. The dog has been barking excessively and persistently even at night. The barking also prevents them from relaxing at home or concentrating on their work.
28. The probabilities are that the dog is barking loudly and persistently which causes a nuisance to others.
29. The Bark Advisor has assessed that the use of a noise and vibration anti-bark collar (not a remote collar) and bark box would best abate the nuisance. Along with the other recommendations made.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
30. This is a report about a nuisance caused by the loud and persistent barking of a dog. It has no climate impact.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
31. This is a report about a nuisance caused by the loud and persistent barking of a dog. It does not require council group views.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
32. This report has no local impact. Local board views have not been sought.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
33. This report has no impact on Maori.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
34. The decision by the Regulatory and Safety Committee on the Nuisance Abatement Notice has no financial implications.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
35. There are no significant risks in upholding the Nuisance Abatement Notice.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
36. The Regulatory and Safety Committee must give Mrs Wipiiti written notice of its decision as soon as practical.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Notice of barking complaint REF-8101264041, 3 May 2023 |
|
b⇨ |
Auckland Council barking collateral |
|
c⇨ |
Information from the dog owner about the number of dogs at the property |
|
d⇨ |
Information from the dog owner about having implemented the barking control device |
|
e⇨ |
Information from the complainant about when barking occurred |
|
f⇨ |
Notice of ongoing barking complaint REF-8101386239, 27 November 2023 |
|
g⇨ |
Notification of property inspection recommendations |
|
h⇨ |
Statement by the complainant |
|
i⇨ |
Nuisance Abatement Notice 17 June 2024 |
|
j⇨ |
Email accompanying the Nuisance Abatement Notice, 17 June 2024 |
|
k⇨ |
Statement by Kayleigh, Barking Team |
|
l⇨ |
Objection to the Nuisance Abatement Notice |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Angeli Castro - Team Leader Animal Management East |
Authorisers |
Eleanor Waitoa - Manager Animal Management Robert Irvine - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Rachel Kelleher - Director Community |
Regulatory and Safety Committee 08 October 2024 |
|
Proposed joint traffic-related bylaw for Auckland
File No.: CP2024/09797
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To seek a decision on the preferred option in response to the review of Auckland Council traffic-related bylaws in collaboration with Auckland Transport.
· make a new Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025 and associated resolutions, and
· to amend the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 and the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signs Bylaw 2022.
3. To appoint two Regulatory and Safety Committee members to an Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Hearings Panel.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
4. The Regulatory and Community Safety Committee requested options and a proposal in response to the findings from a review of Auckland Council’s traffic-related bylaws in July 2024 (RCSC/2024/48).
5. Auckland Council collaborated with an Auckland Transport-led project on the findings and collaborated on the options report (Attachment B) and proposal (Attachment A). This included engagement with local boards, select advisory panels and mana whenua.
6. The options report focusses on whether a new bylaw is required to address each of the 18 topics regulated by the bylaws, and if there are any improvements to the current bylaws.
7. Staff recommend that the committee agree that in relation to the current Auckland Council traffic-related bylaws, the most appropriate option to respond to the findings is to:
· replace the current bylaws with a new joint Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025 and associated resolutions in relation to 13 topics, including for vehicles on beaches, parking and special events
· revoke the current bylaws in relation to three topics (subject to amendments to the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013, and Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signs Bylaw 2022), including setting new speed limits that must now be set using speed management plans
· transfer the current bylaws in relation to vehicle repairs on a road to the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013.
8. The proposal in Attachment A, gives effect to the recommended options. Staff seek a recommendation from the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee that the Governing Body adopt the proposal for public consultation.
9. Taking this approach will commence the process of simplifying and improving Auckland’s traffic-related bylaws.
10. There is a low reputational risk that people may express concern about the collaboration with Auckland Transport, options or proposal. These risks are mitigated by communicating the separate statutory roles of Auckland Transport and Auckland Council and public consultation on the proposal.
11. Adoption of the Proposal by the Governing Body will start the statutory public consultation process. The public will be invited to provide feedback from Monday 4 November to Monday 9 December 2024 (five weeks). Opportunities will be provided to give feedback ‘in writing’, ‘in-person’ and by phone. A joint Hearings Panel chaired by Auckland Transport will consider any public feedback and local board views on feedback, and make recommendations to the Governing Body and Auckland Transport Board by mid-2025.
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:
b) whakaae / agree that Option Four, to replace the current Auckland Council traffic-related bylaws with a new joint Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw and associated resolutions about vehicles on beaches, is the most appropriate option to respond to the review findings in relation to:
i) one-way travel directions and turning restrictions
ii) special vehicle lanes
iii) unformed roads
iv) vehicles on beaches
v) cycle paths, shared paths and shared zones
vi) cruising and light-weight vehicle restrictions
vii) engine braking
viii) parking in general, parking off a roadway, mobility parking and residents’ parking
ix) special events
x) unsuitable (including heavy) traffic.
c) whakaae / agree that Option Five, to revoke the current Auckland Council traffic-related bylaws, is the most appropriate option to respond to the review findings in relation to:
i) new speed limits (speed limits can now only be set using speed management plans)
ii) broken down vehicles and leaving machinery or goods (subject to amendments to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013)
iii) parking for advertising or sale (subject to amendments to the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signs Bylaw 2022).
d) whakaae / agree that Option Three, to transfer the current Auckland Council traffic-related bylaws to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013, is the most appropriate option to respond to the review findings in relation to vehicle repairs on a road.
e) tūtohungia / recommend that the Governing Body whai / adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report for public consultation using the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative procedure, to the extent it applies to roads under council’s control:
i) to replace the current Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015 and Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (for vehicles on parks and beaches only) with a new joint Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025 and associated resolutions about vehicles on beaches
ii) to amend to the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 and Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signs Bylaw 2022.
f) tūtohungia / recommend the Governing Body whakaū / confirm that the proposed new joint Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025 and associated resolutions about vehicles on beaches, and amendments to the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 and Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signs Bylaw 2022:
i) are the most appropriate form of bylaw
ii) do not give rise to any implications under, and are not inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
iii) is not inconsistent with other Acts, regulations, rules or bylaws.
g) tūtohungia / recommend that the Governing Body tautapa / 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 for to correct errors or omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee or the Governing Body.
h) kopou / appoint two Governing Body members to a joint Hearings Panel to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events, hear local board views on public feedback 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.
i) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the joint Hearings Panel will comprise of five members, three appointed by Auckland Transport (including a chair and one Houkura (formerly the Independent Māori Statutory Board) representative) and two from Auckland Council.
j) tautapa / delegate authority to the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee chair to make replacement appointments to the Hearings Panel if a panel member is unavailable.
k) tautapa / 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 correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee or the Governing Body.
Horopaki
Context
Three traffic-related bylaws regulate vehicle use and parking in Auckland
12. There are three primary traffic-related bylaws (Bylaws) that regulate vehicle use and parking in Auckland.[5] The Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012 and Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015 and Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (vehicles on parks and beaches).[6]
Auckland Transport is the regulatory authority for vehicle use and parking on most roads (the ‘Auckland transport system’). Auckland Council is responsible for roads and public places not part of the Auckland transport system, meaning roads on most beaches, parks and reserves and off-street parking at council facilities, such as libraries.
A review found the Auckland Council Bylaws are still required but could be improved
13. The Regulatory Committee (REG/2020/3) and Auckland Transport (on 10 February 2023) initiated the review of their respective traffic-related bylaws to determine if they were still ‘fit for purpose.’
14. A collaborative approach was used to review the Bylaws, with Auckland Transport as the lead technical expert responsible for most of Auckland’s roads. This approach builds on a similar collaboration with Auckland Transport on the review of Auckland’s signage bylaws which was led by Auckland Council and completed in 2022.
15. The Regulatory and Community Safety Committee completed the review of the Auckland Council Bylaws on 2 July 2024 by endorsing the finding report (RCSC/2024/48). See box below for key findings.
Key findings endorsed by the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee on 2 July 2024 That the current Auckland Council traffic-related bylaws: i) have helped ensure council-controlled roads and public places connect people and places in a way that is safe, effective and efficient, and protects the environment ii) for vehicles on beaches, could be improved by enabling access to infringement fines and more effective use of permit conditions iii) for parking restrictions, could be improved by clarifying where off-road parking is prohibited, how parking controls are adopted and enforcement delegated to Auckland Transport iv) for setting new speed limits, can no longer be used v) for activities involving vehicles or things such as advertising on vehicles, are not used vi) could be streamlined by developing a single traffic-related bylaw made by both Auckland Transport and Auckland Council. |
The committee decided to request an options report and proposal for improvements
16. The Regulatory and Community Safety Committee in response to the findings at the same meeting on 2 July 2024, requested an options report and proposal to improve the regulation of vehicle use and parking in Auckland in a collaboration led by Auckland Transport (RCSC/2024/48).
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
The findings report was used to develop an options report and proposal for improvements
17. Staff collaborated with Auckland Transport to develop options in the ‘2024 Review Findings and Options Report: Auckland traffic-related bylaws’ in Attachment B. This included updating information in the findings, developing options for each of the 18 topics in the findings and assessing each option against assessment criteria.
18. The topics apply to Auckland Council to varying degrees, with vehicles on beaches (Topic 4), parking (Topics 9, 10, 11 and 16) and speed limits (Topic 8) being more significant.
19. Staff then collaborated with Auckland Transport to develop a proposal for public consultation that gives effect to the recommended options in the ‘Statement of Proposal to Improve Auckland’s Traffic Bylaws’ in Attachment A. This included seeking the views of staff across council and local boards.
20. Relevant Land Transport Act 1998 and Local Government Act 2002 criteria were applied to the options and proposal, either to comply with statutory requirements or as best practice.
The problem, objective and outcome relates to managing Auckland’s land transport system
21. Based on the findings, the problem, objective and outcome can be defined as follows:
Current and future problem |
|
Objective |
|
Outcome sought |
|
|
|
|
|
Public safety risks (including death), travel delays, obstructions, public nuisance (for example, from noise) and damage to the environment (including fauna and flora), public infrastructure and property caused by the use or parking of vehicles on roads and public places in Auckland. |
|
To minimise public safety risks, travel delays, obstructions, public nuisance and damage to the environment, public infrastructure and property caused by the use or parking of vehicles on roads and public places in Auckland. |
|
An Auckland land transport system that connects people and places in a way that is safe, effective and efficient, and protects the environment. |
Five options were identified and assessed in response to the findings for 18 topics
22. Staff identified the following five options in response to the review findings that could be applied to each of the 18 topics contained in the findings report:
· Option One (Retain) – Retain current Bylaws
· Option Two (Amend) – Amend current Bylaws
· Option Three (Transfer) – Transfer current Bylaws to better aligned bylaws
· Option Four (Replace) – Replace current Bylaws with a joint bylaw
· Option Five (Revoke) – Revoke current Bylaws and rely on other regulatory powers.
23. Staff carried out a comparative assessment of the most reasonably practicable options for each topic against criteria. This included a description of each option as it relates to the topic (including any improvements identified in the findings report), how it would be implemented, its effectiveness, efficiency, validity and risks to minimise the problem and recommendation.
24. The table below provides a summary of the assessment contained in the Attachment B.
Table 1: Summary of the most reasonably practicable option for each topic against the criteria
Topic number and name |
Effectiveness |
Efficiency |
Validity |
Recommendation |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
|
2. Special vehicle lanes |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
3. Unformed roads |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
4. Vehicles on beaches |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
5. Cycle paths, shared paths and shared zones |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
6. Cruising and light-weight vehicle restrictions |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
7. Engine braking |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
8. Speed limits on council land |
û |
û |
û |
Revoke |
9. Parking |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
10. Parking vehicles off a roadway |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
11. Mobility parking |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
12. Residents’ parking |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
13. Broken down vehicles |
û |
û |
û |
Revoke |
14. Vehicle repairs on a road |
û |
û |
û |
Transfer |
15. Parking for advertising or sale |
û |
û |
û |
Revoke |
16. Special events |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
17. Leaving machinery or goods |
û |
û |
û |
Revoke |
18. Unsuitable (including heavy) traffic |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Replace |
Key: ‘ü’ and ‘û’ reflect the impact of the option against each criterion relative to other options.
A new joint traffic-related bylaw (Option Four) is recommended for most topics (13 of 18)
25. Based on the assessment of options for each of the 18 topics, staff recommend:
· Option Four, to replace the current traffic-related bylaws with a new single traffic bylaw made jointly by Auckland Transport and Auckland Council for most topics (13 of 18)
· Option Five, to revoke the current traffic-related bylaws and rely on other existing legislation and bylaws to better address the problems for four topics:
o new speed limits (Topic 4) (can now only be set using speed management plans)
o broken down vehicles and leaving machinery or goods (Topics 13 and 17), subject to amendments to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013
o parking for advertising or sale (Topic 15), subject to amendments to the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signs Bylaw 2022.
· Option Three, to transfer the current traffic-related bylaws about vehicle repairs on a road (Topic 14) to the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013
26. Taking this approach would continue to:
· achieve the outcomes of having an Auckland land transport system that connects people and places in a way that is safe, effective and efficient, and protects the environment
· address the problems caused by vehicle use and parking in relation to public safety, travel delays, obstructions, public nuisance and damage to the environment (including fauna and flora), public infrastructure and property
· use ‘framework’ bylaws where details of the rule are determined later by ‘resolution’ to build on a flexible approach that can be used ‘if and where' required (a similar approach to adopting alcohol bans by resolution under the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014)
· rely on other existing regulations where appropriate to better address the problems (remove duplications)
· provide a simpler regulatory framework to administer, implement and enforce because the boundaries between Auckland Transport and Auckland Council controlled roads can be indistinguishable (make a single bylaw applicable to the whole Auckland rather than retain three separate traffic-related bylaws administered by two organisations)
· improve public understanding by having one set of traffic-related rules to comply with that are applicable to all roads and public places in Auckland
· reduce costs to the council, Auckland Transport and the public (avoid future time and expense associated with using a special consultative procedure to review three bylaws).
27. Retaining (Option One) and amending the current traffic-related bylaws (Option Two) would not address the findings that the Bylaws could be improved by making a single traffic-related bylaw made by both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (an approach similar to the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signs Bylaw 2022).
The proposal improves how vehicle use and parking is managed in Auckland
28. Staff have drafted a Statement of Proposal in Attachment A to give effect to the recommended options for each of the 18 topics, that includes:
· making a new joint Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Te Ture ā-Rohe Waka Haere / Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025 to replace the current Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012, Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015 and Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 (clause 16 vehicles on parks and beaches)
· amending the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signs Bylaw 2022, Auckland Transport Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw 2022 and Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013
· adopting by resolution, conditions relating to launching a boat from a beach and beaches on which a permit is required to use and park a vehicle.
29. The proposal improves how vehicle use and parking is managed in Auckland. See Table below for examples in relation to those more significant topics to Auckland Council.
Reasons for proposals |
|
Vehicles on beaches (Topic 4) · Improve current rules that generally prohibit vehicle use and parking on beaches (with exceptions, for example to launch a boat or to drive on Muriwai and Karioitahi beaches with a Permit), including to: o make resolutions to set conditions to launch a boat and to identify existing beaches where a vehicle can be driven with a Permit o provide details about the Permit system |
· Improve implementation of policy intent, certainty and efficiency (for example by enabling the use of resolutions, clarifying the Permit system and enabling the use of infringement fines). · Establish consistent rules for unformed legal roads on beaches and the actual beach (the difference is indistinguishable to the public) |
Parking (Topics 9 and 11)[7] · Clarify current approach to setting parking rules by resolution |
· Improve certainty (for example by separating rules about parking restrictions from parking prohibitions and clarifying how classes of vehicles are defined) |
Parking vehicles off a roadway (Topic 10) · Clarify rules about parking vehicles off a roadway by prohibiting parking in areas where there is a formed kerb and stormwater channel (for example, on a berm), areas with vegetation not intended to be a carpark or where vehicle access is restricted. |
· Improve certainty about where parking off a roadway is generally prohibited (for example a berm or grass area in a park) · Improve implementation efficiency (for example the process for installing signs to allow for the enforcement) |
Special events (Topic 16) · Create specific vehicle use and parking rules for special events |
· Improve certainty about the ability to make temporary vehicle use and parking controls in and around special events (for example a street festival or market) |
Speed limits (Topic 8) · Rely existing regulatory powers under the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 to set new speed limits on AC controlled land (existing speed limits will remain). |
· Comply with new statutory requirements to use speed management plans to set new speed limits |
The proposal complies with statutory requirements
30. The proposal has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements to:
· help minimise public safety risks, travel delays, obstructions, public nuisance and damage to the environment, public infrastructure and property caused by the use or parking of vehicles on roads and public places in Auckland
· use a structure, format and wording that are easier to read, understand and comply with than the current traffic-related bylaws and to meet current bylaw drafting practices
· be authorised by statute, not repugnant to other legislation, or be unreasonable
· not give rise to any implications under, and not be inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
· not be inconsistent with other Acts, regulations, rules or bylaws.[8]
· use the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative procedure in accordance with council’s significance and engagement policy for bylaws likely to generate a high degree of public interest.
Staff recommend the Regulatory and Safety Committee commence the process to adopt the proposal
31. Staff recommend the Regulatory and Safety Committee:
· agree with the recommended options for each of the 18 topics
· recommend that the Governing Body adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A for public consultation using the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative procedure
· appoint two council members to a joint Hearings Panel (Panel) with Auckland Transport, noting:
o Auckland Transport will lead the special consultative procedure and chair the joint Panel
o the Panel will comprise of five members
o Auckland Transport will appoint a chair, one other board member and one Houkura (formerly the Independent Māori Statutory Board) representative
o Panel members will attend ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate, hear local board views and make recommendations to the Governing Body and the Board of Auckland Transport on public feedback to the proposal.
32. It is also recommended that staff be delegated authority to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate or in case a Hearings Panel member cannot attend.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
33. The current Auckland Council traffic-related bylaws do not directly address the climate change goals in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan. For example, traffic-related bylaws focus on minimising safety risks, accessibility and damage, rather than regulating the climate impacts from the use of vehicles and parking.
34. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
35. Auckland Transport has led the review of traffic-related bylaws and its staff provided feedback to the review and improvements addressed in the options report and proposal.
36. Relevant staff from several council operational units impacted have also participated in the review findings and improvements addressed in the options report and proposal. These staff are aware of the impacts of the proposal and their implementation role. This includes Regional Parks, Parks and Community Facilities, Compliance Response and Investigations, Waste Solutions, Event Facilitation, Regional Operations, Active Communities, Connected Communities, and Growth, Transport and Infrastructure Strategy units.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
37. The proposal impacts local governance and has high community interest because the bylaws regulate vehicle use and parking on council land and the Auckland transport system.
38. Based on the agreed principles and processes in the Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, views from all boards have been sought on the options and proposal, and will be considered on public feedback to the proposal to a Hearings Panel.
39. Staff sought the views of all local boards on the draft options and proposal in August 2024. The proposal is generally supported by all 21 local boards (Attachment C).
40. Bylaw specific feedback in relation to those more significant topics to Auckland Council is summarised in the Table below.
Local Board feedback |
How Proposal addresses feedback |
Concerns about ‘blanket’ berm parking bans in areas with narrow roads and limited off street parking, exemptions to use berms to wash vehicles, but also the need to prevent damage to surfaces and underground infrastructure. |
Proposal seeks a balanced approach that limits ‘blanket berm parking bans’ to kerb and channel roads and public open spaces not intended for parking that are signed on a case by case basis. Issues on rural roads are proposed to be addressed by parking controls, also case by case. |
Prohibit parking on beaches after launching a boat and driving on beaches except to launch a boat. |
Proposed resolution under new Bylaw continues to prohibit the parking of vehicles on beaches (except to launch a boat) and to drive on all beaches (except Muriwai and Kariotahi with a Permit as both have current management controls and historical use). |
41. Other feedback focussed on operational, public consultation[9] or non-bylaw related matters will be referred to the relevant Auckland Transport teams where appropriate.[10]
42. Local boards will have further opportunity to provide their views on public feedback to the proposal formally by resolution in February 2025 and to the Hearings Panel in March 2025.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
43. Traffic-related bylaws support whanaungatanga in Houkura / the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Schedule of Issues of Significance by ensuring that the region caters for diverse Māori lifestyles and experiences, and that Māori communities are well-connected and safe.
44. Mana whenua have an active kaitiaki role and work closely with the council on the environmental and management issues associated with vehicle use on beaches.
46. Bylaw specific feedback focussed on vehicles on beaches, including how to protect dunes from parked vehicles. The proposal seeks to address these concerns by making the current rules that generally prohibit vehicles on beaches (exceptions apply, for example to launch a boat) under the Land Transport Act 1998. Taking this approach (while not without implementation challenges, for example the installation of signage) provides for the issue of infringement fines by Police and parking officers.
47. Other feedback focussed on operational or non-bylaw related matters will be referred to the relevant Auckland Transport teams where appropriate.[11]
48. Staff will continue to engage with mana whenua during public consultation to ensure Māori are able to provide their views on any proposed improvements.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
49. The cost of the public consultation and implementation of the proposal (if adopted) will be met within existing budgets.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
50. The following risks and risk mitigations have been identified:
If... |
Then... |
Mitigation |
Stakeholders or the public are concerned (or confused) about the collaborative approach to the review and the proposed options |
The council and Auckland Transport may be perceived negatively in terms of the review process and engagement to date (for example, being unresponsive to the stakeholders’ views). Low reputational risk. |
Clearly communicate the separate statutory roles of Auckland Transport and the council, potential benefits of collaboration, and that public feedback on any proposed improvements will be sought and considered before a final decision is made. |
The proposal for public consultation does not reflect the views of the public |
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
51. If approved, the next steps are shown in the diagram below:
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Attachment A Statement of Proposal – Auckland Traffic Bylaws |
|
b⇨ |
Attachment B Options Report – Auckland Traffic Bylaws |
|
c⇨ |
Attachment C Local Board views |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
Magda Findlik - Senior Policy Advisor Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager |
Authorisers |
Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager Louise Mason - General Manager Policy Rachel Kelleher - Director Community |
[1] Bylaw made under the Local Government Act 2002 and Health Act 1956.
[2] Services that pierce the skin, that risk breaking the skin, that risk burning the skin, and other specified services such as colon hydrotherapy and swimming pools.
[3] The review categorised the impacts of physical harms from low (minor, easily-treatable injuries or infections) to medium, high, and very high (life-threatening injuries or infections). See Appendix 4 of Attachment A for details.
[4] For example, the Chair of the Māngere-Otahuhu Local Board presented to the Governing Body in November 2018 to advocate for an exemption for tufuga and further engagement with the Samoan community.
[5] The Bylaws do not apply to roads that neither authority control, for example motorways and private car parking facilities.
[6] Bylaws respectively adopted on 18 July 2012, 25 June 2015 (GB/2015/63) and 22 August 2013 (GB/2013/84).
[7] This is not a major change in the proposal in Attachment A. It is included here as parking is a matter of significance to council.
[8] For example, Land Transport (Road User Rule) 2004 and Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022
[9] This included requests for local engagement on proposal and for the results on consultation. Engagement will be advertised in a variety of ways with options for in person and online engagement. The Local Boards with be presented with their constituent’s feedback in 2025.
[10] This included concerns about the implementation of berm parking restrictions (including central government signage requirements and enforcement), parking on boat ramps, effective enforcement of rules, effective legislative penalties, enforcement recognising cost of living, use of resource consents in relation to use of heavy vehicles during development, use of public transport hubs.
[11] Operational feedback related to administration of bylaw on Karioitahi Beach with Waikato District Council, berm parking enforcement in terms of the need for more effective enforcement and considerations for tangi where the deceased are kept at home before burial and use of parking restrictions on banks along the coast that are wahi tapu. Non-bylaw feedback included new developments with insufficient off-street parking, insufficient parking on beaches, narrow roads and infrastructure resilience.