Submissions Panel

Supplementary Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Submissions Panel will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 19 January 2016

Time:                                    9.00am

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Members

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor David East

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

15 January 2016

 

 

Principal Advisor

Helen Beaumont

Head of Strategy Policy

Tel: 941 8812

Principal Advisor

Rob Goldsbury

Head of Legal Services

Tel: 941 6546

 

Samantha Kelly

Committee Advisor

941 6227

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Submissions Panel

19 January 2016

 

 


Submissions Panel

19 January 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       9.       Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports............................................................. 4  

C       10.     Submission on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill............................................ 5

C       11.     Submission on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill...... 23  


Submissions Panel

19 January 2016

 

 

C     9. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

1.       Background

1.1          Approval is sought to submit the following reports to the Submissions Panel meeting on 19 January 2016:

10.   Submission on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill

11.   Submission on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill

1.2          The reason, in terms of section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, why the reports were not included on the main agenda is that they were not available at the time the agenda was prepared.

1.3          It is appropriate that the Submissions Panel receive the reports at the current meeting.

2.       Recommendation

2.1          That the reports be received and considered at the Submissions Panel meeting on 19 January 2016.

 

 


Submissions Panel

19 January 2016

 

 

10     Submission on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill

Reference:

16/37156

Contact:

Judith Cheyne

Judith.cheyne@ccc.govt.nz

9418649

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Submissions Panel to approve the attached draft submission on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill (Bill).

1.2       This report was referred to the Submissions Panel from the Council at its meeting on 10 December 2015.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated.  The Government has called for submissions on the Bill (submissions closing date is 21 January 2016).

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  Member of the community can make their own submission on the Bill.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Submissions Panel:

1.         Approve the draft submission on the Bill.

2.         Decide whether or not to appear in support of the Bill before the Select Committee and if so, which Councillor or Councillors will represent the Council.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not contain content relevant to the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

4.2.1   Option 1 - Make a submission in support of national legislation being introduced to address Easter Sunday trading throughout New Zealand, but with the alternative submission that if the decision-making is left to each territorial authority, that it be done by way of a policy or simple resolution, not a bylaw (preferred option)

4.2.2   Option 2 - Make a submission in support of national legislation being introduced to address Easter Sunday trading throughout New Zealand, without any alternative.

4.2.3   Option 3 - Make a submission in support of the Bill (territorial authorities making individual decisions), but not by way of a bylaw.

4.2.4   Option 4 - Oppose the Bill (submit there should be no change to current Easter Sunday trading) or make no submission at all.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It provides the Government with the Council's view on a matter about which the Government wishes to give the Council the power to make a decision on.

·     It is consistent with the Council's 2006 submission on Easter Sunday trading, and this submission, if accepted, would not require the Council to spend time and money consulting on whether or not it should allow Easter Sunday trading in any part of its district.

·     It provides for an alternative submission if the Council is given the decision-making power by the Government, that aims to make any consultation/decision making the Council would have to do, as simple and low cost as possible.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     If the submission for national legislation was accepted, the Council would not consult with the community about Easter Sunday trading (their only chance to provide their views would be through submissions directly to the Government).

·     A submission suggesting there be national legislation to address this issue, and no decision-making by local government, may not be consistent with the LGNZ submission.

 

5.   Context/Background

Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill

5.1       The purpose of the Bill is to "allow the statutory restrictions on shops opening on Easter Sunday to be removed by granting the territorial authorities the power to create bylaws to permit all shops to open in all or part of their districts on Easter Sunday. This allows community choice on whether shops open on Easter Sunday in the whole or part(s) of their district." (The Bill and its explanatory note can be found at: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0081/latest/DLM6632705.html?src=qs)

5.2       The Bill amends the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 (the 1990 Act), proposing that the title of the Act become the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990, for the purposes of simplifying name of the Act.  The amendments in the Bill are to:

5.2.1   grant territorial authorities a limited power to create bylaws that allow shop trading in defined areas within their boundaries on Easter Sunday:

5.2.2   enable shop workers the ability to refuse work on Easter Sunday without giving a reason:

5.2.3   enable shop workers to bring a personal grievance against an employer who compels them to work on Easter Sunday or treats them adversely because of their refusal to work on Easter Sunday.

5.3       The main purpose of the 1990 Act was to repeal the Shop Trading Hours Act 1977, and provide that shops must be closed on Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day.  The Bill will preserve the following:

5.3.1   the current status of Easter Sunday (it does not create a new public holiday), and that shops must still be closed on Anzac Day morning, Good Friday and Christmas Day:

5.3.2   the current restrictions related to alcohol for Easter Sunday:

5.3.3   the fact that the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment is responsible for the enforcement of the Act, which ensures a consistent approach for all the restricted trading days in the Act:

5.3.4   the current penalties for breaches of shop trading on Easter Sunday:

5.3.5   the historic exemptions to shop trading on Easter Sunday.

5.4       The bylaw-making power in the Bill is contained in new section 5A, and is of very limited scope.  Councils 'may' make bylaws that permit shops to open on Easter Sunday in the whole or part of its district.  A bylaw has to include a map of the area, a description, or both (but if there is any inconsistency between the two, then the description prevails.  Section 5A also expressly states that bylaws cannot place:

5.4.1   restrictions on the activities of shops in the area (including restrictions on opening hours or on the goods it may sell):

5.4.2   restrictions on the type of shops that may open in the area (including restrictions on size or ownership structure):

5.4.3   any other restrictions on shops in the area.

5.5       Other new sections in Subpart 1 require Councils to consider NZ Bill of Rights Act implications of the bylaw, and the bylaw cannot be inconsistent with that Act, consultation on the bylaw is by way of the special consultative procedure and bylaws must be regularly reviewed (similar to the provisions in the LGA02 for bylaws under that Act).  These sections more or less follow the requirements in the LGA02 for bylaw making under that Act.  Subpart 2 deals with the employee rights described above.

5.6       This Bill is not the first time this issue has been before Parliament.  The last occasion, where this Council made submissions, was in 2006. (There were members' bills in 2009 and 2010 that did not get past the first reading stage at Parliament.)

2006 Bills

5.7       In 2006 the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament by National MP Jacqui Dean (the Dean Bill), while a second bill, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill provided a possible alternative to the Dean Bill, and was introduced by Steve Chadwick, Labour MP (the Chadwick Bill).

5.8       The principle difference between the two Bills was that the Dean Bill provided for certain areas (visitor districts) of New Zealand to trade at Easter (the visitor districts proposed did not include Christchurch), whereas, the Chadwick Bill proposed leaving the decision to local authorities, on where Easter Sunday trading could occur.

5.9       Unlike the current Bill, the Chadwick Bill did not require Councils to make a bylaw; it simply required territorial authorities to make decisions on whether retail shops in their districts should be open on Easter Sunday.  However, before making any decision, as is provided for in the current Bill, the Council had to consult with their communities using the special consultative procedure.

5.10    Contrary to the LGNZ position on the 2006 Bills, the Council opposed the Chadwick Bill, primarily on the basis it considered the issue of Easter Sunday trading was a matter of national interest and should be dealt with through national legislation.  It was not cost effective for individual councils to replicate consultation on the issue throughout New Zealand, and the result would likely be a complete lack of consistency nationwide, which was not desirable, particularly between neighbouring councils.

5.11    In the end however, neither Bill passed its second reading. The Select Committee noted in its report on both bills that: "The bills will be conscience votes for members. We have recommended technical and drafting amendments to the bills as introduced, leaving the substantive decisions to the House." 

 

 

Matters relevant for Council to consider with the proposals in the Bill

5.12    There will be parts of the community who are likely to oppose any proposal that could lead to an increase in Easter Sunday trading, and there will be others who support this proposal or would support the Government amending the 1990 Act for the whole of New Zealand, without requiring a Council bylaw or decision-making process in between. 

5.13    Anyone in the community can of course make their own submissions on the Bill. 

5.14    At present the 1990 Act allows Easter Sunday trading for shops such as dairies, take away bars and garages, souvenir shops, duty free shops, shops at passenger terminals, pharmacies, shops at bona fide exhibitions or shows, garden centres and shops in certain parts of the country, such as in Queenstown and Central Taupo (and the Christchurch Arts Centre), as a result of existing exemptions carried over from the 1977 Act.

5.15    The Council needs to consider whether to respond to this Bill on similar lines/for similar reasons as in its 2006 submission.  It is also relevant to consider the recent 'push' by central government to cut unnecessary red tape for business/organisations.

5.16    This Bill creates more red tape and expense, for both Councils and businesses, particularly businesses that are in more than one Council district.  If there was national legislation that allowed Easter Sunday trading completely, or Easter Sunday trading for certain shops or certain areas this would provide clarity and consistency.  National legislation would mean:

5.16.1 there would be no decisions to be made/no consultation by the Council (and no reviews), thereby reducing cost for the Council;

5.16.2 businesses would know the same rules apply to them (and other businesses) throughout the country, and, as a result costs are likely to be reduced for business as well. 

5.17    However, a submission suggesting this be dealt with at a national level rather than locally is perhaps unlikely to succeed, given the failure of either party's bill in 2006 following a conscience vote.  It also appears that LGNZ support the Bill giving decision-making power to Councils (as proposed in their draft submission).

5.18    The Council may prefer to take the same approach as LGNZ, although it could submit that the limited decision to be made by the Council following consultation does not need to be made by way of a bylaw.

5.19    In the Regulatory Impact Statement the reason for including a bylaw making power is stated to be:

"To provide local government with a mechanism for local choice, MBIE considered either the use of a bylaw or a policy. Pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002, bylaws are required to be reviewed after every five years and there is an explicit obligation to make bylaws publicly available. A policy is better suited to provide a form of guidance about how the Territorial Authority will make decisions or exercise powers. A policy is not as accessible as a bylaw, and there are no formal requirements for its review."

5.20    However, this ignores the fact that the Government has previously required Councils to provide for statutory policies.  Examples include the Gambling Act 2003/Racing Act 2003 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.  The Council must consider in accordance with its policy  whether or not to issue a consent under the Gambling and Racing Acts.  If the Council issues a consent that is then used by a central government agency for further steps it must take in relation to a gambling licence. 

5.21    Under the Psychoactive Substances Act the Council can develop a policy that identifies locations in its district where shops selling psychoactive substances can be located.  A central government agency then uses the Council policy when it processes applications for psychoactive substances retail licences. The Council does not have an enforcement role under any of these Acts.

5.22    These Acts also contain requirements for the Policies to be reviewed by Councils, and each must be adopted/reviewed using the special consultative procedure.  The Bill could require that a simple resolution or policy made by Council is also subject to a review. 

5.23    However, it is questionable whether a review/review period is appropriate.  This puts businesses and Council to further cost and expense consulting/submitting on a review 5 years after the first decision (it is not certain whether that is the only review required or whether the bylaw/decision must be kept under continual review, as with other bylaws).  It also puts businesses, who may be able to trade on Easter Sunday as the result of a Council decision-making process, in a different position than businesses that are allowed to trade on Easter Sunday via the 1990 Act.

5.24    Businesses who can only trade, as a result of a Council decision, for the first five years after the decision may face not being able to trade following the statutory review.  However, businesses (eg garden centres, dairies and souvenir shops) can continue in the knowledge they will be able to trade on Easter Sunday until such time as Parliament decides to review the 1990 Act.

5.25    A further point is that the Council can only decide whether all or part of its district should be subject to an exemption, and is not to be responsible for enforcing the bylaw, so there seems little need to require the Council to make a bylaw.  (I note that the Council also has the option of not making a bylaw at all; this could remain even if the Council decision is to be made as a simple resolution or through a policy. However, there may be pressure put on the Council from the business community to consult.)

5.26    It can be expected though, that giving the Council a decision-making role will lead to confusion in the community over the enforcement of Easter Sunday trading, which will also increase the workload for Councils; simply by dealing with and handing on complaints when they are made to the Council.

5.27    Another matter that can be challenged in the Bill is the requirement that Council consider, and the bylaw not be inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. With the limited scope of the Bylaw, Parliament should be able to assess for itself that there will be no breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.  This requirement does not appear to be needed, even if the bylaw making power remains. 

5.28    Consultation by way of the special consultative procedure is a more formal consultation process, which may be appropriate given the significance of the issue to some in the community.  However, it may not be the best form of consultation to ask the community about this issue, given its formality. 

5.29    In 2014 the Local Government Act 2002 was amended to reduce the types of matters for which the Council was required to use the special consultative procedure.  For many matters where the special consultative procedure was previously required, the Act was amended to require consultation under section 82, following the requirements of section 82A. 

5.30    On balance, as the 2014 amendments also provided for more flexibility with the special consultative procedure, and it is more clear what is required with this process, it may be an appropriate process for consultation on whether, and if so where, any part of the Council's district should be open for Easter Sunday trading.

5.31   

6.   Option 1 - Alternative submissions: National legislation, otherwise if Council to make decision, by policy/resolution not a bylaw (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Staff recommend in the attached draft submission that Council argue in support of national legislation being introduced to address Easter Sunday trading throughout New Zealand as a matter of national consistency and to reduce red tape and unnecessary cost for both Councils and businesses in New Zealand.  This option also proposes an alternative submission (if the Select Committee does not accept its primary submission and leaves the decision-making to each territorial authority), that Council decision-making be done by way of a policy or simple resolution, not a bylaw. 

6.2       The draft submission also suggests there should not be a review period required for the decision (although a residual power would be needed for the Council to be able to review a decision if needed at any time), and even if a bylaw-making power did remain there is no need to consider whether there would be any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 implications.

6.3       The reason for suggesting this submission be made with an alternative is that if the Select Committee do not agree with the Council's submission then the Council needs to put forward its view on whether the measures proposed in the Bill for Council decision-making are appropriate. 

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The community are able to submit on this Bill themselves.  If the decision-making is left to Councils in the Bill, as proposed, then the Council will have to consult the community before it makes any decisions on Easter Sunday trading. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.7       A submission on this Bill is unrelated to Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.7.1   Cost of Implementation - there are minimal costs related to making a submission.  If the Bill leaves decision-making to the Council then the Council will have to decide if it will consult and if so, the cost will be that of a special consultative procedure (or similar).

6.7.2   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Consultation costs each time the Council has to review its decision (first review at 5 years is proposed in the Bill at present).

6.7.3   Funding source - if the Bill leaves decision-making to the Council then the Council will have to decide if it will consult and if so, the funding source will be from consultation budgets, which may need to be increased.

Legal Implications

6.8       The legal implications of the Bill as drafted are outlined in the draft submission.

Risks and Mitigations

6.9       Not applicable.

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies and timeframes - submissions on the Bill are due 21 January 2016.  Timeframes after that will depend on when the Bill is passed, likely to be mid to late 2016.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.11    The advantages of this option include:

·        It provides the Government with the Council's view on a matter about which the Government wishes to give the Council the power to make a decision on.

·        It is consistent with the Council's 2006 submission on Easter Sunday trading, and this submission, if accepted, would not require the Council to spend time and money consulting on whether or not it should allow Easter Sunday trading in any part of its district.

·        It provides for an alternative submission if the Council is given the decision-making power by the Government, that aims to make any consultation/decision making the Council would have to do, as simple and low cost as possible.

·        Recommending a policy instead of a bylaw promotes consistency with other similar statutory policies (such as gambling, and psychoactive substances).

6.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        If, the submission for national legislation was accepted, the Council would not consult with the community about Easter Sunday trading (their only chance to provide their views would be through submissions directly to the Government).

·        A submission suggesting there be national legislation to address this issue, and no decision-making by local government, may not be consistent with the LGNZ submission.

·        Some may consider a resolution or policy does not give as much importance to this matter as a bylaw.

7.   Option 2 - Make a submission in support of national legislation, without any alternative.

Option Description

7.1       This option proposes a submission could be made in support of national legislation being introduced to address Easter Sunday trading throughout New Zealand, without providing any alternative.

7.2       While a submission in support of a national solution will be consistent with the Council's 2006 submission it may be contrary to the submission LGNZ will make, and it may be unlikely to succeed with the Select Committee given that the 2006 Bills failed on a conscience vote.

Significance

7.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The community are able to submit on this Bill themselves.  If the decision-making is left to Councils in the Bill, as proposed, then the Council will have to consult the community before it makes any decisions on Easter Sunday trading. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       A submission on this Bill is unrelated to Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

7.6.1   Cost of Implementation - there are minimal costs related to making a submission.  If the Bill leaves decision-making to the Council then the Council will have to decide if it will consult and if so, the cost will be that of a special consultative procedure (or similar).

7.6.2   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Consultation costs each time the Council has to review its decision (first review at 5 years is proposed in the Bill at present).

7.6.3   Funding source - if the Bill leaves decision-making to the Council then the Council will have to decide if it will consult and if so, the funding source will be from consultation budgets, which may need to be increased.

Legal Implications

7.7       The legal implications of the Bill as drafted are outlined in the draft submission.

Risks and Mitigations

7.8       Not applicable.

Implementation

7.9       Implementation dependencies and timeframes - submissions on the Bill are due 21 January 2016.  Timeframes after that will depend on when the Bill is passed, likely to be mid to late 2016.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.10    The advantages of this option include:

·    It provides the Government with the Council's view on a matter about which the Government wishes to give the Council the power to make a decision on.

·    It is consistent with the Council's 2006 submission on Easter Sunday trading, and this submission, if accepted, would not require the Council to spend time and money consulting on whether or not it should allow Easter Sunday trading in any part of its district.

7.11    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    If the submission for national legislation was accepted, the Council would not consult with the community about Easter Sunday trading (their only chance to provide views would be through submissions directly to the Government).

8.   Option 3 - Support the Bill (territorial authorities making individual decisions), but not by way of a bylaw.

Option Description

8.1       With this option the Council's submission would essentially support the Bill/the idea of territorial authorities making individual decisions, but would include a submission that the appropriate way for Councils to make a decision is not by making a bylaw.  (Alternatively the Council could support the Bill in full.)

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       The community are able to submit on this Bill themselves.  If the decision-making is left to Councils in the Bill, as proposed, then the Council will have to consult the community before it makes any decisions on Easter Sunday trading. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.5       A submission on this Bill is unrelated to Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

8.5.1   Cost of Implementation - there are minimal costs related to making a submission.  If the Bill leaves decision-making to the Council then the Council will have to decide if it will consult and if so, the cost will be that of a special consultative procedure (or similar).

8.5.2   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Consultation costs each time the Council has to review its decision (first review at 5 years is proposed in the Bill at present).

8.5.3   Funding source - if the Bill leaves decision-making to the Council then the Council will have to decide if it will consult and if so, the funding source will be from consultation budgets, which may need to be increased.

Legal Implications

8.6       The legal implications of the Bill as drafted are outlined in the draft submission.

Risks and Mitigations

8.7       Not applicable.

Implementation

8.8       Implementation dependencies and timeframes - submissions on the Bill are due 21 January 2016.  Timeframes after that will depend on when the Bill is passed, likely to be mid to late 2016.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.9       The advantages of this option include:

·        It supports a Government decision (and the likely approach of LGNZ) but aims to make any consultation/decision making the Council would have to do, as simple and low cost as possible.

·        It means individual communities throughout New Zealand can decide what is important to their community specifically with respect to Easter Sunday trading, through a Council decision-making process.

·        Recommending a policy instead of a bylaw promotes consistency with other similar statutory policies (such as gambling, and psychoactive substances).

8.10    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        The Bill will mean additional red tape and cost for both the Council and businesses, which will be replicated throughout the country, for an issue that concerns trading on one day a year.  Supporting the Bill, may support an inefficient regulatory measure, which could be simplified through the introduction of a national rule applicable to all trading businesses throughout New Zealand.

9.   Option 4 - Oppose the Bill (submit there should be no change to current Easter Sunday trading) or make no submission at all

Option Description

9.1       If the Council does not agree with the Bill it could choose not to submit on the Bill at all.  This is not recommended as the Government might take the lack of a submission as impliedly supporting the Bill.  If the Council considers there should be no change to the current Easter Sunday trading provisions (irrespective of Council making any decisions) it should oppose the Bill.

Significance

9.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

9.4       The community are able to submit on this Bill themselves.  If the decision-making is left to Councils in the Bill, as proposed, then the Council will have to consult the community before it makes any decisions on Easter Sunday trading. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.5       A submission on this Bill is unrelated to Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

9.5.1   Cost of Implementation - there are minimal costs related to making a submission.  If the Bill leaves decision-making to the Council then the Council will have to decide if it will consult and if so, the cost will be that of a special consultative procedure (or similar).

9.5.2   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Consultation costs each time the Council has to review its decision (first review at 5 years is proposed in the Bill at present).

9.5.3   Funding source - if the Bill leaves decision-making to the Council then the Council will have to decide if it will consult and if so, the funding source will be from consultation budgets, which may need to be increased.

Legal Implications

9.6       The legal implications of the Bill as drafted are outlined in the draft submission.

Risks and Mitigations

9.7       Not applicable.

Implementation

9.8       Implementation dependencies and timeframes - submissions on the Bill are due 21 January 2016.  Timeframes after that will depend on when the Bill is passed, likely to be mid to late 2016.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.9       The advantages of this option include:

·   If the Council submits on the Bill (as opposed to making no submission) the Government is clear about the Council's position on this issue.

·   There is no additional red tape for Councils or business

9.10    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   If the submission for national legislation was accepted, the Council would not consult with the community about Easter Sunday trading (their only chance to provide views would be through submissions directly to the Government).

·   It would not be consistent with the LGNZ decision.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Draft Council Submission on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill

16

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)    sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii)   adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Judith Cheyne

Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Jane Cartwright

Anne Columbus

Unit Manager - Business Support

Director Corporate Services

  


Submissions Panel

19 January 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Submissions Panel

19 January 2016

 

 

11     Submission on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill

Reference:

16/36158

Contact:

Judith Cheyne

Judith.cheyne@ccc.govt.nz

Enter phone.

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report attaches a briefing note for the Submissions Panel on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill and a draft submission for approval.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Submissions Panel:

1.         Approve the draft submission.

2.         Advise whether the Council wishes to make an oral submission on the Bill, and if so who will represent the Council.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Information on the Bill is set out in the attached briefing note.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Briefing note for the Submissions Panel for the Council Submission on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and related Matters Bill

24

b  

Submission on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related

28

 

 

Signatories

Author

Judith Cheyne

Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Anne Columbus

Director Corporate Services

  


Submissions Panel

19 January 2016

 


 


 


 


Submissions Panel

19 January 2016