Regulation and Consents Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Regulation and Consents Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 21 April 2016

Time:                                    9.00am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor David East

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

 

 

14 April 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Peter Sparrow

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

Tel: 941 8462

 

Petrea Downey

Committee Advisor

941 8999

petrea.downey@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

 


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

Regulation and Consents Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

Cr East

Membership

Cr Scandrett (Deputy Chair), Cr Jones, Cr Livingstone, Cr Lonsdale

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including  vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

To be separately considered

Reports To

Council

 

 

Responsibilities

·         Oversight of all matters relating to the Council’s planning and regulatory functions and the development of policies and strategies in relation to these functions, including:

­          Resource Management Act 1991

­          Building Act 2004 and the New Zealand Building Code

­          Bylaws

­          District Plan

­          Historic Places Act 1980

­          Other regulatory matters

·         Monitoring earthquake recovery related to the committees specified activities

·         Considering recommendations from Council’s Subcommittees, Community Boards, the public, stakeholders and providers in relation to regulation, consents and submissions

·         Making decisions with regard for the requirements of Sections 76 – 81 of the Local Government Act 2002 where it has the delegated authority from Council to do so, or recommendations to Council where a Council decision is required

·         Reviewing, as appropriate, and making recommendations to Council on all long term plan activities related to committee activities

·         Approval and monitoring of Council’s list of hearings commissioners under the Resource Management Act 1991

 

 

Long Term Plan Activities

·         licensing and enforcement

·         land and property information services

·         building consents and inspections (including the IANZ Building Accreditation)

·         customer and business services

·         resource consents

·         district plan

·         bylaws and regulations

 

 

Delegations

Nil.

 


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C          1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 4

B          2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 4

C          3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 4

B          4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 4

B          5.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 4

B       6.       Resource Consents Monthly Report - February 2016................................................... 9

B       7.       Resource Consents Monthly Report - March 2016..................................................... 19

B       8.       Update of the Building Consenting Unit - February 2016.......................................... 29

B       9.       Update of the Building Consenting Unit - March 2016.............................................. 35

B       10.     Regulatory Compliance Activity................................................................................... 41

A       11.     Infringement Fees under the Litter Act 1979.............................................................. 45

C       12.     Operation of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 over the 2015-2016 summer season 53   

 

 


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Regulation and Consents Committee meeting held on Thursday, 18 February 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Pam Richardson will speak on behalf of the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board regarding the Freedom Camping Report.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.  


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

 

 

Regulation and Consents Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 18 February 2016

Time:                                    9.00am

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

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor David East

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

 

 

16 February 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Peter Sparrow

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

Tel: 941 8462

 

Petrea Downey

Committee Advisor

941 8999

petrea.downey@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

 

1.   Apologies

 

Part C

An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Councillor Jones.

 

Committee Resolved RCCM/2016/00001

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor East, seconded by Councillor Livingstone that the apology for lateness from Councillor Jones be accepted.

Councillor East/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                                Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Decision under Delegation

That January 2016 meeting of the Regulation and Consents Committee was cancelled, there are no minutes to confirm.

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no Deputations by Appointment.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no Presentation of Petitions.


 

 

6.   Resource Consents Monthly Report - December 2015 / January 2016

 

Staff Recommendation

1.         That the information in this report be received.

 

Committee Resolved RCCM/2016/00002

Report for Information

Part B

1.         That the information in this report be received.

Councillor Lonsdale/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

Councillor Jones arrived 9.50am.

Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 9:56am.

Councillor Scandrett returned to the meeting at 10:04am.

7.   Regulatory Compliance Activity

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Regulation and Consents Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Regulatory Compliance Activity report.

 

Committee Resolved RCCM/2016/00003

Report for Information

Part B

That the Regulation and Consents Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Regulatory Compliance Activity report.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

8.   Update of the Building Consenting Unit

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Regulation and Consents Committee note the content of this report.

 

Committee Resolved RCCM/2016/00004

Report for Information

Part B

That the Regulation and Consents Committee note the content of this report.

Councillor East/Councillor Jones                                                                                                                           Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 10.32am and resumed at 10.45am.

 

Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 10:32am.

Councillor Scandrett returned to the meeting at 10:51am.

 

Councillor Jones left the meeting at 11:07am.

Councillor Jones returned to the meeting at 11:10am.

 

Councillor Lonsdale left the meeting at 11:35am.

Councillor Lonsdale returned to the meeting at 11:38am.

 

9.   Regulatory Compliance Unit Annual Report 2014/15

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Regulation and Consents Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Regulatory Compliance Unit's Annual report for 2014/15.

 

Committee Resolved RCCM/2016/00005

Report for Information

Part B

1.         That the Regulation and Consents Committee receive the information in the Regulatory Compliance Unit's Annual report for 2014/15.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 11.46am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 17th DAY OF MARCH 2016

 

Councillor David East

Chairperson

   


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

 

6         Resource Consents Monthly Report - February 2016

Reference:

16/202605

Contact:

John Higgins

john.higgins@ccc.govt.nz

941 8224

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide a monthly update to the Regulation and Consents Committee with respect to the delivery of resource consent functions.  This report covers activity for the month of February 2016.

2.   Application Numbers

2.1       The number of resource management applications received during February increased following the reduction over the Christmas/New Year period.  In February 249 resource consent and temporary accommodation applications were received, compared to 194 in January 2016. 

2.2       The number of resource consents issued also increased, from 166 in January to 227 in February. This is the same number of consents issued in February 2015.

2.3       Six consents issued were within the Central City.

2.4       Seven temporary accommodation approvals were issued.  This is an increase on previous months and likely to be related to the upcoming expiry of the temporary accommodation legislation on 18 April 2016.

 

3.   Recommendation

1.         That the information in this report be received by the Regulation and Consents Committee.

 

 

4.   Performance

4.1       100% of subdivision applications and 99% of land use consent applications were processed within the statutory timeframe in February.  Two complex non-notified land use consents and one notified land use consent exceeded the statutory timeframe.

4.2       No requests for further information (RFI’s) were made for 55% of applications.

5.   Key Applications

5.1       The following applications were approved:

·        Construction of a rock bund at Shag Rock Reserve. 

·        Repairs to the Trinity Church and Shands Emporium heritage buildings.

·        Rebuild of the Oxford Terrace Baptist Church at 288 Oxford Terrace.

·        Mixed use development comprising ground floor retail and 62 residential units at 48-52 Peterborough Street.

·        Replacement of the Bishopdale Community Centre and Library.

·        Outline Plan for the establishment of a new school (South Hornby Primary School) on the former Branston Intermediate School site at 35 Amyes Street.

·        Outline Plan for the realignment of Waterloo Road and Pound Road. 

5.2       Applications submitted and currently being processed that may be of interest include:

·        Replacement of the Sumner Library.

·        Extension of the Belfast Cemetery. 

 

6.   Customer Feedback

6.1       Below are verbatim comments received from customers via survey responses in February:

·        Thank you for the quick processing and prompt response.

·        My client and I were pleased with the effort X put in throughout this resource consent process.  This means a lot to my client as they're currently living elsewhere due to damages caused by the Canterbury earthquake events.  On behalf of my client, I would like to thank X for her effort and prompt actions in keeping us updated throughout the resource consent process. 

7.   Other

7.1       Connect, the replacement computer software system for GEMs, is currently being configured.  It is anticipated to now be completed in June 2016.

7.2       The John Duthie review of resource consent functions is completed.  An action plan has been developed and continues to be implemented.

7.3       A review of delegations relating to making decisions on resource consent applications.  A report paper went to the Council meeting in January but was left to lie on the table.

7.4       Decisions relating to chapters of the Replacement District Plan continue to be release.  In 2016 so far, the residential, transport (part II), subdivisions, and commercial chapters have been released.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Resource Consents Monthly Report - February 2016

11

 

 

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

John Higgins

Head of Resource Consents

Approved By

Peter Sparrow

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

 

7         Resource Consents Monthly Report - March 2016

Reference:

16/373493

Contact:

John Higgins

john.higgins@ccc.govt.nz

941 8224

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide a monthly update to the Regulation and Consents Committee with respect to the delivery of resource consent functions.  This report covers activity for the month of March 2016.

2.   Application Numbers

2.1       The number of resource consent and temporary accommodation applications received increased from 249 in February to 265 in March 2016.

2.2       The number of resource consents issued remained relatively steady, with 223 decisions issued in March compared to 227 in February. This includes two limited notified applications.

2.3       12 of the resource consents issued were within the Central City.

2.4       Four temporary accommodation approvals were issued.

 

3.   Recommendation

1.         That the information in this report be received by the Regulation and Consents Committee.

 

 

 

4.   Performance

4.1       100% of subdivision applications and complex land use consent applications were processed within the statutory timeframe in March.  One simple land use consent exceeded the 10 working day internal timeframe but met the statutory timeframe.

4.2       No requests for further information (RFI’s) were made for 52% of applications.

5.   Key Applications

5.1       The following applications were approved:

·        Continued operation of earthquake waste processing and ancillary activities at the Burwood Resource Recovery Park

·        Alterations to a heritage building at 159 High Street

·        Seven storey mixed use commercial building at 818 Colombo Street

·        Repairs to the Town Hall function room

5.2       Applications submitted and currently being processed that may be of interest include:

·        Erection of a dwelling on an under-sized rural allotment at 9021 Rothesay Road

·        Deans Head slope remediation works

·        Repairs to Cave Rock signal shelter

·        Mixed use commercial and apartment complex at 135 Kilmore Street and 130 Peterborough Street

·        Erection of two billboards at 122 Victoria Street

·        New 8-storey, 200-room hotel adjacent to the international passenger terminal at the airport

 

6.   Customer Feedback

6.1       Below are verbatim comments received from customers in March 2016:

·        The response time from you guys is amazing. (Duty Planner phone service)

·        Your team have been efficient and helpful, thank you! 

7.   Other

7.1       Connect, the replacement computer software system for GEMs, is currently being configured.  It is anticipated to now be completed in June 2016.

7.2       The John Duthie review of resource consent functions is completed.  An action plan has been developed and continues to be implemented.

7.3       Decisions relating to chapters of the Replacement District Plan continue to be released.  In 2016 so far, the residential, transport (part II), subdivisions, and commercial chapters have been released.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Resource Consents Monthly KPI report - March 2016

21

 

 

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

John Higgins

Head of Resource Consents

Approved By

Peter Sparrow

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

 

8         Update of the Building Consenting Unit - February 2016

Reference:

16/207440

Contact:

Leonie Rae

leonie.rae@ccc.govt.nz

941 8345

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Regulation and Consents Committee with the February 2016 update of the Building Consenting Unit of the Consenting and Compliance Group.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

1.         That the information in this report be received by the Regulation and Consents Committee.

 

3.   Update of the Building Control and City Rebuild Group

February in Review

3.1       Residential consenting continues to be busy although there has been a drop in the number of Residential Building Consents from February 2015 (712/559).  The team continues to be performing well with 97.1% issued within the 19 day timeframe.  Inspections are well within the 3 day requirement with many inspections on a next day booking.  Code Compliance issued 94.8% of their certificates within 19 days.

3.2       Commercial activity saw an increase in the number of Building Consents granted in the last quarter of 2015.  There was a 34% increase in November from the same month in 2014.  2016 has started with the same trend continuing in February with 30% more consents granted compared with February 2015.  The commercial team has good resource planning in place to move some of the residential Building Consent Officers, Inspectors and Code Compliance auditors to a higher competency to manage the increased workload.

Building Consents and Dashboard

3.3       In February 2016 the group processed 659 Building Consents (559 Residential and 100 Commercial).  The percentage of building consents processed within 20 working days for February 2016 was 97.2%.

3.4       Please see attachment A for the February 2016 dashboard. 

External Processing of Consents

3.5       External contractors processed 219 consents in February 2016.  The number of consents being outsourced to external contactors was higher than expected due to a large number of Residential Consent applications that came in on the week of Christmas.  Performance of External Contractors was down a little in February at 94% within 20 working days.  There were a number of factors that contributed to this result.  Many of the Building Consents received were already on high days (i.e. allocated at upwards of 10 days) due to a process and communication mix up that has now been resolved.  Wellington City Council also had a spike in the number of Building Consents they received the week of Christmas so they could not take many of our Consents.  Staff leave was planned based on average numbers from previous years, not on the large number of Building Consents received late December.

3.6       External contractors did meet their 10 day turnaround which is not reflected in the final month's performance for the reasons mentioned above.

Inspections and Scheduling 

3.7       In February 2016, 4959 building inspections were completed.  The Inspections Scheduling Team answered on average 188 calls and made 175 inspection bookings per day.  The current inspection days-out timeframe is approximately 2 working days for residential and 1 working days for commercial inspections.  There is enough resource to be able to meet 85% of requested inspections within 3 working days.

Code Compliance Certificates

3.8       505 Code Compliance Certificates were processed in February 2016 (59 commercial and 446 residential) which is similar to the number processed at the same time last year.  94.8% of the certificates were processed within 20 working days with the Commercial team achieving 100%.  Workflow in this area continues to be monitored as numbers are expected to decline for the residential sector.  Those staff working on residential Code Compliance Certificates who are interested in commercial work will be trained to cover all complexities providing a more agile workforce as numbers move.

Commercial Activity

3.9       The Commercial building consent activity figures for the last six months are in the following chart:

Continuous Improvement

3.10    There are no updates to report.  Programme Governance Group will recommence in March 2016 and prioritisation of projects is to be established.

Financial Implications

3.11    Revenue and costs are on target for the financial year. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

February 2016 Dashboard

32

 

 

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

Leonie Rae

Head of Building Consenting

Approved By

Michael Day

Peter Sparrow

Head of Business Partnerships

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

 

9         Update of the Building Consenting Unit - March 2016

Reference:

16/286591

Contact:

Leonie Rae

leonie.rae@ccc.govt.nz

941 8345

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Regulation and Consents Committee with the March 2016 update of the Building Consenting Unit of the Consenting and Compliance Group.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

1.         That the information in this report be received by the Regulation and Consents Committee.

 

3.   Update of the Building Control and City Rebuild Group

March in Review

3.1       March saw an expected increase in the number of Building Consents with 670 residential consents and 94 commercial consents processed.  Code Compliance applications processed increased from 501 to 547.  Inspections numbers were steady with demand slightly down due to Easter.

3.2       Recruitment continues for Residential Inspectors and Processing Officers.

3.3       There have been a number of staff movements across the group with staff in administration taking opportunities to progress into more technical roles in vetting and code compliance.

Building Consents and Dashboard

3.4       In March 2016 the unit processed 764 Building Consents (670 Residential and 94 Commercial).  The percentage of building consents processed within the 19 day target timeframe was 95.5%. 

3.5       Please see attachment A for the March 2016 dashboard. 

External Processing of Consents

3.6       External contractors processed 232 consents in March 2016, which is an increase from February 2016.  Performance of External Contractors increased from February to 96.5% within statutory timeframes.  Our external contractors are experiencing the same resourcing issues as we are and this resulted in some jobs not being completed within their target timeframes. 

Inspections and Scheduling

3.7       In March 2016, 5038 building inspections were completed, which is a similar amount to February 2016.  The Inspections Scheduling Team answered on average 268 calls and made 251 inspection bookings per day.  The current inspection days-out timeframe is approximately 2 working days for residential and 1 working days for commercial inspections.  Year to date we have completed 13929 inspections, and only 50 of those have been outside of the 3 working day target. 

Code Compliance Certificates

3.8       547 Code Certificates were processed in March 2016 (58 commercial and 488 residential) which is similar to the number processed last month.  97.2% of those were processed within the 19 day target. 

3.9       Workflow in this area continues to be monitored as numbers are expected to increase for the residential sector with the seasonal increase in Solid Fuel Heater applications. 

Commercial Activity

3.10    The Commercial building consent activity figures for the last six months are in the following chart:

 

Continuous Improvement

3.11    There are no updates to report. 

Financial Implications

3.12    Revenue and costs are on target for the financial year. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Building Consenting Dashboard March 2016

38

 

 

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

Leonie Rae

Head of Building Consenting

Approved By

Tracy Tierney

Peter Sparrow

Finance Business Partner

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

 

10     Regulatory Compliance Activity

Reference:

16/210840

Contact:

Fiona Proudfoot

Fiona.proudfoot@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1.        This report is to provide the Regulation and Consents Committee with an activity and volume summary report associated with the delivery of regulatory compliance functions pertaining to resource and building consenting activities.

1.2.        The report covers activity for the months of January and February 2016.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

1.         That the information in this report be received by the Regulation and Consents Committee.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       In January and February 2016 the Unit provided professional advice relating to 74 resource consent and 74 building consent applications and conducted investigations into 1,398 complaints associated with Building Act, Resource Management Act, Local Government Act and Bylaw breaches.  Please see Appendix 1 for a full breakdown of the compliance activity related to the Building Act and Resource Management Act.

3.2       Appendix 2 provides a breakdown of complaints by customer service request by type.  When complaints have necessitated escalated compliance action (specifically relating to the Building and Resource Management Acts) outcomes have been summarised in section 4.1 - 4.2 and 5.1 ‑ 5.2 below respectively.

4.   Building Act Compliance Summary

4.1       During the month of January 2016, 33 complaints were received pertaining to building works alleged to have been conducted without the appropriate consent.  Of these, 11 investigations have been completed, 22 are ongoing.  These investigations have resulted in the issue of 5 notices to fix and 7 infringement notices.

4.2       For the month of February, 110 complaint investigations were received where building works were alleged to have been conducted without the appropriate consent.  Of those, 26 investigations have been completed, 81 are ongoing.  These investigations have resulted in the issue of 25 notices to fix and 16 infringement notices.

4.3       At the time of producing this report the data associated with the number of swimming pools inspected is unfortunately unavailable, this information will be tabled at the meeting.

5.   Resource Management Act Compliance Summary

5.1       During the month of January 2016, 13 investigations were conducted into an alleged breach of the Resource Management Act, where no consent was in existence.  Of those investigations, 5 were completed, 8 were ongoing.  Three infringement notices were issued for breaches of City Plan rules.

5.2       During the month of February, 12 investigations were conducted into an alleged breach of the Resource Management Act, where no consent was in existence.  Of those investigations, 3 were completed, nine were ongoing.  Four infringement notices were issued for breaches of City Plan rules and 2 abatement notices were placed preventing a continuation of the activity.

5.3       During the months of January and February 2016 55 and 45 consents respectively were forwarded to the Compliance and Investigations Team 1 for monitoring.

6.   Key Investigations/Monitoring of Interest

6.1       The Compliance and Investigations Team received a complaint alleging dangerous buildings on New Regent Street following the 14 February 2016 earthquake.  An investigation resulted in a request for a new engineering review to be undertaken which resulted in classifying the buildings as dangerous.  The Consenting and Compliance Group then worked together to manage the situation and to ensure an appropriate outcome for both the public and other business owners.

6.2       Complaints pertaining to Freedom Camping remained high, with 97 customer service requests being received over January and February.

6.3       In December 2015 the Courts accepted a guilty plea from a Building Company who the Compliance & Investigations Team prosecuted under s.369 of the Building Act (Making a False or Misleading Statement).  In January 2016 the Compliance & Investigations Team and staff from the Building Consenting Unit presented evidence at a Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Building Practitioners Board hearing regarding the Licenced Building Practitioner status of the Company Director.  MBIE found in Councils' favour, but have yet to issue their final sanction.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Appendix 1

43

b  

Appendix 2

44

 

 

Signatories

Author

Fiona Proudfoot

Manager Licensing & Compliance

Approved By

Tracey Weston

Peter Sparrow

Head of Regulatory Compliance

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

 

11     Infringement Fees under the Litter Act 1979

Reference:

15/1294627

Contact:

Vivienne Wilson

Vivienne.wilson@ccc.govt.nz

941-8963

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulation and Consents Committee to recommend to Council that it adopt a graduated scale of litter infringement fees for litter infringement offences under the Litter Act 1979.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated. 

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by evaluating, amongst other things, the number of persons affected or with an interest in the decision, the level of community interest in the matter, possible environmental and social impacts, and the possible costs to the Council of carrying out the decision.  These criteria are all considered to be low to medium significance, with an overall ranking of low. 

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulation and Consents Committee recommends to the Council:

1.         That the Council propose to change and increase the infringement fees for infringement offences under the Litter Act 1979 as follows:

a.         That the maximum fine for littering in the Christchurch District is $400.

b.         The following offence descriptors and graduated scale of fines apply in the Christchurch District:

Fine

Descriptors for typical offences

$100

Depositing litter of less than 1 litre in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

$200

Depositing litter from 1 to 20 litres in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

$300

Depositing litter from 20 to 120 litres in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

$400

Depositing litter over 120 litres in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

$400

Depositing offensive, commercial or hazardous waste in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

 

c.         Where an offence fits more than one descriptor, the higher fine applies.

d.         For a repeat of the same offence within 12 months, the next higher fine level applies, if applicable

2.         That the Council resolves in accordance with section 13(2A) of the Litter Act 1979 that at least 14 days’ public notice of the proposed changes be given in The Press and on the Council’s website; and

3.         That the Council notes that following the completion of the public notification period, staff will put a further report to the full Council with respect to the proposed change and increase in infringement fees for infringement offences under the Litter Act 1979.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Neighbourhood Parks

·        Level of Service:  6.0.1 Neighbourhood Parks are maintained to specifications so parks are clean, tidy, safe and functional

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·        Option 1 - increase litter infringement fees (preferred option)

·        Option 2 - retain current infringement fees.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·        Greater fines may present a greater deterrent to littering.

·        Less littering will lead to an improved city and natural environment.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·        More staff time spent on infringement notice regime which may detract from spending time on more pressing enforcement issues.

4.3.3   The preferred option is to introduce a graduated scale of infringement fines for littering in Christchurch City.  The Council is able to impose a maximum fine of $400.  The Council has not changed the maximum infringement fee since 1991 when it set the fee at $100 for all types of litter infringements.  

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Under the Litter Act 1979, a person commits an infringement offence when he or she deposits any litter or, having deposited any litter, leaves it—

·        in or on a public place; or

·        in or on private land without the consent of its occupier.

5.2       Council litter control officers are authorised to issue infringement notices when they observe a person committing an infringement offence or the officers have reasonable cause to believe such an offence is being or has just been committed by that person.

5.3       In accordance with the Litter Control Act 1979, in 1991 the Council resolved that the litter infringement fee is $100.  It is now possible for the Council to resolve that the maximum litter infringement fee is $400.  (Parliament increased the infringement fee in 2006.)

5.4       In the last few years, there have been over a 100 complaints per year about the dumping of litter on cleared properties and in public spaces like road berms.  Between February 2013 and March 2014, there were 181 litter complaints recorded in the Council’s complaints system.  From 1 April 2014 to 1 May 2015, 164 complaints were received.  Council staff have not issued any litter infringement notices in the last few years due to a change in personnel.  However, staff have reviewed the legislation and approaches to litter infringements by other Councils.  In light of the development of graduated infringement fees, staff consider that this Council should consider updating its infringement fees and adopt a new approach.

5.5       In this respect, other territorial authorities have resolved in relation to litter infringements.

5.5.1   Selwyn District Council has adopted a three tiered infringement fee so that minor littering incurs an infringement fee of $100 (eg depositing in a public place or in or on private land without the consent of the occupier cigarette butts, wrappers/paper, chewing gum, plastic drink bottles etc), medium littering incurs an infringement fee of $200, (eg depositing in a public place or in or on private land without the consent of the occupier single used disposable nappies, small dumping of domestic or commercial waste, persistent use of unofficial refuse bags etc), and major littering incurs an infringement fee of $400 (eg depositing in a public place or in or on private land without the consent of the occupier two or more refuse bags of household or commercial waste, car parts etc.)

5.5.2   Ashburton District Council has adopted the maximum infringement fee of $400.

5.5.3   Wellington City Council has adopted a volume based litter infringement fee system so that there is a $100 fine for depositing litter of less than 1 litre; a $200 infringement fee for depositing litter from 1 to 20 litres or depositing potentially hazardous waste; a $300 infringement fee for depositing litter from 20 to 120 litres, depositing waste in a public green space; a $400 infringement fee for depositing litter of more than 120 litres, or depositing hazardous waste.

5.5.4   Auckland Council has adopted a graduated volume based system where a litter infringement occurs.  For example, where there is a litter infringement of less than 1 litre left in a public space or on private land without the occupiers consent, there is a fine of $100 for the first offence and $400 for a second or subsequent offence within a year. 

5.6       Therefore, staff now consider that a graduated scale of infringement fees with a maximum infringement fee of $400 may provide a deterrent to identified offenders responsible for the dumping of litter.

6.   Option 1 - Increase litter infringement fees (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Council officers now consider that it is appropriate to adopt a more responsive infringement regime, and that a graduated scale of infringement fees would be a better approach.  The following is suggested:

Fine

Descriptors for typical offences

Examples

$100

Depositing litter of less than 1 litre in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

Cigarette butts, cans, takeaways containers)

$200

Depositing litter from 1 to 20 litres in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

Larger containers (supermarket shopping bags containing rubbish)

$300

Depositing litter from 20 to 120 litres in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

Boxes of rubbish, multiple items, car tyres

$400

Depositing litter over 120 litres in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

Lounge chairs, car parts, green waste

$400

Depositing offensive, commercial or hazardous waste in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

Oil, disposable nappies, medicines, animal remains

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are informing the public by way of complying with the public notification procedure in the Litter Act 1979.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The general public are specifically affected by this option due to facing increased infringement fees for some types of littering.  The public will be informed of this new approach through the public notification procedure under the Litter Act 1979.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - It is anticipated that the advertising costs for giving public notices in accordance with the Litter Act 1979 could be between $1,000 and $5,000, depending on how extensive the advertisements are.

6.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - The implementation of a graduated infringement regime could potentially generate infringement notice revenue of around $10,000 per annum - enabling some cost recovery of the time and resources spent managing such litter complaints.  It is anticipated that the use of these infringements will also act as a deterrent to the community as those identified as inappropriately disposing of litter will be held accountable.

6.8       Funding source - The Litter Act clearly provides that the Council may retain the infringement fee received by it for an infringement offence if the infringement notice was issued by a litter control officer appointed by the Council.

Legal Implications

6.9       In order for the Council to use the infringement regime under sections 13 and 14 of the Litter Act 1979, the Council must adopt the infringement regime by resolution under section 13.  The Council has adopted the infringement regime by resolution.  However, if the Council wishes to change the infringement fees that apply, then it must pass a new resolution under section 13. 

6.10    The Council may not pass such a resolution unless it has given at least 14 days' public notice of its intention to do so.  Every resolution must specify the nature of the infringement offence or offences and the fee payable in respect of any such offence.  According to the legislation, no infringement fee shall exceed $400.

6.11    Therefore, for present purposes, in order to change and increase the infringement fees, the Council will need to give 14 days’ public notice of its intention to do so.  Once the appropriate public notice has been given, the Council will need to decide whether to resolve that a new infringement regime applies with the new graduated scale of infringement fees.  This will require a further report to Council after the public notification period has been completed.

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - The Council has appointed 16 compliance officers and 18 parking wardens as litter control officers.  With this number of litter control officers, it is anticipated that the Council will be able to enforce the new infringement regime.  The litter control officers will need to be briefed on the new regime and the use of the infringement notices.

6.14    Implementation timeframe - It is envisaged that litter control officers will be able to issue infringement notices by June 2016.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·        Greater fines may present a greater deterrent to littering. 

·        Less littering will lead to an improved city and natural environment. 

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        More staff time spent on infringement notice regime which may detract from spending time on more pressing enforcement issues.


 

7.   Option 2 - Retain current infringement fees

Option Description

7.1       This option proposes no change.  The Council would rely on the Council's resolution from 1991 which set the maximum infringement fee at $100 for littering.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Community views and preferences are not specifically affected by this option due to there not being any change in the current approach.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - There is no additional cost of implementation with this option.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - It is anticipated that the use of these infringements will act as a deterrent to the community as those identified as inappropriately disposing of litter will be held accountable.

7.8       Funding source - The Litter Act clearly provides that the Council may retain the infringement fee received by it for an infringement offence if the infringement notice was issued by a litter control officer appointed by the Council.

Legal Implications

7.9       Given that the Council is relying on the current infringement regime, this option does not raise any legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - The Council has appointed 16 compliance officers and 18 parking wardens as litter control officers.  With this number of litter control officers, it is anticipated that the Council will be able to enforce the current infringement regime. 

7.12    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·        The Council saves money in not having to publically notify a new infringement fees regime.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        The current fines do not appear to present a deterrent to littering. 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

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

Authors

Vivienne Wilson

Tracey Weston

Solicitor

Head of Regulatory Compliance

Approved By

Rob Goldsbury

Peter Sparrow

Head of Legal Services

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

 

12.    Operation of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 over the 2015-2016 summer season

Reference:

16/311353

Contact:

Fiona Proudfoot

fiona.proudfoot@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulation and Consents Committee to be informed of the operation of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015.

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Christchurch City Council resolution CNCL/2015/00035.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the criteria in the Council's policy

2.1.2   There is no community engagement and consultation required for the decision in this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulation and Consents Committee recommend to Council that it:

1.         Bring forward the review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 by carrying out a partial review of the Bylaw to consider whether amendments to the non-self-contained restricted freedom camping sites in the Bylaw are required.

2.         Instruct staff to prepare a report on the review and to present the consultation documents to Council for approval.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Regulatory Compliance, Licencing and Registration

·        Level of Service: 9.0.6 Upon confirmation by Council staff of non-compliance, at least one written advice regarding corrective action to be given for breaches of City Plan/ Resource Management Act/Building Act and bylaws breaches within 15 working days.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·        Option 1 (Preferred) - Bring forward the review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 by carrying out a partial review of the Bylaw to consider whether amendments to the non-self-contained restricted freedom camping sites in the Bylaw are required (the Preferred Option).

·        Option 2 (Not preferred) - Bring forward the review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 and conduct a full review of the whole Bylaw.

·        Option 3 (Not preferred) - Defer the Freedom Camping Bylaw review to 2017-18, conducting a review 2 years after adoption, as per the discussions prior to adopting the Bylaw.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·        The ability to address at an early stage the clear community, facilities and environmental issues that were presented by high volumes of non-self-contained freedom campers at the sites designated for non-self-contained camping during the 2015/16 summer season.

·        Reviewing only the sites specifically designated for non-self-contained campers addresses the form of camping which appears to have the greatest impact on the environment and facilities across the local authority area.

·        Limiting the scope of the review means costs associated with the special consultative procedure are likely to be reduced.

·        Limiting the scope of the review will reduce the overall timeframe needed for the consultation and introduction of any changes compared to a full bylaw review. (The Council also needs to factor in the election period, which will reduce available timeframes.)

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·        There are costs associated with any Bylaw review, so bringing forward this review to a period of less than 12 months after the Bylaw was enacted will incur specific costs associated with a new special consultative procedure earlier than proposed.

·        The timelines associated with undertaking consultation and any potential changes are likely to provide limited time for implementation prior to the 2016-2017 summer camping season.

·        The decision only takes into account the Freedom Camping activity which occurred over one summer season immediately after the implementation of the Bylaw.

·        The decision only addresses non-self-contained camping sites.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Bylaw Introduction

5.1       Freedom camping occurs in various places in the Christchurch urban area, and around Banks Peninsula (particularly in waterfront areas).  The Freedom Camping Act 2011 allows freedom camping to occur in New Zealand but provides for territorial authorities to make bylaws placing some restrictions on freedom camping.  The Act does not allow Councils to completely ban freedom camping. 

5.2       During the 2014/15 summer season the Council undertook a programme of monitoring from 1 October 2014 and 31 March 2015 across the District to assess the nature and volume of freedom camping that was taking place.

5.3       The results of the monitoring programme supported the development of a Christchurch City Council Freedom Camping draft Bylaw.

5.4       On 26 November 2015 the Council adopted the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015, with a commencement date of 1 December 2015.

5.5       The Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 provides for regulation on the freedom camping that can occur across the District as follows:

·        Prohibited areas (central city, central parts of Akaroa and Lyttelton, North New Brighton Ramps, other specified areas)

·        Restricted areas

·        Self-contained vehicles only (most residential areas of the district for a maximum of 2 nights in any 30 day period in one location)

·        Non-self-contained vehicles permitted (five specific sites)

·        Unrestricted areas (outskirts of city/rural parts of the District)

Compliance Monitoring of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015

5.6       The implementation of the Freedom Camping Bylaw was accompanied by the engagement of Armourguard to provide 20 hours of dedicated freedom camping monitoring of the sites identified within the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015.  Regulatory Compliance staff and Parks Rangers would also provide complaint reactive responses to any specific complaints received through the Council's customer centre.

5.7       The Parks and Reserves Unit developed and installed temporary signage for a number of key locations.  Signage was installed on 22 and 23 December 2015 at Lower Styx river mouth, Thompson Park, North Beach, New Brighton North and South car parks, Beatty Street, Windsport Park, Sumner Beach car-park, Taylors Mistake Reserve car-parks, Addington car-park, Birdlings Flat, French Farm, Wainui, Onawe Peninsula, Akaroa Sports Field and Children's Bay.

5.8       Monitoring information was collected over the summer season.  The data is not comparable to last season's monitoring data, where the purpose was to understand the volume and nature of sites being used for freedom camping.  The purpose of collecting information during the 2015/16 season was to check compliance with the Bylaw.

5.9       During the month of December 2015 usage of the City sites designated for non-self-contained freedom camping increased.  In addition to contracted Freedom Camping Monitoring Officers Council Compliance Officers and Rangers began monitoring those sites on a daily basis to assess compliance, educate campers and provide regular assessment of the effects on both facilities and the surrounding environment.

5.10    During the months of January and February 2016 four of the five sites designated as available for non-self-contained freedom camping (Addington Park, Windsport Park, Lower Styx and French Farm) saw increasing demand and high use place increasing pressure on facilities (rubbish, toilets) and the local environment.

5.11    The average number of vehicles per site and the maximum number of vehicles recorded at any one time when compliance monitoring was undertaken were:

·        Addington, average 17 vehicles, maximum 43 vehicles

·        Windsport Park, average 41 vehicles, maximum 106 vehicles

·        Lower Styx River Mouth, average 8 vehicles, maximum 17 vehicles

·        French Farm, average 19 vehicles, maximum 42 vehicles

·        Wainui, average 6 vehicles, maximum 9 vehicles

 

5.12    From 1 December 2015 to 31 March 2016 Council received 172 complaints relating to freedom camping activities; this does not include service requests for Parks maintenance, which would capture, for example, requests to empty overflowing rubbish bins, or request for cleansing of sites where evidence of defecation was found. Parks maintenance requests of the types mentioned though occur in many of the public parks managed by the Council and are not necessarily indicative of specific problems associated with freedom camping.

5.13    Staff from across Council Units (Regulatory Compliance, Parks and Reserves, Legal, Strategic Policy and Transport) used an iterative management process pertaining to those sites where concerns were being identified by staff, contractors and customers.  Regular communication and meetings led to the implementation of adaptive solutions, e.g. increased cleansing of facilities, increased size and frequency of emptying of bins and road marking to provide clearer direction on appropriate parking behaviours.  The Parks Unit estimate an increase of approximately $8K per week in operational costs associated with the Freedom Camping Bylaw.

5.14    High use of those sites did not, in itself, mean that campers were being non-compliant with the Bylaw.  However, high use did, on occasions, restrict access for other prospective users of those sites, result in inappropriate parking behaviours, generate environmental impacts and ultimately create very real concerns for the health and safety of both residents, campers and the environment.

5.15    The escalation of environmental, health and wellbeing issues across the sites designated as available for non-self-contained camping resulted in the Chief Executive enacting the provisions under clause 10(1) of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 and temporarily closing all 5 non-self-contained restricted sites to all forms of camping.  The closure for French Farm was effected on 10 March 2016 as provisional water sampling results, provided from Environment Canterbury on 10 March 2016 had indicated contamination.  The closure at French Farm also included the site available for self-contained vehicles.  The remaining four designated non-self-contained sites were closed effective from 16 March  until 31 May 2016.

5.16    Following the temporary closure of the non-self-contained camping sites twelve complaints were received about Freedom Camping between 16 March and 31 March 2016.  Of those complaints 2 related to the same unregistered and unwarranted vehicle and were dealt with by the Parking Compliance Team.  The number of complaints and the concerns raised by the community decreased markedly following the temporary closures of the non-self-contained sites.

5.17    The majority of complaints received related to non-self-contained vehicles.  Complaints from the community about freedom camping in self-contained vehicles were minimal.  They included two day-time complaints about overcrowding at the boat-ramp in Akaroa.  The majority of those vehicles complained about belonged to tourists and were associated with the non-self-contained freedom camping sites.

5.18    Following the introduction of the Bylaw there was Freedom Camping associated with non-self-contained vehicles complained about in various places around Christchurch.  These included, for example, New Brighton, around the North and South Car-Parks and Thomson Park - the people spoken to at those sites were not tourists, advice was given regarding the Bylaw and support with alternative accommodation.

5.19    Staff have not observed any specific problems with dispersal of non-self-contained campers following the temporary closure of the designated non-self-contained freedom camping sites.

6.   Option 1 - Bring forward and conduct a partial Review of the Bylaw (preferred)

Option Description

Bring forward the review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 by carrying out a partial review of the Bylaw to consider whether amendments to the non-self-contained restricted freedom camping sites in the Bylaw are required.

Significance

6.1       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.2       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision specifically impacts Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.3       There has been no additional community consultation taken specifically in relation to this decision but if the Council decides to make amendments to the Bylaw there will be consultation at this stage.  The Council has some awareness of community views in relation to non-self-contained freedom camping as a result of complaints and other publicity on freedom camping over the summer.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.4       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.5       Cost of Implementation - Instigating a partial review of the Bylaw will result in the requirement for public consultation at an earlier stage than originally planned.

6.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - A decision to undertake an early Bylaw review may reduce the monitoring and maintenance costs for those sites designated for non-self-contained freedom camping.

6.7       Funding source - Funding for any early review of the Bylaw will be from existing Unit budgets.

Legal Implications

6.8       The Council must review a bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 no later than 5 years after it is first made.  This does not prevent the review from being done earlier than 5 years, and does not prevent a partial review of the Bylaw from being carried out within that time. 

6.9       A review is done by making the determinations required under s11(2): the Council must consider if the bylaw (or part being reviewed) is necessary to protect the area or access to the area or the health and safety of people who visit the area, whether the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem, and the bylaw must not be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 

6.10    Following a review the Council can propose amendments to the Bylaw, or not make any amendments, but in either case it must consult by carrying out a special consultative procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    A partial review of the provision of non-self-contained camping sites across the District may not adequately deal with developing trends in tourism.

6.12    Reducing or providing no sites for non-self-contained camping may result in dispersal of campers to sites with no facilities.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - officers will carry out work for the partial review and report to Council, elected members will likely be involved in hearing submissions.

6.14    Implementation timeframe - if any amendments are to be introduced prior to 2016-2017 summer season the partial review and report to Council can be done relatively quickly; the special consultative procedure must be no less than 1 month; annual plan hearings and local government election period will be relevant to timing especially.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·        The ability to address at an early stage the clear community, facilities and environmental issues that were presented by high volumes of non-self-contained freedom campers at the sites designated for non-self-contained camping during the 2015-2016 summer season.

·        Reviewing only the sites specifically designated for non-self-contained campers addresses the form of camping which appears to have the greatest impact on the environment and facilities across the local authority area.

·        Limiting the scope of the review means costs associated with the special consultative procedure are likely to be reduced.

·        Limiting the scope of the review will reduce the overall timeframe needed for the consultation and introduction of any changes compared to a full bylaw review. (Council also needs to factor in the election period, which will reduce available timeframes.)

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        There are costs associated with any Bylaw review, so bringing forward this review to a period of less than 12 months after the Bylaw was enacted will incur specific costs associated with a new special consultative procedure earlier than proposed.

·        The timelines associated with undertaking consultation and any potential changes are likely to provide limited time for implementation prior to the 2016-2017 summer camping season.

·        The decision only takes into account the Freedom Camping activity which occurred over one summer season immediately after the implementation of the Bylaw.

·        The decision only addresses non-self-contained camping sites.

7.   Option 2 - Early review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw in its entirety

Option Description

7.1       Bring forward the review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 and conduct a full review of the whole Bylaw.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision specifically impacts Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.4       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.5       Cost of Implementation - Instigating a full review and proposing amendments to the Bylaw will result in the requirement for public consultation at an earlier stage than originally planned.

7.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - A decision to undertake an early Bylaw review may impact on the monitoring and maintenance costs for those sites designated for non-self-contained freedom camping.

7.7       Funding source - Funding for a full review of the Bylaw will take place from existing Unit budgets.

Legal Implications

7.8       The Council must review a bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 no later than 5 years after it is first made.  This does not prevent the review from being done earlier than 5 years. 

7.9       A review is done by making the determinations required under s11(2): the Council must consider if the bylaw is necessary to protect the area or access to the area or the health and safety of people who visit the area, whether the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem, and the bylaw must not be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 

7.10    Following a review the Council can propose amendments to the Bylaw, or not make any amendments, but in either case it must consult by carrying out a special consultative procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    A full review of the bylaw may not allow sufficient time to introduce any desired amendments to the bylaw before the next summer season. Given the tight timeframes to complete any full review Council may not have adequate information on the implications of any decision making within that review. For example, complete cost benefit analyses or options around provision of appropriate sites.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - officers will carry out work for the review and report to Council, elected members will likely be involved in hearing submissions.

7.13    Implementation timeframe - if any amendments are to be introduced prior to 2016-2017 summer season the review and report to Council can be done relatively quickly; the special consultative procedure must be no less than 1 month; annual plan hearings and local government election period will be relevant to timing especially.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·        The ability to address at an early stage the clear community, facilities and environmental issues that were presented by high volumes of non-self-contained campers at those sites designated for non-self-contained camping during the 2015/16 summer season.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        Conducting a full Bylaw review takes time and given the current timeframes will need to be conducted within relatively tight timeframes if the desire is to make an operative Bylaw prior to summer 2016/17.

·        The costs of conducting a full Bylaw review will be comparable to the costs associated with developing the Bylaw in the first instance.  Bringing the review forward will incur specific costs earlier than originally proposed.

·        The Council does not have sufficient information on tourism predictions about self-contained and non-self-contained camping to provide adequate guidance to conduct a full Bylaw review within the period prior to the 2016/17 summer season.

8.   Option 3 - Defer the Freedom Camping Bylaw review to 2017-18

Option Description

8.1       Defer the Freedom Camping Bylaw review to 2017-18, conducting a review 2 years after adoption, as per the discussions prior to adopting the Bylaw.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision specifically impacts Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Financial Implications

8.4       Cost of Implementation - This option would attract costs associated with the standard special consultative procedure.

8.5       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Maintaining the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 in its current form until 2017-18 will result in significant compliance monitoring and facilities management costs. It is likely to require increases to contracted Freedom Camping Monitoring Officers, Monitoring by at least the equivalent of 1.0FTE of Council Compliance Officer, increases to facilities available on those sites (toilets, rubbish, cleansing) and increased administrative support.

8.6       Funding source - Units which will be required to provide facilities, management of those and compliance monitoring will require increased funding through the Annual Plan.

Legal Implications

8.7       There are no legal implications from continuing the bylaw and conducting a review at a later date, as originally proposed.  As the proposed review was still earlier than is required by the Act the comments in the legal implications sections above would then apply when the review is conducted. 

Risks and Mitigations

8.8       Any continued use of those sites where non-self-contained Freedom Camping is permitted would need additional facilities (such as extra toilets, sinks and rubbish disposal) and a semi-permanent staff presence prior to any resumption of camping activities. There is a high risk that allowing continued use of those sites, will result in significant maintenance and monitoring costs, environmental damage and disadvantage to the community. It is also likely that Council would be perceived as failing to respond to community concerns.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.9       The advantages of this option include:

·        The Bylaw can be reviewed in light of updated tourism trend analyses.

·        The Bylaw review would address monitoring data from 2 summer seasons of the Freedom Camping Bylaw in operation.

8.10    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        It does not address issues experienced over the last summer with non-self-contained freedom camping at the specified sites. (The Chief Executive can review the temporary closure of those sites and she may be able to extend the closures (or instigate further closures at a later date), but some sites may be available for freedom camping again during the summer season).

·        Council would be perceived as failing to respond to community concerns.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment 1 - Monitoring Report

62

 

 

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

Authors

Fiona Proudfoot

Ruth Littlewood

Judith Cheyne

Principal Advisor

Senior Policy Analyst

Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Tracey Weston

Peter Sparrow

Head of Regulatory Compliance

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Regulation and Consents Committee

21 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator