Regulation and Consents Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 16 June 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

 

 

9 June 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

16 June 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

16 June 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

A       6.       Temporary Alcohol Ban in Riccarton Park Areas on New Zealand Cup Day 2016..... 9

C       7.       Parks and Reserves Bylaw - report back on scattering of ashes............................... 21

B       8.       Update of the Building Consenting Unit..................................................................... 77

B       9.       Resource Consents Monthly Report - May 2016........................................................ 83   

 

 


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 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, 19 May 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Jacqui Freeman will speak regarding the circumstances she finds herself in, in building a granny flat for family and the development contribution fess they are facing since the change in development contribution fees in December 2015.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

 

 

Regulation and Consents Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 19 May 2016

Time:                                    8.04am

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 Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

 

 

19 May 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

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved RCCM/2016/00015

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Regulation and Consents Committee meeting held on Thursday, 21 April 2016 be confirmed.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                          Carried

 

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.   Approved Urban Design Experts

 

Committee Decided - (Staff Recommendations accepted without change) RCCM/2016/00016

Part A

That the Regulation and Consents Committee recommend to Council:

1.         That there is an interim delegation to approve an urban design expert as set out in the District Plan to the Head of Resource Consents and Head of Urban Design, Urban Regeneration and Heritage.

2.         That staff develop an interim set of criteria and process for approving an urban design expert.

3.         That a further and final report which includes delegations, criteria and process be brought back to the Committee and Council following the release of the Central City chapter decision.  

Councillor Jones/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                Carried

 

9.   Resource Consents Monthly Report - April 2016

 

Committee Decided - (Staff Recommendations accepted without change)  RCCM/2016/00017

Reports for Information

Part B

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

Councillor Jones/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                                  Carried

 

8.   Regulatory Compliance Activity

 

Committee Decided - (Staff Recommendations accepted without change)  RCCM/2016/00018

Reports for Information

Part B

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

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Jones                                                                                                                Carried

 


 

 

7.   Update of the Building Consenting Unit

 

Committee Decided - (Staff Recommendations accepted without change)  RCCM/2016/00019

Reports for Information

Part B

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

Councillor Lonsdale/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                          Carried

 

Councillor Livingstone left the meeting at 9am.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 9.12am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 16th DAY OF JUNE 2016

 

Councillor David East

Chairperson

   


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

 

6.        Temporary Alcohol Ban in Riccarton Park Areas on New Zealand Cup Day 2016

Reference:

16/493908

Contact:

Evangeline Emerenciana

Evangeline.Emerenciana@ccc.govt.nz

941 8579

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulation and Consents Committee to consider recommending a temporary alcohol ban in the Riccarton Park Racecourse neighbourhood on 12 November 2016 from 7am to 12 midnight (New Zealand Cup Day event).

Origin of Report

1.2       The Council resolved (CNCL/2016/00231) at the 12 May 2016 meeting to investigate a temporary alcohol ban in the immediate area of the Riccarton Park Racecourse, namely:  Yaldhurst Road to Middlepark Road, Epsom Road to Racecourse Road, Buchanans Road to Masham Road and Masham Road to Yaldhurst Road (Attachment A - map) for New Zealand Cup Day on Saturday, 12 November 2016 from 12am to 12 midnight, and to report back to the Council by July 2016 through the Regulation and Consents Committee.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  Therefore, targeted consultation was undertaken.

2.2       The community engagement and consultation included emails, letters, and phone calls to the majority of local on and off-license premises and non-alcohol businesses located in areas surrounding the Riccarton Park.  Residents’ associations/community groups and some residents and schools in the area were consulted through emails.  The consultation also included face-to-face meetings with the New Zealand Police, the Alcohol Tri-Agency Group, and management of Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing Jockey Club.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulation and Consents Committee recommends the Council:

1.         Resolve it is satisfied that:

a.         There is evidence that the area to which the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 (the Bylaw) applies has experienced a high level of crime or disorder and that this can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area; and

b.         The Bylaw, as applied by the resolution:

·     is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence; and

·     can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms.

2.         Resolve to impose a temporary alcohol ban from 7am to 12 midnight on 12 November 2016 (New Zealand Cup Day 2016) in areas surrounding Riccarton Park Racecourse, namely:  both sides of the streets of Yaldhurst Road to Middlepark Road; Epsom Road to Racecourse Road; Buchanans Road to Masham Road; and Masham Road to Yaldhurst Road (see Attachment A - map).

3.         Place a Public Notice in the newspaper and provide signage in key public places covered by the alcohol ban.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1      Activity:  Strategic Planning and Policy

·        Level of Service:  17.0.9 Provision of strategic advice on the social and economic issues facing the city

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·        Option 1 (preferred option) - impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban on New Zealand Cup Day 2016 in the designated public places (see Attachment A - map) around Riccarton Park Racecourse from 7am to 12 midnight on 12 November 2016.

·        Option 2 - impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban on New Zealand Cup Day 2016 in the designated public places (see Attachment A – map) around Riccarton Park Racecourse from 12am to 12 midnight on 12 November 2016.

·        Option 3 - Do not impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban on New Zealand Cup Day 2016 in the designated public places (see Attachment A - map) around Riccarton Park Racecourse area on 12 November 2016.

4.3       Alcohol Ban Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 1 (Preferred Option)

4.3.1      The advantages of this preferred option include:

·        New Zealand Police support the 7am to 12 midnight ban hours and have agreed to deploy staff and monitor these hours.

·        The risk of alcohol-induced crime and disorder related behaviour in the immediate area surrounding the venue is reduced.

·        Nuisance and general safety will be improved for all Cup Day attendees and will promote a safe environment for the neighbouring residents.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·        The ban reduces choices for responsible alcohol consumers.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council, at its 12 May 2016 meeting, adopted recommendations from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board regarding a temporary alcohol ban in the vicinity of the Riccarton Racecourse.  The Council resolved to have staff investigate the practicality of imposing a temporary alcohol ban in the Riccarton Racecourse Area on Saturday 12 November 2016 New Zealand Cup Day event, and to report back to the Council by July 2016 through the Regulation and Consents Committee.

5.2       The Community Board's recommendations to the Council for an investigation were made following correspondence received by the Board at its 14 April 2016 meeting from the management of the Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing Jockey Club requesting an alcohol ban in areas associated with Racecourse New Zealand Cup Day 2016.  It is their opinion that imposing a ban will provide a safer environment for the public and residents surrounding Riccarton Park Racecourse on Cup Day event. 

5.3       A similar request was made in 2015 by the Manager of Riccarton Park Function Centre and Chief Executive of Canterbury Racing Jockey Club to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board through a deputation on 4 August 2015.  The Regulation and Consents Committee at its 17 September 2015 meeting decided to recommend the Council impose a temporary alcohol ban in surrounding public places associated with Racecourse New Zealand Cup Day event.  The Council, at its 15 October 2015 meeting, resolved to impose a temporary alcohol ban in public places around the Riccarton Park area on 14 November 2015 NZ Cup Day, from 7am to 12 midnight.

5.4       The New Zealand Police monitored the crowd of 20,000 at last year's NZ Cup Day.  They reported that the percentage of people drinking in and around Riccarton Park Raceway was less in 2015 compared to previous years when no ban was in place.  Police report that on the day they made twelve arrests and evicted 40 people from the event venue.

5.5       At the Tri-agency Cup Day Debriefs (attended by Riccarton Park Function Centre, Canterbury Racing Jockey Club management, New Zealand Police, Council Licensing Inspector, and Community Public Health Licensing staff) improving the management of 2016 Cup Day event in terms of compliance inside the racecourse area had been raised by the Tri-Agency Group (Council and Community Public Health Licensing staff, and New Zealand Police).  This includes ways the alcohol is sold or supplied, and the risks involved with the various areas of the event venue.

5.6       An alcohol ban was also introduced for the Addington event several years ago and is now a permanent ban.  This has proved to be a useful tool in reducing preloading and in changing people's behaviour before they get to the event.  The success of the Addington alcohol ban has encouraged Canterbury Jockey Club to propose to have a similar ban at Riccarton.  This is supported by New Zealand Police.

5.7       Local businesses and residents in the area, Residents Associations, Riccarton/Wigram Community Board, community organisations, management of Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing, and the Tri-Agency Group are specifically affected by the alcohol ban due to the impact of alcohol-related problems or preloading on Racecourse New Zealand Cup Day and were consulted and all support the temporary ban.

6.   Option 1 - Impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban from 7am to 12 midnight on 12 November New Zealand Cup Day 2016 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council resolves to apply a temporary alcohol ban in areas surrounding Riccarton Park Racecourse from 7am to 12midnight on 12 November New Zealand Cup Day 2016 Event.

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 low.  Stakeholders were contacted to inform them of the proposed ban through face to face meetings, emails, and phone calls.

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       About 71 stakeholders were consulted, 31 have expressed inputs and support.  Their views are shown below.

6.4.1      The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board received the correspondence from Canterbury Racing and Riccarton Park Function Centre and New Zealand Police, and recommended to the Council to direct staff to investigate imposing a temporary alcohol ban this year, similar to that in 2015.

6.4.2      Staff consulted New Zealand Police to ascertain their support for the proposed temporary alcohol ban.  The Police unequivocally support another temporary alcohol ban for this year's New Zealand Cup Day.  New Zealand Police support enforcing the ban from 7am on 12 November 2016 when a number of people attending the event turn up after champagne breakfasts, and to end at 12 midnight.

6.4.3      New Zealand Police note while compliance levels with the alcohol ban at last year’s event were not good, there were considerably fewer people drinking on the way to the racecourse compared to previous years.  They believe the 2015 ban, being the first in Riccarton Park area, will set an example to many who witnessed it.  They expect the ban will reduce preloading and place some expectations on peoples' behaviour before they get to the event.

6.4.4      For this year, Police intend to deploy more staff to ensure better monitoring, road policing, and post event capability to deal with the aftermath across the city.  They believe that in the long term they should be able to reduce their staffing demand if other measures to reduce alcohol related harm come in to play.  They have suggested the Canterbury Jockey Club to produce identical signs to those of the Council to keep visitors informed of the ban.

6.4.5      The Council Alcohol Licensing Inspector and Community and Public Health Licensing Staff support imposing the temporary alcohol ban this year.  They agree with the Police that the ban be imposed from 7am to 12 midnight on the Cup Day event.  The Council Licensing Inspector believes the alcohol ban on Riccarton Cup Day is important where a high level of non-compliant alcohol drinkers still raise concerns, and there are more problems of misbehaviour than in at the Addington Trotting Cup Day.

6.4.6      Both Alcohol Licensing teams would like to see the temporary alcohol ban progress to a permanent ban applied on Cup Day each year.

6.4.7      Staff consulted the management of Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing Club as being the Cup Day event organisers.  Both believe imposing an alcohol ban again for this year’s Cup Day will further reduce the risks of preloading.  They highlight the ban on the 2015 Cup Day event worked well compared to the years with no ban.  Unlike the 2014 Cup Day when the organisers received a number of alcohol-related complaints, they confirmed no complaints for alcohol related disorder were received in 2015.

6.4.8      Staff consulted eight alcohol licensees (three on-licence, three off-licence and two both on- and off-licence premises) located in the area. Of these, five licenced businesses support another temporary ban this year.  They thought imposing the ban in the same area and time as in 2015 is reasonable.  Staff were unable to contact the remaining three.

6.4.9      Non-alcohol businesses in the area were also consulted.  Four non-alcohol businesses, including a Kindercare Centre support another alcohol ban the same as last year. 


 

6.4.10    Staff consulted the community organisations (i.e., Neighbourhood Support, and residents' associations) in the area.  Three community organisations support the ban and suggest the need to have more enforcement of the alcohol bans, including this year's Cup Day.  They would like to see the ban applied yearly to increase the awareness of the people participating in the event.

6.4.11    Staff contacted residents around the proposed ban area by way of email.  Fourteen residents fully support an alcohol ban similar to 2015.  They expect this year's ban will be much better.  They mention having found only a fraction of the bottles, cans, rubbish and broken glass left behind on streets following the 2015 Cup Day event compared to 2014.

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 - The approximate cost of $3000 (public notices, updating previous signage) will be met from existing budgets.

6.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - The cost of enforcement rests with the New Zealand Police under powers in the Local Government Act 2002.

6.8       Funding source - The City and Community Long Term Policy and Planning Activity budget.

Legal Implications

6.9       Before making a resolution, using the Council's Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places 2009 (the Bylaw), the Local Government Act 2002 (s147b) requires that the Council must be satisfied that -

(a)          There is evidence that the area to which the bylaw applies (or will apply by virtue of the resolution) has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area; and

(b)          The bylaw, as applied by the resolution, -

(i)        Is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence; and

(ii)       Can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms.

The information that covers these matters is included below in 6.10.2.

6.10    The Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 (the Bylaw) allows the Council to put a Temporary Alcohol Ban Area in place by resolution.  Clause 5 of the Bylaw specifies a number of matters the Council must consider before it imposes a Temporary Alcohol Ban - that the resolution must describe the specific area of the Temporary Alcohol Ban Area and the times, days or dates during which the alcohol restrictions apply to any public places in the area.

6.10.1    In accordance with Clause 5(1) of the Bylaw, the proposed resolution describes the specific area to which the Temporary Alcohol Ban will apply and the times and date that will apply.  The specific area is outlined in the Attachment A - Map.  The ban will apply on 12 November 2016 (New Zealand Cup Day 2016) from 12am to 12 midnight.


 

6.10.2    With respect to the consideration in Clause 5(2) of the Bylaw, the following is noted:

·        Clause 5(2)a - whether the proposed bans relate to events

This proposed Temporary Alcohol Ban on 12 November 2016 relates to New Zealand Cup Day in the area surrounding Riccarton Park Racecourse. 

The Riccarton ‘Cup Day’ has grown each year and is now a sell-out event attracting around 20,000 people.  It is now a bigger event than Cup Day at Addington in terms of numbers.  Prior to 2015, attendance to the annual Cup Day event recorded were 21,000 in 2012, and 18,000 in both 2013 and 2014.

·        Clause 5 (2)(b) - the nature and history of alcohol-related problems usually associated with the areas, together with any anticipated alcohol-related problems

The Riccarton Park and Canterbury Racing management host race meetings throughout the year and it is only the Cup Day event that gives rise to alcohol-related risks and preloading issues.

Prior to 2015 increasing incidence of preloading and misbehaviour as well as open alcohol bottles being carried on the streets around the Riccarton Park  have been reported on New Zealand Cup Day.  The problems associated with preloading typically manifest as violence, property damage, antisocial and disorderly behaviour and littering.

On the 2015 Cup Day when the alcohol ban was first imposed, there were still a significant number of people breaching the ban with high levels of intoxication occurring.  However, the number of alcohol-related crimes such as assaults, disorderly and antisocial behaviour reduced. 

·        Clause 5(2)(c) - whether the benefits to local residents and to the city would outweigh the restrictions the resolution would impose on local residents and other people, including those who may be attending any events, in the area covered by the resolution

Local residents have expressed benefits from the alcohol restrictions put in place last year.  Staff consider the benefits to local residents, visitors and to the city outweigh the restrictions imposed on Cup Day patrons, residents and other people in the area.  There has been little evidence of alcohol-related problems in the public places surrounding the Riccarton Park when the ban was imposed last year.

With the growing attendees to the event, Police consider the alcohol restriction a useful tool in minimising alcohol related harm and provides an early intervention point for police that otherwise would not exist. 

The concept of Alcohol Bans in Christchurch is well understood so compliance will increase over time.

·        Clause 5(2)(d) - any information from the Police and other sources about the proposed dates, the event or the area to be covered by the resolution

New Zealand Police recommend the temporary alcohol ban be made permanent, to occur yearly, as it does for the Addington Trotting Cup Day.  Council staff will investigate the option of this becoming a permanent ban in 2018 as part of the timetabled review of the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009.


 

The New Zealand Police believe the area defined by the 2015 temporary ban was well thought-out and practical in terms of being able to define it by streets.  They strongly suggest the Council retains the number of signs erected last year in strategic locations covering the ban public places.  New Zealand Police also requested the management of Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing install similar signs within the Racecourse to keep visitors informed of the ban and improve compliance.

This year the event will be run under the provisions of a Special Licence with conditions on how alcohol is sold and supplied to ensure that consumption of alcohol is appropriately monitored and managed, and the risk of alcohol related harm is minimised.

6.10.3    Any other information the Council considers relevant 

·        There were newspaper reports of alcohol-related incidents on Racecourse NZ Cup Day 2015.  An excerpt of The Press dated 17 November 2015 cited that -

"NZ Police made 12 arrests and evicted 40 people at Saturday's popular annual race meeting, raising concerns about drunkenness and alcohol management.”

“The level of intoxication, generally, of that [Riccarton] crowd is too high." 

·        The management of Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing believe the ban will improve compliance as the ban becomes an accepted norm for visitors attending Cup Day.  They would also like the temporary alcohol ban to become permanent.

The event organisers also aim to help alcohol ban information reach a wider public via their Facebook or social media, online ticketing sales webpage, or other marketing portfolio (i.e. nomination, press release, etc.) to raise the level of ban compliance.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    The risk for this option is stakeholders are not well informed of the ban.  To mitigate the risk, the Council will ensure good communication and information (i.e. through social media), media release provided to stakeholders.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - New Zealand Police have powers to enforce the Bylaw, including the power to search containers and vehicles in public places for alcohol, seize and remove alcohol, and arrest any person who is found to be breaching the Bylaw.  The alcohol restrictions apply to public places such as streets, reserves and walkways over which the Council has control.

6.13    Implementation timeframe - If Council imposes a temporary alcohol ban, council staff have 15 weeks to implement the decision (including media release, public notice, putting alcohol ban signs, and ban enforcement).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·        New Zealand Police can control inappropriate consumption of alcohol in public places around Riccarton Park Racecourse on NZ Cup Day 2016.

·        Reduce misbehaviour problems with people preloading in public places and encourage people to celebrate responsibly.

·        Nuisance and general safety will be improved for all Cup Day attendees and promote safe environment for the neighbouring residents.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        The ban reduces choices for responsible alcohol consumers.

7.   Option 2 - Impose Temporary Alcohol Ban from 12am to 12midnight on 12 November Racecourse NZ Cup Day 2016

Option Description

7.1       The Council resolves to impose a temporary alcohol ban in designated areas associated with the Riccarton Racecourse New Zealand Cup Day Event, from 12am to 12 midnight on 12 November 2016.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.  Stakeholders were contacted to inform them of the proposed ban through face to face meetings, emails, and phone calls.

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       Of the 71 stakeholders contacted only 31 have commented on the proposed ban.  Their views as follows:

7.4.1      Stakeholders who submitted comments support imposing temporary ban similar as last year, from 7am to 12 midnight on New Zealand Cup Day event. 

7.4.2      New Zealand Police believe that a 17-hour alcohol restriction on Cup Day is a considerable period for Police to enforce the ban.  They prefer to impose the ban starting at 7am when a number of visitors attending the Cup Day event turn up after champagne breakfasts.

7.4.3      Council Licensing Inspectors and Community Public Health Licensing Staff agreed when consulted that a 7am start for the ban enforcement is realistic and reasonable in ensuring public safety.  In deciding the time to start the ban enforcement, they have considered that Cup Day event venue main gate opens at 9am on 12 November.

7.4.4      The management of Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing have confirmed that they requested a 24-hour alcohol ban from 12am to 12midnight on NZ Cup Day 2016.  They agree, however, that alcohol ban enforcement could start at 7am and end at 12midnight as supported by the Tri-agency Group.  The management have stressed that no complaints about the alcohol ban that applied from 7am to 12 midnight on Racecourse NZ Cup Day 2015 were received.

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 - If the temporary ban is imposed, public notices, and appropriate signage are required by law. The approximate cost of $3000 will be met from existing budgets.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - The cost of enforcement rests with the New Zealand Police under powers in the Local Government Act 2002.

7.8       Funding source - The City and Community Long Term Policy and Planning Activity budget.

Legal Implications

7.9       Detailed information that covers these matters is as above, in 6.9 and 6.10.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The risk for this option is stakeholders may be confused if the ban is enforced for 24 hours and not from 7am to 12midnight which was the time period for the ban in 2015.  To mitigate the risk, Council will ensure good communication and information (i.e. through social media), media release provided to stakeholders.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - New Zealand Police have powers to enforce the Bylaw, including the power to search containers and vehicles in public places for alcohol, seize and remove alcohol, and arrest any person who is found to be breaching the Bylaw.  The alcohol restrictions apply to public places such as streets, reserves and walkways over which the Council has control.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - If Council imposes a temporary alcohol ban, council staff have 15 weeks to implement the decision (including media release, public notice, putting alcohol ban signs, and ban enforcement).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·        All the advantages as outlined in Option 1.

·        New Zealand Police can control consumption of alcohol around Riccarton Park Racecourse for a longer period, 24 hours on 12 November 2016.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        The risk as outlined in 7.10.

·        New Zealand Police will not be able to effectively enforce the ban for 24 hours.  Police prefer to put more of their resources at the event itself, road policing and post event incidents.

8.   Option 3 - Do not impose Temporary Alcohol Ban on Racecourse NZ Cup Day 2016

Option Description

8.1       The Council resolves not to impose a temporary alcohol restriction in designated ban areas at Riccarton Park Racecourse anytime on 12 November 2016 New Zealand Cup Day Event.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is relatively low consistent with the analysis as per the Significance and Engagement Policy.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low for stakeholders who will be directly affected with the risks that individuals or groups will drink in public places.  Stakeholders were informed and contacted to ask their views of the proposed ban through face to face meetings, emails, phone calls, and letter. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       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

8.4       All stakeholders consulted support imposing another temporary ban.  The management of Riccarton Park Function Centre and Canterbury Racing confirm they haven't received any complaints regarding the ban imposed in 2015.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation - No cost is required for this option.

8.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

8.8       Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

8.9       There are no legal implications as the Council does not impose a temporary ban.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    The risk of not imposing an alcohol ban is that residents in the area will again feel the effects associated with the alcohol-related nuisance of those attending the event.  The mitigation is that the Police may be able to manage some of the behaviour although they will be minus a key tool they say makes a valuable contribution to policing.

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable

8.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·        No costs to the Council as there is no need for communications or signage.

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        Continuing alcohol-related misbehaviour and effects on local residents and visitors attending the Riccarton NZ Cup Day event.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment A - Map showing the proposed Riccarton Park Racecourse Temporary Alcohol Ban Area

19

 


 

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

Evangeline Emerenciana

Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Strategic Policy

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

 

7.       Parks and Reserves Bylaw - report back on scattering of ashes

Reference:

16/564191

Contact:

Claire Bryant

claire.bryant@ccc.govt.nz

941-8876

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Council that it approve further steps in relation to the scattering of ashes on Council land and adopts the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is prepared in response to a memo from the Mayor of 10 July 2015 in relation to the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016:  "That staff consult further and report back to the Council as to possible resolutions for the outstanding issue in relation to the scattering and burial of ashes."

1.2.1   This report has been prepared for the Committee after undertaking targeted stakeholder consultation and immediately after receiving the Papatipu Rūnanga consultation report (Attachment B) from Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd in mid-May 2016.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The overall level of significance is determined as medium.  Although the estimated number of ashes currently being scattered on Council land is low, the decision is considered to have medium-high significance with regard to the cultural impact of the decision on Maori and on the Council's relationship with Maori.

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulation and Consents Committee:

1.         Resolve that Parks Unit staff report back to the Council with:

a.    options for scattering ashes in cemeteries (current and/or future) and a draft amendment to the existing Cemeteries Handbook as required to enable scattering of ashes

b.    designated sites for scattering of ashes within Council’s open space areas, with management guidelines for any agreed site to be developed with the relevant Rūnanga

c.     draft guidelines explaining options and informing the public of best practice for scattering ashes taking account of cultural protocol and practices.

2.         Resolve to adopt the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 (Attachment E) and:

a.   that the form of the Christchurch City Council Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 is the most appropriate form, and that the bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

c.   that the Christchurch City Council Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 comes into force on 1 September 2016

d.  that staff are otherwise authorised to make any typographical changes or correct minor errors as the case may be before the Bylaw comes into force

e.  that the Council give public notice that the Christchurch City Council Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 has been made by the Council, that it comes into effect on 1 September 2016 and that copies of the bylaw may be inspected and obtained at the Council’s offices or on its website, without payment.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·        Level of Service: 17.0.19 Bylaws and regulatory policies are reviewed to meet statutory timeframes and changing needs

4.2       A non-regulatory and pro-active approach to the scattering of ashes is preferred - one that provides a range of choices and actively educates/informs the public about why it matters. The option of prohibiting the scattering of ashes in parks and gardens through the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw was not considered feasible due to the impracticality of enforcement.  The practice tends to happen on weekends and evenings when few staff are present and, although family and friends may gather for a period of time, the act of scattering can happen very quickly and may not be observed by staff.  Because of this, regardless of any bylaw prohibition, the Council would not be able to guarantee to the community and to iwi in particular that, in fact, there had been no ashes scattered in a particular park or garden. 

4.3       The following feasible options have been considered:

•        Option 1 - Pro-active approach to scattering ashes and adopt the Parks and Reserves Bylaw (preferred option)

Investigate non-regulatory approaches such as scatter gardens in cemeteries (particularly any planned cemeteries in development) - a formal approach which enables name registration in the database for future genealogical searches; facilitate less formal ash scattering (e.g. no name registration in a database, no memorialisation) by identifying designated sites in Council open space areas and developing management guidelines for any site with the appropriate Rūnanga; develop a Code of Practice and publish public information about best practice for scattering ashes; and adopt the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016.  (Note while the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw referred to 2014, it will now refer to 2016). The proposed bylaw is silent on the matter of scattering ashes in parks i.e. it does not prohibit the practice.

·        Option 2 – Proactive approach to scattering ashes and do not adopt the proposed bylaw

Investigate all non-regulatory alternatives (as outlined in Option 1) but do NOT adopt the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw.  Not adopting the bylaw is an option as the Local Government Act merely requires existing bylaws to be reviewed every ten years to remain in force - they do not have to be changed.  However, this would mean the proposed amendments to the bylaw would not be adopted and not be considered again until the next review, due in 2023.  Option 2 retains the current 2008 bylaw, which is silent on scattering ashes.  The current 2008 bylaw is also silent on a range of nuisance issues in parks such as noise and parking; relying on other bylaws to manage these matters.  These latter matters have been remedied in the proposed bylaw.

·        Option 3 - Status quo - do nothing

Do not investigate non-regulatory options and do not adopt the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016.  This is not a preferred option as all those consulted, particularly the Papatipu Rūnanga consultation report (Attachment A) from Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd, support the Council considering non-regulatory alternatives as outlined in Option 1.  Not adopting the proposed bylaw is a potential option for the Council but not preferred for the reasons outlined in Option 2.

4.1       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.1.1   The advantages of this option include:

·        It takes an educative rather than regulatory approach to informing the public about considerate and responsible disposal of ashes/human remains and provides a range of alternatives other than scattering in a multi-use public park.

·        It plans for an expected increase in the number of cremations and resulting demand for ash scattering options taking account of cultural protocol and practices.

·        It allows staff to work through the complexity of meeting the requirements/ expectations of the Regional Land and Water Plan, the proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan and the Iwi Management Plan when developing a range of options.

·        It enables staff to bring well-formulated alternatives to the Council for further consultation (if so directed).

·        It adopts the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 within the current term of the elected members using the findings from the special procedure consultation and Hearings Panel already undertaken.

4.1.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·        Investigating these alternatives and developing new service delivery plans is complex, may take some time and may incur further costs for the Council.  These costs may be balanced by savings from using cemetery land more efficiently.  This report recommends that the costs and benefits of the alternatives are to be investigated by operational staff and reported back to the Council for further consideration.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       In mid-2014 the Council consulted the community on a proposed new Parks and Reserves Bylaw following completion of a review and considered the recommendations of the Hearings Panel in November 2014.  At this meeting the Council asked the Panel to further consider clause 6 relating to the scattering and burial of ashes in parks and reserves, as well as two other issues.  In March 2015 the Panel reported back with recommendations to remove reference to the scattering and burial of ashes from the proposed bylaw (Attachment D) and that the Council investigate options outside the regulatory bylaw framework.  The Hearings Panel also made recommendations to deal with the two other issues (the wording of the clause relating to vehicles in parks and the wording of the clause relating to aircraft).

5.2       The Council did not adopt the Panel's recommendation in relation to the scattering of ashes and the Mayor issued a memo directing staff to consult those who had submitted on the 'scattering and burial of ashes' during the bylaw consultation i.e. Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd on behalf of the Papatipu Rūnanga, the Hagley/Ferrymead and Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Boards and one individual submitter.  In addition, staff were directed to consult individual Rūnanga as advised by Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd, and other identified stakeholders such as the Funeral Directors Association of New Zealand (FDANZ) and the Canterbury Cremation Society.  Staff initiated consultation with the above parties between August and December 2015 and received the final report from Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd on their consultation with Papatipu Rūnanga in early May 2016.

5.3       The total number of deaths a year in the Christchurch City Council district was 2,870 in 2015.  This number is forecast to increase to 3,550 a year by 2036 in line with current demographics (the ageing population).  The trend in New Zealand is towards a preference for cremation (70% of all deaths in New Zealand result in cremation) and, given the forecast moderate increase in demand for cemetery space, support for practical, acceptable options for dealing with ashes addresses both a community need and a potential benefit for the Council (scattering ashes rather than burials extends the use of scarce and expensive-to-provide cemetery space).

5.4       The Cremation Society of Christchurch have two sites, at Linwood and Harewood, and provide 1800 cremations a year of which 1200 are memorialised in their own cemetery gardens (both sites provide designated areas where people can scatter ashes at a cost of $95).  Given the 1200 ashes accounted for by Linwood and Harewood, and the approximate 266 annual ash interments in Council's cemeteries, a few hundred ash urns remain 'unaccounted for' within Christchurch City each year.  While some people may choose to scatter these ashes in Council parks, they have a range of other options including interment or scattering on private property; scattering outside city boundaries in natural environments; or to keeping the ashes in their urn.

5.5       While there is a forecast moderate increase in demand, the majority of ashes are being provided for (mainly interment with the Cremation Society of Christchurch) therefore this report recommends the Council investigate providing moderate additional options:

·        Identify 1-2 sites in open spaces to designate for scattering of ashes as some families may prefer this less formal approach - there will be no database record or memorialisation available in these areas (other than what is agreed to in the management guidelines with Rūnanga).

·        Identify 1-2 options to develop options for scattering ashes in existing or future planned cemeteries as some people may prefer some memorialisation and having their name recorded in the cemetery database for future genealogical searches.


 

6.   Consultation Feedback

6.1       The parties were consulted on the following options relating to the scattering of ashes:

·        Status quo - do not regulate against scattering of ashes.

·        Identify areas where the scattering of ashes is prohibited.

·        Identify designated areas where the scattering of ashes may occur. 

6.2       The designated parks and specific areas within each park (the orange hatched areas in Attachment A) were selected based on the following criteria:

·        Not within the most visited parks and reserves such as Garden and Heritage Parks (for example, the Botanic Gardens and Mona Vale have high amenity value and scattering ashes could potentially be offensive or a nuisance to other people using the area).

·        Not within Community Parks as these are often used for picnics or food gathering (for example, edible gardens).

·        Not within Sports Parks as these are used for active games and there is risk of inhaling or imbibing ashes scattered on the sports ground.

·        Not within 50 metres of known picnic assets (such as picnic tables and chairs).

·        Not within 50 metres of waterways as these may be food gathering sites.  

·        Not within wahi tapu sites based on silent file areas.

6.3       Based on these criteria five regional parks were identified as suitable (Barnett Park, Halswell Quarry Park, Victoria Park, Bottle Lake Forest Park and Stanbury Park) and were the subject of consultation with the Community Boards and Rūnanga.  Each of these Parks have specific areas within them that could be designated for the scattering of ashes (Attachment A). 

6.4       The relevant Papatipu Rūnanga for these parks, Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and Ōnuku Rūnanga, have provided feedback on these options, facilitated by Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (Attachment B).

6.5       Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga initially submitted on the Parks and Reserves Bylaw review seeking a complete prohibition on the scattering of ashes in Council parks and reserves.  The Rūnanga have amended their position and are now supportive of the Council identifying designated sites.  If the Council decide not to proceed with designated sites Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd strongly recommend that the Council advises Ngā Rūnanga and Mahaanui Kurataiao of this decision and detail the reasons for the decision.

6.6       The consultation with the Community Boards elicited a range of responses, reflecting the divergent views within the community on this issue.  All Boards support the provision of guidelines and educative material and 'other methods' such as the provision of scatter gardens as part of Council's cemetery services and buy-a-tree afforestation packages.  While not one of the 'main' options, staff note that none of the community boards expressed support for a complete prohibition of the scattering of ashes in parks and reserves. 

6.7       Four Community Boards strongly preferred the status quo of no regulation and of the regulatory options they preferred a bylaw provision which identified prohibited areas.  By contrast, the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert, Hagley/Ferrymead and Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board’s considered that the Bylaw should designate (a limited number of) sites where the scattering of ashes would be allowed.

6.8       In terms of consultation with the funeral 'industry', staff sought the views of the chief executives of the Funeral Directors Association of New Zealand (FDANZ) and of the Cremation Society of Christchurch which operates the Linwood and Harewood crematoria and memorial gardens. 

6.9       The Chief Executive of the FDANZ expressed a clear preference for the Council not to regulate using the bylaw.  The FDANZ considers that there is not enough evidence of a problem to justify a regulatory response and also questioned the Council's ability to effectively enforce a bylaw.  In 2014 the FDANZ strongly opposed an Auckland Council proposal to regulate the scattering of ashes by requiring a permit for the scattering of ashes in their draft Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw.  The FDANZ instead proposed the Council adopt guidelines and a Code of Practice, and this is the approach that has been adopted by Auckland Council (see more below).

6.10    The Chief Executive of the Cremation Society of Christchurch considered this to be a multi-layered issue requiring careful consideration.  She supported identification of prohibited areas and expressed strong support for an informative flyer setting out Council's final policy which she would recommend be distributed with each ash urn.  She also queried whether the Council could provide options rather than restrictions and suggested that the Council investigate allowing ash scattering within cemeteries with the name of the deceased entered into our database (thereby enabling genealogical searches at a later date).

6.11    Staff also undertook further internal consultation with Council staff who have primary responsibility for the operational delivery of the bylaw and park planning.  Most prefer no bylaw regulation of ashes, with designation of prohibited areas a second choice option.  Staff did not immediately favour designated sites because of potential management challenges such as ensuring that sites don't become de-facto cemeteries, preventing an undesirable concentration of ashes within one area and ensuring that the designation of a site doesn't compromise future development of a reserve.  However, staff see merit in allowing the scattering of ashes in some places – for example, similar to the Port Hills Placenta Tree Planting "May your memories grow with the trees" policy   http://www.ccc.govt.nz/services/cemeteries/casket-and-ash-burials-interments/interments/port-hills-placenta-tree-planting/.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: summary consultation feedback

Consulted agency

Feedback

Indicates support for which consulted  option

New Zealand Funeral Directors Association

Prefer non-regulatory responses e.g. Code of Practice etc

Do not regulate against scattering of ashes - adopt the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2014

Council operational staff

Non-regulatory responses e.g. Code of Practice etc, with designated sites a second choice option

Do not regulate against scattering of ashes - adopt the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2014

Community Boards overall

All support educative responses, 4 of 7 prefer non-regulatory response

Majority support for not regulating against scattering of ashes - adopt the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2014

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

Designate (a limited number of) sites where the scattering of ashes would be allowed

Revise the proposed bylaw, to regulate to allow the scattering of ashes in only a relatively few designated sites.

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

Designate (a limited number of) sites where the scattering of ashes would be allowed

Revise the proposed bylaw, to regulate to allow the scattering of ashes in only a relatively few designated sites.

Papatipu Rūnanga

Designate (a limited number of) sites where the scattering of ashes would be allowed

Revise the proposed bylaw, to regulate to allow the scattering of ashes in only a relatively few designated sites.

One individual submitter

Declined to provide any further feedback on the options

N/A

Cremation Society of Christchurch

Identify prohibited areas; provide range of alternative options and education/information

Revise the proposed bylaw to regulate to prohibit the scattering of ashes in certain areas.

7.   Territorial/National organisation responses

7.1       Environment Canterbury (ECan) have been consulted on the matter of resource consents for scattering of ashes in existing cemeteries under the proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan and the Regional Land and Water Plan.  Early advice received from ECan indicated that any scattering of ashes is a discharge to air and therefore a "discretionary activity for which a resource consent needs to be applied for."  Subsequent inquiries resulted in expanded and clearer advice which is summarized below in Table 2.

Table 2: Environment Canterbury resource consent advice

Option

Environment Canterbury advice

Members of the public scattering ashes in parks and reserves as an individual choice in any park or reserve

The proposed Canterbury Air Plan is silent on this matter and therefore the public do not require a resource consent to scatter ashes in any public place in Canterbury.

The Council establishing areas for scattering ashes in our existing cemeteries for members of the public to use

The spreading ashes…on land already being used for cemetery will be permitted under the Rule 5.81 of the Land and Water Regional Plan.

The Council establishing areas for scattering ashes in future cemeteries for members of the public to use

The use of land for a new cemetery or an extension to a cemetery will be permitted under Rule 5.82, provided that the conditions in the rule can be met.

The Council establishing designated sites in parks for members of the public to use to scatter ashes

This is a permitted activity under the proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan provided that no ashes were 'blown away' over the designated boundary to become an "offensive or objectionable discharge"… and become a non-complying activity.  This might be achieved, for example, with significant border plantings or a resource consent may be sought to provide certainty.

 

7.2       Resolving the options may take some time and cost to work through and further advice will have to be sought from Environment Canterbury, Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd, and Council planners.  Designating new sites for scattering ashes (such as new sites in parks or for re-vegetation projects) may require resource consents.  The associated development costs may be balanced over time by the cost benefit of extending the use of existing cemeteries.  Option 1 enables planning work to be undertaken by operational staff AND the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 to be adopted.

7.3       The New Zealand Law Commission undertook a review of the Death, Burial and Cremation Act in 2014-15 and, rather unhelpfully, did not rule on the matter of scattering of ashes.  Instead the Commission noted in their final report that "there are a number of competing interests affected by the scattering of ashes, including the interests of the family in scattering the ashes in a location significant to the deceased person, the impact of the ashes on plants and the soil and the interests of tikanga Māori when ashes are scattered near a sacred site.  We agree that guidance is needed on the appropriate locations for the scattering of ashes so as to minimise problems, including offence to other people and cultures.  However, we do not consider that this is a matter that can be controlled nationally.”  The Commission recommended the Auckland Council approach.

7.4       Auckland Council’s Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 does not require the public to seek approval for the scattering of ashes in public places.  However, the Council has adopted a Code of Practice for ashes which includes the following explanation "Scattering human ashes on sports fields, play areas and parts of public gardens is not appropriate.  Signage at public places such as sports fields, or public gardens where scattering ashes is popular and potentially harmful to the environmental surrounds such as some public gardens, will be maintained/installed to inform the public.  Consideration must be given to the dispersal of human ashes into waterways as it is considered to be culturally inappropriate unless it is in an area specifically agreed to by tangata whenua."  The Council provides educative flyers (Attachment C).

7.5       The Wellington City Council's 'Commemorative Policy' aims to permit some practice but in a culturally sensitive and managed framework which includes a 'permission required' process and a GPS reference for future family visits.  The only approved public places for scattering or interring ashes are Willowbank Park and Charles Plimmer Park.  Under their policy the Council, the Wellington Tenths Trust and Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira Incorporated will identify suitable public sites for the scattering or interment of ashes on a case-by-case basis, on request, but these are restricted to re-vegetation areas or parks and reserves that have low to moderate public use. 

8.   Option 1 – Proactive and non-regulatory approach to scattering ashes and adopt the bylaw (preferred)

Option Description

8.1       Investigate options for scattering ashes in cemeteries (particularly any planned cemeteries in development) and re-afforestation sites; develop a Code of Practice and publish public information about best practice for scattering ashes; identify designated sites and develop management guidelines for any site with the appropriate Rūnanga; adopt the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are targeted consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       Targeted stakeholders as defined by the Council are specifically affected by this option due to their cultural, commercial or democratic interest in the topic.  Their views are covered in Table 1 and 2 and Attachment B.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.5.1   Cost of Implementation - staff time (approximately 1 month FTE) to undertake an investigation and report back to the Council with the costs of establishing areas for scattering ashes (either in future cemeteries or re-vegetation packages); developing and publishing educational material; and establishing designated areas in suitable areas. 

8.5.2   Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - to be determined in future reports.

8.5.3   Funding source - the costs of investigating options will come from operational budgets.

Legal Implications

8.6       There are limited legal implications in adopting a non-regulatory approach towards the scattering of ashes.  Depending on whether the Council proceeds to designate some sites for the scattering of ashes, it may have to comply with various environmental and resource consent requirements.  This option allows for the Council to proceed to make the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw that was initially consulted on in 2014 and further refined in 2015.  Staff consider that the issues to be addressed in the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw remain the same and the views and preferences that were obtained during the consultation on that proposed Bylaw remain current.  It would be desirable for these issues to be addressed by the Council in making this Bylaw before the end of the current Council’s term.    

Risks and Mitigations

8.7       The New Zealand Funeral Directors Association preference is not to designate sites.  The mitigation is to explain that the proposed Bylaw does not regulate against scattering ashes on parks and gardens.

Implementation

8.8       Implementation dependencies  - N/A

8.9       Implementation timeframe - N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.10    The advantages of this option include:

·        It takes an educative, rather than regulatory approach, to informing the public about considerate and responsible disposal of ashes/human remains and provides a range of alternatives other than scattering in a multi-use public park.

·        It slans for the expected increase in the number of cremations and resulting demand for ash scattering options taking account of cultural protocol and practices.

·        It allows staff to work through the complexity of meeting the requirements/expectations of the Regional Land and Water Plan, the proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan and the Iwi Management Plan when developing a range of options.

·        It enables staff to bring well-formulated alternatives to the Council for further consultation.

·        It adopts the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 within the current term of the elected members using the findings from the special procedure consultation and Hearings Panel already undertaken.

8.11    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        Investigating these alternatives and developing new service delivery plans is complex, may take some time and may incur further costs for the Council.  These costs may be balanced by savings from using cemetery land more efficiently.  This report recommends that the costs and benefits of the alternatives are to be investigated and reported back to the Council for further consideration.

9.   Option 2 – Proactive and non-regulatory approach to scattering ashes and do not adopt the proposed bylaw

Option Description

9.1       Investigate options for scattering ashes in cemeteries (particularly any planned cemeteries in development) and re-afforestation sites; develop a Code of Practice and publish public information about best practice for scattering ashes; identify designated sites and develop management guidelines for any site with the appropriate Rūnanga; and do not adopt the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2014.

Significance

9.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are targeted consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.3       This option does involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

9.4       Targeted stakeholders as defined by the Council are specifically affected by this option due to their cultural, commercial or democratic interest in the topic.  Their views are covered in Table 1 and 2 and Attachment A.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.5       This option is not inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

9.6       Cost of Implementation - staff time (approximately 1 month FTE) to undertake an investigation and report back to the Council.  The lost cost of the bylaw review consultation.

9.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - N/A

9.8       Funding source - the costs of investigating options will come from operational budgets.


 

Legal Implications

9.9       There are no particular legal implications with adopting a non-regulatory approach with respect to the scattering of ashes.  The Council will be able to continue to rely on the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2008 because it completed the legal requirement for a review under section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 in 2014.  However, the proposed new Parks and Reserves Bylaw did address a number of issues that arose as a result of that review, and in the long term it would be desirable to address those issues through the new proposed Bylaw in this Council’s current term. 

Risks and Mitigations

9.10    If the Council decides not to proceed with designated sites Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd has strongly recommended that the Council "advises Ngā Rūnanga and Mahaanui Kurataiao of this decision and detail the reasons for the decision".  This option may be viewed negatively by Rūnanga.  The mitigation is to provide reasonable rationale for adopting this option (e.g. 4.2 - difficult to enforce so that even with regulation the Council cannot guarantee no ashes are being scattered.) 

Implementation

9.11    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

9.12    Implementation timeframe - N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.13    The advantages of this option include:

·        It takes an educative, rather than regulatory, approach to informing the public about considerate and responsible disposal of ashes/human remains and provides a range of alternatives other than scattering in a multi-use public park.

·        Plans for the expected increase in the number of cremations and resulting demand for ash scattering options taking account of cultural protocol and practices.

·        It allows staff to work through the complexity of meeting the requirements/expectations of the Regional Land and Water Plan, the proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan and the Iwi Management Plan when developing a range of options.

·        It enables staff to bring well-formulated alternatives to the Council for further consultation (if so directed).

9.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·        It misses the opportunity to adopt the changes outlined in the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2014 until the next time the bylaw is reviewed. The current 2008 bylaw is silent on a range of nuisance issues in parks such as noise and parking; relying on other bylaws to manage these matters. 

·        Investigating these alternatives and developing new service delivery plans is complex, may take some time and may incur further costs for the Council.  These costs may be balanced by savings from using cemetery land more efficiently.  This report recommends that the costs and benefits of the alternatives are to be investigated and reported back to the Council for further consideration.

10. Status Quo - do nothing

Option Description

10.1    Do not investigate options for scattering ashes; educational material, or a Code of Practice and do not reconsider the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2014.

Significance

10.2    The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are targeted consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

10.3    This option does involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

10.4    Targeted stakeholders as defined by the Council are specifically affected by this option due to their cultural, commercial or democratic interest in the topic.  Their views are covered in Table 1 and 2 and Attachment A.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

10.5    This option is not inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

10.6    Cost of Implementation - no costs (other than lost cost of the bylaw review consultation)

10.7    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - N/A

10.8    Funding source - N/A

Legal Implications

10.9    The legal implications are the same as those set out in paragraph 9.9 above.

Risks and Mitigations

10.10  If the Council decides not to proceed with designated sites Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd has strongly recommended that the Council "advises Ngā Rūnanga and Mahaanui Kurataiao of this decision and detail the reasons for the decision".  This option may be viewed negatively by Rūnanga.  The mitigation is to provide reasonable rationale for adopting this option (e.g. difficult to enforce so that even with regulation the Council cannot guarantee no ashes are being scattered.) 

Implementation

10.11  Implementation dependencies  - N/A

10.12  Implementation timeframe - N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.13  The advantages of this option include:

·        No further investigation costs are incurred.

10.14  The disadvantages of this option include:

·        Key stakeholders (Papatipu Rūnanga) may view the option not to identify designated sites, and not to regulate against scattering of ashes, as a negative outcome.  

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment A: Potential areas within parks for designating

34

b  

Attachment B: Mahaanui Kurataiao report

39

c  

Attachment C: Auckland Council flyer

47

d  

Attachment D: Proposed bylaw showing Hearings Panel changes

49

e  

Attachment E: final proposed bylaw with Hearings Panel changes incorporated

63

 

 

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

Claire Bryant

Vivienne Wilson

Team Leader Policy

Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Helen Beaumont

Andrew Rutledge

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Strategic Policy

Head of Parks

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

 

8         Update of the Building Consenting Unit

Reference:

16/621475

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 May 2016 update of the Building Consenting Unit of the Consenting and Compliance Group.

 

2.   Staff Recommendation

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

May in Review

3.1       Workloads have remained steady from March through to May 2016 across both the Commercial and Residential Sectors.  In May 5722 inspections were completed by the inspectorate, close to 2014 levels (residential 4994 and commercial 727).  Building Consenting is expecting a busy June and July and have adjusted our forecasting appropriately.  There have been a number of teams recruiting to ensure we have adequate numbers of staff to meet the demand.

3.2       Residential Building Consents, Code Compliance Certificates and Inspection volumes have remained strong – partly due to large numbers of EQR alterations and a large number of Solid Fuel Heaters in May.

3.3       Commercial volumes have increased (up 6.6%) from 2014/15. The volumes are up in Building Consent Processing and Inspections.  The Code Compliance team are prepared for an increase in volumes.  More staff have been trained to process Code Compliance Certificates and an extra member has been recruited into the Building Warrant of Fitness Team, which will ensure enough staff are able to process the Compliance Schedules.

Building Consents

3.4       The agreed level of service is to issue 90% of Building Consent decisions within 19 working days.

3.5       There were 745 Building Consents processed in May which is consistent with the numbers processed in March and April 2016. 

3.6       654 residential and 91 Commercial consent decisions were made.  95.4% of those decisions were made within the 19 day timeframe.  Year to date 97.2% of the building consent decisions made were within the 19 day target. 

3.7       Please see attachment A for the May 2016 dashboard.

External Processing of Consents

3.8       External contractors processed 218 consents in May 2016, which is a similar amount to the consents processed in April.  Of these 97.2% were within the 20 day statutory timeframes, which is consistent with the previous month.

Inspections and Scheduling 

3.9       The agreed level of service is to carry out 85% of building inspections within three days of the requested date.

3.10    There were 4994 residential inspections and 727 commercial inspections carried out in May 2016 (total 5721), which is a significant increase from the number of inspections carried out in April (4803).  The wait time for residential inspections is still averaging between 4 and 5 days. 

3.11    We are continuing with Saturday morning inspections to help meet demand. 

3.12    Eight new building inspectors have been recruited, and are currently in training.  They will be able to start performing building inspections by mid-July. 

Code Compliance Certificates

3.13    The agreed level of service is to issue 90% of Code Compliance Certificate decisions within 19 working days. 

3.14    54 commercial and 645 residential Code Compliance Certificate decisions were made in May 2016 (total of 699).  This is a significant increase on the 565 decisions made in April. 

3.15    98.8% of the Code Compliance Certificate decisions made in May were within the 19 day target.  Year to date 96.2% have been within 19 days. 

Commercial Activity

3.16    See graph below for estimated value of Commercial Consents.

 

Financial Implications

3.17    Revenue and costs versus budget are on target for the financial year to date.  The forecast for the remainder of the year is currently under review. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Building Control Performance Report  May 2016

80

 

 

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

Katherine Harbrow

Peter Sparrow

Finance Business Partner

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulation and Consents Committee

16 June 2016

 

 

9.       Resource Consents Monthly Report - May 2016

Reference:

16/626851

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 May 2016.

2.   Application Numbers

2.1       The number of resource management applications received during May were significantly lower at 245 compared to April 325.  

2.2       The number of resource consents issued increased, from 275 In May to 211 in April, this was due to the flow on from the large numbers received in April. 

2.3       Eight consents issued were within the Central City.

2.4       No temporary application applications were received.

 

3.   Staff Recommendation

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

 

 

4.   Performance

4.1       95% of subdivision applications and 99% of land use consent applications were processed within the statutory timeframe in May.  Five applications went overtime. Three non-notified land use consents and two subdivision consents exceeded the statutory timeframe.  The applications that went over time are being assessed analysed with respect to the reasons those applications exceeded the timeframe.

4.2       No requests for further information (RFI’s) were made for 54% of applications.

5.   Key Applications

5.1       The following applications were approved:

·        73 Residential unit development at 350 Colombo Street (old Sydenham School site)

·        Sumner Library replacement.

·        Strengthening of St Michael’s old stone building.

·        Repairs to Cave Rock signal shelter.

·        31 Residential units at 116 Stanmore Road.

·        Christchurch Hospital Outpatients building.

·        37 High-density housing units at 1 liberty Street.

·        Extension to a quarry at 374 McLeans Island Road. 

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

·        Mixed use development at 177 High Street.

·        Environment Education and Cultural centre at 534 Le Bons Bay Road.

·        Office and retail building at 150 Lichfield Street.

·        An independent composite school at 100 Quaifes Road.

·        18 Lot subdivision and residential units at 158 Awatea Road.

 

6.   Other

6.1       Connect, the replacement computer software system for GEMs, is now live.  This will introduce better work flow processes and reporting functionality.   Eventually it also facilitates some functionality in searching applications on the Council’s website. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Resource Consents Monthly Report - May 2016 - KPI's

85

 

 

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

16 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator