Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 22 March 2017

Time:                                    9am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

 

 

17 March 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brendan Anstiss

General Manager Strategy & Transformation

Tel: 941 8472

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@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:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

Councillor Buck

Membership

Councillor Scandrett (Deputy Chair), Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillor Davidson, Councillor Gough, Councillor Livingstone, Councillor Swiggs, Councillor Templeton

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

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee is driving the concept of innovation, as in the City vision of a “City of Opportunity, where anything is possible” and to do so in ways that may be experimental and different.

 

The Committte considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·           Strategies and priorities in relation to innovation and sustainable development.

·           Climate change and sustainability initiatives such as electric vehicles, carbon reduction and waste minimisation.

·           Economic development initiatives and strategies, including

·           Christchurch Narrative,

·           Antarctic Strategy,

·           Visitors Strategy,

·           Canterbury Economic Development Strategy,

·           Christchurch Economic Development Strategy,

·           Relationships with economic development subsidiaries, such as Canterbury Development Corporation, the TEED entity

·           Innovative or disruptive strategies and programmes, including Smart Cities programme of work

·           Innovative approaches to the delivery of issues that often go across levels of government

·           Allocation of funds related to the innovation and sustainability sector, including a new Innovation and Sustainability Fund.

·           Council’s Brand and Communications strategies.

 

 

Delegations

 

The Committee delegates to the following forum the responsibility to consider and report back to the Committee:

·           Development Forum - Innovative ways to support the development of the city and suburban centres

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 5

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 5

B       3.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 5

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

STAFF REPORTS

C       5.       Terms of Reference - Development Forum.................................................................... 7

A       6.       Options for Council to Address a Petition to Ban Single-Use Plastic Bags............... 11

A       7.       Development Contributions Policy Review 2017....................................................... 21

B       8.       Central City Biannual Report — July to December 2016........................................... 59

B       9.       Public Briefing – Smart Cities Programme Update   

 

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

 

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 and 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.   Deputations by Appointment

There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared. 

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

  


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

 

5.        Terms of Reference - Development Forum

Reference:

17/185674

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to request the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee to adopt the Terms of Reference for the Development Forum.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee:

1.         Adopt the Development Forum Terms of Reference set out in Attachment A.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       On 9 February 2017, when adopting the Terms of Reference for its committees and subcommittees, the Council resolved to ask the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee to adopt revised Terms of Reference for the Development Forum at its first meeting.

3.2       The proposed terms of reference are set out in Attachment A. These are based on the Terms of Reference used for the Christchurch Development Forum during the 2013-2016 triennium.

3.3       The most significant change to the current proposal from how the Forum operated in the previous triennium is an emphasis that the Forum will have a wider focus to consider issues relating to suburban centres as well as the central city.

3.4       The proposed terms of reference emphasise that the Forum is not a decision making body. It primarily exists as a platform for sharing of information and discussing ways to encourage development. As such, meetings of the Development Forum are not subject to Part 7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

3.5       Recommendations can be made by the Forum to the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee by way of a Chairpersons report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Development Forum - Proposed Terms of Reference

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

 

6.        Options for Council to Address a Petition to Ban Single-Use Plastic Bags

Reference:

17/118093

Contact:

Libby Elvidge

libby.elvidge@ccc.govt.nz

941 8916

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee’s approval to take a non-regulatory approach in responding to a petition calling on the Council to ban single-use plastic bags.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council’s resolution for the matters in the petition[1] to be referred to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

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 the low level of plastic waste (0.2% of all waste) that is already being monitored by the Council, and a high cost of staff time to regulate. The decision encourages education and community awareness of responsibly disposing of plastics and making individual choices.

2.1.2   No community engagement and consultation has been undertaken.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Agree to expanding Council’s non-regulatory initiatives in relation to use of plastic bags, including:

a.         Taking a leadership role by reducing where the Council itself uses plastic bags, such as in libraries and at Council-run events

b.         Expanding community education on alternatives through marketing and communication material

c.         Advocating to central government for a national response.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Expanding Council’s non-regulatory initiatives (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Status quo

·     Option 3 – Regulatory approach to restrict single-use plastic bags in Christchurch.


 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     This option builds on existing practise and work programmes in the waste management area.

·     No extra Council resource is required.

·     By advocating to central government, Council is emphasising that plastic in the waste stream is a national issue, and also showing support for Auckland Council’s same concerns.

·     This is a communications-rich option with good community engagement opportunities that encourages positive behavioural change, e.g. Stream care groups.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Single-use plastic bags will continue to be in circulation (unless intervened by central Government) and some people will still choose not to dispose of their plastic bags responsibly.

 

5.   Context/Background

Petition to Council to ban single-use plastic bags

5.1            In July 2016 Council received a petition calling on the Council to ban single-use plastic bags[2]:

Let's lead the way in NZ and be the first 'one-use plastic-bag free' city in the country!

Let's join together to ask Mayor Lianne Dalziel & her council to ban one-use plastic bags in the city (starting with the new retail precinct in the CBD).

5.2            The reason for seeking a ban, as stated on the petition website, is that:

“NZers send an estimated one BILLION plastic bags to landfill annually. Scientists estimate it takes 1000 years (yes, you read that right) for plastic bags to degrade and during that process toxins are leached and particles can get into the food chain.”


 

6.   Option 1 – Expanding Council’s non-regulatory initiatives (preferred)

Option Description

6.1            This option encourages Council to champion non-regulatory initiatives, including:

a.        Taking a leadership role by reducing where the Council itself uses plastic bags, such as in libraries and at Council-run events;

b.       Expanding community education on alternatives through marketing and communication material, for example:

i.    Facebook reminders three times a year to use Council Yellow Bin recycling and dispose of litter responsibly

ii.   Put an article on Newsline (which will get at least 4000 views)

iii.  Using the environmental education programme as a platform to educate people on plastics and the impact on the environment, including what happens when plastic bags break down in the landfill, harm caused to aquatic life when plastic bags enter waterways.

c.        Advocating to central government for a national response, with the possibility of working in collaboration with Auckland Council to move this forward.

Auckland Council approach

6.2       The Auckland Council has faced similar requests asking for a ban on single-use plastic bags. A 2014 petition noted that plastic bags have significant adverse effects on the environment including energy production costs, limited lifespan, increasing landfill content and the inability to biodegrade. Council staff investigated options and reported back recommending the establishment of a packaging workgroup, and further investigation of non-regulatory mechanisms for reducing packaging waste. The Auckland Council also followed this up by advocating to central government to include packaging material as a priority product for product stewardship[3], with associated regulation implemented - potentially including bans to landfill or deposits/return schemes.

Significance

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

6.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required, however engaging with the petitioner when investigating possible initiatives would be beneficial to both parties.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       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

6.6       1300 people signed the petition (although how many are from Christchurch cannot be determined) and are specifically affected by this option due to wanting change in the community’s approach to using single-use plastic bags.  Their views are that plastic bag use is a huge problem in Christchurch and recycling only delayed the amount of time it took for plastic to end up in landfills; therefore they are calling for local authorities, developers and business owners to ban plastic shopping bags in the central city.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation – Absorbed in current budget.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Absorbed in current budget.

6.10    Funding source – Strategic Planning and Policy budget.

Legal Implications

6.11    There are no legal implications associated with this option.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.12    Risk of disagreement by the petition signatories caused by differing views on how to reduce use of plastic bags in Christchurch, including those who continue to advocate for a full ban. This could result in further petitions.

6.12.1 Treatment – consulting with the petitioner.

6.12.2 Residual risk rating – the rating of the risk is Low.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - nil.

6.14    Implementation timeframe – by June 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   This option builds on existing practise and work programmes in the waste management area.

·   No extra Council resource is required.

·   By advocating to central government, Council is emphasising that plastic in the waste stream is an issue, and also showing support for Auckland Council’s concerns.

·   This is a communications-rich option with good community engagement opportunities that encourages positive behavioural changes.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Single-use plastic bags will continue to be in circulation and some people will still choose not to dispose of their plastic bags responsibly.


 

7.   Option 2 – Status quo

Option Description

7.1       Christchurch City Council has no formal policy on plastic supermarket bags however, Council staff closely follow the internationally agreed waste minimisation hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle.  Council staff are also closely following the developments of plastics and packaging products as they can have significant impacts on the management of the waste stream and on recycling generally.

7.2       The Council works with residents, businesses and schools on a broad range of waste reduction initiatives and encourages recycling.

7.3       The kerbside collection of the Yellow Bin[4] includes supermarket plastic bags as a recyclable item. Supermarket bags, the only type of bag that EcoCentral is currently able to process through the Materials Recovery Facility, are baled and exported offshore. Supermarket bags are not part of the local kerbside recycling programme for many other councils. Kerbside recycling is advertised on the Council webpage, on the “Wheelie Bins” app, and the Council provides brochures and stickers regarding what can be recycled.  

Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2013

7.4       The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) required territorial authorities to prepare waste management and minimisation plans by 2012. The plans have to be reviewed every six years. Requirements for these plans are set out in section 43 and 44 of the WMA. Plans must have objectives, policies and methods for achieving effective and efficient waste minimisation and management within the district.

7.5       The Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2013[5] (Waste Plan) was adopted for solid waste produced by the community. It establishes a Vision, Goals, Targets and an Action Plan for waste in the City. The Waste Plan is scheduled to be reviewed in 2018/19.

7.6       Five kilograms of (all) plastics per person per year is currently sent to landfill, and plastic bags make up less than 0.2% of the total recyclable material collected. At this low level no target is proposed to further reduce plastics to landfill. However, volumes of plastics are still being monitored.

National approach: Soft-plastics recycling programme

7.7       A three-year national rollout of a joint initiative[6]  between the retail sector, the packaging industry and the Government to enable the recycling of soft plastics was launched in Auckland in September 2015. The Government’s Waste Minimisation Fund provides financial support to projects that reduce environmental harm and provide social, economic and cultural benefits. It is funded from a levy introduced by the National-led Government in 2009, which is charged on waste disposed of at landfills to discourage waste and to fund recycling initiatives. The $700,000 contribution from the Government for the Soft Plastics Recycling Programme is being matched by contributions from retailers and selected brands.

7.8       The programme allows any lightweight plastic bags and any plastic that can be scrunched into a ball to be placed in receptacles at certain large retailers. Initially, the soft-plastic waste is sent to Australia where it is reconstituted as park benches and playground equipment. As part of the project, a drying facility capable of re-processing soft plastic is set to open in Auckland to reduce the need to export waste across the Tasman. New World Ilam launched the project in Christchurch in early-June 2016 and this has been extended to most supermarkets and The Warehouse stores. Council staff anticipate the new plastic bag collection system will reduce the amount collected at the kerbside.

Significance

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

7.10    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.11    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

7.12    1300 people signed the petition (although how many are from Christchurch cannot be determined) and are specifically affected by this option due to wanting change.  Their views are that plastic was a huge problem in Christchurch and recycling only delayed the amount of time it took for plastic to end up in landfills; therefore they are calling for local authorities, developers and business owners to ban plastic shopping bags in the central city.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.14    Cost of Implementation – Absorbed within budget.

7.15    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Absorbed within budget.

7.16    Funding source - Strategic Planning and Policy budget.

Legal Implications

7.17    There are no legal implications associated with this option.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.18    Risk of negative response from some individuals in the community who may perceive a lack of action by the Council.

7.18.1 Treatment: Highlight work that Council already undertakes in the waste management space by consulting with the petitioner or adding an article to Newsline.

7.18.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

7.19    Implementation dependencies – nil.

7.20    Implementation timeframe – ongoing, including the Waste Plan review scheduled for 2018/19.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.21    The advantages of this option include:

·   Council already recycles single-use plastic bags with the Yellow Bin collections.

·   Council will continue to monitor the development of plastics and packaging products.

·   The national Soft Plastics Recycling Programme encourages people to recycle not only single-use plastic bags but all soft plastics, e.g. all bags and wrappers.

7.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No target is proposed to further reduce plastics to landfill under the Waste Plan. 

8.   Option 3 – Regulatory approach

Option Description

8.1       The petition calls on Council to ban single-use plastic bags in Christchurch. This option considers a ban through the creation of a bylaw to address the problem.

Bylaw making powers to restrict retailers' use of single-use plastic bags

8.2       The Minister for the Environment has the power under the WMA to ban single-use plastic bags from sale or from disposal to landfill; or to name them as a priority product for product stewardship.

8.3       Although section 56 of the WMA provides that a territorial authority may make bylaws to control waste, a plastic bag provided by a retailer to a customer does not meet the definition of 'waste' as it is not being disposed of or discarded by the retailer. It only becomes ‘waste’ once the customer disposes of or discards the plastic bag. Therefore it would be difficult for the Council to make a bylaw under the WMA that bans retailers from giving customers plastic bags.

8.4       Territorial authorities may also make bylaws under section 145 of the Local Government Act for one or more of the following purposes:

8.4.1   Protecting the public from nuisance

8.4.2   Protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety

8.4.3   Minimising the potential for offensive behaviour.

8.5       The ‘problem’ caused by the disposal of plastic bags, as described on the petition website page, is not related to offensive behaviour or public nuisance.  Instead, it may fall within the Council’s power to make bylaws to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety. However, the Council would need very robust evidence about the problem and would need to consider all options that could be used to address the problem before it can make a bylaw (Council has to determine that a bylaw is the ‘most appropriate’ way of addressing the problem). 

8.6       Any bylaw also needs to be a proportionate response to the problem. Banning all single-use plastic bags may not be considered a proportionate response as a bylaw of this nature would no doubt have a significant effect on retailers in the Council’s district. 

Other enforcement powers

8.7       As a plastic bag is used by retailers to assist customers in transporting goods from the store, bags cannot be considered litter under the Litter Act, until they are no longer being used for the intended purpose and are deposited somewhere. The Council cannot use section 12 of the Litter Act to ban retailers from giving customers, or charging for, single-use plastic bags. The Council can, however, enforce fines for littering[7], by customers who do not dispose of their bags appropriately.

Significance

8.8       The level of significance of this option is mediumwhich differs from section 2 of this report due to this option implementing a ban on single-use plastic bags which would require a bylaw.

8.9       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are required to follow the bylaw review engagement process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.10    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

8.11    1300 people signed the petition (although how many are from Christchurch cannot be determined) and are specifically affected by this option due to wanting change.  Their views are that plastic bag use is a huge problem in Christchurch and recycling only delays the amount of time it takes for plastic to end up in landfills; therefore they are calling for local authorities, developers and business owners to ban plastic shopping bags in the central city.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.13    Cost of Implementation – costs associated with staff and Hearings Panel time to create a bylaw, printing of communications and engagement materials, as well as enforcement staff time. There may also be costs associated with disposing plastic bags.

8.14    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – enforcement.

8.15    Funding source - Strategic Planning and Policy budget.

Legal Implications

8.16    The biggest hurdle is likely to be whether such a bylaw might be repugnant to other laws of New Zealand.  This issue can be seen as a matter of concern for the whole of New Zealand, and the Minister for the Environment has powers that could be exercised under the WMA in relation to single-use plastic bags throughout New Zealand.  To date the Minister has not exercised any powers, therefore a bylaw made by the Council on something the Minister has the power to do might be considered repugnant to the WMA[8].  Further legal advice would be needed on this point if the Council did want to investigate a bylaw.

Risks and Mitigations   

8.17    Risk of shops still using single-use plastic bags caused by retailers not cooperating with a bylaw (even if it could be lawfully introduced).  This will result in plastic bags continuing to be in circulation and additional enforcement resources being required to monitor shops.

8.17.1 Treatment: informed consultation with business associations to encourage agreement and compliance with the regulation.

8.17.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Medium.

Implementation

8.18    Implementation dependencies - enforcement resourcing.

8.19    Implementation timeframe – ongoing.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.20    The advantages of this option include (if successfully implemented):

·   Single-use plastic bags will no longer be provided by retailers in Christchurch (however, they would otherwise remain in circulation). 

8.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Retailers will look to using other forms of carry bags, which may have a higher carbon footprint to produce.

·   Shoppers may still use plastic carry bags that they get from outside of Christchurch city or that are otherwise in circulation.

·   Regulation will require enforcement, which would be extraordinarily difficult given the nature of the activity (and the limitations of a bylaw).

 

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

Author

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

 

7.        Development Contributions Policy Review 2017

Reference:

17/144058

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       To seek Council approval of the proposed amendments to the Development Contributions Policy for community consultation. 

1.2       To seek Council agreement to extend the use of catchments, so that development contributions more closely match actuals costs in different parts of the district, in the Development Contributions Policy.

1.3       To update the Council on the development contribution rebate schemes for residential and non-residential developments currently in place for the central city.

Origin of Report

1.4       This report is staff generated and was referred to in a report to the Council on 22 September 2016. That report, on the review to the Development Contributions Policy being undertaken at that time, detailed the intention for a further review in 2016/17. Paragraph 5.14 of that report said:

A full review of the Development Contributions Policy is planned to be undertaken the 2016-17 year. This will include a review of the wording of the Policy, the possible introduction of sub-district catchments for more activities, a review of Household Unit Equivalent (HUE) assessment methodology and an update of the capital expenditure programme and development contribution charges if required.

1.5       Further information on development contribution rebates was requested by the Council at its 26 January meeting.

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.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by an assessment of the issues covered. It is important to note that there will be community consultation undertaken on the draft Development Contributions Policy.

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


 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Agrees to the amendments to the draft Development Contributions Policy as detailed in Attachment 1 of the report for the purposes of community consultation.

2.         Agrees to the proposed further use of catchments to assess and charge for development contributions as recommended in Attachment 2 of the report.

3.         Notes that the catchment boundaries and development contribution charge effects will be presented to the Council in the updated draft Development Contributions Policy 2017 by May 2017.

4.         Notes that the central city development contribution rebate schemes remains in place for the 2017/18 year.

 

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: 17.0.1 Advice is provided to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·  Option 1 – Agree to the proposed minor policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1, agree to the use of catchments recommended in Attachment 2, and extend the central city development contribution rebate scheme for the 2017/18 financial year (preferred option).

·  Option 2 – Agree to the proposed minor policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1 only.

·  Option 3 – Do not amend or further review the Development Contributions Policy at this stage.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (preferred option 1)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·  Enables the review of the Development Contributions Policy to proceed with policy amendments agreed (subject to the community engagement process).

·  Enables front-end engagement on major policy issues with key stakeholders including the Christchurch Development Forum.

·  Provides time for a more detailed consideration of the central city development contributions rebate schemes and enables the Council to give developers reasonable notice of a change in policy.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·  There are a relatively large number of policy issues to be considered at once.

·  Funding is required to continue the central city development contributions rebate schemes (though this has been budgeted).


 

 

5.   Context/Background

Development Contributions Policy (DCP)

5.1       Christchurch City Council has had a Development Contributions Policy (DCP) since 2004. The DCP enables the Council to recover a share of the costs of providing new infrastructure to service growth demand from developers who place additional demand on the Council’s infrastructure networks and therefore benefit from the Council’s investment.

5.2       The DCP must comply with requirements detailed in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). It is required to be reviewed at least every three years and can be reviewed at any time, as long as the review process meets the requirements of the LGA.

5.3       The DCP was reviewed in 2015, in parallel with the preparation of the Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-25, and amended in 2016 to ensure it remained consistent with the Council’s amended Long Term Plan. This review reflected the Council’s adoption of a revised capital expenditure programme, and changes to the assumed future interest and inflation rates.

The current review process

5.4       While the current DCP meets legislative requirements there are a range of policy provisions proposed to be changed to ensure continued compliance with best practice.  There are also a number of minor amendments proposed to improve the clarity and efficiency of various aspects of the policy. The proposed changes are in response to opportunities identified by staff to improve the implementation of the policy, from their experience over the past two years.

5.5       A project steering group and a project team, comprising key staff within the development contributions process, have been established to oversee and undertake the review process. The proposals for change presented in Attachment 1 have been agreed by the steering group and the project team.

5.6       Work has also been undertaken on reviewing the way catchments are used to allocate development contribution costs and charges. This is dealt with in a separate section of this report.

5.7       The review of the DCP has recognised the principles detailed in the LGA as well those agreed by the Council as part of the 2015 review process. In summary, the seven principles in the LGA require that approaches to development contributions should promote:

·    transparency

·    simplicity ( including practicality and administrative efficiency)

·    fair and reasonable charges (proportional to demand)

·    certainty

·    beneficiary/causer pays

·    intergenerational equity 

·    compliance with the law.

The principles agreed by the Council as part of the 2015 review of the DCP are:

·    wherever possible developments should pay the full capital cost to the Council of servicing new development

·    variation in development contribution charges is acceptable to reflect variation in costs of servicing different types of demand in different areas

·    intentional cost sharing be avoided wherever feasible to support fair and reasonable charges (recognising that some cost sharing is inevitable and may be desirable).

5.8       The Council’s current DCP is available on the Council website at https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/building-and-planning-policies/development-contributions-policy/

5.9       It is proposed that the Development Forum be fully engaged in the consultation process if Council determines to review the policy. 

Summary of the proposed policy amendments

5.10    The proposed amendments are a mix of minor policy changes, clarifications and editorial improvements:

·    Update references to the Christchurch District Plan – previously the Christchurch City Plan and/or the Banks Peninsula District Plan

·    Clarify that pipes and lines installed by network utilities are not liable for development contributions

·    Add an explicit ‘development test’ to the methodology

·    Small residential unit adjustments: remove the garaging clause; assess storm-water on actual impervious surface area; and remove the rebate scheme

·    Clarify the description of a small residential unit

·    Clarify requirements for special assessments for non-residential development

·    Clarify the valuation methodology to be used for land taken for reserves

·    Require a legal agreement where a developer is to provide infrastructure and/or land in lieu of  cash contributions

·    Clarify Crown exemptions

·    Clarify the requirement for the Council to pay development contributions where applicable

·    Provide guidance on dealing with applications for remissions and reductions

·    Clarify the methodology used to assess and invoice staged developments

·    Link the sunset clause for the temporary building provision in the DCP to those in the Christchurch District Plan and the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act

·    Clarify the rationale for and approach to catchments

·    Clarify how the ‘growth model’ is used to forecast future development at a catchment level.

6.   Context/Background

Use of catchments to assess development contribution charges

6.1       Section 197 of the LGA details principles that must be taken into account when preparing a development contributions policy. Clause (g) of this section states:

when calculating and requiring development contributions, territorial authorities may group together certain developments by geographic area or categories of land use, provided that—

(i) the grouping is done in a manner that balances practical and administrative efficiencies with considerations of fairness and equity; and

(ii) grouping by geographic area avoids grouping across an entire district wherever practical.

6.2       Clause two clearly requires councils to avoid use of district-wide catchments where practicable.

6.3       Christchurch City Council’s current DCP uses catchments to establish development contribution charges for three activities; neighbourhood parks, stormwater and flood protection and road network. Neighbourhood parks and road network use a common catchment configuration of eight catchments based on categories of land use. Stormwater and flood protection uses thirteen catchments based on water flow.

6.4       Using catchments to determine development contributions promotes a more accurate allocation of the costs of providing infrastructure for growth in different areas and enables those costs to be more accurately targeted to developments that benefit.

6.5       In general, a catchment approach will result in lower development contribution charges in areas where there is existing infrastructure with growth capacity or where the cost of providing growth infrastructure per development is lower. This tends to be areas in and around the central city where legacy infrastructure with growth capacity and higher density of development means providing new infrastructure costs less per development.

6.6       The converse is that providing growth infrastructure for development in greenfield areas and/ or areas on the periphery of the established urban area, often with low development density, is likely to cost the Council significantly more to service each development.  

6.7       To ensure the DCP is consistent with the LGA, it is recommended a catchment approach be taken to all activities where practicable and where it will promote fairness and equity. The activities recommended for a catchment approach are: water supply, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment and disposal, active travel and public transport.

6.8       The proposed approach to these changes to the use of catchments is as follows:

·    Active transport – to have a metropolitan catchment that comprises the central city, inner city, suburban and greenfield catchments currently used for the road network activity. This reflects the benefit of the growth assets is able to be used primarily by developments within these city catchments. The rural and Banks Peninsula catchments would not be assessed for a development contribution for active transport (i.e. no charge).

·    Public transport –a metropolitan catchment that comprises the central city, inner city, suburban and greenfield catchments currently used for the road network activity. This reflects the benefit of the growth assets is able to be used primarily by developments within these city catchments. The rural and Banks Peninsula catchments would not be assessed for a development contribution for public transport.

·    Water supply – catchments based on proposed water supply zones (independent and more resilient supply zones), grouped in terms of land use and development status to establish approximately 8 metropolitan catchments and a single catchment for Banks Peninsula (excluding Lyttelton Harbour). This approach will balance the aim of targeting costs and maintaining administrative efficiency. This approach will result in significantly higher charges in the Banks Peninsula and greenfield catchments and lower charges for city and suburban catchments.

·    Wastewater collection – catchments based on network connectivity, grouped by land use and development status to establish 8 metropolitan catchments and a single catchment for Banks Peninsula. This approach will require some cross-catchment project cost allocation. Lyttelton Harbour could potentially be included in a southern suburban catchment when infrastructure modifications linking the Lyttelton wastewater network with Christchurch are confirmed.

This approach will better balance the targeted actual costs with maintaining administrative efficiency and will likely result in higher charges in the Banks Peninsula and greenfield catchments and lower charges for city and suburban catchments.

·    Wastewater treatment and disposal – a Christchurch catchment and a single catchment for Banks Peninsula. Lyttelton Harbour could potentially be included as part of the Christchurch catchment if infrastructure modifications linking Lyttelton to Christchurch are confirmed. are made will increase DC charges for remaining Banks Peninsula catchments:

This approach will balance the targeting costs with maintaining administrative efficiency and will likely result in higher charges in the Banks Peninsula and greenfield catchments and lower charges for city and suburban catchments.

6.9       Analysis of why these activities are particularly suited to a catchment approach are covered in Attachment 2.

6.10    It is proposed that development contributions for regional parks, garden and heritage parks and sports parks continue to be based on district-wide catchments with a standard development contribution per household unit equivalent regardless of where the development is located. This reflects the ability of developments to benefit from the ability to access the facilities on a relatively equal basis regardless of the location of the development.

6.11    The proposed changes in the use of catchments will have some general expected impacts on development contribution charges. These are likely to be:

·    Central city, inner city and suburban catchments are likely to see a small to medium reduction in development contribution charges due to reductions in development contribution charges for water supply and wastewater collection.

·    Greenfield and Banks Peninsula catchments are likely to see a medium to significant increase in overall development contribution charges (reflecting higher actual costs: despite Banks Peninsula catchments no longer payer development contributions for active travel and public transport).

6.12    Details on the impact on development contribution charges will be seen when a draft revised Development Contributions Policy is presented to the Council.

6.13    If, as a result of the use of catchments, the Council considers some charges to be a barrier to development or will cause dis-benefits to the wider community, the Council could consider approaches to reduce the charges. In general there two approaches to consider:

·    Cap certain development contribution charges. This could be at a charge per activity or at the total charge level. This approach maintains effective targeting of the costs of providing for development even if some of these charges are then reallocated. Funding the gap between the cap figure and the full development contribution should come from the beneficiaries of the Council’s approach – either a targeted rate on the community affected or from the general rate if the wider community benefits.

·    Amalgamate catchments in such a way that cross-subsidisation reduces particularly high development contribution charges. This is in effect what the current use of district-wide catchments for water and wastewater activities achieves. This approach does not provide for clear allocation of the costs of providing for growth to the developments and communities that benefit.

·    The “cap” approach is recommended for reasons of transparency and equity.

Central city development contributions rebate schemes

6.14    The Council introduced a $10 million development contributions rebate scheme for residential developments as part of its Three Year Plan in 2013. The rebate was to encourage developers to build more homes faster inside the Four Avenues as part of a long-term plan to revitalise the Central City. The initial residential scheme was offered to developers who built more residences on a site than were there before the 4 September 2010 earthquake. The development was required to meet certain urban design standards.

6.15    The residential rebate scheme was to end on 30 June 2015 but was extended for one year when it became clear the fund wouldn’t be fully allocated by 30 June 2015.

6.16    In preparing its Long Term Plan 2015-25, the Council agreed to budget for a further central city residential development contributions rebate scheme of $10 million and a new non-residential central city rebate scheme of $5 million. Criteria for the schemes were adopted by the Council on 27 August 2015, with the availability of both schemes to be until 20 June 2020 or when the funding was fully allocated, whichever came first.

6.17    Analysis of the two central city rebate schemes is provided in Attachment 3.


 

7.   Option 1 - Agree to the proposed policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1, agree to the approach to catchments recommended in Attachment 2 and note the continuation of the central city development contributions rebate schemes as set out in Attachment 3 (preferred)

Option Description

7.1       Amend the policy provisions to ensure compliance with best practice, and to improve clarity and efficiency – proposed amendments are outlined in Attachment 1.

7.2       Agree to the proposed use of catchments as recommended in Attachment 2. This will enable the development contribution charges to more accurately reflect the cost of providing infrastructure in different parts of the district.

7.3       Agree to the central city development contributions rebate schemes continuing to operate in accordance with scheme criteria as recommended in Attachment 3. If the Council wishes, a report providing more detailed analysis of the schemes can be presented to the Council in 2017/18. 

Significance

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

7.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are that no additional engagement is required over and above that required for a review of the Policy. A review of the policy must meet the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.6       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

7.7       The development community is specifically affected by this option due to changes to the Council’s Development Contributions Policy.  The views of the Christchurch Development Forum will be sought.

7.8       When the Council has approved a draft Policy the community engagement process used will be targeted to the development community and open to the wider community.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.9       This option is consistent with Council’s plans and policies.

Financial Implications

7.10    Cost of Implementation – some of the proposed policy changes have minor financial implications in terms of development contributions revenue. These changes are impossible to predict precisely and are considered to be immaterial in the context of the Council’s overall development contributions revenue.

7.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – none applicable

7.12    Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.13    The Legal Services Unit has reviewed the proposed changes and their feedback has been incorporated into the proposals.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.14    There are no risks identified with the Council agreeing to the proposed policy changes.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies - The policy amendments detailed in this report are part of a wider review of the Policy.

7.16    Implementation timeframe – It is proposed that the full review of the Policy is completed by 30 September 2017. There is no legislative or other requirement regarding the timing of a review. The proposed date will enable the Council’s adopted capital works programme to be accurately captured in the schedule of assets and development contribution charges.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

a)  Enables the review of the Policy to proceed with the policy amendments agreed (subject to Council consideration of a full draft Policy and the community engagement process).

b)  Enables front-end engagement on major policy issues with the Christchurch Development Forum.

c)   The reviewed Policy will be more transparent, easier to understand and easier to implement.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

a)  There are costs associated with a policy review.

8.   Option 2 - Agree to the proposed policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1 only

Option Description

8.1       As for option 1 but with no further work on catchments.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are as for option 1.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       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

8.5       Members of the development community are likely to be affected by this option due to i changes to the Council’s Development Contributions Policy.  The views of the Christchurch Development Forum will be sought as part of community engagement.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – as for option 1.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

8.9       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.10    As for option 1.

Risks and Mitigations  

8.11    There are no risks identified with the Council agreeing to the proposed policy changes.

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies – as for option 1.

8.13    Implementation timeframe – as for option 1.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

a)  As for option 1.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

a)  Development contribution charges do not match costs across the district.

9.   Option 3 – Make no changes to the Development Contributions Policy

Option Description

9.1       The Council does not agree to the proposed policy changes detailed in Attachment 1 or to any further review of the Development Contributions Policy at this time.

Significance

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

9.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with those proposed.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.4       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

9.5       Not applicable for this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.7       Cost of Implementation – Nil.

9.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

9.9       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

9.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations  

9.11    Not reviewing and improving the Policy may lead to suboptimal decisions being made in implementing the current policy.

9.12    Risk – the Policy is not improved as proposed.

9.12.1 Treatment: Review in parallel with preparing the LTP 2018-28.

9.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Low.

Implementation

9.13    Implementation dependencies – not applicable.

9.14    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.15    The advantages of this option include:

a)  Resource allocation – none required.

9.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

a)  The Development Contributions Policy is not improved as proposed. While there is no direct legal risk identified with this option the proposed changes to the Policy are being made to improve the usability of the policy and to ensure the policy continues to evolve to reflect current best practice and compliance requirements. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Development Contributions Policy – proposed minor policy amendments 2017

32

b

Catchment options assessment

51

c

Development contributions – central city rebate schemes

56

 

 

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

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

 

8.        Central City Biannual Report — July to December 2016

Reference:

17/150838

Contact:

Carolyn Ingles

carolyn.ingles@ccc.govt.nz

941 8902

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee to be informed of the Christchurch City Council funded recovery and regeneration activity within the Central City for the period July to December 2016.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in accordance with the 2015-2025 Strategic Planning Activity Management Plan.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) 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 considering the effect of a decision to receive a status report. Whereas the activities reported on have a positive benefit for a variety of sectors, the funding and principal decision making on these activities lies outside of this report and the decision itself is of low significance.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee:

1.         Receive this report for information.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Attachment A sets out the highlights (including graphs and photographs) from the July to December 2016 period in relation to the following activities:

· Consents: Resource consents and Building consents.

· Enabling Central City Recovery: Rebuild Central service.

· Transitional City — Council led projects.

· Support for other organisations that lead transitional projects.

· Transitional City Projects Fund.

· Creative Industries Support Fund.

· Incentive Grants and Rebates.

· Central City Development Contributions Rebate Fund.

· Communications and marketing.

4.2       Key points to note from the July to December 2016 period are outlined below.

Grants and funds

4.3       The Transitional City Rates Grant Incentive provided a rates reduction to seven projects in the July to December 2016 period. This included the Imagination Station and the Peterborough Urban Farm. To date, $16,627 of the 2016/2017 $45,000 fund has been allocated.

4.4       The Transitional City Projects Fund has supported two projects in the Central City to a total of $16,083 in the July to December 2016 period: the COCA’s Public Performance Series and the Unsealed mural. Both projects generated significant coverage across a number of media outlets.

4.5       There were a number of projects that sought funding through the Creative Industries Support Fund in the July to December 2016 period. Approximately $104,000 of the $300,000 fund has been allocated for this financial year.

4.6       Projects attracting grants included the Fabriko Fab Lab which brings together a multi-disciplinary group to investigate and find solutions to local issues, and the Two Productions Limited theatre project, which works with young people on productions that address current social and economic issues.

4.7       The Creative Industries Support fund has invested $1,733,920 in the creative industries since 2012 and will conclude at the end of this financial year.  Successful applicants have been able to leverage further investment from Creative New Zealand and Rata Foundation – an additional benefit of the Council’s fund.  To date, of the 45 successful applicants to the fund over the last five years, 41 continue to operate – a 91% investment success rate.  A review of the fund will be provided in the next central city biannual report.

Council-led Transitional City Projects

4.8       The new design for the Flag Wall in Cathedral Square was installed in August 2016.

4.9       A new, temporary outdoor space has been created in the Performing Art Precinct.

Rebuild Central Office

4.10    The Rebuild Central office at 663 Colombo Street closed in December 2016 after four years operating in a high-profile location in the heart of the rebuild. The Rebuild Central service continues to be provided from the Civic Offices. The move to Civic coincides with a trend towards the majority of development related enquiries originating from emails and phone calls.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Biannual reporting

5.1       This is the third biannual report following the change from quarterly reporting in June 2015.

Consultation

5.2       Consultation on transitional projects is undertaken as appropriate with neighbouring landowners and tenants.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A Central City Biannual Report - Highlights from July to December 2016.

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

Author

John Scallan - Senior Planner Urban Regeneration

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

22 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

  



[1] https://www.toko.org.nz/petitions/make-otautahi-christchurch-one-use-plastic-bag-free

[2] https://www.toko.org.nz/petitions/make-otautahi-christchurch-one-use-plastic-bag-free

[3] Product stewardship is the responsible management of the environmental impact of a product. It aims to reduce the impact of   manufactured products at stages of the product life cycle.

 

[4] http://ccc.govt.nz/services/rubbish-and-recycling/sorting/recycling-yellow-bin/

[5] http://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/strategies/waste-management-and-minimisation-plan-2013/

[6] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/soft-plastics-recycling-programme-launched

[7] Graduated scale of infringement fees introduced in 2016: http://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/news-releases/show/590

[8] Although, the Bylaws Act 1910 also provides that: “No bylaw shall be invalid merely because it deals with a matter already dealt with by the laws of New Zealand…”