Regulatory Performance Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Regulatory Performance Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 11 October 2017

Time:                                    9am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairman

Deputy Chairman

Members

Councillor David East

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

5 October 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Leonie Rae

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

 

Aidan Kimberley

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6566

aidan.kimberley@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/

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

Regulatory Performance Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

Councillor East

Membership

Councillor Gough (Deputy Chair), Councillor Chen, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Livingstone, Councillor Scandrett, 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 Regulatory Performance Committee is Council’s regulatory and compliance functions. The Committee seeks to foster:

·         active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·         innovation and creativity

·         active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·         innovation and creativity

·         relationship with key partner organisations and agencies

·         engagement with community boards on bylaw development and review

 

 

The Regulatory Performance Committee considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·         Council’s regulatory and compliance functions

·         Council’s regulatory and compliance functions under:

Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation

Building Act 2004 and the New Zealand Building Code

Dog Control Act 1996

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002

Historic Places Act 1980

District Plan

Bylaws

Other regulatory matters

·         District planning

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

·         relationship with key partner organisations and agencies

·         engagement with community boards on bylaw development and review

 

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

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.       Public Forum.................................................................................................................... 4

B       5.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 4

B       6.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 4

STAFF REPORTS

A       7.       Options to support the relocation of street-based sex workers to address residents' concerns .......................................................................................................................... 9

B       8.       Building Consenting Unit Update October 2017......................................................... 31

B       9.       Resource Consents Monthly Report ........................................................................... 37

B       10.     Presentation - Environmental Health Unit

  

 

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 13 September 2017 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum

A period of up to 30 minutes may be available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

6.   Petitions

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


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

 

Regulatory Performance Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 13 September 2017

Time:                                    9am

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

 

 

Present

Chairman

Deputy Chairman

Members

Councillor David East

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

12 September 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Leonie Rae

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

 

Aidan Kimberley

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6566

aidan.kimberley@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

 

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2017/00025

That the apology for lateness from Councillor Gough be accepted.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                  Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved RPCM/2017/00026

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 26 July 2017 be confirmed.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

6.   Regulatory Compliance Unit Status Report

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2017/00027

Part C

1.         That the Regulatory Performance Committee receive the information in this report.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                 Carried

 

Councillor Gough joined the meeting at 09:24 am.


 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

 

4.1       Anna Youngman and Dr Kelvin Duncan addressed the Committee on behalf of the Yaldhurst Rural Residents’ Association regarding the health impacts from dust associated with quarries.

 

7.   Adoption of the Annual Report for ARLA for period ending 30 June 2017

 

Committee Decided RPCM/2017/00028

Part A

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Adopt the 2016/17 Annual Report to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority as set out in Attachment A, pursuant to section 199 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

Councillor Gough/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                              Carried

 

8.   Building Consenting Unit Update - September 2017

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2017/00029

Part C

1.         That the Regulatory Performance Committee receive the information in this report.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

9.   Resource Consents Monthly Report

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2017/00030

Part C

1.         That Regulatory Performance Committee receive the information in this report.

Councillor Gough/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 10:05am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

 

Councillor David East

Chairman

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

7.        Options to support the relocation of street-based sex workers to address residents' concerns

Reference:

17/809218

Contact:

Teena Crocker

Teena.Crocker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8851

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to consider options to support the relocation of street-based sex workers to address the residents’ concerns, and to make a recommendation to Council on this issue.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council’s resolution (CNCL/2017/00154) directing staff to bring a report to the Regulatory Performance Committee by the end of September 2017 to consider options for a new bylaw clause that regulates the location of street-based sex workers (SBSW) away from residential areas.

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance is medium because this issue is likely to be of wide public interest.  It impacts on a small number of residents and a small geographical area, but is of high concern to those residents.  It will impact on street based sex workers (SBSW) operating in the area.  There are a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with an interest, including the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective (NZPC), Youth and Cultural Development (YCD), and the Salvation Army, all of whom run outreach services and advocate for SBSWs.  The New Zealand Police also have an interest.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommend that Council:

1.         Agree not to develop a bylaw that regulates the location of street-based sex workers away from residential areas.

2.         Agree that Council staff continue to work with all parties to encourage street based sex workers to relocate away from the area of concern.

3.         Agree that the Council, in partnership with the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, forms a collaborative community working group that will include the Non-Government Organisations, the New Zealand Police, and affected residents, to develop and undertake further actions to support the relocation of street-based sex workers.

4.         Agree that the Central-Linwood-Heathcote Community Board be invited to support the collaborative community working group.

5.         Instruct staff to monitor and evaluate the actions and outcomes and report to the Council in twelve months.

 

 

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 – Develop a package of further actions to encourage all street based sex workers to relocate away from the area of concern.

·     Option 2 – Finalise, for community consultation, bylaw clauses that regulate the location of street based sex workers in the area of concern. 

The area of concern is the residential area around Manchester Street, north of Bealey Avenue.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of option 1 Encouraging relocation

4.4       The advantages of this option include:

·     It has the support of the Police. The Police have committed to working directly with the residents to help alleviate tensions, as well as working with the NGOs and SBSWs.

·     It has the support of the NGOs best placed to influence the location of SBSWs – New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, Salvation Army, and Youth and Cultural Development.

·     It is more likely to result in the relocation of SBSWs than a bylaw.  A relationship-building approach has been shown to significantly reduce community tensions concerning SBSW activities in Auckland, and endure over time.  Research strongly indicates that relationship-building approaches are likely to be more effective than regulatory responses.

·     This approach will complement other developments that may impact on where SBSWs chose to locate, including the ongoing development of the central city post-earthquake and the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective’s plans to relocate their offices back to the central city.

·     It builds on the current efforts of NGOs to relocate SBSWs, the numbers of which have reduced in the area of concern from 16, to one or two, over recent months.

·     This option will be less expensive than a regulatory response.

4.5       The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The residents engaged with the Council in a bylaw options development process in good faith and may be expecting a bylaw to be developed. The Council commenced the process with residents on the basis that the Police supported, and would enforce, a bylaw. 

·     Residents will be concerned that issues will re-emerge, that non-regulatory approaches will not be effective, or that active engagement in reducing issues may decline over time.

4.6       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of option 2 Bylaw development

4.7       The advantages of this option include:

·     This option is supported by the known affected residents.

·     Full public consultation as part of the bylaw development process will help the Council to understand wider community views.

4.8       The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Developing a bylaw to regulate the location of SBSWs is legally complex under the current legislative framework.  This is largely due to the limited enforcement tools available under the Local Government Act’s (LGA 2002) general bylaw-making powers.

·     The Council cannot create enforcement tools or penalties, and must work within the legal framework of the LGA 2002.

·     Under the LGA 2002, there is no legal ability to issue instant fines or to make an arrest for the breach of a bylaw. The main enforcement tool is prosecution.  The penalty is a fine on conviction of up to $20,000.  A matter needs to be sufficiently serious to warrant a prosecution, and low-level behavioural issues (though a nuisance and cause of community tensions), are often not sufficiently serious to warrant a prosecution. 

·     The Police have advised that as there are no specific powers in the LGA 2002 to enable the enforcement of a SBSW bylaw (or national legislation which regulates this issue), there are difficulties from a practical enforcement and evidence-gathering perspective that, in their view, makes Police enforcement unworkable. This is new information (the Police had previously indicated a willingness to enforce a bylaw, should the Council develop one).

·     Enforcement of a bylaw by Council staff is theoretically possible, but is likely to be complex and expensive.   Enforcement costs could be considerable given the nature of the activities (in terms of hours of operation, the need for staff with specialist skills, and health and safety issues), and any evidence gathering and prosecution costs (and the same issues apply as identified by the NZ Police). 

·     There is no strong evidence to indicate that a bylaw will have the intended impact and work as a deterrent to move SBSWs from the area of concern, particularly without Police involvement.

·     A bylaw to regulate this activity may be challenged in the High Court, which could have financial and reputational costs for the Council.

·     The NGOs involved, including the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, Salvation Army, and Youth and Cultural Development, do not support a bylaw.

·     A regulatory response is disproportionate to the relatively small scale of the problem.  

 

5.   Context/Background

History of the issue

5.1       Residents in a section of Manchester Street, north of Bealey Avenue, are concerned about the impact of street-based sex workers (SBSWs) operating in the area.

5.2       The issues have been occurring over the last six years, since the earthquakes displaced the SBSWs from the city end of Manchester Street, south of Bealey Avenue, when the central city was cordoned off post-quake.  

5.3       There is a history of tension between the residents and the SBSWs.  The impacts are causing stress to the residents particularly due to late night noise, offensive and hazardous litter, intimidation, vandalism, trespassing and other issues.

5.4       The residents have sought a regulatory response from the Council, with the view that a bylaw would give the Police a tool to require the SBSWs to move on and act as a deterrent to SBSWs choosing to operate in the area.  

5.5       The Council formed a working party and directed staff to report back to the Regulatory Performance Committee with bylaw options. The working party consisted of Councillors Pauline Cotter and Deon Swiggs, and Community Board Member Alexandra Davids.  It engaged with the affected residents, the NGOs with an interest, and the Police.

Current situation (August 2017)

5.6       Earlier estimates from the NGOs undertaking outreach work put the number of SBSWs operating in the area in question at around sixteen, with the number fluctuating, depending on circumstances. 

5.7       The SBSW activity north of Bealey Avenue has markedly reduced in recent months.  The current estimate is that there are only one or two SBSWs operating in the residential area. 

5.8       This reduction is considered to be more than just the winter months having an effect, and is attributed to NGOs working with SBSWs to encourage them to move further south, towards the city. 

Legislative Framework

5.9       Developing a bylaw to regulate the location of SBSWs is legally complex under the current legislative framework, and a bylaw would present practical issues due to the limited enforcement tools available under the general bylaw-making powers provided by the LGA 2002.

5.10    In the absence of any legislative changes at the national level, a bylaw to regulate SBSWs is unworkable from a Police enforcement perspective.  Enforcement of a bylaw by Council staff is theoretically possible, but is likely to be complex and expensive, and it is not certain a bylaw would have the intended impact. 

5.11    Background information on the legislative framework was canvassed in the 25 May 2017 Council report. The table below summarises the issues considered by the working party when determining how a bylaw might be developed. Attachment 1 covers the information in more detail.

 Issue

Quick summary

Bylaw-making powers in the Prostitution Reform Act 2003

·    No bylaw-making power to regulate SBSW

Bylaw-making powers in the Local Government Act 2002

·    Some bylaw-making powers that could regulate SBSW impacts / associated activities (nuisance, offensive behaviour, public health and safety)

·    No other councils with evidence of issues have made a bylaw to regulate SBSW

The Council’s Public Places Bylaw 2008 commercial activities clause

·    Not applicable to SBSW (confirmed by external legal advice)

·    No strong parallels between enforcement of the issues relating to car window-washing and SBSW issues

Bylaw-making tests under the LGA 2002 (s.155)

·    Assessment needs to demonstrate whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem

·    Also requires an assessment of any Bill of Rights Act implications (this is a specific requirement for bylaw-making, set out in the LGA 2002)

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA) and bylaws (s.155 tests)

·    Need to assess the impacts of any bylaw on rights and freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights Act

·    Any bylaw that impacts on people’s rights to access or pass through public places may raise issues in relation NZBoRA

·    Bylaws can limit freedoms if the limitation is ‘demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’

Bylaw challenges in the High Court

·    Need to follow best practice and lessons from case law

·    Any bylaw may be open to challenge in the High Court

·    Considerations include whether a bylaw could be considered invalid, unreasonable or repugnant

Manukau City Council (now Auckland Council) experience with trying to regulate street-based sex work via bylaw

·    Believed the LGA did not provide sufficient powers

·    Attempted to create legislation that would have empowered the Council to develop a bylaw to regulate issues arising from the location of SBSW activities

·    Would have given extra powers to the Police to make a bylaw more effective / enforceable

·    Would only have applied in Manukau

·    The two attempts at legislation failed to progress through Parliament and into law

Auckland’s current situation in relation to SBSW

·    Auckland Council has not regulated SBSW activities with a bylaw, despite having had significant issues with SBSW

·    Relationship-building and working with NGOs, Police, and the community, has helped to reduce issues

Enforcement of bylaws made under the general bylaw-making powers of the LGA 2002

·    No infringements (instant fines)

·    No powers of arrest

·    Penalty for a bylaw breach is a fine of up to $20,000 on conviction (in the District Court)

·    Judicial discretion as to the level of a fine on conviction

·    In order to take a prosecution, the Solicitor-General’s guidelines recommend that the Evidential Test and the Public Interest Test are met (these can be difficult for anti-social behaviour bylaws or low-level nuisance issues)

Bylaw enforcement – role of the Police

·    The Police do not have to enforce Council bylaws

·    The Police now have a firm view against taking a lead role in enforcing any bylaw to regulate SBSW

·    The Police have indicated concerns about a bylaw to regulate this issue from an enforcement perspective

Bylaw enforcement – role of the Council, and costs

·    Cost implications and practical issues (training, health and safety, and workforce issues for enforcement officers)

·    Limited tools to take enforcement action

·    Concerns about enforcement practicalities

·    Cost implications for taking prosecutions

Bylaws to address antisocial behaviour

·    Difficult, unless people are willing to comply voluntarily

·    May not work as a deterrent for marginalised sectors of society

·    Normal sanctions may not impact behaviour (eg threat of reputational damage or fines from prosecution)

Non-regulatory approaches

·    Outreach work is based on relationship-building and encouraging good outcomes

·    Evidence indicates it is likely to have more impact on behaviour change than regulating

·    Non-regulatory actions will be ongoing, whether a bylaw is pursued or not.

 

Working party’s findings

5.12    The working party considered the possible rationale for a bylaw, how a bylaw might be made, and how it could work in practice, and recognised the difficulties and complexity of developing a bylaw to regulate SBSW under the current legislative framework (set out in the table above and in attachment one).

5.13    The working party worked with the affected residents, the NGOs and the Police, to explore bylaw options and settle on the best bylaw approach, despite the identified legal and enforcement complexities.

5.14    In working through how a bylaw could describe activity to be regulated, and the area in which the activity could be prohibited, the views of the residents and NGOs differed markedly (specific vs general wording, wide vs narrow area).  Attachment 2 has more information on the bylaw options, views of the residents and NGOs, and conclusions of the working party.

5.15    It was not until the completion of the working party process that the Police advised that their view was against being involved in any bylaw enforcement action, and that they did not support a bylaw to regulate an issue now being caused by a small number of SBSWs. The Police view against being involved in enforcement is due to:

·     the limited enforcement tools available under the Local Government Act’s general bylaw-making powers (no instant fines, no powers of arrest, no other enforcement powers)

·     concerns about practical enforcement issues, including gathering sufficient evidence to be able to take a prosecution, and the costs involved in taking a prosecution for what is essentially a low-level antisocial behaviour issue.

5.16    The working party considered non-regulatory options to address issues, however, the majority of its time was spent considering how SBSW could be regulated via a bylaw.

No potential for legislative change

5.17    The Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (PRA 2003) is largely silent on SBSWs.  The only possible current option to regulate SBSW via bylaw is through the general bylaw-making powers in the LGA 2002.

5.18    There are no signs from central government that there is likely to be any change to either the PRA 2003 or the LGA 2002 in relation to SBSW – neither the Police and nor Justice policy teams in Wellington are actively working on SBSW policy or legal issues.

5.19    When the PRA 2003 came into force, its outcomes were uncertain, and there were concerns that the decriminalisation of the sex industry would lead to a proliferation of brothels and sex workers. The Act required a review after five years of coming into force. The Prostitution Law Reform Committee report was the result, and, in relation to SBSW, it: 

·     Recommends that areas where SBSWs operate ‘are managed in a way that will minimise the potential for disturbance to local residents and provide as much protection and support for street-based workers as possible’ (p.131). 

·     Notes that ‘solutions proposed for the management of street-based prostitution must have the support of all parties affected…[and]… must include sex workers and their advocates, as well as local authorities, Police and NGOs’ (p.131).   

The experience of other councils

5.20    Christchurch is not the only council that has struggled to find a workable regulatory solution through a bylaw. 

5.21    Several other councils have included a bylaw clause about SBSWs in their brothel bylaws.  However, none of these councils have evidence of SBSW issues, so the bylaws have not been enforced or otherwise tested.

5.22    Of the councils with evidence of problems relating to SBSW (Auckland and Wellington) neither has created a bylaw to regulate SBSW activities or impacts (despite, in Auckland’s case, investing significant resources into trying to find a regulatory solution).

5.23    A relationship-building approach has significantly reduced community tensions in Auckland, and has endured over time.  Auckland Council now focuses on relationship-building and working with NGOs, Police, and the community, which has helped to reduce issues.

Research into regulating SBSW

5.24    International and New Zealand-based research indicates that the course of action most likely to have an impact on minimising the impacts of SBSWs (regardless of where they are located) is working with SBSWs, advocates / outreach workers to build relationships, develop good lines of communication and to effect culture change. The community and Police also have a role to play.  There is also evidence internationally that attempts to regulate SBSW may increase harm to SBSWs.

5.25    Associate Professor at Otago University, Dr Gillian Abel, has extensive expertise in research into the sex industry, including leading the national research on the impact of the PRA 2003 that led to the Prostitution Law Reform Committee report (referred to above).

5.26    Dr Abel has recently secured Lottery Health Research funding to undertake a two-year study into SBSW in New Zealand. The research project is titled: Street-based sex workers in the Community: exploring community tensions, and experiences of violence and coercion. The research will focus on violence and exploitation; coercion (particularly under-age SBSWs); the relationship between SBSWs and the Police; community tensions (residents, business and SBSWs); and local council perceptions of regulation.

5.27    The research will take place over two years, in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, with the Christchurch research already underway. The Christchurch component should be completed by the end of 2017.  Dr Abel has fast-tracked the Christchurch research because of the current tensions.  The work being undertaken by Dr Abel and the findings of her research could soon provide valuable insights into possible community-based approaches to addressing issues currently being seen.

6.   Option 1 – Encouraging relocation of SBSWs away from the area of concern (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Council staff would continue to work with the affected residents, NGOs and the Police to develop approaches to encourage SBSWs to relocate away from the problem area and towards the central city.

6.2       A relationship-building approach to managing SBSWs has been taken by Auckland Council, and has reduced the negative impacts and complaints to the Council, and endured over time.

6.3       The Council would establish a community partnership with the NZ Prostitutes Collective (NZPC) to form a collaborative community working group to support the relocation of SBSWs. 

6.4       The collaborative community working group could include members from the Central-Linwood-Heathcote Community Board, stakeholder groups such as the Salvation Army, Youth and Cultural Development, the NZ Police, and affected residents. The collaborative community working group would be supported by Council’s community governance staff.

6.5       The collaborative working group will focus on ways to encourage SBSWs towards the central city, which may include:

·     access to toilets

·     the application of Crime Prevention through Urban Design (CPTED) principles (which had a positive impact in Auckland’s management of SBSW issues)

·     potential changes to lighting, CCTV, rubbish bins and /or street cleaning

·     avenues for funding to otherwise support the successful relocation of SBSWs.

6.6       This approach would complement other developments that will encourage the relocation of SBSWs back to the central city. These include the ongoing development of the central city post-earthquake (including traffic flow changes) and the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective’s plans to relocate their offices back to the central city (on Manchester Street, south of Bealey Avenue)

Significance

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

6.8       This option would involve ongoing engagement with affected residents, NGOs and the Police.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.9       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

6.10    Residents in Manchester Street and surrounds are affected by this option due to their experience of the impacts of SBSW activities. 

6.11    The views of the residents that have approached the Council on this issue are known. Generally, the residents involved are supportive of regulation (with some being very supportive).  Residents may also be supportive of other solutions that adequately address and reduce their concerns.

6.12    The views of other residents in the area are not yet known.

6.13    The shared view of NGOs working with SBSWs is that regulation is not the answer, and may increase harm.  NZPC, YCD and the Salvation Army all support taking a partnership approach. 

6.14    This view is shared by the Police.  The Police do not support a bylaw to regulate this issue.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.16    Cost of Implementation – the costs of taking this option are low for the Council. However, staff time, and any non-regulatory actions may have some costs, which would be determined through the partnership’s work.

Legal Implications

6.17    There are no legal implications for taking a non-regulatory partnership approach.

6.18    However, the residents have threatened legal action over the Council’s approach to this issue, but the likelihood of this occurring, or succeeding, is uncertain. The basis for a claim is unclear at this stage.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.19    There is a risk that non-regulatory and partnership activities may not be effective, or may not endure over the long-term. 

6.20    Auckland Council has taken a partnership approach and it has endured to date.

Implementation

6.21    Council staff would work with the relevant parties to continue the non-regulatory approach and develop further actions, as discussed above.

6.22    Council staff will monitor and evaluate the outcomes of the actions and report to the Council on the evaluation of the actions in twelve months. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.23    The advantages of this option include:

·     It has the support of the Police. The Police have committed to working directly with the residents to help alleviate tensions, as well as working with the NGOs and SBSWs.

·     It has the support of the NGOs best placed to influence the location of SBSWs - New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, Salvation Army, and Youth and Cultural Development.

·     It is more likely to result in the relocation of SBSWs than a bylaw.  A relationship-building approach has been shown to significantly reduce community tensions concerning SBSW activities in Auckland, and endure over time.  Research strongly indicates that relationship-building approaches are likely to be more effective than regulatory responses.

·     This approach will complement other developments that may impact on where SBSWs chose to locate, including the ongoing development of the central city post-earthquake and the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective’s plans to relocate their offices back to the central city.

·     It builds on the current efforts of NGOs to relocate SBSWs, the numbers of which have reduced in the area of concern from 16, to one or two, over recent months.

·     This option will be less expensive than a regulatory response.

6.24    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The residents engaged with the Council in a bylaw options development process in good faith and will be expecting a bylaw to be developed. The Council commenced the process with residents on the basis that the Police supported, and would enforce, a bylaw. 

·     Residents will be concerned that issues will re-emerge, that non-regulatory approaches will not be effective, or that active engagement in reducing issues may decline over time.


 

7.   Option 2 – Bylaw development

Option Description

7.1       Council staff would undertake further work to finalise draft bylaw clauses for inclusion in the Public Places Bylaw 2008 for public consultation.  

7.2       The draft clauses would be under a new title: “Activity prohibited in public places in specified areas”.  The draft clauses would set out the following:  

7.2.1   an introductory clause to describe the issues generally, linking back to the LGA 2002 bylaw-making power (nuisance, health and safety, and offensive behaviour)

7.2.2   a second clause that uses the definitions from the PRA 2003, including the ‘business of prostitution’ (which is defined to include ‘arranging the provision of commercial sexual services’), and prohibits these activities in any place specified by the Council.  Under this clause, the Council could declare a specified area, by resolution, having given effect to the views of affected and interested parties (as required by the LGA 2002);

7.2.3   a third clause could set out the relevant definitions from the PRA 2003; and

7.2.4   a register of any specified areas could be added, in this case, the area proposed is that bounded by and including: Bealey Avenue, Springfield Road, St Albans Street, Rutland Street, Westminster Street, Cranford Street, Warrington Street, and Geraldine Street, accompanied by a map.

7.3       Under this option staff would develop bylaw clauses and undertake the associated assessments required under the Local Government Act 2002, and report back to the Regulatory Performance Committee, then to Council, for consideration.  Subject to Council approval, the proposal would then go out for full public consultation and hearings, before returning to the Council for a final decision.

7.4       Under this option the Council would be responsible for enforcement of the bylaw and any prosecutions under the bylaw. 

Significance

7.5       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report, as bylaw development would require further work and reconsideration by the Council, before proceeding to public consultation and hearings.

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       SBSWs would be affected by this option, as a bylaw would limit where SBSW activities could occur. 

7.8       Residents in Manchester Street and surrounds are affected by this option due to their experience of the impacts of SBSW activities.  The views of the residents that have approached the Council on this issue are known, but the views of other residents in the area are not yet known. Generally, the residents involved are supportive of a bylaw (with some being very supportive).

7.9       The shared view of NGOs working with SBSWs is that regulation is not the answer.  NZPC, YCD and the Salvation Army all support taking a partnership approach.

7.10    The Police do not support a bylaw to regulate this issue, and have raised concerns about a bylaw being developed within the current legislative framework.  The Police have indicated they would not take a lead enforcement role.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.12    There would be costs to the Council associated with the development of bylaw clauses and undertaking the public consultation process.  If this proceeds, there would be ongoing enforcement costs, and the potential for additional costs if the bylaw were to be challenged in the High Court.

7.13    As the Police have indicated that they are not willing to enforce a bylaw to regulate this issue, and a bylaw was put in place, enforcement would have significant costs for the Council.

7.14    Enforcement by the Council has been estimated to be up to $544,000 per year by the Regulatory Compliance Unit. A bylaw would require new staff, with special training, due to the nature of the activity being regulated.  Costs could vary, depending on the enforcement and compliance monitoring approach, as well as expectations around responsiveness to complaints.

7.15    The Regulatory Compliance Unit is not able to adequately resource this, without securing additional funding via the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan, or reducing other services. 

7.16    The costs associated with initiating a prosecution in response to any identified breaches would be additional (including surveillance, evidence gathering and prosecutorial expertise).

7.17    If the Council created a bylaw to regulate the location of SBSW, and it was challenged in the High Court, there would be both financial and reputational costs to the Council to defend the challenge.  Total staff and external legal costs would likely be in excess of $100,000.

Legal Implications

7.18    The Council cannot require that the Police enforce a bylaw made by the Council under section 145 of the LGA2002. 

7.19    Further legal work would be undertaken in the development of a bylaw option, including the preparation of the material for the section 155 determinations required to be made by the Council under the LGA 2002.

7.20    A bylaw may be challenged in the High Court on the grounds that it is invalid, unreasonable or repugnant.  Any bylaw that impacts on people’s rights to access or pass through public places may raise issues in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 

7.21    Council staff will endeavour to draft a bylaw that addresses all these matters so as to minimise the risk of a legal challenge. 

7.22    Enforcement of any bylaw that is drafted is anticipated to present some difficulties, particularly in respect of gathering evidence, given the nature of the activities and persons involved.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.23    The bylaw may not have the intended impact due to:

·     the limited tools for enforcement under the LGA 2002, and evidence gathering difficulties

·     the lack of Police support may lessen the impact of enforcement activities or the bylaw working as a deterrent

7.24    The above risks can be partially mitigated through sufficient resourcing of enforcement and prosecutions. The risk rating is medium.

Implementation

7.25    Implementation dependencies – as discussed above, public consultation and resourcing needs to occur prior to implementation of a new bylaw.

7.26    Implementation timeframe – Subject to consultation and approval processes, the earliest a bylaw would likely come into effect would be April/May 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.27    The advantages of this option include:

·     This option is supported by the known affected residents.

·     Full public consultation as part of the bylaw development process will help the Council to understand wider community views.

7.28    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Developing a bylaw to regulate the location of SBSWs is legally complex under the current legislative framework.  This is largely due to the limited enforcement tools available under the Local Government Act’s (LGA 2002) general bylaw-making powers.

·     The Council cannot create enforcement tools or penalties, and must work within the legal framework of the LGA 2002.

·     Under the LGA 2002, there is no legal ability to issue instant fines or to make an arrest for the breach of a bylaw. The main enforcement tool is prosecution.  The penalty is a fine on conviction of up to $20,000.  A matter needs to be sufficiently serious to warrant a prosecution, and low-level behavioural issues (though a nuisance and cause of community tensions), are often not sufficiently serious to warrant a prosecution. 

·     The Police have advised that as there are no specific powers in the LGA 2002 to enable the enforcement of a SBSW bylaw (or national legislation which regulates this issue), there are difficulties from a practical enforcement and evidence-gathering perspective that, in their view, makes Police enforcement unworkable. This is new information (the Police had previously indicated a willingness to enforce a bylaw, should the Council develop one).

·     Enforcement of a bylaw by Council staff is theoretically possible, but is likely to be complex and expensive.   Enforcement costs could be considerable given the nature of the activities (in terms of hours of operation, the need for staff with specialist skills, and health and safety issues), and any evidence gathering and prosecution costs. 

·     There is no strong evidence to indicate that a bylaw will have the intended impact and work as a deterrent to move SBSWs from the area of concern, particularly without Police involvement.

·     A bylaw to regulate this activity may be challenged in the High Court, which could have financial and reputational costs for the Council.

·     The NGOs involved, including the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, Salvation Army, and Youth and Cultural Development, do not support a bylaw.

·     A regulatory response is disproportionate to the relatively small scale of the problem.  

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 - Further information on the development of a bylaw to regulate SBSW

22

b

Attachment 2 - Working party background and bylaw options

27

 

 

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

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Judith Cheyne - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

8.        Building Consenting Unit Update October 2017

Reference:

17/1050881

Contact:

Robert Wright

robert.wright@ccc.govt.nz

9416263

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Regulatory Performance Committee with an update of the Building Consenting Unit of the Consenting and Compliance Group.  The data relates to August 2017.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

1.         That the Regulatory Performance Committee receive the information in this report.

 

 

3.   Building Control Update

August in Review

During August Christchurch City Council underwent an accreditation assessment by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) who have subsequently offered Christchurch City Council Building Consenting Authority continued accreditation.  All technical decisions were found to be appropriate.

Building Consents

3.1      The level of service is to grant building consents within 20 working days, and a minimum target of issuing 95 per cent of building consent decisions within 19 working days.

3.2      There were 613 residential and 116 commercial consents processed during August, with 97.5 per cent processed within the statutory timeframe. 

3.3      Please see Attachment A for the August 2017 dashboard.

External Processing of Consents

3.4      External contractors processed 179 consents in August.  Of these 94.9 per cent were within the 20 day statutory timeframe. 

Inspections and Scheduling 

3.5      The level of service is to carry out building inspections in a timely manner, with a target of carrying out 95 per cent of building inspections within three working days of the date requested.

3.6      There were 4,245 inspections completed in August (3,512 residential, 733 commercial).  The target was achieved at 99.9 per cent (also reporting 99.9 per cent for this financial year).

3.7      The waiting time for a residential inspection is between one and two working days (depending on complexity) and one working day for a commercial inspection. 

Code Compliance Certificates

3.8      The level of service is to grant code compliance certificates within 20 working days, with a minimum target to issue 95 per cent of code compliance certificates within 19 working days from the date of lodgement.  

 

3.9      There were 645 code compliance certificate applications received in August.    Of these, 99.3 per cent of the decisions were within the statutory timeframe. 

Estimated Value of Work

             Estimated value of building consents granted for August 2017 with annual comparisons to 2014.

The light red shade is residential ($74 million) and the darker red is commercial ($147 million).

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Building Consenting Unit Dashboard August 2017

34

 

 

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

Robert Wright - Head of Building Consenting

Approved By

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

 

9         Resource Consents Monthly Report

Reference:

17/1054840

Contact:

John Higgins

john.higgins@ccc.govt.nz

941 8224

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide a monthly update to the Regulatory Performance Committee with respect to the delivery of resource consent functions. This report covers activity for the month of August 2017.

1.2       Attachment A provide graphical information relating to application numbers and performance. Key aspects of that graphical information are also discussed below.

1.3       The author will be present at the committee meeting to highlight key areas of the report and answer any questions.

 

2.    Recommendation

1.         That the Regulatory Performance Committee receive the information in this report.

 

 

3.   Application Numbers

3.1       Applications received increased from 259 in July to 307 August, an increase of 16%.  Overall, numbers for the 2017/18 year are tracking slightly below the previous year but the difference is small.    

3.2       Three temporary accommodation applications were received or approved in August.   15 District Plan certificates were issued in August.

 

4.   Performance

4.1       96 per cent of applications in August were processed within the statutory timeframe. This is below the target of 99%.   However, compliance with statutory timeframes remains high and work is ongoing to achieve improvement.  

 

5.   Applications of interest

5.1       A table of the applications of interest is contained in Attachment B.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Resource Consents Monthly Report - Attachment A - August 2017

39

b

Resource Consents Monthly Report - Attachment B - August 2017

47

 

 

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

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

11 October 2017

 

PDF Creator