Regulatory Performance Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 13 December 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 Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

7 December 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

13 December 2017

 

Regulatory Performance Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

Councillor East

Membership

Councillor Gough (Deputy Chair), Councillor Chen, Councillor Galloway, 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

13 December 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.       Update on the performance of the Freedom Camping Bylaw.................................... 9

A       8.       Revocation of the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014....................................................... 15

B       9.       Building Consenting Update - December 2017........................................................... 39

B       10.     Resource Consents Monthly Report ........................................................................... 49

B       11.     Briefing - Proposed Temporary Alcohol Ban in Linwood Village Area

Staff will provide a verbal update at the meeting.

C       12.     Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................................. 61  

 

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 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, 8 November 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

13 December 2017

 

 

 

Regulatory Performance Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 8 November 2017

Time:                                    9:01am

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

 

 

7 November 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

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved RPCM/2017/00035

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 11 October 2017 be confirmed.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                              Carried

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

5.1       Deputation by Appointment - Lindsay Carswell

Lindsay Carswell, local resident, addressed the committee regarding the Resource Consent for the car park at New World Stanmore Road.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.


 

 

8.   Resource Consents Monthly Report

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2017/00036

Part C

That Regulatory Performance Committee receive the information in this report.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

Councillor Livingstone left the meeting at 10:21 am.

7.   Building Consenting Update - November 2017

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2017/00037

Part C

That the Regulatory Performance Committee receives the information in this report.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Gough                                                                                                           Carried

 

 

9.   Regulatory Compliance Unit Status report

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2017/00038

Part C

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

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

10. Presentation - Environmental Health Unit

 

Nigel Grant, team leader Environmental Health, verbally briefed the committee on the work of the Environmental Health Unit.

 

Councillor Galloway left the meeting at 10:58 am and returned during the public excluded session.

11  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2017/00039

Part C

That at 10:59 the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 31 to 32 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor East                                                                                                                   Carried

 


 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 11:09am.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 11:09am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017.

 

Councillor David East

Chairman

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

 

7.        Update on the performance of the Freedom Camping Bylaw

Reference:

17/202371

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 staff to update the Regulatory Performance Committee on the performance of the Council’s Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report responds to Council resolution to review the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 after two years of operation, resolved on 13 August 2015.

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.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Defer the full review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015; and

2.         Note that staff have reviewed the performance of the Freedom Camping Bylaw and consider there is insufficient evidence to justify amending the bylaw at this time; and

3.         Note that staff review and adjust operational activities in relation to the Freedom Camping Bylaw every year as required; and

4.         Note that a full review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw is scheduled for 2020, as required by the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The bylaw, in its current form, provides adequate tools to address existing concerns.

4.2       The bylaw is relatively new, has already been amended once, and needs time to settle in.  Reviewing and amending the bylaw every summer in response to specific activities and impacts over the previous summer is unsustainable.  It can also be confusing for freedom campers if the requirements keep changing. The bylaw is scheduled to undergo a full review, to comply with legislative requirements, in 2020. 

4.3       All known issues associated with freedom camping generally, can be addressed through operational activities. 

4.4       The operational management of the bylaw (and associated issues) is reviewed every year.  Freedom camping impacts and issues vary season by season, and being flexible and responsive is important. Monitoring and enforcement activities include both proactive monitoring of high risk sites, and reactive investigation of complaints.  This operational annual review process is refining and improving the Council’s responses to freedom camping.

 

4.5       Freedom camping challenges are occurring nationwide.  Key responses at the national level include:

·    the amendment to the New Zealand Standard (NZS 5465:2001) for self-containment certification for motor caravans (relating to on-board toilet facilities)

·    Department of Internal Affairs work on freedom camping, and the release of the report  Managing Freedom Camping in Public Places (November 2016), which looks at ways to reduce harms associated with freedom camping, including bylaws

·    the national tourism strategy, Tourism 2025 – Growing Value Together, is intended to support regions to respond to and benefit from increasing visitor numbers.

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

§ Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

 

5.   Context/Background

Freedom Camping Act 2011 and freedom camping bylaws

5.1       The Freedom Camping Act 2011 allows freedom camping to take place and enables councils to make bylaws to restrict freedom camping on council-controlled land.  The Act does not allow councils to completely ban all forms of freedom camping.

5.2       Before making or amending a bylaw, the Council must determine that a freedom camping bylaw (clause) is necessary for one or more of the following purposes:

·    to protect the area

·    to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area

·    to protect access to the area. 

5.3       The Council must be satisfied that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem and not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

5.4       Under section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, a bylaw must be reviewed no later than five years after it is first made, with subsequent reviews at least once every 10 years.

5.5       The Council will undertake a full review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 (the bylaw) in 2020.

The Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015, and 2016 amendment

5.6       In 2015 the Council made the bylaw with a four-level approach to restrictions on freedom camping:

·    Prohibited areas – no freedom camping allowed

·    Restricted areas – certified self-contained vehicles permitted, for a limited duration

·    Designated sites – non-self-contained camping at five sites, for a limited duration (French Farm, Wainui, Addington Park, Lower Styx River Mouth and Windsport Park)

·    No restrictions – in rural areas.

5.7       The bylaw came into force in December 2015.  After the summer season staff assessed that the use of the five designated sites for non-self-contained freedom camping activities was unsustainable from a health and environmental perspective (largely due to the unanticipated high numbers of freedom campers at those sites).  The Chief Executive temporarily closed the five designated non-self-contained sites, using a clause in the bylaw. 

5.8       On 12 May 2016 the Council resolved to bring forward a partial bylaw review to address the non-self-contained camping issues which had prompted the temporary ban.  Following the partial review, Council made the following significant changes to the bylaw via an amendment (which came into force on 1 December 2016), which:

·    prohibited non-self-contained freedom camping in the district

·    closed the five designated non-self-contained sites to all forms of freedom camping.

Hearings Panel report and recommendations

5.9       On 2 November 2016, the Council considered the report of the Hearings Panel on the proposed amendments to the Freedom Camping Bylaw.  It adopted the amendments set out briefly above and made a number of other recommendations about the focus of a ‘full review’ which was suggested for 2017. 

5.10    In preparation for a bylaw review, staff have examined the performance of the bylaw and conclude that no structural changes to the bylaw are necessary at this time.  Operational activities have also been reviewed, and changes and adjustments are planned or in place for the coming summer season.

5.11    The table below outlines Council resolutions, as recommended by the Hearings Panel, relating to what should be considered as part of the bylaw review. Staff comments / responses have been added in right hand column:

Recommendation

Staff response

The appropriateness of limitations to the number of nights and numbers of vehicles, particularly in the rural and coastal areas, taking into the account the significant landscape values of Banks Peninsula.

There is no clear need for changes at this time.

The New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Inc’s submission advocating the adoption of the proposed change to the self-containment standard NZS 5465:2001.

No change needed to the bylaw as already incorporated.

 

NZS 5465:2001 was updated to improve the minimum requirements for a toilet within a motorhome.  The changes do not affect the bylaw definition, which covers ‘Certified self-contained vehicle’ with a requirement for the vehicle to comply with NZS 5465:2001 by meeting the ablutionary and sanitary needs of the occupants for a minimum of three days, without requiring any external services or discharging waste.

The availability of sufficient dump stations.

This is an operational issue and does not require a bylaw response.

The appropriateness of self-contained freedom camping within the Akaroa Historic Area.

The restrictions in the Akaroa Heritage Area relate to the built environment and streetscape generally, not to the traffic (road) environment and things such as parking.

 

Unless there is a safety or capacity issue with vehicles parking at a specific location, then staff do not consider this to be an issue.

 

There have been very few freedom camping complaints in this area.

The appropriateness of self-contained freedom camping within Stanbury Park, as per the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board submission.

The use of Stanbury Park in Wainui will be considered in a future review of the bylaw.

The Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board’s submission regarding the use of the Akaroa car park for self-contained freedom camping.

There are two areas in the carpark behind the Croquet Green where self-contained vehicles can camp for two nights in a 30-day period.

 

There have been no complaints about freedom camping in this area.

Immediately consider the viability of the toilet facilities and other related infrastructure on Banks Peninsula and put in place an appropriate level of monitoring over the summer period.

This is an operational issue and does not require a bylaw response.

 

Compliance with the bylaw over the 2016/17 summer season

5.12    Throughout the 2016/17 summer season, the Council’s Compliance and Investigation Team implemented an active monitoring regime for freedom camping activities. This involved daily (Monday – Friday) inspections of the Christchurch city and Banks Peninsula areas by two compliance officers that commenced at 6:00am. Weekend enforcement activities were not carried out over the 2016/17 season due to the relatively low level of complaints (only 14 of 122 received over the weekend).

5.13    The active monitoring regime finished at the end of March 2017. Since then a reactive enforcement response strategy has been pursued, acting on complaints. 

5.14    120 infringement notices were issued for the 2016/17 season, with a further seven issued between March and August 2017. The trend reported to the Committee in March 2017 continued, with the number of complaints received in relation to non-compliant freedom camping activities being less than half the number of complaints received for the previous summer season. Staff consider that this can be attributed to increased awareness of the bylaw and the deterrent effect of active compliance and enforcement activities.   

5.15    Staff have noted that many requests for service / complaints are listed as freedom camping-related because they involve a motorhome or campervan. Some of these complaints are not related to freedom camping or to the bylaw.  Examples include complaints relating to daytime activities of motorhomes (such as picnicking at lunchtime being assumed to indicate an overnight stay in breach of the bylaw); safety concerns about parking of motorhomes (for example reducing visibility for other road users or protruding onto the carriageway); or complaints about rubbish that may have been left by visitors who are not freedom camping.

5.16    Complaints relating to traffic safety may relate more to the Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw provisions than to overnight stays and freedom camping.   If deemed necessary, changes to parking restrictions can be made through the Community Board and public consultation process.

5.17    Staff from the Compliance and Investigation, and Transport and Parks teams have made preparations for the upcoming summer freedom camping season, including improvements to the signage of sites where freedom camping had been problematic last summer.  Staff will continue to monitor the need for weekend enforcement activities as the season progresses.

Other impacts and actions

5.18    There are a range of operational Council activities that impact on the effectiveness of the bylaw, and on the real and perceived freedom camping-related problems.  These include: promotional communications and public awareness of the restrictions; signage at key locations and where there are restrictions; management of associated potential nuisances (such as rubbish bin emptying); and focusing compliance monitoring and enforcement activities in problem areas, as they arise.

5.19    Council staff are members of the Tourism Industry Aotearoa’s (TIA) Responsible Camping Forum, with other territorial authorities, tourism agencies and rental vehicle companies. There is a summer social media campaign being launched where Forum members are encouraged to promote the use of the Camping New Zealand Facebook page and provide suitable material to TIA to share on its pages.

5.20    The Council has also contributed to a recent Akaroa District Promotions pamphlet for campervan drivers and freedom campers, which includes information on all Peninsula camping grounds, dump stations, public toilets, and on the freedom camping restrictions and requirements.

5.21    Other impacts on freedom camping more broadly may include:

·    changes to the self-containment standard (NZS 5465:2001) in May 2017, relating to on-board toilet facility requirements (There is a staged implementation process as certification is valid for four years.  This means all new vehicles need to comply and all renewals will need to comply as they are due for renewal over the next four years)

·    freedom camping publicity campaigns on social media, through apps, or by other means (e.g. by tourism organisations, rental vehicle companies, and by clubs or associations)

·    the freedom camping approach of neighbouring districts

·    wider impacts such as the recently announced re-opening of State Highway 1 (Picton to Christchurch) during daylight hours in mid-December. 

Nation-wide situation and impacts

5.22    According to the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation (MBIE), the estimated number of freedom campers in New Zealand has grown significantly, from around 10,000 visitors in the early 2000s, to around 80,000 in more recent years. However, even with this increase, freedom campers only make up around two per cent of the total number of visitors to New Zealand. Nationwide, the total estimated spending by freedom campers is around $380 million per year.

5.23    The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) has responsibility for the Freedom Camping Act 2011.  The Act, and its bylaw-making powers, have not been without criticism across the country, as councils have worked to develop bylaws to respond to rapidly increasing visitor numbers, and to balance tourism expectations with local community needs, and with infrastructure capacity and environmental impacts. 

5.24    In November 2016, DIA released a report, Managing Freedom Camping in Public Places - National situational analysis.  The report criticises the tendency of councils to rely on freedom camping bylaws to reduce or address the harms associated with freedom camping (by limiting the opportunities for freedom camping), arguing this can unintentionally increase harm, as it concentrates freedom campers in a limited number of locations. 

5.25    The report sets out a number of freedom camping-associated problems, including a shortage of freedom camping areas, over-reporting (and misattributing) freedom camping problems and impacts, the different approaches of different councils (leading to confusion), the challenges of ensuring fines are paid, and information and data gaps around freedom camping generally.  The report also notes that only 37 per cent of councils have freedom camping bylaws (as of November 2016).

5.26    Work at the national level in this space will be ongoing, under the banner of the tourism strategy, ‘Tourism 2025 – Growing Value Together’, an industry-led growth framework developed in 2014 (led by Tourism Industry Aotearoa).  One of the key challenges of the strategy is ‘supporting regions to respond to and benefit from increasing visitor numbers’.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

 

8.        Revocation of the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014

Reference:

17/1283971

Contact:

Judith Cheyne

judith.cheyne@ccc.govt.nz

941-8649

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to recommend to Council that it revoke the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014 (UFS Bylaw).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated, and has been prepared as a result of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 (FENZ Act) coming into force on 1 July 2017 and containing provisions relevant to the UFS Bylaw.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined because the FENZ Act now provides for many of the matters covered in the UFS Bylaw, and FENZ is now the body with responsibility for functions such as granting permits for fires in the urban area. The Council has no choice but to revoke any bylaw clauses considered to be inconsistent with the FENZ Act. 

2.3       Other clauses of the UFS Bylaw are considered to be ‘relevant fire bylaws’ so they do not need to be revoked, but can be revoked without consultation, as provided for in the FENZ Act, if the Council determines this is appropriate.

2.4       There is no community engagement and consultation required, as provided for in the FENZ Act.  There has been consultation with FENZ, which is required by the FENZ Act.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Revokes the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014;

2.         Publicly notifies its resolution; and

3.         Retains clause 10 of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw.

 

 

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 – Revoke the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014 (preferred option)

Option 2 – Request staff provide a further report to revoke the clauses of the UFS Bylaw that are inconsistent with the FENZ Act, retain the remaining relevant fire bylaw clauses and update the UFS Bylaw as needed.

 

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3       The advantages of this option include:

·     Meets our obligations under the FENZ Act in respect of inconsistent bylaws.

·     Avoids the need to update and amend the remainder of the UFS Bylaw.

·     Avoids any confusion over the body now responsible for managing fire-related issues.

·     Avoids any confusion between Council having a bylaw and ECan requirements about open air fires.

·     Although there was not much compliance team time spent on or needed for the UFS Bylaw, revoking the UFS bylaw means that team has one less bylaw to administer.

·     No time/cost spent on reviewing the bylaw.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no specific provisions in the FENZ Act about ‘conditions’ when lighting a fire in the open air.  (Note: These are common sense requirements and guidance is available on FENZ’s website for the safe lighting of fires in a number of situations including camping and campfires; outdoor gas cookers; hunting; lighting bonfires; fireworks; sky lanterns and boat safety (https://fireandemergency.nz/recreational-and-cultural/)).

4.5       The FENZ Act has removed urban and rural fire responsibilities from territorial authorities and contains provisions for those authorities to amend and revoke bylaw clauses that are inconsistent with the FENZ Act, or are relevant fire bylaws under that Act (relevant fire bylaws can also be retained). 

4.6       Councils need to consult with FENZ about their bylaws, and where they are satisfied it is appropriate to do so, they can then make revocations or amendments to their bylaws without any public consultation. FENZ have been consulted about the proposals discussed in this report, as required under the Act.

4.7       All the clauses of Council’s UFS Bylaw are relevant fire bylaws and two clauses are also inconsistent with the FENZ Act.  One clause of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw is also a relevant fire bylaw.

4.8       The object of the UFS Bylaw is ‘to protect public safety by preventing danger from fire’.  It is not a bylaw that deals with nuisance or pollution issues (pollution/’clean air’ requirements fall within ECan’s rules).  The organisation that now has responsibility for dealing with fire danger is FENZ, which is why staff recommend that the UFS Bylaw is revoked in its entirety.

4.9       Staff recommend that the Parks and Reserves Bylaw relevant fire bylaw clause is retained, as activities in parks occur on Council controlled land and it is appropriate for the Council to retain control over what is happening on its land.

 

5.   Context/Background

FENZ Act

5.1       The FENZ Act came into force on 1 July 2017 and shifted responsibility for both urban and rural fire duties to the new entity, Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), from territorial authorities.  There is an administrative transition period in place to ensure the ‘handover’ from Council to FENZ is managed efficiently and without the public being affected.

5.2       The Council no longer has any rural fire functions and the former full time rural fire officer, who managed permits and some other functions under the UFS Bylaw, has been transferred to FENZ and is now an employee of that organisation.

5.3       As councils no longer carry out fire-related functions, the FENZ Act requires councils with fire bylaws to review their bylaws in relation to the new legislation.  This requires assessing whether bylaw clauses are ‘inconsistent’ with the FENZ Act or are ‘relevant fire bylaws’, as defined in the Act.  This assessment is set out in the attached table. 

5.4       The assessment process needs to consider whether the bylaw clauses should be revoked or amended.    The FENZ Act provides that the Council does not have to consult under either ss82 or 83 LGA before it makes a resolution to amend or revoke one of these bylaws.  Any bylaw clause that is ‘inconsistent’ with the FENZ Act is no longer of any effect, to the extent of the inconsistency (from 1 July 2017).  Given an inconsistent bylaw clause is no longer of any effect it is preferable to revoke such bylaw clauses.

UFS Bylaw

5.5       The UFS Bylaw provides controls over landowners and others lighting fires in the nine fire districts that are largely urban areas.  It does not apply to parts of the district that were covered by the former Forests and Rural Fires Act 1977.  The object of the UFS Bylaw is to protect public safety by preventing danger from fire; it does not have a ‘nuisance’ related focus.  Anyone lighting a fire in the open air must also comply with ECan's 'clean air' rules (found in their Regional Plan).  Provision of fire services and the promotion of fire safety is now a FENZ function.

5.6       In the last 12 months there have been no complaints to the Council regarding any breaches of the UFS Bylaw.  Over the last 12 months the Council received two applications for exemption under clause 6 of the UFS Bylaw, but both applications were withdrawn.

5.7       All the clauses of the UFS Bylaw are considered to be a ‘relevant fire bylaw’.  There are some clauses of the UFS Bylaw which are also inconsistent with the FENZ Act (see the attached table and UFS Bylaw).

Parks and Reserves Bylaw

5.8       Clause 10 of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 (which prohibits the lighting of a fire in a reserve without Council permission) is likely to be a ‘relevant fire bylaw’, but is not inconsistent with the FENZ Act. 

5.9       Activities in parks occur on Council controlled land so it is appropriate for the Council to retain some control over what is happening on its land.  Staff do not recommend that this clause be revoked. 

Consultation with FENZ

5.10    Before amending or revoking a ‘relevant fire bylaw’ the Council must be satisfied, after consulting with FENZ, that it is appropriate to amend or revoke the bylaw.  The Council sent FENZ a memorandum in relation to its bylaws that included the table of bylaws clauses referred to above, advising which clauses were inconsistent and which were considered to be relevant fire bylaws.  Council staff in meetings with FENZ also advised orally that the preferred option would be to recommend revoking the UFS Bylaw completely.

5.11    The Council has not received any advice from FENZ regarding its assessment of which bylaws are ‘inconsistent’ and which are ‘relevant’.  It did receive a letter dated 10 October 2017 which stated that FENZ is satisfied that the Council has consulted with FENZ as required by the Act (this does not provide any other feedback - see attached).

5.12    There is no specific time frame as to when relevant and inconsistent fire bylaws are to be amended or revoked, but the expectation is that these bylaws should be revoked/amended by 1 July 2018.  The recommendation in this report is not to amend any bylaws but to revoke all of the UFS Bylaw and retain the ‘fire-related’ bylaw clause in the Parks and Reserves Bylaw.

Other matters

5.13    The Council should also note that in future it cannot make any new bylaws that are inconsistent with the FENZ Act, and the bylaw-making power under s146(c) Local Government Act 2002 (to prevent the spread of vegetation fires) has been repealed.

5.14    In addition, from 1 July 2018 the Council will no longer be responsible for issuing fire hazard notices under sections 183 and 184 of the Local Government Act 2002 (to require an owner or occupier to remove any growth or matter that could become the source of danger in a fire).  (This is not a power included in the UFS Bylaw but is a separate power currently in the Local Government Act 2002.)

6.   Option 1 - Revoke the Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2014 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The entire UFS Bylaw will be revoked (both inconsistent clauses of the bylaw and other ‘relevant fire bylaw’ clauses).  All fire permitting and other fire safety issues will be managed in future by FENZ.

Significance

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

6.3       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance as a result of the FENZ Act, and there has been consultation with FENZ as required by the FENZ Act.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       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

6.5       The FENZ Act provides that both relevant fire bylaws and bylaws inconsistent with the FENZ Act can be amended or revoked by the Council, by making a resolution that is publicly notified.  Council does not need to consult first, as would normally be the case with the amendment or revocation of a bylaw, under either sections 82 or 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option has come about as a result of changes made by government legislation.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – no costs other than the cost of publicly notifying the resolution

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - none

6.9       Funding source – normal operational budget for public notices

Legal Implications

6.10    Section 199 of the FENZ Act inserted a new section 152B into the Local Government Act 2002.  The effect of this section is that if the Council is satisfied it is appropriate to amend or revoke a relevant fire bylaw (which is defined in the section), then, after consultation with FENZ, it may make the revocation or amendment without any formal consultation, as would normally be required for a bylaw amendment or revocation.  However, it must publicly notify the resolution. 

6.11    With a bylaw that is inconsistent with the FENZ Act, the Council has the same ability to amend a bylaw to remove an inconsistency, or to revoke an inconsistent bylaw without any formal consultation, but the Council must publicly notify the resolution.

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    There do not appear to be any risks associated with this option.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies  - None

6.14    Implementation timeframe - None

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·     Meets our obligations under the FENZ Act in respect of inconsistent bylaws.

·     Avoids the need to update and amend the remainder of the UFS Bylaw.

·     Avoids any confusion over the body now responsible for managing fire-related issues.

·     Avoids any confusion between Council having a bylaw and ECan requirements about open air fires.

·     Although there was not much compliance team time spent on or needed for the UFS Bylaw, revoking the UFS bylaw means that team has one less bylaw to administer.

·     No time/cost spent on reviewing the bylaw.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no specific provisions in the FENZ Act about ‘conditions’ when lighting a fire, or specific provisions regarding fireworks (Note: These are common sense requirements and guidance is available on FENZ’s website for the safe lighting of fires in a number of situations including camping and campfires; outdoor gas cookers; hunting; lighting bonfires; fireworks; sky lanterns and boat safety (https://fireandemergency.nz/recreational-and-cultural/)).

7.   Option 2 – Request staff provide a further report to revoke the clauses of the UFS Bylaw that are inconsistent with the FENZ Act, retain the remaining relevant fire bylaw clauses and update the UFS Bylaw as needed.

Option Description

7.1       This option would provide for the revocation of inconsistent bylaw clauses but would require a further report to Council in respect of the UFS Bylaw clauses to be retained, as staff have not yet analysed how the bylaw would need to be amended to retain those clauses in a way that reflects other changes that have come about as a result of the FENZ Act being enacted. 

Significance

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

7.3       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance as a result of the FENZ Act, and there has been consultation with FENZ as required by the FENZ Act.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       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

7.5       The FENZ Act provides that both relevant fire bylaws and bylaws inconsistent with the FENZ Act can be amended or revoked by the Council, by making a resolution that is publicly notified.  Council does not need to consult first, as would normally be the case with the amendment or revocation of a bylaw, under either sections 82 or 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option has come about as a result of changes made by government legislation.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – some further staff time to analyse the amendments requirement and the cost of publicly notifying the resolution

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - ongoing compliance and bylaw team time on administering/enforcing the bylaw, and the cost of future reviews of the bylaw

7.9       Funding source – Compliance and Strategy and Transformation team budgets

Legal Implications

7.10    Section 199 of the FENZ Act inserted a new section 152B into the Local Government Act 2002.  The effect of this section is that if the Council is satisfied it is appropriate to amend or revoke a relevant fire bylaw (which is defined in the section), then, after consultation with FENZ, it may make the revocation or amendment without any formal consultation, as would normally be required for a bylaw amendment or revocation.  However, it must publicly notify the resolution. 

7.11    With a bylaw that is inconsistent with the FENZ Act, the Council has the same ability to amend a bylaw to remove an inconsistency, or to revoke an inconsistent bylaw without any formal consultation, but the Council must publicly notify the resolution.

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    With parts of the UFS Bylaw remaining in place there is a risk of confusion in the community about the Council’s role compared to the new FENZ role in managing all fire safety related issues.  This can be mitigated by suitable publicity.

7.13    Residual risk rating: Low

7.14    Planned treatment(s) would include publicity material on Council (and possibly FENZ) website.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies  - A further report to Council on appropriate amendments to the UFS bylaw

7.16    Implementation timeframe – should be done prior to 1 July 2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·    Council continues to manage some fire related matters which can cause concern to parts of its community

·    Meets our obligations under the FENZ Act in relation to revoking inconsistent bylaws.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The management of fire safety is not done solely by FENZ, the new organisation the government has established for this purpose.

·    Potential for confusion between Council’s role, FENZ’s functions and Ecan’s rules.

·    Staff time and cost in continuing to administer, enforce and review the UFS Bylaw.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

UFS Bylaw 2014

22

b

UFS Bylaw clause analysis table

35

c

Letter from FENZ re Bylaws

37

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Judith Cheyne - Associate General Counsel

Approved By

John Higgins - Acting Head of Legal Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

 

9.        Building Consenting Update - December 2017

Reference:

17/1369221

Contact:

Robert Wright

robert.wright@ccc.govt.nz

9416263

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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 information relates to October 2017.  The October dashboard performance report is attached (attachment A). 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee

1.         Receives the information in this report. 

 

 

3.   Building Consenting Update

 

3.1       International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) Update

At the last meeting of the Committee, staff were requested to provide an update on the recent IANZ assessment of Christchurch City Council.   The Council successfully retained accreditation, however the assessment did identify 19 general non compliances (GNCs)

To date five have been cleared and three will be resolved by the end of November.  The remaining GNCs are being addressed and involve further amendments, assessments, records, evidence and audits.  Ongoing review and development of GNCs 7-12, 14, 15 and 16-18 will occur early in 2018. 

 

General non-compliances cleared by IANZ

·   GNC 1 – Vetting check-sheet revised

·   GNC 2 – SFH and Outbuilding category and competencies clarified on skills matrix

·   GNC 3 – Allocation procedure revised and clarified

·   GNC 6 – System for allocation clarified in procedure

·   GNC 13 – Training Plans, procedure, timeframes and monitoring functions revised. Records updated.

Outstanding non-compliances / immediate action

·   GNC 4 – Compliance schedules and completed building consents. Editing and record issues. Ongoing auditing to the end of November to monitor effective implementation.

·   GNC 5 – CCC extension of time. Revised procedure currently in draft. To be reviewed, audited and approved by end of November.

·   GNC 19 – Compliance Schedules – content and procedure under review. To be approved by end of November.

 

 

Outstanding Non-Compliances – further review and evidence to IANZ due by 8th Dec.

·   GNC 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 Competency assessments

·   GNC 14 Supervision & 15 Technical Leadership

·   GNC 16 Strategic Review - Strategic Review agenda reviewed and revised to reflect required reporting against the Quality Policy and findings from annual audit of QMS.

·   GNC 17 Continuous Improvement (CI) - CI Register and responses / status have been reviewed and audited. Results to be forwarded to IANZ.

·   GNC 18 Internal Audit of Quality Management System (QMS) – As per GNC 7-12, 14 & 15 above, audits to be undertaken.

 

3.2       Earthquake Prone Buildings

             The shift to utilising the new process for managing earthquake prone buildings has been going well.  Last month the team sent letters and notices to 29 newly identified earthquake prone buildings.  In addition, six known priority building owners [with a prescribed definition] were also sent notices and letters, advising them that under the new legislation they will have a lesser time than previously to either strengthen or demolish their building.  A priority building with a prescribed definition will be either a hospital, emergency or education building. 

             Other buildings could also be determined as priority buildings, and will be issued with a lesser timeframe to strengthen or demolish, if they meet the following criteria:

·   Part of Unreinforced Masonry (URM) that could fall in an earthquake onto certain thoroughfares with sufficient vehicular or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritisation, and

·   Buildings that could collapse and impede transport routes of strategic importance.

             The team are working on preparing a draft for public consultation which will help us to determine areas and thoroughfares where there is a lot of foot or vehicular traffic, and routes of strategic importance for emergency vehicles.  Once complete, we can use this information to identify if a building requires reprioritisation and a shorter timeframe for its remedial work.  The consultation will be carried out in 2018. 

             http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/building-construction/safety-quality/earthquake-prone-buildings

3.3       Stakeholder Engagement

During October, Robert Wright attended a commercial sector meeting hosted by Master Builders, accepted an invitation to the Canterbury Business Awards, and met with two Building Consent Authority (BCA) managers while they were here in Christchurch.  Staff also had the chance to catch up with the Registrar of Building Practitioner Licensing (MBIE).  Other managers and team leaders regularly liaise with key stakeholders as required.

 

3.4       Key Performance Indicators

Grant building consents within 20 working days the minimum is to issue 95% of building consents with 19 working days from the date of lodgement.

19 day target achieved at 99.7%.

Grant code compliance certificates within 20 working days the minimum is to issue 95% of Code Compliance Certificates within 19 working days from the date of lodgement.

19 day target achieved at 99.5%.

Carry out building inspections in a timely manner – 95% of inspections within three working days. 

Achieved; waiting time is between 1-2 working days. 

 

3.5       Pre-Application Meetings

In October, 59 pre application meetings were held.  Of these, where a building consent was submitted, 100% were accepted for processing, achieving our target of 90%. 

Pre-application meetings are available for projects requiring building consents, resource consents, or both.  Discussions with applicants and / or their representatives are held prior to lodgement of the application and can be especially helpful before or at the design stage.  The meeting(s) will involve as many staff as required (eg a planner, senior inspector, eco-advisor, case manager) to assist applicants with submitting quality applications. 

3.6       Building Warrants of Fitness

A building warrant of fitness is a statement signed by the building owner (or owners agent), stating that the requirements of the building’s compliance schedule have been fully complied with in the previous 12 months.

Issued warrants of fitness are regularly audited for accuracy.  Our target is to complete 360 audits annually.  We are tracking ahead of the target currently, with 145 audits so far this [financial] year to date (26 for the month of September).

3.7       Case Managed Services

The team achieved the target of providing 80 case managed hours per week, with 346 hours completed during October.  The Partnership Approvals team is a paid service provided by the Council, who work closely with owners, agents and/or developers, offering guidance and assistance with our processes. 

The survey to measure customer satisfaction with case managed services has been reviewed and shortened, similar to the revised building consenting survey.  No results are available for October, due to the survey taking a break for its refresh and review.  The revised survey will be sent in November, and results available for December reporting. 

3.8       Customer Satisfaction

The revised and shortened survey to assess our customer satisfaction has been finalised and was sent to building consenting customers part-way into November.  Due to the survey undergoing its revision over the past few months, there is no result available for October, however results will be available at the next meeting of the Committee in 2018 for December, and for part of November [2017].

3.9       Eco-Design

The target of 250 assessments per annum is well on track with an average of 31 assessments completed per month over the past year. 

3.9       Trending Data

At the last meeting of the Committee, members requested trending data to be included in this report.  Attachment B is a report reflecting trends from 2014-2017. 

The first two graphs show trends back to October 2010.  The Year over Year (YOY) lines show growth or decline, based on a comparison of the previous year.  For example, looking at the first graph, where the line dips during 2011 we experienced decline in comparison to 2010, this was due to the 2011 earthquakes and aftermath.

Other graphs show the estimated value of work, inspections, and code compliance with residential and commercial comparisons.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Building Control Dashboard Performance Report - October 2017

43

b

Trending Data

46

 

 

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

13 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

 

10     Resource Consents Monthly Report

Reference:

17/1400030

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 October 2017.

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

1.3       Attachment B provides a table of key applications.  

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

 

2.    Recommendation

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

 

 

3.   Application Numbers

3.1       Applications received decreased slightly from 315 in September to 309 in October.    

3.2       Application numbers continue to track below the previous year.  The difference is approximately 15 per cent. 

3.3       No temporary accommodation applications were issued in October.   23 District Plan certificates were issued in October.

 

4.   Performance

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

4.2       Complexity of applications remain high as staff still see more complex applications being lodged as well as they continue become more familiar with the new District Plan and recent Resource Management Act amendments.  

5.   List of Significant Applications

5.1       A list of significant applications received and issued is included at Attachment B.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Key Statistics - October 2017

51

b

Attachment B - Key Applications - October 2017

59

 

 

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

John Higgins - Acting Head of Legal Services

John Gibson - Head of Resource Consents

Approved By

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

 

12.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Regulatory Performance Committee

13 December 2017

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

13

Public Excluded Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 8 November 2017

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.