|
Bylaw Hearings Panel
13 September 2023
|
|
|
4. Summary
of submissions on the proposed replacement Cruising and Prohibited Times on
Roads Bylaw
|
|
Reference / Te Tohutoro:
|
23/1274009
|
|
Report of / Te Pou Matua:
|
Teena
Crocker, Senior Policy Analyst (Teena.Crocker@ccc.govt.nz)
Andrew Hensley, Traffic Engineer (Andrew. Hensley@ccc.govt.nz)
Kirstie Watts, Legal Counsel (Kirstie.Watts@ccc.govt.nz)
|
|
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:
|
Lynette
Ellis, Head of Transport & Waste Management (Lynette.Ellis@ccc.govt.nz)
|
1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake
Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to summarise the submissions received during
consultation on the proposed replacement Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads
Bylaw 2023 and associated documents. This report is intended to support the
Hearings Panel in its deliberations on those submissions.
1.2 The
Panel’s role is to consider all submissions and to make recommendations
to the Council on the final form of the bylaw (and associated registers and
policy).
1.3 This
report contains background information on the bylaw, including legislative
requirements and the bylaw’s limitations, in order to support the work of
the Panel.
1.4 The
decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the
Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level
of significance was determined on the basis that this report contains
information on the submissions for consideration of the Hearings Panel.
2. Proposed Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Bylaw Hearings Panel:
1. Receive this report, including attachments, to
support the hearings and deliberation process.
2. Note that:
a.
the Panel should consider feedback from
submitters and staff on the roads proposed to be added or removed from the
coverage of the bylaw;
b.
if, based on consideration of feedback received,
the Panel wishes to recommend new roads be added to the coverage of the bylaw,
the Panel would need to recommend that the Council undertakes further work to
assess the road(s) in accordance with the Prohibited Times on Roads Policy; and
that
c.
the Hearings Panel’s report to Council
will need to include a series of recommendations to comply with legislation,
and to adopt the registers and policy associated with the bylaw.
d.
based on consideration of feedback received,
staff recommend no changes be made to the proposed bylaw or the proposed
replacement policy.
3. Summary
Overview
3.1 The
Council adopted the proposed replacement bylaw for consultation on 21 June
2023.[1]
The Antisocial Road User Team at the Christchurch Police provided input into
the review of the bylaw and the roads it regulates.
3.2 Submissions
opened on 27 June and closed on 25 July 2023. Forty-one submissions were
received. Ten submitters indicted they would like to be heard.
3.3 The
Council sought the views of the public on:
· the proposed replacement
Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw (Attachment A);
· two registers listing
roads regulated by the bylaw (Attachment B); and
· the proposed replacement
Prohibited Times on Roads Policy (Attachment C).
3.4 The
bylaw provides the legal mechanism for the Council to regulate the roads, the
registers list the roads the bylaw regulates, and the policy sets outs how
roads may be added or removed as new issues arise. The bylaw is made using
bylaw-making powers in legislation, which (together with other legislation)
place some limitations on what can be regulated.
3.5 Overall,
submissions were supportive of the bylaw and the proposed package of changes.
Some submitters requested that additional roads be regulated by the bylaw. A
small number of submitters were opposed to the bylaw in its entirety.
4. Background Te Horopaki
Statutory power to make
bylaws and overview
4.1 The
bylaw is made using bylaw-making powers in two pieces of legislation, with
different bylaw-making requirements:
· the Land Transport Act
1998 (LTA) for cruising; and
· the Local Government Act
2002 (LGA) for prohibited times on roads.
4.2 How
each part of the bylaw works in practice is outlined below. It seems likely
from the nature of the submissions received that many submitters believe the
bylaw can or should do more than it does to directly address antisocial driving
behaviour.
4.3 This
report contains more information on the bylaw than a summary of submissions
might usually contain. This is because the legal limitations of the bylaw and
broader context are relevant to the work of the Hearings Panel and to the
submission received.
4.4 Both
parts of the bylaw can only be enforced by the Police. The bylaw complements
other powers the Police have to address associated activities. Transport laws
regulate antisocial driving behaviours, including excessive speed, street
racing and sustained loss of traction.[2]
Modified vehicles (including loud exhausts) are already regulated and are not
covered by the bylaw. [3]
While the bylaw is associated with modified vehicles, it applies to all
vehicles.
4.5 The
Council has other tools to address related issues outside of this bylaw
process, such as setting safe and appropriate speeds, traffic engineering
solutions to improve road safety.
Summary
of the cruising part of the bylaw
4.6 Cruising
is a term that is defined in the LTA. The associated bylaw-making power
enables the Council to make a bylaw that specifies roads where cruising is
prohibited, and the times and days when the prohibition applies.
4.7 Cruising
is associated with multi-lane roads used to do “laps”,
“loops” or “aves” - where drivers repeatedly drive the
same stretches of road, rev their cars while waiting at the lights, take off
together, and race alongside each other.
4.8 The
bylaw provides a tool the Police can use to help address this behaviour on
roads specified in the bylaw.
|
Cruising -
bylaw-making powers and penalties
|
|
Bylaw-making
powers
|
· Section
22AB(1)(a) of the LTA - controlling, restricting, or prohibiting cruising
|
|
Cruising
definition
|
· Definition
of cruising from the LTA – cruising means: driving repeatedly in the
same direction over the same section of a road in a motor vehicle in a manner
that—
(a)
draws attention to the power or sound of the engine of the motor vehicle
being driven; or
(b)
creates a convoy that—
(i)
is formed otherwise than in trade; and
(ii)
impedes traffic flow
|
|
Bylaw
offence and penalty
|
· The
Police can issue an infringement notice, a warning notice, or both.
· A breach
of the bylaw can result in an infringement notice of $150, or a fine of up to
$1,000 on conviction.[4]
· The
Police can issue a formal warning notice under section 22AF of the LTA for a
breach of a qualifying bylaw.[5]
· A
further breach of a qualifying bylaw (when a warning notice has been issued)
within a 90-day period may result in impoundment of the vehicle for 28 days.[6]
|
|
How
it works
|
· Applied
to specified roads, and during specified days and hours (as resolved by the
Council).
· A
standard timeframe applies across all roads currently regulated - from
10pm-5am, 7 days a week. It is applied mostly to multi-laned roads in the
city.
· Signage
must be installed in accordance with the Land Transport Rule - Traffic
Control Devices 2004
|
4.9 The
roads regulated by this part of the bylaw are listed in a register. There were
no proposed changes to the roads regulated by this part of the bylaw.
Summary of the prohibited times on roads part of the bylaw
4.10 This
part of the bylaw is made using a general bylaw-making power in the LGA, which
is focused on protecting the public from harms.[7]
As it is not made under transport law, it has a different focus and a different
enforcement basis, as well as other requirements relating to the New Zealand
Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA).
Application and
regulatory scope
4.11 This
part of the bylaw is generally applied to roads in industrial or rural-city
fringe areas, on roads not commonly used at night. The roads have a history of
antisocial vehicle-related activities and tend to be in secluded areas.
On these roads, people are known to gather in vehicles to undertake or
encourage risky or unsafe driving behaviour, such as burnouts and street
racing. Although these activities are otherwise illegal, a bylaw is needed
because prohibiting nighttime vehicle access removes the opportunity for
participants and spectators to gather and undertake the activities.
4.12 Any
spectators may not be engaging in illegal or dangerous activity per se,
but their presence supports and encourages the activities. The gathering of a
large crowd can escalate into disorder, violence and damage.[8] The
activities impact on other road users and surrounding properties, with impacts
such as noise, smoke, damage to the road, road safety issues and property
damage. [9]
4.13 It
is this collection of behaviours and impacts that the bylaw is seeking to
prevent. The bylaw-making power relates to protecting public health and safety,
protecting against nuisance and minimising offensive behaviour.
4.14 On
roads where it applies, it prohibits access by all light vehicles (those under
3,500kg, including cars, vans, utes, SUVs and 4WDs),
while providing exemptions for bona fide vehicle access. This
prohibition on access for all light vehicles is important to note – this
part of the bylaw does not prohibit vehicles undertaking antisocial activities;
it prohibits all (light) vehicles.
4.15 The
restrictions generally apply from 10pm-5am.[10]
On industrial roads, this applies seven days a week, while on rural-city fringe
roads, this applies only from Thursday-Sunday and on nights before and of public
holidays.[11]
These timeframes are reflected in the policy and have been the case for many
years under the bylaw.
New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act considerations
4.16 As
this part of the bylaw is made under the LGA, any NZBoRA implications need to
be considered.[12]
Prohibiting nighttime vehicle access limits people’s freedom of movement,
which is a freedom protected by the NZBoRA. No bylaw can be inconsistent with
NZBoRA, but reasonable limitations may be imposed if they are
“demonstrably justified”.[13]
4.17 A
report on the NZBoRA implications was provided to Council.[14] This concluded that
the bylaw was reasonable and proportionate, given the harms it is seeking to
address, the types of road it is applied to, and the times when it applies.
4.18 This
is one of the reasons the bylaw is only applied to roads in
industrial or rural-city fringe areas that are not commonly used at night (and
where there is a history of vehicle-related antisocial activities) - to ensure
any restrictions are justifiable and proportionate, and do not unduly restrict
people’s freedom of movement.
4.19 As
the bylaw applies to all (light) vehicles, it should not be applied on roads
where there are likely to be many legitimate nighttime users. Applying it
to roads commonly used at night would not be considered
‘reasonable’ in a legal sense.[15]
The volume of vehicles needing to be stopped and checked by the Police would
also be impractical.
4.20 To
support good decision-making, the proposed replacement policy states: Roads
that have a through-function, are commonly utilised by the general public at
night, or that are in residential areas are generally not appropriate for these
night-time restrictions.
|
Prohibited
times on roads - bylaw-making powers and penalties
|
|
Bylaw-making
powers
|
· Section
145 of the LGA - A council can make a bylaw to protect the public from
nuisance; to protect, promote, and maintain public health and safety; and/or
to minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.
|
|
Requirements
when making a bylaw
|
· Section
155 of the LGA requires that a council must make determinations including
whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing an identified
problem, and whether the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the NZBoRA.
· The
bylaw has implications in relation to freedom of movement. An assessment
concluded that it
is a reasonable and proportional response to address the issues.
|
|
Bylaw
offence and penalty
|
· The
Police can issue an infringement notice, a warning notice, or both.
· A breach
of the bylaw can result in an infringement notice of $750.[16]
· The
Police can issue a formal warning notice under section 22AF of the LTA for a
breach of a qualifying bylaw.[17]
· A
further breach of a qualifying bylaw (when a warning notice has been issued)
within a 90-day period may result in impoundment of the vehicle for 28 days.
|
|
Other
relevant legislation
|
· Section
113 of the LTA enables the Police to undertake enforcement in relation to
breaches of transport legislation, including bylaws made under the LGA.
|
|
Use
of prohibited times on roads
|
· Used to limit vehicle access on specified roads, and at
specified times, in order to reduce antisocial road user (ASRU) activities.
· Generally
used on industrial and rural-city fringe roads with a history of ASRU
activities, and on roads where we would not reasonably expect drivers to be
at night (10pm-5am) without bona fide reason. Examples include no-exit
roads in industrial areas and back roads on the rural-city fringe.
· Not
appropriate on roads such as arterial or collector roads, roads in
residential areas, etc, because there are many legitimate nighttime users.
· The
Prohibited Times on Roads Policy sets out how decision-making on adding,
altering or removing roads works. It provides guidance for the community,
Council staff, Community Boards and the Council, including Police input.
|
|
Applies
to vehicles under 3,500kg
|
· Applies
only to light vehicles (cars, vans, utes, SUVs and 4WDs)
· Vehicles
under 3,500kg are considered “light vehicles” in transport
legislation
· Vehicles
over 3,500kg are considered heavy vehicles and require a special licence.
This part of the bylaw does not apply to heavy vehicles eg buses or trucks.
|
|
Exceptions
(as set out in the bylaw)
|
· Does not
apply to access by some road users, including: owners or occupiers of
properties which require direct property access from the road in question
(and their bona fide visitors, including taxis, rideshares and deliveries);
emergency vehicles; trade or utility vehicles undertaking works; Council
vehicles; and security service vehicles.
|
5. Proposed changes to the bylaw, policy and the roads the bylaw
regulates
5.1 The
proposed changes to the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Road Bylaw 2014
included:
· updating
and modernising the format and language of the bylaw;
· clarifying
that the bylaw is a “qualifying bylaw” by definition under the Land
Transport Act 1998, which means that warning notices can be issued for a breach
of the bylaw, and that a further breach can result in a vehicle being seized
and impounded by Police; and
· adding
to the list of access exemptions that apply to the prohibited times on roads
clauses to better reflect legitimate access during prohibited times and
societal shifts (e.g., deliveries and the increasing use of ride share vehicles);
5.2 Two registers list roads regulated by the bylaw:
· the
Register of Roads on which Cruising is Prohibited; and
· the
Prohibited Times on Roads Register.
5.3 The following changes to roads on the registers were consulted on:
· the
addition of the following roads to the Prohibited Times on Roads Register:
· Establishment
Drive, Depot Street, Headquarters Place, Quadrant Drive, Aruhe Road and Mania
Road (Hornby South)
· part
of Branston Street (Hornby) – section
from Halswell Junction Road to Boston Avenue
· Weaver
Place (Sockburn)
· Watts
Road (Sockburn)
· part
of Pound Road (Yaldhurst) - the branch east
of the main alignment
· Syd
Bradley Road (Yaldhurst) – Russley Road
to Ron Guthrey Road
· Aviation
Drive (Yaldhurst)
· Jet
Place (Harewood)
· Lakes
Way, Outlook Place, Lakeside Place (Harewood)
· the
removal of part of Blakes Road (Belfast) from the Prohibited Times on Roads
Register; and
· no changes to the Register of Roads on
which Cruising is Prohibited.
5.4 The
Prohibited Times on Roads Policy was updated and formed part of the
consultation. The policy gives guidance on the process to add or amend roads,
or to remove existing roads from the coverage of the bylaw.
6. Community Views and Preferences Ngā
mariu ā-Hāpori
Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero
6.1 Submissions
opened on 27 June and closed on 25 July 2023. Forty-one submissions were
received. Ten submitters indicated they would like to be heard.
6.2 Consultation
information was made available on the Council’s Have Your Say website.[18]
Emails were sent to 132 stakeholders, inviting submissions. A Newsline story
was published on 16 June 2023.[19]
Posts on Council’s social media pages about the consultation had good
engagement, including posts to neighbourhood groups where changes were
proposed.[20]
Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga
6.3 Submitters
were made up of:
· five community boards
· Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton; Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood; Te
Pātaka o Rākaihatū Banks Peninsula; Waitai
Coastal-Burwood-Linwood; and Waihoro
Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote;
· three organisations
· Disabled Persons Assembly;
Summit Road Society; Canterbury/West Coast Automobile Association;
· three businesses located
in areas where nighttime restrictions are proposed; and
· 30 individuals.
6.4 Some
of the individual submissions were focused only on one proposal. There was a
clear cluster of submitters from Branston Street (eight submitters) who
supported the addition of nighttime restrictions, a cluster from Blakes Road
(seven submitters) who were opposed to removing the nighttime restrictions, and
a cluster of submitters generally opposed to the bylaw and all restrictions
(seven submitters). Other individual submitters raised broader issues or
commented on more than one proposal, as set out below.
General
comments on submissions
6.5 Submitters
were generally supportive of the bylaw and proposed changes to the bylaw, other
than the seven submitters who were opposed to the bylaw.
6.6 There
was some support for the clarification that formal warning notices can be
issued by the Police for breaches of the bylaw, and that a further breach could
result in a vehicle being impounded. Several submitters commented on the
importance of good enforcement by the Police or made suggestions about the use
of cameras, surveillance equipment or digital signs to support compliance and
enforcement. Some submitters expressed frustration that Police have not
responded to reports from residents at night about antisocial driver behaviour,
such as burnouts.
6.7 There
was support from the Disabled Persons Assembly on the proposed changes to the
exemptions for bona fide access on roads where nighttime restrictions
are in place.
6.8 Submitters
had mixed views on the roads regulated by the bylaw, with some submitters
opposed to specific proposals. Most of the roads proposed for inclusion were
well supported by submitters, particularly those directly affected by the
negative impacts, and by community boards in the associated areas.
6.9 There
was some support for the Prohibited Times on Roads Policy, which provides
guidance on how roads can be added, amended or removed after this bylaw review
process. Although many submitters did not have specific comments, the
involvement of community boards, together with Police input, were supported.
6.10 Out
of scope issues raised by submitters included climate change, drunk drivers and
speed limits. The noise and vibration from heavy vehicles were mentioned in
several submissions.[21]
A community board encouraged the Council to allocate a portion of its
safety budget to addressing antisocial road user issues.
General opposition to
the bylaw
6.11 Seven
submitters were opposed the bylaw and the restrictions it imposes. One
submitter emphasised the sense of community that car enthusiasts have, arguing
that that driving around at night gives people something to do and this should
not be taken away. Other submitters suggested the Council had better things to
do, that the bylaw unfairly limited people’s freedoms / human rights and
that people were allowed to drive around at night and were not doing anything
wrong. One submitter argued that displacement from the restrictions would
occur, pushing antisocial drivers into residential areas.
6.12 Some
of these submissions were very brief. Of the seven submitters, all seemed
opposed to the bylaw in general, four opposed all additional roads (but did not
give specific reasons), and two opposed specific roads (as indicated below).
Cruising
6.13 One
submitter asked if the definition of cruising could be changed, and if all
roads could be prohibited to cruising, at all times. If this was the intent of
Parliament, New Zealand would have a law that applies everywhere, rather than a
bylaw-making power that enables each council to specify roads. The definition
of cruising is from legislation (and reflected in the Council’s bylaw,
which is made under the same legislation). Parliament would have to amend
the Land Transport Act to change the definition of cruising.
6.14 One
submitter suggested the roads should be reviewed to sense-check whether the
restrictions were still required. If the Council were to remove the prohibition
on cruising on specified roads, it is reasonable to assume there would be an
increase in these activities and negative impacts on other road users, as well
as on nearby residents and businesses.
6.15 There
were no proposed changes to the roads regulated by cruising.
6.16 A
number of roads were suggested as additions, due to nighttime vehicle noise
issues, but, as set out elsewhere in this report, “cruising” does
not relate to loud exhausts, recreational driving, etc, but has a specific
legal meaning.
Prohibited times on roads (nighttime access restrictions)
Proposal to add
Establishment Drive, Depot Street, Headquarters Place, Quadrant Drive, Aruhe
Road and Mania Road (Hornby South) - 10pm-5am, 7 days a week
6.17 All
submitters commenting specifically on this proposal supported it.
6.18 The
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board supported the additions, and
a submitter with a business in the area was very supportive, having been
impacted by associated antisocial activities, including littering, damage and
tagging.
Proposal to add
Watts Road (Sockburn) and Jet Place (Harewood) (10pm-5am, 7 days a week) and Weaver Place
(Sockburn) and part of Pound Road (Yaldhurst) - branch of Pound
Road east of the main alignment (10pm to 5am, Thursday – Sunday, and
nights before and after public holidays)
6.19 The
addition of these roads was generally supported, including by local community
boards. The Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board supported Watts
Road and Weaver Place, and the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood
Community Board supported Jet Place and Pound Road (east of main alignment).
6.20 A
submitter who identified as a car enthusiast is opposed. One submitter was
concerned about Pound Road being restricted as they regularly travel this road
to visit family and get to work.
Staff comments on Pound
Road
6.21 Pound
Road has existing nighttime restrictions, which have been in place since 2014.
This applies on Pound Road, between Yaldhurst Road and McLeans Island Road,
10pm-5am Thursday to Monday and nights before and of public holidays. The
proposal is to add a section that forks off of Pound Road, near the
intersection with Savills Road, as it was not clear if this branch was covered
in the current register or not. The fork is a dead-end, so will not impact on
anyone travelling through the area.
Proposal to add
Aviation Drive (Yaldhurst) and part of Syd Bradley Road (Yaldhurst) (10pm-5am, 7 days a week)
6.22 These
roads are near the Christchurch International Airport. A submission was
received from a business on Aviation Drive that is very supportive of the
proposal. They report adverse impacts from antisocial road user activities,
including dangerous driving, burnouts, and littering. The submitters also
mentioned clients feeling unsafe, and concerns about the misuse of Aviation
Drive by the public for car parking. The Waimāero
Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board supports the addition of part of
Syd Bradley Road.
6.23 A
submitter who identified as a car enthusiast is very opposed to the proposed
restrictions on Aviation Drive. The submitter likes to park on Aviation Drive
to watch planes land in the evenings, and feels a sense of community.
Staff comments on
Aviation Drive
6.24 There
is evidence of vehicle-related antisocial activities in these areas. The
nighttime access restrictions being proposed would only apply from 10pm-5am, so
may not help with the concerns of clients during normal business hours or car
parking during the day.
6.25 The
restriction would apply from 10pm onwards, so plane watching could still be
undertaken until then, or from a different location.
Proposal to add
Lakes Way, Outlook Place and Lakeside Place (Harewood) (10pm to 5am, Thursday – Sunday, and nights before
and after public holidays)
6.26 Waimāero
Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board supports these proposed additions.
6.27 A
submission was received by a business in the area in strong support of the
additions. They report having experienced property damage and nuisance from boy
racers on multiple occasions.
Proposal to add part
of Branston Street (Hornby) - section from Halswell Junction Road to Boston
Avenue (10pm-5am, 7 days
a week)
6.28 Many
individual submitters who identified themselves as residents living on or near
Branston Street support the addition of part of Branston Street. Residents
emphasised the frequency and impacts from “boy racer” activities,
including damage, noise and sleep disruption. They report that gatherings are
frequent, and worse at weekends. The Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton
Community Board supports the addition.
6.29 Residents
submitted that the problematic area was larger than part of Branston Street,
and that it should be extended, with the following roads mentioned: the whole
of Branston; Boston Avenue; Halswell Junction Road; Amyes Road; and Blankney
Street.
6.30 Some
residents asked that the timeframe be extended, as the impacts tend to start
around 8pm (the proposal is 10pm-5am). Several residents requested that heavy
vehicles are also restricted on Branston Street, especially at night.
Staff comments on
Branston Street
6.31 The
industrial section of Branston Street was proposed for inclusion because it is
a known area for antisocial road user activities and gatherings. The section
for inclusion is industrial - the remainder of Branston Street is residential.
6.32 The
additional roads suggested by submitters are residential, and some have an
arterial function. It would not be appropriate for the Council to prohibit all
light vehicles from these roads at night. The roads have many legitimate
nighttime users.
6.33 Issues
such as burnouts, modified vehicles (loud exhausts) and excessive speed are
already regulated, giving the Police powers to address them. Residents should
continue to report incidents to the Police, as they are occurring.
6.34 The
timeframe for all prohibited times on roads restrictions is 10pm-5am. Putting
different timeframes in place would make enforcement more complex, further
limit access rights, and would require tailored signage. Heavy vehicle
restrictions are regulated by the Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw,
not this bylaw.
Proposal to remove
part of Blakes Road (Belfast) - section from Radcliffe Road to Belfast Road
6.35 This
proposal would remove the part of Blakes Road from Radcliffe Road to Belfast
Road, which primarily provides access to residential properties. The remainder
of Blakes Road (to the north of Belfast Road) would continue to have nighttime
access restrictions.
6.36 Submissions
were received from seven directly affected residents who are opposed to Blakes
Road being removed, opposition from the Spring Grove Residents Support Group,
and opposition from three other submitters that are generally opposed to the
removal.
6.37 Support
for the removal of Blakes Road was received from the Waimāero
Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board, two individuals and the local
branch of the Automobile Association, and support from three submitters who
support removing all nighttime restrictions and are generally opposed to the
bylaw.
6.38 Of
the directly affected residents, many outlined the issues they experience from
“boy racer” activities, including noise (disturbing sleep, waking
children), burnouts, racing, damage to the road, and a reduced sense of safety.
Some submitters commented on signs recently going up, asking that these not be
removed. Some were concerned about vehicles cruising neighbourhood streets and
committing theft. Residents understood they were exempt from the access
restriction and did not see why anything had to change. They saw it as a useful
tool for the Police to address problematic behaviour.
Staff comments on
Blakes Road
6.39 Blakes
Road has had prohibited times on roads restrictions in place since 2014. The
area has undergone significant subdivision development over the last decade.
Blakes Road provides the sole access route to many residential properties. This
section of Blakes Road has been proposed for removal because it is no longer
appropriate to prohibit all light vehicles at nighttime. Continuing to prohibit
vehicles would be against the proposed policy.[22]
Although the bylaw contains exemptions for residents and bona fide road
users, it should not be applied to roads that are commonly used at night, such
as this section of Blakes Road.
6.40 As
set out above, the bylaw is a blunt tool to prevent vehicle access at night and
should only be applied on roads that are little-used and where antisocial road
users are known to gather. It is not an appropriate regulatory response to
address issues related to driving through an area with a loud vehicle, speeding
or doing burnouts. The Police have other tools at their disposal to address
these activities. Residents should continue to report incidents to the Police
as they are occurring.
6.41 Signs
indicating nighttime access restrictions have been in place since 2014. Recent
signage that has gone up in the area relates to a new raised platform
(approximately 10m long) that has been installed in Blakes Road at the
intersection with Bill Hammond Drive (between Frank Coxon Road and William
Nicholls Drive), with a 20km/h advisory sign. This traffic calming measure may
be what the residents / submitters are referring to. This would remain.
Only the signs that relate to prohibiting vehicles at night would be removed as
a result of this proposal, if it proceeds.
Antisocial, dangerous driving and loud
vehicles
6.42 Some
submissions requested that additional roads be prohibited to cruising, but it
seems likely these submitters believe “cruising” to be something
other than the legal definition. A common misconception is that cruising
involves driving in a loud, modified vehicle with no particular purpose and
engaging in antisocial driving activities, such as speeding and burnouts. But
the legal definition of cruising is more specific and involves driving
repeatedly over the same stretch of road, in the same direction, in a way that
draws attention to the sound or power or the engine, or in a way that creates a
convoy.[23]
6.43 Similarly,
the prohibited times on roads part of the bylaw does not regulate antisocial
driver behaviour; it removes the opportunity for such behaviour by prohibiting
nighttime vehicle access. A common misconception is that it prohibits drivers
engaging in bad behaviour or driving modified vehicles, but it prohibits access
for all drivers (of light vehicles). Although there are exemptions for drivers
with a bona fide reason for using a road at night, the prohibition is
not applied on roads commonly used at night.
6.44 Antisocial
driving behaviours are already offences under transport legislation, including
loud exhausts and burnouts, which were raised in many submissions.
Additional
roads requested by submitters
6.45 A number of roads were mentioned in submissions in relation to
antisocial driving, including impacts from vehicle noise, loud exhausts,
speeding or burnouts.
Roads east of the
Ferrymead Bridge
6.46 One
submitter asked for roads to be prohibited to cruising east of the Ferrymead
Bridge because the sound from noisy vehicles reverberates around the hills and
impacts on residents. They suggested all roads in Sumner, Redcliffs, Mt.
Pleasant, Lyttleton, Corsair Bay and Cass Bay should be prohibited to cruising.
Staff response to roads east of
the Ferrymead Bridge
6.47 Prohibiting
cruising does not prohibit loud vehicles or prevent people driving
recreationally. In order to fit the definition of cruising a driver has to
repeatedly drive the same stretch of road in the same direction, which
is unlikely over a very large length of road.
Banks Peninsula roads
6.48 The
Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board
requested the addition of Peninsula roads around Lyttelton Harbour and
surrounds (including the Bays of Cass, Corsair and Rāpaki, Gebbies Valley,
McQueen’s Valley and Motukarara).
Staff response to Banks Peninsula
roads
6.49 Residents
and the Board in this area have been raising concerns through processes outside
of the bylaw consultation in relation to noise and road safety, particularly
due to the winding roads and reverberating tendencies of the hilly harbour
environment. Neither part of the bylaw is appropriate for these roads because
it is unlikely the behaviour fits the definition of cruising, and the roads
have an arterial function (so nighttime access is needed and expected, and
should not be prohibited). Residents should continue to report
incidents to the Police, as they are occurring.
Linwood
roads
6.50 Coastal-Burwood-Linwood
Community Board requested that the entirety of Hay Street, the remaining of
Ruru Road, McGregors Road to Buckleys Road, Cuthberts Road and Cypress Street
are prohibited at night.
Staff response to
Linwood roads
6.51 Some
roads near this area are already listed in the Prohibited Times on Roads
Register, including part of Ruru Road (Dyers Road (SH74) to Maces Road), Taurus
Place, Shivas Place, Tanya Street, Newtown Street, Francella Street, etc. These
are all surrounded by industrial properties.
6.52 The
streets raised by the community board are residential roads or collector roads
(roads with a through traffic function). The bylaw is not an appropriate
mechanism to use on residential or collector roads, as it prohibits all light
vehicles at night, not just those causing issues.
Summit Road, Port Hills
6.53 The
Summit Road Society, Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks
Peninsula Community Board and one individual submitter asked
that access to part of the Summit Road be prohibited at night (from
Gebbies Pass to Dyers Pass, or from Evans Pass to Gebbies Pass, or between
Worsleys Road and Gebbies Pass).
6.54 Reasons
included that the road is remote and attracts an antisocial element; safety
(the dangers of speeding and crossing the centre line on narrow roads with
steep drop-offs); damage and vandalism (graffiti, tyre rolling, littering and
burnouts); and increased fire risk (including from cigarettes, fireworks and
deliberate arson). The Summit Road Society argued that a partial closure
of the Summit Road on the high-risk nights (Thursday-Saturday) would maintain
public access most of the time, while giving the police another tool in the
toolkit to manage antisocial behaviour.
6.55 The
Summit Road was not raised in the submission from the Waihoro
Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board.
Staff response to
Summit Road
6.56 Prohibited
times on roads restrictions were considered for the Summit Road and Worsleys
Road in 2018. A total of 865 submissions were received, with an overwhelming
545 submitters opposed to the proposal.[24]
6.57 The
Hearings Panel considering the proposal made three recommendations along with
recommending that the proposal not proceed (in summary): 1: that the
Port Hills Management Plan be advanced; 2: lowering of the speed limit; and 3:
exploring crime prevention technologies. Staff have advised that:
· early work is underway on
a plan for the Port Hills which will look at strategic issues;
· the speed limit was reduced from 100 or
70km/h to 60km/h on the Summit Road in 2019; and
· a 2018 report noted that Police
had confirmed that installing a crime prevention or vehicle recognition camera
on the Summit Road would be of limited benefit to crime prevention.[25]
6.58 Given
the public interest and overwhelming opposition to the proposal at the time
(and relatively recent consultation), staff would not recommend taking this
proposal further.
6.59 If
the Panel wished to recommend exploring prohibited access at night on the
Summit Road, it would need to recommend to the Council that it undertake a
separate process. This would follow the Prohibited Times on Roads Policy,
and involve the assessment criteria in the policy, input from staff, the
Police, the community board(s) and public consultation.
Islington, Hei Hei,
Sockburn and Hornby roads
6.60 The
following roads were raised by a number of individual submitters: Moffett
Street (Islington), Mortlake Street (Islington), Waterloo Business Park
(Islington), Waterloo Road (Hornby), Racecourse Road (Sockburn), Buchanans Road
(Hei Hei), Epsom Road (Sockburn), highlighting antisocial driving, wheel spins,
noise, damage, etc. Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community
Board noted there had been some concern expressed regarding anti-social road
use in Racecourse Road.
Staff response to Islington, Hei
Hei, Sockburn and Hornby roads
6.61 The
roads mentioned range from minor arterial to collector roads. As they all have
a through-function, they are not appropriate for prohibited times on roads. The
business park roads are private roads (meaning the Council is not the road
controlling authority). Residents and others should continue to report
incidents to the Police as they are occurring, as the Police have a range of
tools under transport law to address matters.
State highways
6.62 One
submitter raised concerns about “hooning” and noise from boy racers
to the north-west of the city, such as Johns Road (Harewood) / State Highway 1.
6.63 The
bylaw does not apply to state highways, as the Council is not the road
controlling authority.
7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here
Strategic
AlignmentTe Rautaki
Tīaroaro
7.1 This report supports the Activity: Strategic
Planning, Future Development and Regeneration
· Level of Service: 17.0.19.4 Bylaws and regulatory policies to meet
emerging needs and satisfy statutory requirements - Carry out bylaw reviews in
accordance with ten-year bylaw review schedule and statutory requirements.
Policy
Consistency Te Whai
Kaupapa here
7.2 The Prohibited Times on Roads Policy has been reviewed as part of
this project. The old policy will need to be revoked when the new policy is
adopted. This will form part of the Hearing Panel’s report to Council.
8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
8.1 Cost
to Implement – We will not know the exact cost of signage associated with
implementing the bylaw until the roads are finalised and adopted by the
Council. The proposal recommended the addition of sixteen roads and
removal of part of one road.
8.2 Maintenance/Ongoing
costs - Traffic Operations has a budget for ongoing signage costs. If the costs
exceed business-as-usual activities, funding could be sought in the Annual Plan
process.
8.3 Funding
Source – Traffic Operations signs and markings budget.
9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
Decision Making Authority Te Mana Whakatau
9.1 The
decision-making authority for bylaws sits with the Council and cannot be
delegated to a Committee of Council or other body.
Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report
Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa
9.2 The
Council can make a bylaw to regulate cruising using section 22AB(1)(a) of the
LTA, and a bylaw to prohibit nighttime access on some roads using a
bylaw-making power in section 145 of the LGA.
9.3 In
order to make a bylaw under section 145 of the LGA, the Council must make a
series of determinations about the appropriateness of the bylaw and its NZBoRA
implications. These will form part of the Hearings Panel’s report to
Council, as part of the bylaw adoption.
9.4 When
a bylaw is made under the LTA, the Minister of Transport must be notified in
accordance with section 22AB(4) of the LTA. This will also form part of the Hearings
Panel’s report to Council.
Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu
Hīraunga-ā-Ture
9.5 The
role of the Hearings Panel is to consider and hear submissions, deliberate on
those matters raised, and make recommendations to the Council on the final form
of the bylaw (and associated documents).
9.6 Submissions
made on the proposals should be received by the Hearings Panel with an open
mind and should be given due consideration. When deliberating on submissions,
the Hearings Panel should keep in mind the Council’s bylaw-making powers,
and the scope of the consultation proposals.
9.7 If
the Hearings Panel supports the addition of a road that was not specifically
consulted on, but raised through submissions, it may refer the matter back to
the Council. This would then follow the process in the Prohibited Times on
Roads Policy, and may lead to further public consultation.
10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru
10.1 With
any bylaw-making process, there is always a risk that members of the public or
organisations may not agree with the proposals finally adopted by the Council
and seek judicial review proceedings. This risk can be managed by careful
compliance with legislative requirements, including common law relating to
bylaws.
11. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga
ā-muri
11.1 The Hearings Panel will consider the matters raised in submissions,
deliberate on those matters, seek any further advice from staff, and make
recommendations to the Council on the final form of the bylaw.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩ 
|
Proposed
replacement bylaw for consultation - Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads
Bylaw 2023
|
23/779682
|
20
|
|
b ⇩
|
Registers of
decisions made under the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw and
proposed changes
|
22/1627810
|
26
|
|
c ⇩
|
Proposed
Prohibited Times on Roads Operational Policy - draft for consultation
|
23/766429
|
32
|
Confirmation of Statutory
Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture
|
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 Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Authors
|
Teena Crocker
- Senior Policy Analyst
Andrew Hensley
- Traffic Engineer
Kirstie Watts
- Solicitor
Danielle
Endacott - Engagement Advisor
|
|
Approved By
|
David
Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience
Stephen Wright
- Manager Operations (Transport)
Lynette Ellis
- Head of Transport & Waste Management
|
