Agenda of Policy and Regulatory

POLICY AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE

Membership: 11

Meeting Cycle: Meets on a six weekly basis, as required or at the
requisition of the Chair

Quorum: Half of the members

Membership Hearings: Minimum of either 3 or 4 elected members (including the Chair) and alternates who have current certification under the Making Good Decisions Training, Assessment and Certification Programme for RMA Decision-Makers. The inclusion of an independent Commissioner as the rule rather than the exception

Reports to: Council

PURPOSE:

• To assist the Council monitor the development of strategies and policy that meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

• To consider matters relating to the regulatory and quasi-judicial responsibilities of the Council under legislation. This includes, without limitation, matters under the RMA including the hearing of resource management applications.

Determine:

· Maintain an overview of work programmes carried out by the Council's Environmental Consents, Regulatory Services and strategy and policy development activities.

• Draft policies for public consultation, excluding those that will subsequently be required to follow a statutory process

• Approval and forwarding of submissions on matters related to the Committee’s area of responsibility

• Hearing and deciding notified resource consent applications.

• Hearing and deciding objections to conditions imposed on resource consents

• Hearing and deciding any matter notified under the Local Government Act 2002

• Hearing and deciding objections to the classification of dangerous dogs under section 31 of the Dog Control Act 1996 and abatement notices regarding barking dogs under section 55 of that Act

• Hearing and deciding objections to the classification of dogs as menacing dogs under sections 33A and 33C of the Dog Control Act 1996

• Hearing objections to specified traffic matters where the community board wishes to take an advocacy role

• Exercising the power of waiver under section 42A (4) of the Resource Management Act of the requirement to provide parties with copies of written reports prior to hearings

• Authorising the submission of appeals to the Environment Court on behalf of Council

• To appoint a subcommittee of suitably qualified persons to conduct hearings on behalf of the Committee. The Chair of the Policy and Regulatory Committee is also delegated this function.

• All statutory requirements under the Reserves Act 1977 that require the Department of Conservation to ratify.

Conduct of Hearings:

• To conduct hearings where these are required as part of a statutory process[1].

• Hearing of submissions required on any matters falling under the Terms of Reference for this committee or delegating to a panel to undertake hearings (this delegation is also held by the Chair of the Policy and Regulatory Committee).

General:

• Any other matters delegated to the Committee by Council in accordance with approved policies and bylaws.

NOTE:

The Ministry for the Environment advocates that Councils offer specialist RMA training in areas of law which are difficult to grasp or where mistakes are commonly made. This is to complement the Good Decision Making RMA training that they run (which is an overview and basic summary of decision making, rather than an in-depth training in specific areas of the RMA). Therefore in order to facilitate this, the RMA training run for councillors that wish to be hearings commissioners is mandatory.

Reasons for the importance of the training:

1 Hearings commissioners are kept abreast of developments in the legislation.

2 Legal and technical errors that have been made previously are avoided (many of which have resulted in Environment Court action which is costly, time consuming and often creates unrealistic expectations for the community).

3 The reputation of Council as good and fair decision makers or judges (rather than legislators) is upheld.

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Policy and Regulatory Committee

Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

Monday 1 May 2017 commencing at 5.30pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Generally up to 30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be asked questions on the matters they raise.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

4. Recommendations to Council - 23 May 2017

a) Overseas Travel Approval - Policy Change (17/651)

Report No. PRC2017/2/110 by the Chief Financial Officer 4

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That recommendations (i) and (ii) contained in the report be endorsed with a new part (iii) to read:

(iii) requests officers to report annually on expenditure for overseas travel (excluding Australia).”

b) Redrafted Gift Policy for Elected Members (17/587)

Report No. PRC2017/2/111 by the Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services 25

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

c) Reserve Reclassification - Wainuiomata (17/252)

Report No. PRC2017/2/73 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 30

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

d) Future of Molesworth Street Reserve Pomare (17/536)

Report No. PRC2017/2/112 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 33

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be discussed.”

e) Proposed Road Stopping and Sale of Legal Road on the corner of Knights Road and Birch Street Waterloo (17/600)

Report No. PRC2017/2/113 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 64

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

f) Dog controls for Avalon Park (17/632)

Report No. PRC2017/2/114 by the Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services 68

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That recommendation (i) contained in the report be endorsed and part (ii) to read:

(ii) that the Committee appoints a subcommittee consisting of Councillors Cousins, Lewis, Bridson and Briggs, to hear submissions on the proposed dog controls for Avalon Park and make recommendations to Council.”

g) Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy (17/575)

Report No. PRC2017/2/118 by the Principal Policy Advisor 76

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be discussed.”

5. Urban Development Authorities (17/634)

Report No. PRC2017/2/117 by the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning 91

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

6. Code of Practice - District Licensing Committee 2017 (17/636)

Report No. PRC2017/2/119 by the Solicitor 112

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

7. General Manager's Report (17/592)

Report No. PRC2017/2/120 by the General Manager, Governance and Regulatory 120

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

8. Information Item

Policy and Regulatory Committee Work Programme (17/505)

Report No. PRC2017/2/7 by the Committee Advisor 151

Chair’s Recommendation:

“That the information be received.”

9. QUESTIONS

With reference to section 32 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Susan Haniel

COMMITTEE ADVISOR

4 01 May 2017

Policy and Regulatory

10 April 2017

File: (17/651)

Report no: PRC2017/2/110

Overseas Travel Approval - Policy Change

Purpose of Report

1. To approval changes to the Sensitive Expenditure Policy to allow the Chief Executive to approve overseas travel by Council employees.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council;

(i) approves the Chief Executive be given delegated authority to approve overseas travel for staff; and

(ii) approves the ‘tracked’ changes in the Sensitive Expenditure Policy attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

Background

2. At present, overseas travel requires prior approval of the Finance and Performance Committee. Travel to Australia is considered to be domestic travel and can be approved by the manager of the travel budget to be charged.

3. Minute No. FPC 17116 from the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on 1 March 2017, requested officers to report back on whether the Chief Executive could be given delegated authority to approve overseas travel for staff, or have a cost limit for this delegation, within Council’s current Travel Policy.

Discussion

4. Officers believe there is no reason why the Chief Executive should not be given delegated authority to approve overseas travel for staff.

5. Officers do not believe a cost limit for this delegation is necessary as the Chief Executive does not have restriction (other than budgets in the Long Term Plan and Annual Plans) for other types of operational expenditure.

6. The Sensitive Expenditure Policy is very clear and provides robust guiding principles to be adopted by all employees, including the Chief Executive, when making expenditure decisions of a sensitive nature.

7. A complete review of the Sensitive Expenditure Policy has not been completed. Changes have only been made to sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the policy to give the Chief Executive delegated authority to approve overseas travel.

8. A complete review of the policy is scheduled for 2018.

Legal Considerations

9. There are no legal considerations.

Financial Considerations

10. The financial considerations are covered in the report.

Other Considerations

11. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it provides a good quality and more effective regulatory process.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	DOC 14 184800 (v5.0) FIN-POL-020 - Sensitive Expenditure Policy	6

Author: Brent Kibblewhite

Chief Financial Officer

Reviewed By: Joycelyn Raffills

General Manager, Governance and Regulatory

Approved By: Tony Stallinger

Chief Executive

26 01 May 2017

Policy and Regulatory

31 March 2017

File: (17/587)

Report no: PRC2017/2/111

Redrafted Gift Policy for Elected Members

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with a redrafted policy covering the area of acceptance of any gift, reward or benefit in relation to elected members.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council approves the proposed Gift Policy for Elected Members attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Background

2. At the Finance and Performance Committee meeting held on 1 March 2017, the Committee resolved the following:-

Resolved: Minute No. FPC 17101

“That the Committee:

(i) notes the information in the report;

(ii) notes the Strategic Risk Profile 2016 as approved by the Strategic Leadership Team, attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(ii) requests officers to review the Elected Members Gift Policy and report back.”

3. Council adopted a Gift Policy for Elected Members in 1995. The policy was reviewed in 2007 and 2011. The next review date will be set down for early 2020.

Discussion

4. Council, at its meeting held on 15 December 2016, adopted a new Code of Conduct for Elected Members (‘the Code’) for the 2016-2019 triennium.

5. The major amendment to the Gift Policy for Elected Members is that it now reflects the provisions of the Code. (Refer to the underlining in section 4 attached as Appendix 1 to the report).

6. Section 10 of the Code outlines the ethical conduct of elected members for receiving any gift, reward or benefit to the value of $100 or more. Any failure by elected members to comply with the provisions set out in the section represents a breach of the Code. The redrafted policy has been updated to reflect that section.

7. Section 12 of the Code outlines the processes for investigating and determining whether or not a breach under the Code has occurred. The redrafted policy has been updated to reflect that section.

8. Another amendment to the Gift Policy for Elected Members is that it now reflects wording from the Sensitive Expenditure Policy relating to hosting for events and Koha. (Refer to the underlining in sections 4 and 6 attached as Appendix 1 to the report).

9. The above amendments to the Gift Policy for Elected Members explain the principles more clearly so that it is easier to understand.

Options

10. The Committee’s options are as follows:-

a. Recommend to Council to approve the redrafted Gift Policy for Elected Members with amendments (if any) agreed to by the Committee; or

b. Directs officers to complete further work on the Gift Policy for Elected Members and report back; or

c. Not approve the redrafted Gift Policy and Elected Members and revert back to the original Gift Policy for Elected Members approved by Council in 2011.

Consultation

11. As part of redrafting the policy, officers have consulted with other local authorities as to their policies around gifts received by elected members.

12. Council’s Risk and Assurance Manager has also been consulted and her feedback has been incorporated in the draft policy along with the Divisional Manager of Secretariat Services (refer to the underlining in Appendix 1 to the report).

Legal Considerations

13. The policy has no legal considerations.

14. Clause 15 of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) specifies the rules for the Code. The Act also provides that members must comply with the Code. However, a breach of the Code does not constitute an offence under the LGA 2002.

Financial Considerations

15. The policy has no financial considerations. However, a review of the Gifts Register for both elected members and officers usually forms part of annual audit process undertaken by Audit New Zealand of Council’s Annual Report.

Publicity Considerations

16. The final Gift Policy for Elected Members will be made available on the hub, Council’s website and copies will be included in the elected members’ handbooks.

Other Considerations

17. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Gift Policy for Elected Members	28

Author: Kathryn Stannard

Divisional Manager, Secretariat Services

Reviewed By: Enid Davids

Risk and Assurance Manager

Approved By: Tony Stallinger

Chief Executive

Attachment 1

Gift Policy for Elected Members

gift policy FOR ELECTED MEMBERS

1. POLICY STATEMENT

Elected Members will seek to promote the highest standards of ethical conduct. There is the possibility that the acceptance of gifts, favours and hospitality could be construed as a bribe or perceived as undue influence. Elected members need to treat with caution any offer, gift, favour or hospitality made to them personally, to avoid the risk of damage to public confidence in local government.

Elected Members cannot solicit, demand or request any gift, reward or benefit by virtue of their position.

2. PURPOSE

This policy clarifies how gifts received by elected members are managed.

3. SCOPE

This policy applies to all elected members of Hutt City Council.

4. PRINCIPLES

As a general rule, gifts should not be accepted (whatever its nature or value) if the gift could be seen by others as either an inducement or a reward which might place the elected member under an obligation to a third party.

Elected members may be hosted for sports/cultural/entertainment events. Such customary business dealings do not require declaration in the Gifts Register, provided that they are not excessive in frequency or amount and do not otherwise create the appearance of impropriety, in which case the offer should be declined or self-funded. A ‘ticket’ in excess of $100 to attend such events may be acceptable providing:

§ There is clear benefit in building relationships

§ That the event does not alter impartiality

§ That the host is not in an “active” or soon to be active tender situation.

To prevent any misunderstanding, further guidance is available from Council’s Risk and Assurance Manager.

Elected members must:

· Report to the Chief Executive if any gift, reward or benefit to the value of $100 or more are accepted; and

· Disclose acceptance of any gift, reward or benefit to the value of $100 or more in the Gifts Register, which is maintained by Council’s Risk and Assurance Manager.

Name of Person Receiving Gift	Position	Approximate Value of Gift	Description of Gift	Name of Company giving gift	Date Gift Received	Manager informed Yes/No	Comments

Any failure by elected members to comply with the above principles represents a breach of the Code of Conduct. Refer Sections 10 and 12 of the Code of Conduct for Elected Members.

5. CIVIC GIFTS

This policy does not include business meals or the like which are considered to be part of the usual process of doing business; Sister City gift exchanges or other official proceedings where refusal to accept is likely to cause offence. Such gifts are considered to be gifts to the Mayor’s Office or Council and will be the property of Council rather than to the individual member. It is also recognised that it is appropriate to elected members to accept small gifts made to them personally for example in appreciation for home hosting delegates from a Sister City.

DISPLAY

Wherever possible civic gifts should be put on display.

6. Koha

Koha is an unconditional gift and given with the intention of aroha – kindness, goodwill, support and/or appreciation of the occasion. Council acknowledges the important practice of koha as a taonga and integral part of Tikanga Maori, under the Treaty of Waitangi. Any koha given on behalf of Council should be reflective of the occasion and more importantly the prestige of the Council in its relations with Tangata Whenua.

If there is a group or collective of elected members, only one koha should be given which represents the entire group or collective. The amount of koha should reflect the occasion, the mana and the prestige of elected members in attendance, eg if the Mayor and/or Councillors are attending a hui, then a koha which is befitting their status should be given.

Further guidance is available from Council’s Kaitakawaenga Kaupapa Maori.

RELATED POLICIES

Elected Members Code of Conduct

Members Interest Register

Sensitive Expenditure Policy

34 01 May 2017

Policy and Regulatory

23 March 2017

File: (17/536)

Report no: PRC2017/2/112

Future of Molesworth Street Reserve Pomare

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to consider the future of this reserve in Pomare.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that as a result of the Valley Floor Review officers were directed to undertake a review of the reserve property at 132A Molesworth Street for the purpose of considering its future;

(ii) notes that an independent assessment of reserve values has been undertaken which considers that the property has a low reserves value;

(iii) notes that an application has been received from Empower Management Limited seeking to use the property to establish an Early Childhood Education (ECE) centre;

(iv) either requests officers to

(a) undertake general consultation with the community about the future of the property and report back options; OR

(b) undertake consultation in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 on a specific proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property and make available for sale, for the following reasons:

-the property has been rated as having low reserve value;

-there is sufficient open space/reserves within the immediate area to meet community need;

-the proceeds of the sale of the property will be able to be used to enhance other reserve assets.

(v) notes that a decision on an alternative use of the property would be a matter for further consideration should Council decide, following due process, to revoke the reserve status of the property.

Background

2. The property situated at 132A Molesworth Street in Pomare is a Local Purpose Reserve (Community Use), 2691 square metres in size and comprised of two separate titles being Lots 1 and 2 on DP 75169. The property is zoned General Residential and is situated at the rear and south of Pomare School and enclosed by housing on its other boundaries. The property has only one legal road access off Molesworth Street. An aerial plan of the property is attached as Appendix 1.

3. The property has previously housed a community resource centre run by Te Taura Here O Te Awakairangi, an incorporated society, which was established to cater for local Maori who did not have links with a Hutt Valley Marae.

4. The resource centre building was removed from the property about five years ago having not operated for its intended purpose for some time. The building had fallen into disrepair and had been subject to vandalism.

5. Since that time the property has not been used for any other formal purpose.

Valley Floor Review

6. Council resolved at its meeting on 15 March 2016, when considering the Valley Floor Review “to undertake a review of the reserve property at 132A Molesworth Street, Pomare, including an assessment of reserve values, for the purpose of considering its future.”

7. The strategic review of Council reserve properties on the floor of the Hutt Valley, extending from Pomare to Petone, identified this as one of only two properties (Bell Park was the other), which required further consideration as to their future as part of the reserve network. Decisions have been made on all other reserve properties.

Assessment of Reserve Values

8. An independent assessment of the reserve values of the property has been undertaken by PAOS. A copy of the assessment is attached as Appendix 2.

9. The assessment concludes that the property has an overall low level of reserve significance. The reserve has poor visibility, drainage issues, little evidence of use and has other more developed reserve spaces within the immediate vicinity.

10. Open space provision in the wider Pomare area, includes new reserves in the nearby Riverside Gardens development, the Farmer Crescent reserve and playground within 200 metres, the Pomare school grounds immediately adjacent and the river corridor, with the Hutt River Trail, 300 metres to the west.

11. Council policy is to consider revoking the reserve status of properties that have been assessed as having a low reserve value.

Proposal for Early Childhood Education use of Property

12. An application has been made by Empower Management Limited, trading as Pomare Early Learning Centre, to establish an early childhood education (ECE) facility on the property, targeting Pacifica and Maori families. The application is attached as Appendix 3.

13. The proposal is to either lease or acquire the Council reserve property in order to relocate a building previously used as an ECE facility at Pomare School.

14. In 2016, the Ministry of Education discontinued the licence of the previous ECE operator and required that the building be removed from the Pomare School site or handed over to the Ministry in order for a new approved ECE operator to be established.

15. The former owners/operators of the ECE facility decided to sell the building to Empower Management Limited, which put the building into storage and has been looking to find a suitable site on which to re-establish the ECE operation.

16. In order to operate from the site the ECE facility would need to gain a licence from the Ministry of Education and obtain resource consent.

Discussion

17. Council needs to decide whether the reserve property at 132A Molesworth Street should be retained for community use as per its current reserve classification or, due to its low reserve rating, should be considered as being no longer required for this purpose.

18. The application from Empower Management Limited would suggest that there is a community use for the site, though there are issues relating to how this request has come about. An ECE facility was available to the local community up until last year, appropriately sited on Ministry of Education land, but due to a lack of agreement between the parties was removed. If there is a need for an ECE facility in Pomare and this has approval from the Ministry of Education then officers consider that it would be more appropriate for the building to be re-established on the school site.

19. This raises a policy issue as to whether Council should re-consider the practice of making available Council owned reserve land for educational purposes. In the past Council has made Council reserve land available for ECE type facilities, such as kindergartens. This policy issue is one that will be considered as part of a wider review later this year of Council’s policy on “Private Use of Hutt City Council Land.”

20. The property itself does not lend itself well for a community use such as that proposed for an ECE facility. Access is extremely limited with a single 2.5 metre access strip off Molesworth Street. The rear nature of the property with lack of street frontage means that security has been an issue in the past.

21. Taking these matters into account, officers consider that the revocation of the reserve status of the property should be the subject of a proposal for public consultation. Officers have included an alternative recommendation to consult generally on the future of the reserve, following the recent Council decision to consult on the future of Bell Park.

Options

22. There are three main options for Council to consider.

a. Publicly notify a proposal to lease the land to Pomare Early Learning Centre for the purposes of running an early childhood education centre targeted towards Pasifika and Maori families.

b. Undertake general consultation on the future of the reserve before making a decision on its future; or

c. Publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status and make the land available for other purposes.

Consultation

23. The ECE proposal has been discussed with Community Services officers who have expressed some concerns with the proposal and the events leading up to the removal of the ECE building from Pomare School.

24. Formal consultation as required by the Reserves Act 1977 will need to be undertaken should Council decide to lease the property or revoke its reserve status.

Legal Considerations

25. Should Council decide to consider a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property, the following process as required by the Reserves Act 1977 will need to occur.

a. Council initiating a proposal on the possibility of revoking the reserve status and disposing of reserve land.

b. Placing a public notice inviting objections/submissions.

c. Collating objections/submissions and reporting results of these back to Council with officer recommendations.

d. Council hearing submissions and further considering the proposal.

e. Council’s decision sent to DOC for approval by the Minister or her delegate.

f. The decision to revoke if approved by DOC is published in the New Zealand Gazette.

Financial Considerations

26. There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Other Considerations

27. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it considers the future of a Council owned community asset.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Plan of Molesworth Street Reserve	38
2 ⇩	Molesworth Street Reserve_Assessment of Reserve Values_03March2017	39
3 ⇩	Pomare Empower Management Proposal	58
4 ⇩	Hutt Valley Samoan Church Support Letter	63

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Bruce Sherlock

General Manager, City Infrastructure

66 01 May 2017

Policy and Regulatory

05 April 2017

File: (17/600)

Report no: PRC2017/2/113

Proposed Road Stopping and Sale of Legal Road on the corner of Knights Road and Birch Street Waterloo

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to consider a proposal to stop a small portion of legal road adjacent to the property on the corner of Knights Road and Birch Street (227 Knights Road) and sell to the owner of that property.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Council:

(i) notes that the owner of 227 Knights Road is interested in acquiring a small area of legal road of approximately 35m² which is situated between the legal boundary and existing fence as shown in Appendix 1;

(ii) notes that the Road and Traffic Division see no need to retain this area of legal road for roading purposes now or in the future;

(iii) agrees to stop the portion of legal road adjoining 227 Knights Road as depicted on the aerial photograph attached as Appendix 1; and

(iv) agrees to sell the stopped road to the owner of 227 Knights Road, noting that the owner has agreed to meet all costs associated with the road stopping process and subsequent boundary adjustment, as well as the assessed market value of the land.

Background

2. In 2015 Council sold at auction the property at 227 Knights Road which was determined to be surplus to requirements. The property had been formerly used as a recycling drop off point but was no longer required for that purpose.

3. The new owner of the property has approached Council seeking to acquire a small area of land of approximately 35 square metres that is between the legal boundary and the existing fence. The fence was erected in its current position by Council, mostly within the road reserve, in order to give trucks servicing the recycling depot more room to manoeuvre. This happened about five years ago after a fire damaged the previous fence.

4. The aerial plan attached to this report shows the subject area.

Discussion

5. The Road and Traffic Division has advised that there is no need to retain the land inside the existing fence for roading purposes. Stopping the road and effecting a boundary adjustment to conform to the alignment of the existing fence is a pragmatic solution which in effect will have no negative impact on Council.

6. The proposal will provide Council with a small one-off payment for the land and a minor increase in rates revenue.

Options

7. Council could agree to proceed with the proposed road stopping or reject the proposal.

Consultation

8. Council would be required to carry out consultation on the proposal if the road stopping is carried out under the process set out in the Tenth Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974. If it is determined that the road can be stopped under the Public Works Act 1981, there will be no requirement to consult.

Legal Considerations

9. There are two road stopping mechanisms available to Council. The first is to use the provisions of section 116 of the Public Works Act 1991 and the second is by way of section 116 of the Tenth Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974.

10. The Public Works Act option is non-notified and less timely and costly. It requires the Minister of Lands approval. This option is able to be used where it can be shown that “adequate road access to land adjoining the road is left or provided” for the adjoining owner and the adjoining owner agrees.

11. As the adjoining owner is the applicant and there are no other adjoining owners, it is likely that the Public Works Act mechanism will be able to be used.

Financial Considerations

12. All costs relating to the stopping of the road and subsequent boundary adjustment, including legal and surveying costs, will be met by the applicant.

13. The applicant is prepared to meet the assessed market value of the land.

Other Considerations

14. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it is consideration of the future of a local roading asset, within a prescribed statutory process.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Road Stopping Plan - Knights Road	67

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Bruce Sherlock

General Manager, City Infrastructure

71 01 May 2017

Policy and Regulatory

07 April 2017

File: (17/632)

Report no: PRC2017/2/114

Dog controls for Avalon Park

Purpose of Report

1. To seek Council approval to proceed with a public consultation process to seek feedback on dog controls for Avalon Park.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the public consultation process, starting on 1 May 2017; and

(ii) appoints a subcommittee to hear submissions on the proposed dog controls for Avalon Park and make recommendations to Council.

Background

2. Avalon Park is a 6ha site located near the Hutt River on the corner of Taita Drive and Fairway Drive in Lower Hutt, and is owned and managed by HCC.

3. Avalon Park contains a broad range of facilities and is undergoing an upgrade to transform it in to a “a park of local and regional significance’, which is a place that encourages a wide range of users, a place that is special, inspirational and a source of fond memory.

4. This upgrade will be completed later this year and now is the appropriate time to review the dog bylaw controls for the park because the layout has given rise to the perimeter track being used by members of the public to walk their dogs.

5. Since the 2005 Dog Control Bylaw was adopted and again reviewed in 2015 Avalon Park has been a prohibited area for dogs, except for an area at the northern end that allows dogs to be on leash.

6. The bylaw states:

Resolution to Specify Dog Prohibition Areas

8A.1 The Council may, by resolution, specify dog prohibition areas where dogs are prohibited to enter upon or remain in.

8A.2 A resolution made under clause 8A.1 may specify that dogs are prohibited from the area either generally or only in relation to specified times and days or events.

8A.3 The Council may amend or revoke a resolution made under clause 8A.1 at any time.

8A.4 Before making a resolution under clause 8A.1, the Council must take into account:

a. The need to minimise danger, distress and nuisance to the community generally.

b. The need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults.

c. The importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs.

d. The exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

e. Impact on wildlife areas.

f. Whether it is necessary to consult with the public to gauge community views on a proposed dog prohibition area.

g. Any other information considered by the Council to be relevant.

7. These are the key matters Council must take into account when establishing dog prohibition areas.

Discussion

8. To address the matters outlined above, below is the matter in italics followed by the response from Council officers;

a) The need to minimise danger, distress and nuisance to the community generally.

9. Council’s Bylaw 2015 reflects how the community has agreed to minimise danger and distress in the community and specifically for Avalon Park the current status is shown on Map 53 in the Bylaw see Appendix 1. With the redevelopment of the Park there is a need to review the current control to ensure minimum danger, distress and nuisance is achieved.

b) The need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults.

10. Avalon Park is now a park of local and regional significance with some of the best play equipment in the Wellington region and as such has a significant number of families and children attending on a daily basis. Council Animal Services staff have always advocated that children’s play areas and surrounding areas should be dog free to minimise danger and distress to the community. This has been managed through prohibiting the access of dogs to children’s play grounds.

c) The importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs.

11. The playground areas are to be kept clear of dogs however there is an area in the northern part of the park that has a natural tree separation between the play grounds and current open space area or where dogs can be taken on leash. The current map showing the two different designated areas needs to be changed to reflect the actual area used for Dog Prohibited area and public space at the northern end of the park. See Appendix 2 reflecting the change.

d) The exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

12. The Bylaw allows for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and owners through the provision of some of the most extensive designated dog exercise areas in the country. Hutt City has more than 30 of these areas and one of these is adjacent to Avalon Park see Appendix 1. Avalon Park does provide an area at the northern end that allows dogs to be exercised on lead and Avalon Park has a perimeter walk way that is used by walkers, runners and a number of dog owners that walk their dogs on leash. The walking of dogs on leash around this walkway is currently in breach of the Dog Control Bylaw 2015, dog prohibited status as shown in Appendix 3.

13. Council needs to either confirm the prohibited status of the perimeter track or changed the status to public open space thus allowing dogs to be walked on leash around the walkways.

e) Impact on wildlife areas.

14. There are no wildlife areas within Avalon Park.

f) Whether it is necessary to consult with the public to gauge community views on a proposed dog prohibition area.

15. Avalon Park has a new and changed nature, that is a regionally significant park with extensive children’s play equipment and experiences to be had. The park layout has changed and members of the public are using the park as they seek to get the maximum benefit from it, which includes the use of the perimeter walking track being used for walking dogs.

16. Due to the perception of what is intimidating and fearful by the users of the children’s play areas and the dog walkers using the perimeter walkway; council officers recommend that council goes out for public consultation to get a full consideration of the issues and concerns of the local environment.

17. Council could seek feedback on:

1 Should the entire Avalon Park area be designated a Dogs Prohibited area?

2 Should Avalon Park remain a Dog Prohibited area with the exception of the northern end being realigned to cover the open space area as outlined in Appendix 2?

3 Should the playing areas be designated as Dog Prohibited areas and the walking tracks to allow dogs on leash as outlined in Appendix 3?

g) Any other information considered by the Council to be relevant.

18. The Council has two ways to exercise control of dogs in public places.

19. The default position is that dogs in public places should be on leash and under control at all times.

20. Council can, through the bylaw, regulate where dogs can be prohibited from an area, or where dogs can be allowed to be off leash, in designated dog exercise areas however dogs must still be under control.

21. As a general rule there is always a percentage of the population that have a fear of dogs (as much as 10%) and Council needs to address the question that the public should be able to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and to balance that with the need to provide areas for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

Options

22. Status quo is not an option due to the redevelopment of the park.

23. The preferred option is that Council goes out for public consultation to get a full consideration of the issues and concerns with the three questions outlined in paragraph 17.

24. Council amends the current dog prohibited areas for Avalon Park pursuant to clause 8 of the Dog Control Bylaw 2015 without gaining community views first.

Consultation

25. If Council wants to undertake public consultation the following steps could be taken.

§ Local residents including non-dog owners will get a letter outlining the proposal and how/when to make a submission,

§ Contact dog owners with an email outlining the proposal and how/when to make a submission,

§ Put a public notice in the Hutt News,

§ Facebook

§ Send an email to Council’s contact list of 1000 plus residents that express interest in general Council matters.

26. The email/letter will explain the proposal and the reasons for the proposal, timeframes, information on how a submission can be made, and the opportunity for submitters to present their submission in person.

27. As the consultation process will be carried out with the affected parties, the proposed timeframe for this process is four weeks. This is in line with the principles of consultation outlined in section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002, which provides discretion to Council to determine the appropriate method of consultation.

28. A timetable could be as follows:

§ 1 May 2017 – letter sent to affected parties,

§ May 2017 – consultation period,

§ After closing date of submissions, schedule a meeting for the hearing*** of submissions,

§ Hearing Subcommittee then present its recommendations to Council for consideration and adoption,

§ ***This will require appointment of a Sub Committee with delegated authority to hear submissions and make recommendations to Council.

Legal Considerations

29 Council is following the procedure set out in the Dog Control Bylaw 2015 Section 8:-

8A.3 The Council may amend or revoke a resolution made under clause 8A.1 at any time.

8A.4 Before making a resolution under clause 8A.1, the Council must take into account:

Financial Considerations

30. No financial considerations were considered for this decision

Other Considerations

31. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it meets the future needs of the community.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Map 53	73
2 ⇩	Dog Prohibited Area	74
3 ⇩	Perimeter Walking Track	75

Author: Geoff Stuart

Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services

Approved By: Joycelyn Raffills

General Manager, Governance and Regulatory

79 01 May 2017

Policy and Regulatory

30 March 2017

File: (17/575)

Report no: PRC2017/2/118

Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy

Purpose of Report

1. To report back the results of the pre-consultation phase on the proposed Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy and seek Council’s direction whether it wishes to proceed with the development of such a policy, or not.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes the report on Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy that includes results of a pre-consultation phase; and

(ii) either:

a) agrees to develop an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy by consulting on the Summary of Information, Statement of Proposal, and draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy (subject to any changes requested by the Committee) attached as Appendix 1 to the report, by means of the special consultative procedure; OR

b) agrees to not take any further action and therefore not develop an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy at this time; and

(iii) if needed in connection with (ii) above appoint a subcommittee to hear submissions and make recommendations to Council on the direction and content of an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy.

Background

2. There are currently three and a half restricted trading days in New Zealand – Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day until 1.00pm. There has been national debate for a number of years now around whether Easter Sunday trading should be permitted.

3. In 2016 the government amended the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 to give territorial authorities the discretion as to whether or not to adopt a policy to permit shops to open on Easter Sundays. Such a policy can be developed which:

(a) Determines whether to allow shop trading on Easter Sunday.

(b) Determines whether to allow shop trading on Easter Sunday across the entire district or in certain areas.

4. Such a policy cannot:

(a) Permit shops to open only for some purposes; or

(b) Permit only some types of shop to open; or

(d) Include any other conditions as to the circumstances in which shops in the area may open.

5. Currently most shops in Hutt City cannot open on Easter Sunday, with the exception of dairies, service stations, fast food outlets, bars, restaurants and cafes.

6. The Shop Trading Hours Act 2016 requires employers to provide their employees with written notice of their right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday. The notice can be provided in the period between eight weeks and four weeks before Easter Sunday. Employees also have this notice period to notify their employers of their refusal to work on Easter Sunday. The Act also allows workers to refuse to work on Easter Sunday without a reason; and to bring a personal grievance against an employer who compels them to work or who treats them adversely because of their refusal to work.

7. Council would not be responsible for enforcement of the Policy. Enforcement of breaches of the Shop Trading Hours Act 2016 remains with the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment.

8. A Policy must be reviewed no later than every five years from the date of adoption.

Discussion

9. A pre-consultation phase has been undertaken. This has involved surveying some key stakeholders to obtain their feedback on Easter Sunday trading. Appendix 1 to the report contains a summary of the survey results.

10. This survey was sent to retail and hospitality members of the Chamber of Commerce, Queensgate, Progressive Enterprises and Food stuffs, Jackson Street Programme, Ministers Association, churches, Newslist Subscribers, Te Atiawa and Ngati Toa.

11. People were asked:

(a) whether they supported Easter Sunday trading

(b) if they owned a shop, whether they would want to trade in Easter Sunday

(c) if an Easter trading policy were to be established for Lower Hutt, should shops be permitted to trade within all areas or only some areas of the city?

12. One hundred and thirteen (113) made submissions. The majority of submitters did not support Easter Sunday trading. Those that did support it generally felt it should be no different to other weekends; those that did not support felt that it was important to keep this time as family time and that it wasn’t financially viable to open for one day.

13. A majority of the respondents who own a business (61%) didn’t want to trade on Easter Sunday for a variety of reasons. Respondents felt that if there was to be an Easter Sunday Trading policy then it should apply to all areas of the city.

14. Attached as Appendix 1 to the report is the Statement of Proposal which contains a summary of the survey results.

Options

15. There are two options:

a) To agree to proceed with the development of a policy and allow shops to open in the whole of the district as outlined in the attached draft Statement of Proposal or in specific areas within the district;

b) To not adopt a policy (in which case most shops must remain closed on Easter Sunday).

Consultation

16. A pre-consultation phase has been undertaken to help inform Council of community views concerning the development of such a policy. Refer to paragraphs 9 - 11 above.

17. If Council wishes to proceed with the development of this policy the Special Consultative Procedure will need to be undertaken.

Legal Considerations

18. Section 5A (1) Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 provides the Council with the discretion to determine if it wishes to establish an Easter Shop Trading Policy or not. In developing such a policy Council needs to determine if such a policy applies to the whole of the district or any part or parts of the district.

Financial Considerations

19. There are no financial considerations.

Other Considerations

20. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it meets the current and future needs of the community.

21. At the time this report was being prepared nationally, some councils consulted and adopted a policy in time for April 2017. Some councils held informal surveys to decide on a formal consultation for 2018 onwards. Some councils are still undecided. In the Wellington region, the three Wairarapa councils adopted policies to open. Porirua City Council has decided to not adopt a policy which means no Easter Sunday trading; Upper Hutt City Council will review this matter following Easter 2017; Kapiti are not pursuing this at this stage but will watch developments elsewhere.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Summary and Statement of Proposal: Draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy as at 1 May 2017 and Summary of Feedback Received.	80

Author: Graham Sewell

Principal Policy Advisor

Reviewed By: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, Strategic Services

Attachment 1

Summary and Statement of Proposal: Draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy as at 1 May 2017 and Summary of Feedback Received.

1. Introduction

In 2016 the government amended the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 (the Act) to give territorial authorities the discretion to decide if they wish to have a policy to permit shops to open on Easter Sundays, or not. This change to the Act does not apply to other holiday dates such as Easter Friday for which current trading restrictions apply.

In accordance with the Act, the Hutt City Council (Council) is proposing a new Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy and is seeking your views.

This Statement of Proposal has been prepared in accordance with section 86 of the Local Government Act 2002 and relates to the new powers under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990.

This Statement includes reasons for the proposal; the draft Policy Council has approved for consultation; and how to provide your feedback.

2. Background

a. current situation

Currently most shops in Lower Hutt cannot open on Easter Sunday with the exception of dairies, service stations, pharmacies, take away bars, restaurants and cafes, garden centres, souvenirs and duty free stores.

Some tourist areas (such as Taupo ) have had exemptions to open Easter Sundays in the past.

With the changes made to the Shop Trading Hours Act as noted above, this now enables the Council to adopt a policy to permit shops to open on Easter Sundays, or not. If Council decides to adopt such a policy, in doing so it must determine if that policy applies across the entire district or only in certain areas (for example only in the CBD).

However the policy cannot:

a) Permit shops to open only for some purposes;

b) Permit only some types of shops to open;

c) Require shops to open;

d) Limit Council’s ability to undertake its duties under any other Act (e.g. the regulation of the sale and supply of alcohol);

e) Address shop employees’ rights (which are governed by the requirements of the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 and which allows shop employees to refuse to work on Easter Sunday).

The Council is not responsible for enforcement of the Policy. Enforcement is undertaken by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

b. pre-consultation results

Hutt City Council has undertaken a pre-consultation process to gather information to assist with the development (or not) of the Policy. This pre-consultation was in the form of a survey. Attached as Appendix 1 is a summary of the feedback received which was considered by the Council as part of its deliberations concerning this proposal.

The survey results show that 64% did not support Easter Sunday trading; and 35% did support Easter Sunday trading. Of those who owned a business 26% indicated they would trade on Easter Sunday and 61% said they would not. Whether the policy should cover all areas 63% agreed it should with 12% indicating it should only apply to some areas in the city and 25% don’t know.

C. Policy options

The Council has two options:

i) To adopt a Policy and allow shops to open (and also under this option to either allows shops to open in the whole of the district or only in certain parts of the district); OR

ii) To not adopt a Policy – which means the status quo will remain on Easter Sunday.

If a Policy is created Council must review that Policy every 5 years.

The Council is proposing a Policy that would apply to the whole district.

D. draft easter sunday trading policy

Attached as Appendix 2 is the Draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy.

3. how to make a submission

The Council at its meeting on 23 May approved the attached draft Policy for public consultation.

The Council is now seeking submissions on this proposal. The draft Policy is attached, along with a submission form. To assist anyone wishing to lodge a submission you may find the submission form helpful in that regard [to be inserted]. However it is not necessary to use the submission form as any written submissions would be welcome.

This proposal is also available at the Hutt City Council Administration Building, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt, and Libraries and on the Council Website: [huttcity.govt.nz/ - link to be inserted]

If you wish to speak to your submission please make note of that and your contact details when preparing your submission. Contact will be made after the formal submission period has closed to arrange a suitable time and date when hearings will be conducted.

Submissions open on Tuesday 6 June 2017 and close at 4.00pm on Friday 7 June 2017.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Attachment 1

Summary and Statement of Proposal: Draft Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy as at 1 May 2017 and Summary of Feedback Received.

Appendix 1:

Summary of Easter Sunday Trading Survey April 2017.

A Pre-consultation survey was undertaken 1 March to 3 April. The aim was to gather feedback that can be considered by the Council when it decides whether to develop an ‘Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy’, or not.

Key stakeholders were invited to participate in this survey, namely:

· Chamber of Commerce – hospitality and retailer members only.

· Queensgate

· Progressive Enterprises and Foodstuffs

· Jackson Street Programme

· Newslist Subscribers

· Ministers Association

· All Churches in Lower Hutt City

· Te Atiawa and Ngati Toa

There were also a small number of the public who took the opportunity to complete and return the survey.

A total of 113 surveys were received. Three questions were asked. Below is a statistical summary of the responses received to the three questions along with a summary of the reasons given for their response.

Question:

1. Do you support Easter Sunday trading?

Total number of responses:113

Decision Sought	Number of submitters who selected this option	%
Yes	39	34.51%
No	72	63.72%
Don't know	2	1.77%

Reason provided by people who said “Yes” were:

· It provides freedom of choice for businesses (can choose to open or not), and employees (can choose to work or not), and the public (can choose to shop or not).

· Why keep shops closed when the majority of the population don’t really celebrate Easter?

· Don’t believe in religious events being imposed on everyone regardless of their religious affiliations.

· NZ has moved more towards a secular society and a seven day a week society.

· People have jobs to do and want to be able to buy what they need to complete these jobs.

· Current restrictions are inconvenient for people visiting here on holiday and require provisions for their stay.

· Why should it be different from any other weekend?

Reasons provided by people who said “No” were:

· Easter Sunday is the most important day in the Christian calendar so on religious grounds shops should remain closed.

· Financially it does not make sense as opening one more day will not alter the net business turnover as shoppers will not have any more money to spend and we are not a key tourist destination. Does it create new spending or just spread the same spending over more days?

· This is a time for families to get together and or undertake leisure/social activities.

· Need some days when shops are shut and workers can have time off.

· Over Easter there are three other days available for shopping.

· We only have three and a half days of statutory holidays. Otherwise shops open 7 days a week – that’s plenty.

· The current situation prevents staff arguments between those who want to work and those who prefer not to.

Question:
2. If you own a business, would you want to trade on Easter Sunday?

Total number of responses:88

Decision Sought	Number of submitters who selected this option	%
Yes	21	25.61%
No	50	60.98%
Don't know	11	13.41%

Reasons provided by people who said “Yes”

· It’s a business decision whether to open, it should not be mandated by government.

· Businesses are used to trading every day these days.

· It provides people with the opportunity to shop on their day off and people like to shop over long weekends.

· When there is customer demand.

· This would help overcome the current problems with being closed (Good Friday), open (Saturday), closed (Sunday) and open (Monday). This creates problems with food management and staffing.

Reasons provided by people who said “No” were:

· I want staff to have time off for rest, recreation and family time.

· I like my time off too. Very few public holidays for retailers to enjoy a mandatory holiday with no pressure to trade.

· On religious grounds.

Question:
3. If an Easter trading policy were to be established for Lower Hutt, should shops be permitted to trade within all areas or only some areas of the city?

Total number of responses:110

Decision Sought	Number of submitters who selected this option	%
All areas	64	63.37%
Some areas only (please put areas in box below)	12	11.88%
Don't know	25	24.75%

Reasons provided by people who said “All areas” were:

· Shouldn’t differentiate between different types of businesses or locations

· Equal opportunity/level playing field.

· All businesses then free to choose when to open.

Reasons provided by people who said “Some areas” were:

· CBD

· CBD and just Jackson Street and esplanade

· High Street, Queens Drive, Jackson Street, the Mall and Harvey Norman Centre should be closed. This will give small businesses a helping hand.

_________________________________________________________________________

DRAFT

APPENDIX 2

EASTER SUNDAY SHOP TRADING POLICY

Purpose of Policy

This Policy is made under the provisions of the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 (the Act).

The Act was amended in 2016 to allow territorial authorities to have a policy to permit shops to open on Easter Sundays. The changes do not apply to other holiday dates such as Easter Friday for which current trading restrictions will remain.

The Policy permits shops to open for trading on Easter Sunday within the entire Lower Hutt district.

Interpretation

“shop” has the same meaning as in the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990, that is:

a shop is a building, place, or part of a building or place, where goods are kept, sold, or offered for sale, by retail and includes an auction mart, and a barrow, stall, or other subdivision of a market; but does not include-

(a) a private home where the owner or occupier’s effects are being sold (by auction or otherwise); or

(b) a building or place where the only business carried on is that of selling by auction agricultural products, pastoral products, and livestock, or any of them; or

(c) a building or place where the only business carried on is that of selling goods to people who are dealers and buy the goods to sell them again.

Policy

The Hutt City Council will permit shop trading in the whole of the Lower Hutt district on Easter Sunday as provided for by the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990.

The extent of the Lower Hutt district is shown on the map below.

Review

The Act requires that the Policy must be reviewed no later than five years after the date on which it was adopted.

Section 5E of the Act requires a council to provide a copy of any decision to adopt, amend or revoke a policy to the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment within 10 days of the decision being made.

Lower Hutt

94 01 May 2017

Policy and Regulatory

07 April 2017

File: (17/634)

Report no: PRC2017/2/117

Urban Development Authorities

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this paper is to:

a. advise the Committee about the main aspects of the Government’s proposal to introduce legislation to create Urban Development Authorities (UDAs) to support and fast track urban development projects across New Zealand and the implications of this proposal for Hutt City and Council;

b. ask the Committee’s to approve the draft submission (attached as Appendix I) on the proposal.

Recommendations

That the Committee approves the draft submission on the Government’s proposal to introduce legislation to create Urban Development Authorities (UDAs) to support and fast track urban development projects.

Background

2. Recently, the Government announced it will introduce legislation to create Urban Development Authorities (UDAs) that will support and fast-track urban development projects across New Zealand. UDAs are intended to widen Government powers (both central and local) to play a more active role in identifying, planning and delivering strategic urban redevelopment projects.

3. UDAs have existed worldwide for some time. The Australian Federal Government established and resourced a Major Cities Unit within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in 2008 to provide a more coordinated and integrated approach to urban development.

4. In recent years, some state governments in Australia (New South Wales, Victoria) have established growth management agencies that work closely with their Departments of Planning to manage the planning and infrastructure co-ordination for the release of land areas for development around major cities. Growth boundaries are used by those state governments to manage urban growth through infill and intensification, and at the city boundary.

5. In the UK, English Partnerships is the national regeneration agency, helping the Government to support high-quality sustainable growth in England. It is responsible for land acquisition and assembly, and major development projects, alone or in joint partnership with other agencies and with private sector developers. The Housing Corporation is the national government agency that funds new affordable housing and regulates housing associations in England.

6. In England, Urban Regeneration Companies are independent companies established by the relevant Local Authority and Regional Development Agency (which has an economic development focus on a regional level), with the aim of uniting public and private-sector partners. They work alongside English Partnerships and other local stakeholders including employers, amenity groups and community representatives. These Urban Regeneration Companies have proved successful in attracting private investment into targeted areas and in coordinating economic development delivery and funding.

7. An outline of the key aspects of the proposal is attached as Appendix I and the draft submission is attached as Appendix II.

8. Council’s Urban Growth Strategy has a target of 6000 new homes by 2032. Establishment of a UDA within Hutt City would be one tool to assist in achieving this target.

9. The Government is calling for submissions which are due on the 19th May 2017. No hearings will be held. Submissions will be analysed and reported back to the Minister and new legislation will be drafted.

Discussion

10. The key focus of the document is widening Government powers – both central and local – to play a more active role in identifying, planning and delivering strategic urban redevelopment projects. The desired outcome is making cities more connected and sustainable with a wider range of housing – including more affordable options – while supporting quality living environments across the housing continuum.

11. It is generally accepted that UDAs, if implemented appropriately, can make a big difference to New Zealand’s future. The proposal offers a “toolbox” of powers that could be vested in an UDA for the purposes of progressing urban development that can accelerate the building of new communities and support the revitalization of existing urban areas to deliver “vibrant places to live and work”. The range of these powers is broad - from streamlined planning to compulsory acquisition of private and public land.

12. Not every development will require all the powers to be vested in a UDA – it will only involve those powers needed to successfully complete the development. Once completed, ownership of infrastructure assets are vested back to the local authority in which the development took place or another agency as appropriate. Provision is made for ensuring that the receiving organisation does not inherit debt or have to purchase the assets vested in it. This makes adherence to performance and design standards imperative. There is no provision for the funding of renewals and on-going maintenance.

13. Proposed matters of relevance included in the draft include:

Level of central government control

a. Central government will have a very high level of control of decisions affecting development in local environments - the Minister has final decision making powers vis a vis an urban development proposal.

b. The impact on Council decision making independence or on Council’s ability to influence if government decides to introduce legislation that does not require local authority agreement particularly at the planning and development stage.

c. Council’s ability to meet its responsibilities under the Local Government Act in terms of section 10 “Purpose of Local Government” and section 11A “Core services to be considered.”

d. The rate payers and residents interests and ability to provide feedback on proposals.

e. The proposal includes a local government ability to veto any proposal should it believe that it isn’t in its constituent’s interests to approve. However, this can be overridden where the government is of the view that the development is in the national or regional interest. This is an attempt to circumvent national or regional “nimbyism”.

Council’s current ability to influence/guide development in the city – will a UDA make a difference?

a. Difficulties, if any, in ensuring that the market delivers infrastructure and intensification projects that will provide significant numbers and types of new dwellings to a level of quality that ensures the creation of a vibrant a sustainable city.

b. Whether our growth aspirations are likely to occur and if they are what that means for urban intensification in Lower Hutt.

c. Council’s focus on urban redevelopment and providing a greater choice for housing.

d. The lack of a spatial plan and the impact this might have on our ability to develop proposals for Government to consider granting development powers to a Council-established UDA. Officers recommend Council give serious consideration to developing a spatial plan for the city.

Other issues

a. Compensation and powers of compulsory acquisition. Good compensation packages are critical to the success of the proposal and people need to understand what is available to them. It is far more productive if people come willingly to the negotiation table because they can see the advantage to them of doing so. Officers view is that providing the UDA with sufficient flexibility to design compensation packages that will benefit both the building/land owner, the UDA and ultimately ratepayers is essential.

b. Taking of public land for UDA purpose. This goes to the inability of rate payers and residents to have involvement in the process of deciding whether or not to use public land such as a reserve for development purposes. The process for doing this needs more rigour around it.

c. Shifting planning and land use controls outside District Plans. While the streamlining of processes is an important aspect of ensuring that developments can be easily progressed, officers are not convinced that the argument made for this is persuasive. Officers see no reason why the master plan (and associated rules for stream lining the consent and decision making process) for a development could not be included in an existing District Plan. Shifting the planning outside the District Plan could result in parallel processes and inefficiencies for both the UDA and the “host” Council.

The ability to override one or more of the existing District Plan, regional plan and applicable regional policy statements “risks the creation of yet another fast track or streamline pathway with its own administration and rules and further fragment what is already at risk of becoming an extremely fractured and inefficient planning system” (NZPI, Preliminary Analysis of NZ Government’s Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document 9/3/2017). It also removes the ability of rate payers and residents to participate in planning processes. There seems to be no cogent reason for bypassing or replacing existing RMA processes.

d. Value uplift or betterment fee/levy system. The proposal does not support the use of value uplift or betterment fee/levy systems in New Zealand although overseas these tools have proved effective for specific, local projects that can be completed in the short term (NZPI).

These approaches have been used in New Zealand (Wellington) before. The rationale for limiting the UDA funding proposals does not engage with the function of value uplift potential revenues in buying the agreement and participation of stakeholders in the kind of land acquisition processes suggested in the Discussion Document.

Our view is they can be useful but should be included as an option for UDAs not as being compulsory.

14. Central government can develop a proposal separate from the TA however it must have the TA’s prior approval of the projects strategic objectives before granting development powers to a UDA. This is where the local authority power of veto comes in. It should be noted however, that the proposal does suggest that local authorities should not be involved and should not have a power of veto. This suggestion should be strongly resisted

15. The proposal to introduce UDAs to New Zealand has potential to assist local authorities to develop urban renewal projects that can improve the city’s urban fabric and catalyse further private development.

16. Council could stand to gain large development outcomes it couldn’t hope to achieve on its own by working alongside and utilising central governments resources and powers under the UDA provided Council was in agreement that it could be beneficial.

17. Overall this legislative change has potential opportunities that could benefit Council.

Other Councils

18. Wellington City Council considered establishing a UDA in 2016. Councillors were generally supportive of the proposal however their preference was for the UDA to be in-house rather than at arm’s length as a CCO or CCTO. Officials on the other hand recommended that the UDA be a CCO or CCTO.

19. WCC has recently decided (21 April 2017 Dominion Post) that the council can do a better job on its own, and has brought the work back in-house.

Options

20. The Committee has the options of:

a. Approving the draft submission without changes; OR

b. Approving the draft submission subject to changes required by the Committee being made; OR

c. Not approving the submission and asking officers to undertake further work and come back to a subcommittee for approval. The subcommittee being the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Policy and Regulatory Committee; OR

d. Not approving the submission because the Committee does not believe it is appropriate for Council to make such a submission.

Consultation

21. Officers from relevant areas of Council were consulted in the development of this submission.

22. Councillors had a workshop with officials from MBIE on 27^th April to provide Councillors with information on the UDA proposal and enable questions for clarification.

Legal Considerations

23. There are no legal considerations at this stage. However, the consequential legislation could create relatively significant legal considerations for Council in the long term although these are unknown at present.

Financial Considerations

24. At the moment, there are no significant financial implications in making a submission. However, the consequential legislation could create relatively significant financial considerations for Council in the long term although these are unknown at present.

Other Considerations

25. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it provides Council with advice on an important development in the legislation affecting the operation of Local Government. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it there is limited cost associated with making a submission to Government and it is in the city’s best interests that Council is involved in decision making concerning legislation to introduce Urban Development Authorities.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	UDA Submission Outline of Proposals	97
2 ⇩	UDA Submission	103

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, Strategic Services

Attachment 1

UDA Submission Outline of Proposals

THE PROPOSED URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DISCUSSION DOCUMENT ^{^[2]}

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Urban Development Authority Discussion Document (hereafter referred to as UDA) proposes the formation of publicly owned/controlled UDAs that can drive spatially defined projects of national or local significance that are complex or strategically important, and access special powers to speed the delivery and reduce the cost of development.

These powers include;

· Compulsory acquisition (through application to the Minister of Land Information);

· A “Development Plan” process that replaces the existing resource consent and rezoning processes under the RMA;

· Powers to levy landowners to offset infrastructure costs;

· Ability to change and revoke reserve status over certain types of public reserves; exchange reserves; and

· Powers to override Regional Plans, Regional Policy Statements, and District Plans.

The powers will be conferred on UDAs on a project-by-project basis (not generally) and will expire upon completion of each project. The scope of statutorily based monitoring, measuring “success”, and enforcement is based on the delivery of “strategic objectives” not the completion of the project. However, those objectives can include things like provision of social outcomes, quality of infrastructure, and affordable housing.

Although there is a carefully designed framework for public input on balance public participation and rights of appeal are reduced.

The Development Plan in effect is a Private Plan Change for the Development Area, with the matters the development plan must incorporate, consider and deliver being similar to that required under the RMA.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will be presenting on the UDA proposal at the Council briefing on Thursday 27 April 2017.

BACKGROUND

In February 2017, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment released a 125 page paper titled “Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document”. The purpose of the discussion document is to explore potential legislation that may provide an alternative regime for urban development and redevelopment to occur.

This document builds on previous papers canvassing topics on Urban Development, Land Use Planning, and Housing Affordability that Council has previously submitted on. It is also intended to dovetail into current legislation, directives, or proposed amendments to legislation such as the NPS Urban Development Capacity and Resource Legislation Amendment Bill for example.

This UDA Discussion Document has far reaching consequences across multiple departments within Council. They include Reserves, RMA Policy, Resource Consenting, LGA Consultation, Partnerships, Infrastructure, and Long-term Planning. It will take time to canvas the full extent of the impacts to ensure a more comprehensive understanding is identified and assessed.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal will enable development projects to run outside of ‘business as usual’ local and regional government processes; although the Building Act requirement will still be in force.

The legislative framework is intended to enable local and central government to:

· Empower national or locally significant urban development projects to access more enabling development powers and land use rules; and

· Establish new urban development authorities to support those projects where required.

Central government in partnership with local government would have the power to:

· Identify a development project;

· Set the strategic objectives for the project;

· Select which of the development powers the project can access;

· Determine who can exercise the development powers for that project; and

· Determine who is accountable for delivering that development project’s strategic objectives.

Central government would be required to work with local authorities to identify the development project and set the strategic objectives of the project.

The toolkit of powers that may be allocated include:

· Land assembly powers that cover both public and private land, including existing powers of compulsory acquisition, together with powers over reserves and lesser interests in land;

· Planning, land-use and consenting powers that shift the balance of matters that must be considered in decision-making towards the strategic objectives of the development project;

· Independent power for providing infrastructure where the necessary infrastructure has not been included in local government plans or needs to be brought forward to accommodate urban growth; and

· Powers that enable an Urban Development Authority to levy development contributions and a targeted infrastructure charge on properties within a development project area; and

· If consent authority roles are not delegated to UDA or independent commissioners, then local authorities or regional councils must be the consent authority of the Development Plan.

The full suite of powers will not be available as a default position. Only the powers required to “unlock” each site will be made available and these will be conferred only with Ministerial approval.

The UDA will have the ability to use the powers directly, including the ability to approve its own “development plans”. Private developers can be contracted to deliver development but will not have access to any of the special powers.

Local authorities would have responsibilities to:

· Work with central government on potential project areas;

· Undertake public consultation on proposals;

· Undertake a regulatory role for applications under a Development Plan;

· Collect and disseminate revenue through targeted rates, Development Contributions or infrastructure fees; and

· Amend statutory documents at the end of the process to integrate the matters into the Development Plan.

Local authorities and central government sit at the centre of the proposal with an emphasis on collaborative decision making and potential partnerships. Regional councils are a peripheral player by comparison. For example, there is provision for local authorities to veto projects within their jurisdiction but regional councils would not have this power.

The process for creating UDAs is not fully fleshed out in the discussion document but both “Councils” and “CCOs” are eligible to become UDAs. This appears to leave the door ajar for both in-house development functions and arm’s length UDAs/CCOs. There is emphasis on skill-based boards and Ministerial approval of board makeup. This does not sit neatly with an in-house development function overseen by a traditional Council committee.

Beyond the immediate local authority considerations a full range of Crown entities are eligible to become UDAs (e.g. Housing NZ) and there is explicit provision for new Local authority/ Crown partnership entities akin to the recently formed “Regenerate Christchurch”.

Establishing a UDA only applies to areas zoned Urban. It does not apply to un-zoned Greenfield sites. For Hutt City, key development areas are the CBD with River Link and Wainuiomata for greenfield.

The legislation would cover the consenting and delivery of infrastructure (both bulk and local – ranging from 3 waters, roads, lighting, signage, cycle-ways and public transport); and may amend or remove local authority By-Laws (in consultation with local authority) inside the Development Area.

A UDA can require Council’s to amend LTPs to cover funds required for the Development Project. There may be the ability for a UDA to require LTP, infrastructure and transport plans to “not be inconsistent” with the strategic objectives of the development project.

Where there is demonstrable benefit UDAs could levy property owners to recover the costs of providing or upgrading infrastructure. It appears that UDA can require targeted rates and Development Contributions on land within the development, which would be collected by local authority and transferred back to the UDA. The local authority cannot levy in the Development Area, so would have to have an agreement with the UDA if any of the targeted rates needed to go back to the local authority.

The collection and dissemination of rates or contributions would be subject to an agreement between the local authority and the UDA. If no agreement can be reached, an “independent decision-maker” would make a decision that would have to be implemented by the local authority or UDA.

UDA’s can become an approved public organisation and access the National Land Transport Fund for local major roads and highway connections. There will be additional controls on state highways and railways.

Treaty settlement legislation and agreements takes precedence, and UDA’s would be bound by relevant agreements. There would be no change to land under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 processes. Maori reservation under the Maori Reserves Land Act 1955 is excluded from powers over reserves.

Maori Freehold Land will still be subject to potential compulsory acquisition powers. If a UDA is also a Requiring Authority it may seek compulsory acquisition of land outside of the Development Project area for network utility infrastructure.

The UDA proposal enables decisions to be made that could affect Council, ranging from:

· Overriding and/or requiring amendments to the District Plan;

· Overriding, amending or replacing Bylaws;

· Requiring main/bulk infrastructure investment by Council;

· Overriding, amending or replacing LTP programmes;

· Collection and dissemination of targeted rates;

· Overriding, amending or replacing Reserve Management Plans;

· Potentially require regulatory roles to monitor and consent developments within the Project area, unless transferred to another body which could include the UDA;

· Acquisition or “transfer” of some types of reserves or other land for urban development purposes; and

· Potentially be inconsistent with LGA requirements on public consultation.

Although the powers that are proposed for the UDA seem extreme and potentially impact on how Council engages with its community, there are some balances built in that Council can utilise to create opportunities for the city it may otherwise find difficult. They are;

a. Special powers are available for approved sites/projects (the majority of the district will continue to be governed by existing legislation in the usual way);

b. Council and Council CCOs are eligible to become a UDA and access special powers (which include compulsory acquisition and streamlined planning approvals). Note: there are barriers to Council-proper becoming a UDA relating to a preference for skill-based boards;

c. Council could partner with the Crown to create a joint UDA; and

d. Council can propose a UDA establishment and can join in partnerships.

Local authorities have the power to veto individual projects.^{^[3]}

Council could stand to gain large development outcomes it couldn’t hope to achieve on its own by working alongside and utilising central governments resources and powers under the UDA provided Council was in agreement that it could be beneficial.

At the moment, there are no significant financial implications in making a submission. However, the consequential legislation could create relatively significant financial considerations for Council in the long term however they are unknown at present.

Overall this legislative change has potential opportunities that could benefit Council more than the risks. That said, the devil can be in the detail, hence being clear on our position and matters that are relevant to TLAs are important to clarify.

Proposed matters of relevance to include in a submission could include but are not exclusive too:

· Incorporating tools that capture “value uplift”;

· Adopting a “principles approach” to consultation rather than duplication with the LGA;

· Central Government providing seed funding and/or knowledge expertise;

· Ensuring alignment with the LGA;

· Supporting the partnership approach;

· Check what legislative power local government has to support its community where local and national aspirations clash;

· UDA’s could become inconsistent with land use planning precedents in the wider district;

· Community could feel they don’t have a voice in influencing outcomes in their place.

· Could be required to upgrade remote trunk infrastructure systems

Attachment 2

UDA Submission

URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES (UDA)

Thank you for opportunity to make a submission on Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document February 2017.

We have the following comments.

Overview section

Hutt City is squarely focused on urban redevelopment and the provision of a greater choice for housing for its community. Hutt City has growth aspirations coupled with significant areas of greenfield land and urban regeneration needs particularly in our CBD and has set itself the targets of 6000 new homes and 10,000 new residents by 2032. Having a UDA has great potential to assist in making this happen.

Hutt City’s Councils key difficulties when trying to coordinate development projects are:

· being able to get a number of private landowners to work with Council to deliver infrastructure and intensification projects that will provide significant numbers of new dwellings and increase the amenity of the city and

· Aligning timeframes and intentions with other public agencies such as NZTA

Hutt City is very close to Wellington City so, as it becomes more difficult to intensify in Wellington City (cost, issues with earthquake/disaster resilience and having 50,000 more people living in the city) then more developers will look to Hutt City or Porirua for development opportunities. This is the driver of the growth Hutt City is currently experiencing. Also, medium growth local authorities are required to provide development capacity through the NPS UDC.

An example of difficulties in assembling land is our largest development - River Link. Hutt City is working with GWRC and NZTA to deliver significant improvements to flood protection, transport linkages and urban regeneration of the CBD. However, private land owners in the area are unsupportive of Council’s focus on quality intensive redevelopment in CBD which in turn reduces Councils ability to influence the amenity of any development.

Proposal in general

Hutt City Council is generally supportive of proposal and the overall concept of encouraging integration of land use and infrastructure planning. We can see the potential for an active Urban Development Authority (UDA) in our city.

However, we do have some concerns relating to the independence of Council decision making and Council’s ability to meet its responsibilities under the LGA in terms of section 10 “Purpose of Local Government” and section 11A “Core services to be considered”. Further, it is unclear how individual rate payers and residents interests are protected as their rights to be consulted and ability provide feedback on proposals appear to be considerably diminished.

Framework and processes

More clarity is needed when defining the relationship between central and local government and the process related to the identification of opportunities. For example, while the Discussion Document talks about central and local Government working together to identify opportunities, it then goes on to say on page 19 that “with the prior agreement of the relevant local authority the Government will determine the key elements of each development project, in particular the objectives for which the project is being established”. Then on page 23, the Discussion Document states “central government and local authorities will together select the particular development projects and areas in which more enabling development powers can apply”. It is not clear whether the development powers are established in consultation with the local authority. Where central government initiates the proposal the independent panel formed to make recommendations should have local representation on it.

Our view is that legislation needs to specify the process or approach taken towards consultation with and gaining the agreement of local authorities on any government proposal. Similarly, the process that local authorities must follow when seeking approval for a proposal from central government needs to be very clear.

Infrastructure providers such as Wellington Water Limited (WWL) should be consulted in the establishment phase stage so capacity issues, design standards, hazard areas and investment requirements are factored in upfront. For example, WWL may need to provide information relating to infrastructure capacity and feasibility. As producing this information can take time, factoring it in at the feasibility stage will be essential to the ultimate success of the project.

It is also unclear how any rules around development contributions will interact with existing local authority policies on this and also with changes made to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to introduce the catchment approach to setting development contributions.

We are concerned that final decision making sits with the Minister and the intention to manage this within the context of setting the strategic objectives for each proposal particularly as it is unclear what role local authorities will have in setting these objectives when it is a government proposal. This places a great deal of importance on ensuring that the strategic objectives are the right ones for both the proposal and the city concerned. This is one example of the proposal directly affecting a local authority’s ability to represent the rate payer interest and be accountable to ratepayers. While Council is democratically accountable to its residents and ratepayers, central government is not.

We also have some concerns about the level of control the Minister has over the appointment of independent commissioners should there be objections to the proposal from those who do have the ability to make a submission. Does the assumed wider public interest in development justify overcoming third party resistance by excluding those not immediately affected by the development? We’re not sure it does.

The extent to which each relevant central Government department is involved should be agreed at time strategic objectives are agreed. Involvement should be mandatory. One way of doing this could be to form a cross-department project team that would physically locate where the development is taking place so that the team can form a direct relationship with the UDA and the Council.

Urban Development Authority

We agree with:

· the definition of “urban development” in relation to UDAs

· with the range of organisational forms identified for UDAs and that it is important to have a range of options

· with the proposals with regards to a UDA having an accountable Board of Directors with the correct skills.

The proposal is that there will be a new type of statutory entity that can represent and be accountable to both arms of Government for reporting purposes. Successful implementation demands a process that doesn’t entail too much “red tape” otherwise this has the potential to slow the development project down and result in staff being employed only to meet compliance requirements. We are not sure that it is a good idea to have non-expert public servants trying to control the delivery of a major development and infrastructure project unless of course it is government’s intention to establish an organisation with the level of expertise required to fully understand and provide advice on these types of major projects and their complexities.

There seems to be a possibility that a UDA delivering a project may “go bust” and a commissioner appointed. Could a commissioner finish the project? This is a further risk to the level of influence and control a local authority might have over a project and also whether a project is actually completed.

Land assembly

We agree with the proposal to enable the UDA to offer landowners part or full payment for their land in the form of an equity stake in the development project to give them the opportunity to receive the value uplift from the project’s activities as long as this is made an option for the UDA rather than an expectation that it will be done. Profit sharing or value uplift maybe the best way to achieve active engagement in a development project by previously reluctant landowners.

Compulsory acquisition

We are concerned that, for central Government initiated projects, the Crown has ability to require local authorities to transfer or re-purpose land that they own within the development project area without any public consultation. Again, rate payers have an expectation that their Council will comply with the LGA, RMA, Reserves Act and other binding legislation and to enable this expectation to be overridden has the potential to undermine the democratic principle of “no taxation without representation”. Ratepayers are being taxed yet they have no input into decisions that affect the land in which their rates are invested.

Bylaws

UDAs will have the ability to revoke bylaws. These bylaws have been developed in consultation with the community and their development follows a prescriptive process. It is unclear what this means with regard to activities on reserves – for example, would it apply to an Alcohol Free Zone Bylaw?

Planning, land use and consenting powers

The proposal shifts the balance from existing District Plan rules to the development projects’ strategic objectives which are the only aspects that can be considered and commented on. Also, the UDA can be the consenting authority with central Government making the decision about who holds planning powers to the UDA.

Alternatively, the local authority could develop a master plan for the development area and make this part of its District Plan with a simpler regime in terms of who can object and what those objections can be about and in so doing retain control of the planning, land use and consenting process.

Local authorities should be required to integrate the development plan within its planning context when reviewing their District Plans. Having said this it is important for local authorities to have a say on the extent to which its District Plan should or could be changed to accommodate the development plans and how those plans fit with existing development aspirations and rules.

It isn’t clear how Councils will be able to ensure that any Development Plan will identify and incorporate provisions in existing RPS, Regional Plan and District Plans that will continue to apply. It isn’t clear how this this will work with existing documents.

It is difficult to see how the approach suggested for the new Development Plan is substantially different or better than the current plan change process. It still involves two rounds of public consultation and consideration and recommendation to be provided by an independent commissioner. We are concerned about the ability to override the District Plan particularly where there are apparent inconsistencies with wider aspects of the plan for example vegetation, and ecological and heritage.

The UDA can delegate consenting functions to independent commissioners where the UDA is applicant for the resource consent/s otherwise the UDA can decide on applications from other entities (i.e. the entity it has charged with delivering the strategic objectives of the development plan) perhaps should be compulsory? The UDA could perhaps use the same processes as the local authority uses when it is applying to itself for resource consent.

Cumulative and downstream effects of storm water (from the development) may have impacts on water quality outside the project area (limits set by Whaitua/PNRP). WWL must comply with consenting conditions for storm water discharge which is regulated by GWRC. Having GWRC sitting outside the process may create unnecessary complications in this regard. Is it intended that the UDA will have to consider cumulative and downstream effects when considering whether or not to grant resource consent to the developing entity?

Our view is that iwi and the relevant regional council should be involved in each stage of the establishment phase along with the relevant CCOs such as WWL.

If a UDA is set up and the local authority has no control of or input into the process then the local authority should sit outside the planning/consent process. If UDA consults on development plan then ignores the response form public consultation then Council should not be held accountable to any community concerns because it does not control the process itself – the UDA has full control.

We are not sure if there is any gain in making the timeframe for non-notification and notification decisions within 15 working days – will 5 days make a great difference in the overall scheme of things given the size and scale of potential proposals?

Where objections are made the UDA is required to submit the recommended development plan and all objections to an independent commissioner. It would seem to make sense for the commissioner to receive all submissions (both positive and negative) so they can get a more rounded understanding of existing views on the proposed development.

Need a process where existing local authority plans are checked and compared with development plans to achieve the highest level of integration possible before beginning a new project.

Compliance

The UDA shouldn’t be “gamekeeper and poacher” i.e. set the rules then check itself (or its appointed delivery entity) to see if it is sticking to them. A standard compliance approach that is consistent with existing local authority processes should be used. There could be some exclusions developed to give the UDA power to get consents. The decision making hierarchy should provide criteria with weighting that will be applied to decide what powers should be given to the UDA and what should remain with the local authority. Environmental effects should be included in the criteria. There does not seem to be any rationale in the document for this. The end result is two compliance and enforcement bodies operating in the same area introducing unnecessary complications and confusion for residents and ratepayers who will no doubt continue to call the Council about compliance and enforcement matters.

Efficiency gains

It would be more efficient, in our view, to have a master plan/development plan zone in the existing District Plan with rules to streamline the consent process for the master plan area then have Councils do what they do best in terms of resource consents – ensure compliance.

Our assessment is that a UDA will take around two years to establish a development project despite some of the processes being removed e.g. no formal hearing of submissions. This is approximately the same amount of time similar development projects take to be established currently.

Public Works Act

We generally support the UDA having the ability to compulsorily acquire land for development projects and understand the PWA does allow this currently. A key issue not addressed is the ability for people to slow down the process of compulsory acquisition and our view is that fair compensation would go some way towards enabling the UDA to engage with land owners. The amendment to the Resource Legislation Amendment Act providing up to $50,000 compensation on top of market value may go some way to addressing this. Any compulsory acquisition must be able to stand the “public benefit” test.

Knock on effects for infrastructure

We repeat our concerns regarding knock on effects of the development projects outside the consented area. There is the “tipping point” issue where if a development tips the balance for requiring more infrastructure in the area then the developer has to pay for all of it i.e. the whole upgrade. There is potential for landuse activities and inadequate design standards (within specified development areas) to create downstream and cumulative impacts on water quality – storm water and wastewater overflows. It is important discharge effects are managed in an integrated way and reflects community aspirations and regulatory conditions.

Legacy issues

There needs to be a process for ensuring quality of development to avoid and/or reduce potential legacy issues. Local authorities being are able to give advice on what powers the UDA should have is a way of doing this.

Rate payers and residents shouldn’t be expected to invest significantly more than planned to fund debt and assets that require significant further infrastructure investment that Council hasn’t had an opportunity to consult its community about prioritising.

Funding administrative responsibilities

If the local authority is responsible for administering the collection of development contributions and other fees charged by the UDA then it should be financially compensated for doing so.

The local authority is required to collect infrastructure fees on behalf of UDA again without any compensation to the local authority. If the UDA were to collect these charges itself then it would incur a cost. This should be recognised in the agreement upfront with costs associated with the collection of any fees and charges identified and a fee agreed between the TA and the UDA.

Spatial Plan

We support this being required of larger urban Councils to provide more certainty for both developers and community.

Infrastructure

An independent method for providing infrastructure where the necessary infrastructure is not in local authority plans or needs to be brought forward to accommodate urban growth has implications for ratepayers and the current investment in infrastructure.

The UDA will be able to require the provision of infrastructure within the development project area and coordinate local authorities and CCOs like Wellington Water and network utility operators as necessary to ensure integration with wider networks and infrastructure planning. We assume that the UDA will be required to have regard to local authority’s long term investment plans for infrastructure and have a good understanding of the financial impact on ratepayers of bringing some investment forward and delaying other investment to ensure that rate payers do not become the fall back investors in infrastructure that will have limited community wide benefit.

Local authorities of course are required to ensure that investment meets the current and future needs of communities for good quality infrastructure, local public services and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost effective for households and businesses. How will this be achieved given that the local authority will not be making investment decisions and long term plans which have been agreed to by the community can be ignored or replaced by a UDA?

The vesting of new infrastructure in local authorities means that it is important that performance and design standards are developed with the local authority and adhered to. The funding of on-going maintenance and renewals needs to be explicitly considered when setting up the project. Ratepayers could otherwise end up picking up the tab for infrastructure that doesn’t meet acceptable design and performance standards.

It is not clear who will pay for all of this but ultimately the local authority will have ownership of infrastructure assets vested in it (where there is no debt or where they get both the debt and the income stream to pay that debt).

Trunk infrastructure upgrades and/or new trunk infrastructure outside the project may be required to support a new development. The provision of trunk infrastructure (e.g. reservoir or waste water plan upgrade) may have significant funding implications and require mainstream consenting processes or notice of requirement.

We assume that the local authority will be one of the agencies with whom the UDA will be required to consult regarding any proposed infrastructure location, design, construction standards, levels of service, operating implications and connections to existing systems.

It isn’t apparent from the proposal whether there is anything to mitigate the risk that the UDA plans are flawed (where a local authority has not been involved in the development of the project and strategic objectives of that project) and the local authority will be left holding the loss resulting from redundant or unnecessary infrastructure i.e. the anticipated growth does not occur. We concede however that it would be unlikely that a development project would be approved where projected growth is low or non-existent.

What if no organisation wants the debt ladened assets? Who will be the public entity who owns the assets then? There needs to be agreement up front with the local authority on how assets will be distributed and how they will be paid for if there is debt remaining but no income stream associated with the asset.

Giving UDAs the power to suspend roading bylaws and recommend and require councils to cancel, create or amend local roading bylaws as they apply to the development project in agreement with Council has the potential to result in uncertainty for public as to what the rules are and again disenfranchises ratepayers and residents as they have not ability to input into the process.

Strategic and Long Term Planning

A UDA can be given the power to require changes to the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan to ensure consistency with the strategic objectives of the development project. We are concerned that rate payers and residents will not be consulted on significant changes. No consultation is in direct conflict with existing local authority Significance and Engagement Policies.

Anyway, why shouldn’t UDAs have to have regard to existing LTPs where there is symmetry between the strategic objectives of both the development plan and Councils long term plans?

Funding and financing

The approach to development contributions seems to fit with Hutt City Council’s existing catchments approach to charging Development Contributions. Perhaps local authorities should be able to spread the cost across city in a graduated lessening amount as everyone will benefit from improvements to a lesser or greater degree. The community as a whole will benefit theoretically in the long term.

Resolving disputes regarding the collection and dissemination of rates or contributions between and UDA and local authority through the use of an independent commissioner appointed by central Government seems to add complexity/red tape.

Maori interests in urban development and land use

Council thinks it is vital that iwi be given every opportunity to be involved in the establishment of an UDA. To this end the opportunity to engage with their local authority or central government about the possibility of a development project should be given to them through the legislation. Also, the local authority should work with the UDA to engage owners of land held under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, including through their trusts and incorporations and with post-settlement governance entities. This is because local authorities often have existing memorandum of understanding and other agreements with local iwi that should be taken into consideration as part of establishing the strategic objectives of a development project.

Criteria or thresholds for selecting urban development projects

There should definitely be criteria developed for selecting urban development projects. If there was to be a preference then Council would recommend a preference being given to urban redevelopment. The criteria should be principles-based focused on the purpose of urban redevelopment and defining what that is.

Projects that are aligned with the LTP and existing planning documents should be given preference as this reduces administrative and other costs for UDA and Councils. Perhaps cost effectiveness could be the key principle? Preference could also be given to projects that align with existing ratepayer and resident preferences as expressed through the LTP and/or a (future) spatial plan.

The legislation shouldn’t prescribe circumstances in which a local authority can exercise its veto power but could outline principles on which agreement is based and reached. There should be precisely defined circumstances in which central Government can establish a project despite the local authority not agreeing. For example, the local authority refuses to agree despite clear evidence that project is in best interests of residents and ratepayers as well as the community generally.

Role of local authorities

Development projects should not be able to proceed without local authority involvement in fact there should be more involvement particularly at planning and development stage.

Market provision of infrastructure

It seems that the biggest barrier to private provision of infrastructure is who funds, maintains and operates the infrastructure over the long term and the cost and lack of expertise in the development sector.

Private market arrangements to pay for infrastructure providing to particular markets might also put price pressure on local authority provision of infrastructure to those who can’t afford private arrangements i.e. the local authority left to provide for the high deprivation areas/population despite their limited ability to fund this. Also, standards need to be the same as those set by the local authority or regional council. Some standards just have to be set centrally e.g. water quality as they are nationally important.

115 01 May 2017

Policy and Regulatory

07 April 2017

File: (17/636)

Report no: PRC2017/2/119

Code of Practice - District Licensing Committee 2017

Purpose of Report

1. To advise the Committee of amendments to the Code of Practice (COP) for Hutt City District Licensing Committee.

Recommendations

It is recommended the Committee:

(i) receives the Code of Practice for the Hutt City District Licensing Committee (COP), attached as Appendix 1 to the report;

(ii) notes the amendments to the COP; and

(iii) endorses the COP.

Background

2. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) requires territorial authorities to appoint District Licensing Committees (DLC) as quasi-judicial bodies to decide matters relating to the issue of alcohol licenses and managers’ certificates, amongst other things.

3. The Act sets out some process and procedures in relation to the powers and functions of the DLC, but largely leaves it to the DLC to regulate its own proceedings.

4. The COP operates as a set of practices and procedures for the DLC to follow, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.

Discussion

5. The Act provides a base set of practices and procedures for the DLC to follow.

6. Despite this, the DLC is able to regulate its proceedings as it sees fit. There is some advantage in this approach as it allows the DLC to be a more flexible body and allows for more effective participation by interested parties.

7. However, it is important to have an established set of operating procedures to promote a consistent and fair process that is in line with the principles of natural justice. This provides a measure of certainty for applicants and submitters, as well as the DLC members.

8. The difficulty is striking a balance between the flexibility that is allowed by the Act and a desire to have an established and fair set of procedures that can be followed by all members of the DLC. The COP should be viewed as a starting point in trying to achieve this balance and it deliberately allows for departures from it, where this is good reason to do so.

9. The amendments to the COP recognise how the practice of the DLC has evolved and as this area of law and practice has developed. It should be specifically noted that the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (the body that sits above the DLC in the judicial scheme) has issued practice directions from time to time, which may trump the practices outlined in the DLC and will need to be followed. This is specifically referenced in the COP.

Options

10. The adoption of a COP is not a requirement of the legislation. It has been an undertaking for the benefit of the DLC, by giving them an initial set of practices and procedures to work from – as well as to provide comfort to Council that the DLC is conducting a fair process, in line with natural justice principles.

11. There is obvious reason for the Committee to decline to endorse the COP.

Consultation

12. There are no further consultation requirements.

Legal Considerations

13. The COP, as it stands, has enough flexibility incorporated within it to withstand any challenge that the document fetters the discretion of the DLC.

14. It notes that the provisions of the legislation prevail over it, in the event of any conflict. It further notes that no proceedings will be invalided by reason of the COP not being followed.

15. Ultimately the DLC should determine its own procedure – making the endorsement of the DLC Chair and members essential.

Financial Considerations

16. There are no financial considerations.

Other Considerations

17. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it meets the current and future needs of the community be providing good quality regulatory process. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it creates a best practice document that should ensure the process is efficient and streamlined and reduces the risk of legal challenges.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Code of Practice - District Licensing Committee 2017	115

Author: Bradley Cato

Solicitor

Approved By: Joycelyn Raffills

General Manager, Governance and Regulatory

Attachment 1

Code of Practice - District Licensing Committee 2017

Code of Practice – District Licensing Committee

2017

1. Scope

1.1 This is a code of practice for the District Licensing Committee of Hutt City Council (the DLC). This code is not a set of inflexible rules, but is a guide to the practice of the DLC and will be followed unless there is good reason to do otherwise.^{^[4]} Legislative references are to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

a) The DLC should have reference to the following sources (in addition to this code of practice):
Sale and of Alcohol Act 2012.

b) Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908.

c) Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, other than Part 7.

d) Any practice directions from the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority.

1.2 However, the DLC is primarily bound by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and the provisions of that Act should prevail where there is any qualifier in the Act or conflict with other instruments.

2. Powers and Functions

2.1 While a committee of Council,^{^[5]} the DLC operates as a Commission of Inquiry will be performing a quasi-judicial function.^{^[6]}

2.2 The functions of the DLC are to consider and determine applications for licenses and manager’s certificates, renewals of those, variations of licenses and special licenses, amongst other things.^{^[7]}

2.3 The DLC and has all the powers conferred under the Act and necessary to perform its functions.^{^[8]} These include broad powers to:

a) Issue witness summons.

b) Require the production of documents.

c) Require any other act preliminary or incidental to the hearing.

d) Maintain order at its inquiry.

e) Allow evidence in chief and cross examination.

f) Accept any evidence, whether or not that evidence would be admissible in a court (but subject to the provisions of the Evidence Act 2006).^{^[9]}

g) The power to rehear any matter it has decided.^{^[10]}

2.4 Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Committee may regulate its procedure as it thinks fit.^{^[11]}

3. Pre-Hearing Matters

3.1 Witness summonses

3.1.1 The DLC should ensure that all parties to the process are aware of the need to advise the DLC of any witnesses that need to be summonsed, in advance. The Act requires that parties are given at least 10 working days’ notice of a hearing,^{^[12]} but this should be extended by a reasonable period where witnesses need to be summonsed.

3.1.2 To avoid unreasonableness through the belated summonsing of witnesses, and to allow reasonable opportunity for statements of evidence to be prepared (if required), the DLC expects witness summonses to be served no later than 10 working days before the date of hearing. Except when a witness is agreeable to attend the hearing in circumstances where the issue of a summons is effectively a matter of form, the DLC will not normally issue a witness summons less than 10 working days before the hearing.

3.2 Evidence

3.2.1 The DLC will ordinarily require statements of evidence to be prepared, and an exchange of evidence, prior to the date of the hearing.

3.2.2 If the DLC does not consider it necessary to require statements of evidence, it will direct the parties accordingly.

3.2.3 The DLC may or may not require copies of a lay witness's statement of evidence (including photographs and other visual presentations other than models) to be provided to all other parties, prior to the hearing of the proceedings.

3.2.4 The DLC will ordinarily give directions about the time when statements of evidence are to be delivered to the other parties. Parties should be advised that, in every case where no special direction has been given as to the timing of any required exchange, statements of evidence are to be delivered not less than 12 working days before the hearing date. If copies of a statement of evidence are not delivered in time, leave will need to be sought to call the witness, and the failure to comply will need to be explained. Leave to call the witness may be refused, or the party in default may be ordered to pay the costs of adjournment incurred by other parties and by the DLC.

3.3 Exhibits

3.3.1 All exhibits, including photographs and other visual presentations, should be required to be presented in a practical and manageable form.

3.4 Citation of Court decisions

3.4.1 Where the citation of authorities is necessary, parties should be advised that a considered and discerning approach needs to be adopted, with particular emphasis on:

a) Citation of the most recent or authoritative statement on a point rather that a plethora of cases (remembering however that some points are not amenable to simple or straightforward answers).

b) Identification of relevant passages by paragraph and/or page number.

c) Identification of official report citations where such exist.

d) Succinctness and avoidance of needless repetition.

4. Procedure at Hearings

4.1 Hearings will be held in public and open to any member of the public, in accordance with the provisions of section 203 of the Act, unless the DLC exercises its discretion in section 203(3) of the Act to hold part of the hearing in private.^{^[13]}

4.2 The DLC will introduce its members and may briefly address the following matters:

3.4.2 An introduction of the applicant and other parties present.

3.4.3 Advise that the DLC members may ask questions at any time.

3.4.4 Remind the parties of the matters to be dealt with at the hearing, by reference to the Act.

3.4.5 Remind the expert witnesses that they are acting as experts, assisting the DLC,

3.4.6 Outline any procedural requirements it may have for the hearing.

4.3 Order of parties

4.3.1 The DLC will normally call first upon the applicant to state his or her case, and then to call the evidence in support of it - followed, in turn, by the cases of those who support the grant.

4.3.2 Then the DLC will call upon those parties who oppose the grant to present their cases.

4.3.3 Then the DLC will call upon any Reporting Authorities to present their submissions and evidence.

4.3.4 Then the DLC will call upon Licensing Inspector to present their submissions and evidence.

4.3.5 The applicant will then be allowed a right of reply, to address any matters which have been raised. No cross examination will be allowed following the right of reply.

4.4 Cross examination of witnesses will be allowed in all cases, except following the applicant’s right of reply.

4.5 Witnesses will not generally be subject to a time restriction, unless evidence is being unnecessarily repeated.

4.6 The DLC has power to regulate its procedure in such manner as it sees fit. It may therefore modify its procedure in particular cases if the interests of justice, and the orderly and logical presentation of evidence, so require.

5. After the Hearing

5.1 Communication with the DLC

5.1.1 Any communication on any matter relating to the merits of the case or its outcome, outside of the hearing, must be by way of a memorandum lodged with the Secretary of the DLC and served on other parties, so that other parties may have the opportunity to respond. It is generally inappropriate to seek to communicate with the DLC after a hearing has concluded and prior to the issue of the DLC’s decision.

5.2 The Decision of the DLC

5.2.1 The DLC will give a decision in accordance with the requirements of s211 of the Act.^{^[14]}

5.2.2 The DLC will issue its decision as soon as reasonably practicable, but will endeavour to ensure that this is no later than 20 working days from the date of the closing of the hearing.

123 01 May 2017

Policy and Regulatory

04 April 2017

File: (17/592)

Report no: PRC2017/2/120

General Manager's Report

Purpose of Report

1. The Policy and Regulatory Committee requested a General Manager’s report containing information on major consents, hearings, appeals to the Environment Court and enforcement matters.

Recommendations

That the Committee notes the contents of the report.

Background

2. This report covers the activities of two divisions in the Governance and Regulatory Group; being Regulatory Services and Environmental Consents. The Environmental Consents division process consent applications under the Resource Management Act and the Building Act (resource and building consents), as well as LIMs and property enquiries under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. It also offers an Eco Design Advisor service across the city and a part service in Upper Hutt City Council. Regulatory Services deal with food, alcohol, trade waste applications, bylaws, animal services and parking and District Licensing reports.

3. The report firstly covers Environmental Consents and secondly Regulatory Services.

Discussion – Environmental Consents

4. Across the division we are experiencing large volumes of applications in building and LIMs, in particular, which is putting a strain on resources. The Resource Consents Team is not meeting the KPI in the Annual Plan around 80% of applications being processed in 18 working days (they are currently around 72%).

5. The major focus for the division in this last quarter has been responding to the Government after the introduction of the amendment to the Hurunui/Kaikoura Earthquakes Recovery Act.

6. The government is hoping that the amendment will improve the performance of unreinforced masonry buildings (URM) in an earthquake, saving lives and preventing injury.

7. The amendment stemmed from experience after the Christchurch earthquake and overseas that shows that unreinforced and unsecured brick masonry parapets and facades are vulnerable to failure in moderate to major earthquakes. GNS Science has advised that there is an increased probability of further earthquakes in Wellington, Lower Hutt, Marlborough and Hurunui, following the Hurunui/Kaikōura earthquake of November 2016. Although the seismic risk will decrease over 12 months, there is need to take action as soon as possible to secure the parapets and façades of unreinforced masonry buildings on routes with high pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

8. The Seismic Officer identified around 70 URM buildings in our city that met the government’s criteria. Every owner (that Council could find phone numbers for) was rung to warn them about this government initiative and how it affected their building. All owners were then couriered official notices and information on the requirements.

9. On the 16^th of March 2017 we hosted an information evening for the owners of affected URM buildings. We also invited building contractors and structural engineers to attend, with the aim of encouraging discussions between all parties to discuss ways for owners to work together (particularly where buildings are located next to, or close to each other). The Jackson Street Programme was also involved in the meeting.

10. Officers from the Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment presented at the meeting, along with Council officers. The architect from NZ Heritage was invited, and participated in discussions with owners.

11. We have received very positive feedback about the event from participants, including from MBIE officers who were present.

12. All affected tenants have now been notified. Our next step is to organise bookable sessions with affected owners to talk to Council officers, NZ Heritage and Council’s consultant engineer about their specific building and circumstances. We are continuing to work with building owners and MBIE to ensure the securing work is progressing in a timely manner.

13. The Ministry has just announced another initiative whereby Hutt City Council needs to encourage owners to obtain engineering reports on their buildings and supply these to Council. Hutt City’s Seismic Officer has already completed this work some months ago. We plan to follow up owners of relevant buildings again where engineering reports have not been provided.

14. The demolition and re-opening of Queensgate mall has also taken a lot of time and resource from the Building Team. The majority of this work has now been completed. A Certificate of Public Use has been issued in order that the entire mall can be re-opened after the emergency exit to the north of the building has been completed. Although there will be on-going consents for internal fit outs this largely draws to an end what has been a huge project for the Building Team.

15. The Swimming Pool Officer will be staffing a stand at this year’s Wellington Boat Show to promote water safety (the importance of swimming pool fencing. This is the latest item in the educational programme being run by the Swimming Pool Officer, which included letters to all childcare, kindergarten and primary schools asking for key messages around pool fencing to be included in newsletters. Resources were also provided for teachers to introduce the subject to children in classrooms.

16. The recent changes to the Building Act have made some key changes including allowing for covered spa pools to be unfenced if they meet certain criteria. It will be an opportunity for us to spread the word about the changes to the Act and answer specific questions from the general public.

17. Last week the Government announced that the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill passed its third reading in the House of Representatives. This means that the Bill has been through its final debate and has been voted on by the House of Representatives.

18. The Bill proposes significant changes to the Resource Management Act 1991, Reserves Act 1977, Public Works Act 1981 (PWA), Conservation Act 1987 and Exclusive Economic Zone (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.

19. The Bill will become law when it receives the Royal assent, which generally takes about a week. (Ministry for the Environment staff have indicated that this is likely to be after Easter.)

20. Amendments which come into effect the day after the Bill receives Royal assent include:

· More generous compensation for land acquired under the PWA

· Adding a function for regional councils to establish, implement and review plan provisions to ensure there is sufficient development capacity for housing and business land to meet the expected demand

· Provision for streamlined planning processes to improve responsiveness

· Provision for collaborative planning processes to encourage community-led solutions

· Provision for establishing national planning standards aimed at improving efficiency

· Changes to improve Māori participation arrangements.

Building Consents

21. There has been a notable increase in the number of building consents received for processing in the current financial year to date compared to the same timeframe last year. We have accepted 954 building consents up to the end of March 2017, compared to 694 for the same period last year. This equates to a 37% increase in the number of building consents

22. The total value of building work for issued building consents in the current financial year is $138,629,465. This figure is expected to rise with the addition of major projects such as the Hotel on High Street to be lodged in the coming months.

23. The Building Team remains under-staffed in the processing area, reflecting the nationwide shortage of building officers. New recruitment methods are being employed including using a recruitment company, targeted facebook advertising, working with universities and schools (as long term solutions), stands at conferences and career days for recruitment, and radio advertising. We are now looking at overseas recruitment as a long term solution. The introduction of a building cadet position has helped, but requires a significant amount of training time. We have managed to secure one new Building Officer at this time.

24. We are continuing to help out our neighbouring Councils as resources allow. We are currently assisting with building inspections at Upper Hutt City Council. We are also helping them with domestic swimming pool inspections and providing technical advice on matters to do with the changes to the Building Act in this area.

Recent notable issued building consents:

· Hutt Golf Course, Military Road - new club rooms including offices and function facilities

· Medical Centre, 8 Melling Road – birthing centre fit-out consent

· Laura Fergusson Grove (Urban Plus) – 20 units in a multi residential subdivision.

Resource Consents

25. To date, this financial year, 219 resource consent applications have been processed. This compares to 246 applications for the same period in the last financial year. This is an 11% decrease in the number of resource consents.

Recent consents of note include:

26. 54 Leighton Avenue, Waiwhetu - An application has been received for a multi-unit development of up to 20 new dwellings with associated subdivision and earthworks. The application is currently being assessed.

27. 82 Moohan Street, Wainuiomata (former Wainuiomata College) – An application has been received for Papakainga housing for 23 new houses and a 20 lot subdivision. This is currently being assessed.

28. 10 Daly Street, Hutt Central - An application has been received for a new development with 48 apartments across four buildings. This is currently being assessed.

Recently granted consents:

29. 1 Laura Fergusson Grove (former HCC plant nursery and landscaping depot) – resource consent has been granted for 20 new dwellings and associated subdivision.

30. 52 Richmond Street, Petone - resource consent has been granted for a new development with 5 apartments and a new café/restaurant located next to the Petone Library car park.

31. Queensgate Shopping Centre, Bloomfield Terrace – resource consent has been granted for the use of the part of the site known as Zone D (where demolition has taken place) for ground level car parking until the redevelopment of this zone. Consent was required due to the length of open car parking along the site frontage. The District Plan requires 1631 car parking spaces to be provided on site: 1659 spaces will be available.

RMA Enforcement

32. 14 Waiu Street, Wainuiomata – The consent holder has sought the cancellation of the enforcement orders that remain in place for this site. This was issued as result of the prosecution taken by the Council against the previous operator and his company that poorly managed this cleanfill. Council officers are currently in discussions with the applicant about the appropriate course of action for dealing with the enforcement order, whilst the recently granted resource consent is yet to be implemented. The consent holder has suggested that a bond be paid to Council to enable the enforcement orders to be discharged. Council officers have requested more detail be provided in relation to the amount of bond; how it has been calculated; and what remediation works it would cover. This matter will ultimately be determined by the Court.

33. 1 Parkway, Wainuiomata - Council has investigated reports of people living in the church on this site which is located within a business area. A representative of the Life City Church has confirmed that part of the church is being used for temporary accommodation. Council officers have been trying to work with the church to achieve compliance. However, as little progress has been made, formal enforcement action is likely to be taken.

Environment Court Appeals

34. 77 Bell Road & 91 Whites Line East– award of costs: Council sought and won an enforcement order from the Environment Court in relation to the unlawful use of these residential zoned sites for a business use. Following the issue of the enforcement order compliance has been achieved in relation to both of these sites. Council sought a fair and reasonable contribution to the costs it incurred in seeking the enforcement order. The Court issued its decision on costs on 5 December 2016 and ordered that the respondent is to pay the Council $11,000 towards the cost it has incurred on this matter. The respondent has requested that the costs be paid over time through a repayment plan on the grounds of financial hardship. Council has requested that the respondent provides details of the financial situation in order to be able determine whether a repayment plan is acceptable.

Land Information Memoranda

35. We have had a large increase in the number of LIMs in this last quarter. LIM applications are up 37% from two years ago and 16% from the same time last year.

36. At the last Committee meeting in February, there was a question regarding the reason for lower LIMs numbers for the Dec/January period. The decline can be attributed to the earthquake and the inability to obtain adequate insurance for a time. However, it is also worth noting that the LIMs numbers in November 2016 was high compared to previous years (98 LIMs issued compared to 89 in 2015 and 97 in 2014) whereas the September and November figures were lower than previous years. Anecdotal evidence from real estate agents suggests that these are a result of low housing stock at that particular time.

37. Officers continue to educate the public about the need to obtain a LIM when purchasing a house. Initiatives include meetings with real estate agents and lawyers, Hutt News article in 2016, website links to a number of different publications from other agencies promoting LIMs and developing a LIMs video to go on our website in May and promotion on Council digital noticeboards across Council sites.

Eco Design Advisor service

38. The Eco Design Advisors (EDAs) have arranged a conference to be held in Wellington on 1 & 2 May 2017. Chris Moller, of TV’s Grand Designs fame, is one of the speakers, along with scientists, academics and industry representatives.

39. The flow of interest in Eco Design Advisor visits remains constant, with a high number of referrals coming from the District Health Board. We have also had referrals from social housing providers.

Enforcement matters from Regulatory Services

Animal Services

40. Enforcement action for the last two months in the dog impounding area is significantly down on previous years. Staff indicate that due to the colder weather over that period dogs tend to be more sedentary and less likely to roam, or staff are doing a great job, and owners are being more compliant – time will tell.

41. The contract for Wellington City Council Animal Services is due for retendering. The benefits to HCC holding the contract are still valid. That is sharing: dog registration staff, facilities, expertise and a financial return to HCC.

42. Tenders will be called in May, responses by June, with the new contract being awarded in July, covering three years with a two year rollover.

43. Following on from the very successful public education opportunity at the Te Raukura Festival at Te Whiti Park on 29 January, Animal Services attended fairs at Kilbirnie and Newtown and Dogs n Togs at Khandallah Pool. Animal Services are lifting their public profile to raise awareness of the social good of owning and caring for pets through education which changes behaviours.

Parking Services

44. The free parking for the first 30min ceased in the CBD on 4 April. This was preceded by the wardens handing out hundreds of flyers informing the public of the change in the rules. Since 4 April the wardens have not been infringing the not so occasional non-payer. They have left flyers informing the customer that the rules have changed and will continue to do that until the flyers run out. They do however, infringe any cars/owner that after receiving the flyer, repeats the offence.

45. Parking infringement numbers are down (-450ytd) compared to last year, due to no infringements for the first 30minutes on CBD meters.

46. Now that it is getting darker in the evenings, we will resume infringing heavy motor vehicles that do not have rear facing side lights (marker lights).

People may notice a number of these vehicles displaying the lights at night time when parked and often during the day you will now see marker lights glowing on the right hand rear of trucks during the day. This is due to the owners/drivers having the required lights wired permanently on.

Prior to 2015 these lights were not seen on any truck in Lower Hutt during the hours of darkness. Parking Services has been instrumental in getting this message across and encouraging compliance.

Environmental Health

47. Enforcement action in January and February has shown a drop of in all enforcement areas measured (noise, seizures, infectious diseases and litter infringements) compared to the previous year. As can been seen on the graphs attached, noise attendance through the summer months is down and that is directly related to cooler evenings and parties being held inside rather that outside and less likely to disturb the neighbours. The drop in the other areas is likely to be for the same reason that people have significantly reduced their outdoor activity compared to last year.

Consultation

48. Consultation was undertaken with affected parties on notified resource consents.

Legal Considerations

49. The group administers the RMA, the Building Act, LGOIMA, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, Food Act and other legislation. No other legal considerations apply in terms of the content of this paper.

Financial Considerations

50. There are no financial considerations.

Other Considerations

51. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that meets the current needs of the community by ensuring that development is dealt with in a controlled and legitimate manner.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Environmental Consents Graphs at 31 March 2017	128
2 ⇩	Regulatory Services enforcement actions to 31 March 2017	147

Author: Helen Oram

Divisional Manager Environmental Consents

Author: Geoff Stuart

Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services

Approved By: Joycelyn Raffills

General Manager, Governance and Regulatory

[1] When acting in this capacity the committee has a quasi-judicial role.

[2] This summary is based on the comprehensive summary completed for Porirua City Council by Nic Etheridge

[3] Note: There is an independent “appeal process” to that decision, and a question whether government has the power to override local authority opposition of the development is seen to be in the National Interest.

[4] Process or Proceedings of the DLC will not be invalided by reason of a failure to adhere to this Code of Practice.

[7] Section 187 - Functions of licensing committees

[13] 203 Proceedings of licensing authority and licensing committees

(1) Whenever the licensing authority meets for the purpose of hearing any appeal, or the authority or any licensing committee meets for the purposes of exercising or performing any power or function that it is required by this Act to exercise or perform at a public hearing, the meeting must, except in a case to which section 202(1) applies and subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (4), be held in public.

…

(3) Whenever the authority or committee holds a public hearing it may in its discretion hold any part of the sitting in private if, having regard to the interests of persons appearing and being heard and to the public interest, it thinks it proper to do so.

(4) The authority or committee may in any case deliberate in private as to its decision on any matter or as to any question arising in the course of any proceedings.

[14] 211 Decisions to be given in writing

(1) The licensing authority and every licensing committee must give its decision on an application in writing, and must state in it—

(a) the reasons for the decision; and

(b) what reports on the application were received; and

(2) The statement of the attitude towards an application of any report may be in general terms only.

…

Deputy Mayor D Bassett	Cr L Bridson
Cr C Barry	Cr J Briggs
Cr T Lewis	Cr M Lulich
Cr C Milne	Cr L Sutton
Mayor W R Wallace (ex-officio)

PARKING SERVICES	January	February
Infringements	2905	2461
Stationary offences (WOFs, tyres)	995	759

ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTIONS	January	February
Noise attendances	230	229
Noise notices issued	57	63
Noise equipment seized	3	3

Description	Author	Cycle 3, 2017	Cycle 4, 2017	Cycle 5, 2017	Pending
General Manager’s Report – Governance and Regulatory	J Raffills	ü	ü	ü
Dog Control Activity Report	L Dalton	ü
Review of Control of Alcohol in Public Places bylaw 2016	G Sewell	ü
Proposed Road Stopping of Leal Road for the Access-way between Pollard Street and Antrim Cres, Wainuiomata	UPL				ü
Council’s Housing Policy Review	W Moore				ü
Discount Registration for Therapy Dogs	L Dalton				ü
Cat Management Report	L Dalton				ü

ANIMAL SERVICES	January	February
Dogs impounded	49	60
Infringements issued	6	19
Prosecutions	1