Agenda of Policy and Regulatory

11 26 February 2018

Policy and Regulatory

12 January 2018

File: (18/20)

Report no: PRC2018/1/29

Miscellaneous Property Sales

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the sale of three properties in Wainuiomata.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) agrees to publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property at 20N Mataura Grove, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, on the basis that it serves no useful reserve purpose and would be sold to the owners of the adjoining property at 20 Mataura Grove;

(ii) agrees to sell the property at 55N Wellington Road, attached as Appendix 2 to the report, being Lot 145 DP 14784, subject to the creation of an appropriate drainage easement in favour of Council on the property title; and

(iii) agrees to sell the property at 64N Moohan Street, attached as Appendix 3 to the report, being Lot 16, DP 20616, subject to the creation of an appropriate drainage easement in favour of Council on the property title.

Background

2. Council has been approached by the adjacent owners of the following Council-owned properties in Wainuiomata, wishing to acquire the land which they have been occupying and maintaining.

a. 20N Mataura Grove (recreation reserve); plan attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

b. 55N Wellington Road (drainage reserve); plan attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

c. 64N Moohan Street (drainage reserve); plan attached as Appendix 3 to the report.

20N Mataura Grove

3. This property is a small piece of reserve land (Utility Reserve) of 121 metres square, legally described as Lot 73, DP 33922. It is within the General Residential Activity Area of the District Plan.

4. The property is isolated from other reserve land, has no services within and is not required for any reserve purpose in the future. The property is currently occupied and maintained by the adjoining property owners at 20 Mataura Grove who approached Council in 2017 seeking to acquire the property.

5. Council will need to publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property and consider any objections to it, before being in a position to be able to sell.

55N Wellington Road and 64N Moohan Street

6. Both of these properties are drainage reserves which have been occupied under licence by the adjoining owners. The Wellington Road property is approximately 156 square metres in area and legally described as Lot 145, DP 14784 on Certificate of Title 594/146. It is within the General Residential Activity Area of the District Plan.

7. The Moohan Street property is approximately 330 square metres in area and legally described as Lot 16, DP 20616 on Certificate of Title 42B/452. It is also within the General Residential Activity Area of the District Plan.

8. In both cases the property owners are planning to undertake a subdivision of their properties incorporating the drainage strips in order to obtain access to the rear of the property. As such the drainage strips would only be used as driveways.

9. Wellington Water advises that both properties could be sold subject to an appropriate easement being created in favour of Council to ensure the drainage assets can be adequately maintained. This would include provision that no buildings or structures could be built over the easements.

10. Wellington Water would inspect the pipes before the land was sold to determine if the pipes should be repaired or renewed prior to the sale taking place.

Discussion

11. There are a number of Council owned drainage strips in Wainuiomata that are occupied by adjoining land owners under licence. Traditionally Council has managed the land in this way on the basis that it ensures control over the underground assets. The licences are charged at a minimal rate. A change to that approach would allow Council to realise the value of the land and create the opportunity for residential intensification, while still retaining control over the assets via an easement.

12. The property at 20N Mataura Grove serves no useful reserves purpose in that it is not currently used for utility services and is not likely to do so in the future, does not link to other reserve land and is too small for recreational purposes. Its revocation and disposal to an adjoining owner would normalise what is effectively how the land is currently managed.

Options

13. The options are to either sell the properties or retain them. This report proposes that the properties be sold and Council’s interests protected where appropriate by easements.

Consultation

14. Council is required to publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Mataura Grove property and consider objections prior to making a final decision. The other properties are not required to follow a public process.

Legal Considerations

15. The Mataura Grove property is subject to Reserve Act 1977 processes.

16. Any offers back under section 40 of the Public Works Act will not be required due to the size and shape of the properties.

17. As each of the properties are within the General Residential Activity Area of the District Plan there will be no need to consider Plan changes.

Financial Considerations

18. The properties will be sold at a negotiated market value. The sales will provide the potential for at least two of the three properties to be utilised for residential intensification, providing additional rating and development and financial contributions.

Other Considerations

19. 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 local government in that it deals with the future of Council owned land. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it proposes the sale of land that is not necessary for Council to own.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Plan of 20N Mataura Grove	14
2 ⇩	Plan of 55N Wellington Road	15
3 ⇩	Plan of 64N Moohan Street	16

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

17 26 February 2018

Policy and Regulatory

29 January 2018

File: (18/60)

Report no: PRC2018/1/27

Naming Policy 2018-2028

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Committee’s approval of the Naming Policy 2018-2023 attached as Appendix I.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council approves the Naming Policy 2018-2023 attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reasons outlined in the officer’s report.

Background

2. The Policy and Regulatory Committee considered the draft Naming Policy 2017-2020 at its meeting on 31 July 2017.

3. At that meeting the Committee decided that Community Boards should retain their delegations to officially name parks, reserves and sports grounds within the provisions of Council’s Naming Policy as well as the naming of new roads and alterations to street names in the Community Board’s area.

4. The Committee agreed that Council:

a. should hold the lists of names that communities have recorded as being important to them so that these could be referred during the naming process; and

b. will work with the NZ Poppy Places Trust to ensure that Council identifies names and places that are directly related to people and events from our overseas military and uses the poppy flower head to permanently mark these places.

5. The Committee directed officers to consult further on the revised Naming Policy 2017-2020.

Discussion

6. Officers contacted mana whenua and other Maori organisations and the Community Boards via e mail to let them know the Committee’s decisions about the draft Naming Policy and ask them if they had any further comment.

7. Comment was received from Ngati Toa noting that it is quite difficult to find the right people to provide Council with appropriate names for street/parks and so on only to then have it not accepted by Council. The preference is for a process for mana whenua to be at the decision making table.

8. Comment was also received from Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust concerning the need for a process that enables mana whenua to play a meaningful part in the decision making process particularly where the naming issue is dealing with an area, person or event that is significant for Maori.

9. The approach suggested (following the guidance provided in the Memoranda of Understanding with mana whenua, their representatives or administrative bodies and other iwi) requires engagement with Maori based on the principles embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi.

10. In practice this should ensure that agreement is reached between Council and mana whenua (and other iwi where appropriate) prior to any formal naming decision being made. The process will reflect the existing Memoranda of Understanding which will help to ensure that decisions are not made that conflict with these agreements.

11. The Naming Policy dates have been changed from 2017-2022 to 2018-2023 as considerable time has gone by since the Committee first considered the policy. The Naming Policy:

a. reflects the views of mana whenua and Community Boards;

b. includes a list of names that communities have recorded as being important to them so that these can be referred during the naming process; and

c. includes reference to the Places of Remembrance Project.

Options

12. The Committee can either approve the final Naming Policy 2018-2023 and recommend that Council approve it or ask officers to undertake further work. Officers recommend that the Committee approve the Naming Policy.

Consultation

13. Mana whenua and other Maori organisations in the city have been contacted and advised that the Policy and Regulatory Committee will be considering the final Naming Policy on February 26^th 2018.

14. Feedback included:

a. Concerns over the level of decision making power for iwi in the naming process. In the past it has been difficult for mana whenua to find the right people to provide Council with advice on appropriate names for streets/parks etc then to have that advice not accepted by Council. If there was a process for mana whenua to be at the decision making table then that would be ideal.

b. Mana whenua should be included in the “urgency process” – changes have been made to the draft policy to include this.

c. They welcomed significant naming issues being a standing item for the meetings between respective CEOs and the regular six weekly meetings between iwi organisations and Council representatives. Other naming opportunities that are of less significance can be discussed at officer level.

15. It is clear from feedback that there needs to be a process that enables mana whenua to play a meaningful part in the decision making process. Officers have discussed this with iwi and suggested that:

a. Where the naming issue is significant to Maori then this will be discussed at the regular six weekly meetings between iwi organisations and Council representatives which include the CEO and General Manager, City Transformation Group.

b. Where the naming issue is not considered significant to Maori, officers will contact each iwi organisation to alert them, any discussions will be held at this level and recommendations, if any, made via the officers report.

16. Officers typically involved in naming issues will be advised of the process following Council’s decision.

Legal Considerations

17. Council has existing Memoranda of Understanding with mana whenua and other Māori organisations in the City and the processes outlined in these should be followed when making naming decisions that involve areas of particular significance to Maori.

Financial Considerations

18. All decisions to name an area or thing will require explicit consideration of the costs of implementing the decision and the associated signage.

Other Considerations

19. 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 enables the community to be involved in the naming of significant areas or things within the city. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it requires explicit consideration of the costs of implementing the decision to name an area/thing as part of the decision making process.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	NAMING POLICY 2018 – 30 JUNE 2023 Final	21

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 1

NAMING POLICY 2018 – 30 JUNE 2023 Final

NAMING POLICY
2018 – 30 jUNE 2023

Contents

1. Background. 3

2. Status. 3

3. Review.. 3

4. Location. 3

5. Naming Policy. 4

5.1 INTRODUCTION. 4

5.2 AREAS OF CITY-WIDE SIGNIFCANCE AND PEOPLE OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR WHOLE CITY. 4

5.3 COMMUNITY BOARDS

5.4 SITUATIONS WHEN NAMING AN AREA MAY ARISE.. 4

5.5 CRITERIA 5

5.6 PROCESS – AREAS OF CITY WIDE SIGNIFICANCE OR PEOPLE OF CITY WIDE SIGNIFICANCE.. 7

5.7 PROCESS - COMMUNITY BOARDS AND COMMUNITY PANELS.. 8

5.8 URGENT REQUESTS.. 9

5.9 CONSULTATION.. 10

5.10 OFFICIALLY RENAMING AREAS.. 10

5.11 DEFINITIONS.. 10

1. background

The Naming Policy was adopted by Council on 13 March 2018

2. Status

This policy is new.

3. Review

The Naming Policy will be formally reviewed in July 2023 unless an earlier formal review is warranted. The review will require approval from the appropriate Committee of Council.

4. Location

The Policy is stored in TRIM DOC/17/94619 within Strategy and Planning.

5.
Naming Policy

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The Naming Policy (the Policy) covers all areas^{^[2]} owned or managed by Hutt City Council. This Policy supersedes the existing Naming Policy 2015. The Policy details Hutt City Council’s approach in all cases where official naming or official renaming of an area is proposed in recognition of the contribution that people have made to the city both in past and present times and any events of special significance.

Naming an area provides an opportunity to publicly recognise and honour people that have made important contributions to the City and events of special significance. Officially naming an area of the city after these people or events is a lasting tribute. This Naming Policy acknowledges the fact that there is often more than one history associated with various areas around the city.^{^[3]}

5.2 areas of city-wide signifcance and people of significance for the whole city

Hutt City Council will make the final decision on the name to be used for any an area where that area is of city-wide significance or where the person whose name is being proposed was a person of significance for the whole city following engagement and consultation with the community generally and in particular with mana whenua and the community most directly connected with the area to be named.

5.3 COMMUNITY BOARDS

Community Boards are able, under their Terms of Reference, to name:

· Local new roads and alterations to street names (in the Community Board area); and

· Parks, reserves and sports grounds within the provisions of this Naming Policy.

5.4 situations when naming an area may arise

There is a variety of situations in which a member of the community, mana whenua or a Community Board or Panel member or a Councillor/Mayor may want to name a certain area in the city after a person or event. These are:

a) The desire to recognise a local person who has made a significant contribution to the whole city or to their local area of the city; or a person who does not live locally but who nevertheless either made a significant contribution to the whole city; or is a national figure; or

b) The desire to recognise a significant event that has affected the city or a specific area of the city; or

c) The naming of a local area that is important to local people; or

d) The giving of the keys to the city; or

e) New subdivisions including private roads, right-of-ways and lanes; or

f) New suburbs or localities in the city.

There will also be occasions on which Council officers may be involved with:

· Initiating a naming request or

· Initiating a process to rename, clarify the name or confirm the name of an area.

5.5 CRITERIA

The mandatory criteria and the criteria relating to subdivisions, private roads, right of ways and lanes must be applied whereas general considerations provide a guideline only.

Mandatory criteria for consideration:

· The area is of historical, social, cultural, economic or environmental significance to the city and/or local ward/area

· The person or event is of historical, social, cultural, economic or environmental significance to the city and/or local ward

· The name of a living person cannot be used except in exceptional circumstances

· The proposed name must be supported with sufficient and correct information including an explanation and context of the name e.g. the origins of and link with the area

· The name is not likely to give offence or be inappropriate in use

· The name is not a duplicate or similar in spelling or sound to an existing named area in the city

· The name(s) recognises outstanding contributions to the City/local ward/area by past residents, organisations and businesses

· The event is significant in the history of the city or district

· The individual made an outstanding contribution to the life of the city and/or local ward/area

· All names comply with the rules around the naming of subdivisions, private roads, right of ways, lanes where these are applicable

· Local community organisations, including Resident’s Associations, are consulted to ensure that any list of names that they have are considered during the naming process

Subdivisions, private roads, right of ways, lanes

· Must be proposed on a completed road name form

· Names can reflect a theme e.g. several streets in a new subdivision named after native birds – Tui Street, Bellbird Street, Huia Drive (see page 4, paragraph 5.1 related to the naming history associated with various areas around the city)

· Names must be in proportion to the length of the road

· The use of words “street”, “place” and “crescent” should be descriptive of the design

· Names cannot contain abbreviations, initials or acronyms except “St” that can be used for “Saint”

· The word “The” cannot he used as the sole name element

· Names cannot include a preposition

· Names cannot contain a full stop

· Names can only contain characters from the standard alphabet and macrons

· Names cannot contain hyphens except where this is appropriate for the language being used e.g. Wai-whetu

· Names cannot contain Arabic or Roman numbers. Numbers should be written in full.

· Names cannot contain qualifying terminology, a cardinal indicator or a similar prefix unless the road name is derived from a name which includes it

General considerations

· Names should not duplicate or similar in spelling or sound to an existing named area in the city

· Name suggestions will be considered on merit. The number of submissions supporting a suggested name will be a secondary consideration.

· Names should be in keeping with the general area concerned

· Names will generally be applied to entire properties, or entire Certificates of Title, for the sake of clarity.

· Maori, English and alternative languages are acceptable so long as the choice of language is related to the site. Generally the name should be brief and in one language, e.g. Whiorau Reserve and not Whiorau Lowry Bay Reclamation.

· There is no restriction on the use of other languages, so long as the choice of language has relevance to the site or name suggestion.

· Where there is a theme in the area the theme is to be followed - for example Māori names in Korokoro, the names of trees in Maungaraki and the use of South Island names in Kelson.

· Names should reflect the character, landscape, flora, fauna or history of the area

· Names may describe a significant event associated with a site.

· Reserve names that repeat the name of the street they are located next to are to be discouraged on the basis that they are dull and do not reflect character or history of sites well

PROCESS FOR NAMING

5.6 areas of city wide significance or people of city wide significance

The following process must be followed where the area is of city wide significance or the person whose name is being proposed was of city-wide significance.

a) A written request is made to the Mayor to officially name (or rename) an area. The request must provide strong reasons to support the suggested name(s). The request must describe the area (or parts of area or object) the name would apply to.

b) The Mayor delegates the matter to the CEO who then reports back to the Mayor with advice regarding the merits of the proposal. The decision on whether the proposal has merit is that of the Mayor acting on the CEO’s advice.

c) Where there is more than one name being considered for an area (as part of community consultation prior to putting forward a name for consideration) utmost care will be taken to ensure that any family members of the person whose name is being considered and/or supporters of a particular name are notified if that name is not selected before proceeding with the naming proposal. ^{^[4]}

d) The CEO must advise mana whenua and other Maori organisations with which Council has a Memorandum of Understanding that a request to officially name an area has been received and that their comments are sought. Where possible this should be done through the formal meetings the CEO has with mana whenua and other Maori organisations.

e) Where the name suggested is one of regional or national significance Council will, if necessary and appropriate, consult with other local authorities and/or the Government of the day.

f) Where the naming of an area is initiated by a Council officer (including clarifying or confirming an existing name) the Mayor will be notified by the appropriate officer. That officer will provide advice on the relevance or otherwise of the Reserves Act in respect of the naming process and the result of discussions with mana whenua and other Maori organisations.

g) The Chief Executive Officer or, in his/her absence a delegated General Manager, in consultation with the Mayor of the day, will make the initial decision as to whether the proposal has merit and is worthy of further consideration.

h) The CEO will prepare a report for Council’s consideration. This report will:

· briefly outline the naming request;

· include the recommendation of mana whenua

· include the recommendation of the relevant Community Board and other community groups involved;

· provide advice regarding whether or not the name being considered is on the list of names collated by officers from proposals made by Boards, Panels, Council Committees and community members; and

· contain a recommendation regarding the need for consultation.

i) If the Council decides to proceed, an advertisement describing the request will be placed in the Hutt News and other local newspapers and people invited to submit comments to Council. Submitters will be given a period of at least twenty working days to make submissions.

j) Where Council supports adoption of an official name, the following process shall be followed:

· Promote the decision in the Hutt News and other local newspapers using an advertisement or editorial space.

· Advise submitters of the resolution.

· Advertise the decision in the New Zealand Gazette.

k) Where there is more than one name being considered for an area (as part of community consultation) care will be taken to ensure that any family members of any person whose name is being considered and/or supporters of a particular name are notified if that name is not selected before proceeding with the naming proposal. ^{^[5]}

l) The Places of Remembrance Project: Council will work with the NZ Poppy Places Trust to ensure that Council identifies and records the street names and places that are directly related to people and events from our overseas military and will use the poppy flower head on signage to permanently mark these places (see Appendix I).

m) When appropriate, the recommendations from the appropriate Committee and a copy of the Gazette Notice will be submitted to the New Zealand Geographic Board, requesting that they consider officially naming the area.

n) The Certificate of Title will be updated.

o) Actual street names will conform to the NZ Standard AS4819.

p) Signage in the area will be updated or new, professionally manufactured and installed where practical. In time, new maps will show the new name of the area/areas.

5.7 Community Boards

Where the request to name an area comes from a member of the public the following process must be used:

a) A written request is made to the Community Board concerned to officially name (or rename) an area. The request must provide strong reasons to support the suggested name. The request must describe the area (or parts of area or object) the name would apply to.

b) The Community Board considers the request as part of their formal processes. They must consult with their community to ensure that:

§ the community supports the proposed name for area in question; and

§ the proposed name appropriately recognises a local person who has made a significant contribution to that community or event that is significant to the Community Board area; and

§ mana whenua are advised that the Community Board has received a request to officially name an area and their comments sought.

c) Where the request to name an area comes from the Community Board itself the Board must follow the process in paragraph (b) above.

d) Where the request or suggestion to name an area is initiated by a Council officer (including clarifying or confirming an existing name) the Community Board must follow the process in paragraph (b) above.

The officer will provide advice on the relevance or otherwise of the Reserves Act in respect of the naming process.

e) If the Community Board decides to proceed, an advertisement describing the request will be placed in the Hutt News and other local newspapers, and people invited to submit comments to the Board or Panel. Submitters will be given a period of at least twenty working days to make submissions.

f) Where the Community Board supports adoption of an official name, the following process shall be followed:

· Promote the decision in the Hutt News and other local newspapers using an advertisement or editorial space.

· Advise submitters of the resolution.

· Advertise the decision in the New Zealand Gazette.

g) Where there is more than one name being considered for an area (as part of community consultation) care will be taken to ensure that any family members of any person whose name is being considered and/or supporters of a particular name are notified if that name is not selected before proceeding with the naming proposal. ^{^[6]}

h) When appropriate, the recommendations from Community Board and a copy of the Gazette Notice will be submitted to the New Zealand Geographic Board, requesting that they consider officially naming the area.

i) The Certificate of Title will be updated.

j) Actual street names must conform to the NZ Standard AS4819.

k) Signage in the area will be updated or new, professionally manufactured and installed where practical. In time, new maps will show the new name of the area/areas.

l) Community Boards and Council committees can propose the names of suitable past and present city and community servants or significant events at any time. These names will be collated by officers in a list for consideration for use when the time is right. For example, this list could be used to select from when the right area comes up for naming^{^[7]}. This also provides an opportunity for traditional, local approaches to the naming of areas or objects to be formally recognised.

m) The Places of Remembrance Project: Council will work with the NZ Poppy Places Trust to ensure that Council identifies and records the street names and places that are directly related to people and events from our overseas military and will use the poppy flower head on signage to permanently mark these places (see Appendix I).

5.8 URGENT REQUESTS

a) Urgent consideration of a request can occur. In this case the Chief Executive Officer or, in his/her absence a delegated General Manager, in consultation with the Mayor of the day, will make the initial decision as to whether the proposal has merit and should be proceeded with.

b) A decision to consult will be able to be made via e mail/telephone.

c) Mana whenua and other Maori organisations with which Council has a Memorandum of Understanding will be notified that an urgent request to officially name an area has been received and that their comments are sought. Where possible this should be done through the formal meetings the CEO has with mana whenua and other Maori organisations.

d) The relevant Community Board will be notified and asked for their input as part of the decision making process.

e) A report will be prepared for the next meeting of the delegated Community Board briefly outlining the naming request and the recommended action. The Community Board will make a decision regarding the request where this falls within their Terms of Reference.

f) For high profile areas or people and events, areas, and people or events of city-wide significance, the CEO will prepare a report for Council’s consideration. This report will:

· briefly outline the naming request;

· include the recommendation of the relevant Community Board where applicable; and

· contain a recommendation regarding proceeding consultation or not.

5.9 CONSULTATION

Public consultation will be used as a gauge to determine whether names are appropriate. A public notice in the Hutt News and other local newspapers will be used to advertise Council’s intention to consider naming areas as naming requests are made. The notice will invite people to comment on a proposed name.

5.10 OFFICIALLY RENAMING AREAS

Council accepts that existing area names may not always continue to provide the best name. In such cases this policy will be used as a guide for selecting new names and decommissioning old official names.

Decommissioning an old name shall follow the process outlined under paragraph 1 of this Policy. It shall be made clear at each step that a current official name will be dropped in order for a new, more meaningful one to be adopted.

5.11 DEFINITIONS

Area includes parks, reserves, sports grounds, streets, buildings or parts of buildings, bridges, paths, new subdivisions, private roads, lanes, right of ways and any other part or parts of the city considered appropriate.

APPENDIX I

RESERVED STREET NAMES

Street name	Locality	Authority	Reserved date
Cloncurry Grv	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	06/04/99
Hastings	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	03/12/74 15/01/86
Hoylake	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	03/12/74
Kildare Grv	Wainuiomata	Hutt City
Killarney Grv	Wainuiomata	Hutt City
Lancashire	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	03/12/74
Lismore Grv	Wainuiomata	Hutt City
Marotiri Grv	Wainuiomata	Hutt City
Morecambe	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	03/12/74
Munster Grv	Wainuiomata	Hutt City
Newfield	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	00/12/90
Penzance	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	03/12/74
Raglan	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	03/12/74
Rakino Grv	Wainuiomata	Hutt City
Remuera St	Wainuiomata	Hutt City
Ripley Grv	Wainuiomata	Hutt City
Rochdale	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	03/12/74
Ruatoki Grv	Wainuiomata	Hutt City
Solent	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	03/12/74
Staples St	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	19/04/85
Swindon	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	14/11/74
Yarmouth	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	03/12/74
Thomas Grieg Henry	Wainuiomata	Hutt City	09/01/17 DOC/17/6017
Highdale	Tirohanga	Hutt City	00/12/90
Woodhill	Tirohanga	Hutt City	0/12/90
Ted Woolf	Petone	Hutt City	23/05/2014
Lewis St	Normandale	Hutt City
Muswell Grv	Holborn	Hutt City	28/06/79
Tottenham Grv	Holborn	Hutt City	28/06/79, 28/08/79
Arbour Grove	Avalon	Hutt City	14/07/2000
Arapaepae		Hutt City	13/12/89 20/12/89
Arataha		Hutt City	13/12/89 20/12/89
Aratapu		Hutt City	13/12/89 20/12/89
Finsbury		Hutt City	05/12/75 17/07/85
Hamblin		Hutt City	14/12/89
Hiwinui Grv		Hutt City	24/06/85
Ohinewai		Hutt City	14/12/78 05/03/79
Omahanui		Hutt City	13/12/89
Riwaka		Hutt City	12/10/77
Souness			23/08/78
Street name	Locality	Authority	Reserved date
Takaka			12/10/77
Tobin			14/12/89
Tulip			13/12/89 20/12/89
Wakatipu			12/10/77
Whitewood Grv			28/05/85 20/12/89

The Places of Remembrance Project

The Places of Remembrance Project is about identifying and recording many of our street names and places that are directly related to people and events from our overseas military.

Council will work with the NZ Poppy Places Trust to ensure that Council identifies these places and uses the poppy flower head to permanently mark these places.

34 26 February 2018

Policy and Regulatory

29 January 2018

File: (18/66)

Report no: PRC2018/1/28

Representation Review

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to:

a. propose a timeline for the Representation Review 2018-19; and

b. get direction and agreement from the Committee on further work to be completed on possible forms of representation for the city for Council’s consideration.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) agrees to the proposed timeline for the Representation Review 2018-19;

(ii) notes that officers will complete further work on possible forms of representation for the city for Council’s consideration; and

(iii) directs officers to arrange workshops with Councillors, Community Board and Community Panel members as soon as practicable.

Background

2. Part 1A, in particular section 19H of the Local Electoral Act 2011(LEA), requires Council to complete a review of its representation arrangement at least every six years. The Council last reviewed its representation arrangements in 2012.

3. The LEA requires Council to follow a set process for its representation review. This process is and the procedural steps and timeframe are set out in paragraph 9 of this paper.

Discussion

4. Officers have developed the following timeline for completing the Representation Review:

Date	Action
16^th January to 22^nd May 2018	Initial proposal developed and approved by Policy and Regulatory Committee (30^th April) and Council (22^nd May). Workshops to be held during the period 1 February to 31 March.
23^rd May to 22^nd June 2018	Public notice of initial proposal notified through public notice. Submissions called for.
25^th June to 27^th July 2018 Council meeting 24^th July	Submissions considered and amendments (where agreed to) made to initial proposal and final proposal agreed at Council meeting 24^th July
30^th July 2017	Final proposal notified through public notice
1^st August to 31^st August 2018	Appeals and objections. Close 31^st August 2018 and appeals and objections forwarded to Local Government Commission
1^st September 2018	Public Notice final (if no appeals or objections) OR
1^st September 2018 to 31^st October 2018	Appeals and objections considered by Local Government Commission
1st November 2018	Local Government Commission makes determination
February 2019	Appeals to High Court
12^th October 2019	Local government elections

5. Officers will prepare information for the workshops with Councillors and Community Boards including but not limited to:

a. Survey information

b. Research on different forms of local government representation

c. Results of the review of Community Boards and Committees functions and delegations completed in 2016

6. Preliminary engagement and consultation will be undertaken with people who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, any representation review proposals. This will include the Council, Community Boards, Community Panels, mana whenua and the Youth Council. Consideration will be given to the current context of regional governance.

Options

7. There are no options to consider at this stage.

Consultation

8. Consultation is planned and an engagement plan will be prepared.

Legal Considerations

9. Section 19H (2) of the LEA requires that a territorial authority review its representation arrangements every six years. The timeline for the review prescribed in the LEA is set out below.

Date	Action	Notes
1 March 2018 to 31 October 2018	· Initial representation proposal developed · Representation proposal resolved by Council · Public notice of initial proposal made · Submissions open for one month · Consider submissions and amend proposal – public notice of final proposal · If no submissions – public notice final proposal	The representation proposal should be being developed prior to 1 March 2018to allow for workshops to be held so that Council and others have plenty of time to consider different options for representation
November 2018	· Appeals and objections to Local Government Commission (LGC) · If no appeals/objections final public notice (no appeals or objections allowed)
20^th December	· Appeals close for LGC to consider
February 2019	· LGC makes decision · Appeals to High Court must be lodged by 10^th April 2019

10. The LEA also contains a set of principles that Council must take into account when undertaking its review:

· Fair and effective representation for individuals and communities

· All qualified persons have reasonable and equal opportunity to vote, nominate, be a candidate

· Public confidence in, and public understanding of, local electoral processes

Decision-making principles in the Local Government Act 2002

11. Council, in making its decision, must also take into account the decision-making requirements set out in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. Section 76(4) requires a territorial authority to:

· identify all reasonable practical options

· assess those options by way of a cost-benefit analysis

· give consideration to community views

· identify any decisions that will be significantly inconsistent with any policy already adopted by Council

· provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to the decision-making process and

· consult with persons with an interest in the subject matter of the decision.

12. Any changes Council makes to the electoral system or to membership, wards or communities must be clearly explained to the public including the reasons for the changes.

Financial Considerations

13. The cost of undertaking the representation review is covered in the 2017-2018 budget.

Other Considerations

14. There are no other considerations at this stage.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

38 26 February 2018

Policy and Regulatory

24 January 2018

File: (18/43)

Report no: PRC2018/1/26

Proposed Trading in a Public Place Bylaw

Purpose of Report

1. To report to Council the background information associated with the s159 of the Local Government Act 2002 review of the Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2008.

2. To recommend Council agree pursuant to s156 of the Local Government Act 2002 to adopt the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2018 attached as Appendix 3 to the report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that section 159 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) requires Council to review its bylaws no later than 10 years after they were last reviewed;

(ii) notes that the Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2008 has been reviewed in accordance with section 155 of the LGA 2002;

(iii) notes the outcome of the s155 review of the Trading in Public Places Bylaw is to propose one amendment to the bylaw, as more particularly detailed in the statement of proposal, attached as Appendix 2 to the report;

(iv) notes there are no significant impacts on the public due to the proposed bylaw;

(v) agrees pursuant to s156 of the Local Government Act 2002 to adopt the proposed Trading in a Public Place Bylaw 2018, attached as Appendix 3 to the report, effective 1 April 2018.

For the reason that the current Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2008 needs to be reviewed.

Background

3. The Council needs to review all its existing bylaws within 10 years of the previous review in accordance with the provisions of section 159 of the LGA 2002. The Trading in a Public Place Bylaw 2008 is now due for review.

Discussion

Legislative requirements and issues considered

4. Under the LGA 2002, Council may make bylaws for its district for the purposes of:

· protecting the public from nuisance;

· protecting, promoting and maintaining public health and safety; and

· minimising the potential for offensive behavior in public places.

· Section 146(a)(vi) of the LGA specifically provides Council with the power to regulate trading in a public place.

5. The LGA 2002 also provides that a local authority must consider the following matters when undertaking a bylaw review process:

· determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem;

· determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

· that any proposed bylaw is not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

6. After undertaking the s155 review it was concluded that there is a perceived problem to address and there is sufficient protection and legal remedies to address the perceived problem, by creating a Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2018 with respect to the issuing of permits to trade in a public place.

7. It should also be noted that when reviewing the 2008 Bylaw it was noted that anyone wanting to sell food in a public place must meet the requirements of the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974. All matters concerning the storage, preparation, cooking and selling of food is now covered by the Food Act 2014. There is no requirement to include these matters in the proposed Bylaw. These matters are outlined in the statement of proposal attached as Appendix 2 to this report.

Conclusion

8. The proposed 2018 Bylaw seeks to regulate a wide range of trading activities undertaken in public places within Hutt City so as to maintain standards for public health and safety, protect the public from nuisance, minimise the potential for offensive behavior in public places and to manage property owned or operated by Council for the wellbeing of the public in public places.

9. A copy of the Summary is attached as Appendix 1 to the report. The full Statement of Proposal along with the proposed Bylaw are attached as Appendices 2 and 3 respectively to this report.

Options

10. Council could agree to review the Trading in Public Places Bylaw by undertaking the special consultative procedure (SCP) OR

11. Council could agree to adopt the proposed Bylaw without undertaking the SCP. Refer to paragraphs 14 - 16 below OR

12. Council could decide to not undertake this review and the current Bylaw will lapse in March 2020.

13. It is recommended Council not undertake the SCP and adopt the proposed Bylaw pursuant to s156 LGA.

Consultation

14. If Council agrees to this proposal, the SCP required to make the proposed Trading in Place Places Bylaw 2018 could be undertaken. However there has been a change made to the LGA that now allows Council to only have to use the SCP for bylaws where there is or is likely to be significant impact on the public due to the changes proposed. Below is the relevant section of the LGA.

156 Consultation requirements when making, amending, or revoking bylaws made under this Act

(1) When making a bylaw under this Act or amending or revoking a bylaw made under this Act, a local authority must—

(a) use the special consultative procedure (as modified by section 86) if—

(i) the bylaw concerns a matter identified in the local authority’s policy under section 76AA as being of significant interest to the public; or

(ii) the local authority considers that there is, or is likely to be, a significant impact on the public due to the proposed bylaw or changes to, or revocation of, the bylaw; and

(b) in any case in which paragraph (a) does not apply, consult in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82.

15. It can be argued that nothing will change when the bylaw is adopted. Council is effectively updating the Bylaw to reflect the changes already made since the Food Act took effect. So there is nothing significant for Council to take out and consult the public on.

16. Council staff responsible for the day to day management of the Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2008 were consulted, to establish if any current provisions were no longer required or needed amendment.

Legal Considerations

17. After undertaking a section 155 review, a local authority is required to make or amend bylaws using section 156 LGA

a. In accordance with the requirements of the LGA 2002, if using the SCP the statement of proposal must comprise:

i. A draft of the proposed bylaw;

ii. Reasons for the proposal; and

iii. A report of the local authority’s consideration under section 155 of the problem being addressed in the proposal or review carried out under s159.

b. If this bylaw is not confirmed, or amended, or revoked then the LGA 2002 provides that it will expire 2 years after the date on which that bylaw was required to be reviewed (s160 of the LGA 2002).

c. Once the bylaw has been created, Council must give public notice of the bylaw, including the date upon which the bylaw will become effective.

d. The new bylaw, once created, will be placed on the Council’s website for public viewing.

Financial Considerations

18. There are no financial considerations.

Other Considerations

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Summary of Proposal - Trading in Public Places Bylaw March 2018	43
2 ⇩	Statement of proposal - trading in a public place bylaw March 2018	45
3 ⇩	Proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2018.	52

Author: Graham Sewell

Principal Policy Advisor

Reviewed By: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Reviewed By: Bradley Cato

Solicitor

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 2

Statement of proposal - trading in a public place bylaw March 2018

1. INTRODUCTION

Hutt City Council proposes to replace the existing Hutt City Council Bylaw 2008 Bylaw Trading in Public Places (“the 2008 Bylaw“) with a new bylaw relating to trading in a public place (“the proposed Bylaw”).

This Statement of Proposal has been prepared in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”). It includes information about the review process and whether it is appropriate for the Council to have a bylaw relating to trading in public places.

2. background

The Council is required to review its Bylaw relating to trading in a public place under section 158 of the LGA. Under sections 159 and 155, the review of a bylaw must take the form of reconsideration of the matters that the Council is normally required to consider before making a bylaw.

The Council must therefore determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. If so, the Council must determine whether the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and whether the proposed Bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”). No bylaw can be inconsistent with the NZBORA. In reviewing a bylaw, the Council must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83.

Under section 145, the Council may make bylaws for its district with the purposes of:

(a) protecting the public from nuisance;

(b) protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety;

The Council can also make bylaws for specific purposes as listed in section 146, for example, for the purpose of trading in public places (section 146(a)(vi)).

The 2008 Bylaw can be viewed by visiting the Council’s website:

www.huttcity.govt.nz

2.1 The perceived problem

A wide range of activities occurs in public places without causing any problems. Occasionally, however, some activities create problems which are required to be addressed by the Council. These activities may cause:

· health or safety hazards - for example, failure to meet appropriate hygiene or environmental standards e.g. hygiene standards associated with display of goods, pollution of drainage services;

· damage to property or the environment - for example, during the selling of goods or services to the public within public places;

· unreasonable obstruction to others using a public place - for example, people who lay out goods for sale on a footpath;

· unreasonable barriers to others using a public place - for example, someone placing a mobile shop in a public place for a long period of time; or

· disruptive or offensive behaviour - for example, someone using an aggressive sales pitch to encourage members of the public to buy a certain good or service.

The perceived problem means that a bylaw about trading in public places is consistent with the provisions in the LGA relating to the Council’s bylaw-making powers. The Council considers that it is still necessary to have a bylaw relating to public places for the purposes of:

· protecting the public from nuisance (section 145(a));

· protecting, promoting and maintaining public health and safety (section 145(b));

· minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places (section 145(c));

· regulating trading in public places (section 146(a)(vi));

· managing, regulating against or protecting from, damage, misuse, or loss, or preventing the use of the land, structures, or infrastructure associated with reserves or other land under the control of the territorial authority (section 146(b)(vi)).

The proposed 2018 Bylaw therefore seeks to regulate a wide range of trading activities undertaken in public places within Hutt City so as to maintain standards for public health and safety, protect the public from nuisance, minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places and to manage property owned or operated by Council for the wellbeing and enjoyment of the public in public places.

Hutt City Council has a commitment to achieving city-wide outcomes identified by the community. Community Outcomes (set out at page 7 of the Hutt City Council’s Long Term Council Community Plan 2015 – 2025) states that the city’s goal is to provide a city that is safe. In order to achieve this goal, the Council considers it necessary to have in place measures to regulate trading in public places.

The Council therefore proposes to make the proposed Bylaw to regulate a range of trading activities undertaken in public places. The proposed Bylaw is generally intended to ensure adequate controls and monitoring are retained to meet public expectations of the Council’s maintenance of safe and enjoyable public places in Lower Hutt.

2.2 Most appropriate way to address perceived problem

Consideration has been given to a range of options for addressing the problems identified above.

Non-regulatory options

A wide range of activities occurs in public places without causing concern, and most people voluntarily comply with the Council’s policies and practices. Education is used to inform members of the public about policies and practices, which encourages voluntary compliance. Examples include the provision of information for members of the public seeking information about what they need to do when selling goods or services in a public place.

However, there are some instances where voluntary compliance and education cannot be relied on to address the perceived problem. Educative measures may not reach everyone, nor may they provide an effective deterrent to everyone. In these circumstances, the activities have an effect on the general public, property, and the environment which means it is necessary for the Council to have a greater ability to enforce its policies and practices.

Hutt City District Plan

The proposed Bylaw is consistent with, and complimentary to, the provisions of the Hutt City District Plan. The proposed Bylaw provides a mechanism that allows the Council to:

· address matters relating to, but not explicitly provided for, in the Hutt City District Plan; and

· adopt an alternative and more practicable enforcement option than provided for under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Food Act 2014

When reviewing the 2008 Bylaw it was noted that anyone wanting to sell food in a public place must meet the requirements of the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974. All matters concerning the storage, preparation, cooking and selling of food is now covered by the Food Act 2014. There is no requirement to include this aspect in the proposed Bylaw.

Other regulatory options

In reviewing the 2008 Bylaw, the Council concluded that most of the provisions of that Bylaw are still relevant and necessary to address the perceived problems as noted above.

The proposed Bylaw may provide the Council with an alternative prosecution option in cases where the Bylaw is breached, depending on the circumstances.

Summary

Although other regulatory and non-regulatory measures may assist in managing the perceived problem, the Council does not consider that these other measures are able to address the perceived problem to the extent necessary. In addition, other measures may not be appropriate in every instance.

The Council considers that the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem. The Council also considers that the proposed Bylaw will contribute to achieving the community outcomes identified in the Council’s Long Term Council Community Plan.

2.3 Most appropriate form of bylaw

The proposed Bylaw addresses the perceived problem by preventing a number of unwanted consequences from trading in public places.

The proposed Bylaw is flexible and allows changing circumstances to be recognised. The proposed Bylaw clearly states the Council’s position by stating whether or not an activity is permitted and which activities constitute an offence of the bylaws. The Bylaw sets out what action needs to be taken to comply with it, for example, whether prior written permission of the Council is required. The proposed Bylaw reflects a number of the Council’s existing policies and practices, and also reflects community goals that have been identified by the Council.

The proposed Bylaw is clear and the style is consistent with other parts of the Hutt City Council Bylaws.

The proposed Bylaw is therefore the most appropriate form of bylaw. It clearly states the Council’s position, how the Bylaw can be complied with, reflects the Council’s existing policies and practices, and addresses the perceived problem.

2.4 Implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”)

As mentioned, section 155(2)(b) of the LGA requires the Council to determine whether the proposed Bylaw gives rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is the Council’s view that no provision of the proposed Bylaw is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3. the proposed bylaw

This section outlines the outcome of the review of the existing Bylaw, and provides an explanation of the proposed Bylaw.

The proposed Bylaw is based on the existing 2008 Bylaw that was adopted under the Local Government Act 2004.

3.1 Additions, modifications and deletions made in respect of existing bylaw

No new clauses have been added to the 2018 Bylaw to create the proposed Bylaw. The only proposed change is the definition of ‘permit’ to exclude the sale of food.

Below is an outline of the proposed change:

· Clause 1 Interpretation – ‘Permit’ will now be defined to exclude the sale of food as noted in Clause 2.2 above.

3.2 Explanation of the proposed Bylaw content

In general terms, the proposed Bylaw provides a mechanism by which the Council can prevent or manage the perceived problem associated with a range of activities that occur with trading in public places. The following outlines the rationale for the inclusion of each of the clauses in the proposed bylaw.

Proposed clause 1 - Interpretation

This clause is proposed so that the meaning of terms used in the bylaw is clear.

Proposed clause 2 – Restrictions on Hawking, Mobile Shops, and Stalls

The purpose of this clause is to ensure that no Hawker, Mobile Shop, or Stall can operate within the city without a permit from the Council and in so doing, must comply with all terms and conditions of their permit.

Proposed clause 3 – Council May Grant Mobile Shop Permits Subject to Terms and Conditions

The purpose of this clause is to establish the process a person must follow to obtain a mobile shop permit. This clause also provides the Council with the legal power to grant a permit on such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate in each case.

Proposed clause 4 - Council May Grant Stall Permits Subject to Terms and Conditions

The purpose of this clause is to establish the process a person must follow to obtain a stall permit. This clause also provides the Council with the legal power to grant a permit on such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate in each case.

Proposed clause 5 - Council May Grant Hawker Permits Subject to Terms and Conditions

The purpose of this clause is to establish the process a person must follow to obtain a hawker permit. This clause also provides the Council with the legal power to grant a permit on such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate in each case.

Proposed clause 6 – Expiry of Permit and Permit Renewal Process

The purpose of this clause is to establish the length of time a permit is legally valid i.e. up to 12 months. It also outlines the process a permit holder must follow if they wish to renew their permit.

Proposed clause 7 – Permit not Transferable

The purpose of this clause is to make it clear that a permit issued under this bylaw is not transferable.

4. process for the development of the proposed bylaw

The special consultative procedure will end 4.00pm on Monday 23 April 2018. Hearings and meetings on the proposed bylaw will be open to the public, and people may speak to their submissions at the relevant committee meeting.

An analysis of all submissions will then be presented to the relevant council committee for consideration. The proposed bylaw will then be referred to the Council for consideration and adoption.

57 26 February 2018

Policy and Regulatory

29 January 2018

File: (18/70)

Report no: PRC2018/1/34

Avalon Park - Dog Controls

Purpose of Report

1. In light of the Citizens’ Panel Survey, and public comments given, the Policy and Regulatory Committee is requested to consider options in the report and makes its recommendation to Council. This report gives the outcomes and options for dog control at Avalon Park based on the survey results.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes at its meeting held on 23 May 2017 it approved the consultation process and appointment of a Subcommittee to hear submissions for Dog Controls for Avalon Park (Minute No. C17212);

(ii) revokes Minute No. C17212, considers the survey results outlined in the report and resolves that Avalon Park remains a Dog Prohibition Area, except on designated sealed walkways and the identified area at the northern end of Avalon Park, as attached as Appendix 4 to the report; and

(iii) notes that Animal Services will regularly patrol the prohibited area.

For the reasons that a Citizens’ Panel Survey has been undertaken and the results indicate that little extra would be gained from further consultation.

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 a number of tracks being used by members of the public to walk their dogs which is at odds with what the current bylaw allows.

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.

8. Council officers presented a consultation process to the council to review the bylaw and the Council resolved on 23 May 2017 as follows:

Resolved: (Cr Cousins/Cr McDonald) Minute No. C 17212

“That Council:

(i) approves the public consultation process; and

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

9. Council officers then commissioned a Citizens’ Panel Survey to seek views on dogs in the park. The survey contacted people that council knew had an interest, of persons likely to be affected and randomly selected and some that were self-selected.

10. The results are summarised below:

· The survey was provided to 1093 randomly selected people and 1200 self-selected people.

· 962 people responded to the survey and as requested options to provide additional ideas were provided. These are attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

11. The results in summary:

62% agreed that dogs should be allowed on leash in the park

35% said dogs should not be allowed in the park

3% don’t know

12. Reasons given by those that were in support:

58% said dogs should be able to walk on all pathways in the Park
(35% of total)

57% said people should be able to exercise their dog where they want to as long as the dog is on a lead
(35% of total)

50% said it is important for children to have some contact with dogs
(30% of total)

39% said dogs provide companionship and are sociable and friendly
(24% of total)

13. Reasons given by those that were in opposition:

82% said there are plenty of other places for people to walk their dogs, keep Avalon Park for people
(29% of total)

75% said dog poo not being picked up
(26% of total)

55% said the northern area is sufficient for exercising dogs
(17% of total)

43% said dogs and children should be kept apart
(15% of total)

21% said they were afraid of dogs and would be put off going to the park if they were allowed there under any circumstances
(7% of total)

14. See the Citizens’ Panel Survey, attached as Appendix 2 to the report for full details and comments.

15. On gathering the results and reading the 900 plus comments and suggestions Council officers came to the view that little extra would be gained from a further consultation and recommended to the Chair of the Committee that these results and comments would be enough to come to a view on the appropriate bylaw for the park.

16. The Chairperson then recommended that these results should be presented to the Policy and Regulatory Committee to come to a recommendation for Council rather than going to the Subcommittee.

17. To carry out the above, this is a report asking the Committee to recommend to Council that it revokes its earlier decision to have the consultation process as out lined in the officer’s report and the Subcommittee to hear submissions on the proposed dog controls for Avalon Park and make recommendations to Council for the reasons outlined above. Officers seek a decision from the Committee.

Discussion

18. The Bylaw allows:

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

19. The officers are asking the Committee to review the current status of the bylaw for Avalon Park in the light of the Citizens’ Panel Survey results and the associated comments.

20. The current bylaw has Avalon Park as dog prohibited except for the northern end that is public open space that allows dogs on leash.

21. There is no criteria set out for when Council is considering to revoke or amend a resolution however Council should use the criteria required to make a resolution and see why they do or don’t apply.

22. The criteria which are identified in the bylaw and are below, in italics, followed by the response from Council officers:

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

23. 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, attached as Appendix 1 to the report. This is at odds with the survey results;

62% of people agree dogs should be allowed on leash in the park

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

24. 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 childrens’ 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.

This should be balanced by the dogs being controlled by being on a lead at all times on the tracks or in the park, therefore dogs only have controlled access.

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

25. If the playground areas are to be kept clear of dogs, 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, where dogs can be taken on leash. The current map showing the two different designated areas that need to be changed to reflect the actual area used for dog prohibited area and public space at the northern end of the park. Appendix 4 attached to the report reflects the change, and Avalon Park has a number of walk ways that are used by walkers, runners and a number of dog owners that walk their dogs on leash. The walking of dogs on leash around these walkways is currently in breach of the Dog Control Bylaw 2015, dog prohibited status as shown in Appendix 3 attached to the report.

The survey identifies 7% of the respondents are afraid of dogs and they would be put off going to the park if dogs were allowed under any circumstances. If the same logic was applied this group of people would not use the streets, any park or public amenity.

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

26. 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, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report. Avalon Park does provide an area at the northern end that allows dogs to be exercised on lead. Council needs to either confirm the prohibited status of the designated 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

27. 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

28. 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. The Citizens’ Panel Survey was seen as the best way to get a broad public view and include the views of known interested parties.

29. Officers ask that the Policy and Regulatory Committee accept the results of the Citizens’ Panel Survey and the public comments, attached as Appendix 2 to the report, as an alternative form of public consultation. Based on the above information, the Committee come to a view on the rules for the park.

30. Council officers note the resolution of Council approved the public consultation proves and appoints a Subcommittee consisting of Councillors Cousins, Lewis, Bridson, Briggs and Edwards, to hear submissions on the proposed dog controls for Avalon Park and make recommendations to Council.

31. The Citizens’ Panel Survey information provides the basis for the recommendation to Council and as this is different to the resolution, a revocation will be required.

Options

32. Status quo – Avalon Park remains prohibited to dogs except for the identified area at the northern end that remains public open space; ie dogs permitted on lead only, or

33. Avalon Park remains prohibited to dogs except on the designated sealed walkways where dogs can be on leads; and the identified area at the northern end that remains public open space, dogs permitted on lead only (preferred option), or

34. Open Avalon Park up and allow dogs on leash in all areas of the Park. This is not supported by Council officers.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Map 53 Avalon Park	64
2 ⇩	Citizens' Panel Survey - October 2017	65
3 ⇩	Dog Control Bylaw 2015	89
4 ⇩	Avalon Park - Proposed Open Space and Prohibited Areas	106

Author: Geoff Stuart

Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management

Reviewed By: Bradley Cato

General Counsel

Reviewed By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Approved By: Tony Stallinger

Chief Executive

108 26 February 2018

Policy and Regulatory

01 February 2018

File: (18/95)

Report no: PRC2018/1/30

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

It is recommended that the Committee notes the contents of this report.

Background

2. This report covers the activities of two divisions in the City Transformation Group; being Regulatory Services and Environmental Consents. The Environmental Consents division process consent applications under the Resource Management Act, the Food Act, the Sale & Supply of Alcohol Act and the Building Act (resource and building consents, liquor and food licenses and District Licensing reports), as well as Land Information Memorandums (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 trade waste applications, bylaws, animal services and parking.

3. The report covers Environmental Consents and Regulatory Services.

4. Regulatory Services data is attached as Appendix 1 to the report. Environmental Consent data is attached as Appendix 2 to the report. Environmental Health Inspection data is attached as Appendices 3-4 to the report.

Discussion – Environmental Consents

5. The division continues to experience an increase in application numbers across the board. Viewed annually, there has been about a 10% increase in work across the division.

6. A comparison of the building consent applications from 2016 to 2017 shows a 10% increase in 2017. There has been a slowdown in building consent applications in January, which is normal at this time of the year.

7. The same comparison for resource consent applications shows a 11% increase, and for LIMs there is a 9% increase.

8. The number of liquor license applications processed in 2017, compared to 2016, has also increased by 10% compared to the previous year.

9. The external review of the resource in the Environmental Health Team is progressing, and will be finished in February.

10. We continue to meet our statutory timeframes in all areas.

Building Team

In 2016 the value of building work received was $217,776,734 and in 2017, the value of building work was $264,235,642. This is an increase of $46,458,908, being a 21% increase in 2017.

The Building Team has just had the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and International Accreditation New Zealand in the building to assess the building processes. The audit is to determine if we are able to continue operating as a “Building Consent Authority” – that is, to determine whether or not we can continue processing, issuing and inspecting building consents here at Hutt City. We have had confirmation that we have kept our Building Consent Authority accreditation. The auditors were impressed with how easy the Building Team was to work with, and how well they were operating.

Recent building consent applications received of note include:

· Rymans, 25 Graham Street, new retirement wing - $6.6 m development.

· Maungaraki School, new classrooms - $500k development.

· St Bernards College, new gym - 500k development.

11. Our seismic assessment officers have been busy dealing with owners of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings to ensure the securing of facades and/or parapets are completed the end of March 2018.

12. There has been consultation with the MBIE and Wellington City Council regarding the looming deadlines and the work each Council needs to do to ensure the timeframes are met.

13. A consultation document was circulated in early February outlining the proposed changes to the Order in Council to allow for funding to be available earlier for affected building owners. The other change is to allow territorial authority’s the ability to grant an extension of six months for those building owners who are deemed to have made sufficient progress.

14. Our seismic team has lodged a submission on the proposed changes.

Resource Consents

Recent resource consent applications received of note include:

15. Summerset, Hathaway Avenue - The Summerset Group has submitted an application for earthworks on the site of District Plan Change 35 to prepare the site for future development. No building work is proposed as part of this application. The earthworks involve approximately 8,000m³ of cut and 9,000m³ of fill. The application is currently on hold for further information from the applicant relating to stability and natural hazard issues and construction effects. Council has not yet received an application for the retirement village.

16. 15 Gill Road, York Bay - an application for a five lot subdivision and four dwellings has been received. The site is accessed from Waitohu Road in York Bay. A number of concerns have been expressed to Council by other residents on Waitohu Road in relation to the narrowness of the existing road and the impacts of the proposed development on this road. Council is currently assessing the application including the issues raised by the residents.

17. 11 Randwick Road, Moera – an application has been received for 13 new houses on the land behind the Hutt Park Tavern and has been limited notified to immediate neighbours.

18. 429 Jackson Street, Petone – an application for 56 houses has been received for this vacant land, previously occupied by Housing New Zealand star blocks. The application is currently being assessed.

19. 101 Whites Line East, Waiwhetu – an application by Housing New Zealand has been received for 20 houses on this vacant site. It is currently being assessed.

Recently granted resource consents

20. 115 – 120 Oxford Terrace, Epuni - consent has been granted to Housing New Zealand for a five-storey building comprising 28 apartments. This replaces an existing four-storey building that is to be demolished.

21. The Strand, Wainuiomata – resource consent has been granted for the construction and operation of a retirement village. This will consist of 70 villas, 30 apartments, 10 serviced apartments, a 60 bed aged care facility and a communal facility including a café for residents and the public. This site was formerly part of Hugh Sinclair Park and has been the subject of a Plan Change to allow for its development as a retirement village.

22. 157 Hill Road – consent has been granted for a 13 lot subdivision with 13 new dwellings. The site is within the general residential activity area where properties of 400m² are anticipated. The approved subdivision includes sites ranging in size from 345m² – 512m². This density was not considered to be significantly more than what the District Plan allows and the associated environmental effects were not considered to be any more than minor. A requirement of the consent is that the subdivision will be stormwater neutral. This means that stormwater runoff from the fully developed site will be no more than prior to development. There has been some local opposition to the granting of this consent without public notification. Concerns have been raised relating to its higher density, along with traffic and discharge of stormwater concerns. Some written approvals from adjoining property owners were provided with the application.

Environmental Health

Alcohol

23. Advertising the final date for the District Licensing Committee’s decisions on the website had the effect of customers applying for special liquor licenses early and avoided the log jam that we usually have at the end of the year. All applications were determined before Christmas.

24. Hutt City Council has been collaborating with the NZ Police and Regional Public Health to focus on reminding and educating agencies about the requirements for club licenses. This is being done with media releases, letters and visits.

Recent notable liquor hearings:

25. The District Licensing Committee (DLC) granted an Off-License to Black Bull Liquor, 1 Rutherford Street. The application has been appealed to the Alcohol Regulatory Licensing Authority (ARLA). No hearing date has been set to date.

26. A DLC hearing for a special licence for extended hours on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve was heard under urgency for the Station Village Complex. This was approved, with additional noise, food and event criteria.

Food premises

27. A new Environmental Health Officer has just been appointed, and will be concentrating on verifications (audits) of food premises.

28. These are required for those premises which have transitioned to the new requirements of the Food Act. There are 214 food premises that need to transition by the end of the 2016/2017 financial year.

29. There has been several enforcement matters dealt with in the food area in the last month. These include closing a restaurant on Jackson Street whilst a cockroach infestation was dealt with. And hiring a translator to deal with a business owner who had not completed the correct paperwork, due to language difficulties. We are hoping that, with the help of the translator, this operator will avoid further enforcement action.

30. Environmental Health Inspection data is attached as Appendices 3-4 to the report.

Enforcement matters from Regulatory Services

Animal Services

31. Animal services offered free micro chipping for dogs through November and early December and had 160 dogs chipped, plus a number of new registrations.

32. The number of dogs impounded and released was the same (50) in December. This is the first time all year the numbers have been the same. As a general rule the difference is 15 more pickups per month than releases. Those that don’t get released are firstly offered for adoption, then to other agencies to sell such as HUHA or SPCA, and finally euthanased if not suitable for adoption.

33. As you are aware Council has purchased land in Wainuiomata for a dog park, and the plans are progressing well to have that area established after the stormwater and cycleway work is done.

Trade Waste

34. Over the last year the Trade Waste team has added over 50 new businesses to their register. A significant growth industry is in craft beers with most of these being set up in Upper Hutt. One of these now employees 40 staff and discharges 3000 cubic meters of water per month.

Parking

35. At six months into the financial year some interesting comparisons

2018 2017

Parking infringements issued approx 20,000 18,000

Infringements paid online 67% 51%

Infringements paid over the counter HCC 22% 33%

Infringements paid to NZ Post 11% 14%

Emergency Management

36. A regional exercise based on a large scale Wellington earthquake was run in the Emergency Management Office in November called Exercise Ngateri:

· Two EOC sessions held 16th (21 attended) and 28th November (16 attended)

· Also ran an Emergency Assistance Centre exercise at same time on the 28th at Naenae Bowls Centre (12 attended)

· We have 52 on the roster for EOC, 37 attended EOC exercise in November. It is expected in a real earthquake only 1/3 of the staff will be available to attend

37. Other achievements:

· Blue Lines roll out and public awareness around those – all blue lines are now down and it is noted that some require redoing

· Hutt Valley Welfare Committee has been established and have good engagement with agencies (e.g. DHB, Oranga Tamariki, Regional Public Health and CAB)

· Emergency Assistance Centre teams identified and 43 staff have had initial training

· Secondary Schools Rescue Training programme continues, scheduled to run from March 2018 with good buy-in from the schools

· NZRT18 relocated to Western Hutt Road

Consultation

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

Legal Considerations

39. 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

40. There are no financial considerations.

Other Considerations

41. 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 ⇩	Regulatory Services enforcement matters to 31 December 2017	114
2 ⇩	Environmental Consents graphs at 31 January 2018	116
3 ⇩	EH Stats Nov 2017 to Jan 2018 with Alc Food	135
4 ⇩	EH Stats Nov 2017 to Jan 2018 without Alc Food	138

Author: Geoff Stuart

Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management

Author: Helen Oram

Divisional Manager Environmental Consents

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

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

[2] Area includes parks, reserves, sports grounds, streets, buildings or parts of buildings, bridges, paths, new subdivisions, private roads, lanes, right of ways and any other part or parts of the city considered appropriate.

[3] See criteria relating to subdivisions, private roads, lanes and right of ways page 8

[4] For example, where a community is consulted prior to a naming proposal being made and a number of names are considered. Once a decision is made to proceed with one of the names it is essential that those supporting the other names are made aware of the choice and the reasons why before continuing the process.

[5] For example, where a community is consulted prior to a naming proposal being made and a number of names are considered. Once a decision is made to proceed with one of the names it is essential that those supporting the other names are made aware of the choice and the reasons why before continuing the process.

[6] For example, where a community is consulted prior to a naming proposal being made and a number of names are considered. Once a decision is made to proceed with one of the names it is essential that those supporting the other names are made aware of the choice and the reasons why before continuing the process.

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	November	December
Infringements	3297	2911
Stationary offences (WOFs, tyres)	838	866

Description	Author	Cycle 2, 2018	Cycle 3, 2018	Cycle 4, 2018	Cycle 5, 2018	Pending
General Manager’s Report	K Kelly	ü	ü	ü	ü
Electronic-Cigarettes and Outdoor Public Places	B Gall / J Pritchard	ü
Priority Earthquake-Prone Buildings	G Sewell	ü
Sea Level Mapping	W Moore / J Scherzer	ü
Private Use of Public Land (Encroachments)	W Moore	ü
Smoke-free Policy – Report back on the following areas: the CBD, Jackson Street, Taita, Naenae, Moera and Queen Street (Wainuiomata)	B Gall / J Pritchard		ü
Discount Registration for Therapy Dogs	L Dalton					ü
Risk and Resilience Costs Update	W Moore					ü
Parking Policy Review	W Moore / J Pritchard					ü
Activity Report: Environmental Management (Regulatory services and Emergency Management)	H Oram					ü
Activity Report: Environmental Management (Environmental Consents)	H Oram					ü

ANIMAL SERVICES	November	December
Dogs impounded	89	50
Infringements issued	7	7
Prosecutions	0	0