Agenda of Policy and Regulatory Committee

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 2 July 2018 commencing at 5.30pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

An apology from Mayor Wallace has been received.

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 - 24 July 2018

i) Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation (18/557)

Report No. PRC2018/3/174 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 9

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

ii) Reserve Revocation - 20N Mataura Grove (18/1021)

Report No. PRC2018/3/175 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 13

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

iii) Further information about Area C2, Williams Park (18/996)

Report No. PRC2018/3/178 by the Reserves Planner 16

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

iv) Proposed Control of Animals Bylaw (18/1014)

Report No. PRC2018/3/176 by the Principal Policy Advisor 37

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

v) Proposed Prevention of Nuisance from Fires and Smoke Bylaw (18/1018)

Report No. PRC2018/3/177 by the Principal Policy Advisor 54

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

5. General Manager's Report (18/990)

Report No. PRC2018/3/179 by the Divisional Manager Environmental Consents and the Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management 68

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

6. Information Item

Policy and Regulatory Committee Work Programme (18/834)

Report No. PRC2018/3/93 by the Committee Advisor 100

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the information contained in the report be noted."

7. 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

10 02 July 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

09 April 2018

File: (18/557)

Report no: PRC2018/3/174

Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation

Purpose of Report

1. This report proposes that Council publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property on which the Naenae Library is located.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council publicly notifies a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Naenae Library property.

For the reasons that the property will in the future not be required for library or other community or recreational purposes, it is located within the Suburban Commercial Activity Area of the District Plan and would better serve Council purposes to be used for a commercial or residential purpose.

Background

2. The property on which the Naenae Library is located is a local purpose (community buildings) reserve. The reserve status was placed on the property as an outcome of the Land Review project, whereby a large number of properties that previously had not had reserve status under the Reserves Act 1977, were declared and classified as reserve.

3. The property is 906m² in area and its legal description is Section 673 Hutt District on Certificate of Title WN9B/1493. A plan of the property is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

4. An assessment of the requirements for the proposed Naenae Community Hub has resulted in part of Walter Mildenhall Park being identified as the preferred site for the new development.

5. Opportunity exists for the Naenae Library property to be used for other development, which may not be compatible with the existing reserve status.

Discussion

6. With the proposed development of the Naenae Community Hub on Walter Mildenhall Park, it is likely that the Naenae Library property will no longer be required for a Council community purpose. Revoking the reserve status of the property would provide Council with greater flexibility in determining its future use.

7. The value realised from the Naenae Library property could be used to offset the cost of the new community hub.

Options

8. There are two options. Retain as local purpose reserve, which would mean that Council would be limited to what it could do with the property once the library has been relocated. The second and preferred option is to remove the reserve designation. This will give Council greater flexibility in determining the property’s future use.

Consultation

9. The proposal to revoke the reserve status of the reserve will be publicly notified in the Hutt News and be posted on Council’s website.

Legal Considerations

10. The Reserves Act 1977 sets out the procedure Council must follow to revoke the reserve status of the reserve.

11. Council is required to consider any objections to the proposal and forward these and Council’s decision to the Department of Conservation for ratification.

Financial Considerations

12. The cost of undertaking the revocation process is minimal and can be met from existing budgets.

13. The Naenae Library property is valued at around $1M.

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 local government in that it is a statutory process required to be undertaken to consider the future of this Council property.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Naenae Library Site	12

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

14 02 July 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

08 June 2018

File: (18/1021)

Report no: PRC2018/3/175

Reserve Revocation - 20N Mataura Grove

Purpose of Report

1. This report seeks Council’s confirmation to a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property at 20 N Mataura Grove, Wainuiomata, following public consultation.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property at 20N Mataura Grove was publicly notified with no submissions or objections received;

(ii) agrees to revoke the reserve status of the property at 20N Mataura Grove, on the basis that it serves no useful reserve purpose; and

(iii) agrees that the property is surplus and be sold to the owners of the adjoining property at 20 Mataura Grove.

Background

2. At its meeting of 13 March 2018, Council considered a proposal to revoke the reserve status of this property and agreed that the proposal be the subject of consultation as required by the Reserves Act 1977. A plan of the property is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

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. The proposal was publicly notified in the Hutt News on 20 March 2018 and was published on the Council website. Submissions closed on 20 April 2018. Council did not receive any submissions or objections to the proposal.

Discussion

6. 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

7. Council can either proceed to revoke the reserve status of this property and sell it or do nothing and retain the property.

Consultation

8. Council has consulted on the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property as statutorily required.

Legal Considerations

9. A decision to revoke the reserve status of the property will be referred to the Department of Conservation for confirmation. Once confirmed the decision will be gazetted.

Financial Considerations

10. The cost of the revocation process, including public notice has been met from existing budgets. The property will be sold to the adjoining property owners at a negotiated value.

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 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 ⇩	20 N Mataura Grove	15

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

19 02 July 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

05 June 2018

File: (18/996)

Report no: PRC2018/3/178

Further information about Area C2, Williams Park

Purpose of Report

1. This report responds to the Policy and Regulatory Committee’s request for officers to provide further information on whether or not a portion of Area C2 within Williams Park could be developed without negatively impacting on the ecological values of the site.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes the expert ecological, subdivision and valuation advice about Area C2; and

(ii) directs officers to proceed with consultation on a proposal to determine whether Area C2 is surplus to Council’s reserve requirements and report back to the 24 September 2018 Policy and Regulatory Committee meeting .

Background

2. The Policy and Regulatory Committee considered a report about declaring and classifying land as reserve in Days Bay on 27 November 2017. The Committee resolved to classify seven properties as reserve. A decision on an area described as C2 was deferred and officers were asked to provide information about the potential to develop Area C2 without negatively impacting on the ecological values of the site.

Discussion

3. Area C2 is approximately 1855m². It is part of CT WN49C/741 which is one of the properties within Williams Park. Area C2 is owned by Council and sits within the General Recreation Activity Area. Area C2 is physically separated from Williams Park by a permanent formed driveway which was legalised by a Right of Way in 1998.

4. Area C2 does not have Reserves Act status. On 27 November 2017 Council agreed to declare and classify seven properties in Days Bay as reserve.

5. A decision on whether or not to include Area C2 in this process was deferred and officers were asked to provide information about the potential to develop Area C2 without negatively impacting on the ecological values of the site.

Ecological Assessment

6. Ecologists, Wildlands Consultants, visited Area C2 and prepared a brief ecological report in November 2017. The report describes the vegetation types within Area C2. The report is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

7. Wildlands’ report explains that Area C2 has ecological value and the value will decrease if the site is developed.

8. Wildlands state “If Area C2 was to become privately owned, then development and vegetation removal will be likely. This could occur across the whole area or be restricted to places with lesser ecological value, avoiding the mature northern rata and beech trees.”

Preliminary comments about possible re-zoning and subdivision

9. Cuttriss Consultants Ltd visited Area C2 in April 2018 and provided some preliminary subdivision advice. Area C2 has potential as a two lot subdivision and could incorporate vegetation protection around an area containing northern rata. A number of additional mature trees could be protected as individual specimens and this could be applied to the native beech trees. The Cuttriss advice is attached as Appendices 2-3 to the report.

10. A two lot subdivision could accommodate a range of dwelling styles and sizes. The sloping allotments would be accessed from the existing right of way. The preliminary proposed allotments of 849m² and 985m² do not meet the minimum 1000m² lot size for the Hill Residential Activity Area, which is the current zoning for nearby residential properties. This would not be inconsistent with nearby existing lots in the Hill Residential Activity Area, which are also under 1000m².

11. An application for resource consent to subdivide Area C2 into two lots may be notified. A plan change would be required to lift the existing General Recreation Activity area and replace it with the Hill Residential Activity Area.

Preliminary Valuation

12. If Council eventually determines that Area C2 is surplus to Council’s reserve requirements, Council may then resolve to proceed with disposal. The estimated market value of two new lots is approximately $780,000.

13. If Council eventually determines that Area C2 is surplus to Council’s reserve requirements, Council may then resolve to proceed with disposal. The estimated cost to establish two Hill Residential lots ready for sale is approximately $230,000.

Reserve declaration and classification for Area C2

14. In May 2017 Council agreed to declare and classify seven Days Bay properties as reserve. This process has been suspended until Council determines a preference for Area C2.

15. If the Committee decides to retain Area C2 for reserve purposes the entire area of all seven properties will be declared and classified as Reserve.

16. If the Committee decides that Area C2 is surplus to its reserve requirements, Area C2 could be separated from the balance of C. An application for a plan change to bring C2 into a Residential Activity Area, for example Hill Residential, could then proceed.

Options

17. The Committee could direct officers to carry out consultation on whether or not Area C2 is surplus to Council’s reserve requirements. This is the recommended option.

18. Alternatively the Committee may decide that the information in this report provides enough information to determine that Area C2 should be classified as Recreation Reserve. If the Committee chooses this option it should make a resolution directing officers to declare and classify Area C2, part of CTWN49C/741, as Recreation Reserve. No further consultation would take place.

Consultation

19. Consultation about the proposal to declare and classify seven properties in Days Bay as reserve was carried out in 2017. Seventeen submissions were received of which fourteen supported the proposal. These submissions were made before the possibility of separating Area C2 was considered.

20. If Council wishes to consider whether Area C2 may be surplus to its requirements for reserve land, consultation will be required.

21. If Council proceeds with the possibility of separating area C2, officers would to go back to submitters and outline the situation and invite submitters to contribute to any additional consultation.

Legal Considerations

22. Consultation on whether or not Area C2 is surplus to Council’s reserve requirements would be carried out in accordance with Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002. Council’s Reserve Acquisition/Disposal Policy requires that the consultation process mimic the revocation process consultation set out in Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977. A public notice in the Eastbourne Herald and the Hutt News would invite written submissions from 24 July until 27 August 2018. This period complies with the consultation requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

Financial Considerations

23. The cost of carrying out consultation on a proposal to dispose of Area C2 less than $1000 excluding officer time.

24. The net value of the area C2 if developed is estimated to be $550,000.

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 local government in that it supports the consultation requirements set out in Section 138 of the Local Government Act. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because the cost of the consultation is limited to advertising and officer time.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Williams Park ecological assessment 2017	20
2 ⇩	Williams Park report about possible re-zoning and subdivision of Area C2 May 2018	33
3 ⇩	Williams Park report about possible re-zoning and subdivision of Area C2 May 2018 Map	36

Author: Kelly Crandle

Reserves Planner

Reviewed By: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

39 02 July 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

07 June 2018

File: (18/1014)

Report no: PRC2018/3/176

Proposed Control of Animals Bylaw

Purpose of Report

1. To report to Council the background information associated with the s155 review of the Control of Animals Bylaw 2008.

2. This report proposes that the Committee recommends that Council consult using the special consultative procedure on the proposed Control of Animals Bylaw 2018.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) requires Council to review its bylaws to ensure that they comply with the matters set out in sections 155 and 159 of the LGA 2002;

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

(iii) notes the outcome of the s155 review of the bylaw is to propose amendments to the bylaw, as more particularly detailed in the statement of proposal (a draft of which is attached as Appendix 2 to this report);

(iv) agrees to consult on the Summary of Information, Statement of Proposal and Proposed Amended Bylaw (a draft of which is attached as Appendices 1-3 to this report) in accordance with the requirements of the LGA 2002 by means of a special consultative procedure; and

(v) agrees to establish a subcommittee to:

a) hear submissions on the proposed amendments to the Control of Animals 2008; and

b) recommend the appropriate action to Council for consideration and approval.

For the reason that the LGA 2002 requires the Animal Control Bylaw 2008 to be reviewed.

Background

3. Council must review any existing bylaw within ten years of when it was last reviewed, in accordance with section 159 of the LGA 2002

4. A cross-Council team has been set up to undertake this review. The results of this work are set out in the report below.

Discussion

Legal position

5. Section 155 of the LGA 2002 provides that a local authority must consider the following matters when undertaking a bylaw review process:

5.1 Determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem;

5.2 Determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

5.3 That any proposed bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Bylaw review conclusions

6. After undertaking the section 155 review it was concluded that there is a perceived problem to address by creating a Control of Animals Bylaw 2018.

7. A copy of the Summary and the full Statement of Proposal (SOP) along with the draft Control of Animal Bylaw 2018 is set out in Appendices 1-3 of this report.

8. The proposed 2018 Bylaw seeks to create a regulatory framework with respect to the keeping of animals. This will help Council to maintain standards for public health and safety, and protect the public from nuisance, thereby helping to ensure the city is safe.

9. Several clauses have been deleted from the 2018 Bylaw, however much of the content of the 2018 Bylaw has been amended to refine the clauses so that each more specifically addresses the aspects of the perceived problem that the Council intended them to address. Details in this regard are outlined under section 3.1 of the SOP attached.

Options

10. Having established that there is a perceived problem that requires Council to establish a Control of Animals Bylaw, it is proposed that Council establish the proposed new Bylaw using the special consultative procedure.

Consultation

11. This report is the consequence of the special consultative procedure required to revoke the Hutt City Council Control of Animals Bylaw 2008 and create the proposed Control of Animals Bylaw 2018

Legal Considerations

12. This report is the consequence of a LGA 2002 requirement to review all Council bylaws within 10 years.

Financial Considerations

13. There are no financial considerations.

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 local government in that it meets the current and future needs of the community.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Summary of Proposal – Control of Animals Bylaw June 2018	40
2 ⇩	Statement of Proposal: Control of Animal Bylaw June 2018.	41
3 ⇩	Draft Control of Animals Bylaw 2018	48

Author: Graham Sewell

Principal Policy Advisor

Reviewed By: Bradley Cato

General Counsel

Reviewed By: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 2

Statement of Proposal: Control of Animal Bylaw June 2018.

STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL

TO MAKE THE

HUTT CITY COUNCIL BYLAW 2018

Control of Animals

AND REVOKE THE

HUTT CITY COUNCIL BYLAW 2008

Control of Animals

July 2018

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.. 3

2. background.. 3

2.1 The perceived problem... 3

2.2 Most appropriate way to address perceived problem... 4

2.3 Most appropriate form of bylaw... 5

2.4 Implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”) 5

3. the proposed bylaw... 5

3.1 Additions, modifications and deletions made in respect of existing bylaw... 6

3.2 Explanation of the proposed Bylaw content 6

Proposed clause 1 - Interpretation. 6

Proposed clause 2 – General conditions of keeping animals. 6

Proposed clause 3 – Keeping of Goats. 6

Proposed clause 4 – Keeping of poultry. 6

Proposed clause 5 – Noise from animals. 6

Proposed clause 6 – Health and safety issues from beekeeping. 6

Proposed clause 7 – Trapping devices. 7

4. process for the development of the proposed bylaw... 7

1. INTRODUCTION

Hutt City Council proposes to replace the existing Hutt City Council Bylaw 2008 Control of Animals (“the Bylaw 2008“) with a new bylaw relating to the control of animals (“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 the control of animals.

2. background

The Council is required to review the 2008 bylaw before 1 July 2018, as required by section 159 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:

protecting the public from nuisance;

protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety;

minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

The Council can also make bylaws for specific purposes as listed in section 146, for example, for the purpose of regulating the keeping of animals, bees and poultry (section 146(a)(v)).

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 animals are kept within the district without causing any problems. Occasionally, however, the keeping of animals may create a nuisance or endanger health which then needs to be addressed by the Council. These activities may cause:

· health or safety hazards - for example, failure to maintain appropriate hygiene or environmental standards e.g. not keeping animals properly fed, watered and housed or their living area clean ;

· damage to property or the environment - for example, when an animal is not kept under proper control damage can be caused to people and property; or

· disruptive behaviour - for example, when an animal creates a noise nuisance that impacts on adjoining neighbours.

The perceived problem means that a bylaw about the control of animals 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 animal control 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 the keeping of animals, bees and poultry(section 146(a)(v)).

The proposed Bylaw therefore seeks to regulate a wide range of activities to do with animal control within Hutt City so as to maintain standards for public health and safety and protect the public from nuisance.

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 the control of animals.

The Council therefore proposes to make the proposed Bylaw to regulate the control of animals within the city. 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 places within 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 animals are kept 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. For example Council staff, if asked, provide general advice to members of the public with respect to proper animal care and control.

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).

Other regulatory options

In reviewing the Bylaw 2008, the Council concluded that most of the provisions of that Bylaw are still relevant and necessary to address the perceived problems as noted above. However it was felt that roosters and goats should be banned from urban areas of the city unless written permission has been granted by Council.

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 Plan.

2.3 Most appropriate form of bylaw

The proposed Bylaw addresses the perceived problem by preventing nuisance and number of unwanted consequences from the keeping of animals.

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 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”)

Section 155(2)(b) of the LGA requires the Council to determine whether the Control of Animals 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 Bylaw 2008 that was adopted under the Local Government Act 1974.

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

Much of the content of the Bylaw 2008 has been amended to refine the clauses so that each more specifically addresses the aspect of the perceived problem that the Council intended them to address. Below is an outline of the one proposed change:

· Clause 2 General conditions of keeping animals – a new clause that outlines clearly the general conditions relating to how animals should be kept.

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 respect to the control of animals. 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 – General conditions of keeping animals

This clause is proposed to clearly outline the general conditions relating to how animals should be kept.

Proposed clause 3 – Keeping of Goats

The purpose of this clause is to ensure that no goats are permitted in the urban area unless written permission has been granted by Council. Also specifying other requirements if a goat is permitted in the urban area.

Proposed clause 4 – Keeping of poultry

The purpose of this clause is to specify the terms and conditions associated with the keeping of poultry in any urban area. It also bans roosters in any urban area unless written permission has been granted by Council.

Proposed clause 5 – Noise from animals

The purpose of this clause is to establish that it is a breach of the bylaw if a person keeps an animal that creates a nuisance by frequent or long continued noise.

Proposed clause 6 – Health and safety issues from beekeeping

The purpose of this clause is to establish the legal framework that enables a person to keep bees.

Proposed clause 7 – Trapping devices

The purpose of this clause is to ban the use of trapping devices including gin traps, within the city.

4. process for the development of the proposed bylaw

The special consultative procedure will end 4.00pm on Friday 31 August 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.

Attachment 3

Draft Control of Animals Bylaw 2018

CONTENTS

1.... INTERPRETATION. 3

2..... GENERAL CONDITIONS OF KEEPING ANIMALS. 3

3..... KEEPING OF GOATS. 3

4..... KEEPING OF POULTRY. 4

5..... NOISE FROM ANIMALS. 4

6..... HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES FROM BEEKEEPING.. 4

7..... TRAPPING DEVICES. 5

8..... OFFENCES. 5

SCHEDULE ONE. 6

1. INTERPRETATION

1.1 In this Bylaw:

“Animal” has the meaning defined in the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and means any live member of the animal kingdom that is a mammal, bird, bee, or any other member of the animal kingdom that is declared from time to time by the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to be an animal.

“Authorised Officer” means any person appointed or authorized by the Council on its behalf.

“Commercial poultry shelter or run” means any commercial poultry operation containing more than 8 head of poultry.

“Council” means the Hutt City Council.

“Domestic Animal” means any animal (including a bird or reptile, but excluding bees) kept as a domestic pet; any working dog; any other animal kept by any person for recreational purposes or for the purposes of that person’s occupation or employment.

“Nuisance” refers to the dictionary definition (a person, thing, or circumstance causing trouble or annoyance; anything harmful or offensive to the community or a member of it and for which a legal remedy exists) or to a statutory nuisance as defined in Section 29 of the Health Act 1956.

“Owner’s Property” includes any property the owner of an animal has a legal right to use for the purposes of keeping the relevant animal.

“Poultry” includes geese, ducks, turkeys, domestic fowls, roosters, or any birds kept as show birds.

“Trapping device” means any trap or other similar device made of metal or other hard material having two jaws closing on each other and operated by a spring and includes without limitation a gin trap but does not include any trap designed for trapping mice or rats.

“Urban area” means the area identified as urban area in the map in Schedule 1. Council may amend this map by resolution.

2 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF KEEPING ANIMALS

2.1 All animals shall be kept in a manner that is not, or is not likely to become, a nuisance, dangerous, offensive, or injurious to health.

2.2 All animals shall be kept in a manner that ensures they have adequate physical well-being through acceptable nutrition, environmental, health and behavioural stimulus, and adequate mental well-being.

2.3 All domestic animals, other than domestic cats, found at large and not within their owner's property may be seized and impounded by an authorised officer.

2.4 The Council may sell, re-home or otherwise dispose of any animal seized and impounded that has not been claimed or returned within 7 days after it was seized and impounded.

3 KEEPING OF GOATS

3.1 No goats are to be kept in any Urban Area, unless written permission has been granted by Council.

3.2 The Council may grant permission to keep a goat on such conditions as the Council considers appropriate. If there is a breach of any condition, Council may revoke its permission.

3.3 All goats must be fitted with an ear tag or collar with sufficient details to allow the owner to be traced or contacted, if the goat is seized.

3.4 All goats must be kept within private property, unless written permission has been granted by Council to do otherwise.

4 KEEPING OF POULTRY

4.1 Poultry must be adequately contained within the owner’s property, so as not to cause (or be likely to cause) nuisance, offence or be injurious to health.

4.2 No roosters are to be kept in any Urban Area, unless written permission has been granted by Council.

4.3 An owner or occupier of any property in an urban area may keep no more than 8 chickens (or other poultry) without the Council's prior written permission. In assessing an application to allow more than 8 chickens (or other poultry), the Council will consider:

(a) the number of poultry at the premises; and

(b) provision for the welfare, hygiene, control, and confinement of the poultry; and

(d) the size of the property and proximity to neighbours, and

(e) any other factors it considers relevant.

4.4 Council may grant permission to keep roosters or poultry on such conditions as Council considers appropriate. If there is a breach of any condition, Council may revoke its permission.

5 NOISE FROM ANIMALS

5.1 No person may keep an animal that by frequent or long continued noise creates a nuisance by disturbing the quiet enjoyment of people living in the vicinity.

6 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES FROM BEEKEEPING

6.1 No person may keep bees in such a way as to cause (or be likely to cause) nuisance, offence or be injurious to health.

7 TRAPPING DEVICES

7.1 No person may set a trapping device.

8 OFFENCES

8.1 Every person commits an offence who breaches a clause of this bylaw.

SCHEDULE ONE

URBAN AREA

For an interactive viewer to see more detail follow this link:

https://huttcity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=5c088a6e4c7a4b72a827960bbc43cff1

56 02 July 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

07 June 2018

File: (18/1018)

Report no: PRC2018/3/177

Proposed Prevention of Nuisance from Fires and Smoke Bylaw

Purpose of Report

1. To report to the Council the background information associated with the s155 review of the Fire Prevention (Urban Fire District) Bylaw 2008.

2. This report proposes that the Committee recommend that Council consult using the special consultative procedure on the proposed Prevention of Nuisance from Fires and Smoke Bylaw.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the Local Government Act 2002 (‘LGA 2002’) requires Council to review its bylaws to ensure that they comply with the matters set out in sections 155 and 159 of the Act;

(ii) notes that the Fire Prevention (Urban Fire District) Bylaw 2008 has been reviewed in accordance with section 155 of the LGA 2002;

(iii) notes that the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fire Permits) Regulations 2017 now prescribe the new role and responsibilities for Hutt City Council;

(iv) notes the outcome of the review is to propose amendments to the bylaw, as more particularly detailed in the statement of proposal (a draft of which is attached as Appendix 2 to the report);

(v) agrees to consult on the Summary of Information, Statement of Proposal and Proposed Amended Bylaw (a draft of which is attached as Appendices 1-3 to this report) in accordance with the requirements of the LGA 2002 by means of a special consultative procedure; and

(vi) agrees to establish a subcommittee to:

a) hear submissions on the proposed amendments to the Fire Prevention (Urban Fire District) Bylaw2008; and

b) recommend the appropriate action to Council for consideration and approval.

For the reason that the current Fire Prevention Bylaw 2008 is due to be reviewed as required by the LGA 2002 and changes to the role and responsibility of the Council have been enacted that needs to be incorporated into the 2008 bylaw review.

Background

3. The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 was passed by Parliament on 11 May 2017. It established a single organisation – Fire and Emergency NZ (FENZ) – that brought together urban and rural fire services from 1 July 2017.

4. With the passing of the legislation and the making of associated regulations, work has been undertaken to identify what fire control responsibilities must be transferred to FENZ. This includes determining what changes should be made to Council bylaws to take into account the new legal framework. Hutt City Council’s (HCC) current Fire Prevention Bylaw was due for review by 1 July 2018, which is timely given the new legal framework now in place.

5. In an operational sense the following actions have already been taken:

· Under the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017, FENZ will manage all fire permits and HCC will no longer be the authority to issue urban fire permits. This became effective from 1 June 2018.

· Applicants seeking a fire permit need to apply online via the FENZ website: www.checkitsalright.nz If applicants have difficulties they can phone on 0800 658 628.

· Existing permits issued by Council will be valid until their expiry date.

· Council’s Communications Team are arranging publicity and changing the fire information on the Council website.

· Environmental Health and After Hours Duty Officers will respond to smoke nuisance complaints and non-compliance of the bylaw.

Discussion

6. The review of the current Bylaw is to meet the new legal framework and resulting role and responsibilities established by the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and associated Regulations.

7. The detail around this review is outlined in the Summary of Information, Statement of Proposal and Proposed Bylaw which is attached to this report as Appendix 1-3.

Options

8. Given the need to review the current Bylaw and in response to the change in the legal framework associate with the management of fire, it is recommended that the Council undertake the special consultative procedure with respect to the proposed bylaw attached as Appendix 3.

Consultation

9. The new FENZ Act allows bylaws to be amended without public consultation, where they are just removing the elements from the bylaw that FENZ will now govern. As our proposed bylaw is also amending the existing bylaw and proposing slightly new elements (including the power for council officers to abate nuisances) officer advice is that the special consultative procedure must be undertaken.

Legal Considerations

10. This bylaw has been created under both the LGA and section 64(1) (a) of the Health Act 1956. This gives Council the legal authority, in addition to the bylaw making provisions of the LGA, to shift the focus of the bylaw to: “improving, promoting, or protecting public health, and preventing or abating nuisances…”

11. Clause 3.3 of the proposed Bylaw then provides an “Authorised Officer” of Council with the legal power to abate a nuisance.

Financial Considerations

12. There are no financial considerations known at this stage. However the responsibility for issuing fire permits has now been passed to FENZ.

Other Considerations

13. 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 meets the current/future needs of the community.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Summary of Proposal – Prevention of nuisance from fires and smoke Bylaw July 2018	58
2 ⇩	Statement of Proposal - Prevention of nuisance from fires and smoke Bylaw July 2018	59
3 ⇩	Draft Prevention of Nuisance from Fires and Smoke Bylaw 2018	65

Author: Graham Sewell

Principal Policy Advisor

Reviewed By: Bradley Cato

General Counsel

Reviewed By: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

1. INTRODUCTION

Hutt City Council proposes to replace the existing Hutt City Council Bylaw 2008 Fire Prevention (“the Bylaw 2008“) with a new bylaw relating to fire nuisance (“the proposed Bylaw”).

2. background

The Council is required to review its Bylaw relating to fire prevention before 1 July 2018, under section 159 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.

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 2008 Bylaw can be viewed by visiting the Council’s website: www.huttcity.govt.nz

2.1 The perceived problem

The proposed Bylaw is a consequence of the enactment of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and the Fire and Emergency (Fire Permits) Regulations 2017. It established Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) as the organisation that will bring together urban and rural fire services. This also requires Council to amend its current bylaw to reflect the new legal framework.

To obtain a fire permit applicants now need to apply online to the Fire and Emergency (FENZ) website. The FENZ website is: www.checkitsalright.nz

The proposed Bylaw is intended to meet Hutt City Council’s new role and responsibility under the Act and Regulations as noted above. This new role is focussed on the ability to regulate for the control of nuisance or health and safety risk from smoke from fires.

The perceived problem means that a bylaw about nuisance from fires and smoke from a fire is consistent with the provisions in the LGA relating to the Council’s bylaw-making powers and also with the Act and Regulations 2017 as noted above. The Council considers that it is still necessary to have a bylaw relating to nuisance from smoke and fire for the purposes of:

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

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

The Council therefore proposes to make the proposed Bylaw to regulate nuisance from fires and smoke. The proposed Bylaw is generally intended to ensure adequate controls and monitoring are established to meet public expectations of the Council’s legal responsibilities concerning nuisance from fires and smoke in Lower Hutt.

2.2 Most appropriate way to address perceived problem

Changes have now been created with the passing of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and the Fire and Emergency (Fire Permits) Regulations 2017. The appropriate option is to meet the new requirements resulting from this new legal framework. This will require Council to amend the current bylaw to meet the new legal framework.

Section 11 of the FENZ Act 2017 outlines the main functions of FENZ that includes the following:

(a) to promote fire safety, including providing guidance on the safe use of fire as a land management tool; and

(b) to provide fire prevention, response, and suppression services;

FENZ has advised that given their legal requirement around fire safety (to ensure a fire is well managed and doesn’t get out of control) the control of nuisance or health and safety risk from fires and smoke is something Council needs to address via a bylaw.

Summary

2.3 Most appropriate form of bylaw

The proposed Bylaw addresses the perceived problem by providing Council with the necessary legal powers to address a number of unwanted consequences from certain activities associated with fire.

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 proposed bylaw. The Bylaw also sets out what action needs to be taken to comply with it.

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 therefore the most appropriate form of bylaw. It clearly states the Council’s position, how the Bylaw can be complied with 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.

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

With the passing of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and the Fire and Emergency (Fire Permits) Regulations 2017 a new legal framework has been established with a new role and responsibility for the Council to undertake. The proposed bylaw reflects that new role and responsibility which has resulted in the clauses in the 2008 bylaw needing to be completely updated.

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 problems associated with fire. The following outlines the rationale for the inclusion of each of the clauses in the proposed bylaw.

Proposed clause 1 – Purpose and Application of bylaw

This clause is proposed to identify what the purpose of the bylaw is, the legal powers this bylaw is being made under and the specific matters to be addressed by this bylaw.

Proposed clause 2 – Interpretation

The purpose of this clause is to state the meaning of certain words so it is clear what is intended.

Proposed clause 3 – Nuisance or health and safety risk from fires or smoke

The purpose of this clause is to define what creates a nuisance, health risk, or safety risk and what an Authorised Officer can do to in those situations.

Proposed clause 4 – Offences and cost recovery

The purpose of this clause is to outline how a person can commit an offence and how Council may recover any costs when it acts under the provisions of the bylaw.

4. process for the development of the proposed bylaw

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.

75 02 July 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

01 June 2018

File: (18/990)

Report no: PRC2018/3/179

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 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 LIMs and property enquiries under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

3. 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.

4. The report firstly covers Environmental Consents and secondly Regulatory Services. Environmental Health data is attached as Appendix 1 to the report. Environmental Consent data is attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

5. Regulatory Services data is attached as Appendix 3 to the report.

Discussion – Environmental Consents

6. The division continues to experience an increase in application numbers (building and resource consents, LIMs, food premises, liquor licence applications) across the board.

Building Team

7. The total value of work for the current financial year up to the end of May is $237M from a total of 1307 building consents.

8. This equates to a 35% increase in the value of work and a 19% increase in the number of consents for the same period last financial year, where the value of work was $175M and the total number of consents was 1102.

9. The Building Team has had its accreditation as a Building Consent Authority approved for a further two years. This means that we can continue to process, issue and inspect building consent applications.

10. Recent building consent applications received of note include:

· Callahan Innovation - Stage 1 research laboratory - $8m

· 135 Jackson Street - earthquake strengthening and new apartments - $3m

· 201 Gracefield Road - Warehouse upgrade and extension at - $2.3m

· 77 Waione Street - Kennards Hire centre, new showroom - $1.6m

Earthquake prone buildings

11. Our seismic assessment officers are continuing to liaise with the owners of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings ensuring work to facades and/or parapets is completed by the end of September 2018.

12. Hutt City Council began with a list of unreinforced masonry buildings 72 buildings; this has now been decreased to 25 buildings. All of these have had the engineering design work done, and many have begun the necessary work. This is being closely monitored by our seismic assessment officers.

13. Consultation has begun on the list of streets for priority buildings in relation to the new earthquake provisions of the Building Act. Public consultation ends on 29 June 2018. This will then allow the identification of priority buildings for earthquake strengthening requiring half the normal time allowed to strengthen/demolish the building.

14. Hutt City Council has won the first prosecution in New Zealand for failure to comply with an earthquake prone building notice. Officers are still awaiting the sentencing decision from the court – this is due in August 2018. Meanwhile conversations are continuing with the owners around getting the necessary work done as soon as possible.

15. Stride has supplied Council with Detailed Seismic Assessments for three buildings in the Queensgate complex which may be considered to be earthquake prone. Council officers have passed this onto our consultant engineer to assess with a view to determining whether it is appropriate to serve earthquake prone building notices on the buildings (this is likely to give a 15 year timeframe for strengthening). Stride has indicated its intention to complete works within 12 months.

Eco Design Advice

16. We have had a significant increase in the number of eco design advisor enquiries as a response to the rates flyer and social media advertising.

17. The advisor is fully booked with appointments for the next two months.

Resource Consents Team

Recent resource consent applications received of note include:

18. Hathaway Avenue, Boulcott - a resource consent application by Summerset Villages has been received for the construction and operation of a retirement village consisting of 42 villas, 109 self-contained apartments, 53 serviced apartments, 30 care rooms and 10 memory care rooms. The application is currently on hold for further information. It will be publicly notified once all of the information has been received.

19. 47 Laings Road, Hutt Central – an application has been received from JNS Holdings Ltd for 15 residential units on a vacant site (previously occupied by the Citizens Advice Bureau). The application is currently being assessed.

20. 255 Rata Street, Naenae – a resource consent application has been received from Wesley Community Action Ltd for a 25 unit social housing development on the site of the Wesleyhaven aged care facility. The application is currently being assessed.

21. 135 Witako Street, Epuni – an application by Lower Hutt Health Ltd has been received for a new medical centre (two storeys with a gross floor area of approximately 3,400m²) on the site previously occupied by the Naenae Bowling Club. The application is currently being assessed.

Recently granted resource consents

22. Taita Drive, Avalon – a non-notified resource consent has been granted to Urban Plus Limited for a subdivision with 24 new houses on land to the north of Avalon Park next to the Avalon Tennis Club.

23. 15 Gill Road, Lowry Bay – a non-notified resource consent has been granted for a subdivision with four new dwellings and earthworks. The new lots will be accessed from Waitohu Road in York Bay. Council received a number of emails from Waitohu Road residents expressing concerns about the Waitohu Road access issues including the effects of the additional traffic; the effects of construction traffic; and emergency vehicle access. These concerns were taken into account and assessed as part of the decision to grant this consent. There are conditions of consent to mitigate the construction effects including the requirement for a construction management plan to ensure construction effects including noise, dust and sediment control, vehicle traffic and parking are effectively managed during construction.

New resource consent application processes, introduced October 2017

24. The Resource Legislation Amendment Act introduced two new streamlined approval processes - deemed permitted boundary activities and deemed permitted marginal/temporary activities.

25. Since October 2017 Council has issued 11 permitted boundary activity approvals and six for permitted marginal/temporary activities.

26. Whilst the new processes are beneficial in terms of reduction of time and costs for simple applications, there has been no noticeable reduction to the overall numbers of consents that are being received.

27. In the financial year to date, far 78.4% of resource consents have been issued within 18 days. This is slightly below the LTP target of 80% of resource consent to be issued within 18 working days. The Resource Consents team are working hard try and achieve the 80% target by the end of the financial year.

Land Information Memoranda (LIMs) Team

28. We have received a record number of LIMs this financial year to date (LIM numbers in the last 11 months have exceeded the previous 12 month period).

29. As a result of the increased number of LIMs and no corresponding increase in staff resource, we will not manage to meet our Annual Plan KPI of 95% in nine working days.

30. The team is currently sitting at 92% of LIMs issued in nine working days.

Environmental Health Team

31. Job applications for five permanent positions and one short term contract within the team have closed. Six applicants have been interviewed thus far, although it is likely that several positions will be re-advertised through a recruitment company.

Alcohol

32. An application for a new off-licence (Blackbull, Riddiford Street) heard by the District Licensing Committee (DLC) in October 2017 was appealed by an objector. This was then heard by the Alcohol Regulatory Licensing Authority on 29 May 2018. The authority reserved their decision, probably for 4-6 weeks.

33. An application for the renewal of an off-licence (Ava Foodmarket) was heard by the District Licensing Committee (DLC) on 18 April 2018. The application was opposed by the Medical Officer of Health who had concerns that it did not meet the criteria for a grocery store. The licensee (owner) had also been caught on two separate controlled purchase operations selling cigarettes and alcohol to a minor. The hearing was adjourned and a further breakdown of accounts (statement of annual revenue by category) was requested by the DLC to establish if the premises is operating as a grocery store.

34. Hutt Old Boy’s Marist Rugby Football Club is being monitored since its club licence renewal in June 2016. The renewal was determined at a DLC hearing and further restrictive conditions imposed on the licence in order to address issues with amenity and good order. The licence period was also truncated. Since then, further complaints have arisen, similar to those that have occurred previously. The matter has been set down for a public hearing on 29 June 2018.

35. After hours compliance checks in May of high risk licensed premises have not revealed any significant issues.

Litter

36. The number of reported litter dumping’s has recently decreased.

37. This may be due to a self-appointed neighbourhood volunteer not being in contact with Council over the last couple of months. The recycling contractor is continuing to remove and dispose of litter.

Food premises

38. There are three premises that have not paid their registration fee. (<$1000). They are being visited in person by an officer for collection.

39. Operators with outstanding fees have been notified, and invoices sent.

40. It was anticipated that the new Food Act 2014 would result in an increase of costs associated with verification of many food control plans and some national programmes, particularly operators who struggle to comply. The new system of risk based measures is more complex and onerous on operators, which has caused quite a number to receive unacceptable outcomes at their first verification. This means more follow-up visits which incur further costs, and increased verification frequency, again increasing compliance costs.

41. Unfortunately for some operators the associated costs may be detrimental to the overall viability of the business.

Noise

42. There are no significant noise issues occurring in Hutt City at present.

43. An officer attended a resource consent hearing for a proposed child care centre at Lees Grove, Wainuiomata. One of the immediate neighbours objected to the consent, raising concerns about noise.

Bylaws

44. Members of the team (and HCC policy analyst) have been meeting with representatives of Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) regarding changes to the regulation of fire hazards and permits. Changes to the fire service legislation will require changes to be made to the HCC bylaw. Officers have already begun working on this.

45. Meetings have also been held between HCC policy analysts and members of the environmental health team regarding a review of the Keeping of Animals Bylaw and a proposed joint bylaw with UHCC for Health and Hygiene of skin piercers/tattooists and beauty parlours (facials and nails).

46. Proposals for the animals bylaw are to move away from prescriptive requirements and instead control any adverse effect.

Enforcement matters from Regulatory Services

Animal Services

47. As we approach a new dog registration year HCC has only 35 unregistered dogs from a list of approximately 850 owners who needed follow up. That is 0.3% of the total of 9500.

48. Currently the SPCA is running a Snip and Chip campaign, that is desexing and microchipping your cat or dog. The fee is only $9 (microchip only $4), normally the fees are in the range of $200 for desexing a male dog, $300 for a female and $35 for the microchipping. So far 22 dog owners have brought the vouchers for desexing and a further six have the vouchers for desexing and microchipping. For the cats, one owner has purchased the desexing voucher and six for desexing and microchipping.

Parking Services

49. Parking Services are just about to start a new safety campaign. With the need to get a Warrant of Fitness for cars now being extended out to three years for new cars and one year for older vehicles we have noticed an increase in the poor condition of tyres. Prior to the changes in the rules HCC issued 25 tickets/month for dangerous tyres and that has now jumped to 55.

50. HCC is one of the only Councils that infringe cars that have tyres in a dangerous condition. We see this as a clear safety issue where cars are being driven with tyres that have the tyre cords exposed. Any car we see that is below the legal limit, but not showing the tyre chords exposed, we give a warning flyer which is very much appreciated by recipients.

51. To aid the drive for safer use of cars we have partnered with NZTA and NZ Police by supplying a free key ring that has the three bands. Green for your tyre is good, orange is time to replace and red it’s illegal. All you do is insert the checker into a few of the tire grooves and the checker will let you know the safety level of your tread depth. The checker is for guidance only, but if you use the key ring it a good reminder to do the check.

Emergency Management

52. Secondary Schools Rescue Training programme has finished for the year. Seven schools participated, with 70 pupils learning life skills of first aid, knot tying, recognisance/search and rescue and teamwork. The prize giving is on Monday 11 June and the Mayors of Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt will recognise the best teams and individual skills learnt. This training of Emergency Services has been going for 40 years and has inspired many of the participants to get jobs in the Fire and Emergency Service, Ambulance, Police and Search and Rescue.

Trade Waste

53. In early May council was made aware of an invasion of plastic formula lids along the Petone beach. Within 30 minutes of being notified our staff identified the local business and had contacted the owner. The business was alarmed by what had happened and have taken positives steps to improve their practice and have ordered litter traps for the street sumps adjacent to the factory. These will capture the plastic beads that occasionally make it to the ground and then in to the kerb and channel.

54. GWRC and HCC are satisfied with the positive steps taken by the business to date.

Consultation

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

Legal Considerations

56. 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

57. There are no financial considerations.

Other Considerations

58. 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 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 Health graphs at 31 May 2018	76
2 ⇩	Environmental Consents graphs at 31 May 2018	79
3 ⇩	Regulatory Services enforcement actions at 31 May 2018	98

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

Attachment 1

2018 Policy and Regulatory Work Programme

2018 POLICY & REGULATORY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME

Description	Author	Cycle 4, 2018	Cycle 5, 2018	Pending
General Manager’s Report	K Kelly	ü	ü
Smoke-free Policy – Report back on the smoke-free areas	B Gall	ü
Review of Private use of Public Land Policy	G Sewell	ü
Walter Mildenhall Park Reserve	B Hodgins	ü
Pencarrow Coast Road Policy Review	B Hodgins	ü
Korimako Road Encroachment	B Hodgins	ü
Discount Registration for Therapy Dogs	L Dalton			ü
Risk and Resilience Costs Update	W Moore			ü
Bell Park – proposal for the development of Bell Park	B Hodgins			ü
Wellington Region Natural Hazards Management Strategy	A Cumming			ü
Parking Policy Review	W Moore / J Pritchard			ü
Activity Report: Environmental Management (Regulatory services and Emergency Management)	G Stuart			ü
Activity Report: Environmental Management (Environmental Consents)	H Oram			ü
Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy	J Pritchard			ü

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

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)

ANIMAL SERVICES	April	May
Dogs impounded	69	71
Infringements issued	1	5
Prosecutions

PARKING SERVICES	April	May
Infringements	2422	3312
Stationary offences (WOFs, tyres)	748	1113