Agenda of Council - 8 00 2020

Council

8 June 2020

Reports

District Licensing Committee Membership Review Process

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval for the process to review the membership of the Dunedin District Licensing Committee (DLC).

2 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act (the Act) aims to minimise harm from alcohol by managing the way it is sold, supplied and consumed. The Act requires each local authority to appoint a DLC (or committees) to deal with alcohol licensing matters for its district. The local authority must establish and maintain the list of DLC members.

3 The membership review process is based on best practice national guidance from the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM), Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and Health Promotion Agency (HPA) which was produced in November 2019.

4 The aim of the review is to ensure that the make-up of the DLC membership best reflects the interests of the Dunedin community in terms of skills, diversity of representation and succession planning.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the process for reviewing the Dunedin District Licensing Committee membership, as described.

b) Decides the type of panel that will carry out the District Licensing Committee membership review.

c) Notes that a report outlining the structure and constitution of the preferred option will be prepared for the 30 June Council meeting.

d) Notes that the review panel will report to the Council in July 2020 with District Licensing Committee membership recommendations so the Committee may commence on 3 August 2020.

e) Approves the extension of the current District Licensing Committee Commissioner, the Council representative and Community representatives until 31 July 2020.

BACKGROUND

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act

5 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) requires local authorities to have a DLC and to establish, maintain and publish a list of approved people to be members on the DLC. A quorum of three is required and positions may be held by current members of Council.

6 The object of the Act is that the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly and that the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised.

7 The Act provides that the Chief Executive, on recommendation of the Council, appoints commissioners and the Council appoints the remaining members of the DLC. Alternatively, the Act provides that a local authority may appoint a chair to the DLC, that chair being a councillor representative, along with the remaining members of the DLC.

8 Those who cannot be appointed to a DLC position are police officers, Medical Officers of Health, alcohol licensing inspectors, employees of that local authority or anyone who has, directly or by virtue of his or her relationship with another person, such an involvement or appearance of involvement with the alcohol industry that he or she could not perform his or her duties without actual bias or the appearance of bias.

Review of DLC membership

9 Councils can appoint DLC members, chairs and commissioners for up to five years. They can be reappointed for one or more periods of up to five years.

10 In comparison, company board membership is usually for a three-year period with a maximum of three terms.

11 In November 2019, it was decided to review the DLC membership. A national review of DLCs showed that DLCs are not necessarily representative of the communities in which they operate. The review showed under-representation of women, younger people and a lack of ethnic diversity.

November 2019 Council resolution

12 In November 2019, it was resolved:

Moved (Cr Rachel Elder/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Approves the Chief Executive to renew Mr Weatherall’s appointment as Commissioner to the District Licensing Committee until 30 June 2020.

b) Appoints Cr David Benson-Pope as a council representative member of the District Licensing Committee until 30 June 2020.

c) Extends the membership of Mr Lind and Mr Burrows as community representative members of the District Licensing Committee, until 30 June 2020.

d) Notes a full review of the membership of the District Licensing Committee would be reported to Council by 31 March 2020.

e) Notes that the remaining members, Cr Vandervis and Lord, would continue to be members of the District Licensing Committee until May 2023, and Mr Andrew Noone would continue to be a member of the District Licensing Committee until 2021.

Motion carried (CNL/2019/044)

DISCUSSION

Current DLC

13 The DLC is currently made up seven members including two commissioners, two community representatives and three councillor representatives.

14 See Attachment A for the list of DLC members and their length of service.

15 The DLC convenes approximately 15 times per year to hear opposed alcohol licence applications. Unopposed applications are dealt with ‘on the papers’ (without a hearing) by the commissioners.

16 DLC members are paid for hours worked with costs recovered by licence fees.

17 Local authorities may have more than one DLC or merge its DLC with another local authority. For Dunedin, one DLC is considered appropriate.

2013 process

18 In 2013, when the DLC was established, expressions of interest attracted eight responses. A selection panel of two staff and one elected member carried out an assessment of each application using the suggested competencies issued by the Ministry of Justice.

19 The competencies were experience relevant to alcohol licensing matters, understanding of harm caused by the consumption of alcohol, quality decision making, hearing experience, strong communication and professional integrity.

20 Following the assessment, the Chief Executive Officer appointed a commissioner to the role of chairperson of the DLC, and the Council appointed five others as DLC members.

21 The list of DLC members was advertised in the Otago Daily Times.

Size of DLC

22 The quorum for a DLC is three members. To ensure a quorum is maintained and that the community is well represented, a minimum of five members and a maximum of eight members is proposed. Current membership sits at seven and this has worked well in practice.

23 Councillors Vandervis and Lord are confirmed as members until May 2023 and Mr Andrew Noone is confirmed as a member until 2021. This means that for 1 July 2020, at least two, and up to five new members will be needed.

National guidance

24 Following the review, SOLGM, LGNZ and the HPA in November 2019, produced Selecting and appointing district licensing committees – a guide for councils which provides guidance on best practice and the necessary knowledge, skills and experience relating to matters likely to come before the DLC that would be required for DLC members.

25 The aim of the guidance is to ensure a fair process and that the people appointed to DLCs are able to run a fair and objective decision-making process.

Review process and panel

26 A review of the DLC membership provides the opportunity to consider the make-up of the membership that best reflects the interests of the Dunedin community and provides for succession planning.

27 A panel is proposed to manage the DLC membership review and Council guidance is sought on the make-up of this panel. Options are a staff/Councillor mix, subcommittee of the Council or that the full Council makes up the panel. The purpose of the panel will be to manage the review, assess applicants and make recommendations on membership to the Council.

28 Based on the national guidance, the process for reviewing, selecting and appointment the Dunedin DLC is as follows:

Step	Action
1.	Establish a panel to manage the membership review and to assess and propose DLC members
2.	Draft key documents including advertisements, position descriptions, core competencies, scoring sheets and interview questions using national guidance as a basis
3.	Seek expressions of interest for DLC membership positions via: Otago Daily Times, DCC website, relevant Council community and business networks, Māori, youth, health and women’s networks
4.	Screen applicants and assess eligibility and skills; short list as relevant and necessary.
5.	Carry out interviews
6.	Select preferred candidates considering the overall mix of skills and how these match the skills required of a DLC – using national guidance as a basis
7.	Offer and acceptance; draw up contract for services
8.	Report to Council recommending appointment of members and commissioners in July 2020 with DLC commencement date 3 August 2020
9.	Confirm contract for services with members
10.	Establish and maintain a register of DLC members that will assist succession planning

29 The proposed timeframe for this process is June-July 2020, with Council appointing DLC members at its 28 July Council meeting. The new DLC will commence on 3 August 2020.

30 In the future, a DLC membership review will be carried out following each local body election.

31 The COVID-19 pandemic delayed the original review timeline. Therefore, an extension of the current District Licensing Committee Commissioner, the Council representative and Community representatives until 31 July 2020 is required to enable the new DLC selection process to be completed.

OPTIONS

Option One – Staff and Councillor selection panel

32 This option is for a mix of staff and Council to form a panel that will manage the DLC membership review process. In 2013 the panel comprised two staff and one Councillor.

Advantages

· Brings a mix of knowledge from staff and elected members.

· A smaller panel would be efficient in terms of resourcing.

Disadvantages

· Lacks the transparency of a formally constituted subcommittee that is covered by LGOIMA.

Option Two – Subcommittee of Council

33 This option to form a subcommittee of the Council that will manage the DLC membership review process.

Advantages

· A formally constituted subcommittee of Council with appropriate delegations.

· External parties (e.g. Māori, Police or Health representatives) could be seconded onto the Subcommittee.

· LGOIMA applies and therefore the process is transparent.

Disadvantages

· More resourcing and support required.

Option Three – Full Council panel

34 This option is that the full Council of 14 Councillors and the Mayor is responsible for managing the DLC review process.

Advantages

· All elected members have input to the review process.

Disadvantages

· More resourcing and support required.

· Possibly inefficient use of Councillor resources, given that Council is required to approve DLC members.

· Panel of 15 could be unwieldy in terms of logistics.

NEXT STEPS

35 Key documents will be drafted to enable the review process to begin.

36 A report on the preferred option will be prepared for the 30 June Council meeting.

Signatories

Author:

Anne Gray - Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Adrian Blair - Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	DLC membership 10 March 2020.pdf	2
⇩b	Selecting and Appointing District Licensing Committees - A Guide for Councils	2

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

This decision contributes to healthy and safe people and vibrant and cohesive communities priorities of the Social Wellbeing Strategy. It contributes to the compelling destination priority of the Economic Development Strategy, the liveable city priority of the Spatial Plan and to the purpose of the Local Alcohol Policy.

Māori Impact Statement

Māori suffer disproportionately from alcohol-related harm. A national review of DLCs showed that DLCs are not necessarily representative of the communities in which they operate. The review showed a lack of ethnic diversity.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement has occurred with the Civic team and Liquor Licensing Coordinator and Policy team.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

Councillors Lord, Vandervis and Benson-Pope are current DLC members and have an interest in this matter.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Council

8 June 2020

Central City Advisory Group membership

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 At the 25 May 2020 Council meeting Council reconstituted the Central City Advisory Group (CCAG) to provide feedback throughout the detailed design and business case stages of the George Street upgrade proposals.

2 This report provides suggested membership of the CCAG and a draft terms of reference for consideration by Council.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the proposed membership of the Central City Advisory Group.

b) Approves the terms of reference for the Central City Advisory Group.

BACKGROUND

3 During the previous triennium a CCAG was established, but the group ceased at the end of that triennium.

4 At a Council meeting on 25 May 2020, when considering an update report on the George Street upgrade, Council passed a resolution to reconstitute the CCAG as follows:

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Notes the reports and other documents on this matter.

b) Endorses the continuation of the George Street Retail Quarter section of the Central City Plan and

c) Reconstitutes a Central City Advisory Group to provide feedback throughout the detailed design and business case stages of these proposals.

d) Request a staff report to the 8 June 2020 Council meeting as to the suggested composition of the Central City Advisory Group and the Terms of Reference.

Division

The Council voted by division:

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Jim O'Malley, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker and Aaron Hawkins (10).

Against: Crs Carmen Houlahan, Jules Radich, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (4).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 10 votes to 4

Motion carried (CNL/2020/044)

5 This report provides a suggested membership and draft terms of reference in response to the resolution of Council.

DISCUSSION

6 The previous CCAG had membership from a range of organisations including the Chamber of Commerce, the University of Otago, NZTA, NZ Police, Ngai Tahu, Otago Regional Council and the Southern Health Partnership.

7 The previous CCAG aimed to provide a spectrum of viewpoints with a focus on coordinating development across the city and to advise on social, cultural, environmental and economic matters relating to the project.

8 As the George Street part of the project has been endorsed to enter into developed and detailed design stages, membership of the reformed CCAG has been focussed on ensuring that the specific interests of George Street are represented by the group rather than the entire Central City Plan.

9 A Terms of Reference is attached to the report and outlines the proposed membership and purpose of the CCAG, and details reporting lines and supporting staff.

OPTIONS

10 As this is an administrative report, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

11 Once Council has confirmed the membership of the CCAG, representatives from the member groups will be identified and the first meeting will be scheduled.

12 The group will report through updates to the Planning and Environment Committee.

Signatories

Author:	Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft Terms of Reference for Central City Advisory Group	79

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

This decision contributes to Council’s strategic priorities by making people feel connected and involved in community affairs. It also contributes to making sure the community are satisfied with the way the city is developing in terms of look and feel.

Māori Impact Statement

This decision is consistent with authority’s consultation model Te Roopu Taiao involving Aukaha in the CCAG.

Sustainability

This decision is consistent with our long term economic, social, environmental and economic strategies.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The Central City Plan is included in the Long-Term Plan and is part of the Transport Infrastructure Strategy, creating major street improvements and creating a more attractive space aligned with improving underground services.

Financial considerations

There are no financial considerations.

Significance

This decision is considered to be of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement on the reconstituted membership but staff have taken into account the feedback from the community during the recent Annual Plan hearings when drafting the proposed membership.

Engagement – internal

Urban Design, Transport and EDU staff have been involved in developing the proposed membership and the draft terms of reference.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no legal or health and safety risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards, although the Central City Plan was highlighted by a number of Board’s in their Annual Plan submissions as being of interest to their communities.

Council

8 June 2020

DCC Submission : Death, Funerals, Burial and Cremation: a Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and Related Legislation

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval for the Dunedin City Council submission (Attachment A) to the Ministry of Health (Ministry) on the review of the Burial and Cremation Act and related legislation (Attachment B).

2 The consultation document is split into five sections:

Section A Death certification and auditing

Section B Regulation of the funeral services sector

Section C Burial and cemetery management

Section D Cremation regulations and the medical referee system

Section E New methods of body disposal

3 The DCC submission is generally supportive of the review recommendations and provides comment on the five sections based on discussions with staff from affected departments within Council.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the DCC submission with or without amendment on the Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and Related Legislation.

BACKGROUND

4 The consultation document sets out a range of options for modernising the legislation relating to death, burial, cremation and funerals in New Zealand, including the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 (the Act), Cremation Regulations 1973 and the Health (Burial) Regulations 1946.

5 Urupā (Māori burial grounds), registration of mortuaries, burial at sea and international transportation of bodies are out of scope of this review.

6 The Ministry of Health (the Ministry) is seeking feedback on the options from industry and other interested stakeholders, including the general public. This consultation will help inform the development of a modern, fit-for-purpose legislation for death, burial, cremation and funerals.

DISCUSSION

7 This submission aligns with the current operational management practices of Dunedin cemeteries and crematoria.

Key points of the DCC submission

8 The DCC submission is generally supportive of the review of the Burial and Cremation Act. The Ministry of Health preferred options aligns with existing operational management practices.

9 Section A relates to death certification and auditing, this will remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.

10 Section B relates to regulation of the funeral services sector, the Ministry of Health recommendation is to remain with the status quo where funeral directors must be registered with Council. The DCC submission agrees with this proposal.

11 Section C relates to burial and cremation management. The main aspect of this section is to restrict burial land to two categories, local authority cemetery and community cemetery. The DCC submission supports this because there will be the ability to consider applications for separate sections within a local authority cemetery or approve the provision of a community cemetery which will allow for choice of burial options. A key aspect of this section would be the requirement of the Council to develop a new cemetery policy, which would ensure that decisions about important aspects of burial and cemetery management are made in consultation with the communities that the cemeteries serve. This will include aspects such as maintenance standards.

12 The DCC does not support the proposal in Section C that would shift ongoing maintenance of family monuments or tablets on graves to local authorities. This is because we believe this loss of control by families would not be well received by the community and there would be an impact on Council resources due to ongoing maintenance costs.

13 The DCC submission also opposes the proposal in Section C to transfer the power of approval for disinterment’s from the Ministry of Health to local authorities. There are existing processes for disinterment’s in place that are administered by the Ministry of Health. We believe these work well at present and do not require any change.

14 Section D relates to cremation regulations and the medical referee system. The DCC submission supports the proposal that the process to establish and operate a crematorium would be managed under the Resource Management Act 1991.

15 The area in Section D that the DCC Submission does not support is the proposal to transfer the responsibility for approval of cremations in places other than in a crematorium from the Ministry of Health to local authorities. There are existing processes for approval of cremations in places other than in a crematorium in place that are administered by the Ministry of Health. We believe these work well at present and do not require any change.

16 Section E relates to new methods of body disposal. The DCC submission supports the proposal that approved methods of disposal would be those that exist now such as burial (either in land or at sea) and cremation or new methods of body disposal prescribed in regulation at a future date. Under this proposal, new methods of disposal are illegal until permitted by regulation.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

17 Approve the submission (with or without amendment) to the Ministry of Health on the Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and Related Legislation.

Advantages

· Supports the restriction of burial grounds to local authority cemeteries and community cemeteries

· Supports the options to create diverse burial choices within local authority cemeteries

· Supports collaboration with communities to create a Cemetery Policy

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option

Option Two – Status Quo

18 Do not approve the submission to the Ministry of Health on the Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and Related Legislation.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option

Disadvantages

· The current out of date legislation will remain in place with no real changes to burial choice for communities and no chance for them to have a say on how cemeteries might be managed in the future.

NEXT STEPS

19 If the Council approves the submission it will be sent to the Ministry of Health for their consideration.

Signatories

Author:

John Brenkley - Planning and Partnerships Manager

Authoriser:

Robert West - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

Title

Page

⇩a

DCC Submission Death Funerals Burial and Cremation Review

⇩b

Review of the Burial and cremation Act 1964 and Related Legislation

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☐

Māori Impact Statement

The submission allows for communities to request separate areas for burial within existing cemeteries or for the creation of a new community cemetery specific to their requirements. This will allow for the creation of a new urupa in Dunedin if requested, which is a positive impact. Parks and recreation staff are currently in the process of establishing the burial capacity of Council’s current cemetery land. Early indications are that there are a number of possible options for an urupa to be established within current cemetery land which could be separate from the main cemetery operations and be run independently. This work will be presented to the Maori Participation Working Party and to the relevant Council committee once completed.

Sustainability

There will be options to increase the provision of natural burial areas within the existing cemeteries if there is demand for this.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are operational implications. For example, the review proposes that a Cemetery Policy be created in conjunction with communities. This will allow communities to have input into matters such as maintenance standards.

Financial considerations

There may be financial implications on operational budgets if the Cemetery Policy results in increased levels of service for maintenance of cemeteries.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with Parks Operations staff, Community Health staff and Resource Consent Staff.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The main risk in approving this submission is that the DCC support the proposal to create a Cemetery Policy in consultation with local communities. Communities will be asked for input to the policy which may result in higher levels of service being requested for maintenance of Dunedin cemeteries.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Council cemeteries are distributed throughout the city and there will be many within Community Board boundaries. The ongoing provision of cemetery services will be of interest to them.

Council

8 June 2020

3 June 2020

Committee Secretariat

Environment Committee

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

Tēnā koutou

DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL SUBMISSION: Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 Bill

Introduction

1. The Dunedin City Council (DCC) appreciates the opportunity to make this submission on the Review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 Bill.

2. This submission sets out a range of options for modernising the legislation relating to death, burial, cremation and funerals in New Zealand.

Given the range and complexity of the issues involved in updating the legislation, the consultation document is split into five sections:

A. Death certification and auditing

B. Regulation of the funeral services sector

C. Burial and cemetery management

D. Cremation regulations and the medical referee system

E. New methods of body disposal.

3. The Dunedin City Council manages 20 cemeteries throughout the Dunedin area. Five of these are closed to new burials; these cemeteries are Andersons Bay Cemetery, East Taieri Cemetery, Northern Cemetery, Port Chalmers (old cemetery) and the Southern Cemetery. The Council also provides a cremation service located at Andersons Bay Cemetery. In addition, there are two cemeteries, Hyde and Merton that are administered by Independent Cemetery Trusts and two private cemeteries run by Church authorities in Waikouaiti and Warrington.

4. The DCC Cemeteries are managed by Council staff who are responsible for ensuring that burials and cremations are managed effectively and efficiently. A range of resources used to achieve this include; industry advisors, consultants, external contractors and the District Health Board.

5. The Crematorium and supporting Chapel facility is located and operated within Andersons Bay Cemetery.

6. Current demand and short-term projections for burials is approximately 150 burials and 1,000 cremations per year. Of the 1,000 cremations, typically 33% are interred in Dunedin cemeteries.

7. The statistical projection for Dunedin City is based on the Statistics NZ medium growth rate scenario. However, this does not account for the yearly fluctuations in death rates that occur in practice or recognise the wider regional demands placed on Dunedin’s burial and cremations services.

8. There is a cemetery land review underway at present and early indications are that there is a good distribution of cemeteries within the greater Dunedin area and adequate availability of plots for burials and ash burials to 2060 and beyond.

A. DEATH CERTIFICATION AND AUDITING

9. There are no implications for The DCC under this section as death certification and auditing will continue to be a Ministry of Health responsibility.

B. REGULATION OF THE FUNERAL SERVICES SECTOR

10. The DCC supports the Ministry of Health recommendation to maintain the status quo where a funeral director must be registered with the local council. Generally, the DCC have less than 10 funeral directors registered at any one time and there are rarely any issues with these funeral directors.

11. Registration of Mortuaries is outside the scope of this review however the DCC recommends that the regulation of the funeral services sector should include more control over the premises used for funeral businesses. For example, these businesses require the use of a mortuary for ‘preparation’ – unfortunately the definitions around facility requirements in this area are unclear. There is a trend towards lower cost funeral services that do minimal preparation of the body for burial and the DCC have run into some difficulties determining whether a mortuary is required in these businesses because the definition gives no clear direction.

C. BURIAL AND CEMETERY MANAGEMENT

12. The DCC supports the Ministry of Health Option 3 to restrict burial land to two categories moving forward:

· Local authority cemetery

· Community cemetery

13. The DCC supports the obligation for local authority cemeteries to consider applications for separate sections for any group of people with common burial needs, as well as the provisions made for new community cemeteries or denominational burial grounds. The DCC anticipates that this will be sufficient in allowing for choice and meeting the range of burial demands for Dunedin. For example, there has been a request for an urban urupa for Tangata Whenua not from Dunedin that could be accommodated under this requirement.

14. The DCC supports the requirement to create a new cemetery policy. A key theme for providing a new framework for burial and cemetery management is that decisions about important aspects of managing cemeteries should be decided in consultation with the community that the cemeteries serve. This will result in a new cemetery policy being created. This fits with the principles of consultation underlying the reforms in the Local Government Act 2002.

15. The DCC supports the requirement to maintain the land in a reasonable condition however this obligation would only extend to the land, the landscaping and the graves.

16. The DCC does not support maintenance of monuments or tablets becoming the responsibility of the local authority. Under the DCC Practices and Procedures Manual for Cemeteries and Crematoria 2017 this is the responsibility of the owner of the exclusive right of burial or their representative. The manual states that monuments and plaques must be kept in good repair and the DCC does not take any responsibility for damage or vandalism to any memorial or plaque. The DCC has concerns that some families may not wish to relinquish control of how their monuments are maintained. There would be significant additional cost implications for Council if maintenance and repair of monuments was transferred to the local authority.

17. The DCC supports the proposal that specific maintenance standards are to be agreed in consultation with the local community and recorded in the new cemetery policy.

18. The DCC supports the resource consent requirement for burial on private land. Decisions will be considered on a case by case basis according to the Resource Management Act 1991.

19. The DCC does not support the change regarding the power of approval for disinterment to sit with local authorities. This is a legal process that currently sits with the Ministry of Health. The DCC believes that the current system works well and does not consider that this process should be delegated to the local authority. Under the current Act, any person wishing to arrange a disinterment must first obtain a license from the Minister of Health. Ministry of Health policy also requires the disinterment itself to be supervised by a health protection officer, and the licence has a standard condition to this effect. It is also Ministry of Health policy to consider the death certificate and assess whether next of kin have been notified (or a broader kinship group where the deceased person is Māori) and, if so, whether they have provided written consent to the disinterment.

D. CREMATIONS REGULATIONS AND THE MEDICAL REFEREE SYSTEM

20. The DCC supports the proposal that to establish and operate crematoria would be managed under the processes of the Resource Management Act 1991. Approval for establishing new crematoria would be managed by local authorities only.

21. The DCC does not support the proposal to move the responsibility for approving cremation in places other than in a crematorium from the medical officer of health to local authorities. Local authorities manage cremations in purpose-built facilities under controlled conditions. Cremation in places other than crematoria removes the activity from these controlled conditions. Approval for cremation in places other than in a crematorium currently sits with the Ministry of Health. The DCC believes that the current approval system works well and does not consider that this process should be delegated to the local authority.

22. Applications for cremation in places other than in a crematorium can currently be made to a medical officer of health, who can approve the cremation and apply any conditions that they may deem necessary in the interests of health and decency with regard to the time of the cremation, the circumstances attending the cremation and the subsequent disposal of the ashes and other material connected with the cremation. In assessing an application, medical officers of health currently use guidelines drafted by the Ministry of Health that are designed to determine whether the proposed cremation adequately mitigates the risks.

E. NEW METHODS OF BODY DISPOSAL

23. The current legislative framework does not explicitly provide for the regulation of new body disposal methods that may enter the New Zealand market.

24. DCC supports the proposal that approved methods of disposal would be those that exist now such as burial (either in land or at sea) and cremation or new methods of body disposal prescribed in regulation (at a future date).

25. This option resolves the issues around legality of new methods of body disposal by legislating that new methods are illegal until permitted by regulation. Further, this option creates a more flexible regulatory framework for human body disposal in New Zealand that will be able to respond to any new body disposal methods as they arise, without the need to amend legislation.

CONCLUSION

26. The DCC looks forward to working with the Ministry of Health

27. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit

Yours faithfully

Aaron Hawkins

MAYOR OF DUNEDIN

Council

8 June 2020

Safer CBD Streets - Next Steps in Temporary Measures

Department: Executive Leadership Team

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 On 14 May 2020, the Planning and Environment Committee agreed to a package of temporary measures being put in place in the Dunedin Central Business District (CBD) to encourage people in the upcoming COVID-19 Alert Level 2 to return to the central city for hospitality and retail.

2 The package of temporary measures was designed to allow for 2m social distancing between strangers in the street, but intentionally without taking away or changing any parking. Retailers, hospitality businesses and building owners were surveyed about the proposal in the days preceding the Council meeting and were evenly spilt as to whether they supported it or not.

3 The initiatives included measures to ensure people could do 2m physical distancing by turning the roadway into a ‘shared space’ for cars, walkers, scooters (including a 10kph speed limit and painting coloured dots on the road to remind drivers of the shared space), allowing retailers greater use of footpaths, and an extension of the free parking which had begun 25 March at the beginning of lockdown for essential workers. These measures were designed to encourage people back into the central city.

4 This report outlines the current use of Princes/George Street, and requests Council direction as to when to return the CBD to 30kph, remove the temporary dots and markings and remove the free CBD parking and free commercial use of footpaths.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Decides whether to end the Safer CBD Streets package of initiatives (by returning the speed limit to 30kph, removing the coloured dots and markings on the roadway and ending the free parking and free commercial use of footpaths) either

a. Immediately, or

b. When the country changes to Alert Level One.

BACKGROUND

5 Council began providing free parking on Wednesday 25 March 2020 for essential workers at the beginning of COVID-19 Alert Level 4 Lockdown.

6 As Alert Level 3 was nearing an end, council asked staff to develop a temporary set of interventions to encourage people to return to shop in the CBD, to support local retailers and hospitality businesses.

7 The brief was logistically challenging because it was developed in just over a week, while staff were in lockdown of Alert Level 3 and businesses were closed, making consultation difficult. However, a package of initiatives was designed to make parts of George and Princes Streets into ‘shared space’ for all road users, so that pedestrians could walk on the roadway when/if pedestrian numbers made physical distancing challenging on footpaths. It did this by lowering the speed limit to 10kph and painting large coloured dots on the road as a visual reminder to motorists that these CBD streets were ‘different’ to most streets. Because people could walk on the roadway, this also enabled retailers and hospitality businesses to make use of additional footpath space if desired.

8 On 14 May 2020 at the Planning and Environment Committee, the Council approved the recommended temporary interventions for low speed streets, in order to support people safe physical distancing in the city centre under Alert Level 2; resolving that:

“Moved (Mayor Aaron Hawkins/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Committee:

a) Approves the recommended temporary interventions for low speed streets, in order to support people safe physical distancing in the city centre under Alert Level 2; noting that:

i) All of the these will be easily reversible; and that

ii) The temporary speed limit can be changed within the maximum twelve month period;

iii) Asks staff to engage with community representatives to ensure that adequate provision is made for cyclists, and pedestrians with mobility challenges;

iv) Agrees to continue free parking in the mapped area, with enforcement of time limits, to be reviewed monthly.

v) Notes the engagement plan as prepared for neighbourhood groups, but directs any such interest to the Speed Limit Bylaw 11 process;

vi) Asks staff to progress an application to the NZTA Innovating Streets fund to contribute to any costs incurred Government funding to contribute to any costs incurred;

vii) Asks staff to liaise with any affected parties and stakeholders to refine the interventions if necessary, in response to any issues that may arise; and

viii) Delegates to staff to implement the work in the most effective and cost effective way.

Division

The committee voted by division

For: Crs Sophie Barker, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Jim O'Malley, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker, David Benson-Pope and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (9).

Against: Crs Carmen Houlahan, Mike Lord, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (4).

Absent: Cr Rachel Elder

Withdrawn: Cr Jules Radich

Motion carried by division 9 votes to 4 (PLA/2020/001)”

9 The temporary speed limit changes were implemented later that week and large colourful dots were painted on the road over the weekend to visually remind drivers that they were on a shared road space. The Barnes dance crossings were also altered to add an extra pedestrian phase, so that pedestrians could cross every second light change instead of every third. Following feedback to Enterprise Dunedin from a group of property owners, this was changed back 5 days later.

10 Speed humps were not installed but were available to be installed later if people were using the roads for physical distancing but the traffic was not slowing sufficiently. Free parking was in place, but drivers were still required to adhere to time limits and safety rules and could be infringed for breaches of those.

11 The shared space cost $25,000 (90% of that paid for by the New Zealand Transport Agency). The free parking costs are difficult to determine because of changed usage patterns due to COVID over the Alert Levels, but this time last year weekly parking revenue was $135,000. With business transactions now approaching last year’s levels, this is likely to be a close approximation to the current weekly lost revenue from providing free parking.

DISCUSSION

12 Following implementation and the move to Alert Level 2, data was gathered from several sources. This included economic spend in the city, numbers of people returning to the CBD, observations of people’s social distancing behaviour, traffic speeds and a survey of people’s concerns about social distancing.

13 The speed data showed it took an extra two minutes to drive the length of George Street after the changes (while the extra pedestrian light phase was in place) but that while about 30% of cars were driving 20kph or slower, most cars were not driving at the 10kph limit. Four businesses applied for extra footpath use for their business.

14 With regard to the principal intent of the trial, which was to allow people to actively use the street to ensure 2m physical distancing, whilst there were times when people were walking in the street these times were short lived. Observations showed that most people appeared to be paying little concern to the 2m physical distancing requirements, either on footpaths, inside shops or in the malls. However, the data did suggest that people were commonly using the slow streets to cross the street more often, suggesting that installing actual crossing points in the George Street blocks may have been more beneficial to aid pedestrian movements.

15 DCC surveyed the DCC ‘People’s Panel’ on 27/28 May about changes in behaviour due to physical distancing/COVID concerns. 54% of respondents said they were avoiding or limiting supermarket shopping due to these concerns, 56% of people said they were avoiding or limiting hospitality business visits, 53% said they were avoiding shopping in the Dunedin CBD and 55% said they were avoiding or limiting spending more generally.

16 Further data was sought from Enterprise Dunedin on 29 May about retail spending. Independent Verisk data in Dunedin shows that following a sharp decline when the city went into alert level 4 and 3, in Alert Level 2 the weekly spend increased markedly. The overall retail spend in Dunedin for the week ending 29 May was 1% higher than in the corresponding week last year, although with some variability by shopping type.

17 Finally, last week staff from Enterprise Dunedin met and talked about the temporary measures with 68 retailers and hospitality businesses in the affected parts of Princes and George Streets. They were asked whether they were aware of the reason for the package of initiatives being implemented (48 were, 20 were not). They were also asked whether they thought people shopping in the CBD were using the street and footpath to ensure 2m physical distancing, and 51 thought they were not, 15 thought they were, and 2 were unsure.

18 Finally, they were asked whether they supported the package of initiatives being withdrawn now, or whether they would prefer to wait until Alert Level 1 (at the date the survey was planned, this date was still unknown but appeared to becoming more likely to be sooner than originally planned). Thirty-three of the retailers said they supported ending it now, 25 said at Alert Level 1 and 10 were unsure or had no preference.

19 Taken together the retailer feedback, the lack of people seeming to want to social distance, the survey showing people were not avoiding the CBD more than any other kind of shopping, and the spending data showing Dunedin’s rebound in retail spending, it is prudent timing for Council to consider when to end the temporary Safer CBD Streets bundle of initiatives. This could be done immediately, or it could wait until Alert Level 1 is in place.

OPTIONS

20 The options to consider are whether to cease the Safer CBD Streets package of initiatives at this time, or to wait for the start of Alert Level 1 to do so.

Option One – Cease the Safer CBD Streets project now

21 One option is that we cease the Safer CBD streets now, by changing the speed limit back to 30kph, removing the coloured dots that signify the shared roadway, and ending provision of free parking and commercial use of footpaths.

Advantages

· Ends a project that is no longer required because people are not taking up the option to do 2m physical distancing and the absence of room for such distancing does not seem to be strongly affecting their support of CBD businesses.

· Collection of parking revenue can begin which, prior to COVID lockdown, generated $135,000 a week.

Disadvantages

· The project becomes more difficult to reactivate should there be a community outbreak in the future that requires a return to physical distancing.

Option Two – Cease the Safer CBD Streets project when Alert Level 1 comes into force

22 The Safer CBD Streets project could also be ceased when New Zealand moves to Alert Level One.

Advantages

· The project ends when the government removes the instruction for 2m physical distancing, and not before.

Disadvantages

· The project becomes more difficult to reactivate should there be a community outbreak that requires a return to physical distancing.

· Parking revenue is still not being generated at the pre-COVID level of $135,000 a week.

NEXT STEPS

23 Staff will remove the Safer CBD Streets package of changes as directed by Council, and let both residents and the business community know in advance.

Signatories

Author:	Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services
Authoriser:	Sue Bidrose - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

Māori Impact Statement

Given the temporary nature of any changes, there are no perceived impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There will be an impact from reduced parking revenue.

Financial considerations

NZTA have approved 90% co-funding of the COVID-19 Safer CBD Streets implementation and disestablishment works.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Feedback from businesses within the CBD was undertaken by Economic Development and the DCC People’s Panel was surveyed.

Engagement - internal

Staff from Economic Development, Regulatory, Urban Design, Planning and Transport were involved in the development of this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The risk of community transmission of COVID-19 is low and the requirements around social distancing help manage any risk. There is also a risk of motorists not adhering to the 10km/hr speed limit in an area intended as a shared space.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest that are not being actively managed.

Community Boards

Community Boards have not been consulted in the development of this report.

Mayor	Mayor Aaron Hawkins
Deputy Mayor	Cr Christine Garey
Members	Cr Sophie Barker	Cr David Benson-Pope
	Cr Rachel Elder	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Carmen Houlahan	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Mike Lord	Cr Jim O'Malley
	Cr Jules Radich	Cr Chris Staynes
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Steve Walker
	Cr Andrew Whiley

Name of Councillor Advisory Group	Central City Advisory Group
Councillor Advisory Group Terms of Reference	To provide stakeholder feedback on the George Street part of the Central City Plan.
Committee of Council that the Councillor Advisory Group is to report to	Planning and Environment Committee
Chairperson of the Councillor Advisory Group	The Mayor
Quorum	4 (with at least 1 Councillor representative)
Membership of the Councillor Advisory Group	- Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee - Chair of the Infrastructure Services and Networks Committee One representative each from: - Grow Dunedin representative - The Retail Subcommittee Chair of the Chamber of Commerce - Aukaha - Representative from the disability sector - Generation Zero - Automobile Association - Heart of Dunedin - Hospitality Association Dunedin Branch The Group will be free to consult with specific interest groups, who are not members of the Group, as required.
Support Staff	Group Manager Community and Planning Group Manager Transport Governance Support Officer
General Managers supporting the Councillor Advisory Group	General Manager City Services General Manager Infrastructure Services
Expected term of the Councillor Advisory Group	Meet monthly initially then on an as‑required basis until the end of the triennium.