Agenda of Council - 27 00 2020

Council

27 October 2020

Standing Orders Amendment

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval to amend Standing Orders by agreeing a default option for speaking and moving motions and amendments at meetings of the Council, its committees and subcommittees, and community boards. This will take effect immediately.

2 Currently at the beginning of each meeting Council, or its committees and community boards, need to agree on the option for speaking and moving motions and amendments. Following discussion the report seeks to agree a default option.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Amends Standing Orders to make Standing Order 21.4 Option C as the default for speaking and moving motions and amendments.

b) Notes that this decision requires the agreement of 75 percent of members.

DISCUSSION

3 The Standing Orders are based on the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) standard. Standing Order (S.O.)21.1 provides a default option (Option A 21.2) for speaking and moving motions and amendments.

4 Council, for the duration of this triennium, has used Option C, S.O 21.4 and made a decision at the beginning of each meeting. This report seeks to formalise this with an amendment to the Standing Orders.

5 The current default, Option A, S.O.21.2 is the most formal of the three options and limits the number of times members can speak and move amendments. Option B, S.O. 21.3 is less formal than option A. Option C, S.O.21.4 provides substantial flexibility by removing the limitations placed on movers and seconders by the other two options.

6 S.O. 21.4 Option C reads as follows:

· The mover and seconder of a motion can move or second an amendment.

· Any members, regardless of whether they have spoken to the original or substituted motion, may move or second an amendment to it.

· The mover or seconder of an amendment, whether it is carried or lost, can move or second further amendments.

· Members can speak to any amendment.

· The meeting by agreement of the majority of members present may amend a motion with the agreement of the mover and seconder.

7 As the community boards adopted the current set of Standing Orders they will be advised of the amendment if it is agreed to by Council.

8 Clause 27 (3) of Schedule 7 requires that an amendment of standing orders requires a vote of not less than 75% of the members present.

OPTIONS

9 No summary of considerations is provided with this report as the content is administrative only.

10 There are two options.

Option One – Amend the Standing Orders so that S.O 21.4 is the default option Recommended Option

11 In this option, the Standing Orders would be amended to reflect that Option C, S.O.21.4 as outlined in paragraph 6 is the default.

Advantages

· Council, committees and community boards would not have to make a resolution at the beginning of each meeting as to which option will be used.

· If, for any reason Council decided that at a particular meeting a more formal framework for speaking to and moving motions and amendments was required, a resolution could be passed to that effect.

Disadvantages

· There are no disadvantages.

Option Two – Status Quo

12 Council, committees and community boards would continue to decide at the beginning of each meeting which option would be used.

Advantages

· There are no advantages.

Disadvantages

· Council and its committees and the community boards would continue to make a decision at the beginning of each meeting as to the option used for a meeting.

NEXT STEPS

13 If agreed, a report will go to the community boards and recommend that they also adopt the amendment to Standing Orders. Standing Orders will be updated to reflect the amendment made.

Signatories

Author:	Clare Sullivan - Team Leader Civic
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Council

27 October 2020

Regulatory Subcommittee Recommendation on Proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw

Department: Customer and Regulatory Services and Community Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the recommendation of the Regulatory Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) on the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw (the Bylaw) to the Council. It recommends that the Council adopts the Bylaw with a date of effect of 1 January 2021.

2 It recommends that the Bylaw covers trading activities of rental share scheme operations, street fundraising, street performing, touting and the commercial use of footpaths. It also recommends that the promotion of smokefree and vape-free outdoor hospitality is a condition of all commercial use of footpaths permits.

3 The adoption of the Trading in Public Places Bylaw requires the revocation of the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the Regulatory Subcommittee has heard and considered submissions on the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw.

b) Adopts the Trading in Public Places Bylaw in Attachment A as recommended by the Regulatory Subcommittee.

c) Approves a date of effect for the Trading in Public Places Bylaw of 1 January 2021.

d) Revokes the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw from 1 January 2021.

e) Notes that the promotion of smokefree and vape-free outdoor hospitality will become a condition of all commercial use of footpaths permits.

BACKGROUND

4 In March 2019, the Council approved early review of the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw with a view to require permits for commercial e-scooter and other vehicle transport rental scheme operators, following the launch of an electric-scooter (e-scooter) rental scheme in January 2019.

5 Work began on the review and in July 2019, the Council resolved that a bylaw was the most appropriate way of addressing mobile trading, other street trading and electric share scheme operator issues in Dunedin.

6 The review resulted in proposals to include other trading activities within a bylaw such as street fundraising and street performance (e.g. busking) as well as to introduce conditions for touting (e.g. tour operators).

7 Since substantial changes were intended, it was proposed that the existing Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw be revoked and a new Trading in Public Places Bylaw made.

8 Consultation on a statement of proposal was carried out in July 2020, using the special consultative procedure, and hearings were held in October 2020. Consultation included options for promoting smokefree outdoor dining as part of the commercial use of footpaths permit (e.g. businesses that are permitted to use the footpaths for tables and chairs).

DISCUSSION

Results of consultation

9 The Subcommittee considered all 67 submissions made on the proposed Bylaw. Of these, 14 were from organisations and the remainder from individuals. Organisations included the Southern District Health Board, Lime, Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA), Cancer Society NZ, City Walks and Bookatour. A submission from the Dunedin Fringe Arts Trust about street performing was supported with 31 signatories.

10 Ten submitters presented to the Subcommittee at the hearing.

Overall direction of proposed bylaw - summary

11 Of the submissions received, 67% agreed overall with the general direction of the proposed Bylaw; 23% did not agree with the general direction and 11% did not answer this question.

Trading activities - summary

12 Table 1 below provides a summary of submissions for each of the trading activities proposed to be included in the Bylaw.

Table 1: Summary of submissions by proposed trading activity

Proposed trading activity (submission question)	Yes	No
Do you support the proposal that rental scheme operators such as commercial e-scooter companies, must have a permit to operate and must adhere to conditions based on a code of practice?	97%	3%
Should street fundraising be included in the bylaw?	54%	46%
Should street performing such as busking be included in the bylaw?	52%	48%
Should conditions for touting be included in the bylaw?	85%	15%
Should footpath art be included in the bylaw?	49%	51%
Should commercial use of footpaths be included in the bylaw?	86%	14%

13 Common reasons given for wanting trading activities included in the bylaw were to guide and control the trading activity, prevent nuisance, and ensure safety.

14 Common reasons given for not wanting trading activities included in the bylaw were that this could hinder city vibrancy, be too restrictive and too bureaucratic.

Smokefree outdoor dining options – summary

15 The submission form asked which option people preferred in relation to the promotion of smokefree outdoor dining by operators with permits for the commercial use of footpaths.

16 Table 2 below provides a summary of responses.

Table 2: Summary of submissions by promotion of smokefree outdoor dining options

Topic	Number
Provide an incentive for businesses to promote smokefree outdoor dining by way of discount to their commercial use of footpaths fee i.e. businesses can choose	8
Make promotion of smokefree outdoor dining a condition of all commercial use of footpaths permits	34
I do not think smokefree should be promoted at licenced outdoor dining premises	14
TOTAL	56

17 The 14 submitters who chose ‘I do not think smokefree should be promoted at licenced outdoor dining premises’, seven also made comments against smoking in outdoor dining areas which indicates that there was some confusion around this question. Therefore, the comments show stronger support for smokefree outdoor dining than the statistics indicate.

Subcommittee Recommendation

18 The Subcommittee met on 6-7 October 2020 to hear submitters and to deliberate.

Smoke free outdoor dining areas:

The decision on whether smoke free licensed outdoor dining should be promoted via a discount incentive or made a condition for all outdoor dining permits was taken by division.

Moved (Cr Christine Garey/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Subcommittee:

Recommends that Council makes the promotion of smoke free and vape free outdoor hospitality a condition of all commercial use of footpath permits.

Division

The Subcommittee voted by division:

For: Crs Christine Garey and Chris Staynes (2).

Against: Cr Andrew Whiley (1).

Abstained: Cr Marie Laufiso (1).

The division was declared CARRIED by 2 votes to 1

Motion carried

19 The Subcommittee then passed the following resolution:

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Subcommittee:

a) Notes the results of the consultation on the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw

b) Recommends that Council adopts the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw and:

· Supports the inclusion of conditions for Touting in the Bylaw

· Agrees that Street Performing be included in the Bylaw

· Agrees that Street Fundraising be included in the Bylaw

· Agrees that Footpath Art be included under the Street Performing trading activity in the Bylaw

· Agrees that Commercial Use of Footpaths be included in the Bylaw

· Makes the promotion of smoke free and vape free outdoor hospitality a condition of all Commercial Use of Footpath permits

· Agrees that rental scheme operators be included in the Bylaw

Motion carried

20 These recommendations are in response to submissions and to provide greater ability to ensure public health and safety and to prevent nuisance in public places while recognising the importance of trading in public places.

21 The recommendation to extend promotion of smokefree to include vape-free is in response to submissions and aligns with the Vaping Amendment Bill which extends smokefree legislation to vaping. This recommendation also extends promotion of smokefree and vape-free to ‘outdoor hospitality’ (rather than only outdoor dining).

22 The Subcommittee agrees with the general direction of the Bylaw. It accepts proposals to include trading activities of rental scheme operations, commercial use of footpaths, street fundraising and street performing within the Bylaw, and to introduce conditions for touting. This is in addition to mobile traders and temporary stalls which are covered in the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw.

23 With footpath art, the Subcommittee recommends including an art component as part of street performing, making it clear that this does not include advertising or promotion in any form. A definition of street performing has been added to the Bylaw.

24 See Attachment B for the tracked changes to the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw.

25 See Attachment C for the minutes of the Trading in Public Places hearings and deliberations.

Other considerations

26 The Subcommittee notes the following matters:

a) The need to communicate clearly that there is no intention to impose fees for street fundraising, street performing or touting at this stage, and that there will be minimal change to current application processes for street fundraising and street performing.

b) The intention for further development of the Code of Practice for rental scheme operators and conditions for other trading activities. Of particular concern is the parking and placement of e-scooters where this is hazardous to pedestrians and to people who have greater challenges moving around the city through vision or mobility impairment.

c) Some of the social issues raised in submissions are outside the scope of this bylaw.

d) New trading activities included in the bylaw are in addition to mobile traders and temporary stalls which are currently covered in the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw and are also included in this Bylaw (noting that the staff recommendation is to revoke the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw when this Bylaw comes into effect).

27 In making these recommendations and noting considerations, the Subcommittee recognises that street trading adds to Dunedin’s character, vibrancy and visitor experience and that the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw and conditions aim to ensure public places are safe, lively and attractive, while allowing people to move around safely and easily.

Further work

28 Further work is planned in relation to the Bylaw and includes the following.

Mobile trading sites

29 The location of any new specific mobile trading sites will be worked through in consultation with mobile traders and in accordance with the central city and tertiary precinct upgrades as well as the city as a whole. This will be the subject of a separate report to Council.

Code of practice for rental scheme operations

30 A code of practice was developed for rental scheme operators and this will be developed further by staff in response to feedback and in line with what is working well in other cities. This will include work on an appropriate fees’ framework. Draft fees will be considered by the Council as part of 10 year plan deliberations.

Conditions for trading activities

31 Conditions were developed for touting and footpath art, and existing conditions for street performance, mobile trading and the commercial use of footpaths were reviewed. While consultation focused on what activities should be included in the Bylaw, some submitters commented on the conditions. Conditions will be developed further with appropriate engagement.

32 Conditions for trading activities are seen as operational and for staff consideration.

33 See Attachment D for the Code of Practice and conditions for trading activities, noting that these will be further developed.

Date of effect

34 It is recommended that this Bylaw should come into effect on 1 January 2021. Existing permits will continue on the same terms and conditions until their renewal date. Upon receiving an application to renew permission to undertake a trading activity, the applicant will be required to apply for a permit in accordance with this Bylaw, and this may include the payment of a permit fee.

35 Any new application for permission to undertake a trading activity received by the Council once the bylaw comes into effect will be dealt with in accordance with the Bylaw and may include the payment of a permit fee.

OPTIONS

36 Options are to accept the Subcommittee recommendations/not to accept the recommendations or refer the bylaw back to the Regulatory Subcommittee for further consideration.

Option One Accept recommendations of Subcommittee (Recommended Option)

37 This option is to adopt the Trading in Public Places Bylaw, revoke the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw and make promotion of smokefree and vape-free outdoor hospitality a condition of all commercial use of footpath permits.

Advantages

· Greater ability to:

o Ensure public health and safety on footpaths and public places

o Prevent nuisance to the public

o Manage the use of rental devices such as e-scooters

o Charge commercial operator fees to cover regulatory costs

· Consistent good practice approach to trading in public places

· All outdoor hospitality areas would be smokefree and vape-free.

Disadvantages

· Potentially less flexible and costly for commercial operators

· No choice for smokers and vapers to smoke or vape at outdoor hospitality areas.

Option Two Do not accept recommendations of Subcommittee (Status Quo)

38 This option is not to adopt the Trading in Public Places Bylaw, not to revoke the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw and not to make promotion of smokefree and vape-free outdoor hospitality a condition of all commercial use of footpath permits.

39 It would mean retaining the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw and would not introduce trading activities such as rental scheme operations which would control the use of rental devices such as e-scooters.

Advantages

· Potentially greater flexibility for business operators

· Smokers and vapers have the choice to smoke and vape at outdoor hospitality areas.

Disadvantages

· Less ability to:

o Ensure public health and safety on footpaths and public places

o Prevent nuisance to the public

o Manage the use of rental devices such as e-scooters

o Charge commercial operator fees to cover regulatory costs

· Inconsistent approach to trading in public places

· Not all outdoor hospitality areas are smokefree and vape-free.

Option Three: Refer the Bylaw back to the Subcommittee for further consideration

Advantages

· The subcommittee has further opportunity to consider changes to the bylaw.

Disadvantages

· There is a 1 January 2021 implementation date, this may be delayed if the Bylaw is referred back to the subcommittee.

NEXT STEPS

40 If the Council accepts the Subcommittee recommendations and adopts the Bylaw, the next step will be implementation of the Bylaw. This will include managing the relevant processes internally, communications, and engagement with key stakeholders and the public.

41 Further work will also be carried out on mobile trading sites, trading conditions and the rental scheme Code of Practice and fees.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Andrew Whiley - Chairperson, Regulatory Subcommittee

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2020	60
⇩b	Tracked changes to proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw	67
⇩c	Minutes of the Trading in Public Places Bylaw Hearing - 6 October 2020	74
⇩d	Conditions and Code of Practice for Trading Activities	81

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, economic, environmental and 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	☐	☐	☐

Adopting the Trading in Public Places Bylaw contributes to most of the strategic framework as the bylaw purpose adds to character, vibrancy and visitor experience. The bylaw is to ensure that the public trading activities in Dunedin City made public places more safe, lively and attractive without inhibiting the safety and efficiency of pedestrian movement.

It will align with other documents such as the Commercial use of footpaths policy, street fundraising policy and busking conditions.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no specific impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications with adoption of this bylaw.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Engagement with key stakeholders informed the statement of proposal for this bylaw. Key stakeholders include mobile traders, commercial users of footpaths, people with disabilities, commercial tour operators, arts and culture networks, street fundraisers, New Zealand Transport Agency, Lime (scooters), Southern District Health Board and the Chamber of Commerce. The special consultative procedure was used to consult on proposals.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with staff from Transport, City Development, Urban Design, Compliance Solutions, Animal and Parking Services and Environmental Health, Parks and Recreation, Corporate Policy, Governance, Enterprise Dunedin, Solid Waste, Events and Community Development and In-House Legal Services.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Council

27 October 2020

Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw Review

Department: Customer and Regulatory Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks Council approval to commence the review of the Keeping of Animals (excluding dogs) and Birds Bylaw. It recommends that the Council determines a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address issues relating to the keeping of animals and birds in Dunedin.

2 Early review of this bylaw is proposed to address nuisance issues relating to roosters in Dunedin.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves commencement of the Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw review

b) Determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address issues relating to the keeping of animals and birds in Dunedin

BACKGROUND

Purposes of bylaws

3 Bylaws can be made, under the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act), for one or more of the following general purposes: protecting the public from nuisance; protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety; and minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places (section 145). The Act also allows bylaws to be made specifically to regulate the keeping of animals, bees and poultry (section 146(a)(v)).

4 The Act requires bylaws to be reviewed five years after adoption and then at ten year intervals (with a two year additional period, if required, to complete the review).

Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw history and purpose

5 The Keeping of Animals (excluding dogs) and Birds Bylaw was made in October 2010 under the Act. The bylaw was last reviewed in 2016. There was no change to the bylaw following this review.

6 The purpose of the bylaw is “to protect the public from nuisance and to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety by controlling the keeping of animals and birds within the residential district”. It does not extend to dogs which are regulated by the Dog Control Bylaw.

7 The current bylaw regulates the manner in which animals and birds must be kept; it allows the Council to impose a limit on the number and/or species of animals or birds kept at a property if non-compliant; and covers offences and penalties according to the Act. In practice, the bylaw has focussed primarily on controlling the nuisance effects of keeping animals rather than controlling specific actions or limiting residents to a specific number of animals per property.

8 Another way to address issues relating to the keeping of animals is public and owner education. While this had been used for a number of years, it was not sufficient to deal with nuisance as there was no ability to enforce non-compliant behaviour. A bylaw was considered the most appropriate way of addressing keeping of animal and bird issues to ensure the public was protected from nuisance and to ensure public health and safety was maintained.

9 See Attachment A for the current Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw.

DISCUSSION

Early review

10 Although this bylaw is not required to be reviewed before 2026 (within ten years of the previous review), early review of the bylaw is proposed with a view to including provision within the bylaw to address ongoing issues with roosters.

Bylaw is still appropriate

11 A bylaw is still considered the most appropriate way to address issues related to keeping animals and birds in Dunedin. Evidence shows that the bylaw is working well for the areas of operation it currently covers, with good compliance. It, along with public education, ensures appropriate standards of health and safety are maintained and that the public is protected from nuisance.

12 Several further issues have been identified that could be addressed through the review of the bylaw and these are outlined in this report.

Roosters

13 Dunedin City Council (DCC) frequently receives noise complaints about roosters crowing in residential areas and also on rural properties next to residential areas. In the last 12 months 34 complaints about roosters have been received. While keeping roosters in residential areas is discouraged and noise complaints are managed as they arise, it is difficult to manage this issue effectively without an enforcement tool such as a bylaw.

14 Practicable options could include banning roosters from residential areas or requiring permits for rooster owners. Options such as these will be investigated and analysed as part of the bylaw review.

Cats

15 Local authorities are somewhat limited in their bylaw making powers in relation to the control of cats.

16 The Dog Control Act 1996 contains express provisions for Council to prescribe how dogs are to be controlled in public places. There is no equivalent specific legislation that applies for the control of cats in public places.

17 In the case of Council reserves, the Reserves Act 1977 allows the Council to seize and destroy, sell or otherwise dispose of an animal that is trespassing on a Council reserve and where there is no evidence of ownership. The Health Act can also be used to address a health nuisance posed by animals, including cats.

18 The Council may not pass a bylaw to generally protect wildlife as the Act is directed at people and communities, not the protection of wildlife.

19 Where there is evidence of nuisance and there are no other legislative tools to address the issue, then options that some other local authorities have considered include limiting the number of cats per property.

20 As a result of a DCC initiated local government remit, Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) adopted a remit in 2017 asking central government to introduce a national legislative framework for cats.

Other animals and bees

21 There is some evidence of nuisance posed by other animals such as pigs and horses and by bees. This bylaw review will look into the scope of these issue and at whether it is appropriate that any issues are addressed through the Keeping of Animals (excluding dogs) and Birds Bylaw.

Community engagement

22 The Act requires the special consultative procedure to be used for the bylaw review. Key stakeholders to be advised of the review and invited to comment include the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), the Lifestyle Block Association of New Zealand, bird clubs, bee associations and the six community boards.

OPTIONS

23 The Act requires this bylaw to be reviewed by 2026. Options are to review the bylaw early to address issues with roosters or to review the bylaw during 2025/2026.

Option One – Commence early review of the Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw (recommended)

24 This option involves commencing this bylaw review in 2020 rather than during 2025/2026.

Advantages

· Opportunity to investigate and address issues with keeping roosters

· Opportunity to investigate and, if need be, address issues with keeping other animals and birds.

Disadvantages

· Reallocation of resource to review bylaw before the due date.

Option Two – Do not commence early review of the Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw (status quo)

25 This option of not reviewing this bylaw early would require the bylaw to be reviewed later, during 2025/2026.

Advantages

· No reallocation of resource required.

Disadvantages

· Methods for dealing with nuisance complaints relating to roosters continue to be ineffective

· Ongoing dissatisfaction from residents affected by noise nuisance created by roosters

· Lost opportunity to investigate and address issues with other animals and birds.

NEXT STEPS

26 Next steps are to review the bylaw and report back to the Council with a draft statement of proposal which presents feasible options to address issues, along with a draft proposed bylaw. Council will then be asked to approve these documents for consultation using the special consultative procedure, as required by the Act.

Signatories

Author:

Anne Gray - Policy Analyst

Ros MacGill - Manager Compliance Solutions

Authoriser:

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw	116

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 environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision promotes the social 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 the healthy and safe people priority of the Social Wellbeing Strategy, healthy environment priority of the Environment Strategy and liveable city priority of the Spatial Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no specific impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no specific 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 is no requirement for external engagement for this preliminary report although previous submissions and complaints have informed this report. Once the bylaw review commences, there will be engagement with key stakeholders to inform options. The special consultative procedure will then be used to consult on the proposed options and bylaw, as required by the Act.

Engagement - internal

There has been initial internal engagement with staff from City Planning, City Development, Parks and Recreation and Building Solutions (Customer and Regulatory Services) and In-House Legal Counsel.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There may be implications for Community Boards. They are identified as key stakeholders and will be engaged with, as appropriate, during the bylaw review.

Council

27 October 2020

Proposed Amendment to the Camping Control Bylaw 2015

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the findings of the Regulatory Subcommittee (Attachment A) following the Camping Control Bylaw 2015 Amendment Hearing on 1 October 2020. Two submitters spoke at this meeting. The amendment proposed to add the Thomas Burns Street carpark to Schedule C of the Bylaw and permit unrestricted overnight camping at the site between 1 November and 30 April each season. The Regulatory Subcommittee recommends that Council approve the proposed amendments to the Bylaw.

2 This report also presents a summary of submissions received during public consultation on the proposed amendment to the Camping Control Bylaw 2015 (the Bylaw).

3 Council received 19 submissions on the Bylaw amendment. Of these submissions, 11 supported the proposed amendment and 7 did not; 1 submitter partly supported the proposed amendment. Two submitters presented to the Regulatory Subcommittee.

4 The proposed amendment will assist in redistributing freedom camper numbers and reduce incidents of overloading at other Dunedin City Council (DCC) unrestricted sites. The two-season trial of the Thomas Burns Street site coincided with a reduction in infringements and a reduction in complaints concerning unrestricted DCC sites. The Thomas Burns site received positive feedback from freedom campers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the proposed amendment to include the Thomas Burns Street site under Schedule C of the Camping Control Bylaw 2015

BACKGROUND

Review of Bylaw

5 Staff presented findings of a review of the Bylaw to Council on 31 January 2020. The review identified a trend of increasing numbers of campers visiting Dunedin, overloading of unrestricted freedom camping sites, and associated infringements and complaints as the most significant issues affecting the management of freedom camping across the city.

6 The review highlighted the effect the two-year trial of the Thomas Burns Street carpark as an unrestricted freedom camping site had on redistributing and managing numbers of campers at The DCC’s two other unrestricted sites. A city-wide reduction in freedom camping infringements occurred during the trial period and there was a reduction in complaints associated with unrestricted camping sites.

7 Amending the Bylaw to include the Thomas Burns Street carpark as a Schedule C unrestricted camping area was considered the most appropriate means of addressing the issues identified in the review. A draft amended Bylaw, Statement of Proposal and public submission form were presented to, and approved by, Council on 30 June 2020.

Proposed amendment to the Camping Control Bylaw 2015

8 The proposed amendment adds the Thomas Burns Street carpark to Schedule C of the Bylaw as an unrestricted area for freedom camping. This amendment would permit overnight camping in non-self-contained vehicles at the site between 1 November and 30 April each season, with conditions that campers parked in designated areas, stay a maximum of two consecutive nights and depart the site by 8:30am. Certified self-contained vehicles are currently permitted to overnight camp in any Council owned sealed or gravelled parking space under Schedule B of the Bylaw.

Consultation

9 Consultation on the proposed amendment to the Camping Control Bylaw 2015, using the special consultative procedure, was carried out between 3 August 2020 and 31 August 2020.

10 Methods of consultation included information posted to the DCC’s website, a public notice in the Otago Daily Times and a media release. Approximately 35 letters were delivered to residents and businesses within proximity of the Thomas Burns Street carpark advising them of the proposed amendment; the majority of these were within the block bordered by Mason Street, Tewsley Street, Fryatt Street and Thomas Burns Street. Letters were also sent to ten campground providers within and in proximity to Dunedin and 12 budget accommodation providers in proximity to the central business district.

11 The submission form asked whether submitters supported the proposed amendment to the Bylaw and provided the options ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘partly’. Submitters were also asked to comment on what they agreed or disagreed with, and why, and provided space for any further comments.

DISCUSSION

Summary of submissions

12 Comments from those submitters that supported the proposed amendment included:

a) Six submitters commented that the proposed amendment would be beneficial, to:

i) campers (3),

ii) residents (2),

iii) the local environment (1).

b) Five submitters commented that the proposed amendment would benefit tourism:

i) by portraying Dunedin as a city that welcomes visitors (2),

ii) by attracting tourists (2),

iii) because freedom campers are important to Dunedin’s economy (1).

c) Four submitters requested Council provide more:

i) sites for freedom camping (3),

ii) facilities for campers at unrestricted sites (1).

d) Two submitters commented that the Thomas Burns trial site had been successful in reducing numbers at other overloaded unrestricted camping sites.

e) One submitter commented that freedom camping promoted the sharing of spaces.

13 Comments from those submitters that did not support the proposed amendment included:

a) Nine submitters commented that Dunedin’s existing accommodation providers:

i) Will be negatively affected by another free camping site (5),

ii) Can meet demand during the November – April period (1),

iii) Should be accommodating visitors, rather than freedom camping sites (3).

b) Six submitters commented that the proposal to use the Thomas Burns carpark as an unrestricted freedom camping site will:

i) Reduce parking availability for residents (4),

ii) Negatively affect the amenity and visitor experience of the site (1)

iii) Prime real estate should not be offered free of charge (1).

c) Six submitters commented that freedom campers in Dunedin:

i) Should only be permitted to camp in certified self-contained vehicles (3),

ii) Should have to pay a fee to use Council sites or facilities (2),

iii) Should be prohibited from camping in urban areas (1).

d) Four submitters commented that:

i) Freedom campers are low-value contributors to Dunedin’s economy and Council should not be attracting them (1),

ii) Ratepayers should not bear the cost of freedom camping (3).

e) One submitter commented that visitors will not be deterred from coming to Dunedin if freedom camping sites were removed.

14 One submitter partly supported the proposed amendment and commented the site should only provide for certified self-contained campers.

15 The Regulatory Subcommittee considered the submissions received and heard two submitters speak. The Subcommittee minutes from the meeting are attached (Attachment A).

16 The Regulatory Subcommittee recommends that the proposed amendments to the Bylaw are approved by Council.

OPTIONS

17 Council is asked to decide whether to approve the proposed Bylaw amendment.

Option One – Recommended Option

18 Council approves the proposed amendment to include the Thomas Burns Street site under Schedule C of the Camping Control Bylaw 2015.

Advantages

· The site will help to reduce camper numbers at the Warrington Domain and Ocean View Reserve.

· The trial of the site contributed to the 14% decrease in citywide freedom camping infringements during the trial period.

Disadvantages

· There ae no disadvantages identified.

Option Two – Status Quo

19 Council does not approve the proposed amendment; the Bylaw remains unchanged and unrestricted overnight camping is limited to the Warrington Domain and Ocean View Reserve.

Advantages

· There may be an increase in campers using Dunedin’s existing accommodation providers.

Disadvantages

· Unrestricted camping sites at the Warrington Domain and Ocean View Reserve may suffer from overloading.

· An increase in freedom camping complaints and infringements is anticipated.

NEXT STEPS

20 If Council resolves to accept the proposed amendment staff will amend the Camping Control Bylaw 2015 and start preparing the Thomas Burns site so that unrestricted overnight camping can commence on 1 November 2020.

21 Staff will provide Council with an End of Season Report and results from the Freedom Camper Visitor Survey at the conclusion of the camping season.

22 The Bylaw was reviewed in January 2020 and a report to Council on 31 January 2020 Noted the review. A local authority must review a bylaw made by it under section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 no later than 10 years after the bylaw was last reviewed. The next bylaw review must be no later than January 2030.

Signatories

Author:

Stephen Hogg - Parks and Recreation Planner

John Brenkley - Planning and Partnerships Manager

Authoriser:

Scott MacLean - Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Regulatory Subcommittee Minutes and Recommendations	129

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.

This decision promotes the environmental 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	☒	☐	☐

Freedom camping can have implications on the environment, economic development of the city and Council’s open spaces and associated facilities. The proposed Bylaw amendment may contribute to strategies regarding safe and healthy people, compelling destination, vibrant city and liveable city.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

Freedom campers and visitors to the city provide economic benefits which need to be considered alongside the potential effects of freedom camping on the environment and our communities.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

No impacts or implications identified.

Financial considerations

If the proposed amendment is adopted, operational costs associated with the Thomas Burns Street site can be met within existing budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Public consultation using the special consultative procedure was followed as stipulated by the Local Government Act 2002.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with in-house legal counsel, Corporate Policy, Customer and Regulatory Services, Governance and Communications and Marketing Departments during the bylaw review and consultation process.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Having an additional site for non self-contained camper vehicles to stay will contribute to achieving more distribution of campers across the region and less infringements for parking in a restricted area without a valid self containment certificate.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

The decision to adopt or reject the proposed Bylaw amendment is likely to have a moderate impact on the residents of the Saddle Hill Community Board and Waikouaiti Coast Community Board as the decision will affect the numbers of campers using unrestricted sites in these communities. Community Boards are provided with monthly freedom camping reports during the camping season.

Council

27 October 2020

Proposed Traffic and Parking Restriction Changes - September 2020

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 At its meeting on 28 September 2020, the Traffic and Parking Bylaw Subcommittee considered a range of proposed minor parking control changes and clarifications. This included GIS parking control database corrections and a proposal to make permanent one-way traffic on Pilkington Street from Balmacewen Road to Passmore Crescent.

This report seeks approval of these minor changes and clarifications which are recommended by the Traffic and Parking Bylaw Subcommittee.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the recommendations of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw Subcommittee on the proposed changes to parking.

b) Approves the recommended changes to the parking controls that are shown in the September 2020 update of the Dunedin City Council’s traffic and parking controls database, https://tinyurl.com/ParkingSeptember2020

c) Restricts traffic to one-way only on Pilkington Street from Balmacewen Road to Passmore Crescent.

d) Notes that all parking controls previously approved by Council and not shown as a change on the September 2020 traffic and parking database, remain unchanged.

e) Approve the leased parking fee of $24.21 per week for 28 parking spaces at Maclaggan Street.

BACKGROUND

3 Parking controls contribute to the objectives of the Dunedin Integrated Transport Strategy 2013, particularly by supporting the achievement of a safe, efficient and accessible transport network. Council is also moving towards consistency and simplicity in the parking control system.

4 Council maintains a GIS map database of traffic and parking controls (the database) which reflects all on street parking controls that are implemented with markings and or signs.

5 Parking controls are made under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw. The Traffic and Parking Bylaw Subcommittee (Subcommittee) has the delegation to consider changes to parking controls, proposals to restrict traffic to one way only on appropriate streets, and to make recommendations to Council, which can approve traffic restrictions and parking controls.

DISCUSSION

6 The Council receives a range of unsolicited requests to change parking restrictions from individuals and businesses. Staff investigate and review the requests across a range of factors including safety concerns, commuters, commercial users, the road width and topography, traffic flow, neighbouring on-street parking spaces, visibility concerns and crash statistics. If a proposed change is supported, consultation is undertaken by the applicant with residents, businesses and property owners in the area to demonstrate support for the requested change.

7 On 28 September 2020, the Subcommittee considered minor proposed changes and clarifications (including database corrections) to parking controls as well as a proposal to make permanent one-way traffic on Pilkington Street (from Balmacewen Road to Passmore Crescent).

8 The Subcommittee recommended that the changes and clarifications be implemented and that Pilkington Street (from Balmacewen Road to Passmore Crescent) be made one-way, (by adding the restriction to the Schedule of one-way roads).

Minor proposed parking controls and clarifications

9 The Subcommittee’s recommended changes and clarifications to parking controls are shown in the database https://tinyurl.com/ParkingSeptember2020. The GIS layer includes a bookmark feature which links the numbered item in the attached tables for location in the GIS layer.

10 The recommended minor parking control changes are detailed in Attachment A (TPC 19) and include:

a) Parking control changes which improve safety, efficiency or access, where appropriate engagement has been carried out with affected parties.

b) Parking control changes on Ward Street and Mason Street to encourage parking turnover, improve the consistency and efficiency of parking time restrictions in the area and to provide for dedicated mobility parking. A map and a consultation and feedback report can be found in Attachment B and further details are summarised in paragraph 15.

11 Clarifications of parking restrictions and corrections of the database are detailed in Attachment C (TPC 20) and include:

a) Changes to markings or signs intended to clarify parking controls that are already in place. Changes may make existing markings or signs clearer or reinforce existing rules (for example installation of broken yellow lines to clarify that no vehicles may stop within one metre of a driveway under Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004). These clarifications are considered necessary for access or safety and are an exception to Council’s general approach not to mark anything that is currently enforceable under existing rules.

b) Corrections to the database have been made to accurately reflect the parking restrictions which are currently in place on the street.

12 The net change from the proposed parking changes is the loss of 2 parking spaces, which is due to the installation of no stopping lines in areas of previous unrestricted parking. The below table shows the quantum of spaces gained and lost as part of the proposed changes. Variation on parking spaces can be observed by the type of restriction and also the net changes.

Restriction	Added	Removed	Net Change
P5	23	0	23
P10	0	-8	8
P30	8	0	8
P60	1	-4	-3
P120	2	-7	-5
P180	2	0	2
P240	0	-10	-10
Mobility	3	0	3
Authorised Vehicles Only	5	-2	3
Resident Only Permit	0	-2	-2
Pick Up Drop Off	1	0	1
Motorcycle	4	0	4
Unrestricted	0	-19	-19
Total	49	-51	-2

Traffic and Parking Bylaw Subcommittee

13 The Traffic and Bylaw Subcommittee as part of their deliberations requested that additional details were provided in this report to Council. This further detail is set out in the paragraphs below.

TPC19/7 Proposed changes at 86 MacAndrew Road.

14 A request for short-term parking spaces to be created at 86 MacAndrew Road was submitted by Harborough Properties Limited. The requestor sought and obtained support from surrounding businesses. These businesses are identified on the map at Attachment D, together with a clear illustration of the proposed P5 parking spaces.

TPC19/14 Proposed changes at Ward Street and Mason Street.

15 The original requestor sought an increase in shorter term parking near businesses in the area. DCC staff considered this request and decided to consult on additional changes at the same time. These changes were to make the enforcement task easier and to provide a mobility parking space where none existed. The consultation summary and map of final proposed changes can be seen in Attachment B. There were five responses in total, which comprised two businesses in support and three who were against the proposed changes. Those in support did not include the original requestor. The main topic of the adverse feedback was linked to the proposal to modify the time restriction of nine parking spaces from P120 to P30. The original proposal has therefore been adjusted to retain the current P120 time restriction for six parking spaces and modifying the time restriction of three parking spaces to P30. (Attachment B). The remaining changes were recommended to be implemented as originally proposed.

TPC19/20 Proposed changes requested by The Warehouse in Maclaggan Street

16 The Subcommittee sought information regarding the proposed offsetting of an on street parking outside of the Warehouse in Maclaggan Street by making available up to 28 spaces within their existing off street car park. The proposal is that these spaces will be offered to the next 28 people on the leased parking waiting list for use until 30 June 2021 (when the lease expires).

Restriction of Pilkington Street to one way from Balmacewen Road to Passmore Crescent

17 The proposal to make Pilkington Street one-way from Balmacewen Road to Passmore Crescent arose from an initial request from John McGlashan College to review the safety of Pilkington Street and develop options to alleviate some of the traffic congestion at the school around pick up and drop off times.

18 From October 2017 to date, road safety improvements have been trialled around the College to improve the safety of pedestrians crossing Pilkington Street and to improve traffic flow through the area at pick up and drop off times, whilst also increasing the amount of available car parking close to the College.

19 These measures included a one-way trial by stopping vehicles turning from Pilkington Street onto Balmacewen Road in order to increase visibility at this intersection and reduce traffic outside of the College.

20 The trial information and feedback received from the school was reviewed and showed that conflict points had been reduced allowing traffic to flow more freely, even at pick up and drop off times. The main benefits include:

a) A safer pedestrian environment with pedestrians using the crossing points and drivers allowing them to cross.

b) Traffic flow almost constant with minimal waiting times at the Passmore Crescent intersection and reduced traffic queuing on Balmacewen Road when entering Pilkington Street.

c) Parking fully utilised because vehicles get in and out of spaces relatively easily.

d) Angled parking on the school block has concentrated the school-related vehicles close to the school.

e) School buses can exit the street easily without getting stuck when meeting oncoming traffic.

21 Information from the Crash Analysis System shows that the police have recorded two ‘non-injury crashes’ in the area the last five years. There is no record of any further crashes during the trial.

22 Between 30 March to 30 April 2020, community feedback was sought on the proposal to permanently keep part of Pilkington Street as a one way from Balmacewen Road to Passmore Crescent. Feedback was directly sought from John McGlashan College and properties in the surrounding area through a mail drop of over 300 properties, as well as a public notice. Relevant consultation and the feedback report, along with a Map and Aerials of temporary restrictions, are provided as Attachment E.

23 The Council received a total of 24 submissions with 18 submissions (74% of the responses) in support of the proposal. Key themes from the submissions of those who supported the proposed one-way street included:

a) Better traffic distribution (eight comments);

b) Increased safety around John McGlashan College (six comments);

c) Increased safety around the wider area (three comments);

d) Increased parking areas (one comment); and

e) About one third requested that DCC consider traffic and parking issues on Grater Street in the future.

24 Six submissions (25% of the responses) did not support the proposal. Key themes from the submissions of those who did not support the proposed one-way street included:

a) Causes traffic and or parking issues on Grater Street (five comments);

b) Disruption to traffic flow around the area (three comments);

c) Unnecessary safety measure (two comments); and

d) Reduced safety around the area (two comments).

25 Following review of the feedback, the Subcommittee remain supportive of the proposed traffic restriction to make permanent one-way traffic on Pilkington Street (from Balmacewen Road to Passmore Crescent) by adding the restriction to the Schedule of one-way roads as shown in Attachment F.

26 The minutes of the Subcommittee meeting on 28 September 2020 are provided as Attachment G.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

a) Approve the proposed changes to the traffic and parking controls database.

b) Restrict traffic to one way only on Pilkington Street from Balmacewen Road to Passmore Crescent and add it to the schedule of one-way roads.

Advantages

· Improves safety, efficiency and access on the transport network by:

i) Providing appropriate short stay parking to provide for surrounding land uses; and

ii) Improving safety and enabling property access by prohibiting obstructive parking making existing parking controls clearer and providing access to new driveways.

· Improves safety by increasing visibility at the Balmacewen Road / Pilkington Street intersection and reduces traffic congestion outside John McGlashan College.

· The majority of the community feedback supported this option.

· Contributes to achieving an integrated, affordable, responsive, effective and safe transport network.

Disadvantages

· Some people may be initially confused by the changes and new locations of parking.

· Costs for implementing the proposed changes

· Possible future consideration of layout in Grater Street required.

Option Two – Status Quo

a) Retain the existing parking restrictions without amendment.

b) Do not restrict traffic to one way only on Pilkington Street from Balmacewen Road to Passmore Crescent – ending the one-way trial.

Advantages

· Council resources can be allocated to other transport projects.

· No confusion with road users, as no parking changes would be made

· No change required to the traffic and parking bylaw layer and schedule

· The future layout of Grater Street will not be considered.

Disadvantages

· Does not improve efficiency and access to the transport network

· Most of the community feedback did not support this option

· Does not improve safety or reduce conflict points

· May create short term confusion as the temporary traffic layout in Pilkington Street is returned to a two-way layout

NEXT STEPS

27 If the Council approves the recommended minor changes and clarifications to parking restrictions together with the one-way restriction on part of Pilkington Street, the changes will be implemented through appropriate signs and road markings. In the case of Pilkington Street, this will be through the installation of permanent bollards, signs and road markings. The restrictions will be enforced under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.

Signatories

Author:

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Attachment A-TPC19-Minor Parking Changes	141
⇩b	Attachment B- TPC19.14- Ward and Mason St-Map of final proposed changes and Consultation report	143
⇩c	Attachment C-TPC20-Parking clarifications and corrections	147
⇩d	Attachment D- TPC19.7- 86 Macandrew Road Parking Changes	149
⇩e	Attachment E- Pilkington St-Map, Aerial restrictions and Consultation report	151
⇩f	Attachment F- Schedule 1-One-way roads	157
⇩g	Attachment G- Minutes of Traffic and Parking Bylaw Subcommittee 28.09.2020	160

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities, and promotes the social, economic and environmental 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	☐	☐	☐

Establishing and changing traffic and parking controls supports the achievement of a safe and accessible transport network for all modes and supports the social and economic well-being of Dunedin communities. This report seeks minor changes and clarifications to the GIS map database of traffic and parking controls and to the list of one-way streets to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

Parking control changes improve efficiency and access to the transport network, which contribute to sustainability goals

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications. Costs for implementing the proposed changes are covered by existing budgets.

Significance

The report is considered of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Engagement has been undertaken with relevant and affected parties.

Engagement - internal

Transport and parking services staff have been consulted.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards have not been consulted as there are no significant changes within the boundaries of the Community Boards. Pilkington Street is not within a Community Board Area.

Council

27 October 2020

Review of Legal High Retail Location Policy

Department: Customer and Regulatory Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval from the Council to review and retain the Legal High Retail Location Policy 2015 (the Policy) and updates the Council on the process for the review. It also requests the Council to appoint members to the Regulatory Subcommittee to consider submissions, hear submitters and make recommendations to the Council on the Policy.

2 The Policy restricts legal high retailers to the Dunedin central city area provided they are more than 100 m away from sensitive sites such as education facilities, churches, libraries, hospitals, mental health facilities and justice premises. Sensitive sites are identified on a map which forms part of the policy.

3 The Policy was adopted in 2015, however it has never been used as there have been no approved legal high products available for sale in New Zealand during this time. Currently there are no applications before the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority for product approval.

4 Under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (the Act), the Policy must be reviewed every five years.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the process to review the Legal High Retail Location Policy 2015.

b) Approves the review and retention of the Legal High Retail Location Policy 2015.

c) Approves the statement of proposal for consultation purposes.

d) Appoints Councillors Andrew Whiley (Chair), Steve Walker and Marie Laufiso to a Hearings Panel of the Regulatory Subcommittee to consider changes, hear submissions and make recommendations to the Council on the review of the Legal High Retail Location Policy.

BACKGROUND

Legislation – Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

5 The Act was introduced to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand. It acknowledges the harm caused by the substances and introduces a process for psychoactive products that pose no more than a low risk of harm to people who use them to be approved by the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority (the Authority).

6 A psychoactive substance controlled by this Act includes a product approved by the Authority, and a product or substance that is declared by Order in Council to be a psychoactive substance. (These products are referred to in the Policy as legal highs.)

7 The Act sets out a list of products that are not classified as psychoactive substances and includes amongst others, a controlled drug or precursor substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, a herbal remedy under the Medicines Act 1981, Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985, and a Tobacco product. This Policy has no application to the sale of these products.

8 Previously, psychoactive substances could be manufactured and sold without restriction. The purpose of the 2013 Act was to regulate the availability of these substances in order to protect the health of and minimise harm to individuals who used these products.

9 The Act allows local authorities to have a policy specifying where, in their districts, legal highs can be sold. It does not permit a council to ban legal highs outright or to have a policy which is so restrictive as to effectively ban their sale.

10 In 2013, there were 64 psychoactive substances that had received interim approval for sale. To gain approval a product has to be proven to have no more than a low risk of harm to the user.

11 In 2014, an amendment to the Act meant products could not be tested on animals as part of the approval process. The effect of this is that no product can be approved by the Authority until an appropriate alternative to animal testing becomes available.

12 Consequently, there are no products approved for sale in New Zealand and no applications before the Authority for approval. There are no approved retail outlets anywhere in New Zealand.

2015 Policy Development

13 In 2015, the Council chose to adopt a Legal High Retail Location Policy to help minimise the risk of harm posed by the presence of legal highs in the city. An approved substance was termed a ‘legal high’. The proposed Policy was consulted on using the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) and this resulted in 13 submissions with a further 270 responses to a People’s Panel survey.

14 Responses included some from organisations directly contacted because of their interest in the topic, for example the Police, Southern District Health Board, treatment providers as well as businesses that had been granted interim retail licences with the introduction of the Act in 2013.

15 Most responses were supportive of the proposed Policy and the Council adopted the Policy with one minor amendment.

16 The current Legal High Retail Location Policy 2015 is at Attachment A.

Current Policy

17 The purpose of the Policy is threefold:

· To minimise the harm caused to the community resulting from the use of psychoactive substances by limiting the locations from which the ‘legal high’ may be sold; and

· To minimise the exposure and potential harm of legal highs to vulnerable members of the community; and

· To ensure the community has influence over the location of the premises licensed to sell the products, so much as legally possible.

18 The Policy restricts legal high retailers to the Dunedin central city area provided they are more than 100 m away from ‘sensitive sites’ like schools, churches, Dunedin Public Library, Dunedin Hospital, mental health facilities and justice premises.

Policy Review

19 The Act requires local authorities to complete a review of the Policy within five years after the policy is adopted and then at intervals of not more than five years. A policy does not cease to have effect because it is due for review or is being reviewed.

20 However, if there is no intention to review the Policy and no action is taken to do this, then the Policy would lapse after the statutory five year review period. The Council could also decide by resolution to revoke the Policy from a specific date.

21 The Special Consultative Procedure, as set out in the Local Government Act 2002, must be used if the Policy is amended or replaced.

DISCUSSION

Review Process

22 While the Policy has not had effect and no changes are proposed to the Policy, it is still appropriate to review the retail locations of legal highs to ensure retail locations and sensitive sites identified in the Policy are appropriate, should any products be approved.

23 The Special Consultative Procedure will be used to review the Policy. A draft statement of proposal for consultation purposes is at Attachment B. It is proposed that consultation would be open for at least one month and methods of consultation would include the DCC website, Otago Daily Times noticeboard as well as targeted emails to organisations that may have an interest in the topic. There will be the opportunity for people to make submissions and present their view at a hearing should they wish.

24 If no review is carried out, then the Policy would lapse. If the Council decides not to have a Policy (either by revoking the Policy or not reviewing the Policy), there would be no control on where legal highs could be sold in the city should any products be approved.

Cannabis Referendum

25 A referendum on cannabis legalisation and control took place on 17 October 2020. Preliminary results will be released on 30 October and final results on 6 November.

26 If more than 50% of people vote ‘Yes’ recreational cannabis will not become legal straight away but the incoming Government would be able to introduce the Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill (the Bill) to Parliament that would legalise and control cannabis. This process would include the opportunity for the public to share their thoughts and ideas on how the law might work. If more than 50% of people vote ‘No’ recreational cannabis would remain illegal, as is the current law.

27 The purpose of the Bill is to reduce harm to people and communities by controlling the access, supply and sale of recreational cannabis. While details would need to be determined, information on the referendum indicates that the location and trading hours for premises where cannabis is sold or consumed would be regulated through legislation in consultation with local communities.

28 One possibility is that cannabis could become an approved product under the Act and policies such as the DCC Legal High Retail Location Policy could be used to restrict sale to certain locations.

29 Whatever the outcome of the referendum, it could take time for legislation to be enacted but the review of the Policy has to proceed within the timeframes set out in the Act. A further review could be carried out prior to the next five-year statutory review if required.

OPTIONS

30 Options are to retain and review the Policy or to revoke the Policy (either by Council resolution or by not reviewing the Policy).

Option One – Retain and Review the Policy (Recommended)

31 This option is to retain the Policy and review the retail locations for legal highs.

Advantages

· Minimises harm caused to the community resulting from the use of legal highs by limiting the locations where they may be sold.

· Minimises the exposure and potential harm of legal highs to vulnerable members of the community.

· Ensures the community has influence over the location of the premises licensed to sell legal highs.

· Controls where legal highs may be sold should any products be approved.

Disadvantages

· Cost of SCP could contribute to consultation fatigue by consulting on a policy not required

Option Two – Revoke the Policy

32 This option is to revoke the Policy.

Advantages

· No known advantages.

Disadvantages

· Lost opportunity to minimise harm caused to the community resulting from the use of legal highs by limiting the locations where they may be sold.

· Lost opportunity to minimise the exposure and potential harm of legal highs to vulnerable members of the community.

· Does not allow the community to influence the location of the premises licensed to sell legal highs.

· No control over where legal highs may be sold should any products be approved.

NEXT STEPS

33 If approved, next steps are to carry out consultation on the Policy using the Special Consultative Procedure. The Regulatory Subcommittee would consider and hear submissions and report back to the Council with a recommendation on the Policy. The Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority would then be advised of the adopted Policy.

Signatories

Author:

Anne Gray - Policy Analyst

Kevin Mechen - Secretary, District Licensing Committee

Authoriser:

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Legal High Retail Location Policy 2015	170
⇩b	Statement of Proposal for Legal High Retail Location Policy review	174

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 report on the review of the Policy contributes to safe and healthy people in the Social Wellbeing Strategy, compelling destination in the Economic Development Strategy and liveable city in the Spatial Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

Māori organisations are identified as a potential interest group and will be advised of the review.

Sustainability

There are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy / Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications as consultation costs are managed within existing operational budgets.

Significance

This report is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. However, there is some community interest regarding psychoactive substances generally and the wider issues of the recreational cannabis referendum.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement for this report. However, the Special Consultative Procedure will be used to review this Policy, and this will include advising key stakeholders of the review.

Engagement – internal

There has been internal engagement with In-House Legal Counsel.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Council

27 October 2020

Code of Conduct

Department: Executive Leadership Team

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Code of Conduct complaints were made by Councillors Garey, Laufiso and Walker relating to an incident between Cr Garey and Cr Vandervis that happened at the conclusion of the Council meeting on 28 July 2020. This report presents the Code of Conduct investigation to the Council for consideration.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the findings of the investigation of Steph Dyhrberg in her investigation into the Dunedin City Council Code of Conduct complaints made by Councillors Garey, Laufiso and Walker about the behaviour of Cr Vandervis.

b) Provides Councillor Vandervis the opportunity to address Council if he wishes to.

c) Suspends standing order 20.2(c) to enable Councillor Vandervis more than the usual five minutes to address Council.

d) Decides whether a breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred, and if so, which, if any, of the sanctions outlined in the Code of Conduct that it wishes to impose.

the PROCESS UNDERTAKEN

2 On 29 July 2020 formal complaints were made by three Councillors regarding Cr Vandervis’ behaviour towards Cr Garey after the Council meeting on 28 July 2020.

3 The complaints from the three Councillors were sent to the then Acting Chief Executive Sandy Graham on 29 July 2020. The complaints related to an incident at the conclusion of the 28 July 2020 Council meeting.

4 Section 12 and Appendix B of the DCC Code of Conduct, adopted 25 October 2016, sets out the process to be followed when complaints are laid.

· The complaints from the three Councillors were laid with the Acting Chief Executive in writing on 29 July 2020

· An investigator, Ms Dyhrberg, was appointed by the Acting Chief Executive from the approved List of Independent Investigators

· The three complainants were advised by individual emails on 30 July 2020, that the complaints had been referred to Ms Dyhrberg and were also advised of the process for dealing with their complaints.

· The respondent Cr Vandervis, was advised of the complaints, the name of the investigator and the process for dealing with complaints via email on 30 July 2020. Cr Vandervis was also provided with copies of the complaints on the same day.

· The investigator carried out a preliminary investigation and advised the Acting Chief Executive that the complaints were material and a full investigation was required, on 5 August 2020

· The complainants and respondent were advised of this by the investigator.

· Cr Vandervis did not accept the appointment of Ms Dyhrberg and raised concerns in an email to the Acting Chief Executive on 7 August 2020.

· The Acting Chief Executive took legal advice on matters raised in the email and provided a response to Cr Vandervis on 10 August 2020 responding to his concerns. Ms Dyhrberg addresses the issues relevant to this process in her report.

· A full investigation was carried out and the report, attached (Attachment A), was sent to the Acting Chief Executive on 1 October 2020.

· Legal advice was then provided to the Chief Executive on the process as a number of members were potentially had an “interest in proceedings”. That legal advice is attached as Attachment B.

· Cr Vandervis was provided with a copy of the final report and given an opportunity to ask any questions or raise any concerns he had in an email from the Chief Executive on 14 October 2020 (Attachment C). A follow up email was sent and at time of writing, no response has been received from Cr Vandervis.

DISCUSSION

5 The Code of Conduct Appendix B step 5 sets out the process for the Council to consider the investigator’s report. The code of Conduct allows Councillor Vandervis to attend the meeting, to appear and speak in his own defence but not to participate in any debate or vote at the meeting, and he may remain and observe in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 4 or step 5 on p15 of the Code of Conduct, and clauses 12.1 and 19.8 of Standing Orders. Council may choose to suspend standing order 20.2(c) so that Council Vandervis could talk for more than five minutes should he wish to do so.

6 The following Councillors will not participate in Council's consideration of the independent investigator's report:

a) Councillors Garey, Laufiso and Walker (as complainants)

b) Councillor Vandervis (as respondent)

c) Councillors Lord, Whiley and O'Malley (as members with an interest in the proceedings).

7 The Council must now decide what it wishes to do about the complaints. Councillors must read the report, attached, and must also give Councillor Vandervis an opportunity to appear and speak in his own defence. If the Council accepts the findings in the investigator’s report, and wishes to apply sanctions, the Council can decide, based on the investigation, to impose sanctions on the Councillor, as set out in section 13.1 of the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct says the level of the sanction “will depend on the seriousness of the breach”. Section 13.1 also outlines actions a respondent may agree to that could enable a Council to not impose any penalty.

8 As this is an administrative matter, a summary of considerations has not been prepared.

NEXT STEPS

9 The next steps are for the Council to discuss the findings of the independent investigation, hear from the Councillor if he chooses to speak, and decide whether the findings are accepted and, if so, how to respond.

Signatories

Author:

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Independent Investigation Report	183
⇩b	Legal advice from Anderson Lloyd dated 13 October 2020	222
⇩c	Email to Cr Vandervis dated 14 October 2020	226

Council

27 October 2020

Resolution to Exclude the Public

That the Council excludes the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting (pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987) namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Public Forum	S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C2 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 29 September 2020 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S6(a) The making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial.	.
C3 Confidential Council Forward Work Programme	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C4 Confidential Council Actions from Resolutions at Council Meetings	S6(a) The making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 6.
C5 Property Sale	S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C6 Property Negotiations - Potential Housing Site	S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.	In particular this report is confidential to protect Council's position in respect of the negotiations for a proposed property sale..
C7 Community Housing - Inner City Site	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.	The content of this report is subject to commercial sensitivity..
C8 Foulden Maar	S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C9 Annual Review - DCC Treasury Risk Management Policy	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.

That David McKenzie (Salvation Army) and Russell Lund be permitted to remain at the meeting after the public has been excluded to speak to Item C1. Their knowledge for this item may be of assistance in matters to be discussed.

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

	Title	Page
⇨a	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 29 September 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

Author:	Sharon Bodeker - Corporate Planner
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

	Title	Page
⇩a	Councillor Register of Interest	7
⇩b	ELT Register of Interest	17