Notice of Meeting:
I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory Subcommittee will be held on:
Date: Tuesday 6 October 2020, 1.00 pm
Wednesday 7 October 2020, 2.00 pm
Venue: Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin
Sandy Graham
Acting Chief Executive Officer
Regulatory Subcommittee
Trading in Public Places
PUBLIC AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Cr Andrew Whiley |
|
|
|
|
Members |
Cr Christine Garey |
Cr Marie Laufiso |
|
Cr Chris Staynes |
|
Senior Officer Simon Pickford, General Manager Community Services and Development
Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard
Wendy Collard
Governance Support Officer
Telephone: 03 477 4000
wendy.collard@dcc.govt.nz
Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.
Regulatory Subcommittee 6 October 2020 |
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 4
2 Confirmation of Agenda 4
3 Declaration of Interest 5
Part A Reports (Committee has power to decide these matters)
4 Proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw - Results of Consultation 11
5 Speaking Schedule 28
Regulatory Subcommittee 6 October 2020 |
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
Note: Any additions must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.
|
Regulatory Subcommittee 6 October 2020 |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Members are reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.
2. Elected members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable, including amending the register at this meeting if necessary.
That the Subcommittee: a) Notes/Amends if necessary the Elected Members' Interest Register attached as Attachment A; and b) Confirms/Amends the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests. |
Attachments
|
Title |
Page |
⇩a |
Elected Members' Register of Interest |
7 |
|
Regulatory Subcommittee 6 October 2020 |
Proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw - Results of Consultation
Department: Customer and Regulatory Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 This report presents a summary of the submissions and other feedback provided during consultation on the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw.
2 There were 66 submissions made during consultation on the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw. The special consultative procedure was used for consultation, as required by the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Of these submissions, 67% supported the general direction of the proposed bylaw, 23% do not support its general direction and 11% did not complete this question.
3 There was one late submission and it is recommended that the Regulatory Subcommittee (the subcommittee) decides whether to accept this.
4 Eleven submitters wish to be heard.
That the Committee: a) Accepts the late submission b) Considers the results of the consultation on the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw c) Makes recommendations to the Council on the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw. |
BACKGROUND
Early review of bylaw
5 In March 2019, the Council approved early review of the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw with a view to including rental share scheme operators such as electric scooter companies following the arrival of a rental electric scooter company earlier that year.
Proposed new Trading in Public Places Bylaw
6 Following a review, a new Trading in Public Places Bylaw was proposed that encompasses a number of additional trading activities.
7 The approach was to develop a short bylaw consisting of a wider definition of trading, requirement for traders to have permit to operate, a requirement for operators to comply with permit conditions, penalties for breaches, and enforcement. Permit conditions would sit separately from the bylaw. This approach should be more accessible and simpler for the public. It should also provide greater flexibility should conditions need to be amended or updated, for example with the arrival of unforeseen types of trading.
8 In February 2020 the Council approved a draft Trading in Public Places Bylaw and statement of proposal for consultation.
Proposed trading activities
9 Proposed activities to come under the bylaw are rental share scheme operations, commercial users of footpaths, street fundraising, street performing and footpath art. This is in addition to mobile traders and temporary stalls which are already covered in the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw. It is proposed these activities continue to be covered under the new bylaw.
10 The location of any new specific mobile trading sites will be worked through in consultation with mobile traders. Any proposed new sites will be the subject of separate community engagement and a separate report to the Council as work is developed in accordance with the central city and tertiary precinct upgrades as well as the city as a whole.
11 While some activities such as the commercial use of footpaths and street performing already have conditions, they are not currently covered by a bylaw so there is currently no legal requirement to have permits and to comply with conditions.
12 For trading activities with current guidance or conditions in place, this was reviewed. There was minimal change to street fundraising, street performing, mobile trading and commercial use of footpaths. If included in the bylaw, conditions for these activities would supersede current guidance and policy.
13 Conditions were developed for rental scheme operators, touting and footpath art. Conditions for all activities were included with the consultation documents. While consultation focused on what activities should be included in the bylaw, some did comment on the conditions, e.g. busking. Conditions are seen as operational and for staff consideration.
Smokefree outdoor dining
14 The opportunity was also taken to gauge support for options to promote smokefree outdoor dining in Dunedin. In line with the Smokefree Dunedin Policy which supports the goal of a smokefree Dunedin, two options were provided which would promote smokefree outdoor dining in Dunedin.
15 Many
other local authorities have smokefree outdoor dining in place through policies
and licence conditions. Generally, this would require businesses to provide
smokefree signage and to prohibit ash trays. This approach usually depends on
promotion of smokefree rather than active enforcement.
Pedestrian access
16 The proposed bylaw includes provisions for pedestrian access for trading activities. Pedestrian access is defined as “a minimum width of unobstructed access for pedestrians must be maintained as follows: 3m in the central business district zone of the 2GP and 1.5m in all other areas”. This aligns with Second Generation District Plan requirements which were consulted on as part of the review of the District Plan.
DISCUSSION
Consultation
17 Consultation on the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw, using the special consultative procedure, was carried out from 5pm Wednesday 1 July until 5pm Monday 3 August.
18 Methods of consultation included the Dunedin City Council (DCC) website, notices, advertisements and media releases for the Otago Daily Times and The Star and posts on the DCC social media.
19 Information was also sent to the Dunedin People’s Panel and distributed through networks for interest groups and stakeholders such as tour operators, disability and older persons, businesses, arts and culture and street fundraisers.
20 Earlier in the review, there was pre-consultation with stakeholder groups which informed the options and proposals.
Social media
21 Two notices were posted on DCC social media advertising the consultation, one part way through the consultation on 17 July and a reminder that the consultation was closing soon on 30 July.
22 This resulted in various discussion, mainly around whether fees would be or should be charged for different activities. There was also some discussion around whether smokefree should be promoted at licenced outdoor dining venues.
Submissions
23 66 submissions were received during the consultation period and there was one late submission.
24 Of the 66 submissions, 14 were from organisations and the remainder from individuals. Organisations include Southern District Health Board, Lime, Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA), Cancer Society NZ, City Walks and Bookatour.
25 The Dunedin Fringe Arts Trust submission about street performing was supported by 31 signatories.
Summary of submissions
26 Results
of the submissions are summarised by the topics and questions presented in the
submission form. Note that while there were 66 submissions in total, not all
respondents answered all questions and this is why the total number of
respondents varies for each topic.
General direction of proposed bylaw
27 The submission form asked, Overall, do you agree with the general direction of the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw?
|
Number |
% |
Yes – agree with general direction |
44 |
67 |
No – do not agree with general direction |
15 |
23 |
Did not complete this question |
7 |
11 |
TOTAL |
66 |
100 |
28 Of those who responded to this question, two thirds (67%) agree with the general direction of the proposed bylaw, 23% do not agree and 11% did not answer this question. (The total does not add up to 100% due to rounding.)
Rental scheme operators
29 The submission form asked, “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?”
|
Number |
% |
Yes |
57 |
97 |
No |
2 |
3 |
TOTAL |
59 |
100 |
30 Of those who responded to this question, 97% support this proposal and 3% do not support it.
31 Submitters were asked reasons for their answer and common themes from the 48 responses were that inclusion in the bylaw would help with safety and prevent nuisance, that it would control this activity and that it is appropriate for commercial operators to pay for use of public space.
32 Some
submitters, such as CCS, DPA and Vision Impairment Charitable Trust Aotearoa
(VICTA), want national regulation on things such as e-scooter speed and e-scooter
use on footpaths. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) consulted on a number
of related measures in their Accessible Streets Regulatory package earlier this
year and it likely that national regulation will be introduced in due course.
Street fundraising
33 The submission form asked, “Should street fundraising be included in the bylaw?”
|
Number |
% |
Yes |
31 |
54 |
No |
26 |
46 |
TOTAL |
57 |
100 |
34 Of those who responded, just over half (54%) support the inclusion of street fundraising in the bylaw and 46% do not support it.
35 Submitters were asked reasons for their answer. There were 37 responses and common themes for those supporting this were to ensure safety and prevent nuisance. Common reasons for those not supporting this were that there seem to be no problems with this activity, that inclusion in the bylaw could hinder this activity, that it is for charitable purposes and inclusion would be too bureaucratic.
Street performing/busking
36 The submission form asked, “Should street performing, such as busking, be included in the bylaw?”
|
Number |
% |
Yes |
30 |
52 |
No |
28 |
48 |
TOTAL |
58 |
100 |
37 Of those who responded, responses were split with just over half (52%) supporting the inclusion of street performing in the bylaw and 48% not supporting it.
38 Submitters were asked reasons for their answer and there were 37 responses. For those who think street performing should be included in a bylaw common themes were to prevent nuisance and ensure safety and to provide guidance and control around this activity.
39 For those who did not think street performing should be included in a bylaw, common themes were that this would be too restrictive and bureaucratic and it could hinder vibrancy and culture in the city.
40 The submission from the Dunedin Fringe Arts Trust was supported with 31 signatories. This submission had concerns with some of the street performing conditions; specifically, pedestrian access, time allowed to perform, and seeking permission from retailers, which could discourage rather than encourage street performing.
41 Staff comment on these issues is that the pedestrian access requirements included in the bylaw aligns with District Plan requirements which had been previously consulted on. The performance time of 60 minutes has not changed, however the set up time of 30 minutes was removed from the conditions. Set up time is still allowed but has not been specified as it is variable for each performer. The condition, requiring performers to have permission from retailers outside whose premises they are performing, was added in response to complaints from some retailers.
Touting
42 The submission form asked, “Should conditions for touting be included in the bylaw?”
|
Number |
% |
Yes |
46 |
85 |
No |
8 |
15 |
TOTAL |
54 |
100 |
43 Of those who responded, most (85%) support the inclusion of touting in the bylaw and 15% do not support it.
44 Submitters were asked reasons for their answer and there were 27 responses. Common themes were this activity should be regulated as it is a commercial activity and that it would prevent nuisance.
Footpath art
45 The submission form asked, “Should footpath art be included in the bylaw?”
|
Number |
% |
Yes |
27 |
49 |
No |
28 |
51 |
TOTAL |
55 |
100 |
46 Of those who responded, responses were split with 51% not supporting the inclusion of footpath art in the bylaw and 49% supporting it.
47 Submitters
were asked reasons for their answer and there were 29 responses. Common themes
were that including it in a bylaw would be too restrictive, it would hinder
vibrancy and discourage culture in the city. A common reason for those who
think it should be included in the bylaw were that all trading activities in
public places should be regulated.
Commercial use of footpaths
48 The submission form asked, “Should commercial use of footpaths be included in the bylaw?”
|
Number |
% |
Yes |
50 |
86 |
No |
8 |
14 |
TOTAL |
58 |
100 |
49 Of those who responded, the majority (86%) support the inclusion of the commercial use of footpaths in the bylaw and 14% do not support it.
50 Submitters were asked reasons for their answer and there were 34 responses. Common themes were that commercial activities should be regulated and pay for public space, that regulation would ensure safety and prevent nuisance.
Smokefree outdoor dining areas
51 The submission form asked, “Which option do you prefer in relation to the promotion of smokefree licenced outdoor dining?”
|
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 |
14 |
Make promotion of smokefree outdoor dining a condition of all commercial use of footpaths permits |
34 |
61 |
I do not think smokefree should be promoted at licenced outdoor dining premises |
14 |
25 |
TOTAL |
56 |
100 |
52 Of those who responded to this question, most (61%) support the option of making promotion of smokefree outdoor dining a condition of all commercial use of footpath permits. A quarter do not think smokefree should be promoted at licenced outdoor dining premises and 14% support the option of providing an incentive to businesses to promote smokefree outdoor dining by way of a discount to the commercial use of footpath fee i.e. businesses can choose.
53 Submitters were asked reasons for their answer and there were 41 responses. The most common theme for those wanting to promote smokefree outdoor dining was health benefits and that it should be the same as indoor dining. A reason given for those not wanting to promote smokefree was that it would limit choice for smokers.
54 The Southern District Health Board, Smokefree Otago, and Cancer Society all submitted to include promotion of vaping-free as well as smokefree as a condition of commercial footpath permits. The Cancer Society would also like smokefree ‘outdoor dining’ to be extended to ‘outdoor hospitality’ i.e. outdoor drinking areas and bars as well as dining areas.
55 The Vaping Amendment Bill was passed in August 2020 to include vaping in the Smokefree Environments Act 1990. It means that from November 2020 vaping in internal workplaces will be prohibited and that advertising vaping and selling vaping products to under 18 year olds will be prohibited. Schools and early childhood centres will also have to display ‘no smoking or vaping’ signs’.
Other Councils
56 Approaches of other councils to trading activities were considered when developing the draft bylaw. Most cities with e-scooter rental schemes have bylaws that require permits for their operation. A number of Councils also require permits for activities such as footpath art, street fundraising and street performing such as busking.
57 Many other local authorities have smokefree outdoor dining in place through policies and licence conditions. Generally, this requires businesses to provide smokefree signage and to prohibit ash trays. This approach usually depends on promotion of smokefree rather than active enforcement.
58 Some Councils include conditions for all trading activities within the bylaw itself, whereas others have shorter bylaws and separate conditions.
OPTIONS
59 There are no options to this report as the purpose is to present a summary of submissions.
NEXT STEPS
60 Next steps are for the Regulatory Subcommittee to consider consultation results and make recommendations to the Council regarding the proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw.
Signatories
Author: |
Anne Gray - Policy Analyst |
Authoriser: |
Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services |
|
Title |
Page |
⇩a |
Draft Trading in Public Places Bylaw |
21 |
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. This decision promotes the cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fit with strategic framework
This summary report for consideration has no impact on the strategic framework, however a proposed Trading in Public Places Bylaw has potential to contribute to most strategies in terms of safe and healthy people, compelling destination, active transport modes, low carbon transport options, vibrant city and liveable city. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Māori Impact Statement This summary report for consideration has no specific impacts for tangata whenua. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sustainability This summary report for consideration has no specific impacts for sustainability. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy This summary report for consideration has no impacts for these documents. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial considerations There are no financial implications to this summary report. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Significance Significance is assessed as low to medium for Trading in Public Places Bylaw proposals. There was pre-consultation with several stakeholder groups to inform options for proposals. The special consultative procedure was used to consult on proposals, as required by the Local Government Act 2002. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement – external External parties have been engaged at various stages of this review includes a Special Consultation procedure.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engagement - internal There has been internal engagement during this review with staff from Transportation, Customer and Regulatory Services (Building, Compliance, Parking), Parks and Recreation, Solid Waste, Enterprise Dunedin, Events and Community Development, in-house legal counsel, Governance, Property, City Development, City Planning, Ara Toi and Corporate Policy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc. There are no identified risks to this summary report for consideration. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conflict of Interest There is no known conflict of interest. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Boards This summary report for consideration has no specific implications for Community Boards. Community Board had the opportunity to make a submission. |
Regulatory Subcommittee 6 October 2020 |
Speaking Schedule
Department: Civic
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Please find attached the speaking schedule as at 24 September 2020.
Signatories
Author: |
Wendy Collard - Governance Support Officer |
Authoriser: |
Clare Sullivan - Team Leader Civic |
|
Title |
Page |
⇩a |
Speaking Schedule |
29 |