Agenda of Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee

Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee

10 May 2016

sdclogo

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

Procedural

1 Apologies 4

2 Leave of absence 4

3 Conflict of Interest 4

4 Public Forum 4

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items 4

6 Confirmation of Minutes 4

Reports

7.1 Works and Finance Report to Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee for the period ended 31 March 2016 11

7.2 Bylaw Review Process 17

7.3 Draft Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy 19

7.4 Community Partnership Leader - Overview of role 29

UPDATES

8.1 Local Liaison Person Reports

§ Township Works	Ivan Sunde	Chris Mangion
§ Parks & Reserves	Ivan Sunde	Chris Mangion
§ Community Housing	Ivan Sunde
§ Hall	Mark Wishart	Chris Mangion
§ Ohai/Nightcaps/Wairio Water Supply	Peter Emtage
§ Ohai/Nightcaps & Districts Doctors House & Surgery Committee
§ Takitimu Heritage Trail	Peter Emtage	Chris Mangion

8.2 Chairperson’s Report

8.3 Councillor’s Report

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Leave of absence

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

3 Conflict of Interest

Subcommittee Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

4 Public Forum

Notification to speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz or phoning 0800 732 732.

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the committee to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i) the reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii) the reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Meeting minutes of Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee, 16 February 2016

sdclogo

Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee

OPEN MINUTES

Minutes of a meeting of Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee held in the Ohai Hall, Richmond Street, Ohai on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 at 5.36pm.

present

Chairperson	Mark Wishart
Deputy Chairperson	Ivan Sunde
Members	Peter Emtage
	Christopher Mangion

	Councillor Stuart Baird

IN ATTENDANCE

Area Engineer	Leighton Hare
Committee Advisor	Kelly Tagg

1 Apologies

An apology for non-attendance was received from Member Bennett.

Moved Member Mangion, seconded Member Sunde and resolved that the Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee accept the apology.

2 Leave of absence

No requests for leave of absence were received..

3 Conflict of Interest

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

4 Public Forum

There were no members of the public seeking speaking rights in Public Forum.

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved Member Sunde, seconded Member Mangion

Confirms the minutes of Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee meeting held on 24 November 2015.

Reports

7.1

Action Sheet

Record No: R/16/2/1980

The Action Sheet from the subcommittee’s previous meetings, was tabled. Items arising from the Action Sheet included;

Hall

The Hall Committee is to arrange a meeting in order to discuss the planned Hall upgrade and identify priorities; the Community Development Planner will be contacted to discuss any additional funding requirements.

Fire doors – Ohai Hall

Repairs to the Hall fire doors have now been completed.

Resolution

Moved Member Sunde, seconded Member Mangion

That the Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Action Sheet” dated 11 February 2016.

7.2

Works and Finance Report to Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee for the period ended 31 December 2015

Record No: R/16/1/882

The Works and Finance report for the period ended 31 December 2015, was tabled.

The meeting was informed that activities around the township have been confined to routine maintenance and that a water leak on Birchwood Road near the playground has been repaired.

Resolution

Moved Member Sunde, seconded Member Mangion

That the Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Works and Finance Report to Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee for the period ended 31 December 2015” dated 21 January 2016.

7.3

Extraordinary Vacancy - Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee

Record No: R/16/2/1811

Report requesting the Ohai CDA consider the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr Jim Malcolm, who has moved out of the area, was tabled.

The meeting was informed of the following;

The Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee is entitled to six locally elected representatives.
Qualification for election to the subcommittee is that the nominees must;

o Be a resident and reside within the defined boundary of the CDA or

o Be a ratepayer within the defined boundary of the CDA

Furthermore, the nominees must be nominated by persons who;

o Are a resident and reside within the defined boundary of the CDA or

o Are a ratepayer within the defined boundary of the CDA

Members were presented with the following options for consideration;

Do nothing – i.e. carry the vacancy until the next Triennial meeting which would be held February/March 2017.

Appoint highest unsuccessful candidate at the last CDA Triennial elections; this does not apply for this particular subcommittee as there were only 6 candidates nominated at the last Triennial elections.
Subcommittee members to canvas the community for suitable nominees to fill the vacancy; this can be done by;

o Placing advertisements in local information bulletins,

o Holding a public meeting, or

o Displaying advertisements strategically placed around the Ohai Township.

The Area Officer advised if there are more nominees than required an election on “first past the post” process will be held at a public meeting and in the event of the last two nominees receiving the same number of votes then the result will be decided by the toss of a coin. Furthermore, the successful nominee is then required to have their election to the CDA confirmed by Council.

The meeting agreed that an advertisement be placed in the local community newsletter inviting the public to express their interest to the Chairman, Member Wishart.

Resolution

Moved Member Wishart, seconded Member Sunde

That the Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Extraordinary Vacancy - Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee” dated 11 February 2016.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c) Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d) Places an advertisement in the local community newsletter inviting expressions of interest from those wishing to join the CDA

7.4

Ohai Railway Rolling Stock

Record No: R/16/1/1124

Report prepared by Ian Marshall (Group Manager, Services & Assets) advising that the future of the old rolling stock from the Ohai Railway needs to be dealt with, was tabled.

The meeting was reminded that the old Ohai Railway rolling stock is still sitting in storage in the KiwiRail sheds at Wairio; KiwiRail now require the shed to be vacated.

The subcommittee noted that attempts to find a suitable home for the rolling stock in the Ohai/Nightcaps area have been unsuccessful and that Council has to find a long term viable option for these railway assets now.

The meeting was informed that the four items with the highest heritage value need to be housed in a suitable manner in order to protect their value. For example;

(a) The DSB Mitsubishi Locomotive (diesel shunter) could be on display in the open but preferably undercover.

(b) The carriages need to be undercover as a minimum but preferably in a fully enclosed display.

In his report Mr Marshall stated that along with protecting the heritage value of the assets it is highly desirable to retain the assets within the Southland District so that the history of the Ohai Railway Board can be told in conjunction with the display in such a way as to be relevant to the Ohai/Nightcaps area. Furthermore, a location with high numbers of passing visitors is desirable to maximise the exposure of the train and so maximise the opportunity for the history of the Ohai/Nightcaps area to be told to as many people as possible, this would also help promote the Ohai and Nightcaps area. The meeting noted that the exception to this is the guards van which is recognised as having a heritage value that is nationally significant and consequently, it should be on display in one of the large national railway museums.

The report outlined a proposal for consideration by the subcommittee as follows;

It is proposed to call for public interest in the long term leasing of the railway assets. Conditions will be set down in the lease that ensures the assets are maintained in the appropriate condition and that they are used on display in a manner that promotes the history of the Ohai Railway Board and the Ohai and Nightcaps area history.

There will also be requirements for the assets to be rejuvenated so they are protected into the future.

The lease/s will also be of a set timeframe so as to allow the potential for the assets to be relocated in the future to new sites where a new proposal will rejuvenate interest. The timeframe will need to be long enough though to allow the leases a chance to gain value from their investment in the cost of moving and rejuvenating the assets. It is likely the initial leases would be at least five years and maybe even 10 years.

In discussing this item Member Emtage stated he thought the CDA should be “moving heaven and earth” to keep the assets in Ohai.

Members agreed to think further on this issue and noted that Council will likely make the final decision if no other suggestions are received.

Resolution

Moved Member Sunde, seconded Member Emtage

That the Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Ohai Railway Rolling Stock” dated 9 February 2016.

Updates

8.1

Local Liaison Persons Report

Members discussed the possible upgrade of the Ohai Hall and agreed that a meeting will be held in order to plan and prioritise the project.

The meeting was advised that there is a vacant flat at the community housing complex; an advertisement will be placed in the community newsletter inviting applications.

Members were informed that a grant of $2,000 from the Ohai/Nightcaps and Districts Doctors House & Surgery Committee was made to Otautau St John to assist with the purchase of the new health shuttle.

Member Wishart advised that the new Takitimu Heritage Trail brochures have been printed; copies will be circulated to subcommittee members.

8.2	Chairperson's Report
	The Chairman, Member Wishart updated the subcommittee on matters with which he has been involved since the CDA’s last meeting which included attendance at a Community Futures Workshop hosted by Council. Member Wishart also advised that the Takitimu Community Development Committee has recently undertaken a survey of local residents; a copy of the survey results will be provided in due course.

8.3

Councillor's Report

Councillor Baird reported on matters from the District Council table which included the following;

Council’s Draft Annual Plan is out for public consultation
Council and Community Board elections are coming up, poling day is 8 October 2016.
An update on Council’s three-strike wheelie bin policy

6.50pm CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee HELD ON 16 FEBRUARY 2016.

DATE:...................................................................

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee

10 May 2016

sdclogo

Bylaw Review Process

Record No: R/16/4/5202

Author: Tamara Dytor, Policy Analyst

Approved by: Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

☐ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information

Executive Summary

1 In 2016, the Cemetery Bylaw 2006, the Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2010 and the Control of Advertising Signs Bylaw 2008 will be reviewed. This report outlines the approach that will be taken to consultation and review.

Background

2 Council will be reviewing three bylaws in 2016. The drivers for each review are outlined below:

· The Cemetery Bylaw 2006 requires review in 2016 to remain current.

· A review of the Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2010 is recommended to address local issues. This bylaw was reviewed in 2010 however, since this time additional issues have arisen. The keeping of animals in urban areas has become an area of contention in some communities.

· A review of the Control of Advertising Signs Bylaw 2008 is recommended to align with the District Plan. This will provide clarity for the public and address issues across the District relating to signage. The proposed bylaw review would address the placement of signs in the road reserve, for example sandwich boards on footpaths. Changes to the bylaw are intended to increase the ease of doing business with Council and provide clarity and consistency.

Timeline

3 The timeline below outlines key milestones in the process of review and details the approach to public engagement.

Date	Task
Mid-May 2016	Pre-consultation engagement sessions. Sessions are also for other Long Term Plan issues.
8 June 2016	Council meeting (Endorse draft bylaws for public consultation)
8 June 2016	Notification given to Area Offices, and customer services. Committee Advisors to liaise with CB and CDA chairs to remind them of the submission period.
9 June 2016	Draft bylaws advertised.
9 Jun – 30 Jun 2016	Submission period.
20 July 2016	Council meeting (Submission Hearings)
2 Aug 2016	Amendments made to draft bylaws.
17 Aug 2016	Council meeting (Deliberations)
7 Sep 2016	Council meeting (Adoption of bylaws)
8 Sep 2016	Advertising of adopted bylaws.
Sep – Oct 2016	Present report to CDAs on new bylaws.
Nov – Dec 2016	Present report to CBs on new bylaws.

Consultation and engagement

4 Community views will be considered during formal consultation and during pre-consultation engagement. The timeline above details when this will occur.

5 Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees are asked to make submissions during the consultation period and individual members can engage during pre-consultation sessions in May.

Recommendation

That the Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Bylaw Review Process” dated 12 April 2016.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee

10 May 2016

sdclogo

Draft Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy

Record No: R/16/4/5653

Author: Tamara Dytor, Policy Analyst

Approved by: Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 This report presents the draft Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy. A recommendation is sought from Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees regarding local areas that should be considered for restriction or prohibition of unmanned aerial vehicle use.

Executive Summary

2 Under new rules introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Council can grant or decline consent for the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) on property that it owns or controls. The draft Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Policy sets a framework to allow Council to do this.

3 The draft Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Policy contains broad conditions which would apply throughout the District. Feedback is requested from Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees to determine whether Council should consider prohibition or restriction in specific local areas.

Recommendation

That the Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Draft Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy” dated 19 April 2016.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) Recommend any local areas that should be considered as restricted or prohibited areas for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles.

Content

Background

4 Rules introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) came into effect on 1 August 2015. The rules require people to obtain Council approval to operate UAVs on public land.

5 The draft Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy broadly allows for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the District, provided that users comply with conditions within the policy. These conditions exist in addition to those already imposed across New Zealand by the CAA.

6 The majority of UAV use is likely to occur in Council’s parks, reserves and open spaces.

What is an UAV?

The term UAV covers all electric powered remote controlled model aircraft of the type commonly referred to as “drones” that are capable of vertical take-off and landing and small hand-launched gliders less than a 1.5 metre wing span. It does not cover the following:

· Fixed wing electric-powered model aircraft greater than 1 metre wing span.

· All fixed - winged model aircraft that are internal combustion engine (petrol) powered.

· Gliders greater than a 1.5 metre wing span and bungee-launched gliders.

· Single rotor helicopters that are electric powered or internal combustion engine (petrol) powered.

· Jet powered models.

CAA Regulations

CAA rules apply to all UAV operators throughout New Zealand. CAA rules Part 101 require 12 key things from UAV operators. Operators must:

1. Not operate an UAV 25 kg or larger and always ensure that the UAV is safe to operate;

2. Take all practicable steps to minimise hazards to persons, property and other aircraft;

3. Fly only in daylight;

4. Give way to all crewed aircraft;

5. Be able to see the UAV with their own eyes;

6. Not fly higher than 120 metres (400 feet) (unless certain conditions are met);

7. Have knowledge of airspace restrictions;

8. Not fly closer than four kilometres from any aerodrome (unless certain conditions are met);

9. Obtain an air traffic control clearance issued by Airways (when flying in controlled airspace);

10. Not fly in special use airspace without the permission of the controlling authority of the area (eg, military operating areas, low flying zones, danger areas or restricted areas);

11. Have consent from anyone you want to fly above;

12. Have the consent of the property owner or person in charge of the area you want to fly above.

7 Rules are enforceable by the CAA and a breach could result in a fine, a written warning, or prosecution.

Issues

Approach taken in the draft Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy

8 The draft policy nominates some circumstances in which UAV use is not permitted without specific approval from Council. These restrictions apply:

· Over a sports field if in use by others, or within 50 metres of any organised activity taking place in a reserve or Council controlled open space;

· Over or above Council owned or controlled cemeteries or formed roads;

· Over or within 50 metres of other users of open spaces;

· Over or within 50 metres of any building on Council land or any playground equipment, furniture, swimming pool, or track on a reserve;

· Within 50 metres of livestock, wildlife or sensitive wildlife habitats; and

· Within 50 metres of a reserve boundary where residential housing or stock farming adjoins.

9 In addition to these conditions, Community Boards and Community Area Subcommittees are being asked whether there are any local areas that should be considered for restriction or prohibition.

10 Council is keen to ensure that UAV use is appropriate to community needs. There is no benefit in allowing use where it is inappropriate or unsafe. Conversely, there is also no benefit in being unnecessarily restrictive in regards to this recreational activity.

11 Since the definition of an UAV includes model airplanes, it is important to consider the impact of this policy on existing clubs and associations.

Current use and incidents

12 The extent of UAV use in the Southland District is currently unknown. No complaints to Council regarding the use of UAVs were identified during the development of this report. However, across New Zealand the number of incidents reported to the CAA has grown significantly in recent years. The tables below detail the number of incidents across New Zealand by year and by incident type.

Total incidents annually

Year	Total incidents
2008	1
2009	0
2010	1
2011	4
2012	11
2013	10
2014	33
2015	120
Total	184

Number of incidents by incident type

Incident type*	Total incidents
Aviation-related concern	116
Airspace incident	61
Incident	5
Accident	2
Grand Total	184

*Incident definitions

Aviation-related concern: these are ‘concerns’ relating to aviation safety or securing, and include complaints and allegations about suspected rule breaches, etc.

Airspace incident: incidents that involve deviations from airspace rules and procedures (minimum distances for aircraft separation, for example).

Incident: a general incident category that covers situations where there is a risk of harm occurring but this does not eventuate.

13 There have been four incidents involving UAVs in the Southland region, one of which was in the Southland District. Three of these were aviation-related concerns, one was an airspace incident. The details of each are in the table below:

Date	Description	Location
30-Oct-13	Concern UAV flying on farms and potentially causing a hazard to other aircraft in the area.	Otama Hill Road, Gore
13-Jun-14	Concern about UAV flying near an airliner and a low flying area. Referred to the Regulatory Investigations Unit.	Invercargill
14-Apr-15	Concern that a UAV was flown in close proximity to the airport.	Invercargill
11-Nov-15	Unauthorised UAV operations 100 metres from the airport. The operators were two foreign nationals.	Milford Sound

14 To date, 10 enforcement actions have been undertaken by the CAA’s Regulatory Investigations Unit in relation to UAV operations. Five of these have been written warnings, and five have been infringement notices with fines ranging from $500 to $3,500.

15 At this stage staff have not identified any complaints to Council regarding the use of UAVs in the Southland District. To balance the fact that there is not a current significant issue with UAVs and the likelihood of risks in the future, a moderate and proportionate response to manage this issue would be appropriate. Council also needs to be mindful of existing UAV users such as the Fiordland Cloudbusters Model Aircraft Club, who have operated UAVs to date without any issues.

Enforcement

16 The CAA has the power to regulate UAV use through mechanisms ranging from warnings to prosecution, depending on the nature of incidents.

17 CAA officers have indicated that if reported issues are of a serious nature involving the endangerment of people or property or reckless use of UAVs, an investigation with a view towards prosecution would be likely to occur. For less serious breaches, warnings or infringements are more likely to be considered.

18 In the event of a breach of the policy, Council staff would report any incident to the CAA. The incident would be recorded so that the CAA can gather a realistic picture of issues relating to drones and of any operators who breach the rules on multiple occasions. In the opinion of staff in the CAA investigations team, a Council bylaw would be an unnecessary duplication of existing powers under the CAA Regulatory Enforcement Policy.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

19 Council is empowered to adopt a position by CAA rules. The CAA has power to enforce its rules (including permission and conditions of land owners) using mechanisms ranging from warnings and infringements to prosecutions.

20 Since there is currently insufficient evidence of a serious issue relating to UAV use in the Southland District a bylaw is not a proportionate response. Also, enforcement powers of a bylaw largely duplicate enforcement that could be undertaken through CAA legislation. While Council could state its position through guidelines, staff recommend a policy approach to ensure clarity.

Community Views

21 This report is part of the process of gathering community views and forming a policy that meets local needs.

Costs and Funding

22 There are no costs associated with implementing an Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy, other than those associated with advertising and consultation. This is because any enforcement action would be referred to the CAA.

Policy Implications

23 If an Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy is adopted, it will be referred to in Council’s Reserves Management Policy.

Analysis

Options Considered

24 Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees could:

· Option 1: Nominate local areas that should be considered for inclusion in the policy as restricted or prohibited areas; or

· Option 2: Not nominate local areas that should be considered for inclusion in the policy as restricted or prohibited areas.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Nominate local areas that should be considered for inclusion in the policy as restricted or prohibited areas.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Responds to any circumstances or requirements specific to local communities.	· It is important for recommendations not to be unnecessarily restrictive because Council’s general proposed approach is broadly permissive.

Option 2 – Not nominate local areas that should be considered for inclusion in the policy as restricted or prohibited areas.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Provides a clear, fair and consistent approach across the District.	· The broad approach may or may not meet local needs and match local circumstances.

Assessment of Significance

25 This issue has not been assessed as significant because at this stage it is not affecting a large number of people or stakeholders or a specific community. Council’s ability to make decisions in relation to UAV use are established by CAA rules and the proposed approach is generally permissive.

Recommended Option

26 It is recommended that Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees only propose restricted or prohibited areas for inclusion in the policy if this reflects community needs and local circumstances and if these areas are not already adequately managed through the existing broad conditions within the draft policy.

Next Steps

27 Following input from Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees, this policy will be subject to public consultation.

Attachments

a Draft Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy View

Ohai Community Development Area Subcommittee

10 May 2016

USE OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES POLICY

1. PURPOSE

This policy sets out the conditions for use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) on Council owned or controlled land.

2. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Term

Meaning

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

The term UAV covers all electric powered remote controlled model aircraft, including the type commonly referred to as “drones” that are capable of vertical take-off and landing and small hand-launched gliders less than 1.5 metre wing span.

UAVs are also known as drones, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems and Unmanned Aerial Systems.

The term UAV does not include the following:

· Fixed wing electric-powered model aircraft greater than 1 metre wing span.

· All fixed - winged model aircraft that are internal combustion engine (petrol) powered.

· Gliders greater than 1.5 metre wing span and bungee-launched gliders.

· Single rotor helicopters that are electric powered or internal combustion engine (petrol) powered.

· Jet powered models.

Civil Aviation Authority Rules / CAA rules

Civil Aviation Rules are set by the Minister of Transport. The rules are divided into parts. The two parts relevant to UAVs are:

· Part 101: Gyrogliders and Parasails, Unmanned Aircraft (including Balloons), Kites, and Rockets - Operating Rules, and

· Part 102: Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certification.

3 BACKGROUND

Under rules introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on 1 August 2015, Council can grant or decline consent for the use of UAVs on property that it owns or controls. This policy establishes criteria for UAV use over Council owned and controlled land in the Southland District.

4. POLICY DETAILS

4.1 General Criteria

In addition to CAA rules, the following criteria apply to the use of UAVs over land or property owned or controlled by Southland District Council. They do not apply to the use of UAVs by Southland District Council.

Operators of UAVs must:

· Comply with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner guidance on preserving peoples’ personal privacy by not flying over other people or adjoining private property without their consent.

· Be courteous of other park users, who often are there for the quiet enjoyment of Council’s parks, reserves and open spaces.

4.2 Restrictions

Operators must not use UAVs under the following conditions unless specific written approval has been granted by Council:

· If requested to cease by Council officers. Users must land their UAV immediately if requested by Council officers.

· Over a sports field if in use by others, or within 50 metres of any organised activity taking place in a reserve or Council controlled open space.

· Over or above Council owned or controlled cemeteries or formed roads.

· Over or within 50 metres of other users of open spaces. If another open space user moves within this range, the UAV user must immediately land their UAV.

· Over or within 50 metres of any building on Council land or any playground equipment, furniture, swimming pool, or track on a reserve.

· Within 50 metres of livestock, wildlife or sensitive wildlife habitats. If livestock or wildlife move within this range, the UAV user must immediately land their UAV.

· Within 50 metres of a reserve boundary where residential housing or stock farming adjoins.

Written Council approval must also be obtained for any organised event involving the use of UAVs.

Operators of UAVs must comply with any additional conditions of lease holders.

4.3 Prohibited Areas

There are some areas where the use of UAVs is prohibited unless written approval has been granted by Council. These areas are:

· Local areas will be determined by Council following feedback from Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees.

4.4 Reporting incidents and near misses

UAV users must report all incidents and near misses to Southland District Council. This obligation also extends to other reserve users involved in any incident or near miss relating to UAV use.

4.5 Enforcement

Any breach of the above conditions could result in termination of your permission to fly unmanned aircraft over Council land.

Council will report breaches to the Civil Aviation Authority, which may result in infringements or prosecution.

5. ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS

• Civil Aviation Authority Rules and Guidelines: http://www.caa.govt.nz/rpas/

• Southland District Council District Reserves Management Policy

6. REVISION RECORD

Date	Version	Revision Description
«Type Date»	«Version»	«Revision»
«Type Date»	«Version»	«Revision»
«Type Date»	«Version»	«Revision»

Team Leader, Governance	Chris Dolan
Community Engineer	Leighton Hare
Committee Advisor	Alyson Hamilton

Activity	Project Name	Type	Year	Budget	Status	Comments
Sewerage	In ground reticulation - early replacement Milton Street	REN	1516	$10,000	Complete	Completed in July.