sdclogo

 

 

Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Regulatory and Consents Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 15 August 2017

9am

Council Chambers

15 Forth Street, Invercargill

 

Regulatory and Consents Committee Agenda

 

OPEN

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Brian Dillon

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Committee Advisor

Alyson Hamilton

 

Group Manager, Environmental Services

Bruce Halligan

 

 

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 


 

Terms of Reference – Regulatory and Consents Committee

 

The Regulatory and Consents Committee is responsible for overseeing the statutory functions of the Council under the following legislation (but not limited to the following):

·                 Resource Management Act 1991

·                 Health Act 1956

·                 Food Act 2014

·                 Dog Control Act 1996

·                 Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

·                 Heritage New Zealand Act Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

·                 Building Act 2004

·                 Freedom Camping Act 2011

·                 Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

·                 Impounding Act 1955

 

 

The Regulatory and Consents Committee is delegated the authority to undertake the following functions in accordance with the Council’s approved delegations register:

 

(a)          Maintain an oversight of the delivery of regulatory services;

(b)          Conduct statutory hearings on regulatory matters and undertake and make decisions on those hearings (excluding matters it is legally unable to make decisions on as legislated by the Resource Management Act 1991);

(c)          Appoint panels for regulatory hearings;

(d)          Hear appeals on officer’s decisions to decline permission for an activity that would breach the Southland District Council Control of Alcohol Bylaw 2015;

(e)          Approve Council's list of hearings commissioners (from whom a commissioner can be selected) at regular intervals and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to appoint individual Commissioners for a particular hearing;

(f)           Make decisions on applications required under the Southland District Council’s Development and Financial Contribution Policy for remissions, postponements, reconsiderations and objections;

(g)          Approve Commissioners and list members under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act  2012;

(h)          Exercise the Council's powers, duties and discretions under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012;

(i)            Hear objections to officer decisions under the Dog Control Act 1996.

 

 

The Regulatory and Consents Committee shall be accountable to Council for the exercising of these powers.

 

 

The Regulatory and Consents Committeeis responsible for considering and making recommendations to Council regarding:

(a)          Regulatory policies and bylaws for consultation;

(b)          Regulatory delegations;

(c)          Regulatory fees and charges (in accordance with the Revenue and Financial Policy)

(d)          Assisting with the review and monitoring of the District Plan.


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

sdclogo

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                   PAGE

Procedural

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

2          Leave of absence                                                                                                           5

3          Conflict of Interest                                                                                                         5

4          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                          5

6          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

Reports for Resolution

7.1       Strategic Resource Management Planning Projects                                              13

7.2       Dog Control Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2017                              17

Reports for Recommendation

8.1       Alcohol Licensing Annual Report and Income and Costs Report                        23

8.2       Objection to Disqualification from owning a dog - Scott Skilling                         35

Reports

9.1       Nuisance Complaints Survey                                                                                     45

9.2       IANZ Certificate of Accreditation                                                                               55

9.3       Building Control customer survey report 2017                                                       67

9.4       Resource Management Customer Survey Results                                               105

   


 

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

 

Committee 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 Regulatory and Consents Committee, 29 June 2017


sdclogo

 

 

Regulatory and Consents Committee

 

OPEN MINUTES

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of Regulatory and Consents Committee held in the Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Thursday, 29 June 2017 at 9.03am.

 

present

 

Chairperson

Gavin Macpherson

 

Councillors

Brian Dillon

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Group Manager, Environmental Services, (Bruce Halligan), Environmental Health Manager (Michael Sarfaiti), Team Leader, Building Solutions (Michael Marron), Team Leader, Resource Management (Marcus Roy), Policy Analyst (Robyn Rout), Publications Specialist (Chris Chilton) and Committee Advisor, (Alyson Hamilton).

 

 


1          Apologies

 

Moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Paterson and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee accept the apologies for non-attendance from Mayor Tong and Councillor Keast.

 

2          Leave of absence

 

There were no requests for leave of absence.

 

3          Conflict of Interest

 

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

 

4          Public Forum

 

There was no public forum.

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

 

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Frazer, seconded Cr Dillon  and resolved:

That the minutes of Regulatory and Consents Committee meeting held on 17 May 2017 be received as a true and correct record.

 

Reports for Recommendation

 

7.1

Objection to Disqualification from owning a dog - Scott Skilling

Record No:         R/17/6/12107

 

Michael Sarfaiti (Environmental Health Manager) advised that due to the failure of Mr Scott Skilling to present at the meeting and on advice from Council’s Legal Advisor, the Committee agreed this report and the associated hearing be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee scheduled Tuesday, 15 August 2017 allowing Mr Skilling a further opportunity to speak in support of his objection to disqualification from owning a dog.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Frazer  and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Defers the report titled “Objection to Disqualification from owning a dog - Scott Skilling ” to its next meeting scheduled 15 August 2017.

 


 

7.2

Proposed Amendment to the Dog Control Rules in Otautau

Record No:         R/17/5/10914

 

Robyn Rout, Policy Analyst, presented the report.

Ms Rout advised this report proposes an amendment the Dog Control Bylaw and the Dog Control Policy altering the dog control rules in Otautau.

 

Ms Rout advised the dog access rules for the Southland District are outlined in the Policy and the Bylaw. These documents currently state that in the Alex McKenzie Memorial Arboretum (the Arboretum) in Otautau, dogs are required to be on a leash.

 

Ms Rout explained the Otautau Community Board has requested that a change be made to the dog access rules in the Arboretum, that dogs be allowed to exercise, without being on a leash, in the west part of the Arboretum.

 

The Committee was advised dog owners have expressed concerns regarding lack of suitable dog exercise areas in the Otautau township.  Ms Rout added there are currently two designated dog exercise areas both of which are part of the railway reserve. Feedback from the public has been received that these areas are not particularly suitable for exercising dogs as they are bordered by a railway line with irregular traffic and there is also an adjacent busy road.

 

Staff sought endorsement from the Committee for both the draft Policy and Bylaw, and comment on whether it would be more appropriate to notify the public that an amendment has been made, or consult with the public about this amendment.

 

Following discussion the Committee agreed that the draft Bylaw and Policy be released for public consultation and endorses the Statement of Proposal that is included in the report.

 

The Committee sought confirmation from staff on the location of the public toilets at the Arboretum suggesting that if they are located within the proposed dog exercise area that they be fenced off. Staff to clarify and action this request if required.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Paterson  and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Proposed Amendment to the Dog Control Rules in Otautau” dated 19 June 2017.

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)         Determines that the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem, and the most appropriate form of bylaw.

e)         Determines that the Bylaw only imposes reasonable limits on the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, which can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.

f)          Endorses the draft Dog Control Bylaw and draft Dog Control Policy and EITHER:

a)   Recommends to Council that the draft Bylaw and Policy be adopted (this would involve notifying members of the public in Otautau after the change has been made); OR

b)   i)        Releases the draft Bylaw and Policy for consultation; AND

ii)        Endorses the Statement of Proposal that is included in the report.

 

7.3

Proposed Amendments to the Freedom Camping Bylaw

Record No:         R/17/6/12832

 

Robyn Rout, Policy Analyst, presented the report.

Ms Rout advised the purpose of the report is to propose an amendment to the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015, proposing to alter the freedom camping area in Lumsden.

 

Ms Rout informed the current rules permit self-contained camping anywhere within the town boundary on Council controlled land for a maximum of three days in any 30 day period.

 

Ms Rout advised the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee (CDA) is requesting that Council amend the Bylaw for Lumsden, in time for the next summer season.

 

×          Ms Rout explained the CDA plans to encourage self-contained freedom campers to park in designated areas outside of the immediate railway station area, by guiding campers there through on-site signage.  Moving the self-contained campers to nearby sites will allow more capacity (around the immediate railway station area) for non-self-contained campers around the toilet and wash facilities.

 

Ms Rout sought Committee endorsement that the draft Bylaw be released for public consultation in accordance with the special consultative procedure.  Ms Rout explained the requirements include:

 

×          that Council must adopt a statement of proposal;

×          that the statement of proposal is made widely available;

×          that those interested in the proposal are provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their views;

×          that the public must be able to provide feedback over a minimum of a one month period;

×          that people have the right to make an oral submission to Council.

Ms Rout added that should the Committee endorse the amended Bylaw and recommend it be released for public consultation, the local community will have opportunity to submit on the proposal and to be heard by Council.

 

Mr Rob Scott (Chair, Lumsden CDA) responded to members queries relating to laundry facilities, which he advised are currently not available in the township however there is a possibility for private enterprise in the future.   It was noted the local Camping Ground has advertised in the Freedom Camping area showering and washing facilitates at a cost.

 

Members queried current numbers of Freedom Campers in the area and Mr Scott responded advising of twelve to fifteen tents/vehicles over the previous 2 nights however it is anticipated these numbers will reduce over the winter period.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Duffy, seconded Cr Frazer  and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Proposed Amendments to the Freedom Camping Bylaw” dated 14 June 2017.

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)         Determines that the amendment to the Bylaw is necessary to protect the area, and to protect the health and safety of the people who may visit the area, and to protect access to the area.

e)         Determines that the amendment to the Bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way to address the perceived problem in relation to the area, and the most appropriate form of bylaw.

f)          Determines that the amendment to the Bylaw only imposes reasonable limits on the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, which can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.

g)         Endorses the proposed amendment to the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015.

h)         Endorses the Statement of Proposal that is included in the report.

i)          Releases the proposed amendment for public consultation in accordance with Special Consultative Procedure.

 


 

Reports

 

8.1

Alcohol renewal applications backlog

Record No:         R/17/5/11477

 

Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager, presented the report.

 

Mr Sarfaiti advised concerns have been raised by licensees regarding the length of time for their alcohol renewal applications to be processed, and suggesting that more resources may be required for alcohol licensing.

 

Mr Sarfaiti advised staff agreed with these concerns and a priority has been placed on processing the applications with Licensing Inspectors undertaking to clear the backlog by 30 June 2017 this year.

 

Mr Sarfaiti explained there are two main reasons for this backlog:

(a)      Council is one of a small number of councils that have discounted the national alcohol licensing fees (30% reduction in the annual fee) creating a lean business unit. This was welcomed by the industry, following previous Annual Plan submissions about concerns about the statutory increase in alcohol licensing fees in 2015. The consequence of this is a backlog of renewal applications; however it is to be emphasised that the backlog has no adverse effect on licensees, as under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, they are able to continue to trade under their existing licence while their renewal is processed.

 

(b)      There have been significant increases in the volume of alcohol licensing work from 2015 to 2016 - 36% increase in special licences, 43% increase in new licensees (mainly transfers), 65% increase in new managers applications.

The Committee noted an increase of premises renewal applications i.e. 69 premises in 2016, compared to 15 in 2015.

 

Mr Sarfaiti advised the current list of outstanding renewal applications mainly requires responses from the Licensees on various issues prior to staff being able to complete the application.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Paterson, seconded Cr Dillon  and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Alcohol renewal applications backlog” dated 13 June 2017 as information.

 


 

 

 

The meeting concluded at 10am                   CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Regulatory and Consents Committee HELD ON THURSDAY, 29 JUNE 2017.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Strategic Resource Management Planning Projects

Record No:        R/17/5/9454

Author:                 Courtney Ellison, Senior Resource Management Planner - Policy

Approved by:       Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

Purpose

1        To update the Committee on progress towards planning for strategic resource management projects. 

Executive Summary

2        Staff have taken a broad look at key resource management issues that are likely to face the Southland District in the near future.  Three key issues have been identified:  climate change; historic heritage; and biodiversity.  Many of these projects have implications broader than just resource management, therefore staff have begun engaging with other stakeholders prior to forming any project plans. 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Strategic Resource Management Planning Projects” dated 30 July 2017.

 


 

Content

Background

3        As the review of the District Plan has neared completion, staff have taken a broader look at key resource management issues that are likely to face the Southland District in the near future.  Staff have also begun developing the framework for monitoring the effectiveness of the District Plan, and the first monitoring report was presented at the Regulatory and Consents Committee meeting on 18 May 2017.

Issues

4        Three key issues have been identified, where further work is required, each of which is discussed in turn below. 

Climate Change

5        Over the past 150 years there has been an increase in greenhouse gas producing activities such as industry, agriculture and transportation.  These activities are increasing the level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and causing the earth to heat up at an unprecedented rate.  The impacts go beyond just warmer temperatures though, and can cause more extreme climate events such as floods, storms, cyclones and droughts.  The warmer atmosphere also causes the oceans to heat up and therefore expand, causing sea levels to rise.

6        The importance of climate change and the need to start actions now has been recognised by Local Government New Zealand who recently released a Local Government Leaders Climate Change Declaration signed by the Mayors or Chairs of 39 local authorities, and a Local Government Position Statement on Climate Change which calls for urgent action and a holistic approach to climate change. The Ministry for the Environment is also currently preparing an update of their guidance for local authorities which includes revised predictions for sea levels that we should now be planning for. Further, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment released a report in July 2017 on climate change, progress and predictability. The report looks at lessons that can be learnt from the approach taken in the United Kingdom and recommendations for changes to policy and legislation.

7        Council has a responsibility under the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act (RMA) to consider and plan for the impacts of climate change, through its functions in terms of land use planning and decision-making, building control, emergency management and the provision of infrastructure and community services.

8        Currently, Council’s corporate planning documents recognise climate change will be an issue facing the Council, but do not consider how the issues will be managed or quantify what parts of different assets will be affected.  Therefore it is considered further work is required to:

a)         Develop an understanding of the risks and key issues associated with climate change for both Council and our communities;

b)         Prepare options for managing the risks identified above.

9        Staff recognise that climate change will have impacts across Council activities but also across our communities and there are other organisations who have an interest in the issues stemming from climate change. 

10      Therefore staff have met with staff from Environment Southland and Te Ao Mārama Inc to discuss what other work their organisations are doing in relation to climate change and how we might be able to work together to reduce duplication of effort and resources.  There is support at a staff level for taking a collaborative approach and broadening this to include Invercargill City Council and Gore District Council if they are interested in participating. 

11      Following further discussions with these organisations, a more refined project plan can be developed. 

Landscapes

12      Council has a responsibility under the RMA to protect outstanding natural features and landscapes, and maintain amenity values.  Under the Proposed District Plan there are two tiers of landscapes that have been identified, predominantly along the coastline and in the Te Anau Basin.  The landscapes are referred to as:

·          Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes (ONFLs).

·          Visual Amenity Landscapes (VALs).

13      While these landscape values have been identified in some places, there is still a large part of the District that has not been assessed, and the accepted practice of landscape assessment has changed over time.  Therefore it is considered some further work on landscape identification is required to:

·          Undertake a co-ordinated and systematic assessment across the District of its landscapes against nationally accepted criteria.

·          Identify a range of options for protection of management of the District’s landscapes for decision-makers.

14      Due to resourcing constraints, a project plan has not yet been developed but a plan for how this work could be progressed will be developed in the coming months and reported back to the Committee for consideration. Any landscape work undertaken would need to go through a community consultation process and there could be substantial costs involved. These matters will all be scoped within the project plan when it is reported back to the Committee to consider before making a decision on any work that is to be progressed.

Historic Heritage

15      Council has a requirement to protect historic heritage under the RMA.  However it is also recognised that there are increasing pressures on the owners of heritage buildings with the introduction of the Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, increasing maintenance costs and in some cases lack of clarity on the economic viability of upgrading buildings. 

16      In order to balance these converging issues, the Council needs to first develop a better understanding of the District’s heritage resources and the issues facing them.  From there, options for managing these heritage resources can be developed and assessed. 

17      Like climate change, historic heritage is a challenge that crosses many activities of Council and therefore is likely to require a collaborative approach.  Retention and restoration of buildings in a township is fundamentally linked to the future direction of the community and wider community planning activities.  The protection of buildings is also fundamentally linked to the Building (Earthquake Prone Buildings) Amendment Act and associated regulations which the Building Control department have to implement.  Hence, heritage is by no means just a Resource Management Act issue.

18      Therefore, like climate change, staff are proposing to discuss these broader challenges with other departments, and where appropriate, external organisations, before progressing the development of a project plan or scoping what interventions Council might like to take in relation to historic heritage, and/ or incentives it might like to provide. 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

19      As outlined earlier in this report Council has a statutory obligation to manage, in particular, historic heritage and natural landscapes.

20      Any work that is required as a result of these projects, such as changes to the District Plan, will follow the necessary statutory processes. 

Community Views

21      Any future project planning that is undertaken will include provision for community engagement. 

Costs and Funding

22      Any future project planning that is undertaken will consider the potential costs of the proposal.  Where there are opportunities to partner with other organisations on these projects this will need to be reflected in the funding implications.

Policy Implications

23      All three projects align with Council’s strategic direction, and in particular the community outcomes relating to ‘making the most of our resources’ and ‘being an effective Council’.  These projects all identify the need to collate existing and collect new information to ensure decisions are based on good information and advice.  These projects also focus on ensuring our policies, plans and initiatives help retain the value of the Southland District’s natural environment and communities.

Next Steps

24      Staff will continue to engage with internal and external stakeholders to inform the development of any project plans for climate change, landscapes and historic heritage.  Staff will provide an update and any draft project plans to the Regulatory and Consents Committee in the second half of 2017. 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Dog Control Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2017

Record No:        R/17/7/16240

Author:                 Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by:       Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

Purpose

1       This report covers the administration of the Southland District Council’s Dog Control Policy and its associated practices.

Executive Summary

2       Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides that every territorial authority shall report on the administration of its Dog Control Policy and dog control practices, and submit it to the Secretary of Local Government, and give public notice of the report in a daily newspaper. 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Dog Control Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2017” dated 25 July 2017.

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)         Adopts the Annual Report and authorises it to be forwarded to the Secretary of Local Government by the Manager of Environmental Health, and that the report be publicly notified as required by the Dog Control Act 1996. 

 

Attachments

a         Dog Control Annual Report 2016 2017    

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

DOG CONTROL ANNUAL REPORT

 

FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING 30 JUNE 2017

Section 10A Dog Control Act 1996

 

 

The Southland District Council is required to publicly report each financial year on the administration of its Dog Control Policy and its Dog Control practices.

 

What we do

This activity provides for the control of dogs to protect the public, and promotes responsible dog ownership.   The activity involves registering dogs, investigating complaints about dogs, education, monitoring and enforcement. 

 

Why we do it

Dog control contributes to creating safe places (homes, public places and roads), the abatement of nuisances from dogs, and the protection of protected wildlife.  The Council is required to comply with the legal requirements of the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Impounding Act 1955.

 

Dog Control in the Southland District

The Southland District Council covers a large geographical area, which includes both urban and rural dog owners. 

 

In order to deliver an Animal Control service, the Council has an Animal Control Unit consisting of:

·          a manager

·          a full time Dog Control Officer

·          a 0.8 full time equivalent Dog Control Officer

·          two casual Dog Rangers

·          an honorary Dog Ranger

·          an afterhours contractor (Armourguard)

 

The Animal Control Unit has a close working relationship with key stakeholders in the community such as the Society for the Protection of Animals (SPCA), Furever Homes, local veterinarians, Police and other local authorities.

 

The Animal Control Unit operates a seven day, 24 hour service. 

 

Staff believe that resourcing is currently adequate to fulfil its statutory duties. A quality management officer will be employed by the Council to assist with the development of a quality system across Environmental Services.  The ICC shared service provides a large buffer to absorb more work.

 


 

Commentary on statistical information

Some commentary on the statistical information in Appendix 1 is as follows:

 

Wandering dogs: 

The Dog Control Officers advise that despite the increase in wandering dog complaints, their observations during patrols is that there has been a dramatic improvement in dog containment, with far fewer wandering dogs being observed than several years ago.  

 

The officers advise that on average they may see one wandering dog every two to three weeks, as opposed to once every patrol three years ago. 

 

Barking dogs: 

The number of complaints has increased.  However the numbers do not reflect a large increase in the number of nuisance barking dogs, as 57 complaints (a quarter of the total number) concerned only five properties.

 

Microchipping: 

The number of dogs’ microchipped by SDC has increased.  This is likely due to the new fee discounts, where chipping is mandatory for the responsible owner discount. 

 

Proportion of pet dogs to working dogs: 

This proportion changes from year to year.  An analysis if the reasons has not been completed, however staff believe that a reason for the increase in the proportion of pet dogs may be due to trends in the dairy industry.  The dairy industry utilises fewer working dogs, and there will be a number of older sheep working dogs will be correspondingly decreasing, and existing sheep dogs dying off.

 

Infringement notices:

The new fee discounts have introduced warning letters as an intermediate step, prior to the need to issue an infringement.  The absence of a warning letter is one requirement for the responsible owner discount.  Officers have been using warning letters for compliance more, and issuing infringements less. 

 

Attacks/rushing: 

There has been a decrease in the number of rushing/attack incidents.  This may be related to observations of less wandering dogs - that is, dogs are being better contained, and this is a factor that is directly related to rushing/attack incidents. 

 

Dog Control Bylaw

Council approved the new Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2015 in August 2015.

 

The bylaw introduced multiple dog licensing, that requires a dog owner to obtain a licence if they keep more than two dogs (this does not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area).  The licences were required to be obtained by 30 June 2016.  Council’s officers actively engaged with dog owners that required these licences, and successfully implemented this new licensing regime. 

 

Under the bylaw a new discount dog registration scheme was introduced from 1 July 2017.  It provides a financial incentive for neutering and responsible ownership behaviour such as good history, microchipping and fencing. 

The new fee for working dogs remains at $30, the fee for non-working dogs will be increased to $90 with discounts available as below:

·              The dog is spayed or neutered ($10 discount).

·              The dog is in a fenced or controlled property ($20 discount).

·              Responsible ownership and microchipping ($30 discount).

 

Dog Education

Dog education is achieved in a number of ways, including during registration process, patrols, site visits, articles and Facebook.  The Unit also places promotional material in Council’s First Edition which is sent quarterly to all ratepayers in the Southland District Council area.

 

Section 17A Recommendations

The Council has completed a Section 17A review, under the Local Government Act 2002. 

 

The report’s general recommendations for all of Council’s regulatory services were:

1.            Meaningful performance management

(a)      Focus on outcomes.  Focusing performance measurement more on impacts than processes.

(b)      Customer satisfaction.  Reliable customer satisfaction data is a vital tool to inform Council decision-making and best target resources to align with community priorities. 

2.            Collaboration/shared services.  SDC should continue to promote shared services, with provisos.

3.            Quality assurance.  Services would benefit from a consistent and codified process for peer review and quality assurance.

4.            Enforcement and prosecution approach.  A framework is recommended.

5.            Online lodgement and electronic processing.  An opportunity to better reach the community and deliver services with greater convenience and automation.

6.            Competitive procurement.  To ensure maximum value for money is being achieved and to align with SDC’s Procurement Policy, contract arrangements should be regularly reviewed, with a competitive tender process undertaken.

 

Attacks Analysis

The Council’s Regulatory and Consents Committee considered a staff report on
17 May 2017, research on attacks from 2013 to 2016. 

 

The Committee endorsed the recommendations in the report, being: 

1.            The provision of signs for gates for free, eg “Please use back door”. 

2.            Organising a workshop for posties and meter readers, to discuss health and safety. 

3.            The identification of higher risk properties, for the purpose of smarter monitoring.

4.            The systematic identification of unregistered dogs on properties by district-wide monitoring.

5.            An amnesty for either/both unregistered dogs and menacing dogs. 

 

The Committee requested a further report on item (5) above, prior to an amnesty being undertaken.  The other items will be attended to as separate projects. 

 


 

Shared Service

The Council shares services with the Invercargill City Council:

1.            Council has warranted three ICC Animal Control officers and can draw on their services when the demand arises. 

2.            Council operates a Combined Dog Control Facility with the ICC.  Five of the 28 kennels are dedicated for use by Council.  Council has an exclusive licence to occupy five kennels signed in 2012, with the licence to have a life of 50 years with a right of renewal.  SDC paid a one-off capital contribution and has an arrangement for paying for ongoing expenses and a daily tariff for each kennel when in use by SDC. 

 

Free Microchipping

The Council continues to offer free microchipping for dogs registered with it.  The demand on this service is expected to increase in a sustained manner as a result of the new fee discounts. 

 

 

Michael Sarfaiti

MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

 

 


 

Appendix 1 - Statistical Information

 


Category

For Period

1 July 2015 to

30 June 2016

For Period

1 July 2016 to

30 June 2017

Registrations for Dogs

Approximately 13,331 as at 30 June 2016

Approximately 13,426 as at 30 June 2017

% Pet dogs

                         40%

                         50%

Probationary Owners

                           0

                           0

Disqualified Owners

                           4

                           4

Dangerous Dogs - still active

                         16

                         14

     Dangerous by Owner Conviction under s31(1)(a)

                        Nil

                        Nil

     Dangerous by Sworn Evidence s31(1)(b)

                         16

                         12

     Dangerous by Owner Admittance in writing s31(1)(c)

                        Nil

                           1

Menacing Dogs - Active

                         48

                         59

     Menacing under s33A(1)(b)(i) - by behaviour

                         19

                         23

      Menacing under s33A(1)(b)(ii) - by breed characteristics

                        Nil

                           1

     Menacing under s33C(1)(ii) by Schedule 4 Breed

                         29

                         35

Infringement Notices

                       177

                         89

     Obstructed a dog control officer or dog ranger

                           4

                           0

     Failed to comply with bylaw

                           1

                           0

     Failed to comply with disqualification

                           1

                           0

     Fail to comply dangerous dog classification 

                           2

                           2

     Kept an unregistered dog

                         94

                         46

     Failed to keep dog controlled or confined

                         64

                         36

     Failed to keep dog under control 

                         10

                           2

     Failure to provide proper care

                           1

                           1

     Failure to comply with menacing dog classification

                           0

                           1

     Failure to comply with barking abatement notice

                           0

                           1

Complaints received

                       659

                       721

     Dog attacks

                         65

                         42

     Barking dogs

                       144

                       194

     Found dogs

                       190

                       187

     Dog rush/Threaten (nil bite)

                         50

                         31

     Wandering dogs

                       210

                       267

     General enquiries (new code introduced in 2016)

                            -

                         47

Number of dogs microchipped by SDC

                       391

                       486

Number of prosecutions

                           0

                           0

 

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Alcohol Licensing Annual Report and Income and Costs Report

Record No:        R/17/7/16508

Author:                 Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by:       Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

Purpose

1       To meet Council’s alcohol licensing reporting requirements under alcohol legislation.

Executive Summary

Annual Report

2       Section 199 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 requires Council to prepare a report of the proceedings and operations of its licensing committee during the year, and to send to the Licensing Authority.  The annual report is Attachment A

3       Section 199 (5) requires that the annual report must be made available on Council’s Internet site for a period of not less than five years.

4       The Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority has detailed the format it requires for the Annual Report and Annual Return.  These are Attachments B and C.  The report and annual return conforms to these requirements.

Income and Costs Report

5       Regulation 19 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013 requires Council to make publicly available a report showing its alcohol licensing income from fees and its costs.  Council’s legal advisor advises that the financial information in the format in Attachment D meets the requirements of the Regulations. 

 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Alcohol Licensing Annual Report and Income and Costs Report” dated 27 July 2017.

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)         Receives the Annual Report and authorises it to be forwarded to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority and to be made publicly available on Council’s website.

e)         Receives the financial information and authorises it to be made publicly available on Council’s website.

 

Attachments

a         Annual Report of the District Licensing Committee for the period ended 30 June 2017

b         Register of licensees

c         Annual Return 

d         Income and losses report    

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT LICENSING COMMITTEE

FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING 30 JUNE 2017

 

 

Introduction

Section 199 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 requires the territorial authority to prepare and send to the licensing authority a report of the proceedings and operations of its licensing committees during the year.

 

The Authority’s suggested format is followed in this report.

 

1.         Overview of the District Licensing Committee’s (DLC) Workload

The Southland District Council employs three Environmental Health Officers, all of which are appointed as Licensing Inspectors.  One of these officers specialises in alcohol licensing and processes most of the applications.  The Chief Licensing Inspector is the department’s Manager.

 

Mr Bruce Halligan, Council’s Group Manager Environmental Services, is the Secretary of the District Licensing Committee by a delegation from the Chief Executive approved by Council. 

 

The department receives clerical support to help in the smooth running of the Committee.

 

The Committee have held hearings on two days during the year. 

 

Reminders are sent out to all holders of licences and certificates advising them of the expiry date and the need to renew their licence or certificate.

 

All application forms are available for downloading off the Southland District Council’s website.

 

All applications received are entered into the GEAC Pathway processing system which has a tracking workflow and the ability to produce various reports on the department’s activities.  All applications are scanned and sent electronically to the reporting agencies.

 

Staff have a significant backlog of premises renewal applications.  This backlog has been reduced significantly by a concerted staff effort. 

 


 

There were two main reasons for this backlog:

(a)          Council is the one of a small number of councils that have discounted the national alcohol licensing fees (30% reduction in the annual fee) creating a lean business unit.  This was welcomed by the industry, following previous Annual Plan submissions about concerns about the statutory increase in alcohol licensing fees in 2015.  The consequence of this is a backlog of renewal applications; however it is to be emphasised that the backlog has no adverse effect on licensees, as under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, they are able to continue to trade under their existing licence while their renewal is processed. 

(b)          The second reason is that there have been significant increases in the volume of alcohol licensing work from 2015 to 2016 - 36% increase in special licences, 43% increase in new licensees (mainly transfers), 65% increase in new managers’ applications. 

 

2.       District Licensing Committee Initiatives

The Southland, Invercargill and Gore District Councils continue to work closely together in the implementation of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. 

 

The three councils have a combined member list for their District Licensing Committees. 

 

Licensing Inspectors meet monthly with the Southland Liquor Liaison Group, made up of the agencies involved in administering the Sale and Supply of Alcohol legislation in the region, namely the Police, Public Health South, Fire Service and the three councils. 

 

District Licensing Inspectors are involved in the training of managers through a local training facility.

 

3.         Local Alcohol Policy

The Southland, Invercargill and Gore District Councils have joined together to create a Local Alcohol Policy.  The combined LAP came into force on 31 May 2016. 

 

The document has three policies:

(a)          Sensitive premises - requiring consultation with affected premises within 50 metres of the premises.

(b)          Trading hours.

(c)           Discretionary conditions - providing examples of the conditions that the committee can consider.

 

The LAP is due to be reviewed in 2018. 

 

4.         Current Legislation

Council has an Alcohol Licensing Fee-Setting Bylaw 2015.  The bylaw reduces the annual fee payable by a licensee of premises for which an On Licence, Off Licence or Club Licence is held by 30%.

 

Council has an Alcohol Control Bylaw 2015.  The bylaw creates an alcohol-free area in the Te Anau town centre. 

 


 

5.         Any other matter the Agency might wish to draw to the attention of the Authority

The Council has worked with the Health Promotion Agency to produce a “Southern Enforcement Alcohol Liaison Agency Agreement”.  It is currently in draft form and being trialled with the combined agencies.  So far the agreement is working very well.  

 

Reporting agencies have requested that the Committee issue a number of Managers’ Certificates subject to undertakings.  These have been used when an applicant has only worked in Off Licenced premises or other limited operations.  This has created a two-tier approval level similar to what occurred under the 1989 Act with General and Club Managers.

 

The Committee has struggled with receiving late Special Licence applications.  The reporting agencies question why the applications are late when the Committee has already accepted them.  Clarification on who has the responsibility to accept late applications would be welcomed.

 

The District has a number of grocery stores that have and will have their ability to have a renewal affected by the rising cost in tobacco. 

 

Community events where BYO is continuing to remain an issue.  With the Police raising concerns over a place of resort being created, members of the public are at a loss as to what to do.  Special Licences cannot be issued for BYO events.

 

6.         Statistical Information

The annual return in the requested format is attached.

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

 





Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 


 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Objection to Disqualification from owning a dog - Scott Skilling

Record No:        R/17/6/12107

Author:                 Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by:       Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

Purpose

1       To determine Mr Scott Skilling’s objection to disqualification from owning a dog.

Executive Summary

2        On 18 May 2017, the Group Manager Environmental Services, Mr Bruce Halligan, disqualified Mr Skilling from owning a dog until 22 January 2021, in accordance with Section 25 of the Dog Control Act 1996. 

3        Mr Skilling has objected to the disqualification, and is entitled to appear before the Committee and speak in support of the objection. 

 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Objection to Disqualification from owning a dog - Scott Skilling ” dated 2 August 2017.

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)         Upholds the decision to disqualify Mr Scott Skilling and gives notice of this decision to Mr Skilling in accordance with Section 26(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996.

 

 

 


 

Content

Background

4       Mr Fairbairn’s memorandum to Mr Halligan in Attachment A describes Mr Skilling’s considerable record of irresponsible dog ownership.  The history involves incidents relating to wandering dogs, dog rushing, and barking.  He has received a number of infringements as listed in Schedule 1 of the memorandum.  The notice if disqualification is in Attachment B

5       Mr Skilling has objected to the disqualification, his objection is in Attachment C

Issues

6       Section 26(3) of the Dog Control Act prescribes the matters that Council is required to have regard to in considering this objection.  These are outlined below:

The circumstances and nature of the offence or offences in respect of which the person was disqualified:

7       The infringement history in Attachment A shows a history of significant repeat offending under the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act).  The offending is particularly concerning as it involves aggression incidents. 

The competency of the person objecting in terms of responsible dog ownership:

8       Mr Skilling is not practicing responsible ownership by his repeated offending and failure to work with Dog Control staff. 

Any steps taken by the owner to prevent further offences:

9       Mr Skilling does not advise of any steps taken in his objection. 

The matters advanced in support of the objection:

10     Mr Skilling advises in his objection:

a)         He has received permission from his landlord to improve fencing; and

b)         Proposes to have one or both of the dogs neutered. 

Any other relevant matters:

11     The Committee considered my report titled “Dog Attacks - Research and Recommendations” on 17 May 2017. 

12     An important finding is the strong link between prior compliance history and attacks.  As a result Dog Control staff have a default position of disqualification when the criteria have been met (three infringements within a two year period), as opposed to considering probationary owner classification, or no further action.  This is one way that Council can prevent attacks from occurring. 


 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

13     The Dog Control Act provides:

25        Disqualification of owners

(1)        A territorial authority must disqualify a person from being an owner of a dog if

(a)        the person commits 3 or more infringement offences (not relating to a single incident or occasion) within a continuous period of 24 months; or

(1A)   Subsection (1) does not apply if the territorial authority is satisfied that the circumstances of the offence or offences are such that—

               (a)     disqualification is not warranted; or

   (b)     the territorial authority will instead classify the person as a probationary owner under Section 21.”

Community Views

14     The public is particularly concerned about wandering dogs and irresponsible owners, and expects Council to take appropriate action to protect communities. 

Costs and Funding

15     Mr Skilling is entitled to appeal the Committee’s decision to the District Court, and so there would be legal costs associated with any appeal process. 

Policy Implications

16     Council’s Dog Control Policy 2015 enables Council to accept the recommendation of this report.  Clause 9.1 of the Policy provides:

The Council will use the full range of enforcement options available to it under the Dog Control Act 1996 and other legislation to ensure that dog ownership in the District is undertaken in accordance with this policy.”

Analysis

Options Considered

17     The following are the options for the Council to consider:

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Uphold the disqualification

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Prevents Mr Skilling from owning a dog for a period, and during this period the local community will not be subject to problems from dogs that he owns. 

·        Fulfils the public expectation of firm action with irresponsible owners and wandering dogs. 

·        Is a preventive action to protect the neighbourhood from a dog attack incident. 

·        None identified. 

Option 2 - Bring forward the date of termination of the disqualification

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        An option if the Council believes that the period of disqualification is too long. 

·        The period of disqualification is reasonable in my view, given
Mr Skilling’s disregard for complying with Dog Control laws despite efforts from Dog Control staff to encourage responsible dog ownership. 

Option 3 - Immediately terminate the disqualification

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        None identified. 

·        Mr Skilling’s continued ownership of dogs is putting the neighbourhood at risk of an attack and further nuisance problems.

Assessment of Significance

18      This decision is not considered significant in terms of the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommended Option

19      Option 1 is recommended.  Mr Skilling has shown considerable irresponsibility in dog ownership in repeatedly offending under the Act.  Despite a number of visits from
Dog Control staff encouraging Mr Skilling to be more responsible he has failed to do so.  In upholding the disqualification, the community will be protected during this period. 

Next Steps

20      To give notice of this decision to Mr Skilling in accordance with Section 26(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996, and Dog Control staff will ensure that the disqualification will be complied with. 

 

Attachments

a         Memorandum to Group Manager 

b         Notice of disqualification

c         Objection     

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

Disqualify Dog Owner

Record No:          R/17/5/9863

File No.                  300/15/5/9652

From:                    Stuart Fairbairn, Dog Control Officer 

To:                         Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environment and Community

 

 

 

Purpose

This memo recommends action in response to irresponsible dog ownership concerning Mr Scott Skilling.  

Background

Mr Skilling had repeatedly allowed his dogs to wander, rush and bark and has not cooperated with Dog Control Officers over the years in their requests to take steps to encourage responsible ownership.

He has shown considerable irresponsibility in dog ownership which has been displayed through the valid complaints received and number of infringements issued.

 

Of the eight infringements he has received in that time six have gone to the courts with two still outstanding.

 

Mr Skilling owns an American Pitbull Terrier from which he breeds pups and the dog is not required to be neutered under the 2015 Policy, as she was registered prior to 2015.  The other dog is a Mastiff. 

 

Refer Schedule 1 for the RFS and infringement history.

Analysis

Options considered

Analysis of preferred options

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - No further action.

Advantages

Disadvantages

•     Nil.

•     The public has an expectation of action with irresponsible dog owners.

Option 2 - Issue of warning letter.

Advantages

Disadvantages

•     Enables owner to comply without the need of formal enforcement.

•     Encourages voluntary compliance.

•     Mr Skilling has already received numerous verbal and written warnings.

 


 

Option 3 - Classify as a probationary owner.

Advantages

•     A valid sanction for this owner.

•     Enables monitoring to ensure compliance.

 

Disadvantages

•     Irresponsible dog owner incidents may continue if the dog owner does not improve his dog ownership, and the public may be at risk.

Option 4 - Classify as a disqualified owner.

Advantages

•     A valid sanction for this owner.

•     Enables monitoring to ensure compliance.

•     Significantly less likely that Mr Skilling’s dogs cause a nuisance in the neighbourhood. 

Disadvantages

•     None identified.

 

Analysis of preferred option

The preferred option is Option 4 - disqualification.

Disqualification prevents Mr Skilling from owning a dogs for a period, and during this period the local community will no longer be subject to nuisance or danger from his dogs. 

The period of disqualification is considered on a case-by-case basis.  One to three years would be expected for repeat offending such as for wandering dogs, four or five years for a history including aggression incidents.  Due to level of nuisance that these dogs have caused I recommend four years in this instance.

Recommended Option

That Mr Skilling is disqualified as a dog owner for four years.  The disqualification applies from the date of the third infringement offence (23 January 2017), and Mr Skilling will be required to dispose of every dog owned by himself within 14 days of the date of this notice (by 2 June 2016). 

Next Steps

If you accept the recommendation of this report, please sign the notice of disqualification attached.

Stuart Fairbairn

DOG CONTROL OFFICER

 

Attachment - Notice of Disqualification 


Schedule 1 - RFS and Infringement History

Date

Dog

RFS #/type

Action taken

14/01/15

Ogga Booga

58163 Wandering dog

Notice to register

13/02/15

Ogga Booga

58873 Wandering dog

search warrant dogs seized

19/03/15

Ogga Booga

59772 Dog Rush/Threaten - (Nil bite)

Infringement issued

22/04/15

Ogga Booga

60478 Dog Rush/Threaten - (Nil bite)

Warning

24/03/17

Ogga Booga

75615 Wandering dog

Infringement issued

28/03/17

Ogga Booga

75674 Wandering dog

Phone call

24/04/17

Ogga Booga

76205 Wandering dog

Phone call

14/01/15

Pat

58163 Wandering dog

Notice to register

13/02/15

Pat

58873 Wandering dog

search warrant dogs seized

02/03/15

Pat

59302 Wandering dog

Infringement issued

22/04/15

Pat

60478 Dog Rush/Threaten - (Nil bite)

Warning

29/10/15

Pat

64799 Wandering dog

Warning

30/10/15

Pat

64814 Barking dog

Warning

17/11/15

Pat

65149 Barking dog

Warning

28/11/15

Pat

65371 Barking dog

Warning

11/12/15

Pat

65651 Barking dog

BAN Issued

04/01/16

Pat

65950 Dog Rush/Threaten - (Nil bite)

Infringement issued

28/04/16

Pat

68600 Barking dog

Warning

18/05/16

Pat

69023 Barking dog

Warning

31/05/16

Pat

69309 Dog Rush/Threaten - (Nil bite)

Warning

31/05/16

Pat

69314 Dog Rush/Threaten - (Nil bite)

Same as above

23/01/17

Pat

74066 Wandering dog

Infringement issued

22/02/17

Pat

74885 Wandering dog

Same as below

22/02/17

Pat

74886 Wandering dog

Infringement issued

27/03/17

Pat

75643 Wandering dog

Infringement issued

28/04/17

Pat

76343 Barking dog

Phone call

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

                                              

sdc_print

 

Notice of disqualification from dog ownership

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/pdflink.aspx?id=DLM374853Section 25, Dog Control Act 1996

 

To:            Scott Skilling

Address:   11 Ida Street Lumsden 9730

This is to notify you that you have been disqualified under Section 25 of the Dog Control Act 1996 from owning any dog.

This follows—

•         3 or more infringement offences (not relating to a single incident or occasion) having been committed by you, within a continuous period of 24 months.

The disqualification will apply from 23 January 2017 [being the date of the third infringement offence] until 22 January 2021.

 

A summary of the effect of the disqualification and your right to object is provided below.

 

Signature of officer of Southland District Council

 

Date:

     /     /

 

 

Effect of disqualification

Section 28, Dog Control Act 1996

 

You are required to dispose of every dog owned by you within 14 days of the date of this notice. “Dispose” includes destruction or rehoming of the dog.

However, you may not dispose of a dog—

•         to a person who resides at the same address as you; or

•         in a way that constitutes an offence against the Dog Control Act 1996 or any other Act.

You must not become the owner, even on a temporary basis, of any dog while you are disqualified.  You may have possession of a dog only for the purpose of—

•         preventing it from causing injury, damage, or distress; or

•         returning, within 72 hours, a lost dog to a territorial authority for the purpose of restoring the dog to its owner.

 

 

 

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

Form 3—continued

 

You will commit an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 if you—

•         fail to dispose of every dog owned by you within 14 days of this notice; or

•         at any time while disqualified, become the owner of any dog; or

•         dispose of a dog owned by you—

•         to a person who resides at the same address as you; or

•         in a manner that constitutes an offence against the Dog Control Act 1996 or any other Act.

If you are convicted of the first or second of these offences, your period of disqualification may be further extended.

You will also commit an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 if you dispose or give custody or possession of a dog to a person knowing that person to be disqualified from ownership under Section 25 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

Full details of the effect of disqualification are provided in the Dog Control Act 1996.

 

 

Right of objection to disqualification

Section 26, Dog Control Act 1996

 

You may object to the disqualification by lodging a written objection with the Southland District Council setting out the grounds on which you object.  You are entitled to be heard in support of your objection and will be notified of the time and place when your objection will be heard.  No objection can be lodged within 12 months of the hearing of any previous objection to the disqualification.  If an objection is lodged within 14 days after the date of this notice, the requirement to dispose of every dog owned by you will be suspended until the Southland District Council has determined the objection.

There is a further right of appeal to a District Court if you are dissatisfied with the decision of the Southland District Council on your objection

.


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Nuisance Complaints Survey

Record No:        R/17/7/17163

Author:                 Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by:       Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

Purpose

1        To provide the Committee with the results of the Nuisance Complaints survey.

 

Executive Summary

2        The Nuisance Complaints Survey provides Council with useful feedback about its response to noise and environmental health complaints. This allows reporting on whether levels of service (as outlined in the Council’s Long Term Plan) are being achieved.

3        Overall the results are very good with high levels of customer satisfaction.

Validity of some complaints / standard of proof

4        Inevitably there will be a number of complaints that are received that are invalid, and subsequently will draw negative feedback to Council. Examples include:

·    The complainant is overly sensitive to an issue that is not unreasonable; or

·    The complainant has made false allegations; or

·    The complaint is a consequence of animosity between neighbours, that is either of a trivial nature, or unreasonable to be lodged if the complainant also is required to take action to abate a nuisance.

5        Similarly, there are a small number of cases where Council has been unable to prove that a nuisance is occurring – either the SDC Officer is not observing nuisance, or the neighbourhood does not share the complainant’s concerns.  Staff will not seek corrective action in such cases, in order to respect the rights of the person being complained about.

Follow up contact with complainants

6        It is standard procedure to advise a nuisance complainant of the outcome. SDC has a casual employee who contacts those who have lodged an afterhours noise complaint, for the purpose of determining whether or not it is a one-off event – if not then other neighbours are contacted to determine whether further action is required.

7        A number of complainants advise that they were not contacted (32%). While a number of these may be from complainants who actually were contacted but were dissatisfied with the outcome, this result will be raised with staff to reinforce the need for effective follow-up with customers concerning the outcome of their complaints.

Recurring offenders

8        Staff are active in ensuring that no person causes an ongoing nuisance for the neighbourhood, such as regular noisy stereo.  Staff will use notices and infringements if necessary to discontinue the nuisance.

Continuing noise or nuisance

9        A common theme in these surveys is that some complainants advise that the nuisance is still continuing. Complainants are advised to contact SDC should the nuisance arise again, and sometimes do not do so, but advise of it in this survey.  Staff are happy to re-visit an issue, but need to be notified by the complainant.

Travel time

10      SDC contracts Armourguard for after-hours noise callouts in the District, other than in Te Anau where SDC has a casual noise control officer. Armourguard is based in Invercargill, and so there is inevitably a down time between receipt of the complaint and attendance on site.   This has risen as an issue of concern for some from the survey. However as discussed above, should a person be experiencing an ongoing nuisance, staff do take action to prevent recurrence.

 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Nuisance Complaints Survey” dated 28 July 2017.

 

 

Attachments

a         Nuisance Complaints Survey Results Report – 2016/2017    

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

Nuisance Complaints Survey Results – 2016/2017

 

Background

The Nuisance Complaints Survey provides Council with useful feedback about its response to noise and environmental health complaints. This allows reporting on whether levels of service (as outlined in the Council’s Long Term Plan) are being achieved.

 

The survey consists of five questions;

1) Were you satisfied with the helpfulness of staff?

2) Were you satisfied with the time it took to resolve your problem or query?

3) Were you satisfied with the outcome?

4) Were you contacted about your request?

5) Do you have any further comments?

 

Method

A list of those customers who made a nuisance complaint was obtained from the GEAC Pathways Customer Service System at the end of each month in 2016/2017. The survey was performed monthly to avoid customers forgetting how their request was dealt with. The survey was conducted by telephone and undertaken by a Customer Services Support Officer. 

 

Response

Out of the 162 in the sampling frame, 71 customers were able to be contacted for the survey giving a response rate of 44%. The margin of error is ± 9%. 

 


 

Survey Results

 

Complaint Type

In 2016/2017, 86% of respondents made complaints related to noise (loud stereos, parties, neighbours), with 14% related to other nuisance complaints.

 

 

Location

In 2016/2017, the top four locations for RFS request were Te Anau and Winton (21%) followed by Otautau (13%) and Riverton (13%). The result was similar to the previous year apart from an increase in complaints from Otautau and a drop-off in complaints from Nightcaps.

 


 

Q1. Were you satisfied with the helpfulness of staff?

In 2016/2017, 99% were satisfied with the helpfulness of staff when they contacted Council which is a slight increase from the 97% in 2015/2016.  A breakdown of responses is shown below. There was a decrease in the proportion of respondents who were very satisfied compared with the previous year.

 

 

 

Staff Helpfulness

 

2010/2011

2011/2012

2012/2013

2013/2014

2014/2015

2015/2016

2016/2017

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

Very Satisfied

38

51%

49

63%

66

63%

74

66%

82

73%

92

94%

58

82%

Satisfied

24

32%

16

21%

25

24%

25

22%

24

21%

3

3%

12

17%

Dissatisfied

6

8%

7

9%

9

9%

8

7%

3

3%

3

3%

1

1%

Very Dissatisfied

7

9%

6

8%

5

5%

5

4%

4

4%

0

0

0

0%

TOTAL

75

100%

78

100%

105

100%

112

100%

113

100%

98*

100%

71

100%

*Note:  Respondents did not answer the question (2015/2016: 2)

 

Q2. Were you satisfied with the time it took to resolve your problem or query?

In 2016/2017 88% respondents were satisfied with the time to resolve the complaint which is slightly lower than the 90% result in 2015/2016.

 

 

Timeliness

 

2010/2011

2011/2012

2012/2013

2013/2014

2014/2015

2015/2016

2016/2017

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

Very Satisfied

26

35%

29

39%

44

44%

39

39%

60

55%

70

76%

47

70%

Satisfied

26

35%

18

24%

34

34%

31

31%

18

17%

13

14%

12

18%

Dissatisfied

10

14%

14

19%

13

13%

14

14%

15

14%

4

4%

3

4%

Very Dissatisfied

12

16%

13

18%

10

10%

15

15%

16

15%

5

5%

5

7%

TOTAL

74

100%

74

100%

101

100%

99

100%

109

100%

92*

100%

67*

100%

*Note:  Respondents did not answer the question (2016/2017:4, 2015/2016: 8)

 


 

Q3. Were you satisfied with the outcome?

In 2016/2017, 79% of survey respondents were satisfied with the outcome of their complaint. This is noticeably down on the 89% that were satisfied in the previous year.

 

 

 

Outcome

 

2013/2014

2014/2015

2015/2016

2016/2017

 

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

Very Satisfied

65

61%

72

65%

67

71%

36

56%

Satisfied

21

20%

18

16%

17

18%

15

23%

Dissatisfied

7

7%

4

4%

3

3%

6

9%

Very Dissatisfied

13

12%

16

15%

8

8%

7

11%

TOTAL

106

100%

110

100%

95*

100%

64*

100%

*Note:  Respondents did not answer the question (2016/2017:7, 2015/2016: 5)

 

Q4. Were you contacted about your request?

48 respondents (68%) were not contacted about their request (2015/2016: 54%) and 23 respondents (32%) were contacted (2015/2016: 46%).

Q5. Do you have any further comments?

Around half of the comments received were positive about how the complaint had been dealt with mentioning that it was a good outcome or that the problem had been dealt with and the situation had improved.  A few respondents (15%) noted that there had been no action or no change.

 

Often respondents also commented that the issue was ongoing even though action was taken by the Council.  Specific comments can be found in Appendix B.


 

Appendix A - Comments

Quarter

Request Type

Town

Comment

July

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Unable to answer question 2 and 3 as he rung the day after, no ADT sent, but noise has got better

July

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Noise still happening occasionally

August

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Fairfax

Happy with our service, unable to answer question 3 as PowerNet is sorting

August

Nuisance Complaints (Odour, Vermin, Neighbourhood)

Winton

Outcome is ok at this time

August

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Wyndham

Toned down sometimes, but still calling if gets too much

August

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Nightcaps

Music has settle a bit this call, motorbikes still bit of issue

August

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Settle a bit now. Unable to answer question 2 as rung ADT not to come as music stopped

September

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

Had to ring the police as unable to get hole of noise control in Te Anau

September

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Good at the moment

September

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Athol

No plane seen since. Unable to answer question 3 as nom real outcome has about

September

Nuisance Complaints (Odour, Vermin, Neighbourhood)

Edendale

Roosters has gone, so things are all good

September

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Wyndham

Noise still happening, bad last night, advised to keep calling each time

October

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

After Hours were adequate

October

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

After Hours were adequate

October

Nuisance Complaints (Odour, Vermin, Neighbourhood)

Ohai

Always very happy with SDC service

October

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Otautau

Would of liked a call back from ADT

October

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

Took about an hour before noise reduced

October

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Very happy with after-hours service

October

Nuisance Complaints (Odour, Vermin, Neighbourhood)

Otautau

Re added RFS for smell and Nick to call SPCA for horses

October

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Otautau

Spoke to Kelwyn today, advised working through details, happy with this

October

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

After Hours were great, unable to answer question 2 as unsure of Timeliness

October

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Riverton

Impressed with service, even with time frame ADT from Invercargill

November

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Great since, unable to answer question 2 as unsure

November

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Wyndham

Noise has settled

November

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Otautau

Slow progress, still happening

November

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

        Riverton

Been better, still happens occasionally

November

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Riverton

Unable to answer question 3 as rung while visiting

December

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

Only happened twice since

December

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

No noise since and was great service

December

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Been great since call

December

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Otautau

No problems since call

December

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Wyndham

No problems since the call

December

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Unable to answer question 3 as has not been there to know if noise still an issue

December

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Riversdale

Good now

December

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Unable to answer question 3 as has not been there to know if noise still an issue

December

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Have sold house, to get away from neighbours

December

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

No noise since his call

March

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

I found the staff on the phone fantastic to deal with.  He was very helpful and prompt in dealing with the situation.  I have had problems with the neighbours beforehand and I found they were very prompt in helping me this time around. 

March

Nuisance Complaints (Odour, Vermin, Neighbourhood)

Edendale

There was never an issue with the Council itself, the staff have done what they needed to do but the owner is still not complying. 

March

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

There was a party at the house last night.  I feel the guy should have issued a noise abatement notice - that is another tool that he has got.  That would have been the logical step.  The enforcement officer should go to the next level. 

March

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Otautau

M Sarfaiti called me.  This has been going on for 18 months.  Basically said he will be directing Armourguard not to respond to my calls.  I am on my own over this.  He said I was a "lone ranger".  Sometimes with the distance, the calls are often abated by the time Armourguard get there.  Sometimes they have actually heard the noise.  Most of the time it does not happen as it takes three quarters of an hour to get there.  I have also complained to M Sarfaiti are either deaf and/or don't hear anything so basically this is why I am the lone petunia in the onion patch.  There is one woman down the road that hears quite well and her name is _________________.  She has been the only person supporting me throughout this, but she lives about 70 metres down the road.  None of the immediate neighbours want to get involved.  Michael say you get _______ to back you up otherwise you are on your own. 

March

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Lumsden

It is a long way for someone to come from Invercargill to attend to a noise complaint.  There should be someone in the District closer by.

April

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Riverton

Just ringing to make inquiries if they can run a chain saw during the day.  She did not want a complaint made.  You were told that the amount of wood being chopped by the chain saw was excessive.  It was being sold and not for private use.  You were happy to speak to the people concerned. 

April

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

It resolved the problem. 

April

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

They are still noisy, probably once a week we listen to music.  Usually a Tuesday or Thursday night to the early hours of the morning. 

April

Nuisance Complaints (Odour, Vermin, Neighbourhood)

Nightcaps

I was told by M Sarfaiti that he thought the bees were gone, but it was not confirmed.  It would be much easier if a complaint has been made that someone comes out and deals with at the time.  It was given to someone else to write a letter and the whole process took over two months.  I do believe it has been finished now, but whether they have checked up at the section, you just don't know. 

April

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Te Anau

It was handled very well. 

April

Nuisance Complaints (Odour, Vermin, Neighbourhood)

Mona Bush Road

You were pleased it was cleared up so quickly, but you were have liked a response from SDC instead of reading it in the paper.  A follow up would always be great and appreciated.  It was six cattle and not sheep.  It was a huge amount of offal and fat and all professionally done. 

April

Noise Control (Not Animal Noises)                

Winton

Satisfactory resolution to the problem.

 


 

Hi this is ........  calling on behalf of the Southland District Council. Could I please speak with ..............?

You recently placed a nuisance request with the Council with regard to ........  and I was wondering if you have time to complete a quick satisfaction survey with three questions?

The answers range from 1 - 4, with 1 being Very Dissatisfied and 4 being Very Satisfied.  

The first question is ............................

THE QUESTIONNAIRE
					
Qn
No	Question	Very Dissatisfied
1	Dissatisfied

2	Satisfied

3	Very Satisfied
4
					
1	How satisfied were you with the helpfulness of staff?				
2	How satisfied were you with the time it took to resolve your problem or query?				
3	How satisfied were you with the outcome to your problem or query?				
			
4	Were you called back about your request?	Yes 	No
5	Do you have any comments to make?

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey.

Appendix B - Survey Questions


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

sdclogo

 

IANZ Certificate of Accreditation

Record No:        R/17/7/16916

Author:                 Michael Marron, Team Leader Building Solutions

Approved by:       Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

IANZ Accreditation

1       Southland District Council Building Control department has successfully renewed its Building Consent Authority Accreditation - Attachment A.  The Corrective Action required has been cleared by IANZ and the Certificate of Accreditation has been received from IANZ - Attachment B. This will allow the BCA to continue to issue building consents through to February 2019 which is the preliminary date for our next assessment.  

2       The process identified some additional areas for improvement and these will be completed over the coming year.

3       The department accepts and welcomes the findings of the Auditor and a number of their recommendations have already been acted on.  The process was very worthwhile and has allowed the team to improve the services we provide to customers.  There was a focus on the completeness of forms and recording our thought process in decision-making.  This has been taken on board and continued monitoring has shown the team is complying with IANZ recommendations.

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “IANZ Certificate of Accreditation” dated 1 August 2017.

 

Attachments

a         Letter from IANZ BCA Accreditation  Regulations 4 - 18 - 5 July 2017

b         IANZ Accreditation 6 for Regulations 4 - 18 - SDC Building Control Department - July 2017

c         Follow up from IANZ reassessment of 27 February to 1 March 2017    

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 


 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

 

Follow up from IANZ reassessment of Southland District Council -

27 February to 1 March 2017

Notes:

·        Corrective Actions are to be cleared by the specified date from International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ).

·        Strong recommendations are to be actioned before the next biennial IANZ reassessment.

·        Recommendations are to be considered for actioning before the next biennial IANZ reassessment.

·        Responses are to be communicated to staff in monthly meeting agenda after completion.

·        Responses are recorded in Section QA1 of the QAS Manual after completion.

 

Corrective Actions

Action required/recommended

Proposed response

Accepted

yes/no

Date to be actioned

Date completed

Actions Required

 

Action 1(a)

 

Three of the five consents reviewed had been poorly reviewed with respect to the relevant Code Clauses and Building Act requirements.  Discussions with BCO’s demonstrated that they were technically competent in the areas of concern and all work was performed by staff with appropriate recorded competencies.  It was not clear why the BCA was granting consents with poor review of relevant code clauses and Building Act requirements. 

Please investigate the reasons for the above finding and indicate to IANZ what the BCA has done/shall do to ensure all consents shall be reviewed appropriately with respect to the relevant Code Clauses and Building Act requirements.  Please submit the results of the investigation and the proposed remedy to IANZ to review.

 

 

Interview building control personnel to establish what the culture within the department is. In the course of the interview the manager will reinforce to all team members the need to ensure all decisions are fully recorded and the decision is based on the information provided within the consent application. The manager will also reinforce the need to the importance of compliance with the requirements of the Building Act by ensuring that all building consent application demonstrate compliance with the building code before the building consent is issued. The policy of Council regarding the ease of doing business is not a reason to reduce the evidence required to show compliance.   

 

The findings of IANZ will be raised at the monthly operational meetings at least every three months to ensure all team members are reminded of their obligations under the Building Act.  A particular focus will be placed in these discussions on the importance of quality in all processes and ensuring that the review process includes appropriate review of relevant Code clauses and Building Act requirements.

 

Develop a signatory check sheet to ensure consistency when checking off commercial work. Ensure that all signatories understand that all relevant matters are required to be checked off prior to approval.

 

When a BCA staff member is extensively involved in the pre-lodgement stage the relevant staff member involved at that stage will not process the consent, to avoid any “poacher/ gamekeeper” type conflicts of interest.  The staff member involved at pre-lodgement stage will not be the same person also processing the consent.

 

 

Yes

 

7/03/2017

 

15/07/17

Action (2a)

Please develop and submit to IANZ to review a proposal that gives confidence that attention to detail shall be improved. Please include in the proposal which records the BCA will submit to IANZ to demonstrate that the BCA ensures there is always attention to detail in records produced by the BCA.

 

Currently we get an average of 5 to 10 consents per month that are recorded as “Commercial” these are currently being reviewed, a random selection of consents will be added to these to ensure 25% are reviewed each month. These will be reported on monthly to IANZ for two months. At the end of the two months the BCA will continue to check 25% of consents for another six months or until there is sufficient evidence to confirm all forms are to be completed.

 

Before an application for code compliance certificate is lodged into the system for processing it will be checked by a senior building control officer or senior consent processing officer.  This check will be recorded as a task in Pathway which requires completion prior to the processing proceeding further.  

 

Yes

 

7/03/2017

 

15/07/17

Action 2(b)

Please submit records to IANZ that demonstrate that the BCA pays attention to detail in all records created by the BCA.

 

 

The BCA propose to report to IANZ on a monthly basis for the next two months on the outcome of their increased monitoring.

This will include the findings of the monthly checks and a copy of the monthly operational meeting where the IANZ report is discussed. 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Follow up from IANZ reassessment of Southland District Council -

27 February to 1 March 2017

Strong Recommendations

Action required/recommended

Proposed response

Accepted

yes/no

Date to be actioned

Date completed

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

1      Remove from the shared drive, the retained earlier versions of their Quality Manual.

This has been addressed.  The Q drive contained an archived folder where all previous versions are retained.  The Knowledge Department is currently working on a system to retain all the BCA’s  QAS Document Registers

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

2      Remove all hard copies from circulation during the assessment.  The BCA is reminded to revise their procedures to describe their revised process.  A strong recommendation (2) is made.

The BCA no longer use paper copies of documentation and these will be printed on request for all customers.  This has been relayed to all customer service officers.  This will be checked at six month intervals for the next two years and a report will be attached below.  The Southern Shared Service Group BCA Quality Assurance System (QAS) will be altered to reflect this. 

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

3      Revise their public information to ensure the technical content is up-to-date with respect to the following:

·          It did not discuss Building Code Clause F9.

·          It used the terminology “Compliance Documentation”.

·          It used the terminology Department of Building and Housing.

This is a document shared by 11 BCAs.  It is currently being reviewed and the strong recommendation has been forward as a submission. 

yes

 

31/3/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

4      Ensures that the receipt of applications is always signed off. 

BC1 Reg 7(2) (b) (c) records this practice.  An audit of at least two consents per day will be carried out and this will be reported on for the one month and this will if appropriate will be reduced to one per week. This will be included in the six monthly report to IANZ  

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

5      Ensures that the staff member receiving applications ensures that the “Means of Compliance” is filled in.  If that step has not happened at receipt then the staff member checking the application for completeness must ensure that the “Means of Compliance” is fully completed. 

BC1 Reg 7(2) (b) (c).  and BI 4 Regulation 7(2)(f) records this practice

An audit of at least two consents per day will be carried out and this will be reported on for the one month and this will if appropriate will be reduced to one per week, this again will be reported on. 

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

6      Revise their processing check-sheets to ensure they address the requirements of F9. 

This is a shared document and is currently being reviewed.  This will be included in the new version

yes

31/3/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

7      Ensures their procedure for reviewing Producer Statements is effectively implemented.  Specifically to ensure Producer Statements are not accepted when they use very old terminology and referred to out-of-date technical information. 

BC 9 Regulation 7(2) (d) (iv) covers this practice. 

Most producer statements will be associated with commercial work.  This will be included in a signatory sign off check and reported on. 

 

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

8      List their “Draft Compliance Schedule” as an attachment on their Form 5’s. 

BC 2 and Regulation 7(2)(d)(iv) and (v)

Covers this practice. 

BC2 18, requires that the draft Compliance Schedule is sent to the building owner.  Council will amend Form 5 and 5a to list the draft Compliance Schedule as an attachment.  This will also be reflected in the workflow for PIMs. 

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

10    Ensures that Form 6’s are not accepted where the date work was completed has not been recorded. 

BI 4 Regulation 7(2) (f) covers this practice. 

BI 4 (1) indicates that the form must follow the format in the regulations.  All FM 6s will be checked by a senior building control officer or senior consent processing officer before being entered into the system and this will be recorded in the workflows. 

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

11    Revise their procedures where they require all inquiries to be submitted by email and this would block those without access to electronic systems. 

PI 1 and Regulation 7(2) (g) and (h) covers this practice. 

PI 1 (1) states:

1          The BCA receives inquiries from the public on a wide range of issues.  General inquiries relating to building control functions are received by phone or email and referred to BCOs for reply.

2          General inquiries are not recorded.

Pl (3) will be amended to reflect that emails and letters will be sent in response.

yes

 

28/07/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

12    Revise their procedures for “Ensuring Enough Employees and Contractors” (Regulation 8) to prompt the review of the timely implementation of all quality system functions. 

Please forward additional guidance on this matter.

yes

 

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

14    Ensures that there are procedures for reviewing the effectiveness of training focus on the application of training.

CA3 Regulation 11(1) and (2)(a) to (d)

Covers this practice.  Currently each team member records their training in a personal training log.  This will be amended to allow them to record the application of their training when processing a building consent and or inspecting building work. 

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

15    Consider revising their procedures to clarify that “Supervision” meant full supervision of all work performed by an individual whilst under supervision.  This can include the review of work processed by an individual without the Supervisor being directly beside the processing staff.  Similarly it can involve the Supervisor reviewing site inspection records and photos without accompanying the individual under supervision. 

The BCA will no longer use the term remote supervision but will refer to signatory overview to better reflect the practice of signatory sign off. 

yes

 

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

16    Encourage technical staff to record non-formal professional development such as attendance at conferences and reading journals. 

CA5 and Regulation 11 (1), 11(2) (f), 11(2) (g), and 18 covers this practice.

This will be raised at the monthly operational meetings and the training records amended to facilitate this.

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

17    Consider requiring (where relevant) a copy of the certificate of qualification of independent contractors processing for the BCA. 

CA 6 and CA7 Regulations 5b, 8, 12, 14, 17(4)

Covers this practice.  QAS manual CA7 will be amended to reflect that all qualifications will be retained by the BCA.

yes

 

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

18    Revise their agreement with the independent consultant processing Commercial 3 consent applications to include (but not limited to) the following:

·          Specify a timeframe within which work was to be completed. 

·          Require fullness of records to meet the BCA’s obligations with respect to recording decisions, reasons for decisions and outcome of decisions. 

·          Require any individual processing work to declare any potential, actual or perceived conflict of interest.

·          Require the contractor to ensure that all work performed would provide technically appropriate outcomes and that the contractor would demonstrate meeting this requirement by an agreed means.

·          Require the contractor to comply with an agreed level of quality assurance.

CA7 and Regulations 5b, 12, 14, 17(4)

Covers this practice.  When renewing the service level agreement this will be included with all service providers.

yes

 

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

19    Complete regular (annual or more frequent) reviews of the performance of the independent consultant reviewing structural engineering.

CA7 and Regulations 5b, 12, 14, 17(4)

Covers this practice.  This will be addressed in the service level agreement.

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

20    Revise their procedures to describe the BCA’s process whereby they maintained an “offline” electronic file of core standards. 

QA 6 Regulation 5(b),14,

Covers this practice.  The BCA will amend the QA6 Procedure Variation to reflect that the standards will be updated every three months which is the same interval as the acceptable solutions

yes

 

28/07/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

21    Revise their procedures to indicate where the records other than those managed under Regulation 16 were to be found.  Particularly those records that are accessed by staff members when implementing procedures. 

This relates to all sections of the QAS manual.  The procedure variation section for the Southland District Council will reflect the location of the relevant document is located. 

yes

28/07/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

22    Revise their procedure (CA 8) where it incorrectly refers to Regulation 13 as the Regulation requiring the BCA to “Authorise” staff to perform building control functions.  The correct Regulation is Regulation 15(2). 

This has been noted and will be amended in the next version of the QAS manual.

yes

 

28/07/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

23    Review their use of the terminology “staged” when referring to amendments.

BC5 and Regulation 7(2)(b),(c) and (d)

Covers this practice.  The BCA will amend BC5 (3) to reflect this.  Form 2 is being amended and this recommendation has been forwarded for inclusion. 

yes

28/07/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

24    Ensures that the check-sheets used to demonstrate that all documents are present in a consent file, specify whether those records are to be found in hard copy or electronic format. 

This process is under review and this will be achieved with the knowledge department as we transfer to an electronic based system.

yes

 

28/07/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

25    Consider reviewing proposed continuous improvements by more than one staff member prior to it being included in the CI system. 

Q1 and Regulation 17((2)(e) and (5)

Covers this practice.  This will be amended that app CI suggestions will be discussed at the monthly operational meeting. 

yes

 

9/03/2017

 

9/03/2017

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

26    Consider asking the following questions prior to performing an internal audit of a given procedure:

·          Is this procedure still required?

·          Is the procedure technically up-to-date?

·          Does this procedure describe the BCA’s current process?

        As that will provide the BCA with an annual review of their quality system documentation. 

QA 2 and Regulation 17(2)(h) and (4)

Covers this practice.  The BCA engages the services of an external contractor to carry out the internal audits.  This can be included when renewing their service level agreement.

yes

 

28/07/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

27    Consider reviewing their process of having as a KPI the number of site inspections performed by an individual Site Inspector.  There is a possibility this could encourage the BCO to perform the activity in a hurried manner and possibly compromise the inspection outcomes.

The current process of evaluation of performance is under way and this will be considered at the appropriate time.

yes

 

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

28    Revise their procedure for bringing a “Complaint against a Practitioner” to include the comment that the BCO will bring the complaint to the attention of the Building Manager. 

PL2 and Regulation 17 (3) (A)

Covers this practice.  The suggested wording has been noted and will be included in Pl (5).

yes

 

28/07/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

29    Revise their “Qualifications” procedure where it allowed for an unreasonable length of time from start of employment until a new employee were required to begin a qualification.  The BCA’s process was appropriate but not reflected in their procedure. 

CA5 and Regulation 11 (1), 11(2)(f),11(2)(g), and 18

Covers this practice.  The wording has been noted and CA 5 BCA Procedure variations for the SDC will be amended to reflect that new BCO after 12 months of service will be enrolled in appropriate training. 

yes

 

28/07/2017

 

It is strongly recommended that the BCA:

30    Indicate in their “Qualifications” procedures where the names of those who were exempt from holding a qualification shall be recorded. 

CA5 and Regulation 11 (1), 11(2)(f),11(2)(g), and 18

Covers this practice.  The wording has been noted and CA 5 BCA Procedure variations for the SDC will be amended to reflect the names of the exempted personnel will be included in their private employment records. 

yes

 

28/07/2017

 

 


 

 

Follow up from IANZ reassessment of Southland District Council -

27 February to 1 March 2017

Recommendations

Action required/recommended

Proposed response

Accepted

yes/no

Date to be actioned

Date completed

It is  recommended that the BCA:

9      Consider running a regular report to reveal any consents that may have not been lapsed, or otherwise managed, at their 12 month anniversary. 

BC4 and Regulation 7(2)(d)(v)

Covers this practice.  Currently there are two reports generated to check consents that are approaching 12 months of being issued.  This practice will be reviewed and assessed if it is fit for purpose 

yes

 

 

It is recommended that the BCA:

13    Revise their procedures for “Ensuring Enough Employees and Contractors” (Regulation 8) to discuss the use of a “Resource Calculator” and to specify all time expensive activities in such a calculator.  Time expensive activities could include (but are not limited to), sick leave, internal audits and time spent in operations meetings. 

CA6 and Regulation 8

Covers this practice.  The method of work allocation is being altered to address this issue and the QAS manual will be amended to reflect this. 

yes

 

 

 

 

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

sdclogo

 

Building Control customer survey report 2017

Record No:        R/17/7/16930

Author:                 Michael Marron, Team Leader Building Solutions

Approved by:       Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

Overview of Survey Results

1       The Building Control Customer Survey is conducted once every two years to provide useful feedback and identify areas for improvement in the department and to allow reporting on whether levels of service (as outlined in the Council’s LTP) are being achieved.  The survey covered all Building Consent Authority and Territorial Authority functions of the building department but the majority of the responses were in relation to the issuing and inspecting of building consents.

Respondents to the survey were asked if they agreed with the following statement “I was satisfied with the overall service that the building control team provided”

·          The target is 80% of respondents agreed with the statement.

·          76% of respondents either strongly agreed (26%) or agreed (50%) that the overall service provided which means that the target was achieved. 

 

Respondents to the survey were asked if they agreed with the following statement “Onsite building inspectors provided a consistent, timely and professional inspection service”

 

§ The target is 80% of respondents agree with this statement.

§ 85% of respondents either strongly agreed (27%) or agreed (58%) that
on-site building inspectors provide a consistent, timely and professional service which means that the target was achieved.

2       A questionnaire on customer satisfaction survey for the Building Control Department was undertaken between 24 May to 29 June 2017 - Attachment A

3       The survey for the Building team has been completed - Attachment B.  The majority of respondents were home owners who had applied for building consents.

4       The questionnaire is split into six sections.

Section A – General – Questions 1-3, 

Section B – Information – Questions 4-5

Section C – Items – Questions 6-8

Section D – Service – Questions 9-13

Section E – Information – Questions 14-16

Section F – Summary – Questions 17-19.

 

Section B

The respondents expressed the following points:

5        There was a general dissatisfaction with timeframes.  22% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “The application was processed within the time frame that I was told it would take. (Excluding further information requested time)”.

6        While the statutory 20 working day period is usually met, customer expectations have clearly moved on from this.

To address this, the department will be seeking to transition to an on-line lodgement and processing system.  It will also identify recurrent pressure points and make explanatory material clearer.

Section C

·                      The survey asked respondents whether the inspection identified items that needed to be remedied or completed.  Twenty nine said yes (57%) and 22 said no (43%).  Therefore 57% of inspections failed for the majority of respondents (57%). 

 

·                      All respondents who indicated where the inspection indicated that remedial work was required (27 people), a further question was asked if the items to be remedies were clearly communicated by Council with a result of 89% who agreed or strongly agreed this was the case.

 

7       This is a high percentage of failure, however the items may well have been minor in nature. There is no indication of the importance level recorded on the items needing remedial work. The survey indicates that Council communicates the noncompliance items efficiently and the majority of items were resolved amicably. (89%)

8       While the department is very conscious of the importance of ease of doing business in its processes, it is also important to ensure that key legislative and durability bottom lines are not compromised, both in terms of delivering the building owner a building which will not cause them long term problems and also in terms of liability mitigation for Council.

Section D

·        General acceptance there is a consistent application in interpretation of the regulations.

The department is working on consistency in two areas.  The first is across our Council by rotating inspectors into different areas, this has allowed moderation on assessing non-compliant items.  We are also working on a template for requests for further information letters during the processing stage.  We have also reviewed our building consent guidance form and this will be used when the new building consent application form guidance is approved by the cluster. It is hoped this will provide home owners and designers with a better understanding of the information required by Council. 

9       This has been an area of focus for the department for some time and it good to see a positive result in this area.  We are aware that 11% of people did not accept there is consistency in the interpretation of the regulations and the team will continue to work on this.

10     The team has regular monthly discussions on matters of technical interpretation with a view to establishing an agreed position which can then be rolled out consistently to our customers. These discussions are documented in our Quality Assurance systems document register under monthly operational meetings, so staff can refer back to them as required.

Secondly, the department is working with Invercargill, Clutha District and Gore Councils to achieve more consistent outcomes for all our customers across the four councils.  It is intended to meet once a month to see how we can better align our processes.


 

Section E

·        The respondents found the information provided by Council to be helpful

11      There survey indicates there is a high level of satisfaction around the accessibility and technical level of information provided to our customers. The respondents have expressed satisfaction with the access they were afforded to inspectors and other staff. The respondents found that the department were engaged with them and communicated well to them and followed up with them in a timely manner.

Section F

·        Overall respondents are happy with the overall service provided by the department.

12      Respondents the indicated that 79% of them were happy with the level of service provided to the by the building department. They were asked to indicate what aspect of their experience they would change. Their comments indicated that they would like a cheaper, simpler and faster service.

Overview and areas of focus going forward

13     While there are areas of strength within the Building Control team, there are areas where performance can improve. The department has gone through a change of staff in key roles, losing a wealth of knowledge and experience.  There has been pressure points during processing and the department was able to reprioritise work to address these issues.  The department is currently recruiting to fill one of these roles and feels additional efficiencies will be achieved with the implementation of the electronic processing system. 

14     The survey indicated that the department has failed to meet its KPI of achieving an 80% satisfaction rating (achieved 76%). The department did achieve its internal KPI in achieving 85% of respondents agreeing Council provided consistent timely and professional service for the onsite inspections.   The department will take the responses and comments on board and will take appropriate measures to address customers’ concerns and make further customer service improvements.

 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Building Control customer survey report 2017” dated 2 August 2017.

 

Attachments

a         Building Control survey questionnaire for the period 24 May to 29 June 2017

b         Building Control Survey Results 2016/2017    

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

 

Building Control Survey Results 2016/2017

 

 

Background

The Building Control Customer Survey is conducted once every two years and was first undertaken in 2007. The purpose of the survey is to provide useful feedback and identify areas for improvement in the department and to allow reporting on whether levels of service (as outlined in the Council’s LTP) are being achieved.  The survey is undertaken by the Council’s Strategy and Policy Department. 

 

Methodology

The methodology has changed from the questionnaires being distributed to each applicant at the end of the financial year by postal survey to being conducted online, using Survey Monkey.

 

The data list removed invalid email addresses and users without an email address.  The survey was sent to users emails with a link to the survey.  The full population size was 430.  An email invite and link to the survey was sent to 429 people. The total number of respondents was 63. 

 

The survey was available for three weeks from 24 May to 29 June 2017.  The margin of error is
+/-11% to the 95% confidence level.  The response rate was 15%. 

 

A copy of the survey questionnaire is provided separately.

 

KPI questions

 

External

·          Percentage of applicants satisfied with the overall service provided. The target is 80%.

 

·          76% of respondents were either strongly agreed (26%) or agreed (50%) that the overall service provided which means that the target was achieved. 

 

Internal

·          Percentage of applicants that agree that on-site building inspectors provide a consistent, timely, and professional service.) - The target is 80%.

 

·          85% of respondents were either strongly agree (27%) or agree (58%) that
on-site building inspectors provide a consistent, timely and professional service which means that the target was achieved.

 

 


 

Question 1 - What type of consent service(s) did you receive from the Building Control team?

 

Of the 63 respondents, the main type was for a building consent (95%), followed by a COA (3%), a LIM (3%), and then other (6%).

 

 

 

 

What type of consent service(s) did you receive from the Building Control team?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Building  consent

95%

60

Project Information Memorandum (PIM)

0%

0

Certificate of Acceptance (COA)

3%

2

Land Information Memorandum (LIM)

3%

2

Other (please specify)

6%

4

answered question

63

skipped question

0

 

Verbatim Comments - Other specify

 

No

Comment

1

4 Bay Farm Shed, includes 1 bay lockable workshop, 1 bay Fert bunkar & 2 bays Bobby Calves & storage.

2

For a garage and still waiting

2

LIM report/compliance

4

Still waiting for building consent!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 2 - Which of the following best describes your role during this contact?

 

The Applicant/Property owner (78%) was the key role followed by the Builder (17%) and Agent (8%).

 

 

Which of the following best describes your role during this contact?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Plumber

3%

2

Builder

18%

11

Architect/Designer

2%

1

Applicant/Property Owner

78%

49

Agent/Acting on behalf of the owner

8%

5

Other (please specify)

0%

0

answered question

63

skipped question

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 3 - What town do you/or the applicant live in (or if in the rural area what is your nearest town)? The top three locations of applicants were Te Anau (27%), Riverton (13%) and Winton (11%).

 

Which town/area does the consent relate to?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Balfour

5%

3

Edendale

2%

1

Gorge Road

2%

1

Limehills

3%

2

Lumsden

3%

2

Manapouri

2%

1

Mokotua

2%

1

Mossburn

3%

2

Nightcaps

2%

1

Oban

2%

1

Otahuti

2%

1

Riversdale

3%

2

Riverton

13%

8

Ryal Bush

2%

1

Spar Bush

2%

1

Stewart Island

2%

1

Te Anau

27%

17

Wallacetown

6%

4

Winton

11%

7

Woodlands

2%

1

Wyndham

2%

1

Other (please specify) Waimahaka, Hokonui, Waimatua and Roslyn Bush.

6%

4

answered question

63

skipped question

0

0

Question 4 - The application was processed within the time frame that I was told it would take. (Excluding further information requested time)

Of the 59 respondents who answered the question, 78% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. 22% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Twelve people commented on why they choose their rating.

The application was processed within the time frame that I was told it would take. (excluding further information requested time)

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

12%

7

Agree

66%

39

Disagree

12%

7

Strongly Disagree

10%

6

Please comment on why you chose this rating

12

answered question

59

skipped question

4

Verbatim Comments

No

Comments - Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

The application was processed just in time to get building started

2

It arrived

3

We put an amendment in and still waiting

4

We had to chase it up

5

I was not given a time frame but I believe the process time was too long before consent arrived.

6

Took ages

7

The further information requested was simply a ploy to extend timeframes....asking were we aware of any hazardous substances on the sight? We had only recently purchased the section and would not have done so if we knew of any such things

8

Issues kept arising showing that the plan from councils end had not been thoroughly considered.

9

Very timely and informative when contacted by inspector.

10

Due to faults on both sides (builder, and council we are still awaiting consent after nearly 3 years:

11

No issues with local inspector

12

My plans were lost in Chch office of Engineer

Question 5 - My application for a code of compliance certificate was followed up within twenty working days or an alternate agreed timeframe?

My application for a code of compliance certificate was followed up within twenty working days or an alternate agreed timeframe?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Yes

48%

28

No

17%

10

Not applicable

36%

21

answered question

59

skipped question

4

 

 

 


 

Question 6 - The inspection identified items that needed to be remedied or completed

 

57% of respondents said that the inspection had identified items that needed to be remedied or completed. 43% said that they it did not and 12 respondents skipped the question.

The inspection identified items that needed to be remedied or completed.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Yes

57%

29

No

43%

22

answered question

51

skipped question

12

 


 

Question 7 - Items to be remedied were satisfactorily communicated

 

Of the 77 respondents who answered the question, 89% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. 11% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Three people commented on why they choose their rating.

Items to be remedied were satisfactorily communicated

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

19%

5

Agree

70%

19

Strongly Disagree

0%

0

Disagree

11%

3

Please comment on why you chose this rating

3

answered question

27

skipped question

36

 

Verbatim Comments

No

Comments - Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

The items listed appeared to be in areas unrelated to the building consent applied for.

2

Was told what was wrong but not how to remedy it

3

The "why" was explained. The "just do it or else" attitude seems to be taking a back seat in this new age of communication. It's far more valuable to understand why a certain measure must be taken, rather than just be made to do it without explanation. This makes the whole transaction rather more pleasant, and is a far better approach for all stakeholders. I think this also casts inspectors in a much more favourable light with the people they are dealing with.  I work in a similar field in terms of compliance, and once you learn how to communicate the "Why" factor, you find people quite surprising in the way they come to your line of thinking.


 

Question 8 – Items to be remedied where satisfactorily resolved

Of the 27 respondents who answered the question, 93% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. 8% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Four people commented on why they choose their rating.

Items to be remedied where satisfactorily resolved

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

25%

19

Agree

64%

49

Disagree

9%

7

Strongly Disagree

3%

2

Please comment on why you chose this rating

22

answered question

77

skipped question

34

Verbatim Comments


 No

Comments - Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

It took a long time to resolve them with the building contractor and project manager.

2

Our builder told us our code of compliance was completed early December, unbeknown to us there was a small issue of a pillar which needed to be made rodent proof.  When we hadn't received our copy of the COC late Jan I called into the council office to find it had failed due to the pillar issue.  I contacted our builder who advised the issue had been fixed on the same day and Percy (the council inspector had been advised) and he believed COC had been issued.  I was extremely disappointed as our build was done thru KiwiSaver and it meant we now had to live in the house an extra 2 months.  Percy apologised with "I'm sorry I forgot", I asked if he could back date it to the original date as it had been fixed then but he was unable to do that.  I find it very disappointing that there was no follow-up from him to the builder to ensure the small issue had been fixed.  If I hadn't of contacted him we would never have found out.  I was also very concerned we had been living in a house that had no COC, if anything had happened we would not have been covered by insurance.

3

Code too strictly enforced. Fire/stove was installed in 1994 and used extensively for 22 years. Triple wall vent pipe barely touched a timber which had not even been discoloured at all from heat or anything else. Result $5,000 of expense which was unnecessary. Overly zealous enforcement by district officers.

4

It didn't really take me a great deal of energy to dig foundations a few hundred mm deeper.

 

 

Question 9 - Staff consistently interpreted the regulations and rules

 

Staff consistently interpreted the regulations and rules

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

13%

6

Agree

76%

34

Disagree

7%

3

Strongly Disagree

4%

2

Please comment on why you chose this rating

6

answered question

45

skipped question

18

 

Verbatim Comments


 No

Comments - Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

N/A

2

Too strictly enforced code despite common sense observation.

3

As far as I could tell, if I needed explanation on anything I felt I could rely on the staff to tell me.

4

No big arguments with local guy

5

strange wording of this question


 

Question 10 - On-site building inspectors provided a consistent, timely and professional inspection service

 

 

 

On-site building inspectors provided a consistent, timely and professional inspection service

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

27%

12

Agree

58%

26

Disagree

9%

4

Strongly Disagree

7%

3

Please comment on why you chose this rating

9

answered question

45

skipped question

18

 

Verbatim Comments


 No

Comments – Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

Waited full 20 day period for final inspection.

2

The building inspector was generally helpful on-site

3

n/a

4

Building inspector tried to look through rest of house when it had already been signed off by Clutha council, and paper work have been supplied to prove that.

5

No on-site inspection as yet.

6

The inspector was very pleasant to deal with, a pleasure to deal with.

7

Keep up the good work

 


 

Question 11 – Staff were knowledgeable and answered my questions

 

Forty (88%) of respondents “strongly agreed or agreed” with the statement.  Five respondents (11%) “disagreed or strongly disagreed” with the statement.

 

Staff were knowledgeable and answered my questions

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

24%

11

Agree

64%

29

Disagree

4%

2

Strongly Disagree

7%

3

Please comment on why you chose this rating

5

answered question

45

skipped question

18

 

Verbatim Comments

No

Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

Yes they were knowledgeable & helpful

2

n/a

3

Not applicable

4

Inspector is a book of knowledge and can sing a bit as well.

 


 

Question 12 – Staff were easy to contact.

 

Staff were easy to contact.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

24%

11

Agree

60%

27

Disagree

11%

5

Strongly Disagree

4%

2

Please comment on why you chose this rating

6

answered question

45

skipped question

18

 

Verbatim Comments

No

Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

Not all emails replied to.

2

Once we understood the inspectors booking system we were quite happy. We can appreciate he needs to plan as well - and I get the idea that he was trying to improve efficiencies i.e. booking Manapouri work sites on the same day. Makes sense

3

n/a

4

N/A

5

Woodlands people are well aware of when a building inspector is driving around via the Bush Telegraph.

 


 

Question 13 - All building staff provided a professional and courteous service.

 

 

All building staff provided a professional and courteous service.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

29%

13

Agree

56%

25

Disagree

11%

5

Strongly Disagree

4%

2

Please comment on why you chose this rating

5

answered question

45

skipped question

18

 

Verbatim Comments

No

Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

Communications with project manager agent were not that good.

2

Sometimes very grumpy and pushy. Over bearing without realising I’m the home owner. Local inspector is fine and has been very helpful and is very clear however spouting BRANZ bulletin numbers to me and then not being any help is terrible. They can have all the knowledge in the world but it means nothing if they can't communicate properly

3

n/a - still taking a long time


 

Question 14 - The information was easy to access

 

The information was easy to access

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

17%

7

Agree

71%

30

Disagree

10%

4

Strongly Disagree

2%

1

Please comment on why you chose this rating

4

answered question

42

skipped question

21

 

Verbatim Comments

No

Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

Generally we agree. Our architect may be able to better answer this question. I am not aware of any problems with access and communication

2

n/a

3

Inspector is a book of knowledge.

 


 

Question 15 - The information was clear/easy to understand

 

The information was clear/easy to understand

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly agree

12%

5

Agree

67%

28

Disagree

19%

8

Strong Disagree

2%

1

Please comment on why you chose this rating

4

answered question

42

skipped question

21

 

Verbatim comments

No

Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

The information could have been made clearer to improve the number of communications required.

2

Still waiting

3

Inspector has a huge talent for communication and he can sing a bit as well.


 

Question 16 - The information was clear/easy to understand

 

 

The cost for services was similar to what I expected it to be (based on the information provided)

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

12%

5

Agree

69%

29

Disagree

12%

5

Strongly Disagree

7%

3

Please comment on why you chose this rating

11

answered question

42

skipped question

21

 

 

Verbatim Comments

No

Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

Still far too expensive

2

I had an extra invoice for change to plan and council sent it to an address that was 8 years old even though they sent building consent to my correct address and my rates bill but couldn’t get the address right for a small invoice.

3

Yes

4

I had no idea of what the cost was going to be, as the person I gave the application to didn't know.

5

Fees were a further $1400

6

Way too expensive.  $750 to assess a very simple plumbing project worth less than $5000 and would have only taken 15 minutes to assess is absurd.

7

Ridiculously expensive. Reason building costs in NZ are out of control.

8

I saved up my money for the consent for several years and the end result was as I expected. I am now a pauper.

9

After discussion with SDC there was a very small reduction in the cost of the BC. My arguments were dismissed. There should be more latitude here.

10

Costs where reasonable


 

Question 17 - Please indicate your overall satisfaction with the following by ticking the appropriate box, I was satisfied with the overall service that the Building Control team provided.

Please indicate your overall satisfaction with the following by ticking the appropriate box; I was satisfied with the overall service that the Building Control team provided.

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Strongly Agree

26%

11

Agree

50%

21

Disagree

17%

7

Strongly Disagree

7%

3

Please comment on why you chose this rating

10

answered question

42

skipped question

21

 

Verbatim Comments

No

Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

Not all emails, phone messages replied to. Having to wait long periods for responses.

2

Communications could have been improved.

3

There is consistency with the system.

4

Only because of our local inspector who has been great but over worked

5

We did not receive correspondence and just sat there - Also we called in and changed things but that was 2 weeks ago and still nothing is happening

6

They delayed our build by 3 months due to wasting time

7

Absurdly expensive and not commensurate with the effort required to complete the task

8

Building Inspectors have been great - polite yet friendly service.

9

We did not receive correspondence and just sat there - Also we called in and changed things but that was 2 weeks ago and still nothing is happening

 

 

 

Question 18 - If there was one aspect of the service you could change what would it be?

 

Verbatim Comments

No

Please comment on why you chose this rating

1

Make applications easier.

2

Having the street address on communications to help when you have multiple properties with consents at various stages and don't know what property the communication is for.

3

Consent fees are excessive

4

Communicate and work with owners and builders to achieve resolve if there is any situations and not tell people that their house will not be signed off and then not assist in any way forward

5

Follow up

6

Inspector needs more help

7

The small issue of the pillar was not followed up so our COC was issued 2 months after it should have been. 

8

Very expensive for consents

9

I thought it would come through earlier, but at least I got it before winter came

10

Issuing consent within required timeframes without the bullshit and for the indicated price.

11

Price

12

Common sense

13

None whatsoever, except that ""natural ground"" should allow for a certain depth of fill when it comes to measuring foundation depth. (Fill will contain the same volume of concrete and in most cases likely have better integrity than dirt). A more case by case basis needs to implemented when it comes to fill versus natural ground."

14

Quicker turn around

15

Perhaps a better and smoother consent process - it shouldn't take 20 days to process for a simple Building.

 


 

Question 19 - If you have any additional comments about the service or specific areas for improvement please comment below

 

Verbatim Comments

No

Response text

1

We are getting a very good and professional service from Inspector. Communication is excellent

2

Training and technology and tools that can be used by inspectors. Stop relying on BRANZ they are not the only testing facility. Stop believing that gib board offers any bracing at all and look more at rigid air barriers. Our minimum standards for insulation are far too low for our area. 

3

Inspector was very helpful

4

The small issue of the pillar was not followed up so our COC was issued 2 months after it should have been. 

5

I am an American and have sold my house in NZ, so will have no more contact with District code enforcers.

6

I will definitely seek your services again when I intend to apply for a consent in Southland!!!

7

I haven’t applied for the CCC yet as there is one minor job still to be done

 

 


 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

15 August 2017

 

Time Series Trends

 

Overall

Overall

Building control service

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Satisfied

71%

75%

82%

78%

76%

Dissatisfied

14%

8%

11%

6%

24%

Neither satisfied or dissatisfied

15%

17%

7%

12%

Don’t know/Not applicable

4%

TOTAL

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Note the scale changed in 2015 and 2017 to not include neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tables

Information

Clear/Easy to Understand

Easy to access

 

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Agree

75%

76%

88%

70%

79%

75%

76%

78%

71%

88%

Neither agree nor disagree

15%

14%

9%

10%

0%

15%

16%

16%

11%

0%

Don't know/ not applicable

11%

Disagree

10%

10%

3%

10%

21%

10%

8%

5%

7%

12%

TOTAL

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

89%

100%

 

Info on timeframes

Info on processing costs

 

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

Agree

74%

74%

74%

72%

not asked

not asked

73%

70%

not asked

not asked

Neither agree nor disagree

15%

14%

16%

3%

not asked

not asked

16%

18%

not asked