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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 27 March 2019

9am

Council Chamber
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

 

Group Manager, Environmental Services

Bruce Halligan

 

Committee Advisor

Alyson Hamilton

 

 

 

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

·                 Southland Land Drainage Act 1935

·                 Southland Land Drainage Amendment Act 1938

 

 

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.

(j)                    Hear objections and decide on matters under the Southland Land Drainage Act 1935 and Southland Land Drainage Amendment Act 1938.

 

 

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

 

 

The Regulatory and Consents Committee is 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

27 March 2019

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                                                                  PAGE

Procedural

1             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                6

2             Leave of absence                                                                                                                                                6

3             Conflict of Interest                                                                                                                                             6

4             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                         6

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                                                        6

6             Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                                                               6

Reports for Recommendation

7.1         Plan Change Dark Skies                                                                                                                                11

Reports

8.1         Building Reaccreditation Audit February 2019 - Outcome                                                     19

8.2         Freedom Camping Update                                                                                                                         77   

Public Excluded

Procedural motion to exclude the public                                                                                                       105

C9.1      Greenbriar Limited - Resource Consent - Land use consent to undertake an extension to the Ohai Coal Mine, Gorge Road, Ohai                                                                                       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, 28 November 2018


 

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 Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 9am.

 

present

 

Chairperson

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Brian Dillon

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

APOLOGIES

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

 

Councillor Kremer

Group Manager, Environmental Services

Bruce Halligan

Team Leader - Resource Management

Marcus Roy

Senior Policy Planner

Rebecca Blyth

Communications Manager

Louise Pagan

Committee Advisor

Alyson Hamilton

 


1             Apologies

 

There were no apologies.

 

 

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 Duffy, seconded Cr Keast  and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee confirms the minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2018 as a true and correct record of that meeting.

 

Reports

 

 

7.1

Group Manager's Update Report

Record No: R/18/10/25082

 

Group Manager, Environmental Services – Bruce Halligan was in attendance for this item.

 

Mr Halligan advised the purpose of the report is to update the Committee on key matters within the Environmental Services Group and recent announcements of national and regional environmental significance.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Chairperson Macpherson, seconded Cr Dillon  and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee receives the report titled “Group Manager's Update Report” dated 7 November 2018.

 

 

7.2

Quality Assurance - Second Quarterly Update

Record No: R/18/11/25615

 

Quality Assurance Lead – Julie Conradi was in attendance for this item.

 

Ms Conradi advised the purpose of the report is to update Members of the Quality Assurance Lead’s progress within the Environmental Services Group.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Keast, seconded Cr Frazer  and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Quality Assurance - Second Quarterly Update” dated 8 November 2018.

 

 

 

The meeting concluded at 9.45am.                      CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Regulatory and Consents Committee HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2018.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 

Plan Change Dark Skies

Record No:             R/19/1/73

Author:                      Margaret Ferguson, Resource Management Planner

Approved by:         Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        To seek approval from the Regulatory and Consents Committee (the Committee) to proceed to preliminary public consultation with key stakeholders within the Stewart Island / Rakiura Community relating to the proposed new lighting provisions being initiated via a Plan Change to the Southland District Plan 2018.  

Executive Summary

2        A plan change is proposed by the Southland District Council (SDC) under section 73(1A) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) to introduce additional lighting provisions on Stewart Island / Rakiura.  

3        The purpose of the plan change is to protect the existing quality of the night sky currently experienced on the island; which is recognised internationally having recently achieved the Dark Sky Sanctuary accreditation by the International Dark Sky Association. 

4        As part of the plan change process outlined under the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 preliminary consultation with the key stakeholders is to be undertaken.  This consultation will go towards shaping and testing the proposed provisions prior to full public notification.

5        The proposed preliminary consultation dates are Monday 13th and Tuesday 14th May on Stewart Island / Rakiura.

 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Plan Change Dark Skies” dated 13 March 2019.

 

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)           Approves progressing the Draft plan change to preliminary public consultation with relevant stakeholders.

 

 


 

Background

6        The Plan Change process requires preliminary consultation with key stakeholders to be undertaken. 

7        The preliminary consultation will help to gain feedback from some community entities and other key stakeholders on the proposed changes. Preliminary consultation with key stakeholders and members of the community who will be affected by the proposed plan change is critical; to ensure that key issues and concerns are flagged and understood to give context for the formulation of the proposed additional District Plan provisions.

 

Issue

8        The issue is that consultation is part of the policy making process.  It provides the opportunity for key parties affected by potential new provisions to have input into the development of those provisions.  Effectively it is an opportunity for provisions to be tested with those members of the community most affected, prior to these having formal status through the public notification process. 

9        The consultation is to be in the format of a workshop.  A set of proposed lighting provisions (amendments to the District Plan) will be presented at the workshop and feedback will be sought. 

10      The feedback will be used to then further tailor the proposed provisions.  It is duly noted that the proposed provisions are proposed to be aligned with the requirements of the Dark Sky Sanctuary Accreditation requirements.   A summary of the proposed provisions (which are still very much in their infancy) is attached at Appendix 1 for your information.

11      On completion of the workshop and preliminary consultation, the proposed provisions will be re-drafted and a full report provided to the Committee at the June 6 meeting prior to seeking approval from full Council to proceed to public notification.

12      Key stakeholders to be invited:

·    Stewart Island Promotions Association

·    Department of Conservation

·    Venture Southland

·    Stewart Island / Rakiura Community Board

·    General Stewart Island community, including parties with fishing interests.

·    Southport

·    Owners and operators of Salmon farms

·    Te Ao Marama Incorporated

·    Environment Southland

·    Stewart Island Airport owner and operator

·    Rakiura MLI

·    Telecommunications providers

It is duly noted that whilst all of the above identified stakeholders will be invited to the preliminary consultation, if attendance is not possible, all information that is to be presented at the workshop will be emailed/mailed to the relevant stakeholder.  Additionally, feedback can be provided via the submission process following public notification should the stakeholder be unable to attend the workshop and / or cannot provide feedback on the preliminary documentation accordingly.

13      Planners from the Resource Management Department will be facilitating the workshop and will discuss the implications of the plan change for property owners (public and private) ie when a resource consent may be required and the likely costs of such processes.

14      It is intended that Mr Paul Wilson of Xyst Limited is to be contracted as Councils lighting expert for the purposes of this plan change.  Mr Wilson has undertaken the core work associated with the Dark Skies Sanctuary accreditation for Stewart Island / Rakiura and is therefore suitably qualified to provide the necessary technical lighting advice to Council as required.  It is anticipated that Mr Wilson will also be present at the workshop to provide advice in terms of what specific type of lighting can be installed.  In essence, explaining to workshop attendees how this plan change looks from a practical perspective.

15      The workshop is to be facilitated as follows:

a)   A one or two day ‘drop-in’ event to be held on Stewart Island at the ‘Pavilion’ venue, Ayr Street. The venue is tentatively booked for Monday 13th and Tuesday 14th May.

b)   Presentation of proposed provisions and then opportunity for feedback.

c)   The workshop was anticipated to have a formal one hour session with identified stakeholders to then be followed by a two hour ‘drop-in’ session (or longer if necessary) for the general Stewart Island community.  Given the general public are likely to be at work commitments during the day, the open ‘drop-in’ session is proposed for the evening and extended to 2 hours to accommodate community members’ work schedules.

d)   Atmosphere of the workshop is intended to be inviting and collaborative through the provision of a relaxed drop in atmosphere, light snacks and refreshments.

e)   The scope of what is to be discussed is outlined in more detail at Appendix 1 of this report, however in summary:

a.   Identification of what sections, zones, chapters of the District Plan are proposed to be amended.

b.   An outline of what the rules are proposed to be, as this is anticipated to be the most important and relevant information to provide to a property owner ie what does this mean for me?

Options Considered

16      In addressing the above issue, the following options have been considered:

a)   Do not undertake preliminary consultation.

b)   Undertake preliminary consultation.

Community Views

17      The views of the community will be considered as part of this consultation workshop.

Costs and Funding

18      The costs of the preliminary consultation will be borne by Council.  This project is entirely funded by the Council via the District Plan budget.

Policy Implications

19      This preliminary consultation work will contribute towards the proposed SDC - initiated Plan Change as it relates to lighting provisions on Stewart Island / Rakiura only.

Analysis

Options Considered

20      There are two options to be considered in this instance.  The first being to undertake preliminary consultation and the second being to not undertake preliminary consultation.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Undertake Consultation

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Stakeholder feedback will goes towards shaping and testing proposed provisions prior to public notification. 

·        More likely to streamline the notification process as any issues can be front footed and dealt with accordingly prior to public notification. 

·        Meet legal requirements of the RMA as they relate to the Plan Change process.

·        Promotes good RMA practice.

·        Mitigates potential for future appeal 

·        Cost to Council: hiring venue, staff hours to undertake the workshop and travel to the Island, catering, and general administration.

 

 

Option 2 – Do not undertake Consultation

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        No cost to the Council and ratepayer

·        If no consultation any issues that a stakeholder has with the proposed provisions will need to be dealt with through the public notification process.  Depending upon the stakeholder response, this could lengthen the processing time for the Plan Change eg if a submitter is against the provisions and submits in opposition or objects to a decision then there is the potential for several hearing dates with associated costs. 

·        Does not meet the requirements of the RMA as they relate to the Plan Change process.

·        Does not align with good RMA practice.

·        Could increase likelihood of costly and lengthy appeal process

 

Assessment of Significance

21      This report is not deemed to be significant in terms of the relevant Local Government Act criteria.

Recommended Option

22      Option 1 – to undertake preliminary consultation.

Next Steps

23      Proceed to invite the identified key stakeholders to the workshop.

24      Proceed to finalise the proposed provisions to be presented at the workshop, and associated arrangements.

 

Attachments

a             Appendix 1 - Preliminary Consultation    

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 

Preliminary Consultation - Proposed Provisions

1.0      Introduction

The proposed provisions will amend existing lighting controls that specifically relate to Stewart Island / Rakiura only. 

The relevant zones and chapters of the District Plan that are proposed to be amended as part of this Plan Change are:

·    Section 2.12 - Signage

·    Section 3.2 - Urban Zone

·    Section 3.4 - Industrial Zone

·    Section 3.5 - Fiordland / Rakiura Zone

·    Section 4 - Definitions

·    Section 5 - Schedules

·    Schedule 2.10 Guidelines for Buildings in the Stewart Island / Rakiura Urban Zone

·    Schedule 5.7 Stewart Island / Rakiura Industrial Development Concept Plan

·    Section 6.1 Information for Resource Consents

The above list is indicative only.  Following consultation and further assessment, additional District Plan Sections / Chapters may be identified.

2.0      Layout of the District Plan

The existing layout of the District Plan will fundamentally remain unchanged. It is proposed that each zone that is specific to Stewart Island will be amended to include a lighting related objective, policy and rule as follows (indicative only): 

 

2.1     Proposed Objectives

 

The night sky environment of Stewart Island / Rakiura is identified and protected from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development.

 

The Dark Sky Sanctuary Status accredited to Stewart Island / Rakiura is maintained.

 

2.2     Proposed Policy

 

Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of subdivision, land use and development on the night sky of Stewart Island / Rakiura through the implementation of lighting controls.

 

 

 

 

 

2.3     Proposed Rules

 

The existing lighting rules within each zone are to be amended to include controls specifically for Stewart Island / Rakiura only. Where no rule exists, a new rule is to be introduced within the zone.  The proposed rules are to be in line with the Dark Sky Sanctuary Status accreditation and shall include:

 

·      Lighting is to be fully shielded to reduce lightspill with the exception where fixtures containing lamps of less than and equal to 500 initial lumens in total.

·      Light is not permitted to be emitted above the horizontal plane.

·      Only lighting with equal to or less than 3000 correlated colour temperature (CCT) is to be used.

·      Time controlled / and or motion controlled lighting to avoid unnecessary lighting outside of business / operation hours.

2.4     Additional chapters

The non-zone chapters are proposed to be revised as follows (indicative only):

2.4.1         Definitions

A review of existing definitions and identification of any new definitions as a result of the proposed text changes to the District Plan will be undertaken.

2.4.2         Schedules

The identification of any new designations required as a result of the proposed text changes to the District Plan will be undertaken.

2.4.3         Schedule 5.7 Stewart Island / Rakiura Industrial Development Concept Plan

Ensuring that there are clear links made between the Concept Plan, the desired environmental outcome and Industrial Zone objectives, policies and rules.

2.4.4         Section 6.1 Information for Resource Consents

A review of any relevant technical information that may be required when submitting an application for a resource consent will be undertaken as it relates to the proposed text changes to the District Plan. 

2.4.5    Schedule 2.10 Guidelines for Buildings in the Stewart Island / Rakiura Urban Zone

The likely addition of a third ‘material’ being the detailing of the type of external lighting to be attached to buildings when building on Stewart Island / Rakiura. 

 

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 

Building Reaccreditation Audit February 2019 - Outcome

Record No:             R/19/2/3874

Author:                      Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to inform the committee of the outcome from the recent audit of Council’s building solutions team by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ).

Executive Summary

2        This report summarises the recent IANZ audit process, the outcome from this, and the additional post-audit work underway to address matters highlighted through the audit process. A similar report will also be included on the next Finance and Audit Committee agenda for that committee’s information.

 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Building Reaccreditation Audit February 2019 - Outcome” dated 13 March 2019.

 

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)           Notes the report and associated clearance action plan as information.

 

 


 

Background

3        Under the Building Act 2004 and the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006 (which were extensively amended in 2017), for councils to be legally able to continue to process and issue building consents as a Building Consent Authority ( BCA ) as defined in the act, they must have successfully completed a regular external audit process. This process is undertaken by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ).

4        Southland District Council has successfully completed this audit process at the required intervals since this process was established and was one of the first councils in the country to gain initial accreditation after the 2006 regulations were established. This is the Council’s sixth reaccreditation audit process.

5        In the most recent previous 2017 audit, one Corrective Action Required (CAR) was identified and a number of strong recommendations and recommendations, which were subsequently actioned within the required timeframe.

6        Since the 2017 SDC IANZ audit, the relevant regulations which govern the accreditation audit process have changed extensively. Staff were aware of these changes and had sought to modify relevant processes to reflect these in advance of the 2019 audit.

7        The new audit process under the amended regulations removes the previous “CAR/Strong Recommendation/Recommendation” approach and replaces it with “Serious Non-Compliance/General Non-Compliance/Recommendations”.

8        This is a very important change for the committee to note when considering the outcome of the audit and the content of this report.

9        To explain this, whereas previously an element of process which deviated from best practice, but which may not have been considered serious, may have resulted in a Strong Recommendation, now it becomes a General Non-Compliance (GNC).

10      The IANZ auditors Adrienne Woollard and Phil Judge were on site from 19-22 February inclusive. Mr Judge also attended on- site inspections with two of the building solutions team.

11      At the “entry meeting” at the start of the audit Ms Woollard indicated that recent audits of other councils around New Zealand, there have been generally in the order of 10 -30 Non-Compliances identified, on average.

12      In advance of the audit, the following steps were established to seek to achieve a positive outcome:

-     an internal IANZ project team, led by Jenny Green, was established in January 2018 with cross-organisation representation to aid preparation and spread workload. Another key driver for establishing this team was to spread knowledge of the IANZ processes across a broader range of staff than had previously occurred in the past, to assist with future business continuity around this audit process

-     previous recent audits of other councils were closely scrutinised to seek to highlight any deficiencies and improvement opportunities in our Council’s practices, and to undertake remedial action to address these in advance of the audit

-     Council’s Quality Assurance Manual and systems were scrutinised for compliance with the regulations and to seek to ensure robustness, and amended where necessary. The Council’s quality assurance lead Julie Conradi did an excellent job of this work, making a number of pertinent amendments in advance of the audit, which stood up well in the audit process itself.

-    a senior quality assurance staff member from the Dunedin City Council, Gillian Budd, was engaged to review Council’s systems. This was very valuable, and Gillian highlighted a number of improvement opportunities which were implemented in advance of the audit itself.

The Audit Report

13      The assessment report of IANZ lead auditor Adrienne Woollard is attached as Appendix 1.

14      As can be seen, no Serious Non-Compliances were identified. 20 General Non-Compliances were identified, and four Recommendations. 11 of the GNCs were resolved while IANZ was on-site, leaving nine GNCs remaining to be rectified. As referred to above, this is at the lower end of non-compliance numbers nationally.

15      Ms Woollard has advised that if these are addressed within the required three month timeframe, then Council will be assessed as Low Risk and reaccredited for the maximum two year period. Council has until 29 March 2019 to furnish a clearance plan to IANZ and until 31 May 2019 to undertake the actions specified in the clearance plan.

16      This is considered to be a very positive outcome, particularly having regard to the significant staff changes which have occurred in the building solutions team over the two years since the last audit, with a number of very long serving and experienced staff having moved on. It was also very pleasing to see the following comment included in the IANZ report regarding good practice (Page 3):

Staff were well managed, and passionate about their work. The BCA was well prepared for this IANZ assessment”

17      As group manager responsible for this important statutory function, I have been really pleased by the degree of pride and effort put in by the project team, building solutions team and others to this audit process. 

18      Having been group manager through several previous audits, it is noted that this most recent audit was probably the most intensive and extensive to date. Likewise, the preparation time involved for staff in advance of the audit was also probably greater than for any previous audit, particularly having regard to ensuring that changes in the regulations were appropriately reflected in Council’s current practice.

19      Key issues raised in the audit report can be summarised as follows:

-     some concerns regarding processing times, and the processes being used to “stop the processing clock” for resource management issues

-     some changes to forms and documentation to better reflect the requirements of the act, code and regulations

-     a concern regarding issuing Code Compliance Certificates for both original consents and amendments

-     some concerns regarding the specificity of systems in Compliance Schedules

-     some issues with regard to the recording of staff training

-     a concern regarding the timeliness of issuing Code Compliance Certificates. This is valid and has probably reflected a focus on inspecting new, rather than historic, work during pressure periods.

20      Staff have developed a Clearance Action Plan to address the General Non-Compliances in the required timeframe and this is attached as Appendix 2. 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

21      As referred to above, the IANZ audit process is very important to enable Council to continue to issue building consents under the Building Act 2004.

22      At a broader level it is also an important part of seeking to ensure that buildings constructed in the Southland District are robust for current and future owners, and liability for Council’s ratepayers is mitigated.

23      Southland District Council issues in the order of $100 million worth of building consents per year on average over the last 10 years, so this is one of Council’s key potential statutory processes and potential exposure areas. Some highly publicised recent building failings around New Zealand, and the implications of those for councils involved in terms of financial liability and stress for their residents, have certainly highlighted that graphically.

Community Views

24      While community views are not part of the IANZ audit process, reaccreditation is an important part of the community having confidence that Council’s building consent processes are robust and thorough and meet legislative requirements.

Costs and Funding

25      The costs of the audit process and internal resources involved have been budgeted for and managed within existing budgets.

Policy Implications

26      There are no specific policy implications in relation to this audit, although IANZ reaccreditation is an important part of Council’s broader risk management framework.

 

 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Reaccreditation

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        allows Council to legally process and issue consents as a building consent authority

·        gives customers confidence that Council’s processes are robust

·        mitigates potential future liability

·        ensures that processes continue to reflect best practice.

·        none (albeit that the reaccreditation process is resource-hungry).

 

Option 2 – Failure to be reaccredited

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        none seen

·        cannot legally process and issue building consents

·        decline in confidence in Council

·        need to make an alternative arrangement for processing and issue of building consents, with likely associated significant costs and possible delays

·        difficulties in attracting and retaining staff.

 

Assessment of Significance

27      The IANZ reaccreditation process is not considered significant in terms of the relevant criteria of the Local Government Act 2002, hence recommendation (b) above.

Recommended Option

28      Option 1- Reaccreditation following the appropriate addressing of the nine General Non-Compliance items remaining to be cleared, to IANZ satisfaction.

Next Steps

29      The next steps in the process are for the Clearance Action Plan to be implemented to address the General Non-Compliances identified within the required timeframe, and for this information to be conveyed to IANZ.

 

Attachments

a             Assessment Report

b             IANZ Audit 2019 - Clearance Action Plan    

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 



Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 

Freedom Camping Update

Record No:             R/19/2/3863

Author:                      Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by:         Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Hotspots

1        Council has starting receiving monthly reports from CamperMate, an example is in Attachment A.  Note this data includes users of the app that stayed in camping grounds, that explains to an extent the large number around Te Anau.  A snapshot from that report is included below, that illustrates very well where the hot spots are in the District:

Te Anau 

2        Council is a managing the freedom camping shared service this season. DOC pays 50% of the service.

3        This year is the second year in a two year agreement.  Staff have no intentions of discontinuing the model, and propose to enter into another 2 or 3 year agreement with DOC.

4        The service involves an evening educational patrol, followed by an infringement patrol, where campers are fined if they are camping in a prohibited area. This season, about $3,000 has been received from infringement fees, each fine having a fee of $200. The recovery rate is about 50% of fines issued.

 

Lumsden

5        Council resolved on 23 November 2017 to not proceed with amending the local rules for Lumsden, and to continue with the current Freedom Camping Bylaw, and review the Bylaw for Lumsden at a later date individually or as part of a larger overall review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015.

6        A new toilet block has been completed, and the car park sealed and marked. The layout is illustrated in Attachment B.

7        The green strip of parks beside the train, by the grass, continues as a trial area.  The Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 does not permit non-self-contained camping in those parks, however with agreement from the three Ward Councillors this trial has been authorised. Staff do not propose to change this arrangement until the next review of the bylaw.

8        A local volunteer warden continues to educate campers at this location. Feedback from the CDA is that campers are not causing problems generally.

9        Staff investigated introducing a compliance service similar to that in Te Anau, however this did not proceed as there was not sufficient need for the service.

 

Riverton and surrounds

10      The Riverton/Aparima Community Board had considered (in 2016) whether to ask Council to provide a compliance service in the Riverton area, but decided not to, and to continue its own monitoring. There are two popular freedom camping sites in Thornbury and Monkey Island that permit non-self-contained camping, along with a number of other sites that permit self-contained camping.

11      The author believes that this area is similar to the Catlins area, in that camping in prohibited areas is not expected to be a significant problem due to the two nearby non-self-contained sites being available.

 

Catlins

12      A shared service is operating in the Catlins, between DOC, Clutha District Council, and SDC. This season the service is being managed by DOC, next season by SDC.

13      The service involves three daytime patrols each week in the District, and no infringement fines are issued – any insistence on the issuing of fines by SDC would have derailed the service.

14      The author completed several late night/early morning patrols last year, and these suggest that freedom camping non-compliance is not a serious problem in this area.

15      The operator of the Curio Bay Camping Ground advises that he has serious problems with freedom campers using the camping ground covertly.

 

Tourism Holdings (THL)

16      THL is New Zealand's largest campervan hire company, and has about 1800 vehicles operating under the Maui, Britz and Mighty campervan brands.  THL has been running a pilot with QLDC and TCDC has invited other Councils to participate. The pilot involves requiring their customers who receive infringement fines to pay upon return of the vehicles.

17      The author has advised THL of Council’s interest in participating.

 

Government

18      The Responsible Camping Working Group was set up in April 2018 to provide the Minister of Tourism with:

·    an evaluation of the role of responsible camping in New Zealand's tourism and recreation offering

·    recommendations for better management of the camping system

·    practical actions to support councils to manage freedom camping in their regions during the 2018/2019 peak summer season.

19      The Responsible Camping Working Group is driven by the MBIE, and its members are:

·    Mayor Hon Steve Chadwick, Rotorua District

·    Mayor Jim Boult, Queenstown Lakes District

·    Mayor Tim Cadogan, Central Otago District

·    Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner, Christchurch City

·    Chris Roberts, Tourism Industry Aotearoa

·    Grant Webster, Tourism Holdings Limited

·    Bruce Lochore, New Zealand Motor Caravan Association

·    a senior official from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)

·    a senior official from the Department of Internal Affairs

·    a senior official from the Department of Conservation.

20      The responsible camping working group is meeting again on 13 March 2019, and MBIE will update the group with their recommendations.  Following that meeting MBIE staff will coordinate the seeking of approval from ministers on a number of next steps.

The “Report of the Responsible Camping Working Group” dated 31 July 2018 gives an indication of what some of these steps may be, including:
national consistency

·    review of the compliance regime

·    review of the camping ground regulations

·    review the administration system concerning the standard for self-containment

·    use of technology

·    use of data

21      A possible outcome is to focus more on the implementation of the Freedom Camping Act, rather than reviewing the act itself.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Freedom Camping Update” dated 13 March 2019.

 

 

Attachments

a             Attachment A - CamperMate report for January 2019

b             Attachment B - Lumsden Information Board    

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 

 

 


  

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

27 March 2019

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

Recommendation

 

That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

C9.1   Greenbriar Limited - Resource Consent - Land use consent to undertake an extension to the Ohai Coal Mine, Gorge Road, Ohai

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

Greenbriar Limited - Resource Consent - Land use consent to undertake an extension to the Ohai Coal Mine, Gorge Road, Ohai

s48(1)(b) - Check to make report confidential.

This is deliberations for a resource consent decision..

That the public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information which would be contrary to a specified enactment or constitute contempt of court or contempt of the House of Representatives.