Agenda of Regulatory Committee

Regulatory Committee – 08 March 2017 – Open Agenda

Agenda Items

1. Gambling Venues Policy Review

*Type of Report:*	Legal
*Legal Reference:*	Gambling Act 2003
*Document ID:*	338322
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst

1.1 Purpose of Report

For Council to adopt the Statement of Proposal for the draft Gambling Venues Policy to enable public consultation to commence.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council approve the draft Gambling Venues Policy and Statement of Proposal and authorise officers to proceed with public notification through the special consultative procedure as prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

1.2 Background Summary

The Gambling Act 2003 requires each territorial authority to review their policy on Class 4 Gambling (pokie machines) and TAB venues every three years. The policy determines whether Class 4 and standalone TAB venues can be established in the district and, if so, where they can be located. Through these controls, the policy aims to minimise harm to the community caused by this type of gambling.

Currently the Napier District has consent for 19 venues, 304 machines and 2 TAB venues. After careful consideration, Council considers that its existing policy that caps the number of pokie machine venues at 19, machines at 320 and TAB venues at 2, strikes an appropriate balance between permitting responsible gambling and minimising harm to the community. As a result, the proposed policy provides for a continuation of the status quo in regards to the number of machines and venues allowed in the Napier District.

However, Council are proposing amendments to the policy as follows:

1. The clause relating to the location of venues has been strengthened to ensure no new venues can locate in suburban commercial zones.

2. A proposed new cap of three Class 4 venues in the Taradale Suburban Zone (the current number of venues in this zone)

3. There are minor amendments to the wording and layout of the policy to improve its readability.

1.3 Issues

During the policy review, it became apparent that the wording of the current policy needed strengthening. The current policy provides a cap on the number of venues. However, it is not clear on where new venues could be located, should numbers fall below the cap.

Council were presented with statistics that show the detrimental effect of locating Class 4 gambling venues in suburban commercial areas. As a result, Council decided to limit the location of new venues to the CBD, Fringe Commercial, Ahuriri Mixed Use, Main Industrial and West Quay waterfront zones in the District Plan. It was also proposed to cap the number of venues in Taradale to three (the number currently in operation in Taradale).

1.3 Significance and Consultation

The policy drafted for public consultation (shown at Attachment A) is a proposed policy and Council are required to consider all the submissions before making a final decision.

The legislative process for reviewing this policy is the special consultative procedure, as prescribed in the Local Government Act 2002. This process involves preparing a Statement of Proposal (see also Attachment A) that is made available to the public for at least one month.

The Statement of Proposal is required to contain reasons for the proposal, and an analysis of options that Council considered before coming up with the proposal. Council follows a clear process for special consultative procedures: the public will be invited to comment on the proposal through a public notice in the Napier Mail, a news item on our website, and through social media.

The public consultation period will run from April 8^th to May 19^th 2017.

The following organisations have expressed an interest in this particular policy review and so will be directly contacted to advise that the public consultation phase is underway:

· Problem Gambling Foundation of NZ

· Te Rangihaeata Oranga Trust (HB Gambling Harm)

· New Zealand Racing Board

The following organisations will also be direcrtly notified as affected/interested parties:

· Iwi/hapu

· Trusts who operate gaming machines in Napier

· Venues who host gaming machines

· Napier Community Network email group

Notification will also be sent to all those who submitted on the last policy review.

1.4 Implications

Financial

The cost of the policy review can be met within existing operational budgets.

Social & Policy

The social impact of gambling must be considered at each review. In order to make an informed decision on a proposed policy for public consultation, Council were presented with the current gambling statistics for the Napier District. The proposal to continue with the status quo for machine and venue numbers while placing further restrictions on their location, reflects a desire to minimise harm from gambling while also ensuring that Napier’s community groups continue to benefit from any gambling proceeds.

Previous reviews of this policy have demonstrated the contentious nature of gambling and the Class 4 community funding model. Past submissions reflect the divergent views of interested parties with submissions usually received from gambling harm services, the societies (or trusts) that operate the machines, and community organisations who benefit from the funding.

Risk

Council is obliged to review its Gambling Policy every three years and needs to consider submissions on their merits. The primary risks centre around not reviewing the policy as prescribed in the Gambling Act 2003.

1.5 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1. To confirm the statement of proposal and draft policy as suitable for public consultation under the special consultative procedure.

2. To amend the draft policy before approving it for public consultation.

1.6 Development of Preferred Option

In order to fully consider the impact of gambling on our communities, including factors such as machine numbers, the location of venues and the benefits of community funding, it is necessary to seek community input via public consultation.

Therefore, Officers recommend option 1 as this will allow the public and organisations to present their views to Council.

1.7 Attachments

a Statement of Proposal and Draft Policy ⇩

Regulatory Committee – 08 March 2017 – Open Agenda

2. Establishment of a Freedom Camping Working Group and Draft Terms of Reference

*Type of Report:*	Operational
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	339045
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Paulina Wilhelm, Manager City Development Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst

2.1 Purpose of Report

To provide Council with a draft Project Plan and Terms of Reference for a Freedom Camping Working Group, in order that Council may agree on the composition of the Working Group, including the appointment of a Chair, Council and community representatives.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council establish a Freedom Camping Working Group composed of key stakeholders, Councillors and Council officers to consider freedom camping issues and to report back to Council with recommendations on potential solutions.

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

a. That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted; and

b. That Council invites and appoints the following community representatives to the Working Group:

· Chairperson of the Taradale Development Association to represent general residents; and

· Chairperson of the Westshore Resident and Development Association to represent coastal residents; and

c. That Council appoint Councillor Hague (as Chair) and Councillor Tapine to the Working Group.

2.2 Background Summary

Napier City Council introduced a Freedom Camping Bylaw in 2014. Due to ongoing and evolving issues, the Bylaw was reviewed in 2015 and again in 2016. At the last review, Council identified that the issues surrounding the provision of freedom camping are complex, and directed Officers to form a working party to look at the Freedom Camping Bylaw for the long term, along the lines of the Taupo model. It was agreed that an integrated, collaborative approach would be the best way to ensure provision of freedom camping opportunities meets the needs of the community and all interested parties.

2.3 Issues

Freedom camping has become a popular option for both international and domestic travellers in New Zealand, with numbers steadily increasing since the Freedom Camping Act was introduced in 2011. As a result, impacts associated with freedom camping are being experienced throughout the country, including Napier. A recent government-led working party identified that information gaps exist relating to freedom camping, limiting the opportunities and approaches available to manage the activity effectively.

Council have identified that a long-term view is required to adequately address the growing number of freedom campers in Napier; accordingly a draft Project Plan and Terms of Reference for a Freedom Camping Working Group has been drafted as directed by Council (shown at Attachment A).

The purpose of the proposed Working Group is to discuss and consider the benefits, issues and potential solutions for freedom camping in Napier. Some of the issues associated with freedom camping were highlighted during the Bylaw review in 2016, including:

· That the number of freedom campers is increasing, and attracting and embracing this market needs to be balanced with the wishes of local ratepayers and our obligations under freedom camping legislation;

· That the increasing amount of non-self-contained freedom campers at the Foreshore Reserve Carpark (and elsewhere in Napier) has resulted in negative impacts, including potential health and safety risks;

· That tensions exist between freedom campers and other users of the high profile sites currently available for camping at Perfume Point and Westshore;

· That there is resident opposition to freedom camping in or adjacent to some residential areas; and

· There is a current lack of information available with which to make informed decisions on the provision of freedom camping in Napier.

Current Actions

Increasing Council’s monitoring and enforcement presence has addressed some of the issues listed above. Council Officers monitor sites between 7am and 10am in the morning, and Armourguard is contracted to monitor from 8pm to midnight and to respond to callouts.

The last Bylaw review reduced the provision of freedom camping sites at Perfume Point and Westshore Beach Reserve where freedom campers were negatively affecting public access to carparks at these popular sites.

Council staff have begun work to gather information from other accommodation providers as well as collate Council statistics on the numbers of freedom campers using our sites, as some of the issues around the supply and demand of both free and paid camping accommodation options in Napier are not well understood. This will provide an overall snapshot of Napier’s camping options and capacity.

2.4 Significance and Consultation

Working Group Membership

A number of key stakeholders may be able to make significant contributions to understanding the issues the Freedom Camping Working Group is intended to address. While the proposed Working Group is based on the Taupo model, it needs to be recognised that freedom camping issues are regionally specific.

The composition of the Taupo Working Group included the following external agencies, some of which had approached the Council with their concerns:

· Taupo District Council staff

· Elected Members (x3)

· Department of Conservation (DOC)

· Police

· Destination Great Lake Taupo

· Lake Taupo Harbourmaster

· New Zealand Motor Caravan Association

· Holiday Parks Association Rep

· Iwi/Hapu

· New Zealand Transport Association

· Tourism Lake Taupo

Based on the level of interest during the last Bylaw review, Officers recommend that the core group of members for the Napier Freedom Camping Working Group include:

· Appointed Councillors (2)

· Council Staff (3)

- Paulina Wilhelm (Manager City Development)

- Kim Anstey (Policy Planner)

- Hayleigh Brereton (Regulatory Solutions Manager)

· Napier i-SITE representative (1)

External stakeholders identified as potential Working Group members to be invited are:

· Resident Association Representatives (2)

· NZMCA

· Holiday Parks Association of New Zealand local representative

· Backpacker Accommodation provider representative

· Hawke’s Bay Tourism

· Iwi/Hapu

· NZTA

· Police

· DOC

· Hastings District Council

Opportunity for Regional Approach

A region-wide approach to freedom camping could provide freedom campers with a clearer and more consistent message across the region and therefore improve visitor experiences. Hastings District Council do not currently have a Bylaw, and may find that a Bylaw is not necessary for managing freedom camping in the Hastings District. However, it would be beneficial to discuss how Hawke’s Bay markets itself to freedom campers, and whether there could be some improvements made in this area. The Department of Conservation could also be included in these discussions as they also provide camping options in the region.

The issue of an increasing amount of non-self-contained freedom campers in the region is one that may best be addressed with a regional approach. Converted people movers and vans have become a popular accommodation option for young overseas travelers on working holiday visas. Discussions and options on if, where, and how, Hawke’s Bay as a region provides for these tourists would be best addressed by both Councils at a suitable time during the Working Group process.

2.5 Implications

Financial

Project management for the Working Group would be undertaken by Council officers and can therefore be met through existing operational budgets.

Social & Policy

The establishment of a Working Group should have a positive social impact. Previous bylaw reviews have been undertaken with limited public input at the formulation stage. It is well documented that complex and controversial issues where divergent opinions exist are best dealt with through collaborative processes. Appropriate representation of key stakeholders on a Working Group should ensure positive, long-lasting outcomes.

In addition, should the findings of the Working Group result in a Bylaw review, further public participation would then be required.

Risk

The following table outlines the risks in the working group proposal:

Risk	Action to address the risk
Including residents in the working group could result in instances of real or perceived bias.	Additional consultation will also occur with all residents via a survey to seek their views, which is then fed into to the Working Group.
Composition of the Working Group not being an equitable representation of community views.	Additional consultation will also occur with all residents via a survey to seek their views, which is then fed into to the Working Group.
Project timeframes are required to be extended in response to emerging issues or significant public involvement.	Both elected members and the community will be regularly updated on progress via a webpage, and on any emerging issues via a webpage in order to manage community expectations.
Council reputation – another review of the Bylaw could be perceived as Council having poor decision making powers.	A comprehensive engagement and consultation process will ensure community views are fully considered and the Working Group is working in the best interests of the wider community.

2.6 Options

Council have already directed officers to establish a Freedom Camping Working Group to consider freedom camping issues comprehensively and strategically. Unless this direction is withdrawn, there are no alternative options. It rests with Council to approve the proposed structure of the Working Group and agree on the Working Group members.

2.7 Attachments

a Freedom Camping Working Group Draft Terms of Reference ⇩

Regulatory Committee – 08 March 2017 – Open Agenda

3. Annual Dog Control Report 2015/16

*Type of Report:*	Legal
*Legal Reference:*	Dog Control Act 1996
*Document ID:*	334560
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Hayleigh Brereton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

3.1 Purpose of Report

To present the territorial authority report on dog control policies and practices for the dog control registration year 1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016, for adoption by Council as required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996, prior to being submitted to the Secretary for Local Government and being made publically available.

Officer’s Recommendation

a. That the Napier City Council Annual Dog Control Report 2015/16 be adopted by Council, submitted to the Secretary for Local Government, and published in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996.

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.

3.2 Background Summary

Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires territorial authorities to report on their dog control policy and activities annually.

The law requires that:

· the report be adopted by Council and made publically available each year (subsection 1);

· notice of adoption of the report be published in a daily paper or other newspaper that has an equivalent circulation within the district, or by any other means the territorial authority thinks is desirable (subsection 3); and

· within one month of adoption, a copy of the report must also be submitted to the Secretary for Local Government (subsection 4).

3.3 Issues

The Napier City Council Annual Dog Control report 2015/16 is shown at Attachment A. In summary:

· Napier City Council has 7,905 dogs registered.

· 2,718 complaints relating to dog control were received over the year.

· A total of 9 dogs were assessed as dangerous and 198 as menacing.

· 23 infringements were issued. There were no prosecutions.

3.4 Significance and Consultation

Council officers have prepared the attached report in accordance with the Section 10A reporting requirements provided by the Department of Internal Affairs. No consultation is required for this report as it is a legislative requirement.

3.5 Implications

Financial

None

Social & Policy

None

Risk

Failure to adopt the report and make it available to the public would put Napier City Council in breach of the Dog Control Act 1996.

3.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

To meet it legislative requirements under the Dog Control Act 1996 and adopt the report, submit it to the Secretary for Local Government, and publish it so that the information is publicly available.

3.7 Development of Preferred Option

N/A

3.8 Attachments

a Annual Dog Control Report 2015/2016 ⇩

Regulatory Committee – 08 March 2017 – Open Agenda

Apologies

NIL

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

NIL

Public forum

nil

Announcements by the Mayor

nIL

Announcements by the Chairperson

NIL

Announcements by the Management

NIL

Confirmation of Minutes

NIL

Agenda Items

1. Application for Temporary Liquor Ban - Mission Concert 2017

*Type of Report:*	Legal and Operational
*Legal Reference:*	Local Government Act 2002
*Document ID:*	334452
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Hayleigh Brereton, Business Support Manager

1.1 Purpose of Report

To consider the request from Napier Police for a temporary liquor ban on the roads adjacent to the Mission Estate Winery during the 2017 Mission Concert.

At the Meeting

Following feedback from Council on the initial application by Police, the area to be included in a temporary liquor ban was expanded by two streets.

It was also clarified that similar applications are processed for other events at the request of the Police as they are the enforcement agent.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors White / Dallimore

a.   That pursuant to section 147 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Napier City Council Public Places Liquor Control Bylaw 2014, Council approve the following areas as a “Specified Public Place” where the consumption, possession and bringing of liquor into is prohibited from 11.00 am to 12.00 midnight on Saturday 8 April 2017 and from 11.00 am to 12.00 midnight on Sunday 9 April 2017.

The area to be designated as a “Specified Public Place” are all those public places, reserves, roads and footpaths on both sides of the road within the area described as:

Church Road              from Wharerangi Road to Kent Terrace
Avenue Road             from Church Road to Avondale Road
Mission Road             from Church Road to Auckland Road
Montpelier Drive        full length
Tironui Drive               full length
Irene Moody Place     full length
Bishops Close            full length
Pukekura Place           full length
Ennor Place               full length.

CARRIED

The meeting was closed at 3.18pm.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED AS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE MEETING

CHAIRPERSON:________________________DATE OF APPROVAL:____________________

Meeting Date:	Wednesday 8 March 2017
Time:	Following the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee meeting
Venue:	Main Committee Room 3rd floor Civic Building 231 Hastings Street Napier

Council Members	Councillor Jeffery (In the Chair), the Mayor, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, McGrath, Price, Tapine, Taylor, White, Wise and Wright
Officer Responsible	Director City Strategy, Richard Munneke
Administrator	Governance Team

Meeting Date:	Friday 27 January 2017
Time:	3:16pm – 3.18pm
Venue:	Main Committee Room 3rd floor Civic Building 231 Hastings Street Napier

Present:	The Mayor, Councillors Jeffery (In the Chair), Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, McGrath, Price, Tapine, Taylor, White and Wise
In Attendance:	Chief Executive, Director Infrastructure Services, Director City Strategy, Director Community Services, Corporate Management Team, Team Leader Governance, Governance Advisor, Chief Financial Officer, Communication Specialist, Manager Regulatory Solutions, Strategic Planning Lead, Urban Design Lead