Agenda of Regulatory Committee - Thursday, 16 June 2022

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 16 June 2022

8.2 Environmental Assurance Group Manager's Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	16 June 2022
Report Author:	Kim Drummond, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Number:	RRC22-06-2

1 Summary

1.1 This report serves as an update on activities since the previous Manager’s report on 5 May 2022.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Environmental Assurance Group Manager's Report RC2022-06-02

3 Introduction

3.1 As noted in the Chair’s report, I have worked across Central and Regional Government and most recently worked for Te Ohu Kaimoana, the Māori Fisheries Trust, established under the Maori Fisheries Act and both accountable to, and funded by, 58 mandated iwi organisations throughout New Zealand. I have a background in natural resource management and am a graduate of the Executive Masters of Public Administration programme operated by the Australian and New Zealand School of Government. A key focus of that programme was improving the quality of regulation across both Central and Local Government.

4 Essential Freshwater Package

4.1 The Essential Freshwater Package was announced in 2020 and is made up of several policy documents and regulations that ultimately requires landowners, farmers and communities to put the health of our waterways first. At the heart of this package is the concept and framework of Te Mana o te Wai. Te Mana o te Wai recognises the vital importance of New Zealand’s freshwater, whose health is integral to the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of communities.

4.2 The Resource Management Act provides for National Policy Statements (NPSs) and National Environment Standards (NESs). The NPSs enable central government to prescribe objectives and policies for matters of national significance deemed relevent to achieving the sustainable management purpose of the Act. The NESs are essentially national regulations that set out planning requirements and technical standards on a variety of specified activities that affect the environment.

4.3 Most recently, the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) has released its exposure drafts of proposed changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM) and the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020 (NES-F).

4.4 The NPS-FM and NES-F came into force on 3 September 2020, and these exposure drafts follow on from MfE's consultation on proposed amendments to the wetland provisions in late 2021 and hopefully a few recent Court cases which are causing issues.

4.5 MfE states that the proposed amendments aim to provide clarity, reduce complexity, and correct some errors, without changing the underlying policy. The proposed changes include:

· Clarifying the definition of 'natural wetland'

· Providing further direction on using 'best information' and 'transparent decision-making'

· Simplifying direction on 'special provisions for attributes affected by nutrients'

· Introducing new consent pathways for certain activities.

4.4 The proposed changes are open for submission until 10 July 2022 and staff will assess whether or not to make a response, and if so circulate a draft to Councillors if requested.

5 Update on Earthquake Prone Buildings

5.1 The national earthquake-prone building system came took effect under the Building Act 2004 on 1 July 2017. This system required all councils to identify potentially earthquake-prone buildings within their respective districts relevant to the seismicity area and building category.

5.2 It is not the intention of the legislation to make buildings earthquake-proof, but to help ensure the building will perform in a moderate earthquake. Earthquake intensity is represented on a scale of 1 (unnoticeable) to 12 (extreme), with moderate being a 5.

5.3 The effect of an earthquake with an intensity of five is described by GEONET a can be described as generally felt outside and by almost everyone indoors. Most sleepers are awakened, and a few people are alarmed. Small objects are shifted or overturned, and pictures knock against the wall. Some glassware and crockery may break, and loosely secured doors may swing open and shut.

5.4 The earthquake-prone building provisions apply to non-residential buildings and some larger residential buildings – those that are at least two storeys and either contain three or more household units, or are used as a hostel, boarding house, or other specialised accommodation.

5.5 Some buildings are specifically excluded, including farm buildings, retaining walls, fences, certain monuments, wharves, bridges, tunnels and storage tanks.

5.6 Significant economies have been gained with the implementation of processes and systems which allow for the recording of information, and template generation.

5.7 Currently, the Motueka assessments have been carried out. Property file entries are being made accordingly, with letters to be generated and sent. The Motueka assessment was inclusive of all buildings, not only priority buildings on essential transport and pedestrian routes. Murchison is complete as are Brightwater priority buildings, Wakefield, and Tapawera also.

5.8 The focus now is to complete an assessment of the remaining priority buildings in the district.

5.9 We have another five years to assess non-priority buildings.

5.10 Single residential dwellings are outside the scope of our EPB assessment obligations.

6 Subject Harbour Master’s update

6.1 A 180-metre bulk carrier “La Richardais” cannot self-propel as a seal has broken on its propellor driveshaft. This can only be repaired in dry dock and the ship is awaiting an ocean-going tug from Singapore to facilitate this.

6.2 The master asked for permission to anchor in Tasman Bay until able to move to Wellington where it can go alongside. It anchored in Tasman Bay for one day and is now 13Nm off Farewell Spit (Friday) with tug attached and en route to Wellington.

7 Compliance Update

Outcome of prosecution: Tasman District Council versus Aaron J Dunlop & Bruiser Inc Partnership Limited

7.1 The defendant’s property in Lower Moutere is approximately 1.47 hectares in area and is used as a home and business place. On 17 July 2020 the Council served Mr Dunlop and Bruiser Inc with an Abatement Notice, which directed them to cease burning any plastic or plastic products, rubber products including tyres, bitumen containing materials, batteries, waste oils, asbestos products, treated timber or any particle or fibre board. This came about as a result of previous complaints and site investigations.

7.2 On the 18 and 20 January 2021 the Council received further complaints from residents near the Property regarding a fire on the defendant’s property. A Compliance officer visited the site and found a burn pile located in the middle of the Property which was at least 1.8m high and 40m across. It predominantly contained soil and vegetation and was discharging a plume of grey blue smoke across the boundary. Upon further inspection it was found that the burn pile also had various items and materials prohibited by the abatement notice and breaching rules 36.3.2.3 and 36.3.7.1 of the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) which prohibits the burning of those materials.

7.3 A prosecution case was then commenced which resulted in charges being filed in the Nelson District Court.

7.4 The defendants, Aaron J Dunlop and Bruiser Inc Partnership Limited (Bruiser Inc), having pleaded guilty in December 2021, appeared for sentencing on the 5 May 2022 on four charges laid under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The charges related to the burning of contaminated material in breach of the TRMP rules and the contravention of an abatement notice that forbid the burning of contaminated material.

7.5 The discharge occurred in the context of a burn pile at the defendant’s property of 374 Main Road Lower Moutere where household waste and other prohibited materials such as treated timber, tyres and plastics were found alight and causing noxious smoke effects in the local area.

7.6 The defendant was subsequently sentenced to 150 hours community service. The company having no value and been delisted was not sentenced as a result.

7.7 The Council is now to follow up with the outstanding land use breaches that have been occurring on this property in recent months.

Charges laid against two companies and an individual as director for offences associated with outdoor burning

7.8 Charges now before the court relate to activities on a 6.1 hectare bare block of land in Motueka. This land is registered to a company who is one of the defendants as is its sole director. This director also has responsibility for another company active on this site and is also facing these charges as a result of its role in this offending. On 13 October 2020, compliance staff attended an outdoor burn at the site where prohibited items were found being burnt and excessive smoke discharged over the property boundary in breach of TRMP rules. An abatement notice was subsequently served directing the company and its director to cease all further discharge of contaminants to air in contravention of TRMP rules 36.3.2.3 (outdoor burning) and 36.3.7.1 (prohibited items). They were also issued with an infringement for the breach of TRMP rules.

7.9 On 14 May 2021 additional house demolition waste was found stockpiled on the site and Council staff reminded the director of his obligations under the abatement notice and the rules of the TRMP. On the 2 June 2021 a large fire was reported on the property and a site visit the following morning found a large fire going consisting of mixed demolition material and green waste. Excessive smoke was discharging over the property boundary and this smoke was evident throughout Riwaka Township. South facing camera imagery from the Kaiteriteri hill captured the effects of this smoke plume on the local area and the Motueka air quality monitoring site at Riwaka School recorded a spike in PM10 levels over the period.

7.10 On the 25 May 2022 Tasman District Council laid five charges against two companies and an individual as the director of both companies in the Nelson District Court. These charges relate to a large outdoor fire in the Motueka area in June 2021 where the subsequent smoke effects breached Section 15 of the Resource Management Act. At the time of the offence, the director and one of the companies were already under abatement notice due to previous poor burning practices.

7.11 The director and one company as landowner now face two charges each. The first is committing an offence by contravening or permitting the contravention of, section 15(2A) of the Resource Management Act by discharging a contaminant into the air by outdoor burning in a manner that contravened Rule 36.3.2.3 of the Tasman Resource Management Plan when the discharge was not expressly allowed by a National Environment Standard or other regulations, a resource consent, or by section 20A of the Act. The second is committing an offence against section 338(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 by contravening or permitting the contravention of an abatement notice by discharging contaminants into air by outdoor burning in a manner that contravened an Abatement Notice.

7.12 The other company as a contractor on site is facing a sole charge of discharging a contaminant into air by outdoor burning.

7.13 The defendants are now scheduled to appear in the Nelson District Court on 6 July to have charges read.

8 Attachments

Nil

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 16 June 2022

8.3 Proposed Temporary Road Closure - Matariki on Queen Street

Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	16 June 2022
Report Author:	Megan Bell, Road Safety Co-ordinator
Report Number:	RRC22-06-3

1 Summary

1.1 This report seeks the Council’s approval for the temporary road closure of Sundial Square for the upcoming ‘Matariki on Queen Street’ event in Richmond.

1.2 It is proposed that Sundial Square will be closed to vehicular traffic from the Queen Street entrance to the Richmond Mall entrance closest to McGlashen Avenue, on Thursday 23 June 2022 from 4.00 pm until 9.00 pm.

1.3 The location and draft traffic management plan can be seen in Attachment One.

1.4 There is an alternate event date of Thursday 30 June 2022 which also needs approval.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Proposed Temporary Road Closure - Matariki on Queen Street RRC22-06-03; and

2. approves the temporary closure of Sundial Square Road from the Queen Street entrance to the Richmond Mall entrance closest to McGlashen Avenue, on Thursday 23 June 2022 from 4.00 pm until 9.00 pm (with an alternate date of Thursday 30 June 2022) for the ‘Matariki on Queen Street’ event.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 This report seeks the Council’s approval for the temporary road closure of Sundial Square for the upcoming ‘Matariki on Queen Street’ event in Richmond.

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 As specified in the Local Government Act 1974 section 342 and schedule 10, temporary road closures for events can only be approved by the Council or a delegated Committee of the Council.

Matariki on Queen Street

4.2 The Tasman District Council has applied to temporarily close Sundial Square to vehicular traffic from the Queen Street entrance to the Richmond Mall entrance closest to McGlashen Avenue, on Thursday 23 June 2022 from 4.00 pm until 9.00 pm (with an alternate date of Thursday 30 June 2022) for the ‘Matariki on Queen Street’ event.

4.3 Access to the Richmond Mall carpark will still be available via the McGlashen Avenue entrance.

4.4 Timeframes for approving the temporary road closure for this event have been compressed, however all relevant advertising and consultation has taken place.

4.5 Staff recommend that this temporary road closure be approved.

5 Options

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table.

	Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the proposed temporary road closure described in this report.	The Richmond Matariki event can proceed as planned.	Some business owners, residents and road users may be temporarily inconvenienced.
2.	Decline the proposed temporary road closure described in this report.	No effect on road users or residents.	The event will not be able to proceed as planned and may cause some safety issues for those in attendance.

5.2 Option 1 is recommended.

6 Strategy and Risks

6.1 Some people will be temporarily inconvenienced by the temporary road closure. However, the closure will be in place to keep residents safe, is supported by local businesses, and will be the start of a new tradition of Matariki events to be enjoyed by our community.

7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

.7.1 It is a requirement that temporary road closures for certain types of events made under Schedule 10 Clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974 come to the Council (or delegated Committee of Council) for approval. Approval for temporary closures for certain events cannot be delegated to Council staff.

7.2 As per clause 11 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, consultation with the Police and the New Zealand Transport Agency has been undertaken for the proposed temporary road closure.

7.3 As per clause 11(e) of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, the road closure will not exceed the aggregate of 31 days for any year.

7.4 As per clause 11A of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, and clause 5 of the Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965, Council staff have advertised the proposed temporary road closure in Newsline and on the Council’s website

8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 The management of temporary road closures is a normal part of the Council’s daily business and there are no financial or budgetary implications. Administrative costs for road closures are covered by the application fee.

9 Significance and Engagement

9.1 The proposed closure was advertised in Newsline edition 12 May 2022.

9.2 The proposed closure was also sent to Richmond Unlimited on the 3 May 2022 to pass onto local businesses that may be affected. The closure and the event is being organised in conjunction with Richmond Unlimited.

9.3 The New Zealand Police and Waka Kotahi (the New Zealand Transport Agency) have been advised of the proposed closure and have no objections or concerns.

9.4 At the time of writing, no objections have been received in regard to the proposed closure.

9.5 Emergency services will be advised of the closure and provided full access as needed.

9.6 The following table describes the level of significance of the decision. Overall, the significance is considered low as the effects of the closures are minor.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Moderate	The Matariki event will form part of local tradition that is intended to be well attended and supported by the community.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The Matariki event is a short-term community event and will have no lasting effects on the roading network.
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	No
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The Council’s roading network is considered a strategic asset but this decision only relates to the temporary closure of a small section of the network for short duration.
6.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
7.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No	The cost for the closures is part of the Council’s daily business and there are no financial of budgetary implications.
8.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
11.	Does the proposal require inclusion of Māori in the decision making process (consistent with s81 of the LGA)?	No	Temporary road closures are a standard operational process under the Local Government Act 1974.

10 Conclusion

10.1 The ‘Matariki on Queen Street’ will be a positive community event with hopefully good attendance by residents.

10.2 Temporary road closures for these types of events require the Council’s approval.

10.3 For this event, a temporary closure of Sundial Square, from Queen Street to the Richmond Mall entrance closest to McGlashen Ave, to vehicular traffic is proposed.

10.4 Staff recommend that the Council approve the temporary road closure in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974 section 374 and Schedule 10.

10.5 The proposed road closure is also in accordance with the Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965.

11 Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 If the Council approves the temporary road closure:

11.1.1 Staff will advertise the closures on Antenno and on the Council website and social media channels.

11.1.2 Richmond Unlimited will liaise with affected business owners regarding the closure details.

12 Attachments

1.⇩

Draft traffic management design plan for Matariki on Queen event

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 16 June 2022

8.4 Draft Stock Control and Droving Bylaw

Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	16 June 2022
Report Author:	Clare Scott, Transportation Planning Officer
Report Number:	RRC22-05-4

1 Summary

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Council to consult the public on the draft Stock Control and Droving Bylaw 2022 (Bylaw) (included in Attachment 1).

1.2 The last Tasman District Council Stock Control Bylaw came into effect in 2005 and expired in 2017. There is currently no active bylaw regulating the activity of stock crossing and droving.

1.3 The draft Bylaw provides the regulatory authority for the Council to exercise control over stock crossings and droving in the road reserve to:

· protect the safety of road users; and

· ensure stock effluent and mud does not cause a nuisance on the road and does not impact on the health of waterways.

1.4 The draft Bylaw 2022 improves upon the 2005 Bylaw by:

· clarifying legal language and details around which activities are permitted

· incorporating more detail around safety requirements, including best practice stopping distances

· including visual guidance to help increase comprehension and compliance with these regulations; and

· aligning with recent freshwater regulations, such as the National Policy Statement on Freshwater and underlying concept of Te Mana o te Wai.

1.5 Because the 2005 Stock Control Bylaw has expired, the draft Stock Control Bylaw 2022 is a new, separate bylaw. The 2005 Bylaw is only relevant as it was used as a template for the draft 2022 Bylaw.

1.6 Staff have engaged with Federated Farmers through the process of developing the draft Bylaw. Iwi have not been consulted on the draft Bylaw to date but will be specifically notified when it is available for public consultation.

1.7 The process of making a bylaw requires use of the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002 to consult on this draft Bylaw. This requires a Statement of Proposal to be adopted, including the draft Bylaw (Attachment 1).

1.8 Consultation is proposed for 1 July 2022 to 1 August 2022, followed by hearings and deliberations in December 2022. The final Bylaw is expected to be adopted early in 2023.

1.9 Staff anticipate a low level of interest from the general public, but a medium to high level of interest from farmers. Staff propose a public webinar, in collaboration with Federated Farmers, to allow those interested to ask questions and seek clarification during the consultation period.

1.10 Consultation on the draft Bylaw will be advertised through the Council’s social media channels, emails to stakeholders, and Newsline. Copies of the Statement of Proposal will be available at Council offices and on the Council’s website.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee:

1. receives the Draft Stock Control and Droving Bylaw RRC22-06-04 report; and

2. notes that sections 145 (a) and (b) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) grant the Council the power to make bylaws in order to protect the public from nuisance, and to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety; and

3. in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002:

i. agrees that the proposed Stock Control Bylaw 2022 contained in Attachment 1 is the most appropriate way of addressing issues arising from the activity of droving and crossing of stock on roads; and

ii. agrees that the proposed Stock Control Bylaw 2022 bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

4. approves the Statement of Proposal (Attachment 1) which includes the proposed Stock Control Bylaw 2022 for public consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure as outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

5. agrees that the Statement of Proposal is sufficient to enable public understanding of the proposal and that a separate Summary of Information is not required;

6. agrees to consult the public on the proposed Bylaw 2022 from 1 July to 1 August 2022; and

7. agrees to advertise consultation on the proposed Bylaw through social media, emails to iwi and stakeholders, and Tasman District Council’s Newsline; and

8. agrees that staff hold a public webinar on the proposed Bylaw during consultation; and

9. agrees to make the Statement of Proposal available on Council’s website site and at the Council’s office and libraries; and

10. authorises the Chair of the Regulatory Committee to make minor edits to the Statement of Proposal before consultation begins; and

11. recommends that the incoming Council appoint a hearings panel to hear and deliberate on submissions on the proposed Bylaw and make recommendations back to Full Council.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 The purpose of this report is to request approval from the Council to consult the public on the draft Stock Control Bylaw 2022 (included in Attachment 1).

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 The expired Tasman District Council Stock Control Bylaw came into effect in 2005 and expired in 2017, after a two-year grace period to renew. There has not been an active Stock Control Bylaw since 2017.

4.2 Until a new bylaw is approved, there will be no active bylaw regulating the activity of stock crossing and droving, which is reasonably common in rural parts of the District.

4.3 This presents a risk to public safety and environmental health. Without clear regulations and safety requirements, it is less likely that good road management practice is being followed, and consequently more likely that an accident will occur. It is also more likely that the impact on waterways is not being minimised.

4.4 Accidents have occurred on the road because of failure to follow best practice safety when crossing stock. These accidents can cause serious injuries and raise the priority and urgency of this bylaw review.

4.5 The draft Bylaw provides the regulatory authority for the Council to exercise control over stock crossings and droving in the road reserve to:

· protect the safety of road users; and

· ensure stock effluent and mud does not cause a nuisance on the road and does not impact on the health of waterways.

4.6 The draft Bylaw brings our regulation of stock crossings and droving into line with best practice standards in terms of road safety, legal clarity and freshwater standards. The expired 2005 Bylaw was used as a template for the writing of the draft 2022 Bylaw. Other key sources of guidance were the Selwyn and Gisborne District Council Stock Bylaws, and Waka Kotahi and the Road Controlling Forum’s best practice road safety guidance.

4.7 In order to gain a better understanding of the activity and the perspective of farmers, staff engaged the local branch of Federated Farmers and asked for their feedback on an early draft of the Bylaw. The feedback from Federated Farmers, from an in-person meeting as well as a review by their policy advisor, has been taken into account in the draft Bylaw.

4.8 The draft Bylaw underwent an external legal review in March 2022, as well as an internal legal edit.

4.9 Staff workshopped the key proposed changes to the draft Bylaw compared to the 2005 Bylaw with Councilors on 8 June 2022.

5 Draft Bylaw Summary

5.1 The draft Bylaw regulates the movement of stock crossing roads and droving along roads with the intention to:

· Protect road users from potential accidents caused by collisions with stock or fences; and

· Protect fresh waterways from pollution by stock effluent or mud that runs off the road; and

· Avoid nuisance to the public from stock effluent or mud on the roadway.

5.2 To ensure the above intentions are understood and complied with, the draft Bylaw lays out regulations concerning:

· Fencing and signage

· Times of day crossing is allowed

· The number of stock allowed to cross

· Responsibilities of those controlling stock

· Damage to property

· Effluent and mud clean-up.

5.3 Failure to comply with the requirements is a breach of the Bylaw. The Council can require action from farmers that do not keep the road areas free from effluent and mud after droving/crossing/grazing. Continued failure to comply can expose a farmer to prosecution for a breach of the bylaw.

5.4 There are some key changes from the expired 2005 Bylaw in the draft 2022 Bylaw. Some of these involve new, or clearer, requirements for farmers. These are detailed in the table below:

	2005 Bylaw	Draft 2022 Bylaw	Why the change?
Signage requirements	Sign placement requirements are only specified for 100 kmph and 70 kmph speed zones.	Sign placement is clear. Signs must be placed at a distance of 3 x the speed limit from the crossing point.	Requiring a stopping distance of 3x the speed limit is current best practice road safety.
Effluent requirements	The road must be kept clear of stock effluent.	The road must be kept clear, but also the way in which effluent is cleaned off the road must ensure that waterways are protected from effluent runoff.	The health of freshwater needs to be considered to align with current Freshwater guidance and legislation.
Legal wording is strengthened throughout	E.g. Consideration shall be given to holding stock back 50 m before crossing.	E.g. Drovers must hold stock back 50 m from the road exit point.	The wording in the 2005 Bylaw meant that some clauses read as guidance rather than law.

6 Options

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table.

	Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the Statement of Proposal, including the draft Bylaw for public consultation. (Attachment 1)	Helps ensure safety of road users and mitigates risks to waterways. Takes prompt action to engage with the public and shorten the timeframe before the Council has an active Stock Crossing Bylaw.	Does not provide Council with the opportunity to make changes to the Bylaw before engaging with the public.
2.	Approve the Statement of Proposal, including the draft Bylaw for consultation with amendments	Helps ensure safety of road users and mitigates risks to waterways. Offers the Council opportunity to make changes to the draft Bylaw prior to engaging with the public.	Depending on the required changes, may cause delays to the Final Bylaw coming into force.
3.	Not approve the Statement of Proposal, including the draft Bylaw for public consultation	None.	Council does not take action to mitigate the environmental and safety risks that this activity poses.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended. This will give the public a chance to submit on the Statement of Proposal and draft Bylaw, which will mean that a final Stock Control Bylaw regulating the use of roads for stock crossing and droving is expected to be active by the first quarter of 2023.

7 Strategy and Risks

7.1 It is a risk to the Council if there continues to be no active Stock Control Bylaw. Further accidents could occur due to farmers failing to remove temporary fences or collision with livestock. This would mean that the Council would not be able to demonstrate having taken precautions to regulate the activity in an effort to keep all road users safe.

7.2 Freshwater is also at risk of being polluted by stock effluent. Without an active Bylaw, the Council does not have the have regulations in place as a road controlling authority to control the safety of this activity or require compensation for damages.

8 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

.8.1 The 2005 Stock Control bylaw expired in 2017. The draft 2022 Bylaw would be a new Bylaw as it does not replace a currently active bylaw. Once the Final Bylaw is adopted, there is no existing Bylaw in place that needs to be revoked before the new Bylaw coming into force.

8.2 The Local Government Act 2002 section 145 give territorial authorities the power to make bylaws in order to protect the public from nuisances or to maintain public health and safety. The draft Stock Control Bylaw 2022 is being made under this purpose.

9 In order to make such bylaws, section 155 of the LGA requires that the Council must determine that the proposed bylaw:

· is the most appropriate way and form for addressing the potential issues arising from the activity of droving and crossing stock over roads; and

· does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

· is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;

9.1 Some elements of the Bylaw could potentially be adopted in other ways, for example, through various plans, policies, guidelines, or standards. However, the Bylaw is considered to provide a more comprehensive set of requirements and certainty regarding the Council’s authority to set or enforce such requirements, minimising the risk of litigation for the Council.

9.2 There are no implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The proposed draft Stock Control Bylaw does not place any limits on freedom of movement, expression, or association, and does not isolate any particular social group in terms of the Act. In addition, any offences under the Bylaw will require a judicial process through the Courts.

10 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

10.1 This draft Bylaw does not have any material financial or budgetary implications for the Council.

10.2 In accordance with section 150 of the LGA, the Council may prescribe fees or charges to cover assessing and granting permits, monitoring, and inspections required by or authorised through a bylaw. Council can set these fees in the draft Bylaw or through another process that complies with the consultation requirements of section 82 of the LGA. In this case, staff propose that the Council set any fees though the annual fees and charges schedule. The costs and revenue from this activity is expected to be modest.

10.3 There may be additional work for enforcement and permit-processing as part of the monitoring of this activity once the draft Bylaw is adopted.

11 Significance and Engagement

11.1 Staff believe that the level of significance of this draft Bylaw is low to the general public as they are unlikely to be impacted significantly by this Bylaw, except by not being exposed to hazards and risk. The draft Bylaw is likely to be of medium to high interest for farmers, some of whom may consider aspects of the proposal controversial, such as the requirement to align with Waka Kotahi new best practice signage guidelines.

11.2 Consequently, staff consider that using the special consultative procedure is appropriate as contemplated in section 156 of the LGA.

11.3 Sections 83 and 86 of the LGA outline the use and procedural requirements of the special consultative procedure in relation to making bylaws. This includes ensuring that the following is publicly available:

· A Statement of Proposal which includes the draft Bylaw, the reasons for the proposal and a statement on Council’s determinations under section 155 of the LGA

· A description of how people interested in the proposal can present their views to the Council

· The period within which views on the proposal may be provided to the Council.

11.4 The Statement of Proposal in Attachment 1 also contains a summary of the draft Bylaw. Consequently, staff do not think that a separate Summary of Information is necessary.

11.5 Consultation on the Statement of Proposal must be for at least one month under section 83 of the LGA. Staff propose it is advertised through the Council’s social media channels, emails to stakeholders, and Newsline. Copies of the Statement of Proposal will be available at Council offices and on the Council’s website. Staff also propose a public webinar, in collaboration with Federated Farmers, to allow those interested to ask questions and seek clarification during the consultation period.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	An early draft version of the Bylaw was shared with Federated Farmers, which represents the key group of people likely to be interested in this Bylaw. Their early feedback has been incorporated into the draft Bylaw.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Yes	Low to medium impact on safety the community generally, but potentially medium-high impacts to individual farmers and road users.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No	The Bylaw can be amended or revoked by Council at any time.
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	No
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The regulations in this Bylaw impact on the safety and quality of the road network. However, the impact of the road network is considered of low significance.
6.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
7.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
8.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
11.	Does the proposal require inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process (consistent with s81 of the LGA)?	No	Iwi will be provided the opportunity to provide feedback on the Statement of Proposal and draft Bylaw through the consultation process.

12 Conclusion

12.1 Currently, Council does not have an active Stock Control Bylaw, which poses a risk to Council as there is no way to enforce safety requirements. Council may also appear remiss by not providing best practice regulations to control this potentially hazardous activity.

12.2 The draft Stock Control Bylaw 2022 makes changes to the 2005 Bylaw by improving clarity around legal requirements and permits, best practice road safety, and farmers’ obligations for protecting freshwater quality when using the road reserve for stock movements.

12.3 Staff are requesting approval to consult on the draft Bylaw, before seeking final approval of the Bylaw in early 2023.

13 Next Steps / Timeline

13.1 If approved, the draft Stock Control Bylaw 2022 will go out for public consultation in July 2022.

13.2 A hearing panel will be appointed to hear and deliberate on submissions following election of a new Council in October 2022. They will make recommendations to Full Council on adoption of a final bylaw, expected in early 2023.

13.3 The draft Bylaw is expected to be taken to Full Council in the new year and be active in early 2023.

Attachments

1.⇩

Draft Stock Control and Droving Bylaw 2022

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 16 June 2022

8.5 Building Assurance Manager's Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	16 June 2022
Report Author:	Matt Feely, Building Assurance Manager
Report Number:	RRC22-06-5

1 Summary

1.1 This information report updates the Committee on activities of the Building Assurance section over the six-month period since the last report issued 2 December 2021

1.2 Tasman District Council is legally required under the Building Act 2004 to perform the functions of a Building Consent Authority and must maintain Accreditation under the Building Regulations 2006. We have one remaining non-compliance to resolve from the International Accreditation NZ (IANZ) Audit for re-accreditation.

1.3 The last six months’ building consent applications remain steady. There have been minor staff changes and challenges, specifically in the consent processing team.

1.4 In March 2020, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) conducted an audit of the territorial authority functions under the Building Act, focusing specifically on pool inspection obligations and Building Warrants of Fitness (BWOF’s). MBIE are now satisfied with the work completed on swimming pool audits and our focus has now moved to BWOF auditing.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee receives the Building Assurance Manager's Report RRC-22-06-05.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 This report informs the Council of the activities of the Building Assurance Section since the last report issued on 2 December 2021.

4 Building Control Functions and Delivery

Regulation 18 Diploma

4.1 Successful completion of the Regulation 18 Diploma for six technical staff in December 2021 with two being recognized in the top five throughout New Zealand. Five more technical staff started this diploma in February 2022.

4.2 Service delivery has been maintained at 98% within statutory timeframes for building consents and 99% within statutory timeframes for code compliance certificates.

4.3 Continuation of the multi-proof consenting approval process for developments such as Golden Bay Mohua Affordable Housing Project, Ruru Buildings, lower Queen Street group home companies and currently in discussions with Te Āwhina Marae.

Stakeholder engagement

4.4 Customer engagements have been adapted due to the ongoing pandemic and we attended the Master and Certified Builders Meeting 7^th April 2022 via Zoom and continued our quarterly Building Assurance newsletter, which informs our key customers of important updates, legislation changes, and any other relevant matters.

5 Compliance Team Function and Service Delivery

5.1 The Compliance section of Building Assurance undertake all the territorial authority responsibilities under the Building Act other than those functions of the building consents team, and includes: Inspections of Pool Fencing, Processing Building Warrants of Fitness (BWOF), Audits of BWOF’s, Processing building consent exemptions, Processing Certificates of Acceptance (COA’s),Complaints, Compliance Investigation/ Enforcement, Issuing Notices (NTF, Dangerous and Insanitary, Infringement, CPU etc.)

Status and work of the Compliance Team

5.2 From significant staff changes in 2021 the new compliance staff have settled well and continues gaining experience and training for the various tasks.

5.3 We have achieved good results and managed to inspect all known outstanding pools. This also include a review to ensure all pools mentioned within all building consent applications are property recorded and registered. We have further identified a number of pools that are not on our register. Exact numbers are to be confirmed.

Status	As of May 2022
Total Pool licenses	1551
Total Pools non-compliant	156
Notices to fix issued	09
Pools removed/decommissioned	191
Average monthly inspections	40

5.4 The team is preparing an audit plan for BWOFS.

5.5 Building consent exemptions and certificates of acceptance (COA) processing is continuing.

6 Determinations/ Practitioner Complaints

6.1 We currently have nine determinations with MBIE, most of which are long overdue for finalising by MBIE.

6.2 A Practitioner complaint was formally lodged with ENGNZ against two Chartered Professional Engineers and accepted for independent expert technical review and mediation. This is to be treated confidentially until resolved.

7 Statistical Summary

7.1 Comparative statistics are shown by the following three columns in the table below.
The comparisons are three 12-month periods between 1 June to 31 May.

7.2 We have seen an increase of consent applications for multiple dwellings e.g. Three new dwellings on one consent, this has decreased the number of dwelling consents.

7.3 Lower Queen Street development is still ongoing.

7.4 The BCA has maintained its statutory timeframes for both issuing building consents and code compliance certificates. The average days for issuing these are also at 10 for consents and six for Code Compliance certificates (CCCs), which is also meeting our Activity Management Plan performance measures.

7.5 Building Inspections are maintaining the 2 working days’ notice for bookings in most cases.

Building Assurance Results	1 June 2019 to 31 May 2020	1 June 2020 to 31 May 2021	1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022
Building Consents Issued	555	789	724
New Dwelling Consents Issued (excluding Amendments)	433	585	520
Average Processing Days	12	11	10
Building Consents Processed within time %	97%	99%	98%
CCC Applications	1039	1257	1102
CCC Issued	1037	1272	1100
CCC Issued within time %	100%	99%	99%
CCC Average Processing days	2	5	6
Inspections	7452	8610	7639
Failed Inspections %	43%	63%	67%

8 Resourcing Considerations

8.1 During 2021, and within the last six months, the BCA unfortunately lost some experienced technical processors. This put significant constraints on the team because they were fully competent, productive processors. While we are very pleased to have filled these positions, the training and supervision requirements before the new staff are productive is intensive and demanding for 12-18 months.

8.2 We continue to lose trained and competent technical staff who move to contractors or BCAs who offer better renumeration and flexibility. This issue is being mirrored across the mainland cluster.

8.3 We do have reliable contracts in place to assist as required until we build up our internal capacity again.

8.4 Although the constraints are significant due to the new processing staff, the team is managing well, and despite their regular assignments for their Building Surveyor Diploma throughout the year, we maintained good performance statistics.

8.5 The inspections team is one full time equivalent (FTE) short due to internal secondments which will be in place until October 2022. We are managing inspections with the use of contractors where required.

9 Risk Management

9.1 Building assurance risks have been assessed and added to the Council’s risk register. Consequences and controls have been listed and categorised. Building Assurance’s main risk mitigation continues to be ensuring that all technical staff are competent to assess building consent applications and issue these only when compliance with the building code is demonstrated. Inspectors must in turn only issue Code Compliance certificates when the building work is completed in accordance with the building consent.

9.2 IANZ accreditation helps provide the Council with a level of assurance that our Quality Management System (QMS) is working. This QMS includes training toward competence, evidence of effectiveness of training, internal audits, and continuous improvement which all assist in mitigating risk to the Council. The IANZ audit result completed October 2021 has confirmed in the report that the building consent authority functions continue to present a low risk to the Council.

10 Tasman District Council Building Consent Authority Accreditation Audit

10.1 IANZ undertook its biannual audit which ran over a five-day period concluding on Tuesday, 2 November. This Audit is required to measure the performance and compliance of the BCA functions against the Building Regulations 2006.

10.2 The Auditors were generally complimentary of the work of the BCA and particularly commented that our statutory timeframes. They recognised this was achieved despite considerable constraints imposed with considerable technical staff undergoing Diploma training, loss of some key staff and consistently high consent application numbers.

10.3 To date there is still one outstanding General Non-Compliance (GNC).

11 Building Act/ Code changes

11.1 MBIE is consulting on a proposal to extend the transition period for Acceptable Solution H1/AS1 and Verification Method H1/VM1 Fifth Editions (first issued on 29 November 2021) for housing. However the building sector is currently under significant pressure and there are concerns that more time is required to prepare for the change, and its impacts. As a result of this MBIE are proposing a six-month extension of the transition period for the insulation requirements in new housing. The proposed transition period will last to 1 May 2023.

12 Earthquake Prone Buildings

Progress

12.1 Currently, the Motueka assessments have been carried out. Property file entries are being made accordingly with letters to be generated and sent. The Motueka assessment was inclusive of all buildings, not only priority buildings on essential transport and pedestrian routes. Murchison is complete as are Brightwater, Wakefield, and Tapawera also.

12.2 The focus now is to complete an assessment of the remaining priority buildings in the district, we have another five years to assess non-priority buildings.

12.3 Please note, that single residential dwellings are outside the scope of our Earthquake Prone Building (EPB) assessment obligations, mailouts, website information, and FAQ’s. Any further enquiries that follow can be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

13 Expectations in 2022?

13.1 Completion of Priority Earthquake Prone Building Assessments 1 July 2022

13.2 Begin to carry out BWOF audits

13.3 Increase Competency within Building Assurance Team

13.4 Increase stakeholder engagements

Attachments

Nil

Chairperson	Cr C Hill
Deputy Chairperson	Cr D Ogilvie
Members	Mayor T King
	Deputy Mayor S Bryant
	Cr C Butler	Cr D McNamara
	Cr M Greening	Cr T Tuffnell
	Cr B Dowler	Cr A Turley
	Cr C Mackenzie	Cr T Walker