This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
29 NOVEMBER 1995
A meeting of the Environmental Committee
was held on Wednesday 29 November 1995 at 4.00 p.m.
PRESENT: Councillor C J Evans (Chairman)
The Mayor, Ms V S Buck,
Councillors O T Alpers, Anna Crighton,
N Dodge, P C R Harrow, L D Keast,
C E Manning and B M Stewart. Councillor Alpers arrived at 4.05 pm and was present for clauses 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. The Mayor arrived at 4.05 pm and retired at 4.20 pm and was present for clauses 9 and 10. Councillor Stewart arrived at 4.10 pm and was present for clauses 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. The Committee reports that: PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL ROAD FRONTAGE
R H WATERMAN, 962 FERRY ROAD
FERRYMEAD WARD
Officer responsible Author Environmental Services Manager A C Handisides Corporate Plan Output: Subdivisions
The purpose of this report is to authorise exemption from legal road frontage for a proposed allotment at 962 Ferry Road. The application creates Lot 1 without frontage to a legal road. The access will be via a right of way to Ferry Road. Section 321 of the Local Government Act 1974 permits a Local Authority to approve the creation of allotments without legal frontage provided an alternative means of access is available. (Map tabled.) Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution: `The Christchurch City Council hereby resolves pursuant to Section 321 (3) (c) Local Government Act 1974, that Section 321 (1) of the Local Government Act 1974 will not apply to the following allotment: Lot 1 on subdivision consent East 95/2127 being a subdivision of Lot 1 DP 47758, comprised in Certificate of Title 38D/517.' 2. EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL ROAD FRONTAGE
M W & J DOBSON, 33 & 41 TE AWAKURA TERRACE
FERRYMEAD WARD
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager A C Handisides,
Subdivision Planning Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Subdivisions
The purpose of this report is to authorise exemption from legal road frontage for a proposed allotment at 33 & 41 Te Awakura Terrace. The application creates Part Lots 36 & 37 without frontage to a legal road. The access will be via a right of way to Te Awakura Terrace. Section 321 of the Local Government Act 1974 permits a Local Authority to approve the creation of allotments without legal frontage provided an alternative means of access is available. (Map tabled.) Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution: `The Christchurch City Council hereby resolves pursuant to Section 321 (3) (c) Local Government Act 1974, that Section 321 (1) of the Local Government Act 1974 will not apply to the following allotments: Part Lots 36 & 37 DP 9784, comprised in Certificates of Title 456/243 and 7A/1292.'
3. REVOCATION OF PART CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
KATE SHEPPARD GARDENS - 419 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD
BURWOOD WARD
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager A C Handisides, Subdivision
Planning Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Subdivisions
The purpose of this report is to revoke a condition of subdivision
approval EAST 94/1052, 419 New Brighton Road.
In 1994 the Council approved a subdivision creating Lot 1 DP 67951. A copy of
this plan is tabled. An easement was created in favour of Lot 1 for the
purposes of draining sewage and shown on the plan tabled. The sewer has been
relaid and we have received a plan for sealing covering the new position of the
easement. The surveyor has requested that the easement be revoked as it is no
longer necessary.
Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution:
`The Christchurch City Council resolves to revoke, pursuant to Section 243(e)
Resource Management Act 3 Cont'd
1991, the condition of approval of subdivision shown on the plan deposited in the Land Transfer Office as No 67951, that the following easement be duly granted:
MEMORANDUM OF EASEMENT
NATURE SERVIENT dominant
LOT SHOWN
Right to Part RS 2298 Bal A Lot 1'
drain CT 39B/1022
sewer
4. REVOCATION OF PART CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONC R & D G DUDER - 59 BOWENVALE AVENUE
HEATHCOTE WARD
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager A C Handisides, Subdivision
Planning Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Subdivisions
The purpose of this report is to revoke a condition of subdivision
approval at 59a Bowenvale Avenue.
In 1981 the Heathcote County approved a subdivision creating Lot 1 and 2 DP
44778. A copy of plan 44778 is tabled. Various easements were created
including a right to drain water over Part Lot 1 in favour of Lot 2 and shown
on the plan as G. Since that time the stormwater drainage for Lot 2 has been
relocated and the pipe sealed at its upstream end. The land is now being
further subdivided and the surveyor has requested that easement G be revoked as
it is no longer necessary.
Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution:
`The Christchurch City Council resolves to revoke, pursuant to Section 243(e)
Resource Management Act 1991, the condition of approval of subdivision shown on
the plan deposited in the Land Transfer Office as No. 44778, that the
following easement be duly granted:
MEMORANDUM OF EASEMENT
NATURE SERVIENT DOMINANT
Right to drain LOT SHOWN
water
1 G 2'
5. REVOCATION OF PART CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
R D MELVIN - 86 BUCKLEYS ROAD & 14 BUTTERFIELD AVENUE
FERRYMEAD WARD
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager A C Handisides, Subdivision
Planning Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Subdivisions
The purpose of this report is to revoke a condition of subdivision
approval LIN 91/149, 86 Buckleys Road.
The subdivision LIN 91/149 of land at 86 Buckleys Road was approved in 1991
and created Lot 1 and Lot 2 on Deposited Plan 59817. A copy of this plan is
tabled. A condition of that approval was that Lot 2 DP 59817 be amalgamated
with Lot 3 DP8719. The land concerned has recently been further subdivided as
subdivision consent EAST 95/481 and the amalgamation condition is now
unnecessary. The District Land Registrar requires the amalgamation condition
to be revoked before the new plan of subdivision can be deposited.
Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution:
`The Christchurch City Council resolves to revoke, pursuant to Section 241(3)
Resource Management Act 1991, that the condition of approval of subdivision as
set out below and shown on the plan deposited in the office of the District
Land Registrar as Deposit Plan 59817, be revoked.
Lot 2 hereon being transferred to the owner(s) of Lot 3 DP 8719 (CT 464/292)
and one certificate of title issued.'
6. REVOCATION OF PART CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
G F KENDALL - GODLEY DRIVE
FERRYMEAD WARD
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager A C Handisides, Subdivision
Planning Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Subdivisions
The purpose of this report is to revoke a condition of subdivision
approval from DP 61651 - Godley Drive.
In 1992 the Council approved a subdivision on DP61651 creating an easement to
drain water in gross. (Plan tabled.)6 Cont'd
The Council has approved a new application for a subdivision which includes a new alignment of the above easement, therefore the existing easement must be revoked. Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution: `The Christchurch City Council resolves to revoke, pursuant to Section 243(e) Resource Management Act 1991, the condition of approval of subdivision shown on the plan deposited in the Land Transfer Office as No 61651, that the following easement be duly granted:
MEMORANDUM OF EASEMENT
NATURE SERVIENT grantee
LOT SHOWN
Right to drain Part Lot 1 DP A Christchurc
water in gross 4807 (CT h City
35B/67) Council'
7. REVOCATION OF PART CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONG TEEAR, 22 AND 38 HANDS ROAD
SPREYDON WARD
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager A C Handisides, Subdivision
Planning Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Subdivisions
The purpose of this report is to revoke a condition of subdivision
approval at 22 and 38 Hands Road.
The subdivision WAI/89/42 of land at Hands Road was approved in 1989 and
created Lots 1-4 on Deposited Plan 56133. A copy of this plan is tabled. A
condition of that approval was that Lots 2 and 3 be amalgamated. The land
concerned is now the subject of recent subdivision consent EAST 95/1960, and
the amalgamation condition is now unnecessary and should be revoked.
Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution:
`The Christchurch City Council resolves to revoke, pursuant to Section 241(3)
Resource Management Act 1991, that the condition of approval of subdivision as
set out below and shown on the plan deposited in the office of the District:
Land Registrar at Christchurch as Deposit Plan 56133, be revoked:
Lot 2 and 3 hereon being amalgamated and one Certificate of Title being
issued therefore.'8. REVOCATION OF PART CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
RICHMOND WMC, STANMORE ROAD
HAGLEY WARD
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager R D Pritchard, Subdivision
Planning Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Subdivisions
The purpose of this report is to cancel a condition of subdivision
approval in Stanmore Road.
A plan of subdivision approved in 1994 was approved subject to a condition of
amalgamation of Lot 1 with Lot 1 DP 29131. A further plan of subdivision has
been approved that incorporates the first plan. A copy of the plan is tabled.
The amalgamation condition is no longer necessary and should be cancelled.
Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution:
`That the Christchurch City Council hereby resolves to cancel the condition
imposed on DP 67066 that Lot 1 hereon be transferred to the owner of Lot 1 DP
29131 (CT 11B/1214) and that one certificate of title be issued to include both
parcels, pursuant to Section 241(3) Resource Management Act 1991.'9. DELEGATIONS
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager Ken Lawn, Environmental
Services Manager
Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Services Generally
The purpose of this report is to recommend the delegations that are
necessary for the functions of the Environmental Services Unit to operate.
The delegations set out below (with the exception of some matters relating to
the Resource Management Hearings Panel, and commissioners) are all officer
delegations under the Resource Management Act, Building Act, Health Act and
Local Government Act. They are essentially the same as the delegations that
operated under the previous Council, although the particular officer titles
have changed due to the establishment of the Environmental Services Unit
(amalgamation of the Environmental Administration and Public Health &
Safety Units).
The delegations to the Resource Management Hearings Panel are amendments and
an addition to those given at the inaugural Council meeting.9 Cont'd
The Committee recommends that the following delegations be approved: To the Resource Management Hearings Panel 1. In the existing delegation 3(c), amend clause 8 to 8B. The delegation will now read: (c) To hear, and recommend decisions to the Council of any Change to a District Plan, pursuant to clauses 8B and 10 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.
2. In the existing delegation 3(g), change the words "a hearing" to "any proceeding". The delegation will now read: (g) To make any orders required for the protection of sensitive information during the course of any proceeding pursuant to Section 42 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
3. Add a new delegation under D. (g) To exercise the powers of the Council under Section 58 of the Health Act 1956 (relating to the establishment and registration of stock saleyards) and to impose such conditions as may be considered necessary).
To Any Commissioner or Commissioners Appointed by a Hearings Panel
1. To hear and consider any submissions and objections to a district plan or change to a plan and to make recommendations to the Council. 2. To hear and make decisions on any notified or non-notified application under the Resource Management Act 1991. 3. To hear and make a recommendation to the requiring authority on any requirement or heritage order. 4. Any other delegation given by the Council to the Resource Management Hearings Panel, City Plan Committee, or to the Resource Management Officer Committee. To the Environmental Health Subcommittee
1. That an Environmental Health Sub-committee of the Environmental Committee be appointed pursuant to Section 114P of the Local Government Act 1974. 2. That the sub-committee comprise the Principal Environmental Health Officer, the two Senior Environmental Health Officers, and the Environmental Health Officers (Special Grade).
9 Cont'd
3. That the quorum of the Environmental Health Sub-committee comprise any two members. 4. That pursuant to Section 114(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 the subcommittee be delegated the following powers: (a) All the powers of the Council in respect of Cleansing Orders under Section 41 of the Health Act 1956. (b) The power of the Council to issue Repair Notices and Closing Orders pursuant to Section 42 of the Health Act 1956. (c) The power of the Council to cancel a Closing Order under Section 45 of the Health Act 1956. (d) All the powers of the Council under Section 81 of the Health Act 1956 relating to the cleansing and disinfecting of any premises or article. (e) The power of the Council under Section 128 of the Health Act 1956 to authorise any person to enter, at all reasonable times, any dwellinghouse, building, land, ship or other premises and to inspect the same, and to execute thereon any works authorised under or pursuant to that Act. (f) The power of the Council to serve any notice under Regulation 9 of the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966. To the Resource Management Officer Committee 1. That the Environmental Services Manager, Senior Planner Applications, Senior Planner City Plan, Senior Planner Subdivisions, Area Development Officers, Subdivision Officers, and Senior Planners be appointed as members of the Committee. The quorum of the Committee shall be two. 2. That pursuant to Section 34(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council delegates to the Resource Management Officer Committee the following powers, duties and functions: (a) To consider and make decisions on any resource consent which has not been publicly notified, and does not require a hearing, under the Resource Management Act 1991. (b) To determine whether a resource consent is required to be publicly notified provided written approvals have been obtained for all persons adversely affected by the application, pursuant to Section 94 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
9 Cont'd
(c) To determine not to proceed with the notification of, or hearing of, an application, on the grounds that other resource consents are required, pursuant to Section 91 of the Resource Management Act 1991. (d) To waive or extend any time limits pursuant to Section 37 of the Resource Management Act 1991. (e) To reduce any fees in respect of resource consent applications in the following cases: - Where the application is a voluntary or community organisation (maximum reduction 50%). - Where the application is minor and the actual and reasonable costs of the Council are less than the prescribed fee. (f) To require additional fees to be paid over and above any prescribed fees, in order to enable the Council to recover its actual and reasonable costs in respect of the matter concerned, pursuant to Section 36 (3) of the Resource Management Act 1991. (g) To request any changes to any Outline Plan submitted pursuant to Section 420 (4) of the Resource Management Act 1991. (h) To consider and make decisions to change or cancel any condition imposed on a resource consent, for any application that was originally non-notified and did not require a Council hearing, pursuant to Section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991. (i) To decide to refer any application, for which the power to make a decision has been delegated, to the Resource Management Hearings Panel for a hearing and decision. To the Environmental Services Manager
A. Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991
That pursuant to Section 34(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council delegate to the Environmental Services Manager the following powers, duties and functions: (a) To apply to the Planning Tribunal for a Declaration pursuant to Sections 310 and 311 of the Resource Management Act 1991. (b) To apply to the Planning Tribunal for an enforcement order pursuant to Section 314 of the Resource Management Act 1991, or for an interim enforcement order pursuant to Section 320 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and to make decisions on any matters relating to applications for enforcement orders.
9 Cont'd
(c) To authorise any officer or other person specified in Section 38 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to be an enforcement officer. (d) To initiate any prosecution under Section 338 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and to make decisions on any matter relating to those prosecutions. B. Delegations Under Building Act 1991
That pursuant to Section 78 of the Building Act 1991 and Section 715 of the Local Government Act 1974 the Council delegate generally to the Environmental Services Manager: (a) the powers of the Council contained in Part V of the Building Act 1991; (b) the power, contained in Section 77 of the Building Act 1991, to authorise officers as enforcement officers for the purposes of the Building Act 1991; (c) the power to institute prosecutions for the offences set out in Section 80 of the Building Act 1991 and to make decisions in relation to such applications; (d) the power set out in Section 81 of the Building Act 1991 to apply to the District Court for injunctions and to make decisions in relation to such applications; (e) the powers of the Council set out in Section 65 of the Building Act 1991 relating to dangerous and insanitary buildings. (f) the power to waive the requirement to obtain a consent for building work pursuant to (m) of the third schedule of the Building Act 1991. That pursuant to Section 716(1) of the Local Government Act 1974, the Environmental Services Manager be authorised to sub-delegate to any other officer of the Environmental Services Unit any of the powers delegated to him under the Building Act 1991. C. Delegations Under Other Acts
That pursuant to Section 715 of the Local Government Act 1974, the Council delegate to the Environmental Services Manager the following powers, duties and discretions. 1. The power to issue (and where authorised by the appropriate legislation to renew, transfer and to impose conditions upon such issue, renewal or transfer) the following licences, permits and certificates:
9 Cont'd
(a) Certificates of registration of camping grounds under the Camping Grounds Regulations 1985 and the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966; (b) Certificates of exemption under Regulation 14 of the Camping Grounds Regulations 1985; (c) Certificates of registration for hairdressers' shops under the Health (Hairdressers) Regulations 1980 and the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966; (d) Certificates of registration for food premises under the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 and the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966. (e) Certificates of registration for funeral directors under Part III of the Health (Burial) Regulations 1946; (f) All the powers of the Council under Part II (Licensing) of the Dangerous Goods Act 1974; (g) All the powers of the Council under regulations 4 and 5 of the Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966. 2. The powers of the Council contained in Sections 459 and 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 including the power to sign Section 459 Notices on behalf of the Council (relating to private drains and drainage works). 3. All the powers of the Council to renew, or renew subject to conditions, an offensive trade registration under Section 54 of the Health Act. 4. The Environmental Services Manager shall, in respect of all the matters set out in clauses 1-4 above, have the power to sub-delegate pursuant to Section 716 of the Local Government Act 1991. 5. The power of the Council under Section 603 of the Local Government Act 1974 to refuse or to grant consent (with or without conditions) for the provision of entertainment of any kind that is to be open to the public on any Sunday, Good Friday or Christmas Day. 6. The power of the Council to institute prosecutions under the provisions of the Health Act 1956 or any regulations made under that Act administered by the Environmental Services Unit. 7. The power of the Council to institute prosecutions under the provisions of the Dangerous Goods Act 1974 or any regulations made under that Act administered by the Environmental Services Unit.
9 Cont'd
8. The power of the Council to appoint inspectors pursuant to Section 17 of the Dangerous Goods Act 1974. 9. The power of the Council to make appointments pursuant to Sections 9 and 13 of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982. 10. The power of the Council to make appointments pursuant to Sections 23(a) and 28(1) of the Health Act 1956. To the Environmental Services Manager or Senior Planner City Plan That pursuant to Section 34(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council delegate to the Environmental Services Manager or Senior Planner City Plan the following powers, duties and functions: 1. To determine which persons and bodies shall be served with a copy of any proposed District Plan, or Change to a District Plan, and to arrange public notification of, pursuant to Clause 5 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. 2. To lodge submissions on behalf of the Council in respect of any proposed District Plan, or Change to a District Plan, administered by the Council. 3. To require further information, or to commission a report, in order to consider a request for a plan change, pursuant to Clause 23 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. To Environmental Services Manager or Senior Planner Applications or Senior Planner Subdivisions or Area Development Officers
1. To require further information to be provided, or to commission a report, before a resource consent application is notified, or heard, pursuant to Section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991. 2. To determine which persons and bodies shall be served with a copy on any notified resource consent application, and to arrange its public notification, and erection of signs, pursuant to Section 93 (1) of the Resource Management Act 1991. 3. To determine which persons shall be required to give their written approval for any resource consent which is not to be publicly notified, pursuant to Section 94 of the Resource Management Act 1991. 4. To issue of certificate of compliance pursuant to Section 139 of the Resource Management Act 1991. 5. To consider and impose conditions on a Development Plan under Section 410 of the Resource Management Act 1991. (This delegation also to Subdivision Planning Officers.)
9 Cont'd
6. To certify compliance as "authorised officer" under Section 224 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (This delegation also to Subdivision Planning Officers.) 7. To certify any plans of subdivision or copy thereof, which has not had a previous statutory approval (Section 226 Resource Management Act 1991). (This delegation also to Subdivisions Planning Officers.) 8. The powers of the Council under Section 37(2) of the Building Act 1991 relating to the erection of buildings on two or more allotments. To the Development Control Engineer 1. That pursuant to Sections 715 and 716 of the Local Government Act 1974 the Development Control Engineer be granted the power to: (a) Consider and decide any application for a dispensation from the Subdivision, Land Excavation and Filling or other relevant bylaws of the amalgamating authorities or the Council. (b) Initiate any procedure giving a notice or order on behalf of the Council under the General, Subdivision, Excavation and Filling or other relevant bylaws of the amalgamating authorities or the Council. To the Supervisor Dog Control Administration That the Council delegate to the Supervisor Dog Control Administration the power of the Council to institute any prosecution under Parts I and III of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982 and to make any decision in any matter relating to any such prosecution. To the Supervisor Dog Control Operations That the Council delegate to the Supervisor Dog Control Operations: 1. The power of the Council to institute any prosecution under: (a) Parts IV and VI of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982; and (b) any provision of any bylaw administered by the Council and which relates to the control of dogs - and to make any decision in any matter relating to any such prosecution. 2. The power of the Council to make any application to the District Court for an order pursuant to Section 55 of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982.
9 Cont'd
3. The power of the Council to issue and renew (and to impose conditions upon such issue or renewal) any licence to keep more than one dog pursuant to clause 5 of the Christchurch City Dog Control Bylaw 1992.
To Dog Control Officers/Dog Rangers That the Council delegate to Dog Control Officers/Dog Rangers the power of the Council: 1. To seize and impound dogs found in any public place without a proper label or disk pursuant to Section 47 of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982. 2. To seize and impound a dog where the dog is not under control in terms of Section 52(2) of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982, pursuant to Section 52(3) of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982. 3. To give written notice to the owner of a dog requiring that owner to abate the nuisance caused by the barking of the dog, pursuant to Section 54(1)(b) of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982. 4. To exercise the powers contained in Sections 67 and 70 of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982 (only to be exercised by a Dog Control Officer). Recommendation: That the above delegations be adopted. 10. CITY PLAN CROSS SUBMISSIONS
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager Ken Lawn, Environmental Services
Manager
Corporate Plan Output: City Plan
The purpose of this report is to resolve the length of time that the
City Plan will be open for cross submissions.
The City Plan was notified on 24 June 1995, with submissions originally being
open for 3 months. The minimum time specified in the Resource Management Act
is 60 working days. The Council subsequently resolved to increase the period
for submissions to 5 months, closing on 30 November 1995.
Over December and January the submissions received will be summarised, and a
detailed list produced of all amendments that are sought to the provisions of
the Plan. The Council is required to publicly notify that that list is
available for inspection, and then call for cross submissions, supporting or
opposing the submissions received. Cross submissions are required to be open
for a minimum of 20 working days.10 Cont'd
Depending on the number of submissions received, and the size of the task in producing a list of all the alterations sought, it is intended to publicly notify and call for cross submissions in early February. Our intention had been to have cross submissions open for 2 months, closing in early April, with the formal hearing of submissions commencing approximately the beginning of July. We are aware that there is some desire from the legal profession that the period for cross submissions be for 3 months rather than 1 month. This will enable more time for the preparation of cross submissions by those wishing to do so. The disadvantage associated with a longer period is that it further extends the length of time taken until the hearing of submissions can commence. It would be preferable for the Council to resolve now, a period of time for cross submissions, rather than extending the period during the process, as was the case with submissions. Depending on the length of time for cross submissions, the City Plan Committee is likely to meet in April to begin discussions on the process for hearing submissions, and a training session for Councillors involved is likely to be held in June. It is also going to be necessary, probably in April, for the Council to resolve the appointment of 3 additional non-Councillors to the hearings committee. Recommendation: That the period for cross submissions close on 30 April 1996 or, in the event of the list of alterations not being notified in the first two weeks in February, on 31 May 1996.
11. LAND INFORMATION MEMORANDA
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager Ken Lawn Environmental
Services Manager
Corporate Plan Output: Land Information Memoranda
The purpose of this report is to obtain the Council's approval to
increase the fee for a Land Information Memorandum, based on an increase in
service to applicants.
The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 requires that
the Council provide, for a reasonable fee, a land information memorandum when
requested, within 10 working days.
A Land Information Memorandum (LIM) provides information that the Council
knows about a particular parcel of land. It includes information such as
zoning, resource consents, building consents, natural hazards, services (eg.
water and sewer) and any requisitions. It is normally sought by solicitors on
behalf of clients considering purchasing properties.11 Cont'd
The Council currently processes about 12,000 such LIMs a year, for a fee of $80.00, generally within 3-4 working days. The Council is acknowledged as providing one of the best LIM services for a fee generally lower than most other local authorities. The corporate Annual Plan includes an objective "to expand and expand the information given on land information memoranda". In conjunction with the Canterbury District Law Society, we have developed an extension of the LIM service. Currently a LIM provides information about a particular property. The new service will also provide information about resource consents applied for and/or approved within 100 metres of the property. This will enable purchasers to know about resource consents granted in the near vicinity that may affect their decision about purchasing the property. This additional service has been able to be developed because of our investment in a GIS system. While that system is not yet fully operational, we are able to now produce the resource consent information. In the future, further information will be able to be provided with our GIS capabilities. We have negotiated an increased fee for the new service, up from $80.00 to $125.00. This fee will recover the Council's costs in producing the LIM information, plus a contribution towards the ongoing development of our GIS information system. The expanded service will require an unbudgeted investment in further computer hardware, and in four additional staff to process the applications, and answer an anticipated increase in further questions on the information received. The additional expenditure will be covered by the increased revenue. The Environmental Services Manager noted the Committee's request that the public be informed of the extension to the service by way of an article in the next edition of "City Scene". Recommendation: That the fee for Land Information Memoranda be increased from $80.00 to $125.00 (including GST) from 1 February 1996 or, the date on which the new service commences, whichever is the later.
12. MOBILE SHOP LICENCE FEES
Officer responsible Author Environmental Policy & Planning Terence Moody, Principal Manager Environmental Health Officer Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Health PolicyThe purpose of this report is to review policy in regard to the fees charged in the City of Christchurch for Mobile Shop Licences issued under the provisions of the Christchurch City Signs and Public Places Bylaw 1992 and
12 Cont'd
to seek removal of the $100 limit on such fees placed on the Council by the Local Government Act 1974. The current fee set by the Council for the issue of a mobile shop licence is $100 plus GST and currently there is no fee set for food hygiene inspections of such operators. INTRODUCTION
Mr L. Baker, who operates a number of mobile shops as Tony Chimes (Soft Freeze) Ltd, has been in discussion with various officers of the Council in regard to matters relating to the operation of the mobile shops at various fixed places in reserves and other public places where they effectively operate as stalls. In addition to these discussions Mr Baker has raised some questions in regard to the fees charged by this Council for licences for mobile shops. Mr Baker sought refunds of a proportion of each of his fees paid to this Council on the basis of a decision he quoted from the High Court in Auckland in 1969 in which Mr Justice Hardie Boyes stated a full registration fee was unreasonable and the Council needed to look at three different situations; a licence newly applied for; a licence being renewed for the same vehicle; a licence applied for in respect of a person and vehicle already authorised by another local body [Stapleton v Auckland City Council, BA 12.04.(1969). NZLR 95. (SC)].
Mr Baker states that the suggested fee by the Judge was $10.00 being reasonable since a profit was not to be made (by the licensing Council). It should be noted that $10 then would be equivalent to approximately $106 in 1995 terms. Mr Baker has also drawn the officer's attention to an investigation in 1991 by the Ombudsman of his complaint against the Ashburton District Council relating to a fee charged for the operation of his mobile shop at the Methven A&P Show. His complaint was that the fee charged, of $162.50 per vehicle was unreasonable on the grounds that he was already licensed as a mobile shop in another area. The Chief Ombudsman found that the fee was made up of $112.50 for a mobile shop licence charged under section 684(1)(39) of the Local Government Act 1974 and $50 for a food hygiene licence. He found that the Ashburton District Council had overlooked the provision for a proportional reduction of the $100 (plus GST) fee for a licence issued for part of a year. He also found that under the Food Hygiene Regulations mobile shops do not require to be registered as food premises and cannot be charged for such registration. Nevertheless they do require to comply with the provisions of the regulations and a reasonable fee, to cover costs for inspection, can be set by the Council under the provisions of Section 690(A) of the Local Government Act. The Ombudsman noted that the Council had decided to charge such an inspection fee on a time plus mileage basis and provide a suitable handout advice to operators so that such inspections can be done preferably at the District Council office so that minimal mileage is charged.
12 Cont'd
DISCUSSION
The licensing and regulation of the operation of mobile shops as defined in the Local Government Act 1974, is enabled by bylaws made under the provisions of section 684(1)(39) of that Act. It also permits a licence fee to be set not exceeding $100 per year, or a proportionate part of that amount in the case of a licence issued for a period of less than one year, in respect of each shop kept by the licensee....
In the case of other fees set under the bylaw making powers of the Local Government Act 1974 these must be reasonable licence fees (which has been held to be fees that reasonably reimburse the Council for the expenses incurred in connection with the licence). These include the costs of registration processes, the collection of fees, and inspection costs. In the case of mobile shop fees the Act specifically states that fees for mobile shops shall not be held to be unreasonable if they are in excess to the cost to the council of the service involved in connection with the granting of the licence, the collection of the licence fees, and any inspections of licensed vehicles. The Act, however, sets a limit of $100 plus GST on any such fee. As noted above, while such mobile shops preparing and selling food cannot be registered under the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974, there is a requirement, under those regulations, for compliance with parts of the regulations in regard to food safety. A provision exists in section 690(A) of the Local Government Act 1974 for the council, by either bylaw or resolution publicly notified, set fees for any service given or inspection undertaken by the Council under any enactment where no fee is either authorised or prohibited. Any such fee must recover no more than the reasonable costs of the service or inspection. This could be applied in regard to provisions of the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 as they apply to mobile shops. Previously licences for mobile shops were administered by persons in the environmental health field and the distinction between the inspection for bylaw control purposes and food hygiene requirements was not important. The limit on the fee chargeable under the Local Government Act may not have, in some cases, provided for the full recovery of costs of both licence registration processes and food hygiene inspections. It did, however, provide some income recovery within the food hygiene inspection operations even if indirect (through reduction in overheads). At present fees for mobile shops are received by the Service Centres as part of their recovery process and the Food Hygiene Section of the Environmental Services Unit does not recover any of its inspection costs related to mobile shops selling food. While there is no requirement that fees set for the issue of mobile shop licences must be reasonable (the Act specifically states this but also sets a limit of $100 for any fee) it is considered that the actual costs of this licensing process should be examined and a fee recommended to the council on this basis. If the cost is more than the present $100 limit placed on councils by the legislation approaches should be made to the Minister to have a change made to this provision. If the cost is less, a fee on this basis could be recommended on the grounds of consistency with other such charging regimes within the Council. 12 Cont'd
In the case of inspection fees for food hygiene purposes these should be introduced by the Council by resolution to recover reasonable costs of inspection and enforcement of the provisions. In some cases, due to the nature of the operations and the importance of food handling, the actual process must be examined during operation as opposed to a mere inspection of the facilities provided for food hygiene. This may require more than just one inspection in any licensing period. This is currently being examined by the Senior Environmental Health Officer for recommendation through the 1996/97 Annual Plan and Budget process. Recommendation: 1. That the fees set by the Council for the licensing of mobile shops under the provisions of section 684(1)(39) of the Local Government Act 1974 be based on the reasonable costs of the licensing process. 2. That a fee be set by resolution of the Council for undertaking food hygiene inspections of mobile shops selling food based on the actual reasonable costs of undertaking such inspections. 3. That should the costs of licensing mobile shops, excluding any inspection fees for food hygiene inspections, be shown to be in excess of the maximum fee of $100 the matter be taken up with the Minister of Local Government to seek an amendment to the Local Government Act 1974 to permit fees that are charged to be on a similar basis to all other fee charging processes in the Act. PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
13. ELECTION OF DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON Councillor PCR Harrow was elected deputy Chairman of the Committee.
14. PRESENTATIONS ON THE NEW CITY PLAN
The Environmental Services Manager submitted a report detailing the meetings held by staff to explain the City Plan. The Committee resolved that the information be received and their officers be thanked for their presentations. 15. CRC/CCC RELATIONSHIP The Environmental Policy & Planning Manager reported, outlining the functions of the Canterbury Regional Council and recommending that the Council set up, with the CRC, joint committees to monitor and overview the relationship between the two Councils as it affects Resource Management issues of the city and to pursue public transport planning within the city. The Committee resolved to recommend to the Strategy & Resources Committee: 1. That the Chairmen of the Environmental Committee and City Services Committee and Councillors Alpers, Harrow and Crighton, together with appropriate officers be appointed to serve on the joint Committees with regard to Resource Management and transportation issues. 2. That the Committee have the power to co-opt or substitute members if deemed desirable for relevant issues.
16. SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED CHANGE 1 AND CHANGE 2 TO CANTERBURY TRANSITIONAL REGIONAL PLAN The Environmental Policy & Planning Manager submitted a report detailing proposed changes to the Canterbury Transitional Regional Plan and recommending that submissions be made on the following issues: 1. The proposal to extend the review date for authorisations for sewage tank effluent disposal and for animal effluent disposal onto land until 2001. 2. The proposal to change the underground water bylaw section of the Transitional Regional Plan from a rule which covers a wide range of contaminants to one that covers only three groups of chemicals. The Committee resolved that submissions be made on the Canterbury Transitional Regional Plan on the basis of the staff report. Note: The Committee has delegated authority to approve submissions on the Transitional Regional Plan. (Councillor Harrow declared an interest in the above item and abstained from the discussion and voting thereon.) 17. SUPPLEMENTARY ITEM
THE REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT - NOTIFICATION OF DECISIONS
The Chairman, in seeking approval to introduce a supplementary report on the above topic explained why the item was not on the main agenda and why the matter could not wait for the next meeting of the Commmittee. The Committee resolved that the report be received for consideration at the present meeting.
17 Cont'd
PROPOSED CANTERBURY REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT
NOTIFICATION OF DECISIONS
Officer Responsible Author Environmental Policy and Planning Ivan Thomson, Senior Planner Manager Corporate Plan Output: Planning and Policy AdviceThis report has two purposes. Firstly, it is to inform the Council that the Regional Council has publicly notified its decisions on the Proposed Regional Policy Statement and how they affect the City Council. Secondly, it recommends to the Council that an appeal be lodged to the Planning Tribunal against one particular decision. The decision was only notified a few days before the meeting of the Environmental Committee; it has not been possible to obtain a response from all relevant units of the Council that contributed to the Council's original submission. Also, the full Council meets the day after the final day for lodging appeals. For these reasons, it is recommended that the Council be asked to retrospectively approve any other appeals that are considered necessary following a fuller analysis of the Regional Council's decision.
The Canterbury Regional Council has publicly notified its decision on the Proposed Regional Policy Statement following its hearing of submissions earlier this year. The Council has until 12 December to lodge any appeals to the Planning Tribunal. The Regional Policy Statement (R.P.S.) was publicly notified in October 1993 and the Council lodged its submissions in February 1994. While much of the submission was to do with minor technical matters, it also covered four issues of particular importance to the City Council: * The need to more clearly state the expected roles and responsibilities of the region and territorial authorities. * To be as specific as possible as to the functions to be transferred from the region to districts or vice versa. * The extent to which it is proposed to use regional plans as a method of implementing policies. * The need for clarification of what is meant by "regional significance" and regionally significant effects. The need to resolve these matters arose largely out of the overlapping functions created within the Resource Management Act, rather than any deficiencies in the Regional Policy Statement, although the City Council view was that the R.P.S. is the appropriate mechanism for clarifying roles and responsibilities. This view has support from declarations made by the Court of Appeal that recognises that overlaps exist in the Act, and implying a need for these to be resolved locally. 17 Cont'd
In its decisions, the Regional Council has made amendments to its Policy Statement which allow, either entirely or in part, most of the City Council's submission. From a practical perspective, the Council can live with the changes made to the R.P.S. even though they do not go all the way in achieving what was sought in one or two cases. However, another issue has arisen as a result of the Regional Council's decision. This concerns Policy 6 in Chapter 7 which seeks to protect versatile soils. The original policy in the Proposed R.P.S. was supported by the City Council and an almost identical policy was inserted in the Proposed City Plan. However, the notified decision has changed Policy 6 to the extent that the City Plan is probably no longer consistent with that Policy. While the revised Policy 6 recognises that there will be some limited situations where there is "little option" but to allow urban development on versatile soils, the Policy is likely to have the effect of severely restricting Christchurch's urban growth options. There needs to be a more definite policy commitment to allowing some urban development on versatile soils as has been proposed in the City Plan. Soil productivity is only one of several matters to be considered when determining where the city should grow. Other matters such as access, servicing, community facilities, city form and energy efficiency also need to be considered. A proposed method to implement Policy 6 is to identify and map, in consultation with district councils and other parties, areas of Class I and Class II land which need protecting and identify patches of such land where protection is not justified. There is no indication as to when this investigation will be carried out, nor any guidance on the circumstances under which Classes I and II soils need not be protected. Little philosophical difference exists between the city and region on the need to protect productive soils from urban development. The issue is where to draw the line in terms of when to protect and when to permit urban development. The only way to resolve the issue now is through an appeal to the Planning Tribunal to have Policy 6 of the R.P.S. changed. There is a strong likelihood that other parties will also be lodging appeals in relation to Policy 6 and, although the City Council would be entitled to join these appeals, it is preferable that it appears on its own initiative to ensure that the particular matters it is concerned with, are addressed by the Tribunal. Acting under delegated authority, the Committee resolved pursuant to Part I of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, that an appeal be made to the Planning Tribunal against the Canterbury Regional Council's decision to alter Policy 6 in Chapter 7 of the Regional Policy Statement (together with the supporting explanation).
18. RESOURCE CONSENTS
The Committee received the report on the Environmental Services Manager detailing the resource consents heard by Resource Management Hearings Panel since June 1995. 19. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the resolution contained on page 31 of the agenda be adopted. REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
22. SUBMISSIONS ON CITY PLAN RR 2059
Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager Bob Nixon, Senior Planner, City
Plan
Annual Plan Output: City Plan Submissions
The purpose of this report is to request that the Council, pursuant to
Section 37(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991, waive failure by any
submitter to comply with the deadline for submissions of 4.00 p.m. on
Thursday 30 November 1995, provided that such late submissions are
received by the Council prior to 5.00 p.m. on 1 December 1995.
Perhaps not surprisingly, despite the generous period for submissions on the
Plan, a large number of submissions were received late on 30 November and
some in the mail the following day, 1 December 1995.
It is apparent from briefly looking at the submissions that there are a
number of important groups and organisations, as well as individuals that have,
for various reasons, failed to meet the submission closing time. In my view, if
the Council was to take a pedantic view on this matter, it would not serve the
Resource Management process itself well, or the public image of the Council.
On the other hand, any waiver of the time limits within which submissions
should be received, should be short, and hence it is recommended that this
should not extend beyond Friday 1 December. By waiving late submissions
for a period of 24 hours, the Council is not extending the date for
submissions, but rather giving a waiver to those who have failed to comply with
it by offering a 24 hour "grace" period. A number of reasons, many of them
legitimate, have contributed to the problem of late submissions including
difficulties in having submissions delivered on time and overloading of the fax
machines. This was despite Council efforts to ensure that the fax machines
were arranged to switch from one to the other to help cope with the anticipated
number of submissions received.
There is also the need to bear in mind that those who did lodge their
submissions in time could have legitimate complaints if the waiver period was
too long, and that those persons could have spent more time on their own
submissions. Accordingly, there is a need to provide a careful balance between
a reasonable period of additional time within which late submissions will be
accepted, and strict adherence to time limits.22 Cont'd
It should be noted that a formal waiver is necessary, as otherwise legal challenges could be mounted against late submissions which have been time and date stamped. Enquiries to the Auckland City Council who have already been through this process, indicated that they had the same problem, and dealt with it in the same way as is being proposed here. I think it is quite clear that notwithstanding any time period set by councils on submissions, it is a fact of life that there will always be submissions that will be received out of time. Recommendation: That the Council, pursuant to Section 37(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991, waive failure by any submitter to comply with the deadline for submissions of 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 30 November 1995, provided that such submissions were received by the Council not later than 5.00 p.m. on 1 December 1995.
Chairman's
Recommendation: That the foregoing recommendation be adopted.
CONSIDERED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1995
MAYOR