This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
13 MARCH 1996
A meeting of the Environmental Committee
was held on Wednesday 13 March 1996 at 4.00 p.m.
PRESENT: Councillor Carole Evans (Chairman)
Councillors Oscar Alpers, Anna Crighton,
Newton Dodge, Pat Harrow, Lesley Keast
and Charles Manning. IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors David Close and Ron Wright.
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and
accepted from Councillor Barbara Stewart. Councillor Oscar Alpers arrived at 4.25 p.m.
and was not present for part of clause 2. Councillor Anna Crighton arrived at 4.45 p.m.,
retired at 6.20 p.m. and was not present for
clause 2, part of clause 7 and clause 14. The Committee reports that: PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. PROPOSED DOG REGISTRATION AND RELATED FEES RR 2366 FOR THE 1996/97 DOG LICENSING YEAR
Officer Responsible Author Environmental Services Manager Mike Shaw Corporate Plan Output:
The purpose of this report is to consider the setting of dog registration and other related fees for the 1996/97 dog licensing year which commences 1 July 1996. INTRODUCTION Existing legislation requires that: 1. All dogs of greater age than three months be registered by 1 July each year with the authority in whose district the dog is normally domiciled and, in the case of a young dog reaching registrable age after 1 July, on or before it attains the age of three months. 2. The fees for dog registration set by an authority by publicly notified in a newspaper circulated within its district at least once in the month prior to the commencement of the registration year. Reference Appendix 1. 1 Cont'd It has long been the practice of territorial authorities in this area to send to each known dog owner an application form for registration. In the past these forms have contained information required by the Dog Control and Hydatids Act as well as setting out the annual fee structure. In order that the completed application forms are supplied by 15 May it is necessary that the fees be set by the Council no later than its meeting on 27 March 1996 as it is intended that the dog control fees continue to be printed on the reverse side of the registration application form. Because the Council has not yet received confirmation of the new dog control legislation, due 1 July, it is not intended to include any legal information on the dog registration form this year, but ensure each owner receives an information sheet detailing those pertinent legal changes seen as affecting the obligations and responsibilities of a dog owner. The deadline for the printing of such material is not quite so critical (22 April). DOG REGISTRATION POLICY The Council at its meeting on 10 August 1993 adopted the following recommendations of the Environmental Committee. 1. That the Responsible Dog Ownership category be continued with a suitable concessionary fee. 2. That a fee continues to be charged for the sale of dogs to new owners from the pound to recover some of the costs of the operation. 3. That no registration concession for neutered or spayed dogs be provided for from the Dog Control Account which would require such registration fees to be subsidised by other dog owners. 4. That any further concessions in regard to neutering, spaying, or reduction of charges from pound charges or sales be funded from Rating Accounts rather than the Dog Control Account. 5. That fees and charges be set to ensure the deficit in the Dog Control Account is paid off no later than the end of the 1996/97 registration year. It should be noted that this has already been achieved. To date the above resolutions have, so far, neither been amended or cancelled. DOG REGISTRATION FEES RECOMMENDED The budget prepared for 1996/97 includes funding for some of the additional costs associated with the introduction of new dog control legislation, but does not need to contribute to repayment of the past dog control account deficit. As the net cost for the 1996/97 budget is almost the same as for the 1995/96 year the fees can therefore be retained essentially at last years levels. Provision has again been made to allow for a concessionary fee for those persons having been granted Responsible Dog Owner Status in accordance with the criteria previously adopted by the Council. Reference Appendix 2.
1 Cont'd This fee structure rewards those granted the above status with a generous financial concession of 44% for the first dog registered and a lower concession of 68% for any second and subsequent dog(s) registered by the same owner. However, there is a requirement under the Council's dog control bylaw for the occupier of any premises where more than one dog is kept for more than 14 days in any one year to obtain a licence from the Council. A `one off' fee of $65.00 is required to be paid for appropriate consultation, inspection and issue of the licence. A licence is not transferable between either owners or properties. A $30.00 re-inspection fee is charged where the holder of the licence either changes addresses or, the type of dog kept or, any of the conditions under which the original licence was issued, or is the subject of a bona fide complaint arising from the keeping of dogs on the property. For the 1996/97 year it is proposed to apply by way of a penalty an additional charge of $30.00 ($24.00) for the registration of any dog, being a dog that should have been registered by 1 July, but is not registered until after 1 August. However, it is suggested that a proportion of the additional charge be remitted if registration is completed before 1 September. The recommended remission is $20.00. INPUT FROM RATES
Dog Control The recommended fees are based on the assumption that there will remain in the 1996/97 budget rate funded money for the control of prohibited areas, parks and after hours activities relating to dog control as previously agreed to by the Council. This sum has remained at approximately $149,000.00 for the 1996/97 year. Without this rate funding dog registration fees would need to be set higher to recover the costs of undertaking the aforementioned activities. Stock Control The cost of undertaking stock ranging and stock pound activities are also required to be paid from rates and the net cost is estimated to increase from $22,182.00 in the 1995/96 year to $27,070.00 for the 1996/97 year. Costs associated with stocking ranging and the stock pound cannot be charged to the Dog Control Account. Recommendation: 1. That the fees in the attached schedule be adopted for the 1996/97 registration year. 2. That the status quo remain for Hearing Ear Dogs.
2. VARIATION COVERING MATTERS INCLUDED IN RR 2394 "ERRATA: AMENDMENT NO. 1 (24 JUNE 1995)"
TO THE PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN
Officer Responsible Author Environmental Services Manager Peter Eman Corporate Plan Output: City Plan
The purpose of this report is to propose a variation to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan covering the matters included in the errata issued with the Proposed Plan when it was notified on 24 June last year. The issue has been raised with the Council that the errata issued with the Proposed District Plan may not be legally valid in terms of the provisions of the Resource Management Act. The errata principally corrected errors and clarified issues. Legal advice has been obtained from Duncan Laing of Simpson Grierson, which indicates that the submission has some merit, at least in part, but that this may need to be resolved by initiating proceedings in the Planning Tribunal. As a precautionary measure and to resolve any uncertainty that legal advice recommended that the Council initiate a variation to the Proposed Plan covering the errata and consider seeking a declaration from the Planning Tribunal. Details of the proposed variation are attached. It is proposed that the Council will continue to administer the Proposed Plan as that notified, including the errata. Recommendation: That pursuant to clause 5 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council initiate Proposed Variation No. 1 to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan.
3. TELECOM CELL SITE, TEMPLETON RR 2373
Officer Responsible Author Environmental Policy and Planning John Chivers Manager Corporate Plan Output: City Plan and District Plan Consents
The purpose of this report is to obtain authorisation to make a submission in opposition to an application for resource consent for a proposed Telecom Cellular Radio Base Station in Selwyn District. THE PROPOSAL
The location of the site is in a strip of rural land between State Highway 1 and the SIMT Railway approximately 100 metres north of the Christchurch City Information Kiosk on State Highway 1 just north of Templeton. This location is within Selwyn District, but only 35 metres from the city boundary which runs along the centre line of Waterloo Road. 3 Cont'd The Station includes a small building and a tubular steel mast 22 metres (72 feet) high with 12 antennae panels fixed near the top. Each panel is 1.2 metres high by 375 mm wide and will be arranged in two circles. NOTIFICATION
The application has been publicly notified and submissions closed on 26 February 1996. Despite the close proximity to the city boundary, the city was not formally notified until we made enquiries as a result of a phone call from a local resident. I have made a request to Selwyn District to follow Christchurch City policy and notify all properties within Christchurch City that are within a 300 metre radius of the tower. A submission in opposition was despatched to Selwyn District Council on 23 February 1996. REASONS FOR SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION
The location is just north of the city's Information Kiosk at Templeton. This is the location of the proposed Gateway to Christchurch, where a Welcome to Christchurch sign is planned together with upgraded landscaping. The Gateway location is particularly good because it is visible from some distance as a result of a small bend in the highway near this point. The proposed tower will be highly visible to highway traffic travelling in both directions, because the tower is only 20 metres from the highway carriageway, and is aligned with the highway approach from the south as a result of the small bend already referred to. In addition, existing trees near the site are all significantly lower than the proposed tower and will partially screen the bottom part of the structure only. Recommendation: That the Council approve the above submission.
4. DELEGATED AUTHORITY RR 2372
Officer Responsible Author Environmental Policy and Planning John Chivers Manager Corporate Plan Output: City and District Plan Consents
The purpose of this report is to obtain delegation of power to the Environmental Policy and Planning Manager to make submissions on resource consent applications notified by adjoining local authorities. Making submissions on notified planning applications for resource consents in adjacent territorial local authorities is required from time to time where they affect Christchurch City. An example of this is the application to build a cell site in Templeton, which is the subject of another report in this agenda. Submissions normally need to be made within 20 working days. It is considered that the Environmental Policy and Planning Manager should have authority to make such submissions, on behalf of the Council, particularly because of the short time frames involved.
4 Cont'd Recommendation: 1. That pursuant to Section 34(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Environmental Policy and Planning Manager be given power to make submissions on applications for resource consents applied for in territorial authority districts adjoining the city. 2. That regular reports be provided to the Environmental Committee for information. PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
5. GLENMORE HOUSE AND ESTATE Mrs R T de Jong and Valerie Campbell from the Hillsborough Residents' Association spoke to the Committee regarding the preservation of Glenmore House and its estate. They emphasised the importance of the house and the estate for the community of Hillsborough and Christchurch generally and requested that the Council halt the present development proposal and find sustainable uses for the estate. After questions and discussion the Committee resolved that staff be asked to: 1. Continue negotiations with the developer with a view to having the homestead separately lotted so it can be sold separately. 2. Consider whether the homestead comes into the category for funding from the historic buildings retention fund. 3. Investigate the possibility of redesigning the site layout so as to preserve the historic landscape of the estate.
6. "WE CARE - YOU CARE"
DOG OWNER AWARENESS PROMOTION RR 2390 A sample of the promotion packs to be given to responsible dog owners was tabled. The Committee resolved that the information be received.
7. PROGRESS WITH CITY PLAN RR 2391 The Committee considered a report outlining delays in checking submissions on the new City Plan. It is unlikely that hearings will begin before the beginning of September this year. The Committee resolved that the information be received.
8. PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TRAVIS WETLAND RR 2392 AS A SCENIC RESERVE (NATURE HERITAGE PARK)
The Committee heard deputations from Eleanor Bissell from the Travis Wetland Trust and from Mr Geoffrey Beadel representing Travis Country Estates Limited. Information was also received from Council officers on the need to designate Travis Country Estates' land as scenic reserve. It was reported that recent discussions with the company's representatives indicated that it might be possible to reach agreement on the purchase of the subject land. The Committee therefore resolved that further consideration of the proposed designation of this land be deferred for one month.
9. REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT WORKING PARTY RR 2387 The Committee resolved to endorse the recommendations passed by the City Services Committee regarding this issue.
10. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC The Committee resolved that the draft resolution to exclude the public set out on page 16 of the agenda be adopted. CONSIDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 1996
MAYOR