This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
27. 11. 96
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
13 NOVEMBER 1996
A meeting of the Environmental Committee
was held on Wednesday 13 November 1996 at 4.00 pm
PRESENT: Councillor Carole Evans (Chairman),
Councillors Oscar Alpers, Anna Crighton,
Newton Dodge, Pat Harrow, Lesley Keast,
Charles Manning and Barbara Stewart.
APOLOGIES: Councillor Oscar Alpers arrived at 4.30 pm and retired at 5.12 pm. He was not present for part of clause 2 and clauses 6 to 10.
Councillor Barbara Stewart arrived at 4.17 pm and was not present for part of clause 2.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. DRAFT DOG CONTROL POLICY - CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL
RR 4049
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy & Planning Manager | Terence Moody Principal Environmental Health Officer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Health Policy Vol II P.7.2.text.12 |
The purpose of this report is to present a draft dog control policy for adoption by the Council for release to dog owners and publicly as required under the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996.
INTRODUCTION
The Dog Control Act 1996, which replaced the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982, came into force on the 1 July 1996
The Act requires the Council to adopt a policy on dogs in public places, and this must be introduced by the special consultative procedure set down in the Local Government Act 1974. Specific notice of the draft policy must be given to each owner of a registered dog in the district.
The policy must contain information on proposed bylaws to be made under the Act; public places in which dogs are prohibited; public or other places in which dogs are to be controlled on a leash; public places where prohibition or leashing is not required; areas designated by a bylaw as dog exercise
areas; identify land which is either a controlled dog area or open dog area under the Conservation Act 1987, or a National Park under the National Park Act 1980.
The policy may contain policy in relation to fees or proposed fees; owner education programmes; dog obedience courses; classification of owners; the disqualification of owners; the issuing of infringement notices; and other information and advice relating to dogs as the Council thinks fit.
The Council will be required to give effect to the policy adopted by making bylaws to come into force currently by not later than 1 July 1997, and by repealing any bylaws inconsistent with the policy by that date. No bylaws may be made that would be inconsistent with the policy. Any amendments to the policy must be undertaken in accordance with the special consultative procedure.
DOG CONTROL WORKING PARTY CONSIDERATIONS
The Committee at its meeting on the 12 June 1996 considered a discussion document on a draft dog control policy and set up a working party of Councillors Dodge, Evans, Manning, and Stewart to consider the document and to report back to the Committee. In addition the Committee requested a focus group be formed to consider the document and for the document to be referred to Community Boards.
The discussion document was referred to each Community Manager for the consideration of the respective Community Boards and the Focus Group met on two occasions. Attached is a report on the Focus Group meetings, including the names of those participating.
The Parks Committee have discussed the matters regarding controls of dogs on parks and reserves and the suggested prohibited areas or those where control by leash would be required are set out the Appendices 4 and 5 of the attached discussion document. These have also been included in the Appendix 6 list of parks and reserves.
Some minor changes have been made to the discussion document to reflect comments from the Focus Group. There are, however, further matters of policy arising from the Focus Group that need to be considered by the Council and these are set out below.
i) The costs of rehoming a dog from the Pound. The suggestion was made that there should be some provision for a rebated registration fee for dogs rehomed from the pound to new owners. Another suggestion was that the $25 fee could be given back to the new owner on production of evidence that the dog had been neutered within a certain period, say three months or less.
ii) Providing requirements or incentives for neutering dogs, particularly those going to new owners from the Pound. Suggestions included reduced or nil registration fees in the first year; the rebate of the uplifting fee; and the provision of a voucher system for neutering.
More education was considered necessary as to the availability of any incentives in the future.
iii) The Focus Group saw a need for the Council to provide a full time education officer to promote and publicise dog control matters. The suggestion was made that a booklet of advice to new owners should be produced for issue to new owners covering all dog care and control matters.
These are not matters that are required to be included in a policy under the Act. They matters which could have significant financial implications, and could be reflected in either increased dog registration fees or in the need to provide additional rate funding to the dog control operations. As such it is considered inappropriate that these should be considered as part of a policy at this time. They will be able to be reviewed, however, as part of the Annual Plan and Budget process.
Some of the other matters raised during the Focus Group discussions are not necessarily policy matters but to a large extent operational. This applies to the matter of entering tattoo identifications into the register; the production of a list of protected wildlife; and the investigation of the card system for distribution at various outside Council facilities.
THE DRAFT DOG CONTROL POLICY
Attached is a formal draft dog control policy which would be the basis for undertaking the Special Consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 1974. This will be sent to all registered dog owners and publicly notified in The Press and suburban newspapers once adopted by the Council. The discussion paper, also attached, on which it is based will be made available at Service Centres and Libraries for further reference.
The timetable for considering and implementing the policy is constrained by the requirements of the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996. The Council will be required to give effect to the policy adopted by making bylaws to come into force currently by not later than 1 July 1997, and by repealing any bylaws inconsistent with the policy by that date.
To enable the Special Order procedure for the making of bylaws to be fulfilled, within the limit of the 1 July, any bylaw would have to be introduced not later than the May 1997 Council meeting for confirmation at the June 1997 meeting. Ideally it should be presented at the Council meeting in April 1997 meeting to enable any further comments to be considered before its confirmation. Whether this will be able to be done will depend on the number of submissions that will need to be heard.
The release of the policy should therefore occur in December 1996 with the time for making any submissions being until the 28 February 1997.
Recommendation: 1. That the Council adopt the proposed Draft Dog Control Policy for release for public consultation under the provisions of section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 with a closing date for the receipt of submissions of the 28 February 1997.
2. That copies of the Draft Dog Control Policy be sent to each dog owner on the Dog Register of the Council who hold current registration of a dog or dogs.
3. That copies of the Discussion Document on the Draft Dog Control be available for examination at Service Centres and appropriate other Council facilities.
4. That a panel be established by the Environmental Committee to hear any submissions on the Draft Dog Control Policy.
5. That a Panel comprising three of the four members of the Working Party (Councillors Dodge, Evans, Manning and Stewart) that had examined the draft Dog Control Policy, be appointed to hear submissions on the policy.
2. CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL PEST MANAGEMENT RR 3971
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy & Planning Manager | Terence Moody Principal Environmental Health Officer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Health Policy Vol II P.7.2.text.12 |
The purpose of this report is to seek the views of the Committee on the formation of a Pest Liaison Committee under the Regional Pest Management Strategy of the Canterbury Regional Council covering the City of Christchurch and determine the support for a proposal to include a plant, Salt Bush, as a pest under the provisions of the above strategy.
PEST MANAGEMENT LIAISON COMMITTEE
The Council has been approached by the Canterbury Regional Council requesting its views on options for the formation of new Pest Liaison Committees in the Canterbury Region. This arises from a statement in the Regional Pest Management Strategy which says.
The Regional Council intends to further develop its system of Pest Rating Liaison Committees. The purpose of these liaison committees is to provide advice on the extent of Regional Council pest management activity and its costs in each pest district.
Such liaison committees currently exist, largely for animal pest matters, although there is such a liaison committee for nassella tussock in North Canterbury. Now that pest management, whether animal or plant, is operated under the Biosecurity Act it is considered, by the Regional Council, there could be advantages in combining these in single liaison committees with logical boundaries.
The proposal is that Pest Management Liaison Committees would be elected at public meetings, with Regional Councillors for the area being members ex officio. They would not be formally constituted under the Local Government Act. The Regional Council would provide administrative support and incidental costs such as room or hall hire. The proposed terms of reference for such committees is attached.
There are four options presented for determining the geographic boundaries within which the liaison committees would operate.
Option A Separate plant and animal liaison committees would operate within boundaries set down, in the case of plants on a district council basis, and in the case of animals on the rabbit pest rating district basis. In the latter case Christchurch City would be included in the Selwyn Pest Rating District.
Option B Combined animal and plant liaison committee based on local Territorial Authority boundaries.
Option C Combined animal and plant liaison committee based on Rabbit Pest Rating Districts. In this option Christchurch City would be combined with Selwyn District.
Option D Combined animal and plant liaison committees reflecting the pest problems for particular areas. The suggestion is that this would be Territorial Local Authority boundaries for the region north of the Rangitata River and Rabbit Pest Districts south of that river.
The request was for the Council to respond by mid-October but this was received too late for the matter to be reported to the October meeting of the Committee. The Regional Council timetable suggests they would be calling public meetings to elect liaison committees in November. It is understood, however, that the timetable is not fixed as the Regional Council wishes to receive comments from territorial authorities and others on the matter at this stage of the reforming of the system.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR SALT BUSH
The Hagley - Ferrymead Community Board has requested the following matter be put to the Environmental Committee.
The Hagley - Ferrymead Community Manager has advised that the Summit Road Society has written to the Canterbury Regional Council expressing concern at the spread of salt bush on the Port Hills, requesting it be re-categorised as a noxious plant.
The Board resolved:
1. To support the approach that the Summit Road Society has made and request that the Canterbury Regional Council upgrade the classification of Salt Bush.
2. To request the Environmental Committee to support the upgrading.
3. To write to both Selwyn and Banks Peninsula District Councils expressing concern at the spread of Salt Bush and requesting their support.
The procedure for introducing the control of plant pests is contained under the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and requires the legal introduction of a Pest Management Strategy, either at a National or Regional level. The term "noxious plant" has been removed from legislation with the coming into force of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the revoking of the Noxious Plants Act at that time. The Biosecurity Act makes it clear that there is no legal obligation for a regional council to take on the role of managing a pest unless it chooses to do so. The Act requires that the end results of a strategy need to be clear and measurable; to specify the extent to which beneficiaries are identifiable; and the extent to which persons contribute to the problem. The regional council must be of the opinion that the organism, whether plant or animal, is capable of causing serious adverse effects.
In this case it is understood no supporting information was provided to enable an assessment of the above matters to be considered as required by section 72 of the Act. The common term Salt Bush could apply to a number of plant species. It is understood the term is an old name for "Bone seed" which has a yellow daisy-like flower, and is a member of the Chrysanthemoides family. This grows on the Port Hills. There are, however, other plants known as `salt bush' which are known to be growing around the Riccarton rail yard and are common in drier areas of Central Otago. These are Atriplex rosea and it is understood are promoted for stock fodder during drought periods. There are other plants that may go by the name of `salt bush' and these include a sprawling or low scrambling plant which is a relation of the Atriplex `salt bush'. There is also a `berry salt bush' which is a native plant.
The current Regional Pest Management Strategy contains a plant "Boneseed", Chrysanthemoides monilifera, in the list of organisms that are to be controlled by prohibiting their sale, propagation and distribution. A change in the categorisation of plant pests requires an analysis of the adverse effects of the pest, the extent to which beneficiaries and those causing the problem should be financially responsible, and the appropriate means of control. Until this information has been provided it is not
considered that support for the proposal of the Summit Road Society could be given. Rather the information should be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council with a request that they investigate the matter further.
Recommendation: 1. That the Canterbury Regional Council be advised that a Pest Liaison Committee covering both animal and plant pests should be formed on territorial authority boundaries for the City of Christchurch.
2. The information about "salt bush" be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council for their consideration and action.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL - DISCHARGE CONSENT CONDITIONS WAIMAKARIRI RIVER - PPCS LIMITED
Professor Wally Clark and Betty Symonds representing the Waimakariri River Protection Association spoke in respect of the recent decision of the CRC in respect of the application by PPCS Ltd for the right to discharge into the Waimakariri River. They sought the Council's support in lodging an appeal in respect of the conditions imposed by the CRC.
Professor Clark spoke of the Waimakariri River's importance to people in pursuit of leisure activities and of the health risk the river posed to them. He stated that the decision issued was unusual in many ways as it appeared to be at odds with the evidence presented, the conditions imposed were vague, uncertain and unlikely to be able to be implemented.
Of particular importance was the amount of chromium discharged into the river, the allowable limit now being raised by a very high margin. Despite claims to the contrary floods did not sweep all the chromium away and it was accumulative.
Betty Symonds drew attention to the conditions imposed in the order, which she said had been publicised as an improvement, when it was not. As a public playing ground the conditions were unacceptable and notices warning against swimming in the waters should be erected.
All conditions had been regularly broken by the company and there was a need for daily testing provisions for various discharge elements.
A supplementary report prepared by Isobel Smith (Environmental Health Officer) in respect of the decision, the evidence presented at the hearing and the term of consent was received by the Committee.
The report referred to the Christchurch City Council's submission which sought continued investigation into the sources and reduction of chromium in the discharge from the fellmongery, construction of an additional holding pond, the total avoidance of the effluent plume impinging on the nearby banksides and a condition requiring the monitoring of odour.
The report concluded that the conditions sought by the Christchurch City Council have largely been incorporated in the decision and that as the Bromley option will not be available for six years at the earliest, there are no grounds for the Council to appeal the decision.
Recommendation: 1. That an appeal be lodged against the Canterbury Regional Council's decision in respect of Primary Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd's discharge to the Waimakariri River.
2. That a decision to continue with the appeal be subject to the report of a sub-committee formed to assess the hearing evidence and determine whether to proceed with the appeal or not.
3. That the sub-committee comprise Councillors Charles Manning, Anna Crighton and Newton Dodge, such sub-committee to report direct to the Council with a recommendation.
PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
4. CORONER'S REPORT - SWIMMING POOL ACCIDENT - 189A ENGLAND STREET RR 4056
The Committee received a report from the Building Control Manager advising the Coroner's findings on an inquest into the death of a child in a swimming pool in Christchurch. The Coroner recommended the Council review its procedures concerning:
1. Enforcement of the provisions of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act in particular where the Council is aware of non compliance or where records are held in the Council's archives that a swimming pool has been erected on a given property but there is no evidence of compliance with the Act.
2. The policy of allowing a barbecue area to be contained within a fenced area.
A group of Council officers be set up to review these matters.
The Committee resolved that:
1. The information be received.
2. Council officers report back to the December meeting of the Committee on the outcome of the review of the matter.
5. CENTRAL CITY CAR PARKING RR 4073
A report from the Senior Planner - Applications, provided information on ground level commercial car parking areas within the four avenues.
A survey in 1985 indicated that in the study area there were 86 car parks providing approximately 3,000 spaces. A recent followup survey carried out by enforcement staff indicated that:
(i) 18 of the 86 car park areas have now closed.
(ii) 22 of the 86 car park areas are no longer used as commercial car parks and have either have been redeveloped or converted to tenant or customer car park areas.
(iii) 27 of the 86 car park areas are legally established.
(iv) 19 of the 86 commercial car park areas are illegal.
With regard to the illegal car parks, the Council's Environmental Services Enforcement staff were presently writing to the owners or tenants of the sites.
In addition to this action, letters are being sent to the owners or tenants of those illegally established which do not provide appropriate landscaping.
The Committee resolved that:
1. The information be received.
2. An updated report on the 19 illegal car parks in the city be provided to the March 1997 meeting of the Committee.
3. The report be made available to the Central City Committee and the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board.
6. RESOURCE CONSENT AND CITY PLAN HEARINGS RR 4071
A comprehensive interim report from the staff process team looking at how improvements to resource consent and city plan hearings can be made for submitters was received by the Committee.
The report dealt with:
1. Provision of information prior to hearings:
2. The hearing process:
3. Education/assistance to submitters:
The team considered that any further investigation of the options raised needed guidance by the Environmental Committee, as to the level and extent of assistance to be provided.
The Committee resolved that a meeting of the Environmental Committee be held on Friday 13 December at 9.00 am to discuss the draft report of the staff process team and that the City Plan Committee be invited to attend.
7. WAIMAKARIRI RIVER FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REGIONAL
PLAN - IMPLICATIONS OF WITHDRAWAL
A report from the Senior Planner (Planning and Policy) informed the Committee of the implications of the Canterbury Regional Council's decision to withdraw the Waimakariri Flood Plain Management Regional Plan.
The objective of the Regional Plan is management of the Waimakariri River flood hazard:
All methods are identified as being necessary to achieve these objectives, namely, works, information education, Civil Defence and Regional rules.
The Christchurch City Council's position at the hearings was that it generally supported the Plan, but wanted a reduction in the level of land use control. It also suggested that the land use controls that were included in the Plan are not necessary, since it can be achieved through provisions in the City Plan. Essentially, while excellent technical work was undertaken on flood plan risks, the Canterbury Regional Council moved from a previous position of excessive reliance on protection works to excessive reliance on regulation of land use.
In recent months, the Plan has suffered two significant setbacks as a result of decisions on applications heard by independent Commissioners. The first was when the proposed Lagoons Resort development received approval in terms of the Plan, and the second, when a proposed residential development near Johns Road was given approval in terms of the proposed Plan.
Formal notification of its withdrawal was made on 26 October 1996. As part of the decision, the Canterbury Regional Council agreed to implement works, information, and Civil Defence approaches to achieve the purposes of the Plan through the Annual Plan process and the resource consents through the proposed Regional Policy Statement. It also agreed to consult with the Christchurch City Council and other district Councils about appropriate land use rules within District Plans.
Insofar as land use rules are concerned the withdrawal of a plan should not have significant implications on managing development in the flood plain. The City Plan rules are more stringent on rural subdivisions and dwellings in some areas than what was in the flood plain plan.
The Committee resolved that:
1. The existing City Plan policy, statements and rules be reviewed and variations be prepared, if appropriate.
2. The CRC Annual Plan be monitored to ensure provision is made for appropriate protection works and other actions to be undertaken.
8. ITEMS RECEIVED
The Committee received the following reports:
8.1 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
The report by the Environmental Policy & Planning Manager provided current information on:
8.2 VERSATILE SOILS - ENVIRONMENT COURT DECISIONS
A joint report from the Senior Planners (Planning & Policy and City Plan) informed the Committee on two significant decisions from the Environment Court on the issue of Versatile Soils and the degree of protection that they should be afforded under the Resource Management Act.
The meeting concluded at 5.50 pm.
CONSIDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1996
MAYOR