This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
26. 2. 97
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
13 FEBRUARY 1997
A meeting of the Environmental Committee
was held on Thursday 13 February 1997 at 4.00 pm
PRESENT: Councillor Carole Evans (Chairman),
Councillors Oscar Alpers, Anna Crighton, Pat Harrow, Charles Manning and Barbara Stewart.
APOLOGIES: An apology was received and accepted from Councillor Newton Dodge.
Apologies for lateness were received and accepted from Councillor Oscar Alpers and Pat Harrow.
Councillor Alpers arrived at 4.12 pm and was present for part of clause 1.
Councillor Harrow arrived at 5.00 pm and was not present for clauses 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 and part 11.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
SUSTAINABLE CITIES TRUST - ORGANIC CHRISTCHURCH CAMPAIGN
Messrs Prain, and Trust Chairman and Paul Honeybone, Project Manager were present to address their report (see attached).
The project was designed to focus the energy and enthusiasm of the general public in advancing the role of organics in the region, including the benefits of growing food in organic, sustainable ways.
To assist with this, an advisory group had been formed which was looking towards hosting a workshop to develop the concept and strategy for the campaign further.
As Christchurch city residents would benefit from the project, the support and involvement of the Christchurch City Council was seen as vital.
As subsidy for the current project co-ordinator is due to expire on 26 February 1997 funding of $5,300 was sought to cover the co-ordinator's continued employment for a further 15 week period.
Recommendation: 1. That the Council provide the sum of $5,300 plus GST from its general contingency fund, to meet the cost of the continued employment of the project co-ordinator plus associated expenses for a 15 week period.
2. That the Sustainable Cities Trust report back to the Environmental Committee's July 1997 meeting on progress to date with the project.
3. That Councillor Pat Harrow be the Council's appointment to the project advisory group.
2. REVIEW OF CRITERIA FOR RESPONSIBLE DOG
owner status RR 4347
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy and 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 enable the Council to review its criteria for granting Responsible Dog Ownership status and to adopt such criteria prior to posting out applications for registration for the 1997/98 registration year.
BACKGROUND
This status was introduced in 1992 as a means of rewarding dog owners who had a history of ensuring their dogs were under control at all times, that appropriate registration fees had been paid by the due date, whose properties were so organised that the dog or dogs were adequately confined but allowing free access to a door for legitimate visitors, had demonstrated they were taking responsibility for their dog's behaviour, and who had complied, and agreed to continue to comply, with bylaw and hydatids control requirements. The Council agreed to set a registration fee for this group of owners at a lower level than the normal fee if it was paid before or by the legal registration date of the 1 July. This was somewhat different from some other authorities where a similar type of status relied largely on dog owners undertaking a course and obtaining a certificate of having passed. In these situations however, there was often no evidence that the dog itself was under control at all times merely that the owner was capable of undertaking a relatively simple course and, in some cases, passing a simple examination on the course content.
CURRENT REQUIREMENTS
In obtaining a responsible dog owner status in Christchurch City, the owner was required to sign an application in which he or she agreed to undertake certain activities to comply with Dog Control and Hydatids Act and Bylaw requirements at all times, and to certify that their properties complied with the requirements. The Council had determined that they would not set an application fee for such a status (which would have enabled an inspection to be undertaken of each property prior to granting the application). It did agree that if it was shown the owner had not complied with the requirements of the status it would be removed and not be considered for re-instatement for two years.
DISCUSSION
Since its introduction the majority of dog owners (currently about 63 per cent) have been granted such status and more importantly the majority of these appear to be complying with the conditions. The Council has held the RDO registration fees at a similar low level over this period although this has meant, with the increasing number in the category, a slight rise in the fees for "other dogs".
The strength in requiring only dog owners with a proven record to be granted the status, as is able to be confirmed directly from the Council's records, means that in general most dog owners take it seriously rather than just a means of obtaining lower dog registration fees. There are some in the latter category who sometimes go to the extent of changing the ownership to other family members to avoid their being responsible in case an uncontrolled dog is apprehended or an offence is detected. Fortunately these are limited in number. There are also those dog owners who come in from other local authority areas who attempt to obtain the status where there is no local knowledge of the behaviour of the dog or dogs. It is impossible to obtain accurate information on this latter matter from other authorities in most cases.
CONCLUSION
As this process appears to have worked well, in general terms, and the majority of dog owners who are responsible accept the requirements there seems to be little need for change. Once explained, the requirement for the person to have owned a dog in Christchurch City for at least one year is accepted by the majority of dog owners coming into the City from other authorities. Some owners do, however, consider the additional fee for dog registration to be an imposition when they may have been granted a similar lower fee in other authorities. This may have been on the grounds set out above where the owner undertakes a course rather on the basis of the behaviour of the dog.
The current criteria are in Attachment A and with the repeal of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982 and the provisions of the Dog Control Movement Regulations the requirements regarding hydatids control should be removed. The suggested criteria for the Responsible Dog Owner Status, with the hydatids requirements removed and a reference to infringement notices added, would now be those as contained in Attachment B.
Recommendation: That the Council continue with the present Responsible Dog Owner Status criteria as adopted and applied since 1992 and for the purposes of accepting dog owners into the Responsible Dog Owner Status from 1 March 1997, adopt the criteria contained in Attachment B.
3. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND NEW ORGANISMS ACT
Update RR 4527
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | K D Prusas |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Services Unit, Environmental Effects |
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on progress of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, an Act to bring together existing legislation with reference to hazardous substances and new organisms.
The Act was enacted on 10 June 1996 but with the most parts not coming in to force for at least a year, possibly longer. Until then existing laws and their regulations will continue in force, ie the Dangerous Goods Act 1974, Explosives Act 1957, Toxic Substances Act 1979, Pesticides Act 1979 and sections of the Animals Act 1967 and Plants Act 1970. This Council made submissions to the Bill prior to enactment.
Discussions with the Ministry for the Environment, Local Government New Zealand and the New Zealand Chemical Industry Council Incorporated have since taken place.
The position at this time is that the new government agency, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has been set up. There are eight members, two of whom are from Christchurch including the Deputy Chairman Dr Oliver Sutherland. The submissions on the draft regulations have been made and are presently being worked upon. The methodology used for assessing hazardous substances and new organisms is understood to be also under way. It is anticipated that some time during late 1997 or early 1998 that the draft regulations may be finalised.
ERMA is expected to report to the government on the methodology by 1 December 1997. ERMA will be responsible for:
It is expected that ERMA will start to make assessments in 1998 when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Regulations come into force. By 2001 the new systems would be bedded in by ERMA and existing substances would be transferred to the new regime. It can be seen therefore from enactment in 1996 to final implementation will be somewhere in the order of five years plus. It is wondered whether such a long time frame is required.
The concerning matter for this Council, is not so much the technical issues but the manner in which the legislation will be administered. There have been some conflicting signals as to how this might eventually occur. The Ministry for the Environment in their 1996 handout state -
Territorial authorities, city and district councils will cover any area not covered by other authorities, such as public places and residential areas (Section 97). They will use the provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 to do this directly.
There is also provision for other agencies to agree with territorial authorities that the territorial authority will enforce the Act in places where those agencies normally operate (Section 98{3}). The effect will be similar to the way dangerous goods inspectors operate at present.
Territorial authorities would also continue to inspect and renew dangerous goods licences under the transitional provisions (Section 97{h}{iv}). It was advised during early 1996 that some discussion between the Ministry for the Environment, Local Government New Zealand and the Department of Occupational Health and Safety were to take place to discuss this issue. It is understood these discussions have not taken place. Until a clear direction is obtained planning for the future becomes difficult.
The reply from the New Zealand Chemical Industry Council Incorporated (attached) indicates their preference of where the administrative responsibility to monitor performance in the work place on a regular basis should lay - the territorial local authority. They suggest that a compliance officer should be appointed.
Irrespective of any final decision for the administration of this Act, land use planning within terms of the Resource Management Act will continue to be administered by territorial authorities. City and district plans throughout the country may have an influence on the use, storage and transportation of hazardous substances, a specific requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991. This Council's Proposed City Plan has some of these issues included. The Hazardous Substances and Organisms Legislation may provide the base line requirements, but it would be expected that some local authorities because of their particular circumstances may impose additional requirements. It would therefore be sensible and reasonable from a number of perspectives that a major proportion of the administrative work required were carried out by local authorities, particularly in relation to "on" property activities (building, drainage, storage and land use). This would seem to serve the public better by providing a one stop shop. The certification of new substances and new organisms administration however is clearly better suited for the central agency (ERMA).
Recommendation: That the Council write to Local Government New Zealand (with copies to the Ministry for the Environment) firstly, voicing concern about progress to full implementation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms legislation, and secondly, requesting those parties initiate real progress in clarifying the administrative roles for local authorities.
4. OUTDOOR CONCERTS RR 4541
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | K D Prusas |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Services Unit, Environmental Effects |
The purpose of this report is to provide information on the events of the AC/DC concert held at Queen Elizabeth II Park on 30 November 1996 in respect of noise issues.
This report will in brief discuss the events on that evening, the Proposed City Plan requirements that permit such events and discuss and comment on a number of aspects related to outdoor concerts and noise control, and associated matters.
MONITORING
The outdoor performance of the group AC/DC was held within the stadium of Queen Elizabeth Park on the evening of Saturday 30 November 1996. Brief sound checks were carried out prior to the event. The concert's first act commenced at 8.00 pm, with an intermission from 8.30 pm to 9.15 pm after which time the performance of AC/DC commenced and continued until 11.15 pm. The concert was attended by approximately 10,000 people. The weather conditions during the concert were strong north-easterly winds with moderate to cool temperatures, low cloud and with a period of rain around 9.00 pm. The Council received a total of 166 complaints relating to noise, of which 140 were received during the time of the concert. Sound level monitoring was carried out at the standard fixed monitoring sites as identified in the City Plan but also included some mobile monitoring around the city. The major reason for complaint was the bass.
The results of the sound level monitoring at the standard fixed monitoring sites indicated that at one of the monitoring sites compliance was achieved but not at the other. The mobile monitoring also indicated that the concert was clearly audible at some distance from the park that raised the background levels in those areas.
CITY PLAN RULES
The City Plan, because it recognises special provisions need to apply for certain events or concerts that differ to those applicable to everyday situations in living or business zones specifies criteria to those situations. In the case of outdoor concerts and Queen Elizabeth II Park the criteria reads as follows.
"In the case of outdoor amplified music concerts or events undertaken outside any buildings, not exceeding three days in any one calendar year, sound level from activities on the land measured or assessed on an hourly basis at any one of the standard monitoring sites shall not exceed 65dBAL10 between the hours of 0900 and 2230 on any occasion and the maximum sound level at such a point shall not exceed 85dBALmax during such times outside these days and times the levels shall meet those for the rest of the appropriate zone."
On the evening of the concert, the hours were exceeded for which an application for a resource consent would normally have been required. Because of a late notification by the promoter that the event was going to go beyond 2230 a resource consent was not sought. If an application had have been made it would have probably been granted with the same conditions, because precedents had been set on previous occasions.
ISSUES
Due to the large number of complaints received it was decided that staff should review the process in dealing with such events. This concert was the first for some time where a large number of complaints were received.
Councillors are also advised that submissions to the Proposed City Plan on this form of activity have been received, but the outcome may not be known for some time.
As part of the review process a number of matters arise and these are listed below in no particular order.
1. Bonds
* Exceedance of the noise level criteria should attract a monetary penalty.
For the venues owned and operated by the City Council this may be an option worth considering. Appropriate contracts could be negotiated with promoters. For venues not owned and controlled by the Christchurch City Council this would not be possible, unless the City Plan rules specifically stated such a requirement, and this might be considered unreasonable. The only other applicable situation is where a resource consent is granted, and imposes such a condition.
The bond (unless substantial) may be seen by the promoter as merely another fee payable, without any real attempt to comply with the noise criteria.
2. Monitoring Site Locations
* Provide additional monitoring locations at set distances from the event venue to provide a graduated noise level criteria.
The reason for set locations is to ensure that a universal and standard approach is provided at all concerts/events. The City Plan requires that rules are specific and certain. There is no doubt that depending upon the vagaries of weather, impact in some areas can be different to others. This may however not really address the public's concerns.
3. City Plan Noise Level Criteria
* Alter the noise level criteria to a more stringent standard
The criteria set is believed to be a reasonable standard. The City Plan recognises that special provisions need to apply for certain events or concerts that differ to those applicable to every day situations in living or business zones.
Information received from the Auckland and Wellington City Councils regarding their criteria for popular concerts whilst not directly comparable appear to be less stringent than this Councils'.
4. Closing Time of Concerts
* Alter the closing time to an "earlier" hour.
The City Plan specifies that 10.30 pm be the closing time. Because of daylight saving it could be argued that 11.30 pm should be the time. Most promoters now are seeking this later time - from 11.00 pm to 12.00 midnight. The Council has granted resource consents for these later times. One of the reasons for requesting later hours is that darkness is required for the visual/light displays that are now an integral part of the event.
5. Number of Concerts in the City
* Reduce the number of concerts in the city.
The City Plan specifies that no more than three concerts in any 12 month period should occur at any of the specified locations (without a resource consent). Since 1984 only 15 concerts have been held at the usually recognised venues - Queen Elizabeth II Park, Addington Showgrounds and Lancaster Park. That on average approximates to one a year. In some years there have been none, with only 1985 having three. This does not include the annual events in North Hagley Park under the SummerTimes programme. The SummerTimes programmes do not seem to attract the level of complaint that the other venues receive. While the level of the complaints may not be a real measure of concern the average number of complaints per concert since 1984 is 55.
6. Type of Entertainment
* Control the type, form, and nature of entertainment.
The concert issue may be more about the nature and acceptability of a particular form of entertainment, rather than the entertainment itself. This is reflected by the number of complaints received at the various venues including the SummerTimes programme. Depending upon the sectional popularity of the entertainment, approval or disapproval is voiced that sometimes does not bear any relation to the noise levels produced. The question could be asked, should the city only attempt to attract universally popular entertainers for outdoor concerts. The less popular entertainers, it is suggested, could be directed to the new Entertainment Centre. There are clearly financial considerations in making such a decision. Even the decision making of who and what is popular would need to be carefully considered. It is nevertheless very clear that in general, outdoor concerts have proved extremely popular with the city of Christchurch when attendances of up to 50,000 to 55,000 people can be attracted (sometimes more). It could be that some popular groups, because of the type of entertainment, should be dissuaded from coming.
7. Liaison Promoter/Noise Control Staff
* Better liaison between the promoter's sound control person and noise control staff.
Due to security surrounding international acts there is often difficulty in getting to the sound control person to request reduction in volume. This aspect of the enforcement provision needs improvement.
In conclusion the public response to the AC/DC concert was unusually high when compared to other concerts in previous years. This was probably reflected by their sectional popularity and the nature of the music they played. The last concert in the city to receive such a response was in 1989 at Lancaster Park, when over 90 complaints were received.
It is suggested that at this time no change to the set criteria take place until the deliberations of the submissions on the City Plan are concluded. Out of that process changes may occur. In the meantime, it is suggested that discussion between the Victory Park Board and Council officers responsible for the administration of Queen Elizabeth II Park and noise control convene to discuss the implications of this report with a view to initiating better control measures in the interim. These two venues are the normal venues used for outdoor concerts.
Recommendation: 1. That the Council request the Victory Park Board and the appropriate officers of the Council (with respect to use of Queen Elizabeth II Park) meet to assess this report and initiate relevant interim control measures.
2. That the Hagley/Ferrymead residents' consultation process be considered for use in the consultation process for Queen Elizabeth II Park outdoor concerts' assessment.
3. That the outdoor concerts report be referred to all Community Boards for comment.
5. PLAN CHANGE 18, MAIN SOUTH ROAD/BRYNLEY STREET REZONING RR 4507
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | A Hansbury |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Plan, Environmental Services |
The purpose of this report is to recommend the Committee's approval to make Plan Change 18 to the Paparua Section of the Christchurch Transitional District Plan operative from 10 March 1997.
Plan Change 18 is a privately requested change which rezones approximately 6,000m2 of land on the corner of Main South Road and Brynley Street from Residential 1 and Residential M to Commercial Service 1 zone. The change was heard by the hearings panel and the decision to decline the change confirmed by the Council. One appeal was lodged by Southpower. The Environment Court has allowed the appeal in part, approving the Change with some amendments. The Plan Change can now be made operative (see attached).
Recommendation: That pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, Plan Change 33 be made operative on 10 March 1997.
6. PLAN CHANGE 31, MARSHLAND ROAD/NORTHCOTE EXPRESSWAY REZONING RR 4508
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | A Hansbury |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Plan, Environmental Services |
The purpose of this report is to recommend the Committee's approval to make Plan Change 31 of the Waimairi Section of the Christchurch Transitional District Plan operative from 10 March 1997.
Plan Change 31 is a privately requested change which rezones approximately 20.7 hectares of land east of Marshland Road and South of Northcote-New Brighton Expressway from Rural H to Residential G. The change was heard by the hearings panel and the decision confirmed by the Council. One appeal against the Council decision was lodged by the Canterbury Regional Council and it has now been withdrawn. The Plan Change can now be made operative (see attached).
Recommendation: That pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, Plan Change 31 be made operative on 10 March 1997.
7. AVON RIVER FLOOD PLAN MANAGEMENT
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Alan Watson, Water Services Manager | Bob Watts, Planning Manager |
| Corporate Plan Output: Flood Management Improvements Avon Flood Plain Improvement p9.3.38 |
The attached report was presented to the December 1996 meeting of the joint Christchurch City Council and Canterbury Regional Council Committee.
The report addresses whether there is an issue to confront in any flooding of the Avon River and the hazardous issues that have been identified.
Following consideration of the report the Joint Committee recommended that it be forwarded to the respective Planning Committee of both Councils for approval for public discussion.
Recommendation: 1. The Avon River Floodplan Management - Issues and Options document be approved for release for public discussion.
2. That the report be referred to the relevant Community Boards for their consideration and consultation with the public.
PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
8. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL, PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES RR 4077
The Committee received a report from the Environmental Policy & Planning Manager for current issues being actioned.
EDGEWARE SHOPPING CENTRE
The Committee resolved that some assessment of current and past "main street" and "village shopping centres" be undertaken as to the success of such developments.
TRAVIS WETLANDS
The Committee resolved that in view of the public interest a report be brought forward to the April Committee meeting on the expressway designation.
POSTER PASTING PROGRESS REPORT
The car park of the new Art Gallery site was put forward as a suggestion for the installation of a large frame to display pictures and posters.
CONTROL OF RABBITS ON COUNCIL LAND
Several matters were raised in relation to this topic being:
The Committee resolved that the matter of rabbit control measures on the MacKenzie Country be referred to the Joint Canterbury Regional Council /Christchurch City Council Standing Committee.
9. THE YEAR 2000 RR 4448
The Environmental Policy & Planning Manager outlined two major projects and two smaller projects that could be undertaken as the Council's part in the city's and Canterbury's celebration of the Year 2000.
Two other examples identified for discussion by the Committee were:
The Committee resolved that this subject be included on the agenda of the Committee's March 1997 seminar.
10. RESEARCH ON PELLET FUEL AND FIRE TECHNOLOGY RR 4453
The Committee received a report from the Principal Environmental Health Officer as to the level of support that might be given to the investigation of the feasibility of introducing pellet fire technology to New Zealand. This is being investigated by Southpower in conjunction with a consortium.
The success of the venture relies heavily on the ability to ensure that there is a market for the appliance, the continued and assured supply of pellet fuel to a suitable standard and the cost of producing a locally made fire.
Some funding was available from the Air Pollution Publicity and Research budget for this purpose.
The Committee resolved that a grant be made to Southpower for assisting wider market research on the project of $5,000.
11. FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS REVIEW RR 4509
A report from the Building Control Manager detailed a review of procedures relating to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. The review was undertaken in response to the Coroner's findings at an inquest into the death of a child in a swimming pool.
The Coroners recommendations were that the Christchurch City 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 fence area.
The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 makes the owner responsible for notifying the Council of the pools existence and for ensuring an appropriate and legal fence is in place. The Act also requires the owner to ensure the pool is not filled or partly filled with water if the Act is not being complied with.
Section 10 of the Act outlines the obligation of territorial authorities "Every territorial authority shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that this Act is complied with within its district". The principle responsibility is to ensure that pool owners are aware of their legal obligations.
The Council has a record of the existence of 4,839 pools. Of these 252 have been completed since the passing of the Building Act and have received a Code Compliance Certificate. A further 331 have been inspected and the fence was noted as complying at the time of the inspection.
If the Committee decided that it would be desirable to inspect all pools, it will be necessary to employ an additional inspector to concentrate on swimming pool fencing. There is a reluctance on the part of some owners to fully comply with the Act and this can result in a lot of discussion with the owner. The resolution of the matter can take up considerable time.
The employment of an additional inspector for swimming pools would require budgeting provision to be made.
BARBEQUE AREAS
The second area the Council was asked to review was the Council policy of allowing barbecue areas to be within the fenced area of the pool. The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act requires that the pool and immediate pool area be fenced. The definition in the interpretation section of the Act is "Immediate Pool Area" means the land in or on which the pool is situated and so much of the surrounding area as is used for activities or purposes carried on in conjunction with the use of the pool. The Council has a policy formulated in 1990 that the following four criteria which define the limit of the "Immediate Pool Area" be used by staff when deciding whether the intent of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act is being complied with:
1. No part of the fence should be more than 10 metres from the edge of the pool.
2. Lawn areas or paved areas which could be used for barbecues in association with a pool may be classed as "Immediate Pool Area".
3. Vegetable and flower garden cannot be classed as "Immediate Pool Area".
4. Vehicle manoeuvre areas cannot be classed as "Immediate Pool Area".
It is not easy to define precisely what a "barbeque area" means as a portable barbeque can be used in a relatively small area. If it was decided that barbeque areas should not be permitted it would mean that fencing would have to be placed much closer to the pool than has been the case up until now.
The Building Act does not give a definition of "Immediate Pool Area" so the definition in the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act provides the only criteria.
During the review process it became apparent that there are some inconsistency between the Building Act and the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. An example is the requirements for sliding and sliding/folding doors. In the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act provision is made for granting an exemption from the requirement that the doors be self closing by referring the question to a Council Committee for a decision on whether the compliance is impossible or unreasonable. Under the Building Act sliding and sliding/folding doors are exempt from the requirement to have an automatic closer system. We have suggested to the Building Industry Authority that difference between the two Acts need to be clarified. The Building Industry Authority advised that the question of sliding doors had been reviewed and because no system of automatic closer that was reliable and affordable had been found they had consulted with the Water Safety Council and it had been agreed that sliding doors should be exempt from the requirement.
The Committee resolved:
1. That budgetary provision for a swimming pool inspector on a term contract basis, be made.
2. That the existing policy on "immediate pool area" which permits barbeque areas to be within the pool area, be reviewed at a seminar type meeting with all Councillors to be invited.
12. PLANNING CONFERENCE 1997
This year's Planning Conference is being held in Palmerston North and it provides an opportunity for Councillors to update themselves on current planning issues.
The Committee resolved that Councillor Pat Harrow and two other Councillors be authorised to attend the 1997 Planning Conference in April in Palmerston North.
13. ITEMS RECEIVED
The Committee received the following reports:
13.1 BUILDING INFORMATION AUTHORITY REVIEW OF TECHNICAL OPERATIONS
The Building Information Authority have undertaken a series of reviews of local authorities, the Christchurch City Council being one of 12 authorities be reviewed in mid 1996.
13.2 OFFENSIVE SIGNS
Measures available to control and set standards for advertising signs and window displays were investigated following receipt of submissions to the 1995/96 annual plan relating to offensive signs.
Pru Steven (Solicitor) and Martin Ferguson (Enforcement Officer) explored the practicalities of initiating enforcement action against the owners and occupiers of premises which currently display such signs.
The Christchurch City Plan and bylaws do not offer any enforceable rules relating to the offensive and objectionable content of signs. These terms are considered to be subjective. For this reason an Enforcement Order was thought to be the most practical option giving the greater chance of success to remove such signs.
The Environment Court may be applied to for the issue of an Enforcement Order requiring a person to do something that in the opinion of the tribunal is necessary in order to avoid remedy or mitigate any actual or likely adverse effect on the environment caused by or on behalf of that person.
13.3 LAND TRANSPORT SAFETY AUTHORITY: LAND TRANSPORT SAFETY RULES (DANGEROUS GOODS)
Submissions were made on behalf of the Council, on the Land Transport Safety (Dangerous Goods) Rule, as administered by the Land Transport Safety of New Zealand.
13.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ISSUE
Updated information on current waste management initiatives being pursued in New Zealand and overseas were gained by Waste Management unit staff attending the recent Waste Management Institute Annual Conference in Dunedin.
13.5 OLD LANDFILLS - UPDATE
The report provided an update on landfill aftercare work which has been conducted since the December 1996 report on the subject.
14. GENERAL BUSINESS
RESOURCE CONSENT AND CITY PLAN HEARING ASSISTANCE
It was reported that submitters to hearings are needing assistance at this time and the matter should be expedited.
A report on the provision of support to submitters is under preparation.
ENVIRONMENT AWARD
The Sub-Committee, appointed to consider this matter, is to meet on 27 February 1997 at 4.00 pm.
COMBINED MEETING - HERITAGE BUILDINGS
A meeting is to be arranged between representatives of the Dunedin City/Christchurch City Environmental Committees to consider making a case for government funding for the strengthening of heritage buildings.
NON-COMPLYING ACTIVITIES
A seminar on non-complying activities within the city was sought, in relation to those activities being conducted under the cover of existing use rights.
CELLULAR SITE - NEW BRIGHTON
Information was sought on whether a resource consent had been issued for the operation of the cellular site.
15. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the draft resolution to exclude the public set out on page 36 of the agenda be adopted.
CONSIDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1997
MAYOR