This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
26. 3. 97
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
13 MARCH 1997
A meeting of the Environmental Committee
was held on Wednesday 13 March 1997 at 4.00pm
PRESENT: Councillor Carole Evans (Chairman) to 4.55pm,
Councillors Oscar Alpers, Anna Crighton,
Newton Dodge, Pat Harrow (Chairman from 4.55 pm), Lesley Keast, Charles Manning and Barbara Stewart.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for lateness were received and accepted from Councillors Oscar Alpers and Charles Manning.
Councillor Manning arrived at 4.30pm and was not present for part of clause 6.
Councillor Evans retired at 4.55pm and was not present for clauses 2 to 5, 7 and 8.
Councillor Alpers arrived at 5.10pm and was not present for clauses 1, 2 and 6.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. CITY GATEWAY SIGNS & INFORMATION CENTRES RR 4764
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy & Planning Manager | John Chivers, Senior Planner |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Planning and Development |
The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval for the principles and design concepts for three proposed City Gateways on main road entry points to the City.
1. BACKGROUND
Funding of $60,000 has been provided in the 1996/97 annual plan for the construction of suitable "Gateways" to welcome visitors by road to Christchurch City. The budget is intended to cover the first two of three locations, with the third being provided for in the following year. This is a corporate project.
In 1996 a Welcome Sign was erected in Memorial Avenue to welcome visitors to both the City and the Airport. It was a joint project between the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board and Christchurch International Limited. At that time the sign was viewed as a possible prototype for the City Gateways discussed in this report.
2. DESIGN CONCEPTS
Design and location work for the three Gateways as a package is being undertaken by City Design who are also project manager.
The three approach routes being catered for are :
1. State Highway 1 from the north - the south side of the Waimakariri River.
2. State Highway 1 from the south - Templeton area.
3. State Highway 73 from the west - west of Yaldhurst.
The design team consider the more vertical design of the Memorial Avenue sign is not appropriate in an open rural landscape and the wording needs to be simpler in a 100km/h highway environment.
The location principle adopted was that the site chosen for each Gateway be a visually suitable site as close as possible to the City boundary. If the location of the exact City boundary is required to be identified there this should be done separately by a smaller scale sign with the wording "Christchurch City Boundary", perhaps supported on a stone cairn.
As well as the above, the design team consider that :
The general shape and structure of the Gateway should include the following:
A presentation will be made at the meeting to explain the three concept designs. Sketch plans of these concepts are attached. They represent design solutions specific to each site, with the word "CHRISTCHURCH" common to each.
3. TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND
Because all locations are on state highways Transit New Zealand approval will be required for each. This may involve maintenance considerations as well as design and construction. It is intended the full capital cost will be met by the Council.
The project manager has had preliminary discussions with Transit New Zealand about the location, scale and design of the Gateways. Further details of the three concepts are now being discussed with Transit with a view to obtaining their approval by 24 March 1997.
4. INFORMATION CENTRES
Attention has also been given to the existing information centres which were established by the Canterbury Regional Council in 1989. These are not considered to be very successful in that material presented in the display cases has faded badly and the cases are prone to vandalism. Tourist businesses that initially rented advertising space in these cases have not renewed their leases, presumably because of lack of value.
It is proposed that a service station on each approach to the City be asked to display tourist information inside their shops. A brochure display stand, route map and a cupboard underneath to store brochures, would be provided by Council in each station.
The Communications and Promotions Unit of Council would be responsible for the maintenance and restocking of the facility. Council has a budget of $15,000 per annum available for this purpose. Preliminary discussion with service station managers have been favourable.
5. CONCLUSION
The proposed Gateways have been designed to give entrance points to the City which reflect quality and permanence and scale. These goals need to be melded with the traffic safety and other considerations of Transit New Zealand which are being sought.
Recommendation:
1. That the Council approve the three concept plans for:
2. That the existing information kiosks be replaced with a display stand in one service station in each of the three main approaches to the city.
2. REVIEW OF CONDITIONS FOR MOBILE SHOP LICENCES RR 4701
| 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 enable the Council to review the conditions which it has placed on mobile shop licences issued under the provisions of Christchurch City Public Places and Signs Bylaw 1992. The operations of stalls in Cathedral Square, City Mall, and other public places are treated as stalls and are separately permitted under lease or other arrangements by the Property or Parks Units and are not therefore considered as mobile shops.
INTRODUCTION
The conditions which the Council has placed on mobile shop licences issued under the above bylaw have been questioned largely in regard to the restriction of trading within 200 metres of premises, or other mobile shops, selling similar goods. It has been argued by at least one mobile shop licence holder that such a restriction could be in conflict with the provisions of the Commerce Act 1986 or the Fair Trading Act 1986.
At a meeting in September 1996 Councillor Evans advised that a review of the Council's conditions for mobile shops would be undertaken, including that of the 200 metre restriction. There have also been questions raised in regard to the restrictions on trading in certain designated roads and during night hours.
The present conditions were adopted by the Council in 1992 at the time of the introduction of the bylaw (which replaced the bylaws of the amalgamating local authorities), following a lengthy examination by an officers' project team and a Councillor Working Party. Legal opinion was obtained as to the vires of the specific condition relating to the 200 metre restriction condition (similar provisions but with varying distances had existed in most bylaws of the amalgamating authorities for some time) in particular in regard to the provisions of the Commerce Act 1986 and the Fair Trading Act 1986. The legal opinion suggested that in implementing a new bylaw the Council could continue to impose such a condition not to trade within a specified distance from other shops carrying on similar business, under the specific requirement of the Local Government Act 1974, despite the general requirements of the other two Acts.
The power to make a bylaw for the purpose of licensing and regulating mobile or travelling shops is contained in the Local Government Act 1974 and section 684 (1) (39) states that a subject of a bylaw may be:
Licensing and regulating the conduct of keepers of mobile or travelling shops (not being hawkers or pedlars or keepers of stalls), and imposing a licence fee of such amounts as the council, in its discretion, thinks fit, but 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 a year, in respect of each shop kept by the licensee pursuant to his licence:
Section 684 (3) defines Mobile or travelling shop as:
...a vehicle, whether self-propelled or not, from which goods, wares, or merchandise are offered or exposed for sale in the road, or from which goods, wares, or merchandise may be ordered in the road (whether or not in pursuance of any invitation to call with the goods, wares, or merchandise) or from which services are offered for sale in the road; but does not include any vehicle on or from which food is sold for consumption in or at the vehicle, or any vehicle used for the purpose of transporting and delivering goods, wares, or merchandise pursuant to a prior order placed for the delivery of the goods, wares, or merchandise.
The Council, at its meeting on the 13 December 1995, considered the matter of setting fees for mobile shop licences and resolved as follows. It should be noted that the requirements as to mobile shops is for a licence fee and not for any ground rental when such vehicles are effectively operating as a stall.
(a) 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
(b) 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
(c) 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.
The fees were subsequently set by the Council at $100 and no information has been provided that the costs of licensing mobile shops are not being met by the fee.
THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE LICENCES
The current conditions as previously noted, have been in effect since 1992. The major problem appears to have arisen with condition 6., which will be further discussed below, but there have also been perceived problems with condition 2. in relation to the time permitted for the mobile shop to remain stationary for the transaction of business with customers. A re-examination of the roads on which there is a prohibition on mobile or travelling shops carrying on or soliciting business as contained in a schedule to condition 1. has been undertaken by the City Streets Unit.
The current condition 2 states:
The licensee/operator shall not stand or remain stationary in any public place except for such time as may be reasonably required for the transaction of business with customers on that occasion, and shall when requested by any police officer or authorised officer of the Council alter his position and move from place to place on any road or public place as directed.
It is understood that there are a number of complaints received by Council officers in regard to enforcement of this particular condition. While the presumption of most people would no doubt be that by definition "mobile" shops would only stop in any one place for short periods that is not true in practice, nor, it is understood, does it necessarily follow from the legislative requirements. It is understood that there are significant difficulties in policing the condition as it currently exists, largely in relation to determining what is such time as may be reasonably required for the transaction of business with customers on that occasion. It has been suggested that there should be specific time limits on trading at any site contained in the conditions. These suggested conditions are a restriction on remaining stationary at one site for more than one hour and a prohibition on standing at any one site more than twice in any eight hour period. It is understood there are significant difficulties in enforcing the current condition, and indeed it would also be so if the suggested specified times are introduced. The current conditions allow for an authorised officer of the Council, if the condition is breached, to remove the vehicle from that site to a safe position. In this regard it should be noted that the definition of a mobile shop can also include a vehicle that is not self propelled.
There could be good grounds for the restriction on the trading in certain streets or roads, for safety reasons, but this may be better dealt with by prohibiting trading in those areas. The other factor to be considered is the situation where a mobile shop is regularly stationed at one site for long periods of a day and to all intent becomes a stationary shop. This may occur in areas where other commercial activities are properly established under City Plan provisions, or even in areas in which such commercial activities would not be permitted under the City Plan.
In such cases the mobile shop (which as noted above does not have to be self propelled) could be considered a de facto shop premises. In those circumstances specific approval of the Council for a fixed site permit could be required as it could be considered they are not operated as a mobile shop in the normal sense of the term. In general the sides of the roads are made available for motor vehicle parking purposes and not for commercial operations of this type.
On traffic safety grounds there should be a total prohibition of mobile shop operations on certain roads and this will be recommended. Again for traffic safety and other safety reasons the operation of mobile shops in the hours of darkness should continue to be prohibited, as should the restriction on operating within 50 metres of any intersection or curve in a roadway. These, however, do not necessarily address the amenity issues of a "shop" being operated for long hours at a site on a roadway in a residential area. For this reason a specific time allowance for operations could be recommended as a new condition. This would apply in all cases except where the Council has granted occupation of a site on a road, such has been done in the case of the icecream vendor in Armagh Street Victoria Square for example.
The current provisions of condition 6 are as follows;
No vehicle will be used for carrying on or soliciting business under a mobile shop licence within 200 metres of any shop (including another mobile or travelling shop) or licensed stand or stall in which similar goods are offered for sale.
The purpose of this condition would appear to be clearly to restrict locations immediately adjacent to competitive business operations. This restriction does not only apply to protect fixed commercial premises on which rates are paid but it includes other mobile or travelling shops. It could be argued, and indeed has been, that such a restriction goes against the current climate of commercial reality where competition between similar businesses should not be unnecessarily legislatively restricted. The contrary argument, from persons who operate fixed business premises is that the purported competition from mobile shops is not undertaken on an equitable basis. They point to the fact that they have greater fixed costs, pay annual rates to the Council, and operate all year round while mobile shop operators merely enter their areas during what are perceived as peak customer times or seasons. The proposition that the 200 metre distance from fixed or mobile shops is against fair competition does remain arguable but legal opinion is that the Council may still include this as a condition under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974.
The current condition 1 states:
No mobile or travelling shop shall be stopped for the purpose of carrying on or soliciting business on the roads specified in Schedule A.
The City Streets Unit has pointed out that mobile shops by their very nature stop frequently and regularly, and also attract other traffic to stop near them. For these reasons mobile shops should be prohibited from operating on roads where it is important to keep traffic flowing freely. These groups of roads are described as follows:
State Highways
Central City
All Roads That Together Make Up the Christchurch Ring Roads
Divided Four Lane Arterial Roads
Two Lane Arterial Roads
Rural Roads
A list of roads fitting into the above categories has been produced on which mobile shops should be prohibited from operating. It should be noted that with changing traffic demands it may, from time to time, be necessary to revise the list.
CONCLUSIONS
There are a number of changes which have been recommended to the current conditions. In the case of condition 1 the change suggested is to the defined roads in Schedule A to reflect the current situation. In the case of condition 2. a change is suggested to specify the length of time a mobile shop may remain at any one site in any one day, largely to clarify the present condition as to time but also to ensure the mobile shop does not become a de facto shop premises on any road. In regard to condition 6. it is suggested that this could be removed as the safety and amenity issues of the operation of mobile shops are covered by the present or proposed conditions. In short, mobile shops will be prohibited from operating on certain roadways for traffic and safety reasons; they will not be permitted to operate within 50 metres of an intersection; the time of operating at any site will be restricted during any day to ensure they do not become a de facto shop premises; and for safety reasons they will not operate outside daylight hours. As there appears to be no significant safety or amenity reasons for the 200 metre separation from other shops, mobile or otherwise, selling similar goods it would be difficult to defend on such grounds.
Recommendation: That the Council adopt amended conditions for the issue of licences for mobile shops in accordance with the recommendations of the report being:
3. DELEGATIONS: CHANGE OR CANCELLATION OF ABATEMENT NOTICE RR 4622
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | Ken Lawn |
| Corporate Plan Output: Enforcement |
The purpose of this report is to add a new delegation to the Environmental Services Manager to change or cancel an abatement notice.
Any appointed enforcement officer under the Resource Management Act can issue an abatement notice requiring a person to cease or take some action to deal with an adverse effect on the environment or infringement of a rule in the Plan or the Resource Management Act. Under Section 325A of the Act, a person who is served with an abatement notice can apply in writing to the Council to change or cancel the abatement notice. There may well be circumstances where the remedy sought can be changed, or where the abatement notice is no longer necessary.
Currently there is no delegation to consider such a request. The appropriate officer to consider such an application is considered to be the Environmental Services Manager.
Recommendation: That pursuant to Section 34 (4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council delegate to the Environmental Services Manager the power to consider applications to change or cancel an abatement notice pursuant to Section 325A of the Resource Management Act 1991.
4. DELEGATIONS - FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS ACT RR 4721
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | David Rolls |
| Corporate Plan Output: Enforcement |
The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Council delegate to the Environmental Services Manager its powers of prosecution under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
Councillors may recall the Fencing of Swimming Pools Review which was considered by the Environmental Committee on 13 February 1997.
That review was prompted by the Coroner's recommendations following a recent inquest into the death of a child in a private swimming pool in the City.
In order to establish an efficient and effective system of enforcing the Act, as outlined in the review, the above mentioned delegation is sought from the Council.
Recommendation: That the Council delegate to the Environmental Services Manager the power to institute any prosecution for an offence against the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 together with the power to make any decision pertaining to any such prosecution.
5. PROPOSED DOG REGISTRATION AND RELATED FEES FOR THE 1997/98 DOG LICENSING YEAR RR 2366
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | Brent Ablett (Senior Clerk - Dog Registration) |
| Corporate Plan Output: Animal Control |
The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider the setting of dog registration and other related fees for the 1997/98 dog licensing year which commences 1 July 1997.
INTRODUCTION
The Dog Control Act 1996 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 registerable age after 1 July, on or before it attains the age of three months.
2. The fees for dog registration set by an authority be publicly notified in a newspaper circulated within its district at least once in the month prior to the commencement of the registration year (see attached).
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 legislation as well as setting out the annual fee structure.
This year the information provided is that required by the Dog Control Act 1996, which took effect on 1 July 1996.
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 26 March 1997 as it is intended that the dog control fees continue to be printed on the reverse side of the registration application form. A brochure containing further information and a freepost return envelope is also intended to be included with the registration forms to assist dog owners.
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 committee recommendations have, so far, neither been amended or cancelled.
Under section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 the Council is required to adopt before 31 March 1997, a policy on dogs to be given effect by the making of necessary bylaws coming into force not later than 1 July 1997. Currently the Council is considering in excess of 800 submissions relating to a wide range of issues concerning dogs. It is possible that the Councils policy on dogs once formulated will mean a change to one or more of the recommendations above. Where the policy includes a change in respect of concessions in the registration fee for neutered or spayed dogs, or for different classes of working dogs; or concessions in regard to neutering, spaying, or reduction in pound charges or sales, these changes may not be recognised until the fee structure for the 1998/99 registration year is proposed.
DOG REGISTRATION FEES RECOMMENDED
Provision has again been made to allow for a concessionarv fee for these persons having been granted Responsible Dog Owner Status in accordance with the criteria previously adopted by the Council.
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 bone fide complaint arising from the keeping of dogs on the property.
For the 1997/98 year it is proposed to apply by way of a penalty an additional charge of $30.00 ($30.00) 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.
The Dog Control Act 1996 requires that the fee for a dog certified as dangerous under section 31 of the Act shall be 150% of the fee that would apply if the dog were not classified as a dangerous dog. The Council currently has 142 dog on it's records classified as dangerous.
INPUT FROM RATES
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 decrease from $27,099.00 in the 1996/97 year to $26,851.00 for the 1997/98 year.
Costs associated with stocking ranging and the stock pound cannot be charged to the Dog Control Account.
Recommendation: That the fees as set out in the attached schedule be adopted for the 1997/98 registration year.
PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
6. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
INDUSTRIAL PAVILION - A & P SHOWGROUNDS, ADDINGTON
Mr Phil Clearwater made submissions on behalf of the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board, requesting that urgent action be taken to review the possibility of retaining the industrial pavilion at the A & P Showgrounds for use as a community hall.
Mr Clearwater, tabled a report regarding:
Mr Clearwater asked that the Environmental Committee request:
1. A formal stay of execution for the pavilion from the A & P Society; and
2. The Council to seek the co-operation of the Community Board in organising a special meeting to determine the potential support for use of the pavilion as a community hall.
The Committee also heard from Mr Mike Vernon, Chief Executive of the Canterbury A & P Association as to the condition of the building and the need to remove it from the site.
Pam Ellis, Property Services Manager confirmed that:
6. Cont'd
The Committee resolved:
1. That the submitters be thanked for their interest but that the Council take no further action in preserving the industrial pavilion.
2. That the community be encouraged to make representations to the Council regarding the establishment of a community centre in the district.
7. RESOURCE CONSENT AND CITY PLAN HEARINGS RR 4720
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | Gabrielle Tasman, Planner |
| Corporate Plan Output: Resource Consents and City Plan |
This is a further report to the Environmental Committee on the provision of more resources to assist participants in the resource management process, particularly in regard to resource consent hearings and the City Plan hearings. At the Special Environmental Committee meeting in December 1996 the Committee agreed to look at the option of providing additional resources to the Resource Management Service of the Community Law Centre to enable them to extend and widen their current advice service.
The Committee resolved:
1. That the proposal from the Community Law Centre for increased funding (TOTAL $33,000 FOR 1997/98) to the Resource Management Service to provide additional advice and education on resource management matters be supported, subject to the additional $15,000 being included in the Council's 1997/98 budget.
2. That a detailed service level agreement with the Community Law Centre be negotiated, and approved by the Environmental Services Manager.
8. ITEMS RECEIVED
The Committee received the following reports:
8.1 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
The report covered:
* FINAL CENSUS RESULTS 1996
* ENVIRONMENTAL BUSINESS NETWORK
8.2 1996/97 CORPORATE PLAN MONITORING REPORTS
Six monthly reports covering the period 1 July 1996 - 31 December 1996 were received from:
The meeting concluded at 5.50pm.
CONSIDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH 1997
MAYOR