Agenda of Planning and Regulatory Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Planning and Regulatory Committee

2 June 2016

Page No.

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Confirmation of Minutes 6 - 8

19 May 2016 – Hearing of Submissions

Document number M1892

Recommendation

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 19 May 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Regulatory

6. Deliberations on Fees and Charges for Resource Consent, Food Act and Fencing of Swimming Pools Act activities commencing 1 July 2016 9 - 23

Document number R5876

Recommendation

THAT the report Deliberations on Fees and Charges for Resource Consent, Food Act and Fencing of Swimming Pools Act activities commencing 1 July 2016 (R5876) and its attachments (A1546954, A1546317 and A1547270) be received.

Recommendation to Council

THAT the table in Section 5 of this report (R5876) be used as the basis of providing responses to submitters on the matters raised in submissions;

AND THAT the draft Fees and Charges Resource Consents and Resource Management Act Planning Documents as detailed in Attachment 1 (A1546954) be adopted;

AND THAT the draft Food Act 2014 Fees and Charges as detailed in Attachment 2 (A1546317) be adopted;

AND THAT the draft Building Unit Fees and Charges Swimming Pools monitoring fee as detailed in Attachment 3 (A1547270) be adopted.

·(delete as appropriate)

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee to hear submissions to the Draft Fees and Charges Resource Consent Activity and Fencing of Swimming Pools fees and Charges

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Thursday 19 May 2016, commencing at 9.01am

Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors I Barker, R Copeland, E Davy, K Fulton (Deputy Chairperson), M Lawrey, M Ward and Ms G Paine

In Attendance: Councillor P Matheson, Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Manager Communications and Acting Manager Libraries and Heritage Facilities (P Shattock), and Administration Adviser (J McDougall)

Apology: Councillor K Fulton

1. Apologies

Resolved PR/2016/025

THAT an apology be received and accepted from Councillor Fulton.

McGurk/Davy Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

4. Hearing of Submissions to the Draft Fees and Charges Resource Consent Activity and Fencing of Swimming Pools Fees and Charges

Document number R5900, agenda pages 4 - 13 refer.

4.1 Brad Cadwallader – Cadwallader Tree Consultancy – Draft Fees and Charges Resource Consent Activity

Mr Cadwallader spoke to his submission, and suggested that “qualified arborist” be replaced by the words “suitably qualified and experienced arborist”.

In response to a question, Mr Cadwallader said that a Level 5 arborist qualification would be appropriate for assessing heritage trees, and he thought there were probably four to five people in the Nelson area with this qualification.

He suggested adding a clause that, where a tree was causing serious structural damage to a dwelling and it was proven that there was no practical remedy available, there should be no consent fee for the removal of the tree.

He suggested further that the consent fee for the removal of heritage trees confirmed in writing by a qualified arborist as diseased or a threat to public safety should be $500 rather than $1300.

4.2 David Marsh – Fencing of Swimming Pools Fees and Charges

Mr Marsh spoke to his submission. He suggested that no inspection should be required where swimming pool fences or gates were permanent fixtures, and where property owners confirmed in writing to Council every three years that no changes had been made, and the fences and/or gates were functioning correctly.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 9.16am.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Planning and Regulatory Committee

2 June 2016

REPORT R5876

Deliberations on Fees and Charges for Resource Consent, Food Act and Fencing of Swimming Pools Act activities commencing 1 July 2016

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide information and recommendations on matters raised in submissions on the consultation documents for the draft fees and charges for Resource Consent, Food Act and Fencing of Swimming Pool Act activities. The information and recommendations will assist the decision making process.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the area of responsibility for resource management, food licensing and fencing of swimming pools regulatory activities.

2.2 There is no delegation from the Council to set fees and charges and so the matter must be considered by Council.

3. Recommendation

Recommendation to Council

THAT the table in Section 5 of this report (R5876) be used as the basis of providing responses to submitters on the matters raised in submissions;

AND THAT the draft Fees and Charges Resource Consents and Resource Management Act Planning Documents as detailed in Attachment 1 (A1546954) be adopted;

AND THAT the draft Food Act 2014 Fees and Charges as detailed in Attachment 2 (A1546317) be adopted;

AND THAT the draft Building Unit Fees and Charges Swimming Pools monitoring fee as detailed in Attachment 3 (A1547270) be adopted.

4. Background

4.1 The Resource Management Act 1991, the Food Act 2014 and the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 require public consultation to set or alter fees and charges. Public consultation for these activities was open for the period 29 March to 29 April 2016.

4.2 Five submissions were received: three submissions for the proposed Fencing of Swimming Pools Act fees and charges and two submissions from the same person for proposed resource consent fees and charges. Two submitters spoke at a hearing on 19 May.

5. Discussion

Resource Consent activity submissions

5.1 The submitter (B Cadwallader) proposes changes to the resource consent fees associated with protected trees. No changes to the existing charges were proposed for this activity in the consultation documents. Currently there is no charge for resource consent for the removal of a protected tree if a qualified arborist confirms the tree is diseased or a threat to public safety. The removal of other protected trees requires a $500 deposit with the lodgement of a resource consent application.

5.2 The submitter (B Cadwallader) proposes to amend the wording to include a qualification of a minimum of level 5 New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA), or equivalent for the arborist to ensure they have the required level of expertise to confirm the tree should be removed. The submitter also would like a free consent for removing protected trees that are causing serious structural damage to a dwelling where there is no practical alternative to removal of the tree.

5.3 Council’s Horticulture Supervisor agrees that qualification level 5 NZQA (or equivalent) is the right level of formal qualification. Free applications for gradual structural damage caused by the heritage tree would not support owners taking early action to protect both the structure and the tree where possible. These types of issues are rare and Council officers have some delegated authority to remit fees and charges should circumstances warrant this (delegation O16).

Food Act – no submissions received

Fencing of Swimming Pools submissions

5.4 The submitter (D E Marsh) proposed that once the fencing has met with the compliance requirements of the Building Act 2004 Council should not need to visit every three years to check compliance. There is no similar regime for decks or other balustrades etc. Instead could the Council send a simple form, which the householder fills in, to certify no changes or amendments to the pool area, or fencing, has been undertaken since it was signed off as compliant?

5.5 The submitter (ME & RJ McQuade) confirmed support for the proposed standard charge of $100.00. Noting they are compliant as at 2015 they raised concern if a new officer visited within three years how does Council ensure consistency on the prior decision made. Additionally they have enquired whether Council could consider if the service for the inspection could be included in rates on properties with pools.

5.6 The submitter (M Guerin) confirmed they support the $100.00 charge as being reasonable if the monitoring review was undertaken every five years.

5.7 The legislation is presently under review. This may result in the current legislation being repealed. Changes may come into force in the next 12 months which will guide Council on the how the monitoring of pool fencing will be undertaken in future. The proposed legislation, Building (pools) Amendment Bill, indicates it will clarify councils should inspect every five years. So this informs a response to submitters M Guerin and D Marsh.

5.8 In response to submitter M & R McQuade, to have the fee as a targeted rate to pool owners would require a special consultative process for all pool owners. Noting it is too late to implement a targeted rate for the year 2016/17 so would not be possible until 2017/18. Additionally it means there will inadvertently be cross subsidising, so compliant pool owners will subsidise others with non-complying pools. There are concerns around the monitoring of the pools if the situation changes, if say a pool is removed the rates will still be in place. The proposed fee model means compliant pool owners have an incentive to keep their pools compliant. Additionally it is dealt with in real time, so as the pool is inspected, so has no risk of ‘over rating’ an owner.

5.9 Summary of submissions and recommended responses

Submitter	Matter	Recommended Response
B Cadwallader	Include minimum qualification for arborist	Thank you for this suggestion. Council agree and will amend the fees and charges schedule to define a qualified arborist as having attained level 5 NZQA or equivalent.
B Cadwallader	Extend the no cost consent for removal of a protected tree where the tree causes serious damage to a dwelling and there is no practical alternative to removal	As these situations are rare, Council prefers this situation be excluded from the free fee to encourage property owners to take steps early on to prevent gradual damage to a dwelling by protecting both the tree and the structure where possible. There are existing provisions to review the charges should circumstances warrant this.
D E Marsh	Consider a ‘simple form’ for pool owners to ‘certify’ no changes have been made to previously determined compliant pool fencing and swimming pool areas.	Thank you for your suggestion we note that every Territorial Authority shall, under Section 10 of the Fencing of Swimming Pool Act 1987, take all reasonable steps to ensure the Act is complied with in its district. With the first round of assessment completed, general levels of compliance have increased through this process. Council could consider if a ‘form’ being provided to owners and returned, confirming continued compliance is adequate. While a form (filled out by the pool owner) could reduce the fee, it is unlikely this would constitute a Territorial Authority taking all reasonable steps to ensure the Act is complied with.
ME & RJ McQuade	Supports the proposed $100.00 fee. Would like reassurance of consistency for future reviews. Would prefer this cost to be placed on property rates specific to pool owners.	The initial inspection process has produced decisions around compliance. These have been recorded and will be the basis for any future review. This will mitigate the likelihood of a different decision in the next round. The application of a targeted rates cost for pool owners was explored at the commencement of this work in 2012. At that time it was decided to be implemented as a fee, as opposed to a targeted rates cost. It is still recommended this fee is not treated as a targeted rates cost.
M Guerin	Accepts the $100.00 charge would be more reasonable if the inspection was every five years, not three years.	The five yearly cycles of inspections will only come in if the proposed Building (Pools) Amendment Bill is enacted. If this is not the case the current regime of three yearly (as recommended in the NZS 8500:2006) will likely continue.

6. Options

6.1 Council can choose to adopt the fees and charges as they were consulted on or adopt the fees and charges with amendments.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 The recommended fees and charges are consistent with the required statutes and assist with achieving the stated funding policy in the Long Term Plan.

8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

8.1 This is not a significant decision in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

9. Consultation

9.1 Public consultation on the fees and charges requiring a Special Consultative Procedure was open from 29 March to 29 April. Two submitters were heard on 19 May. Other submitters did not want to be heard.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 There has been no consultation with Māori regarding this recommendation.

Mandy Bishop

Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1546954 Draft Fees and Charges Resource Consents and Resource Management Act Planning Documents

Attachment 2: A1546317 Draft Food Act 2014 Fees and Charges

Attachment 3: A1547270 Draft Building Unit Fees and Charges Swimming Pools monitoring fee