Agenda of Council - 23 August 2017

Council

23 August 2017

REPORT R8115

Deliberations on the Proposed City Amenity Bylaw

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide information to assist Council in deliberating on the proposed City Amenity Bylaw.

2. Summary

2.1 The Council needs to:

(a) Determine the City Amenity Bylaw is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act;

(b) Determine the Bylaw is the most appropriate form of Bylaw;

(d) Determine that any amendments to the Bylaw are within the scope of submissions; and

(e) Set out the reasons for any decisions and convey these to submitters.

2.2 The recommendation is to amend the Bylaw and in particular clause 12 (events and permits), clause 13 (sleeping in the City Centres – two options are provided) and to make a number of other more minor amendments to the Bylaw based on submissions. These changes are considered to meet the provisions outlined above.

3. Recommendation

That the Council:

Receives the report Deliberations on the Proposed City Amenity Bylaw (R8115) and its attachments (A1815990, A1816387, A1815313, A1815615, A1816019, A1770725); and

Directs the Chief Executive to prepare an enforcement policy which will include: where a person is homeless and sleeping in the City Centres rather than sleeping as a form of protest, Council officers will work with social agencies to try and find solutions for those persons; and

Agrees that until the enforcement policy is adopted this resolution is Council’s adopted approach to homeless people sleeping in the City Centres rather than sleeping as a form of protest; and

Confirms either the amendments to the Bylaw shown in Attachment 1 or those shown in Attachment 1A; and

Agrees the amendments are consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the amended Bylaw is the most appropriate form of Bylaw; and

Subject to deciding which amendments to adopt, adopts the City Amenity Bylaw as amended and appended to this report as either Attachment 1 or Attachment 1A;

Determines the date that the bylaw will commence as being 11 September 2017; and

Agrees the Chief Executive can make minor amendments to the Bylaw once adopted.

4. Background

4.1 On 27^th October 2016 Council requested a further report be brought back to Council outlining progress towards resolving public disorder issues in the City Centres. A report was brought back and on 15^th December 2016 Council resolved to investigate and then develop a bylaw. On 23^rd March 2017 the Council determined the perceived problems, resolved that a bylaw was the most appropriate way to address the perceived problems and it approved the statement of proposal for consultation.

4.2 The overall purpose of the proposed City Amenity Bylaw includes protecting, promoting and maintaining public health and safety and maintaining and enhancing the amenity of Nelson’s City Centres. It aims to regulate public places in the City Centres so they can be used and enjoyed by all. The proposed City Amenity Bylaw, as notified, seeks to (the points below summarise the content of the Statement of Proposal):

(a) Maintain public availability of footpaths by leaving at least a 2 metre wide thoroughfare. This includes not preventing access by emergency services and regulating the placement of things or structures. Obstructions must not prevent window displays and signage from being viewed from within 500mm of the display or signage, unless permission is given and things should not be placed and structures erected, unless permission is given (clauses 8.3, 8.4 and 10).

(b) Prevent sleeping overnight on a footpath or road unless permission is given (this does not address sleeping in vehicles which is covered under the proposed Freedom Camping Bylaw) (clause 13).

(c) Introduce a permit process for organisers of events and provide criteria for the assessment of permit applications (clause 12).

(d) Permit the Council to install under veranda lighting (clause 9).

(e) Manage the risk of damage being done to public places and requiring the reinstatement of the areas affected to an appropriate standard (clause 8.2).

4.3 The proposed Bylaw applies to the City Centres being the Inner City, City Fringe and Suburban Commercial Zones. Maps contained in Attachment 2 show the areas proposed to be covered by the Bylaw.

4.4 The proposed Bylaw attracted 319 submissions and Hearings were held on those submissions on 21^st June 2017. This report outlines the issues raised in submissions, and provides an analysis of the issues and the options now available to Council.

5. Discussion

5.1 The following structure is followed in section 5 of the report:

(a) A brief summary of the overall number of submissions.

(b) A discussion of the issues raised in submissions (a more complete summary is included in Attachment 3; the index to the submissions is included in Attachment 5).

(d) The process for a bylaw, the problem definition and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

5.2 In section 6 of this report there is an analysis of the options available to Council.

Summary of Submissions

5.3 There were a total of 319 submissions. Thirty-six were in favour of the proposed Bylaw and 268 opposed the proposed Bylaw and 15 submissions did not express an opinion.

5.4 Of those opposed to the proposed Bylaw, 159 submitters suggested that the Wellington City Council Bylaw provisions for assembly (clause 6 of the Wellington City Public Places Bylaw) should replace clause 12 of the proposed Bylaw (events and associated permits). In addition 21 submitters raised concern about clause 13 (sleeping on the footpath or road in the City Centre).

5.5 Of those in support of the proposed Bylaw, they were either unreservedly in support or were in support but raised matters associated with homelessness and the use of existing legislation where possible.

Issues Raised in Submissions

5.6 The following table provides a summary of the main issues raised in submissions and comments on each matter. Additional matters raised in submissions are covered in paragraphs 5.7 below and summarised in Attachment 3.

Table 1: Issues Table

Issue	Comment
Homelessness	Twenty-one submissions raised concerns with clause 13 regarding sleeping in the City Centres. Homelessness is an issue across New Zealand. It requires a coordinated multiple agency and all of Government response. This Bylaw does not look to exacerbate that issue. That is why a recommendation is included in this report that the Chief Executive develop an enforcement policy clarifying Officers, as a first response, will work with appropriate agencies to try and find alternative accommodation for those having to sleep on the street. In the absence of the enforcement policy it is recommended that Council agree to a resolution adopting this approach. Sleeping in public places is not prohibited entirely as the restriction is only in relation to footpaths and roads within the city centres (or alternatively inner city) - not public places as a whole. In addition, it can be authorised for footpaths and roads, if the Council wishes in individual cases. Sleeping overnight is considered further at paragraph 5.26 – 5.28 where two options are proposed for consideration.
Administration and enforcement of the proposed Bylaw	Questions were asked as to how the Bylaw would be administered, the timeliness of decision making and the costs of the process. As with any Bylaw duly authorised officers take enforcement action commensurate with the issues at hand. There is an escalating response where generally there is an initial request(s) from the officer, then explaining the consequences of continued non-compliance followed by formal enforcement action. Enforcement action can include prosecution (no immediate resolution as it is subject to a court process); an injunction in the District Court; and/or seizure of property involved in the commission of the offence. As the recommendation is to move to a notification process for an event there will be no time issues associated with any decision as no decision will be required. If enforcement is required there are costs associated with that process. The quantum of those costs range depending on the issues at hand and what action is taken.
Process and grounds for bylaw making	Refer to paragraphs 5.8 to 5.17 below.
Events/Protests – clause 12	Submitters sought to have this clause deleted or replaced with the wording used by Wellington City Council. Other submitters sought to have decision making criteria included. This issue is discussed further at paragraphs 5.24 below. It is recommended that the Bylaw is altered to a notification process in accordance with the Wellington City Council approach. An alternate option of deleting this clause entirely is considered at paragraph 5.25. With either of these options no permit is required so there is no requirement for decision making criteria for events/protests permits.
Clause 10 – window displays	Submitters felt the clause favoured businesses and may prevent protests. Amenity within the central city relies in part on having open shop frontages. Certainly retailers seek to have window displays able to be viewed to attract shoppers in. It is recommended the clause be amended to increase the distance for viewing window displays from 500mm to 600mm. And clarify the viewing distance is measured from the window of the premises.
Clause 8 – Use of public amenities	Submitters sought a reconsideration of the 2 metre width being kept clear as this may be too wide. It is recommended to amend clause 8 to alter the width of the footpath to be kept clear from 2 metres to 1.5 metres.
Are contractors caught by clause 8 – use of public amenities?	Clause 8 lists things that people should not do (including damage, interfere with, drive on, place things or erect structures) without the permission of the Council. If contractors are undertaking work on behalf of the Council then they have permission for the purposes of the Bylaw.
Clause 8 – use of public amenities	There was some support for the clause but clarity was sought to ensure tables for fundraising activities could continue. The proposed Bylaw has been amended to enable this to occur (clause 8.4.)
Clause 9 – security lighting under verandas	Three submitters supported this clause and two questioned the need for it. Verandas are owned by individual property owners and as such Council currently has no ability to install lighting without agreement. Lighting is a safety issue particularly in City Centres. No changes are recommended to this clause.
Other drafting changes.	There were 41 comments related to drafting changes. These ranged from: (a) Simplify the entire bylaw; simplify the relationship between clauses 8, 11 and 12. Agree in part to the extent changes are recommended. (b) Re-write parts 3 and 4. Agree in part to the extent changes are recommended. (c) Re-word clause 3 - purpose. Agree in part to the extent changes are recommended. (d) Clause 6 which refers to what persons should generally do should protect the right to protest. The amendments to clause 12 address this issue. (e) Amend definitions for centres, commercial services, events and nuisance. It is recommended to amend the definition of events and signs and include a definition for sleeping.
New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF)	NZDF want to be exempt for events if they are undertaking an operation or training exercise in Nelson. This seems appropriate. It is recommended that NZDF is excluded from the definition of event.
Nelson 2060	Submitters asked that the Bylaw aligns with the provisions of Nelson 2060. Nelson 2060 is a vision statement around sustainability. The Bylaw is not inconsistent with it.
Seek advice from Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ)	Advice was sought on the permit provisions within the notified version of the Bylaw and LGNZ was comfortable with the proposed bylaw on the grounds that there were conditions and a process in relation to protests.

Other Matters

5.7 Other matters that have been raised in discussion at the Hearing and in developing the Bylaw are:

(a) The process followed by Wellington City Council in regard to holding an event or protest. The advice provided at the Council meeting on 23 March 2017 was that Wellington City Council (WCC) had a requirement for a permit for events and protests. When that advice was provided that was based on the content of the WCC website. Further investigation shows the advice to be incorrect and the website was not in accordance with their process. WCC staff have confirmed the website was incorrect at that time. WCC asks for notification if someone is organising an activity or event that may:

(i) Affect vehicle or pedestrian traffic

(ii) Increase traffic to a special area (concert, sports)

(iii) Require a road or footpath closure (parades, marches, runs, rallies)

(iv) Require signage next to a road.

Where someone is planning an activity that requires closure of a vehicle lane, parking area or footpath then permission is required from WCC.

(b) Discussions have occurred with the Police. Council would be required to enforce the Bylaw and the Police would only be involved if there is an issue that arises.

Process for a Bylaw, the Problem Definition and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA)

5.8 Each of these matters is dealt with in the following paragraphs.

Process for a Bylaw

5.9 Council must follow the process prescribed by section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) which requires a three stage inquiry. These stages are:

(a) What is the perceived problem and is a bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing that problem? (s155(1) LGA)

(b) Is the proposed bylaw the most appropriate form of bylaw for addressing the perceived problem? (s155(2)(a) LGA)

The Problem Definition for the Proposed City Amenity Bylaw and Appropriateness

5.10 Over a period of time Council has considered various issues that have arisen in the District and identified there was a gap in their ability to regulate the use of public places so that they can be used and enjoyed by all. The perceived problems were:

(a) Amenity in the City Centres is being affected by others’ use of it – e.g. accumulation of possessions, things and structures.

(b) Public use (and passage) along the footpath is obstructed – including the ability to access shop frontages and view goods and consequent loss of potential business.

(c) Safety (and perception of safety) of pedestrians (and traffic) and others using public places being impacted by others’ use of public places – particularly at night.

(d) Safety of those using public places at night.

(e) The potential for protests to affect others’ use of public places.

5.11 An assessment of the issues and the options for addressing these perceived problems has been previously provided to Council prior to the development of the proposed Bylaw. The options that were considered include:

(a) Offences under the Summary Offences Act 1981 (relating to public disorder and obstruction).

(b) Trespass under the Trespass Act 1980 and civil trespass action.

(c) The Resource Management Act 1991 - specifically sections 17 and 314 regarding offensive and objectionable activities and avoiding, remedying or mitigating effects on the environment through the removal of things from the footpath.

(d) The existing Urban Environments Bylaw 2015.

(e) Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2007.

(f) Actions under the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

(g) Powers under the Local Government Act 2002 and 1974.

(h) Powers under the Public Works Act 1981.

(i) Options for leases and licences of footpaths in the central city.

(j) Alterations to the physical layout of public places in order to make the continual occupation of footpaths less appealing.

(k) Negotiation to address individual cases.

(l) Management through a bylaw or other mechanism for freedom camping.

(m) The development of a new bylaw specific to city amenity.

5.12 Option (m) was the selected option. Nelson City Council does not currently have a bylaw, such that other cities in New Zealand do, to address safety and amenity in public places. This was identified as a gap in Council’s ability to regulate the use of public places so they can be used and enjoyed by all.

5.13 A list of urban Councils with similar bylaws is contained in Attachment 4. The New Zealand Model Bylaws have been followed in developing the proposed bylaw and the Model provisions regulate:

(a) Placing things or materials in a public place that are likely to be hazardous, injurious or create a nuisance (cl 202.1(a)).

(b) Cause or allow any material or thing to be deposited in a public place or road (cl 202.1(c)).

(d) Obstruct a public place (cl 203).

(e) Place any “material or thing, including signage, amusement devices or items for sale or hire, on any public place unless authorised by Council” (cl 205(1)).

(f) Assembly in a public place (cl 209).

5.14 Since the bylaw was notified there have been further examples on Trafalgar Street of people occupying public places. This is an example of how the occupation of public spaces can affect those undertaking their trade, access to footpaths, feeling safe walking along the footpath and safety of those both occupying the public space or using that space.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA)

5.15 New Zealand Courts have considered bylaws, notably in the cases of Wadsworth and Bright v Auckland Council and the Attorney General [2013] NZHC (“Wadsworth”) and Schubert v Whanganui District Council [2011] NZAR, 233 (“Schubert”). Both cases referred to R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 (“Oakes”). In brief, the Courts have accepted that the freedoms enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) may be limited by a bylaw if the objective for that bylaw is:

(a) Pressing and substantial, sufficient to override the protected right or freedom.

(b) There is a rational connection between the limitation proposed by the bylaw and the stated objective of the bylaw that is not arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations.

(d) The bylaw limitation is a proportional response to the problem (i.e. should only be what is reasonably necessary to address the problem and no more).

5.16 The New Zealand High Court accepted that the Auckland City Council bylaw, that required a permit for protesters seeking to occupy Aotea Square, was a reasonable limitation because it only limited organised events, had a clear intent of protecting health and safety, set out reasons for declining permits and the Court found this went some way towards a connection between the permitting regime it proposed and the objectives of the bylaw (Wadsworth). However, the Wanganui District Council that banned gang patches from the District was found to be an unreasonable limit on freedom of expression because the bylaw was too geographically wide and therefore impaired freedom of expression more than was reasonably necessary to achieve the bylaw’s purpose (Schubert) i.e. it was disproportionate.

5.17 It is considered the notified Bylaw (as currently drafted) met the requirements of NZBORA with the exception of clause 12 which as notified potentially impinges on the following rights contained in NZBORA:

(a) Section 14 – freedom of expression;

(b) Section 16 – freedom of peaceful assembly;

(d) Section 18 – freedom of movement.

5.18 The Wadsworth case provides precedent in terms of regulating public spaces in the public interest. However, the Bylaw as notified can be distinguished because the Wadsworth bylaw:

(a) Required people to obtain a permit for organised events/protests and as such, spontaneous protests could occur without a permit.

(b) Set out the reasons why permits may be declined and greater detail about the permitting regime.

5.19 The Bylaw as notified could be seen to be too discretionary regarding when a permit would be refused and too far reaching given it would cover all events, even those that do not have any impact on traffic or pedestrian thoroughfare.

5.20 There are two options with this clause; either delete it entirely or amend it to align with the WCC approach.

5.21 It is recommended the Bylaw as notified be amended to focus clause 12 on notification of the Council only where there is likely to be disruption to pedestrians and traffic and only for organised events. This amendment would focus control on impeding access and safety issues and would require no approval process for organised events (unless the road is required to be closed).

5.22 Deleting the clause is an alternative. Deletion would mean there is no foreknowledge of an organised event which would put Council Officers on the back foot if things need to be arranged to assist the event.

5.23 The following comments are made in relation to the part of the Bylaw as notified covering sleeping on a footpath/road overnight and NZBORA:

(a) There is a rational connection between the limitation and the objective of ensuring a safe environment for all people using those public places.

(b) The area the Bylaw relates to is geographically limited to footpaths and roads in Nelson’s City Centres rather than being geographically wide, meaning it is not disproportionate and does not unduly restrict people’s freedoms.

(c) Where a person is homeless and not protesting, Council’s first response will be engagement with the appropriate social services to try to locate alternative accommodation or solutions. It is proposed that an enforcement policy be developed outlining this process and in the meantime a Council resolution will be followed by Officers which confirms this approach.

5.24 In relation to sleeping overnight alternatives could be:

· That this restriction is limited to just the Inner City zone rather than city centres generally.

· Delete clause 13 and the definition of “sleep” as reflected in Attachment 1A so there are no controls on sleeping overnight in the City Centres.

· To amend the Bylaw to base action on complaint that on reasonable grounds the person(s) sleeping in a particular place is causing nuisance. We note that Napier City Council is proposing to trespass people from each particular site if it receives a complaint. However, from the point of view of enforceability this is less certain than saying no sleeping overnight within certain areas, as an enforcement officer is then required to determine the nuisance effects.

5.25 The sleeping overnight provisions meet the necessary tests as outlined in section 5.23. Alternatively Council may decide to either refine the clause to only apply in the Inner City or delete it in entirety.

6. Options

6.1 Six options have been identified and are discussed in Table 2 below. With all of the following options it is recommended that other actions continue to be pursued to address current issues in Nelson particularly within Trafalgar Street including: liaison between social agencies, Police and Council and potential further negotiation/mediation between parties.

6.2 With options 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 other specific wording changes are recommended to the bylaw to address:

(a) An exemption for the New Zealand Defence Force.

(b) Specific drafting improvements as identified in Attachment 1 to address matters raised in submissions.

Table 2: Options

Option 1: Continue with the Bylaw as Drafted
Advantages	· Addresses all three main aspects at issue being sleeping overnight, occupying footpath space during the day and leaving belongings on the footpath or road.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Probability of legal challenge to the Bylaw due to NZBORA implications. · Not supported by a number of submitters.
Option 2: Withdraw the Bylaw
Advantages	· Supported by a number of submitters. · No legal risk.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not address the perceived problems and other options would need to be pursued to address the issues including sleeping overnight, occupying footpath space during the day and leaving belongings on the footpath or road. · Public concern regarding safety issues would continue. · There have been costs to date.
Option 3: Withdraw Clause 12 – Events and Permits
Advantages	· Supported by a number of submitters. · Limits legal risk as the most contentious part of the Bylaw is removed.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would leave a gap in the bylaw regarding occupation of footpath space for protests where no sleeping is occurring and no placing of things.
Option 4: Withdraw Clause 12 (Events and Permits) and Replace with the Wellington City Council Clause (Notification of an Event)
Advantages	· Supported by a number of submitters. · Limits legal risk as the most contentious part of the Bylaw is amended in accordance with matters raised by a number of submitters. · Allows safety and traffic management to be addressed.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would leave a gap in the bylaw regarding occupation of footpath space for protests where no sleeping is occurring and no placing of things.
Option 5: Withdraw Clause 13 regarding sleeping in City Centres and the definition of “sleep”
Advantages	· No legal risk. · Aligns with the intent of a number of submissions relating to homelessness.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would leave a gap in the bylaw regarding occupation of footpath space for protests that involve sleeping overnight.
Option 6: Amend Clause 13.1 so that it only regulates sleeping on a footpath or a road in the Inner City rather than all City Centres
Advantages	· Limits the restriction to Inner City only
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would leave a gap in the bylaw regarding occupation of footpath space other than the Inner City.

7. Next Steps

7.1 In reaching a decision regarding the proposed Bylaw the Council needs to:

(a) Determine the Bylaw as proposed is consistent with the NZBORA and the most appropriate form of bylaw.

(b) Adopt the Bylaw in whole or in part, amend the Bylaw or withdraw the Bylaw; and

(c) Set out the reasons for any decisions and convey these to submitters (section 82(1)(f) Local Government Act 2002): “That persons who present views to the local authority should have access to a clear record or description of relevant decisions made by the local authority and explanatory material relating to the decisions...”

7.2 The proposed amendments to the Bylaw are all within the scope of the submissions.

7.3 If the Council accepts the recommended option then the following are presented as potential reasons for the decision. The recommended option is to adopt the Bylaw in part; amend Clause 12 to require notification of an organised event or protest rather than obtaining a permit covering both organised and spontaneous events; either retain clause 13 sleeping in entirety or amend that clause to only apply to the Inner City; and make other more minor amendments as contained in Attachments 1 or 1A.

7.4 The perceived problems identified before commencing the bylaw making process (and reflected above) remain and the Council still considers a bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing those problems.

7.5 The Council has now considered all the submissions and has made a number of changes to the Bylaw to address concerns raised. This includes:

(a) 'Pulling back' on the requirement to obtain permits for events and protests and instead requiring notification of events to Council, if they are likely to impede traffic or pedestrian flows and ensuring spontaneous events/protests are not captured; and

(b) Ensuring it is clear that it is only overnight sleeping on roads and footpaths that is regulated unless Council deletes clause 13; and

(c) Amending the definition of events to exclude spontaneous events and training exercises of the NZ Defence Force (which is covered by the Nelson Resource Management Plan); and

(d) Adding a definition of “sleep” to exclude people seeking a short rest on a public bench; and

(e) Improving the ease of use of footpaths by increasing the distance between a window frontage and goods on the footpath (amended to 600mm from 500mm); and

(f) Bringing all the provisions for permissions into one clause, simplifying the requirements and clarifying the process.

7.6 The Council has carefully considered the submissions relating to the NZBORA implications of the proposed Bylaw - particularly in relation to the proposed permit process for events/protests and for sleeping. It has considered the Oakes tests and assessed the amended provisions against those tests.

7.7 It has determined that the Bylaw, as amended, will achieve the objective of regulating the use of public places so that they can be used and enjoyed by all, in a manner that ensures the rights in NZBORA are impaired as little as reasonably practical and in a manner that is proportional to the problems the Council is trying to address.

7.8 The Council considers the amended Bylaw, either Attachment 1 or Attachment 1A, is the most appropriate form of bylaw and that it is a reasonable solution to the problems identified.

7.9 Any enforcement of the Bylaw will be carried out by Council Enforcement Officers, who will have the power to ask any person in breach to stop the activity. The consequences for failure to comply with a request of an Enforcement Officer can include fines, removal of any things in breach of the Bylaw, seizure of property and/or injunctive relief.

8. Conclusion

8.1 A new bylaw is the most appropriate manner in which to address the perceived problems in the Nelson City Centre. The recommendation is to amend the draft Bylaw (as detailed above) and then to adopt the amended Bylaw.

Clare Barton

Group Manager Strategy and Environment

Attachments

Attachment 1: Appendix 1 - Amended Bylaw - A1815990 ⇩

Attachment 2: Appendix 1A - Amended Bylaw - A1816387 ⇩

Attachment 3: Appendix 2 - Maps - A1815313 ⇩

Attachment 4: Appendix 3 - Summary of Submissions - A1815615 ⇩

Attachment 5: Appendix 4 - Other Councils - Similar Bylaws - A1816019 ⇩

Attachment 6: Appendix 5 - Index to Submissions - A1770725 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The bylaw is the most appropriate and cost-effective manner in which to address the problems which are affecting the amenity value within the Nelson City Centre.

Deliberations on submissions allow Council to consider the community views on the draft City Amenity Bylaw and make changes to the Bylaw based on this feedback.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations align with our Community Outcomes:

‘Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed’, ‘Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient’ and ‘Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement'

3. Risk

There is a risk that Council will make decisions on the draft Bylaw in response to submissions that some submitters do not agree with.

4. Financial impact

The financial impact associated with the bylaw includes future costs related to enforcement and resources required to administer the bylaw processes.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The bylaw and the issues it aims to address is of high significance due to community interest. The issues are visible in the community and are polarising. Appropriate consultation has been carried out on this matter.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori were consulted through the submission process on the Statement of Proposal.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee referred to Council its powers relating to a City Amenity Bylaw at its meeting on 23 March 2017.