Update on my Notice of Motion calling for Auckland Council to improve enforcement of its bylaws and legislative enforcement responsibilities
Since my Notice of Motion (NoM) was passed unanimously at the Local Board’s February Business meeting (see February Report below for the details), here’s a rundown of what’s been happening:
The NoM has been supported/copied in part or full by three Local Boards being: Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki and Howick. This has sent a strong message to the Governing Body of Auckland Council.
All elected members have had an update from the Director of Regulatory Services and General Manager of Licencing and Regulatory Compliance on the issue. Local Board members across the region were extremely supportive of the staff and teams and their desperate need for more resourcing and other supportive changes to undertake their roles more efficiently.
I presented the contents of the NoM to Auckland Council’s Regulatory Committee. This was a joint presentation alongside two other Local Boards (Kaipatiki and Devonport-Takapuna) as we worked together on an identical NoM to send a strong message to Auckland Council on the significant issues across the region in bylaw enforcement, as well as other legislative enforcement responsibilities Council has. The presentation was very well received by the Committee and staff, and we are feeling confident that some positive changes are afoot in this space. I’ll continue to keep you updated.
Compliance enforcement (whether it is unlawfully camping on beach reserves, dog control, fly-tipping or sedimentation controls on building sites) is a core function of Auckland Council and currently, the system is broken and in need of an organisational wide review (including Council Controlled Organisations). A review is needed to fully identify the issues and provide recommendations in order to gain more cohesive and efficient capability across Auckland Council. In some cases, this will also obtain greater environmental outcomes.
We also need to enable fines to be issued to obtain some cost recovery. There’s a lack of enforcement/penalty power under the Local Government Act. Most bylaws have no infringement powers so Council must lobby the Minister to recommend bylaw infringement fee regulations for selected Auckland Council Bylaws. This is key and is what we’re working on now. I’ll provide updates as soon as I can.
Other bylaw work I’ve done – Freedom Camping and Stormwater
Bylaws get reviewed regularly and Local Boards always have an opportunity to provide feedback on proposed changes. In February I wrote our Local Boards feedback on a new Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw and proposed changes to the Stormwater Bylaw 2015.
Some of the key feedback in the Freedom Camping one was:
“Do not support proposal 2.2 outlining a maximum of two nights in the same road or off-road parking area. We believe one night is more appropriate.” This was a tricky one to consider what was going to be the most appropriate situation, however, the feedback I’d received from the public on this is why I recommended one night. It felt appropriate to allow for self-contained vehicles to visit friends and family and park overnight, however, more than one night wasn’t going to be popular amongst residents.
“Recommend that the “no return” rule contain a more specific range than currently, and be measured in kilometres such as a diameter of 2 kilometres”. This applies when (for example) a vehicle parks up in a residential street for the time they are allowed to stay – which may either be two nights as proposed or one night as we suggested. The no-return rule means that they can’t just move the vehicle a couple of meters and start the maximum allowable nights again. I suggested some greater clarity on this with a kilometre range.
Some key feedback for the stormwater bylaw:
Provided there are no immediate risks to public safety, recommend that activities in parts of the stormwater network that are primarily supporting volunteer ecological restoration work has a clear and simple method of applying for usage in all areas of the network, taking into account health and safety risks
recommended that Auckland Council advocates for the ability to issue infringement notices under the Local Government Act 2002 as the process of using the Resource Management Act 1991 is a lengthy and time-consuming process that would warrant only the most serious offences to be worthy of taking court action
note that if the Resource Management act 1991 continues to be used as an enforcement framework for monitoring illegal discharges, the enforcement needs further resource, as the damage of illegal sedimentation is permanent in our harbours and estuaries.
Comments