Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

9 April 2018

Order of Business

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion. No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

3. Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other Committee matters.

(NOTE: If the Committee wishes to consider or discuss any issue raised that is not specified on the Agenda, other than to receive the comment made or refer it to the Chief Executive, then a resolution will need to be made in accordance with clause 2 above.)

4. Submissions - Dog Control Policy Page 7

(Note: The Dog Control Policy Submissions are attached separately to this Agenda.)

5. Confirmation of Minutes Page 17

“That the minutes of the ordinary Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 5 March 2018 Part I Public and extraordinary Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 19 March 2018 Part I Public be confirmed as true and correct records.”

6. Summary of Consultation - draft Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2018 Page 25

Memorandum, dated 22 March 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Ann-Marie Mori.

7. Draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 - Approval to Consult Page 93

Report, dated 21 March 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Lili Kato.

8. LGNZ Metro Sector Remit Proposals Page 135

Memorandum, dated 13 March 2018 from the Strategy & Policy Manager, Julie Macdonald.

9. Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw Amendments - Deliberations on Submissions Page 145

Memorandum, dated 28 February 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.

10. Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 - Deliberations on Submissions Page 203

Memorandum, dated 9 March 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.

11. Conference Opportunity - Building a vibrant, robust and resilient central business district Page 261

Memorandum, dated 23 March 2018 from the Governance & Support Team Leader, Kyle Whitfield.

12. Committee Work Schedule - April 2018 Page 265

13. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

Chief Executive (Heather Shotter), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), General Manager, City Enterprises (Ray McIndoe), General Manager, City Future (Sheryl Bryant), General Manager, City Networks (Ray Swadel), General Manager, Customer Services (Peter Eathorne), General Manager, Libraries and Community Services (Debbie Duncan), Human Resources Manager (Wayne Wilson) and Communications and Marketing Manager (or their representative (name)) because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with advice on matters both from an organisation-wide context (being members of the Council’s Management Team) and also from their specific role within the Council.

Legal Counsel (John Annabell), because of his knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with legal and procedural advice.

Governance and Support Team Leader (Kyle Whitfield) and Committee Administrators (Penny Odell, Carly Chang and Rachel Corser), because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with procedural advice and record the proceedings of the meeting.

[Add Council Officers], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report and answering questions, noting that such officer will be present at the meeting only for the item that relate to their respective report.

[Add Third Parties], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Submission From Consultation

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 9 April 2018

TITLE: Submissions - Dog Control Policy

FROM:

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning and Strategy Committee

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee hear and receive the oral and written submissions.

2. That the Committee note the Procedure for Hearing of Submissions, as described in the procedure sheet.

Submitters wishing to be heard in support of their submission

Submitter Number	Submitter
1	Jason Dorne
3	Tim Gibbes
28	Neil Miller
43	Katherine Gibbs
51	Sue Cooper
57	Liz Cross
81	Carol Beehre
100	Chris Teo-Sherrell
119	Keith Joblin
120	Paul E Godbaz
121	Kathleen Moore
129	Marilyn & Bruce Bulloch

SUBMITTERS NOT WISHING TO BE HEARD

Submitter Number	Submitter
2	Anonymous
4	Daniel Carrick
5	Mark Easton
6	Sarah
7	Jess Emmerson
8	Gerry Keating
9	M
10	Roy LeQuesne
11	Quinton Keyser
12	Heather Glasgow
13	Karen Adams
14	Glen Eustace
15	Ariana Moore
16	Wendy Newth
17	Tony Reddrop
18	Ashley Dodunski
19	Christine S Johnston
20	Mercedes & David Hayman
21	Barb Adlington
22	Jordan & Elizabeth Dempster
23	Michelle Amos
24	Graham Slater
25	Vanessa & Jerome Pitt
26	Joe Erkens
27	Robin Wood
29	Anonymous
30	Brook Rush
31	Kelly Corbett
32	Rachel
33	Ken Bateman
34	Iola Haggarty
35	Michelle Haydock
36	Robert Groom
37	Chris Larking
38	Anthony Ward
39	Anthea Finlayson
40	Jacqueline Koenders
41	Danielle Harris
42	Romina Iwikau
44	Fiona McNair
45	Stella Berendt
46	Lydia Read
47	Ma Hart
48	Imogen Watson
49	Adam Rose
50	Rachel Anderson
52	Peter Phillips
53	Maxine Jones
54	Sarah Callum
55	William Grammer
56	Ronald Huggins
58	Deborah Wood
59	Evelyn Ray-Johnson
60	Vikki Duker
61	Warwick Hunter
62	Miriam Cahill
63	Wayne Steward
64	Shelley Harland
65	Kathleen Field
66	Sheryl Marriott
67	Larry Loo
68	Gerard Atkin
69	Sally Mannering
70	Anne Ridler
71	Raffat Shameem
72	Meredith Pitcher
73	Andrew Mercer
74	Sabrina A Watene
75	Glenne Sheppard
76	Christopher Read
77	Braeden Whitelock
78	Bronwen Murray
79	Bruce Roberts
80	Tim Hesketh
82	Robert Sawicki
83	Martyn Nail
84	Jo-Anne Duncan
85	Ian B Bailey
86	John Munday
87	Paula De Goldi
88	Chris Charleston
89	Stephh Greig
90	Karen Jones
91	Glynis Sinclair
92	Alesha Mcquinn
93	Anne Chadwick
94	Bronwyn Lipsham
95	Christine Hughes-Anderson
96	David R & Rosemary D Pinkney
97	Javier Medina
98	Peter Reay
99	Ange Fowles
101	Vivienne Shaw
102	Amelia
103	Ben Koch
104	Derek & Sheryl Marriott
105	Janice Mechen
106	Ross Archibald
107	Kim Harrison
108	Sophie C
109	Jenny Roberts
110	Andrew & Susan Hainsworth
111	Pamela Mawhinney
112	Chi Lei Lau
113	Sean Monaghan
114	Kathleen M Nevatt
115	Heather D Baker
116	Jenny Davies
117	John McGifford
118	Dave Miller
122	Colin Fink
123	Marilyn Brown
124	Sue Mitchell
125	Fay Foster
126	Angela M Joblin
127	Philip G Monk
128	Mark Inman

Attachments

1.	Dog Control Policy Submissions (attached separately)
2.	Procedure Sheet ⇩

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Extraordinary Planning and Strategy Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 19 March 2018, commencing at 1.00pm

Members

Present:

Councillor Duncan McCann (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Non Members:

Councillors Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison and Lew Findlay QSM.

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (for late arrival) and Councillors Brent Barrett (for early departure), Adrian Broad (for early departure), Leonie Hapeta (for late arrival).

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke entered the meeting at 1.06pm during consideration of clause 12. She was not present for clause 11.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 1.16pm during consideration of clause 12. He was not present for clause 11.

Councillor Leonie Hapeta entered the meeting at 1.28pm during consideration of clause 12. She was not present for clause 11.

Councillor Adrian Broad left the meeting at 1.47pm during consideration of clause 12. He was not present for clause 12.

11-18

Apologies

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Vaughan Dennison.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 11-18 above was carried 13 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

12-18

Submissions - Animals and Bees Bylaw

Councillor Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke entered the meeting at 1.06pm

The following people appeared before the Committee and made oral statements in support of their submissions and replied to questions from Elected Members.

The NZ Companion Animal Council Inc. (1)

Representing The NZ Companion Animal Council Inc, Megan Khan-Ure spoke to the submission and made the following additional comment:

- The Bylaw was the first of its kind in New Zealand and was an extremely progressive step to ensure the welfare of cats.

- Believed owners could have multiple cats provided they are well looked after.

Carina Hickey and Jack Register (37)

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 1.16pm

Ms Hickey and Mr Register spoke to their submission and made the following additional comment:

- Palmerston North was a city where sections are getting smaller and having stock and poultry in the city was a backward step.

Councillor Leonie Hapeta entered the meeting at 1.28pm

Marilyn Bulloch (38)

Mrs Bulloch spoke to her submission and made the following additional comments:

- Suggested that the wording in 87.b should be amended to read “nationally recognised Cat Breeders Body”.

Geoff and Penny Haworth (42)

Councillor Adrian Broad left the meeting at 1.47pm

Mr and Mrs Haworth spoke to their submission and made the following additional comment:

- Asked that Council consider three areas when considering bees; that the density of bee population be kept low, consideration of location of bee hives in relation to properties and getting neighbours agreements as bees to cross boundaries.

Rhonda Findlay (48)

Ms Rhonda Findlay spoke to her submission and made no additional comments.

Manawatu Alley Cat Trust (54)

Representing Manawatu Alley Cat Trust, Ms Jenny Doyle spoke to the submission and made the following additional comments:

- Mandatory microchipping and de-sexing is very expensive and a lot of people would not do it.

- There needs to be a robust system that would allow cats that are picked up off the road (after being killed by traffic) to be scanned so that owners can be informed.

- When stray cats are taken to the SPCA they are told it is the individuals responsibility, they can either pay the fee to have them euthansised or return them to where they were found.

Hokowhitu Community Cats (55)

Representing Hokowhitu Community Cats, Dr Glennis Mobberley spoke to the submission and made the following additional comments:

- Any legislation that is put in place has to provide for animal welfare protection.

- Cats deter rats and stoats, which is better for bids. Have to reminder that cats are part of an eco-system and if you alter one part you may affect another.

Llyvonne Barber (50)

Ms Barber spoke to her submission and made the following additional comments:

- Whilst crowing roosters are a nuisance, crow collars and inhumane and roosters should have a right to demonstrate their natural behaviour. By boxing roosters at night the crowing can be limited.

- People living in rural areas, such as Ashhurst generally enjoy the sounds of that environment.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Lorna Johnson.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee hear and receive the oral and written submissions.

2. That the Committee note the Procedure for Hearing of Submissions, as described in the procedure sheet.

Clause 12-18 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

13-18

Summary of Submissions - Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw

Memorandum, dated 2 March 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Ann-Marie Mori.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the summary of submissions to the draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2017 is received.

Clause 13-18 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The meeting finished at 2.30pm

Confirmed 9 April 2018

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 9 April 2018

TITLE: Summary of Consultation - draft Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2018

DATE: 22 March 2018

AUTHOR/S: Ann-Marie Mori, Policy Analyst, City Future

ECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the summary of consultation feedback on the draft Palmerston North Dog Control Policy is received (refer Appendices 1-4).

1. ISSUE

This memorandum presents a summary of the consultation undertaken to seek feedback on the Statement of Proposal on the draft Dog Control Policy. It is considered good practice to present all feedback from the community gathered through the consultation period to acknowledge both formal and informal opportunities. Those following the policy review process may also value being able to see the points made by others in consideration of the issues being considered in the draft Policy.

Appendix 1 presents an analysis of feedback raised by submitters in response to the questions posed in the submission form (included in the Statement of Proposal) and online form.

Appendix 2 presents feedback gathered through a Facebook ‘poll’ on the 12 month trial to allow dogs on-leash in the CBD and analytics on other Facebook posts made during the consultation period.

Appendix 3 presents the results of a survey of 311 CBD businesses on the 12 month trial to allow dogs on-leash in the CBD using the Survey Monkey tool.

Appendix 4 presents the results from 'Let’s Talk’ sessions that used a voting system on two of the key proposed changed being considered.

2. BACKGROUND

The Statement of Proposal, including the draft Dog Control Policy, was released to the public for comment on 27 January 2018. Written submissions closed on 2 March 2018 and 129 submissions were received by the closing date. Twelve submitters have indicated they wish to speak to their submissions.

The draft Dog Control Policy aims to explain Council's approach to dog control to the community as well as providing a basis for internal operational policy and practice. It also indicates how Council will exercise its discretionary functions under the Act.

Feedback on the draft Dog control Policy was encouraged through the following means:

- Letters to over 6,500 registered dog owners (a requirement of the Local Government Act 2002)

- A public notice in the Manawatū Standard and The Tribune newspapers

- The Statement of Proposal being available in the Customer Service Centre, the City and branch libraries and the Ashhurst Service Delivery Centre

- A dedicated consultation page on Council’s website that included an online submission form

- Facebook posts to advise the opening and closing of the submission period

- A Facebook ‘poll’ on the 12 month trial to allow dogs on-leash in the CBD

- A door to door survey of 311 CBD businesses on the proposed 12 month trial to allow dogs on-leash in the CBD using Survey Monkey

- A media release and Square Circular article

- Radio advertising

- Three ‘Let’s Talk’ Van opportunities (Monrad Park, Fitzherbert bridge and The Square) and a session at the City Library

- Emails sent to iwi representatives, stakeholder contacts, and those engaged in pre-drafting consultation

- Sport Manawatū also assisted by emailing to sport contacts highlighting proposed changes to sportsfields

Formal submissions were received on all parts of the draft Dog Control Policy and a summary analysis of these is included in Appendix 1. Many of the submissions made multiple points on the topics contained within the draft policy.

A summary of informal comments received through Council’s Facebook page, the results of the CBD survey in relation to the proposed change regarding a 12 month trial in the CBD as a dog on-leash area, and feedback from Let’s Talk sessions are included in Appendices 2, 3 and 4.

3. NEXT STEPS

Deliberations on submissions are scheduled to be held during the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting on 6 June 2018. At that meeting, an officer report will be presented outlining recommendations in respect of the draft Dog Control Policy 2018. Further analysis of the feedback received through the consultation process will also be contained within the deliberations report.

It is anticipated that the Committee will make recommendations to the Council in respect of the draft Policy, for adoption by the full Council on 25 June 2018.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>	No
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

1.	Appendix 1 - Summary of Submissions ⇩
2.	Appendix 2 - Informal feedback through Council's Facebook Page ⇩
3.	Appendix 3 - CBD Survey results ⇩
4.	Appendix 4 - Let's Talk Sessions ⇩

Ann-Marie Mori

Policy Analyst

Appendix 1 – Summary of Submissions on the draft Dog Control Policy

This attachment presents an analysis of submissions received on the changes proposed in the draft Dog Control Policy. The questions are taken from the Submission Form that was part of the Statement of Proposal and also used on the online form on Council’s website.

The summary of submissions provided in this report is intended to provide a quick reference to the major themes and arguments raised by submitters, and should be read in conjunction with the submissions themselves.

1. Council’s approach to administration and enforcement

The policy sets out how it links to the bylaw and what enforcement tools are available to Council. It explains Council’s approach to dog attacks and dangerous dogs, barking dogs, roaming dogs and dogs under proper control. Do you agree with Council’s approach on each of these matters?

Analysis of Q1:

Two-thirds of submitters responded to this section with the majority supporting Council’s general approach to dog control administration and enforcement (see Fig 1).

Summarised Comments	Submitters
Good to hear the CBD and Square are becoming dog friendly areas and for owners to walk their dog through the centre of town on-leash	2, 44
Supervision is lacking Policing policy is a fraught activity	22, 24
Discounts for early registration? Should be time frames for the reporting of misdemeanours and process for appeal	3, 34
More bins and poo bags	11
More definition is required to assist interpretation e.g. classification of nuisance	22, 34
Proposal objectives omit an important reason for dog control that is to ensure that dogs do not injure, endanger or cause distress to any stock, poultry, domesticated animal or protected wildlife	28
Don’t agree with CBD trial as will lead to more dog droppings	37
Needs to be more flexibility to meet each situation re acting on complaints about aggressive dogs	42
Keen for provisions to be as strong as possible	43
Disagree with on-leash area in Map 9 Turitea Walkway Aokautere	48
Should be greater liaison between PNCC and local obedience clubs re dog ownership education	72
Process for review is too long	94

Sample of comments:

"I do not agree with these new changes - even if they are a trial. We do not police people with dogs in public spaces now, what would it be like if it was opened up?” (37)

"I agree that the obligations and responsibilities be that of the dog owner. I do not agree that 'most' dog owners are responsible - refer this to the SPCA." (38)

“In large the proposals are a welcome update to the local dog control policy. However, I strongly object to the proposed new restrictions in two current dog exercise areas (specifically Poutoa and Titoki Walkways) which are considered far too restrictive. This proposal would afford inadequate provision for responsible dog owners on the far side of the Manawatū Rive to properly (off-leash) exercise their dogs.” (83)

“To be able to visit cafes and parts with your family pet on a lead can be an important part of a person/families' wellbeing. To be able to do this in Manawatū will bring our laws into line with other regions around NZ which allow dogs in public places." (94)

“Not convinced that enforcement with respect to barking dogs is sufficient. Perhaps more training for officers or more legal powers to the compliance officers.” (119)

2. Explaining dog control areas

The policy outlines the three different types of dog control areas in Palmerston North and explains the rationale for prohibited public places and dog exercise areas.

Do these explanations help you understand the different areas of dog control?

Analysis of Q2:

Most submitters who answered this question said they did understand the different areas of dog control (see Fig 2).

Summarised comments:	Submitters
How do you monitor these areas?	3, 34
Seems to be little or no enforcement	14
Unreasonable to expect puppies to be under control at all times	22
Public safety is only one purpose of dog control, Dog Control Act also imposes conditions about protection of other animals and wildlife	28
Concern about rationale for three different types of Dog Control Areas	34
Agree with removing dog on-leash area behind the Esplanade	34
We are lucky to have so many places to exercise dogs, but would like more areas without cyclists	42
More reminders needed that paths are shared	42
Would like a map with greater details of walkways covered in the policy, especially where change is proposed	72
People need to carry waste bags	114

3. Proposal to re-categorise grass sportsfields as on-leash control areas when sports are not being played.

At the moment all Council sportsfields are prohibited public places, where dogs are banned at all times. We are proposing that this category only applies when they are being used for organized sport, such as games, matches, tournaments or training. Outside of this, dogs will be allowed on grass sportsfields on a leash.

Dogs will still be prohibited from all artificial sports surfaces such as tennis and netball courts and any specialist sports surfaces such as hockey turfs.

Do you agree with the proposal?

Analysis of Q3:

Slightly over half of all submitters were in favour of this proposal, with just under a quarter of submitters not responding to this question (see Fig 3).

The following comments are fairly typical of the feedback from submitters:

“I think that for this to be successful it will be especially important that owners clean up after their dogs.” (88)

“If all dog owners took responsibility to pick up dog waste would be more sympathetic to this proposal.” (122)

Summarised comments:	Submitters
Provision of poo bags/bins needed	3, 57, 80, 83
Monitoring/ policing needed	3, 4, 32, 58, 60, 65, 91, 103, 119
People already do this (on and off-leash)	4, 32, 43, 87, 91, 93, 104
Concern that people don’t clean up after their dogs/ people need to be responsible	4, 14, 32, 37, 45, 52, 57, 64, 79, 82, 86, 87, 88, 91, 99, 100, 108, 110, 117, 118, 122, 123, 128
Health concerns about residue of dog poo and wee	37, 45, 52, 79, 87, 93, 100, 104, 114, 117, 118, 123
Only off-leash for dog agility trainers	11
Some parks should go further and be off-leash	22, 34, 40, 82
Too difficult to enforce, should be off-leash when there is no sport	43, 44
People wouldn’t keep their dogs on-lead/ concern about people controlling their dogs	55, 60, 61
Dogs running free can be hazardous	24, 32
No dogs where children play	32, 61, 87, 93, 108
Unpleasant for sports people (particularly children)	37, 52, 55, 60, 61, 86, 103, 104, 108, 114, 116,117
Should be areas designed specifically for dogs	32
There are already plenty of places people can take their dogs	52, 91, 99, 116, 123, 128
People take dogs to playing fields because grass in parks allowing dogs is too long	34
Supportive of increasing options for people walking dogs (increasing access)	41, 57, 62, 73, 92, 94
Concern about potential loss of Ashhurst dog park	43
Clearer signage needed, especially where there are changes	65

4. Proposal to allow dogs on-leash in the CBD for a 12-month trial period

The central business district (CBD) or city centre is currently a prohibited public place. The Dog Control Policy defines the CBD as the area within the ring road formed by Grey, Princess, Ferguson and Pitt Streets. It includes the Square.

The Council is proposing a 12-month trial allowing dogs on-leash in the CBD. What do you think of this idea?

If an on-leash trial was to go ahead in the CBD, what factors or conditions should be considered?

Analysis of Q4:

Feedback from formal submissions on this proposal was evenly divided, with many submitters having very strong views (see Fig 4). Many of the people who support the trial proposal also raised concerns, particularly about the need for more enforcement and clean-up.

Some fairly representative comments:

“I think it’s a bad idea and I don't see the benefit. I believe it will add some negativity to public events held in the Square.” (42)

“I think this will bring life to The Square and rest of CBD.” (57)

“OK - I agree as long as the dog policy is fully enforced to act on breaches particularly dog mess not being cleaned up.” (48)

“Allowing dogs into the CBD and Square, I believe, would create a dog poo issue. I also think that it is undesirable from the point of view of all the activities and events that are held around the area and the families and children that use the area.” (58)

“If we wish to make PN and vibrant inclusive place for all let us welcome people with dogs.” (59)

Summarised comments:	Submitters
Active policing and monitoring needed	2, 3, 9, 13, 16, 23, 31, 33, 35, 39, 41, 42, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 77, 79, 82, 93, 95, 104, 105, 115, 119, 126, 127
More dog poo bins and bags needed	2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 27, 33, 34, 43, 48, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62, 64, 77, 80, 82, 83, 88, 89, 91, 94, 97, 102, 105, 119, 128
Dogs pooing, urinating, hygiene concerns, need for more cleaning of CBD	13, 14, 21, 28, 36, 38, 42, 46, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 72, 77, 78, 79, 84, 85, 87, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 109, 114, 115, 116, 119, 123, 124, 125, 128
Length of leads an issue/ need for short leash	3, 38, 45, 46, 106, 108, 120, 121, 129
Some people are scared of dogs	4, 30, 38, 68, 95, 102, 111, 119, 123, 126, 129
Concern about control of dogs, dogs around children/ mobility scooters	13, 35, 36, 38, 42, 45, 50, 52, 54, 72, 76, 77, 87, 93, 96, 100, 108, 114, 116, 118, 119, 120,
Comments/ concerns about breed and/or size and/or aggression of dog	4, 5, 49, 50, 55, 77, 79, 93, 95, 100, 109, 114, 116, 118, 119, 122, 124
Dogs should be required to wear muzzles	4, 28, 76
Well managed dogs add to vibrancy, make the CBD more family friendly; good for dogs (better sociability)	5, 51, 57, 59, 86, 92, 104, 125
Concern about control of dogs outside shops/ need for posts/potentially hazardous	6, 27, 52, 82, 84,
Too many distractions in The Square	7, 42, 124
Water stations needed	12, 22, 27, 34, 41, 47, 72, 89
Concern about pedestrian traffic areas/ tripping, health and safety	14, 43, 45, 87
CBD not suitable for dogs/ enough other places to take dogs/not suitable for dogs	36, 43, 45, 58, 65, 77, 79, 80, 90, 106, 128
Concern for dog’s welfare	38, 52, 61, 77, 78, 107,
Education/signage needed	33, 39, 57, 59, 92, 111, 121
Is widespread practice nationally and internationally	41, 57, 59, 64, 66, 67, 82, 91, 92, 104
Not keen on The Square (specifically)	45, 87,126

5. Proposal to change some Aokautere walkways from dog exercise areas to dog on-leash areas

Poutoa walkway, Titoki walkway and Pari Reserve and walkway are currently dog exercise areas, where dogs do not have to be on a leash. However these places have become confined as they’ve developed over time. To address safety concerns, we propose changing these to dog on-leash areas.

Do you agree with this proposed change?

Analysis of Q5:

Feedback from formal submissions indicates more support to change these areas from off-leash to on-leash (see Fig 5). A quarter of submitters did not reply and many indicated they were not familiar with these areas so could not offer an opinion.

Those that opposed this change offered some strong views such as:

"No mention of what the safety concerns are. Uses pathway all the time and have never encountered a problem. Unfortunate that Council is considering changing 'just in case' there is an incident.” (25)

“Need leash free area at Gorge end of town.” (27)

"Absolutely not…it’s a great place to avoid bikes which is not the case along the river. What is the evidence/incidence that has forced this walkway to be reviewed as on-leash?” (48)

"I do not agree with the proposed change…it would be highly upsetting to have this imposed. There a few off-leash areas in PN and this area of walkways around Aokautere is a brilliant place to let dogs run free.” (49)

“There is already an inadequate number of dog off-leash areas around PN.” (62)

“There is no good reason for restricting these reserves to dog on lead only... I see no safety concerns here. These tracks are a wonderful resource for the whole community to share and I would hate to see this proposed restriction affecting well-behaved dogs who enjoy a safe place to play and a watery frolic”. (90)

Those in support offered counter arguments such as:

“Leashing dogs allows for better control should dog misbehave.” (4)

“Encountering free running (enthusiastic) dogs is an issue.” (24)

“Saves dogs spoiling bird life and frightening other walkers.” (44)

“Fully in favour of increasing the number of on-leash areas as I believe that most dogs exercised off-leash are not really under control of their owners (despite their owners belief that they are.” (65)

“If the human use has increased (as we know it has) then having dogs off-leash is incompatible with that.” (100)

Summarised comments	Submitters
Concerns about danger, unpredictable and free-running dogs	2, 16, 24, 44
On-leash allows for better control, appropriate where children may be, promotes family walks and more community oriented	4, 32, 45, 65, 94
Trial on-leash before deciding or on-leash after 09:00am	9, 48
Concerns about impact on bird-life or harm wildlife when dogs off-leash	44, 94
On-leash protects dog from eating poison	94
More signage needed if change adopted	65
On-leash control could impact on number of walkers using area	98
Reflects what people already do	94
Increased use of areas incompatible with dogs off-leash	100
Lack of justification for change including low use, complaints-based, explicit safety concerns not stated, don’t consider areas to be confined or to have safety issues	5, 25, 48, 51, 69, 70, 72, 82, 83, 90, 97, 99
Too few off-leash areas or concern about reduction of dog exercise areas	13, 21, 36, 49, 62, 83, 92
Dogs need off-leash opportunities and these walkway provide great environment	15, 21, 41, 49, 89, 110
Only agree if provide other off-leash area	15, 22, 67
Council need to improve pathways to make safe on-leash area	25
Need safe, off-leash area in locality (Summerhill/Aokautere)	27, 51, 69, 82, 83
People live in area due to walkways and exercise areas for dogs, need to encourage use	34, 69, 90
Need to be a more dog-friendly council if want to attract people to City	34
Many dog exercise areas also cater to cyclists where speed and shared use cause conflicts with dog exercise; also busy and open	39, 48, 51, 62, 90
Attacks can still occur if dogs on-leash	49
Manawatū River shared path is crowded, a disease risk, and requires travel to get to it	51

Do you have any other comments about dogs on-leash areas?

A wide range of general views about on-leash areas of dog control, many referencing operational matters such as stricter enforcement (otherwise little point having defined areas of control), better signage and provision of dog waste bins. Some people also expressed concerns around the level of control owners have even when their dogs are kept on-leash.

Some comments were also made about the decision-making process underpinning the proposed Policy changes:

“All decisions need to be made on evidence-based research that unequivocally show how making that decision will make Palmerston North a safer area.” (82)

"PNCC draft policy acknowledges most interactions between dogs and public are positive, yet propose overly restrictive local controls due to a minority of irresponsible dog owners. For the sake of public and dog safety, it is recommended that PNCC exercise full powers against such people. Again, PNCC affords inadequate provision of associated signage, dog waste dispensers, dog waste bins across the city to encourage responsible dog ownership in these areas. There is no visible enforcement of the current policy." (83)

6. Clarifying dog exercise areas

Section on dog exercise areas

We’ve added a new section to the policy to explain what dog exercise areas are and what dog owners’ obligations are when using these locations. It makes it clear that dogs must be exercised under proper control and dog owners must carry a leash.

Does this section clarify expectations about dog exercise areas?

Analysis of Q6:

The majority of submitters commented that the explanations about dog exercise areas clarified expectations.

Some commented that the phrase ‘under proper control’ is a farce (24) and that Council was not in a position to make a decision on what constitutes control (34). One submitter felt it was unreasonable and unrealistic to expect young puppies to be 'under control at all times' (22).

Other submitters commented that Council should remind the public that these areas are to be shared with dogs (42) and more signage (48, 65) and education (3, 87) was required. The issue of enforcement was also raised (83, 91, 120).

Manawatū River Shared Pathway

Apart from the section between the Holiday Park and the Fitzherbert Bridge, the Manawatū River shared pathway is a dog exercise area, where dogs can be walked off-leash.

Do you think there should be a consistent category of dog control for the entire pathway?

Analysis of Q6

Submitters expressed a wide range of views on the status of the Manawatū River Shared Pathway (see Fig 6). Over half of submitters indicated that there should be a consistent category of dog control but it is difficult to judge a clear preference for on-leash or off-leash given that many didn’t state a preference. Based on the submissions received it appears there is a reasonable level of support for the status quo to remain in place (with over 40% of submitters indicating they considered the current situation to be adequate).

General comments about dog exercise areas

A number of submitters commented about the general provision of dog exercise areas with some emerging themes summarized as:

- Provision of more bins for disposal of dog poos; or alternative solutions for waste management e.g. worm farm

- Provision of water stations

- Signage to clarify control areas status and required behavior

- A desire for more dog exercise areas that are good and safe/secure and without cycle paths/cyclists

- Provision of a designated ‘dog park’ that is fenced

- Satisfaction with the current level of provision

- Recognition of the benefits to dog behaviour of off-leash exercise

- Visibility of Council’s enforcement of the policy/bylaw or reminders given

7. New section about responsible dog ownership

A new section in the policy makes it clear what we expect of responsible dog owners. This reflects the requirements set out in the Dog Control Act. A comment has also been added about the Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare 2010.

Do you have any comments on this section?

Analysis of Q7:

Thirty-four submitters (around a quarter) responded to this section and key themes that emerged were:

- Need for education and reminders about responsible dog ownership

- Imposing penalties for non-compliance and more policing/enforcement particularly for failure to pick up dog excrement

- Good to have dog ownership expectations described

- Issues are not so much about dogs (breed, size) but competent and responsible ownership

- Recognition of the cost of dog ownership

- Noting that welfare is important and owners should abide by the Code of Welfare

- Responsible ownership could also include attendance at an obedience course and a requirement for dogs to wear registration tags

Selection of comments made:

"If dog owners would pick up their dog poo then dogs and owners would have a better reputation and there would be better respect between those who have dogs and those who don’t.” (40)

"Always good to clearly state expectations. It would be good to receive a copy of the dog policy or a simplified leaflet version when first registering a dog in the city." (57)

“More education on exercise, family time, dogs not to be chained up all day or in small (and/or hot (no shade) pens. More awareness of dog’s needs, stimulation, affection, adequate food, looking into why they are barking (loneliness, boredom).” (125)

8. New explanation of preferred dog owner scheme

We’ve changed the wording to reflect Council’s current practices and information.

Do you have any comments about this section?

Analysis of Q8:

Seventeen submitters provided comment on this section with general support for the suggested changes to the policy. Some comments related to the application of the scheme (34) and sought clarification on the point of the scheme (43).

One submitter (83) queried whether Council has enough funding to facilitate the scheme such as need for inspections of dog owners’ houses and commented:

“I would much prefer to see the occasional walking patrol (to build relationships and support enforcement) by the dog control officer(s).” (83)

Another submitter queried the addition of the clause in relation to door access:

“Unhindered access to a door should be a legal obligation of all dog owners, not just preferred dog owners. Is the free access to a door current obligation actively being enforced by council? We request that that the access to a door 23(d) requirement be also listed under section 22 responsible Dog Ownership.” (129)

9. New information about emergency preparedness

A new section highlights the onus on dog owners to plan and prepare for the care and welfare of their dog/s in anticipation of an emergency.

Is it a good idea to include this in the policy?

Analysis of Q9:

Eighty submitters responded to this section. Almost half of those submitters supported the inclusion of this section. Some submitters felt it was unnecessary, was a step too far, or considered that owners would respond anyway therefore questioning the need for it to be included in the policy.

Selection of comments made:

“You say the onus is on dog owners in an emergency, other areas, countries with local SPCAs immediately put in place animal rescue plans in an emergency, why don't you?? What plans do PNCC have for catering to this need in an emergency? Have you got a list of shelters where dog owners will be able to go to?” (34)

"Very good and it wasn’t something I had given any thought to. We haven't even got an emergency kit for the people in our family let alone our dog." (43)

“Most definitely - emergency preparedness in vital. MPI has done a huge amount of work in the past year in this regard and in making information about animal preparedness available to individuals. I would really like this widely marketed to individual animal owners”. (82)

“It's common sense to the many responsible dog owners. But in practical terms, how is this statement enforced?” (83)

10. General comments and feedback

A wide range of comments were made relating to:

Summarised comments	Submitters
Support for the policy approach and being proactive	2, 47, 89, 94
Referencing the role of the Dog Control Act 1996/legislation	24, 28
Criticism regarding the rationale for policy changes and process	10, 20, 29, 34, 37, 38, 61, 81, 126
A suggestion that ‘attack’ should defined	120
Resourcing the implementation including stricter enforcement and resourcing of the policy	24, 40, 93
Promotion of environmentally responsible disposal of dog waste	87
Need for dog obedience course for owners	121
Specific comments about particular areas : Linklater reserve , Mangaone Walkway, the Manawatū Gorge, and sportsfields no longer being used for sports	17, 18, 43, 73, 81, 129
Issues with dogs owners such as not picking up dog poo or barking dogs	26
Non-dog owners feeling dogs’ wants put before general population needs such as allowing dogs into the CBD and sportsfields	26, 61, 93
Acknowledging the impact on people of dog attacks	24
Responsible dog ownership not taken seriously enough or dogs needs put first	3, 45
More education on dog control areas and owners’ awareness of responsibilities	113
Concerns about fireworks and backyard breeding	1, 3, 52
Provision of safe off-leash areas	21
Encourage neutering for urban dogs to reduce wandering and behavioural issues	28

Selection of comments made:

“Thank you for having this conversation. Being inclusive will contribute to the overall wellbeing of the community and its vibrancy.” (94)

“I think there need to be more leniency with where dog owners can take their dogs and more off-leash areas, but I also at the same time believe there needs to be stricter enforcement for those owners who don't follow the rules, particularly around poo and out of control dogs.” (40)

"There are more people without dogs then with dogs so why are their WANTS being put before ours. Most dogs are lovely but not in the CBD or on sportsfields. I feel the real reason for the change is PNCC Animal Control don't have the staff/time to deal with dogs in the CBD/Sportsfields or council the money to improve the service so let’s make it a controlled activity. It’s not controlled now and would be even less if it is changed." (93)

"Any person who has ever been attacked by a dog has developed a fear which NEVER goes away. The best way to avoid ongoing issues is for good legislation which can be policed.” (24)

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 9 April 2018

TITLE: Draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 - Approval to Consult

DATE: 21 March 2018

AUTHOR/S: Lili Kato, Policy Analyst, City Future

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council determines the form of the draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 and Administration Manual (contained in Appendix 1) is, subject to the outcome of public consultation, considered to be the most appropriate form of bylaw.

2. That the Council confirms that it has considered the draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 and determines that it does not give any rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3. That the Consultation Document (including the draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018 and Administration Manual) be approved for consultation.

4. That delegated authority is given to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee for the approval of any minor amendments to the Consultation Document.

Summary of options analysis for

Problem or Opportunity	The Palmerston North Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2008 facilitates the orderly and efficient management of the cemeteries and crematorium under Council’s control. The bylaw must be reviewed under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002 before it reaches its 10 year anniversary in October 2018, otherwise it will be automatically revoked within two years’ time under section 160A of the Local Government Act 2002. A draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw has been prepared that clearly sets out the rules for disposing of human remains, including ashes, in Council controlled cemeteries. The draft bylaw will repeal the current bylaw.
OPTION 1:	Consult on the draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw as presented in the Consultation Document (Appendix 1).
Community Views	Some community views have been sought through pre-drafting engagement activities and have shaped the scope of changes recommended. Further community input through the formal submission process would be initiated.
Benefits	Consultation with the community and key stakeholders will provide an opportunity for Council to receive further feedback on the bylaw leading to its improvement. Conducting consultation will ensure the bylaw is reviewed within the legislative timeframe set for review.
Risks	Following consultation, substantial changes may be needed which require further time to analyse and report back to Council. This could lengthen the review process.
Financial	Costs can be met within current budgets.
OPTION 2:	Not consult on the draft bylaw if Council does not wish to proceed with the draft bylaw as presented in the Consultation Document.
Community Views	The community may be frustrated that there is no consideration of the issues raised through initial engagement and that there are no changes proposed to the bylaw.
Benefits	None.
Risks	There may be uncertainty about how to deal with identified issues that are not clear in the current bylaw. These will continue to exist and may result in an inconsistent response.
Financial	None.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	The Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw contributes to the outcomes identified in the Council’s new draft strategic direction expressed in the Draft Connected Community Strategy and the Draft Community Services and Facilities Plan.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 The Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and the Local Government Act 2002 grant Council bylaw-making powers in respect of any Cemeteries or Crematoria in Council’s control^{^[1]}. Any bylaws made under the Burial and Cremation Act must follow the process set out in the Local Government Act 2002 for bylaws^{^[2]}, which means that they are subject to review^{^[3]}.

1.2 The last review of the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw took place in 2008, which resulted in a repeal of the 2004 bylaw. Subsequent reviews of the bylaw must take place no later than 10 years from the date of the last review^{^[4]}. Failure to review the current bylaw by October 2018 would mean Council would have until October 2020 to review the bylaw, otherwise the bylaw is automatically revoked^{^[5]}.

1.3 The review allows an opportunity for the bylaw to be examined and changed to better respond to the current issues relating to the management of Cemeteries and Crematoria controlled by Council.

1.4 There are a number of issues that arise in regard to the management of Cemeteries and Crematoria including:

(a) Protecting the solemn nature of Cemeteries given they are public places;

(b) Protecting the private interests of those with exclusive rights to burials; and

(c) Creating a balance between managing the cemeteries and crematoria pragmatically, and also meeting the needs of the community.

1.5 Initial consultation revealed that there are issues regarding the decoration of graves, the wording on memorials, and general maintenance of the cemeteries.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 A section 155 determination report was considered at the 6 November 2017 Planning and Strategy Committee. The report concluded that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of protecting the solemn nature of cemeteries, protecting the private interests of those with exclusive rights to burials, and creating a balance between pragmatic management and meeting the needs of the community.

2.2 The review was raised at the Rangitāne Bimonthly Meeting in October 2017. Comments from Rangitāne representatives included a desire to see Māori representation in the built environment of the Kelvin Grove Cemetery. There was also a desire to see an area of the cemetery set aside for Māori burials, to cater for those Māori who are not buried in their respective Urupā. Issues in regard to booking interments and the use of the chapel at Kelvin Grove Cemetery were also raised. Responding to the concerns raised by Rangitāne does not require a bylaw amendment and can be discussed through planning and levels of service decisions. The concerns raised in these discussions will be forwarded to the Property and Parks team.

2.3 An email was sent in September 2017 to all funeral directors and monumental masons who service the Palmerston North area. Two businesses responded to follow up calls inviting initial feedback on the review of the bylaw.

2.4 Emails inviting initial feedback were sent to various groups who may have an interest in the bylaw review including religious groups, interest groups including the Society of Genealogists, representatives of different ethnic groups, as well as representatives from Ashhurst and Bunnythorpe where Council controlled cemeteries are located. The Christian Leaders Association responded with an invitation to discuss the review at one of their meetings.

2.5 In November an online form was posted on the Council’s website and was available for a three week period. This was followed up with a Facebook post and a reminder for people to submit feedback on the bylaw. This was a successful engagement tool, with more than 60 responses were received. The survey asked questions around the following topics:

- Grave decorations;

- Wording and graphics on memorials;

- Taking animals to the cemetery.

2.6 The main points gained from respondents feedback on the online survey are:

2.6.1 Three quarters of respondents thought that cemeteries in Council’s control meet their cultural or religious needs. For those who answered no, some gave reasons as the lack of natural burial options and others for the lack of clarity in regard to decorated graves and the length of time they are permitted. A comment from a respondent who answered no was; “As a funeral director in my opinion cultures are not specifically met”.

2.6.2 Survey participants were asked to rank eight factors relating to cemetery operation in order of their importance. ‘affordable burial options’ was ranked first overall (and in first place by around a quarter of respondents), and ‘affordable cremation’ was ranked second overall. Ranked third was ‘cemetery grounds are kept tidy at all times’. The majority of respondents ranked ‘cultural or religious needs met’ in lastplace, along with ‘historical memorials are maintained’.

2.6.3 Approximately 40 per cent of respondents thought that Council should have restrictions for decorating graves; this was compared to around 50 percent of people who thought there should be no restrictions. Those respondents who said that there should be restrictions to decorations were divided on whether or not there should be stricter rules.

2.6.4 The main reservation about decorated graves raised by respondents was the uncertainty of what is permissible. A lot of comments related to the extent of decorated graves, including the type of materials being used and also the lack of maintenance. Some respondents thought that those people who wish to have simple graves in an area with no decorated graves should be recognised as well. While some respondents seemed to support special allowances for the Children’s cemetery, others thought plot owners in the Children’s cemetery should be held to the same standard of maintenance as the rest of the cemetery. Those who were in favour of decorated graves thought that allowing plot holders to express their grief in this way should take precedence over the public’s aesthetic preferences. However both groups emphasised the importance of the ongoing upkeep and maintenance of these graves.

2.6.5 Around a third of respondents thought there should be restrictions to the wording and graphics on memorials; this is compared to more than half of respondents who thought there should not be.

2.6.6 Those respondents who were in favour of having restrictions on wording and graphics on memorials were mostly concerned about restricting the use of “curse words”, “profanities”, and “offensive language”. Their main reasoning was because a cemetery is a public place and also the effect it would have on the whole environment. Others who were opposed to restrictions on wording and graphics gave priority to the wishes of the family and the deceased. One respondent noted that a consultative process with family was more important than a list of rules, providing enough time for family to understand the rationale of the decision.

2.6.7 There were a lot of comments about the general maintenance of cemeteries, with some respondents referring to the responsibility of plot holders to maintain their plots, but also reference to expectations of Council to keep a certain standard of tidiness.

2.6.8 Some respondents felt that having rules were essential to maintaining a respectable environment. Other respondents thought it essential that cemetery management take into account the diversity of Palmerston North residents.

2.6.9 Survey respondents were divided on the rules for taking animals to the cemetery.

3. Description of options

3.1 For the principal recommendation (to consult on the draft bylaw) there are two options: to consult or not to consult.

3.2 Option 1: Consult on the draft bylaw as presented in the Consultation Document (Appendix 1). The draft bylaw will trigger a repeal of the current bylaw.

3.3 While the draft bylaw will replace the current bylaw, the majority of provisions in the existing bylaw have been included in the draft bylaw, albeit in a modified manner. The draft bylaw also includes an Administration Manual, which mostly stipulates the procedures related to seeking authorisation from Council to carry out a certain activity in the Cemetery or Crematorium. The advantage of having an Administration Manual is that any administrative changes in relation to cemeteries and crematorium that Council make can be updated with relative ease compared to making changes to a bylaw. Having all the administrative provisions in the Administration Manual also keeps the actual bylaw concise in terms of the minimum standards.

3.4 Some considerations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) were covered in the S155 report to this Committee in November 2017. In a general sense, all bylaws impinge on human rights to some extent, so it must be asked if the level of impingement is justifiable. It is considered that the proposed changes to the bylaw are justifiable in the interests of the community.

3.5 Option 2: Not consult on the draft bylaw if Council does not wish to proceed with the draft bylaw as recommended. If no further action is taken, then the current Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw would continue to be in force until it is automatically revoked on 31 October 2020.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 While it was possible to amend the current bylaw it was clear from pre-consultation that significant changes are required, and so a new bylaw has been developed to enable these issues to be dealt with clearly and comprehensively. The following paragraphs describe the main provisions in the new bylaw:

4.1.1 It clearly sets out a procedure for acquiring authority for interment and cremation. The draft bylaw also adds a definition of ‘natural cemetery’ and ‘natural burial’.

4.1.2 The draft bylaw sets out the procedure for purchasing an exclusive right of burial in the Administration Manual, and also provides a process for Council to take control of those plots which are subject to an exclusive right of burial but have lapsed according to the legislation. The bylaw also sets a default period for the term of the interment which is in perpetuity.

4.1.3 The draft bylaw provides for graves to be maintained as lawn by Council unless approval has been granted for decorations on the soil of the grave. The draft bylaw includes clearer limitations in terms of decorations on the soil of the grave which looks to solve the issues raised about the extent of grave decorations and also addresses health and safety issues raised by staff. The draft bylaw also gives the Council the ability to confine decorations on the soil of the grave to designated areas, which will assist in eliminating some operational issues that arise from the wording of the current bylaw, and also give residents an option to bury their loved ones in a simple lawn area.

4.1.4 As plots in the niche wall do not require preparation by Council there are currently interments taking place without Council’s knowledge, particularly for interments in a reserved niche plot. This puts council in breach of the legislative requirement to record all interments, and making these records available to the public. The draft bylaw expands the definition of interment to include enclosure of ashes in a niche wall (or similar structure) to rule out any doubt in regard to obtaining authority for interment of ashes in this way.

4.1.5 Under the current bylaw there are no rules around disinterment of ashes or scattering of ashes, and this currently takes place in an inconsistent manner. The draft bylaw includes minimum standards for these practices, which are important in terms of keeping records of where ashes are being disposed of and whether or not they are being removed.

4.1.6 Feedback from staff was that the current bylaw lacks any restrictions on items that can be put into the cremator. They note that the lack of guidance on this matter can potentially damage the cremator, cause delays due to the need for additional cleaning of the cremator, and also require additional steps to be taken to ensure resource consent conditions relating to fumes are not breached. While some funeral directors are cooperative with Council’s requests to ensure certain items do not enter the cremator, there are other funeral directors who only act according to the bylaw. The proposed bylaw includes a list of items which are prohibited from entering the cremator, and also puts the onus on the person applying for cremation to ensure that those items are removed prior to delivering the human remains to the crematorium.

5. Conclusion

5.1 While it would have been possible to amend the current bylaw, this would have meant making significant amendments that run the risk of creating further confusion. Therefore the most reasonable solution is to create a new bylaw which retains a lot of the provisions from the current bylaw but is modified in a way that responds to the issues raised in pre-consultation.

5.2 The Committee could choose to modify the draft bylaw as presented in Appendix 1. Depending on the scope or significance of any such amendments, it may be necessary to revise the Consultation Document and resubmit it to the Committee for approval prior to public consultation.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the Council approves the draft bylaw included within the Consultation Document, then staff will begin public consultation as described in the next section.

7. Outline of community engagement process

7.1 Section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002 states that a local authority must use the Special Consultative Procedure if the bylaw concerns a matter identified in the Significance and Engagement Policy as being of significant interest to the public, or if the local authority considers that there is a significant impact on the public due to the proposed bylaw changes. The management of cemeteries and crematoriums is not identified in the Policy as being of significant interest to the public. Therefore, it is suggested that the Special Consultative Procedure is not required for consultation on this bylaw.

7.2 Nevertheless, the mode of consultation proposed for the draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw will be similar to that used under the Special Consultative Procedure. A consultation document is provided, which includes a description of the proposal, the reasons for the proposal, and an analysis of the options considered during the review of the bylaw, along with the draft bylaw proposed to be adopted. This document will be directly distributed to the key identified stakeholders:

- Residents and organisations who have already been engaged through the pre-consultation process;

- Religious groups and cultural groups including the Manawatu Multicultural Council for distribution to its members;

- Funeral directors, monumental masons and their relevant industry associations;

- Relevant government agencies including the Ministry of Health.

7.3 In addition, officers will meet with representatives of Rangitāne o Manawatū via the bimonthly meetings to discuss the draft bylaw.

7.4 The general public will be notified through the usual promotion channels – a media release will be made, and a story placed in the Square Circular. The consultation will also be promoted through Council’s social media channels.

7.5 Public submissions will be invited from 21 April to 01 June 2018 with hearing of oral submissions planned for August 2018, and deliberations on submissions planned for September 2018.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual 168.2	Yes
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

Consultation document for Draft Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw ⇩

Lili Kato

Policy Analyst

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 9 April 2018

TITLE: LGNZ Metro Sector Remit Proposals

DATE: 13 March 2018

AUTHOR/S: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager, City Future

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council decides whether to support the following remit proposal at the LGNZ metro sector meeting in May 2018: “That LGNZ requests that the Government urgently implements a comprehensive and mandatory product stewardship programme for tyres.”

2. That the Council approve the letter attached as Appendix Two from the Mayor to the President of the LGNZ National Council, Dave Cull, requesting that LGNZ advocate to the Government in support of initiatives to advance the uptake of electric vehicles.

1. introduction

Local Government New Zealand’s Remit Policy offers the opportunity for councils to propose remits that are supported by at least one zone or sector group meeting, or five councils.

The Policy states that:

1) Remits must be relevant to local government as a whole rather than exclusively relevant to a single zone or sector group (or an individual council).

2) Remits should be of a major policy nature (constitutional and substantive policy) rather than matters that can be dealt with by administrative action.

Councillors have the opportunity, therefore, to identify issues which they would like to progress through this process. Remits must be accompanied by background information and research to demonstrate the relevance and importance of the issue.

Councillors were invited to forward proposals and background information for any potential remits to the Strategy and Policy Manager by 9 February 2018. Two remit proposals were received from Councillor Barrett. This report provides background information on these proposals to inform a Council decision about the next actions.

Proposal One

The proposal put forward is “that LGNZ requests that the Government urgently implements a comprehensive and mandatory product stewardship programme for tyres”.

Background

Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Minister for the Environment can declare a product to be a priority product. When this happens, a product stewardship scheme becomes mandatory and the priority product must be managed through accredited product stewardship schemes. No products have been designated as priority products by any Minister for the Environment, and thus far only voluntary product stewardship schemes exist in New Zealand.

There are three criteria which must be met for the Minster to declare a priority product:

1) the product will or may cause significant environmental harm when it becomes waste, or

2) there are significant benefits from reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, or treatment of the product, and

3) the product can be effectively managed under a product stewardship scheme.

In 2012 an industry-led Tyrewise initiative was developed to provide a framework for the development of a stewardship programme. In 2018 the Tyrewise model was broadly endorsed by the Local Government Waste Management Manifesto, developed by the Territorial Authority Forum, a local government group representing 64 city and district councils.

In 2014 the Ministry for the Environment consulted on Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention: A discussion document. In the Foreward to this document, the then Minister for the Environment, Hon Amy Adams noted that:

[s]ince passing the WMA five years ago, the Government has encouraged voluntary product stewardship efforts as a first priority. Over this time, 11 voluntary product stewardship schemes have been accredited by the Minister for the Environment. Nearly 34,000 tonnes of waste per year is being diverted from landfill for recycling or safe destruction under these schemes. This is an excellent start, but in quantity is equivalent to only 1.4 per cent of the total waste stream going to disposal facilities which pay the waste disposal levy. There is an opportunity to foster greater progress in waste minimisation and resource reuse through improved producer responsibility. In my view, the time has come to consider appropriate mandatory approaches for selected priority waste streams.”

The priority products proposed in the discussion document were:

1) electrical and electronic equipment

2) tyres

3) agricultural chemicals and farm plastics

4) refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases.

Pages 19-22 of the Government’s 2014 discussion document, addressing the proposed tyre scheme, are attached as Appendix One to this memo. Around 70% of submitters on the discussion document were in favour of tyres being a priority for the Government to consider regulatory interventions.

In 2015, the Waste Minimisation Fund was targeted at applications that would help solve the end-of-life tyre problem in New Zealand. Nine projects received $18.7 million from the Waste Minimisation Fund, for a variety of projects aiming to collect, shred, and recycle tyres.

No further action was taken by the 2014-2017 National-led Government towards the declaration of tyres as a priority product under the Waste Minimisation Act.

The establishment of a tyre stewardship fund is included in the Coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First. In January 2018 Hon Eugenie Sage, the Associate Minister for the Environment, confirmed the new government’s intention to consider product stewardship schemes as part of a review of the implementation of the Waste Minimisation Act.

Discussion

Council’s proposed Eco City Strategy notes that the Council must “demonstrate leadership and best practice” and “lead the way in sustainability”. This remit proposal is consistent with Council’s stated goal of leadership and advocacy in this area, as well as its obligations, under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, to “promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation”.

The Ministry for the Environment has shown that there is both the demonstrated need for measures to address the tyre problem, and also widespread industry support for a mandatory product stewardship scheme. The Tyrewise initiative makes a strong case for the viability of a mandatory scheme, and this approach is endorsed by local government experts.

Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Government is able to declare tyres as a priority product. This declaration would require the development of a mandatory product stewardship scheme. A mandatory stewardship scheme would provide a comprehensive approach to tyre waste, and be a significant development for New Zealand.

While the mechanism for a mandatory product stewardship scheme currently exists under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Council notes that a review of the implementation of this Act has been signalled by the Government. The current remit proposal, therefore, simply requests that the Government urgently develops a comprehensive and mandatory product stewardship programme for tyres.

This remit proposal meets the LGNZ requirement of relevance to local government as a whole. It also meets the second LGNZ requirement as it addresses a major policy issue rather than something that can be dealt with through administrative action.

Proposal Two

Councillor Barrett proposed that a remit be developed advocating further Government action towards encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). After investigation, and discussion with Cr Barrett and LGNZ, it is recommended that this matter instead be raised directly with LGNZ. A letter from the Mayor to the President of the LGNZ National Council is attached as Appendix Two for approval.

The initial proposal does meet the first remit criteria, in that the uptake of electric vehicles and their associated infrastructure is a national issue. However, the proposal may fail to meet the second criteria, which is to be a major policy issue. This is because the remit proposal does not suggest departure from current government policy, but rather an increase in current efforts. For example, an August 2017 report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee made a number of recommendations that specifically referenced actions to promote EVs. In February 2018 the Minister of Transport, Hon Phil Twyford, responded positively to all the recommendations made in that report, including the development of a targeted pilot procurement programme, and provision of recharging infrastructure. The Minister also noted the Government’s intention to investigate ways to encourage people to buy electric vehicles, including considering a feebates scheme, where consumers would either receive a rebate or pay a fee depending on the emissions performance of the vehicles.

2. conclusion

If the recommendations are adopted then a report requesting endorsement will be prepared for the LGNZ Metro Sector meeting in May.

3. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>	No
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

1.	Appendix One: Excerpt from Ministry for the Environment. (2014). Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention: A discussion document. ⇩
2.	Appedinx Two: Letter to LGNZ re Electric Vehicles ⇩

Julie Macdonald

Strategy & Policy Manager

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 9 April 2018

TITLE: Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 - Deliberations on Submissions

DATE: 9 March 2018

AUTHOR/S: Peter Ridge, Policy Analyst, City Future

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Council adopts the Palmerston North Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 and Palmerston North Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 Administration Manual, as shown in attachments 1 and 2.

2. That the Council amends the Palmerston North Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 and Palmerston North Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 Administration Manual by making the changes shown as tracked changes in the documents attached as attachments 3 and 4 to this report.

1. ISSUE

The Council has undertaken consultation on the draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw and received four submissions. Three of those submissions indicated either general support for the proposed Bylaw, or an interest in being informed or notified about any specific changes that may emerge in the future. One submitter raised concerns about how cyclists are provided for in the Bylaw, particularly the risks posed to cyclists using cycle lanes. This is discussed in more detail in section three of this memo.

This memo recommends that the Council adopts the Palmerston North Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 and Administration Manual as shown in attachments 1 and 2. It also recommends the consequential amendment of the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw and the associated Administration Manual (which deletes clause 14 in relation to vehicles parked for the purpose of sale and removes words from the Administration Manual discussing the process for obtaining a permit for parking a vehicle for the purpose of sale).

2. BACKGROUND

The draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 is proposed to replace the current Bylaw which was adopted on 29 June 2011. That bylaw, made under the Local Government Act 2002, is required to be reviewed within five years or it is automatically revoked two years after that period. This means the current bylaw will be automatically revoked on 29 June 2018.

The Council approved the draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 for public consultation in November 2017. Public consultation was carried out in November and December, with four written submissions received during that time. One submitter gave an oral presentation at a hearings meeting held on 5 March 2018.

3. analysis of submissions

Three out of the four submissions were broadly in favour of the draft Bylaw, or expressed an interest in being kept informed. One submitter, however, raised concerns about the extent to which the draft Bylaw addresses issues relating to cyclists and cycle lanes.

The submitter makes three requests:

- Use the review of the bylaw as an opportunity to adopt a more coherent approach to traffic management, especially provision of vehicle parking space, consistent with the stated goal of facilitating safe, user-friendly bicycle use.

- Revise the bylaw so that people who use bicycles are recognised as a specific type of vulnerable road-user.

- Revise the bylaw to specifically recognise the needs and requirements for parking bicycles.

While the issues raised by the submitter are valid and important, the Traffic and Parking Bylaw is not the appropriate place to address these issues. The Traffic and Parking Bylaw is a regulatory tool that provides Council with the appropriate legal mechanisms to set and enforce traffic and parking restrictions. Decisions relating to traffic management, provision of vehicle parking spaces, safe and user-friendly bicycle use, and the provision of appropriate cycle infrastructure and facilities are not driven by the Bylaw, but instead by the Council’s overarching strategic framework and the plans and policies that support those strategies. In particular, cycling and related matters are addressed in the draft Active and Public Transport Plan (under the draft Creative and Liveable Strategy). This includes a number of proposed actions, including:

· Develop a package of programmes to complete the Primary On-road Cycling and Shared Pathway Network, including higher cycle lane visibility, improved paint quality, and rearranged parking and kerb line layouts (by March 2020).

· Develop an integrated cycle implementation plan (by end of 2018/2019).

· Develop a pedestrian and cyclist amenity plan and implement projects identified in this plan (by end of 2019/20).

These proposed actions could encompass the issues raised by the submitter.

Additionally, the draft Strategic Transport Plan (under the draft City Development Strategy) includes the action to implement the proposed Parking Management Plan. The Parking Management Plan provides another avenue for the Council to revisit issues such as the interface between cycle lane and motor vehicle parking infrastructure.

It is also important to note that the Council has a Street Design Manual that provides guidelines for designing new streets, and for resolving conflicts in existing streets. The Street Design Manual, which is planned to be reviewed as part of the draft Urban Design Plan, may be able to provide appropriate guidance for resolving conflicts between cycle lane infrastructure and motor vehicle parking.

It is noted, therefore, that the issues raised by the submitter will be referred to Roading and Planning Officers, who will address the issues through the relevant actions under the draft Active and Public Transport Plan, the proposed Parking Management Plan, and the review of the Street Design Manual. The Roading and Planning Officers will also provide a response direct to the submitter on progress to address those issues.

4. Next steps

If the Council confirms the Committee’s recommendation to adopt the Traffic and Parking Bylaw and amend the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw, then they will replace the current Bylaws. The new Traffic and Parking Bylaw and the amended Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw will be published to the Council’s website, with physical copies placed in the Customer Service Centre.

The submitters will be contacted and advised of the outcome of the consultation process, and given a copy of the adopted Bylaw.

A public notice will be published in the Manawatū Standard and the Tribune advising of the adoption of the new Bylaw and that it will commence on 25 June 2018, allowing time for implementation.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual <Enter clause>	No
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

1.	Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 ⇩
2.	Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 Administration Manual ⇩
3.	Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 (amended April 2018) ⇩
4.	Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 Administration Manual (amended April 2018) ⇩

Peter Ridge

Policy Analyst

[1] Section 16 and 40 of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964

[2] Section 16(2) and section 40(1) of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964

[3] Section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002

[4] Section 159 of the Local Government Act 2002

Duncan McCann (Chairperson)
Aleisha Rutherford (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Lorna Johnson
Susan Baty	Karen Naylor
Rachel Bowen	Bruno Petrenas
Jim Jefferies	Tangi Utikere

1.	Submissions Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2016 Amendments ⇩
2.	Palmerston North Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2016 ⇩
3.	Palmerston North Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2016 Administration Manual ⇩