PALMERSTON NORTH CITY
COUNCIL
Extraordinary
Community Development Committee MEETING
6 June 2018
MEETING NOTICE
Pursuant to Clause 21 of Schedule 7 of
the Local Government Act 2002, I hereby requisition an extraordinary meeting of
the Community Development Committee to be held at 9.00am on Wednesday, 6
June 2018 in the Council Chamber, first floor, Civic Administration Building,
32 The Square, Palmerston North, to consider the business stated below.
CHAIR
Order of Business
NOTE: The
extraordinary Community Development Committee meeting coincides with the
ordinary meeting of the Panning and Strategy Committee meeting and the
extraordinary Sport and Recreation Committee meeting. The format for the
meeting will be as follows:
- Community Development Committee will open and
adjourn immediately to following Planning and Strategy Committee
- Sport and Recreation Committee will open
and adjourn immediately to following Community Development Committee
- Planning and Strategy Committee will open,
conduct its business and then close.
1. Apologies
2. Notification of Additional Items
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. Declarations
of Interest (if any)
Members are reminded of their duty to
give a general notice of any interest of items to be considered on this agenda
and the need to declare these interests.
4. 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.)
5. Confirmation
of Minutes Page 7
“That the
minutes of the Community Development Committee meeting of 7 May 2018 Part I
Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”
6. Palmerston
North Disability Reference Group - Endorsement Page 11
Memorandum,
dated 15 May 2018 from the Community Liaison Team Leader, Peter Grey.
7. Draft
CBD Amenity Bylaw - confirmation of direction Page 19
Memorandum,
dated 18 May 2018 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.
8. 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), General Manager,
Marketing and Communications (Sacha Haskell), and Communications Advisor
(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
Memorandum
TO: Community Development Committee
MEETING DATE: 6 June 2018
TITLE: Palmerston North Disability Reference Group - Endorsement
DATE: 15 May 2018
AUTHOR/S: Peter Grey, Community Liaison Team Leader, Libraries and Community
Services
|
RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council
1. That
the memorandum Palmerston North Disability Reference Group - Endorsement be
received.
2. That
Council confirm the establishment of a Disability Reference Group and
formally endorse the attached terms of reference.
3. That
Council give consideration to Council representation on the Disability Reference Group.
|
1. ISSUE
This
memorandum is seeking confirmation to establish a Disability Reference Group
(DRG) and endorsement of the proposed terms of reference for the DRG.
2. BACKGROUND
At the Community Development Committee
meeting on 12 June 2017, a Notice of Motion presented by Cr Naylor, recommended
that Council support the formation of a Disability Reference Group to advise
Council on disability issues.
It was
resolved:
That Council supports the formation of
a Disability Reference Group to advise Council on disability issues noting that
the Group’s terms of reference will be subject to formal Council
endorsement.
A memorandum
titled “Disability Reference Group Update” was presented to the
Community Development Committee at their meeting on 11 September 2017.
This memorandum
provided information on similar groups operating within other local authorities
and also gave an update on a proposed regional Disability Coalition being
formed by Enable NZ.
It was
resolved:
That the
Community Development Committee receives the memorandum dated 8 September 2017
and entitled “Disability Reference Group Update” for information.
That Officers
report back to Council on the outcome of the investigation by Enable NZ
into the development of a disability sector advisory group and identifies any
potential opportunities for Council participation.
A further
update on the establishment of this Disability Coalition will be presented to
the August 2018 Community Development Committee Meeting, as noted in the work
schedule.
Since September 2017, and in line with
the resolution from 12 June 2017, Officers have undertaken consultation with
the disability sector and disabled community regarding the formation of a
Disability Reference Group and the development of terms of reference.
Two open
meetings were promoted through the relevant community networks; and were held
on 22 February 2018 and 9 April 2018, to discuss the Reference Group formation
and to develop the draft terms of reference, which are attached for Council
consideration.
The meetings
confirmed a strong support for a DRG to advise and provide feedback to Council
from the perspective of disabled citizens of Palmerston North. Participants
viewed this group as being different to the proposed Disability Coalition as it
is focussed on the Council’s activities relating to the City, rather the
Coalition’s wider scope in relation to the delivery of the National
Disability Strategy objectives across the central region.
As outlined in
the draft terms of reference the purpose of the DRG would be to ensure the
needs of disabled people are taken into account in the context of
Council’s activities.
The DRG aims
to provide guidance, advice and support to help inform Council planning and
decision making at a strategic level, whilst also acting as a vehicle where
operational issues and service gaps relating to disabilities can be identified
and communicated to Council. Equally the DRG provides an opportunity for
Council to test thinking from across a wide range of work areas that may
intersect with the disability sector.
In order to
ensure the integrity of the advice sought and given it is proposed that the DRG
will comprise of a mix of disabled people, those with lived experience with
disabled people and others with an interest in the sector. Each member would
either represent or have the ability to report back to a sector organisation,
ensuring an open conduit to the wider sector.
Responsibility
for the initial selection of members will sit with Council Officers and
thereafter with the DRG itself. The Chair of the DRG would be selected from
within the nominated members of the DRG.
Further
proposed processes to establish the DRG will include:
• Nomination or self-nomination (using social media, newspaper,
networks) in July - August 2018.
• Council officers to select initial members according to the criteria
in the Terms of Reference.
• First meeting of the DRG in September 2018, including selection of
Chair
• DRG reserve the right to co-opt members to the limit of 12.
During the
development of the terms of reference, the question of Councillor
representation on the DRG was discussed and widely supported by participants as
providing a valuable conduit to Council. This model is in line with other
advisory boards and groups e.g. Digital Leaders Forum, City Centre Reference
Group, Safety Advisory Board where there is also formal representation.
3. NEXT
STEPS
Following
approval from Council, officers will undertake the steps underlined in the
Terms of Reference to establish and provide support for the DRG.
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?
|
No
|
|
Are the
recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?
|
No
|
Attachments
|
1.
|
DRG Terms of Reference May 2018 ⇩ 
|
|
|
Peter Grey
Community Liaison Team Leader
|
|
|
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY
COUNCIL
Memorandum
TO: Community Development Committee
MEETING DATE: 6 June 2018
TITLE: Draft CBD Amenity Bylaw - confirmation of direction
DATE: 18 May 2018
AUTHOR/S: Peter Ridge, Policy Analyst, City Future
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TO
COMMITTEE:
1. That
the draft CBD Amenity Bylaw and Administration
Manual [incorporates/does not incorporate] provisions that allows for all
complaints received to be referred to a social service provider for initial
assessment.
2. That the draft CBD Amenity Bylaw and Administration Manual, shown
in attachments 1 and 2, be prepared as a consultation document and presented
to the Community Development Committee in August 2018 for approval for public
consultation.
|
1. ISSUE
The draft CBD
Amenity Bylaw has been developed to give effect to Council’s decision to
address issues of intimidatory behaviour related to begging through a new or
existing bylaw. Before preparing a statement of proposal for
consultation, officers are seeking direction from the Committee on the extent to
which the draft Bylaw should provide for a social response in addition to the
regulatory response set out in the Bylaw.
2. BACKGROUND
Following the
completion of the trial by MASH Trust to deliver targeted services to
discourage begging in the CBD, the Council resolved in March 2017 to
“address issues of intimidatory behaviour related to begging through an
existing or new bylaw.”
A report
providing advice in relation to section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002
– which requires the Council to determine whether a bylaw is the most
appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem; whether the proposed bylaw
is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and whether the proposed bylaw gives
rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 – was presented
to the Committee in December 2017. Based on that advice, the Council
resolved “That a CBD Amenity Bylaw is the most appropriate option to
address the adverse effects on amenity values of the CBD resulting from
nuisance behaviour that may be associated with begging and other anti-social
activities (as described in the S155 Local Government Act 2002 Determination
Report attached in Appendix 1).”
3. Description
of Draft CBD Amenity Bylaw
The draft CBD
Amenity Bylaw was developed by Cooper Rapley for the Council, in conjunction
with Council officers. The approach arrived at was designed to give
effect to Council’s decision to address issues of intimidatory behaviour
related to begging through an existing or new bylaw, while minimising the
potential risk of any such bylaw being inconsistent with the NZ Bill of Rights
Act 1990 (NZBORA). The section 155 report presented to Council in
December 2017 provided analysis of the NZBORA issues. Of particular note
was the risk of direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of employment
status.
The draft
Bylaw is based around receiving and investigating complaints, which can be made
in relation to three identified nuisance behaviours. These are:
(a) begging
in a public place in a manner that is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or
distress to any reasonable person; or
(b) behaving
in a way that causes an unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, or
convenience of any person; or
(c) occupying
a public place for an unreasonable period of time:
(i) that
affects the reasonable operation of private businesses adjoining that public
place; or
(ii) otherwise
unreasonably reduces the area available for pedestrian use.
These
behaviours expand the scope of Council’s original resolution beyond
intimidatory behaviour related to begging. The reason for this, as was
explained in December, is to ensure a clear separation between offences that
the Police have jurisdiction over – intimidation is an offence under the
Summary Offences Act 1981, for which the Police can prosecute, but which the
Council has no power to act on – and those matters in which the Police do
not generally intervene (i.e. nuisance), but in which the Council may play a
role. Council has the power under the Local Government Act 2002 to make a
bylaw to protect the public from nuisance, and it is in reliance on this power
that the draft Bylaw can be made. A further reason for expanding the
scope of the initial resolution to include the three identified nuisance
behaviours is to minimise the risk that the draft Bylaw could be found to be
inconsistent with the NZBORA. A bylaw that was solely focussed on begging
could be found to be discriminatory on the basis of employment status, on the
basis that people who beg are more likely to be unemployed than those who do
not beg. By expanding the scope of the behaviours that the Bylaw
addresses to include people who are causing an unreasonable interference with
the peace, comfort or convenience of any person, or who are occupying a public
place for an unreasonable period of time, there is a much smaller risk of the
draft Bylaw being found to be inconsistent with the NZBORA.
The draft
Bylaw and Administration Manual proposes that a Council officer will
investigate complaints received in relation to these three identified nuisance
behaviours. The scope of the investigation will vary depending on the
nature of the complaint and its specific circumstances. However, the
Administration Manual identifies certain matters to be included in any investigation,
in addition to attempting to speak with the complainant and the person
complained against:
a) The circumstances of the alleged nuisance behaviour;
b) The personal circumstances of the person accused of
nuisance behaviour;
c) Any previous or active complaints received by Council
from the same complainant;
d) Any previous or active complaints received by Council
regarding the behaviour of the same person;
e) Any written notice to move on or desist issued under
the Bylaw to the same person and the compliance or non-compliance with any such
notice;
f) The nature of the conduct;
g) Any other relevant matter.
Upon
completing the investigation, an officer will prepare a report and make a
recommendation to either issue a notice to move on or desist from the identified
behaviours, or to not issue a notice and close the complaint. A decision
will then be made based on the report and recommendations.
If the
decision is made to issue a notice, then this notice will be served on the
person complained against in person. A notice may include a requirement
to move on from the identified area. The draft Bylaw sets out a control
area that represents the maximum area in which a notice can be in effect, but
each notice would set the area to which it applies at the smallest area
necessary to achieve the necessary change in behaviour. A notice may also
include a requirement to desist from identified nuisance behaviours, as
appropriate. The officer will explain what the notice means and what the
person is required to do, how to access social services or other assistance in
complying with the notice, and how to object to the notice.
If the person
chooses to object to the notice, they can lodge that objection with the officer
when the notice is served, who will take down the necessary information to
enable the objection to be considered. An objection can be lodged up to
five working days after the notice is served, and can be made in writing or
on-line, over the phone or in person at the Customer Services Centre. The
notice continues in effect while the objection is being considered.
A Council
officer will consider the objection, and will request a written response from
the original decision maker. A hearing may be called, if necessary, and
the objector will have the right to attend and address that hearing. The
officer has three days to determine the objection and decide to either affirm
the notice, cancel the notice, or amend the conditions of the notice.
If a notice
cannot be served, then it lapses one week after the decision is made. The
maximum duration of any notice is three months.
Once in
effect, a person is required to comply with the terms and conditions of the
notice. If a person does not comply with a notice issued under the draft
Bylaw, then they will be in breach of the Bylaw. The Council can choose
to prosecute a person for a breach of the Bylaw through the District
Court. The Council has no other powers to require compliance with the
terms of the notice.
If the Council
is successful in its prosecution of a person, then the person may be
convicted. The judge can choose to set a fine upon conviction, which is
set at a maximum of $20,000, in accordance with section 242(4) of the Local
Government Act 2002. However, in practice, the fine is likely to be much
lower, possibly a few hundred dollars or even less.
4. Analysis
Rationale
for the proposed approach
While the
proposed system of complaint, investigation, notice, objection and prosecution
is cumbersome, there are good reasons for setting out such a comprehensive
process. When assessing whether a bylaw was the most appropriate way of
addressing the perceived report, the report prepared by Cooper Rapley for the
Council assessed the approach used by other Councils, including Auckland,
Hamilton, Nelson and Napier. Their advice was that:
“...there
is an appreciable risk that those examples could constitute unjustified
restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and freedom from
discrimination because those bylaws:
a) Are not spatially defined to areas of
particular concern, and so apply to all public places;
b) Automatically criminalise behaviour in
public places based on conduct that is incapable of precise definition;
c) Do not respect the importance of public
places as an area for all members of the community;
d) Do not provide a staged and proportionate
enforcement process;
e) Do not provide a process to make and
determine objections to decisions made under the bylaws’ authority.
It is considered that in the above
examples, liability under the bylaw could be triggered based on poorly defined
actions or behaviours. This may be an inappropriately uncertain standard
to trigger liability while using a public place.” In short, the legal
view obtained by the Council is that measures put in place by some other Councils
are inadvisable, due to the risk of them constituting unjustified restrictions
on the right to freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination.
To address
these concerns, the proposed bylaw includes several distinctive features,
namely:
- It is spatially limited. The Control Area set out in the draft
Administration Manual is closely based on the area identified by MASH Trust
during their 2016/17 trial where most begging was found to occur. By
limiting the area closely, the risk that the Bylaw constitutes an unreasonable
restriction on the freedom of movement is minimised. It is further
minimised by ensuring that any notice issued under the bylaw would set any
spatial restrictions particular to that case, and would be the smallest possible
restriction to address the nuisance behaviour. The investigation and
notice system also enable the Council’s response to be more targeted and
proportionate than a simple blanket ban on behaviours in a given area.
- It does not automatically criminalise behaviour in public
places. By requiring a complaint in the first instance, with an
investigation to occur before any action is taken, there is a presumption of
innocence. It also allows the specific concerns to be established and
clarified, where they might otherwise be inferred or assumed. The
investigation gives the person complained against an opportunity to explain
their actions, and the objections process minimises the risk that a person
might be unjustly targeted by complaints.
- It respects the importance of public places as an area for
everyone. Where the bylaws used by other Councils could result in people
being ejected or banned from a public place almost immediately, the proposed
bylaw requires that a case be made in the first instance. Following investigation,
if a notice is issued, the extent of any ban is minimised to the smallest
possible restriction to address the nuisance behaviour. This recognises
that banning a person generally from an important public place such as the CBD,
where many necessary services may be located, potentially creates an
injustice. A notice to move on can be more targeted or could include
conditions that allow for those services to be accessed even while the notice
is otherwise in effect.
- It is proportionate and provides a staged enforcement process.
The investigation and notice system ensures that each response to a complaint
is appropriate and proportionate, by requiring the officer to consider the
particulars of each complaint, and set the restrictions of any notice issued as
a result of that investigation accordingly. The notice system gives the
person a reasonable opportunity to alter their behaviour, before any further
enforcement action, such as prosecution is taken.
- It provides a process to make and determine objections. The
draft bylaw includes the ability for a person to object to a notice they have
received. The process for objections is streamlined as much as possible
to allow for a quick decision to be made, but it ensures that decisions are as
robust as possible.
In addition,
the process as set out in the draft Bylaw and Administration Manual provides a
documented and evidenced-based chain of decision-making to support eventual
legal action through the courts. Without this process, any prosecutions are
likely to founder for lack of sufficient evidence, or demonstration of
Council’s decision-making efforts.
Limitations
of the proposed approach
There are
several limitations or unknowns arising from this draft Bylaw, which will
affect the efficacy of the proposal and its ability to address the issue of
begging and other nuisance behaviours. These have already been discussed more
generally in previous reports, but are addressed more directly here with regard
to the draft Bylaw:
- The key
limitation is enforcement, referring broadly to all parts of the process where
the Council takes action. For instance, while an officer can issue a
notice, there is little that can be done if the notice cannot be served (i.e.
if the person cannot be located) or if the person chooses to ignore the notice
and not comply with its conditions. The only course of action remaining
to the Council in that situation is to prosecute that person in court. A
prosecution will likely cost the Council several thousand dollars, and the
outcome is very uncertain. The likelihood of success, while improved by a
robust process as set out in the draft Bylaw, is still low. The recent
experience of Napier City Council, which initially pursued a prosecution of
three people charged with begging but later withdrew the charges, illustrates
the difficulties that would be faced by any similar prosecution. However,
if the Council chooses not to prosecute, then the draft Bylaw, whatever its
shape or form, will likely have no effect at all. Even if the Council is
successful in seeking a conviction and a fine, that itself may not prove a
deterrent if the fine is simply ignored and not paid.
- If a
complaint is received with insufficient detail to either identify the person
complained against, or if the complaint is anonymous, then it may be
impractical to conduct an appropriate investigation. If the investigation
cannot be adequately completed, then the complaint will be closed and the
Council will be unable to take any further action.
- The act
of issuing and serving notices is likely to place the Council officer in an
aggressive or confrontational situation, which could create health and safety
risks for the officer. It will be necessary to provide that officer with
suitable training and support to manage aggressive situations and to defuse
escalating behaviour.
- There
is a potential risk that a notice may be issued to the wrong person. This
could arise if the information given in the complaint is incorrect or
insufficient. While this possibility remains an unlikely risk, if it did
arise there is the potential for significant impact on the person
affected. This risk would be largely mitigated by a robust investigation
process. However, this will introduce additional limitations – the
investigation may take longer to minimise the risk of an improper outcome, or
it could introduce a very high test to be met that may precludes many
complaints from proceeding.
It is assumed
that the draft Bylaw would require the creation of a new role, either full or
part time. The amount of work required is as yet unknown, as it will be
determined largely by the volume of complaints received and the amount of work
required to investigate those complaints, serve notices, monitor for compliance
and, if necessary, manage the prosecution of cases. The estimated staff
cost could range from $25-30k for a part time role, up to approximately $50-60k
for a full time role. In addition, an operational budget would be
required to enable prosecutions to proceed. The size of that budget would
be determined by the number of prosecutions anticipated. Assuming a
minimum of two prosecutions in the first year, at a tentative cost of $5000 per
prosecution, the minimum cost for the first year would be $10k. On top of
staff costs, this gives a minimum likely cost of $35-40k. These costs
would increase if more prosecutions were required, or if the work requirement
for the role required more than part-time hours.
5. Direction
sought
The draft
Bylaw and Administration Manual as they currently stand make no accommodation
for people who may have mental health concerns or other social issues. As
the MASH Trust trial demonstrated there are often many social causes and
factors present amongst those who beg or whose behaviour may create a
nuisance. Throughout the drafting process officers have explored options
to include provisions within the otherwise regulatory framework that allow for
alternative approaches for those people where a social intervention may be more
appropriate. Without an alternative approach there is an increased risk
that some people may be subject to a notice to move on or desist from behaviour
with no regard to the mental health issues that may lay behind that behaviour.
Officers are
seeking direction from Councillors on whether the draft Bylaw should
incorporate provisions that allow for a social response either in addition to,
or in place of, a more regulatory response. Two options have been
explored.
The first
option is to allow for the officer to refer the person complained against to a
relevant social service provider. This could be an action complementary
to issuing a notice under the Bylaw, but it is primarily envisaged as a means
to encourage a person to seek assistance from a social service provider.
This option comes with a number of issues and limitations, however.
Firstly, it may create ethical issues for an officer to be making an assessment
or judgement of another person’s health or wellbeing needs, particularly where
that officer may not have sufficient information to make an appropriate
assessment. Even if the officer was trained as a social worker, making
assessments of this nature are potentially beset with risks. Secondly,
there is no ability to compel any person to work with the provider they have
been referred to; neither is there any obligation on the social service
provider to engage with the person they have been referred. This also
creates potential funding issues for providers who may receive referrals
without the necessary funding.
The second
option is to pass all complaints to a social service provider in the first
instance. This could address part of the concern with the first option,
by leaving any decision about whether a person should be offered social
assistance to an appropriately qualified social service provider. It also
reinforces the “staged” approach, which was identified in Cooper
Rapley’s S155 determination report as an important aspect to ensure
responses to complaints were appropriate and proportionate. However, it
would likely require the Council to provide funding to whichever provider it
initially referred these complaints, which would increase the overall cost of
implementing the Bylaw. Also, it could extend the time taken before Council
could make a decision on whether or not to issue a notice – if the
provider identified that no action was required on their part, and returned the
complaint back to the Council, it is likely that several days would have
passed, further complicating the timeliness of the proposed system.
Finally, this option is contingent on a provider being willing to receive and
assess these complaints in the first place.
If Councillors
are supportive of incorporating provisions that allow for a social response
into the draft Bylaw, then officers recommend that they should make a
resolution accordingly. While both options have limitations, officers
recommend that the second option is, on balance, the most effective
approach. However, it would be contingent on identifying a provider that
would be willing to receive and assess these complaints for the Council.
If Councillors are supportive of this approach, then officers will make initial
approaches to appropriate providers to ascertain whether they would be willing
to participate.
6. NEXT
STEPS
If the
Committee directs officers to incorporate provisions into the draft Bylaw that
allow for a social response then the draft Bylaw and Administration Manual will
be revised accordingly. Officers will also make initial contact with relevant
social service providers to sound them out on the possibility of their being
involved with the Bylaw process. This information can then be
communicated back when the draft Bylaw is next presented to the Committee.
A consultation
document will be prepared for approval for public consultation. A
communications and consultation plan will also be prepared, and included in the
next report to the Committee. This will outline how officers recommend
the Council should engage with the community on this draft Bylaw.
7. 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?
|
No
|
|
Are the
recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?
|
No
|
Attachments
|
1.
|
Palmerston North CBD Amenity Bylaw 2018 -
discussion draft ⇩ 
|
|
|
2.
|
Palmerston North CBD Amenity Bylaw 2018
Administration Manual - discussion draft ⇩ 
|
|
|
Peter Ridge
Policy Analyst
|
|
|
