I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee will be held on:

 

Date:††††††††††††††††††††††

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 4 November 2014

1.30pm

Committee Meeting Room
Civic 15
1 Greys Avenue
Auckland

 

Hearings Committee

 

OPEN ADDENDUM AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Penny Webster

 

Members

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

 

 

Cr Chris Darby

 

 

Cr Calum Penrose

 

 

Mr David Taipari

 

 

Cr Wayne Walker

 

 

Mr Glenn Wilcox

 

Ex-officio

Mayor Len Brown, JP

 

 

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Louis Dalzell

Democracy Advisor

 

30 October 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6211

Email: louis.dalzelll@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

ITEM†† TABLE OF CONTENTS††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† PAGE

 

7††††††††† Objection against a Menacing Dog Classification ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 5

9††††††††† Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Resource Consent Application for Demolition, 43 Arthur Street, Freemans Bay†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 59

††


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

Objection against a Menacing Dog Classification

 

File No.: CP2014/24952

 

Purpose

1.†††††† To hear and determine the objection by Ms Carolyne Moran of 62 Riverpark Crescent, Henderson, Auckland, or her representative, against the menacing classification issued for her dog Jasmine.

Executive summary

2.†††††† The Dog Control Act 1996, section 33A, does state that when a territory authority considers that a dog poses a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal or protected wildlife because of:

i)†††† Any observed or reported behaviour of the dog; or

ii)††† Any characteristics typically associated with the dogs breed or type

 

3.†††††† A dog may be classified as menacing if it applies to this section.

 

4.†††††† If a dog is classified as a menacing dog under section 33A, the owner of the dog:

 

(a)†††† Must not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place, or in any private way, except when confined completely within a vehicle of cage, without being muzzled in such a manner as to prevent the dog form biting but to allow it to breath and drink without obstruction; and

 

(b)†††† Must, if required by the territorial authority, within 1 month after receipt of notice of the classification, produce to the territorial authority a certificate issue by a veterinarian certifying:

(i)††† That the dog is or has been neutered; or

(ii)†† That for reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a fit condition to be neutered before a date specified in the certificate; and

 

(c)†††† Must, if a certificate under paragraph (b)(ii) is produced to the territorial authority, produce to the territorial authority, within 1 month after the date specified in that certificate, a further certificate under paragraph (b)(i).

 

5.†††††† Ms Moran has made an objection to the classification pursuant to section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

 

6.†††††† Section 33D of the Dog Control Act 1996 gives the power to the Hearings Committee to consider the objection, and must uphold or rescind the classification.† In making its determination the committee must have regard to:

(a)†††† The evidence which formed the basis for the classification; and

(b)†††† The matters relied on in support of the objection; and

(c)†††† Any other relevant matters.

 

7.†††††† The territorial authority must, as soon as practicable, give written notice to the owner of:

(a)†††† Its determination of the objection; and

(b)†††† The reasons for its determination.

 

8.†††††† Based on the material available to them at the time of writing this report, officers recommend upholding the decision to classify Ms Moranís dog Jasmine as a menacing dog for a period of one year, being from the incident date, at which time a review is to be made.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a)††††† hear and determine the objection to the menacing dog classification by the owner Ms Moran and/or her representative, pursuant to section 33A of Dog Control Act 1996

b)††††† either:

i)††††††† uphold council officersí decision to classify Ms Moranís dog Jasmine as a menacing dog for a period of one year, being from the incident date, at which time a review is to be made, or

ii)†††††† rescind the classification of the dog Jasmine as menacing.

Comments

9.†††††† On 9 May 2014 at 1544hrs a service request was logged through the Auckland Council Call Centre in relation to a dog challenging a postal worker who was delivering mail in School Road, Te Atatu.† It is reported the dog came from the property of 14 School Road, (refer to Attachment A).

10.†††† Animal Management Officer (AMO) Tania Brown was dispatched and responded to the service request at 1630hrs on 9 may 2014, and began her investigation into the alleged challenge.† AMO Brown spoke to the person in charge of the dog being Ms Moranís son Mr Craig Kirby, and also to Mr Kirbyís employer Luke Reynolds (refer to attachment B).

11.†††† A statement was taken from the postal worker who logged the service request (refer attachment C).

12.†††† From AMO Browns investigations it was decided that a menacing classification would be issued to Ms Moranís dog Jasmine under section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996, because of observed or reported behaviour that may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife.† The classification was issued on 15 May 2014 (refer attachment D).

13.†††† Ms Moranís dog Jasmine was already de-sexed and micro chipped, so the effects of the classification that remained were that the dog was to be under control at all times and muzzled in public.

14.†††† An infringement notice was also issued to Mr Kirby (DG 54568), who was the person in charge of the dog at the time of the incident, under section 53 (1) failure to keep dog under control (refer attachment E).

15.†††† In an email dated 26 May 2014, Ms Moran wrote to Council (Rochelle Deane, Team Leader Animal Management West), objecting to the classification for her dog Jasmine, and to the infringement notice issued to her son Mr Kirby (see attachment F).

16.†††† Ms Moran made a phone call to Rochelle Deane (Team Leader Animal Management West), on 30 May 2014, in relation to the objection process.† Ms Moran expressed concerns that it would not be looked at neutrally and wished assurance that all information from her would be taken into account).† Ms Moran also expressed concern in the phone conversation regarding to her dog Jasmine adapting to the muzzle.† Rochelle Deane followed the telephone conversation up with a letter dated 3 June 2014 (see attachment G).

17.†††† In a letter dated 10 June 2014, Rochelle Deane wrote back to Ms Moran, advising that after review of her objection, Council would monitor the behaviour of Jasmine for a period of 12 months from the date of the incident.† If during this time there were no further aggression incidents and that Ms Moran proactively prevented any further incidents happening again Council would look at rescinding the classification (see attachment H).

18.†††† In an email dated 15 June 2014, Rochelle Deane requested Carolyne Moran to get Craig Kirby to give approval for Carolyne Moran to act on his behalf in relation to the infringement notice (refer attachment I).

19.†††† Council received a letter signed by Craig Kirby on 28 June 2014, in relation to his objection to the infringement notice, and provided supporting documentation from his colleagues (owners of property Christopher and Caroline Slack and Luke Reynolds (refer attachment J).

20.†††† On 18 June 2014, Carolyne Moran phoned Tracey Moore (Manager Animal Management, Auckland Council), in relation to the classification and infringement notice.† It was decided from their telephone conversation that a peer review of Ms Moranís file would be conducted by Denise Pieters Contracts Manager for Animal Management.

21.†††† Denise Pieters reviewed Ms Moranís file on 7 July 2014.

22.†††† Denise Pieters decided to uphold the menacing classification on ĎJasmineí due to the aggressive behaviour reported, and previous history with an option to review in one year. A decision was to waive the infringement notice in this instance due to Mr Kirby, being the person in charge of the dog, having no previous history and to receive a warning instead.† Ms Pieters wrote back to Ms Moran advising this in a letter dated 17 July 2014 (see attachment K).

23.†††† Rochelle Deane, Team Leader Animal Management West, waived the infringement as recommended and sent letter dated 18 July attached to advice (see attachment L).

24.†††† In an email dated 19 August 2014, Rochelle Deane received an email from Dion Barton, Manager Service Centres West, advising that Ms Moran had been at the centre and was stating that she had not heard back from that Animal Management team in relation to her objection and infringement notice (see attachment M).

25.†††† Rochelle Deane made a phone call to Ms Moran on 20 August 2014 in relation to complaint.† Ms Moran advised that she had emailed back to Denise Pieters regarding her letter, but had not received a reply.† Rochelle asked Ms Moran to forward the email that she had sent to her.

26.†††† Rochelle Deane received an email on 20 August 2014 from Ms Moran with the email she had sent to Denise Pieters.† It was established that Ms Moran had sent it to an incorrect email address.† Rochelle Deane forwarded the email to Denise Pieters on 21 August 2014.

27.†††† Denise Pieters emailed Ms Moran on 21 August 2014, in relation to the infringement and objection process.† Ms Moran emailed back on 22 August to Rochelle Deane requesting a Hearing (see attachment N).†

28.†††† History of service requests from Ms Moran and a replay of events from the postal worker are attached (see attachment O).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

29.†††† Local board view has not been sought.

Māori impact statement

30.†††† The content of this report has no adverse effect on Maori.

Implementation

31.†††† There are no implementation issues at this stage.


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Service Request - dog challenging a postal worker

9

bView

Animal Management Officer - investigation report

11

cView

Postal Worker Statement

13

dView

Animal Management Officer - meanacing dog classification issued

15

eView

Auckland Council - infringement notice

17

fView

Ms Moran - objection of dog classification

19

gView

Auckland Council - letter to Ms Moran, 3 June 2014

21

hView

Auckland Council - letter to Ms Moran, 10 June 2014

23

iView

Auckland Council - email to Ms Moran for Mr Kirby to act on her behalf

25

jView

Supporting document - from Mr Slack, Mrs C Slack and Mr Reynolds

27

kView

Auckland Council - letter from Denise Pieters to Ms Moran

33

lView

Auckland Council - exemption letter to Mr Moran

35

mView

Email correspondence - from Dion Barton

37

nView

Email correspondence - from Ms Moran and Auckland Council

39

oView

History of service request; replay of events from the postal worker photos

43

† ††††

Signatories

Authors

Rochelle Deane - Team Leader Animal Management West

Authorisers

Mervyn Chetty, General Manager, Licensing & Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014

 

Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Resource Consent Application for Demolition, 43 Arthur Street, Freemans Bay

 

File No.: CP2014/25302

 

Purpose

1.†††††† To invite the Hearings Committee to appoint Independent Commissioners to make decisions on an application for resource consent to demolish a pre-1940 building at 43 Arthur Street, Freemans Bay.

Executive summary

2.†††††† Auckland Council has received an application for resource consent for the demolition of a pre-1940 building, in the Residential 1 zone located at 43 Arthur Street, Freemans Bay. The Council granted an application for additions and alterations to the existing building on site earlier this year but the extent of that consent has been exceeded. The applicant is now seeking approval to retrospectively consent the demolition. Photos showing the demolition to date are attached (Attachment A).

3.†††††† This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint independent commissioners as decision-makers as removal / demolition applications in the Residential 1 zone have previously been regarded as contentious.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a)††††† appoint the rostered independent duty commissioner, and appoint John Hill (or Richard Knott as alternate) as heritage commissioner to sit with the duty commissioner, to make a notification decision on the application for resource consent to demolish the building at 43 Arthur Street, Freemans Bay, pursuant to sections 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (ďthe RMAĒ)

b)††††† approve that in the event the decision reached in (a) above is that the application proceeds on a non-notified basis or otherwise does not require a hearing, the same commissioners as appointed in (a) above be appointed to make a substantive decision on the application pursuant to section 104 of the RMA

c)††††† approve that in the event the decision reached in (a) above is that the application proceeds on a notified basis and a hearing is required, the same commissioners as appointed in (a) above be appointed to hear submissions and make a substantive decision on the application, pursuant to section 104 of the RMA

d)††††† delegate authority to the chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make a replacement appointment should any of the independent commissioners above be unavailable.

Comments

The Application

4.†††††† This application (R/LUC/2014/4443) for resource consent is for the demolition of the existing pre-1940 building located at 43 Arthur Street, Freemans Bay. The applicant intends to re-establish the building as per the granted resource consent earlier this year for additions and alterations (R/LUC/2014/3065).


5.†††††† While undertaken the building works the applicant found that the condition of the existing building would not meet Building Code requirements and parts of the existing structure were demolished on site. The Council advised that resource consent for demolition of a pre-1940 building in the Residential 1 zone should be sought immediately. The application for demolition was lodged on Thursday 23 October.

6.†††††† The site is zoned Residential 1 in the Operative District Plan and zoned Residential Single House in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).† Under the PAUP the site is also within a Special Character (Residential Isthmus A) overlay.

7.†††††† As part of the application, the applicant has provided an Assessment of Effects by their appointed planning agent, photographic evidence of the condition of the wood and letter from the applicant explaining the background to demolition.

8.†††††† The site was visited on Friday 24 October and photos showing the demolition already undertaken, are attached (Attachment A). The matter has been referred to our incident team to further investigate the circumstances of the demolition.

The Process

9.†††††† The Committee will be aware of the processes relating to applications for resource consent for buildings protected by a rule within a district plan. In summary, the council must determine whether or not to notify applications to demolish or remove such buildings under sections 95A-F of the Resource Management Act 1991.

10.†††† The building is not scheduled, and is not listed by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.

11.†††† Past experience has shown that consents of this nature, removal / demolition of protected buildings, may have an element of public and media interest.

Consideration

General

12.†††† The Hearings Committee has adopted a hearings policy that, at section 4.2, refers to ďAllocation of decision making responsibility between elected members, independent commissioners and staff". Section 4.2.2 states that in deciding who is the most appropriate decision maker, the Hearings Committee will take into account recommendations from staff, the significance of a particular matter and whether it is contentious.

13.†††† The public and political interest infers that this application may be considered contentious. Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, it is considered that the Hearings Committee should appoint Independent Commissioners as decision-makers for this application. It is recommended that the Commissioners appointed to consider the application have planning and heritage expertise.

14.†††† The reporting planner has not yet come to a notification recommendation for the application, as this was only received late last week.

Local board views and implications

15.†††† The Waitemata Local Board has been provided with the opportunity to express its views on the application. Comments were sought by the reporting planner on Tuesday 28 October 2014. No comments have been received to date, noting the date requested for response is Friday 31 October 2014.

Māori impact statement

16.†††† There is no record of the site having particular significance to iwi nor has any matter of potential interest to Iwi been raised in the applicantís Assessment of Environmental Effects or supporting documentation.

Implementation

17.†††† There are no financial or legal implications beyond those normally associated with the appointment of hearing commissioners. The costs of the hearings commissioners will be met by the applicant.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Site Photos 43 Arthur Street Freemans Bay.

63

†††††

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager


Hearings Committee

04 November 2014