|
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 Moran’s 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 officers’ decision to classify Ms Moran’s 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 Moran’s son Mr Craig Kirby,
and also to Mr Kirby’s 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 Moran’s 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 Moran’s 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 Moran’s file would be conducted
by Denise Pieters Contracts Manager for Animal Management.
21. Denise Pieters reviewed Ms
Moran’s file on 7 July 2014.
22. Denise Pieters decided to uphold
the menacing classification on ‘Jasmine’ 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
|
|
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 (“the RMA”)
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 “Allocation 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 applicant’s 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
|
