Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

The committee is responsible for regulatory hearings (required by relevant legislation) on behalf of the council. The committee is responsible for appointing independent commissioners to carry out the council’s functions or delegating the appointment power (as set out in the committee’s policy). The committee is responsible for regulatory policy and bylaws. Where the committee’s powers are recommendatory, the committee or the appointee will provide recommendations to the relevant decision-maker.

The committee’s key responsibilities include:

· decision-making (including through a hearings process) under the Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation

· hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996

· decision-making under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

· hearing and determining matters regarding drainage and works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002 (this cannot be sub-delegated)

· hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws

· receiving recommendations from officers and appointing independent hearings commissioners to a pool of commissioners who will be available to make decisions on matters as directed by the Regulatory Committee

· receiving recommendations from officers and deciding who should make a decision on any particular matter including who should sit as hearings commissioners in any particular hearing

· monitoring the performance of regulatory decision-making

· where decisions are appealed or where the committee decides that the council itself should appeal a decision, directing the conduct of any such appeals

· considering and making recommendations to the Governing Body regarding the regulatory and bylaw delegations (including to Local Boards)

· regulatory fees and charges

· recommend bylaws to Governing Body for consultation and adoption

· appointing hearings panels for bylaw matters

· review local board and Auckland water organisation proposed bylaws and recommend to Governing Body

· set regulatory policy and controls, including performing the delegations made by the Governing Body to the former Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 in relation to dogs and GB/2014/121 in relation to alcohol.

· engage with local boards on bylaw development and review

· adopting or amending a policy or policies and making any necessary sub-delegations relating to any of the above areas of responsibility to provide guidance and transparency to those involved.

Not all decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 and other enactments require a hearing to be held and the term “decision-making” is used to encompass a range of decision-making processes including through a hearing. “Decision-making” includes, but is not limited to, decisions in relation to applications for resource consent, plan changes, notices of requirement, objections, existing use right certificates and certificates of compliance and also includes all necessary related decision-making.

In adopting a policy or policies and making any sub-delegations, the committee must ensure that it retains oversight of decision-making under the Resource Management Act 1991 and that it provides for councillors to be involved in decision-making in appropriate circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, these delegations confirm the existing delegations (contained in the chief executive’s Delegations Register) to hearings commissioners and staff relating to decision-making under the RMA and other enactments mentioned below but limits those delegations by requiring them to be exercised as directed by the Regulatory Committee.

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

All Bylaws

Biosecurity Act 1993
Building Act 2004
Dog Control Act 1996
Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
Gambling Act 2003;Land Transport Act 1998

Health Act 1956
Local Government Act 1974
Local Government Act 2002
Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009
Resource Management Act 1991
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
Waste Minimisation Act 2008

Maritime Transport Act 1994
Related Regulations

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only.

(ii) Power to establish subcommittees.

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

Regulatory Committee

08 November 2018

Freedom Camping in Vehicles Statement of Proposal

File No.: CP2018/18775

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Governing Body adopt the freedom camping in vehicles statement of proposal and draft bylaw for public engagement and appoint a panel to consider feedback, deliberate and make recommendations.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Freedom camping numbers are growing in New Zealand. Under supply of freedom camping sites in Auckland causes overcrowding, illegal camping and increased tension with residents and other users.

3. On August 2017 the Committee approved a proactive approach under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 to manage freedom camping issues.

4. Staff have prepared a freedom camping in vehicles statement of proposal and draft bylaw (Attachment A). The proposal and draft bylaw implements Committee decisions and meets statutory requirements. The policy intent of the bylaw is to:

· address the harms of freedom camping by increasing the supply of suitable sites

· have simple rules, consistently applied throughout Auckland that are easy to comply with

· improve the ability for effective enforcement.

5. The bylaw has been designed to proactively manage the harms associated with freedom camping by:

· prohibiting freedom camping at 315 areas

· restricting freedom camping to certified self-contained vehicles at 94 areas

· restricting freedom camping at 13 areas (non-self-contained vehicles permitted)

6. Staff recommend the Committee:

· endorse the statement of proposal so that the Governing Body can consider adopting the proposal for public consultation

· appoint a panel to hear feedback, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body before a final bylaw is adopted by the Governing Body.

7. As freedom camping is a controversial issue, there is likely to be a high degree of community interest in the proposal. This will be managed through the opportunity for the public to share their feedback with the council during the engagement period.

8. If the Committee and the Governing Body approve the recommendations, public engagement is scheduled to take place from 3 December 2018 to 18 February 2019. A panel will consider feedback, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body for final approval and adoption.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) recommend that the Governing Body adopt the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report for public consultation and confirm that the draft bylaw:

i) is necessary to protect the area, protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area and/or to protect access to the area

ii) is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to the area

iii) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

b) recommend that the Governing Body forward to local boards and advisory panels:

i) the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report for their views

ii) this agenda report and attachments for their information.

c) appoint a minimum of three panel members, including a chair, from the Governing Body and the Independent Maori Statutory Board to:

i) attend ‘Have Your Say’ events to hear from the public through spoken interaction

ii) receive and consider public feedback, deliberate and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report.

d) delegate authority to the chair of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments to the panel if a member of the panel is unavailable.

e) delegate to staff approved by a manager responsible for bylaws the responsibility to hear from the public through spoken interaction at the ‘Have Your Say’ events.

a) delegate authority to a manager responsible for bylaws to make any amendments to the statement of proposal in Attachment A of the agenda report to correct errors, omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory Committee or the Governing Body.

Horopaki / Context

Under supply of freedom camping sites causes, overcrowding, illegal camping and increased tension with residents and other users

9. Freedom camping numbers are growing in New Zealand. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment data indicates that freedom camping numbers in New Zealand have risen from 60,000 in 2015 to approximately 110,000 in 2017.

10. It is difficult to measure demand for freedom camping in Auckland. It is conservatively estimated that there are approximately 320 vehicles a night over the summer period.

11. In 2017 the council reviewed ways to manage freedom camping in Auckland and found that:

· the low provision of areas to freedom camp caused overcrowding, illegal camping and increased tension with residents and other users

· an increase in appropriate areas where freedom camping is allowed will help alleviate some of the pressure that is currently concentrated in very few places

· freedom camping primary harms (including obstructed views, privatisation of public space and conflict with other users) can be managed and reduced with restrictions

· secondary harms (including littering, traffic safety issues and anti-social behaviour) are reduced when the primary harms are managed

· there are existing regulatory tools to manage the secondary harms from freedom camping.

12. The review also provided insight into camper behaviour and preferences in Auckland:

· 64 per cent of freedom campers were young international tourists (aged 20-29 and generally travelling in non-self-contained vehicles)

· 32 per cent of campers were grey nomads (domestic travellers, aged 50-65 and generally travelling in self-contained vehicles)

· almost 50 per cent of campers were planning to camp in Auckland for three days or less

· freedom campers plan where they were going to stay and utilise social media apps

· campers prefer to be close to the coast, motorway access and the airport.

Proactive approach under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 agreed to manage freedom camping issues

13. The development of a bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 was approved by the Committee as the best option to manage freedom camping in Auckland. It gives the council the ability to design restrictions on how the activity is carried out and direct freedom campers to areas where they are likely to cause the least amount of harm. It also provides better enforcement tools with the ability to issue $200 infringement fines.

Figure 1: Decisions leading to the Freedom Camping in Vehicles proposal and draft bylaw

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Regionally consistent, simple and easy to communicate bylaw has been developed for public input

14. The approved policy intent for the draft bylaw is to:

· address the harms of freedom camping by increasing the supply of suitable sites

· have simple rules, consistently applied throughout Auckland that are easy to comply with

· improve the ability for effective enforcement.

15. The statement of proposal (Attachment A) for public input has been developed. It contains the draft bylaw and a summary of the reasons for the bylaw, decision making process and implementation. The proposal implements the Committee’s decisions about developing the bylaw, its policy intent and design.

16. The draft bylaw has been designed to:

· effectively manage the primary harms from freedom camping (including conflict with other users) by placing area specific restrictions

· disperse the impacts camping can have across Auckland

· increases the supply of areas to freedom camp in places that are suitable (just over 500 restricted freedom camping parking spaces)

· only have rules in places where they are required (in areas that are likely to be desirable to freedom campers)

· include site specific restrictions so the council can effectively manage camping and minimise environmental impact

· encourage responsible camping

· enable the council to publish appropriate areas to freedom camp on the council website and third-party apps.

17. The draft bylaw does have the following limitations:

· the provision of restricted freedom camping areas that specifically allows non-self-contained vehicles is unlikely to meet demand

· it will not always be clear where freedom camping is not allowed under the Reserves Act

· a large number of areas (including roads) will not have any minimum restrictions on freedom camping due to the default position in the Freedom Camping Act

· there is a risk that someone who is homeless and sleeping in a vehicle will be penalised for staying in a prohibited or restricted camping area.

18. The draft bylaw contains an explanatory note to clarify that the intent of the bylaw is not to manage homelessness. A humane approach to enforcement will be taken to protect vulnerable members of the Auckland community.

19. Public input will provide an opportunity for the council to test whether the proposal has got the balance between the benefits and impacts of increasing supply right.

Prohibited and restricted areas are included in the draft bylaw but it cannot ban freedom camping everywhere

20. The Freedom Camping Act 2011 enables the council to prohibit freedom camping in an area or put restrictions in place if it is necessary to protect:

· the area

· the health and safety of people who may visit the area, and/or

· access to the area.

21. The prohibition or restrictions must be proportionate to the problem for the area. The council cannot:

· ban freedom camping everywhere

· prohibit freedom camping in areas without evidence that the prohibition is required.

Public engagement is likely to focus of what specific areas have been prohibited or restricted

22. The draft bylaw proposes that:

· 315 areas scheduled in the proposed bylaw as prohibited

· 94 areas scheduled as restricted to certified self-contained vehicles

· 13 areas scheduled as restricted (non-self-contained vehicles permitted).

23. Figure 2 provides a visual overview of the areas. A summary of the identified features, desirability and assessment for each area scheduled in the draft bylaw is contained in Part Two of Attachment E.

Figure 2: Prohibited and restricted areas scheduled in the draft bylaw

Areas assessed for their desirability to campers and the level of protection required

24. Staff completed an assessment of over 1000 parking areas managed by the council as potential freedom camping areas to understand whether they needed to be prohibited or restricted in the bylaw.

25. One of the criteria used to determine whether an area needed to be included in the draft bylaw was to look at locations likely to be popular with freedom campers. The current or anticipated desirability of an area to campers was assessed using complaints data and by looking at whether the area is near the coast, motorway access or the airport.

26. The features of an area were assessed to determine whether it requires protection through restrictions or a prohibition on freedom camping (refer Table 1.)

Table 1: Summary of features considered to determine the level of protection through the bylaw

Section 11(2) of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 protection necessary to protect:

The area

Health and safety

Access

Features on site that were assessed include:

· environmental sensitivity

· significance to Māori

· historical significance.

Features on site that were assessed include:

· availability of toilets and the hours these are open

· rubbish bins on site

· history of anti-social behaviour

· pedestrian safety concerns

· road or accessway safety.

Features on site that were assessed include:

· the size of the parking area

· level of existing use

· compatibility of existing use with freedom campers using the area (e.g. obstructing access to boat ramps)

· whether there is alternative parking for other users

· early morning or evening use of the area

· frequency of the area being used for events.

27. Restrictions are area specific and include:

· a maximum number of camping vehicles within a designated site on the area

· a maximum number of nights a camper can stay in the area within a four-week consecutive period

· a requirement for vehicles to be certified self-contained in all areas listed in Schedule 2 of the proposed bylaw.

28. Figure 3 shows how areas were assessed and classified in the draft bylaw.

Figure 3: Area assessment matrix

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

29. Local boards provided feedback through workshops and business meetings. Full local board resolutions were provided to the Committee’s September meeting and can be found in Part One of Attachment E.

30. All staff recommendations for prohibited areas were supported by local boards. Key recurring themes of local board feedback are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Key themes of local board feedback

Feedback	Analysis
A number of local boards opposed freedom camping and requested more sites, and in some instances whole local board areas, to be scheduled as prohibited	The council must be satisfied that prohibiting freedom camping is a proportionate response to the problem for the area. Staff reassessed and reclassified areas where there is sufficient evidence that a prohibition is required.
A need for more resources to administer the bylaw effectively	Enforcement of the freedom camping bylaw will be done in alignment with the Regulatory Compliance risk-based compliance approach.
Only camping in certified self-contained vehicles should be provided for	Restrictions on freedom camping in an area need to be evidence based. If an area does not have a toilet which is open 24 hours, freedom camping is restricted to certified self-contained vehicles only.
Concern that even certified self-contained campers don’t use their onboard facilities	Through the pilot study compliance officers found no evidence of campers not using toilets (either onboard their vehicles or public facilities). Communication to freedom campers will include expectations around responsible freedom camping.
The numbers of campers on a site need to be limited	All areas scheduled in the bylaw as restricted include a restriction on the maximum number of vehicles within the marked site on the area. Staff assessed the size of the parking area and the level of existing use (particularly in the morning and evening) to determine the appropriate number to be included in the proposed bylaw.
A booking or permit system should be developed	All restricted freedom camping areas must be free of charge to be able to fit within the definition of freedom camping under the Act. The bylaw has been developed looking at existing resources and infrastructure. It is out of scope of this project to develop a booking or permit system to manage freedom camping areas.
Good communication about where campers can go is required	Staff will be working with Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development and third-party apps to ensure that campers can easily find out where they can and can’t camp.
Signage needs to be clear	The proposal has been designed to have regionally consistent, simple and easy to communicate rules. This will ensure clear and cost-effective signage.

31. Local boards will have the opportunity to formally provide their views on the statement of proposal:

· in writing during the consultation period

· to the panel at a workshop in late February 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

32. The bylaw has particular relevance for mana whenua due to the impact on the use of land.

33. Clause 3(2) of the draft bylaw clarifies that it will not limit or affect the rights of iwi entitlements under any Treaty of Waitangi settlements.

34. Feedback received from mana whenua at the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Engagement Forums in March, August and September is summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Mana whenua feedback

Mana whenua feedback

Analysis

New dump stations

The council should look at installing new dump stations on camper routes to protect the environment from illegal dumping of waste tanks

The bylaw has been developed looking at existing infrastructure. Any decisions about the development of new infrastructure, including dump stations, will need to be considered separately.

Communication

The council should clearly communicate the rules in the bylaw and locations of dump stations

Staff will be working with Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development and third-party apps to ensure clear communication about the bylaw once adopted. This will include communication of where campers can find dump stations and the behaviour that the council expects from responsible campers.

Bylaw flexibility

The bylaw should:

· allow for temporary closures of areas to be responsive to circumstances such as a rahui being placed over an area

· provide a way for more sites of significance to be incorporated as they are scheduled in the Unitary Plan

The ability for the bylaw to be flexible is limited by the requirements of the Act.

Clause 10 of the proposed bylaw provides the council with the ability to temporarily restrict freedom camping in an area. This may be used in circumstances such as a rahui.

To prohibit freedom camping in additional areas an amendment to the bylaw will be required. An amendment to the bylaw requires the council to follow the special consultative procedure as contained in the Local Government Act 2002.

Sites of significance

The council should prohibit freedom camping at sites of significance, especially areas that are wāhi tapu

Staff have considered the locations of scheduled sites of significance in the Unitary Plan and whether protection through the bylaw is required. Some sites are not considered appropriate to be scheduled in the bylaw as the area is:

· not on council managed land

· not accessible to vehicles

· currently used for activities that would be inconsistent with the principles of a freedom camping prohibition.

35. Mana whenua and mataawaka will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal during the engagement period.

Legal implications

36. Staff confirm that the statement of proposal and draft bylaw have been developed in accordance with statutory requirements and best practice regulatory drafting guidelines. Further detail is outlined in Table 4.

Table 4: Legal requirements and analysis

Freedom Camping Act 2011

Section 11(2)(a) the council must be satisfied that the bylaw is necessary to protect:

· the area, and/or

· the health and safety of people who may visit the area, and/or

· access to the area.

An assessment of each area has been completed to determine whether it requires protection under the bylaw in accordance with section 11(2) of the Act. A summary of the features considered is contained in Table 1 and the assessment for each area scheduled in the bylaw is contained in Part Two of Attachment E.If staff assessed that the potential harm cannot be mitigated through freedom camping restrictions then a prohibition on freedom camping has been proposed

Section 11(2)(b) the council must be satisfied that the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to the area

Before progressing with the development of the bylaw under the Act, the council carried out a review of ways to manage freedom camping in Auckland.

The review identified that problems with freedom camping in Auckland include: an under supply of areas to freedom camp, and a lack of tools to manage the primary harms from the activity.

A bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 was assessed as the best option to manage the freedom camping problem in Auckland. In designing the bylaw, areas were only recommended for prohibitions or restrictions if they were likely to be desirable to campers. Issues associated with freedom camping are concentrated in areas by the coast, near motorways and the airport. Staff have assessed that the protection proposed in these areas through the bylaw is a proportionate response to these issues. Staff have only recommended an area to be prohibited in the bylaw if the degree of protection required was assessed as high. Areas that did not meet this threshold were either recommended to have restrictions or were not identified in the bylaw.

Section 11(2)(c) the bylaw must not be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

The prohibitions contained in the bylaw may limit the freedom of movement under section 18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Staff consider that any potential limitation on this freedom is justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as it is necessary to manage freedom camping in Auckland. The bylaw has been designed to use the least restrictive intervention required. Freedom camping prohibitions have only been recommended where restrictions are likely to be insufficient to mitigate the harms from freedom camping.

Section 12 states that a bylaw must not effectively prohibit freedom camping

This requirement should be considered alongside other enactments which restrict or prohibit freedom camping. In Auckland this includes the: Reserves Act 1977, Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2012, Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015 , Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012.

There are many areas in Auckland that are held under the Reserves Act 1977 where freedom camping is not allowed. In all other council managed areas that are not covered by the Reserves Act, the bylaw or other enactments, the Freedom Camping Act permits freedom camping. The council’s data on land held under the Reserves Act 1977 is incomplete. Land held under legislation predating the Reserves Act is deemed to be a reserve but is not necessarily included in Land Information New Zealand’s reserve data. There is ongoing work to clarify the reserve status of the council’s land. Part Three of Attachment E contains the available list of reserves that are not included in the proposed bylaw. The proposed bylaw includes 107 areas where freedom camping is to be restricted. Staff have assessed that the provision of restricted areas, alongside the general permissive nature of the Act, ensures that the bylaw is not effectively banning freedom camping in Auckland.

Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008

When making decisions that affect the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area the council must consider the purpose and objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008

The Act seeks to promote the protection and enhancement of the heritage features of the area. The full list of objectives can be found in Part Four of Attachment E. There are 23 areas scheduled to be prohibited in the proposed bylaw that fall within the heritage area. Staff consider that these prohibitions are consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Act as they seek to protect the area from the harms freedom camping can cause. A table of prohibited freedom camping areas located in the heritage area is contained in Part Four of Attachment E.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

37. Public engagement costs will be met within existing budgets.

38. New signs will be required to implement the bylaw once adopted. It is estimated that this will cost approximately $70,000 to install signage into prohibited and restricted areas. This is currently unbudgeted.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

39. As freedom camping is a controversial issue, it is likely that some communities will have a high degree of interest in the proposal. This will be managed by providing the opportunity for all members of the public to give feedback during the consultation period before the final bylaw is adopted.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

Public engagement and decision making between December 2018 and May 2019

To implement the bylaw the Governing Body is required to exercise ministerial consent under the Reserves Act 1977

40. The draft bylaw includes 87 areas for restricted freedom camping which are held under the Reserves Act 1977.

41. Under section 44(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 the use of a reserve for personal accommodation is not allowed unless an exception applies. Exceptions include where:

· a reserve management plan provides for the activity, or

· the Minister of Conservation has granted consent.

42. The Minister of Conservation has delegated the power to consent to the use of a reserve for personal accommodation to the council.

43. Inclusion of the 87 reserves as restricted areas in the final bylaw is subject to a decision by the Governing Body to consent to camping on the reserves under the Reserves Act 1977.

44. Staff have prepared an assessment of each of the 87 reserves which is included in Part Three of Attachment E. This includes analysis of:

· the purpose of the Reserves Act

· the classification and purpose of the particular reserve

· the provisions of any reserve management plan

· any other relevant document such as a master plan that covers the area.

45. This information is included as a link in the statement of proposal to be transparent to the public, mana whenua, Maori and local boards about all aspects of decision making for the draft bylaw.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Freedom camping in vehicles statement of proposal	23
b ⇨	Schedule 2 maps: areas where freedom camping is prohibited (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Schedule 3 maps: areas where freedom camping is restricted to certified self-contained vehicles (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Schedule 4 maps: areas where freedom camping is restricted (non-self-contained vehicles permitted) (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Freedom camping in vehicles supporting documents (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jillian Roe - Policy Analyst

Nadine Hopkins - Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

08 November 2018

Seeking direction on Auckland Council’s Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012

File No.: CP2018/16518

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and the Dog Management Bylaw 2012.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. On 14 June 2018, the Committee considered information from a dog management review resolved (REG/2018/44) that the current Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 (the Policy) and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (the Bylaw) are effective in managing dogs and could be improved to address problems. A report back on options was also approved.

3. The review identified that balancing the needs of dogs, their owners and the safety of other Aucklanders is still required.

4. The policy intent is to keep dogs as a positive part of the life of Aucklanders while minimising the harm that can be caused by dogs and to dogs.

5. To achieve this policy intent staff recommend option two: amend the current Policy and Bylaw to:

· reorganise the policy and bylaw information into user friendly themes

· remove duplication from the bylaw, which will also simplify amendment processes

· reduce confusion about dog access rules and improve voluntary compliance by:

presenting the rules in the schedule in a consistent manner

applying a consistent time and season definition and multiple dog ownership rule

· address emerging and future issues around dog management by:

including specific reference to the Code of Welfare

extending environmental protection to include flora

clarifying delegations and process for additional designated exercise areas

clarifying the enforcement of neutering of uncontrolled dogs

clarifying council jurisdictional power on privately owned public spaces

promoting responsible dog ownership amongst owners of dogs that have been classified menacing by deed.

6. The key trade-off between preferred option two: amend policy and bylaw and option one: status quo is that the preferred option will better respond to current and future dog management problems. The preferred option will also have short-term implementation costs that retaining the status quo does not have.

7. There is a risk that the public may expect local dog access rules to be reviewed as part of this process, or think that we are relitigating previous decisions on dog access rules. This will be mitigated by communicating that this is a regional review, and any changes made to access rules is to create regional consistency.

8. Following this report, a statement of proposal will be presented to the Committee and subsequently to the Governing Body for approval in February and March of 2019.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) agree that the council has completed its statutory review of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012

b) agree that option two: amend the Policy and Bylaw is the preferred option to better manage dogs in Auckland

c) request a statement of proposal that amends the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 as detailed in Attachment A for Option two: amend the policy and bylaw.

d) provide the Regulatory Committee an update of how local boards have used their delegated decision making for local dog access rules.

Horopaki / Context

The Policy and Bylaw aims to create a balanced approach to dog management

9. Under the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act), Auckland Council is required to have a policy on dogs. The Act also enables the council to have a bylaw to implement aspects of the policy.

10. Auckland Council adopted its Policy on Dogs and Dog Management Bylaw in 2012.

11. The purpose of Auckland Council’s Policy on Dogs 2012, Kaupapa mo nga Kuri 2012 (the Policy) is to:

· maintain opportunities for dog owners to take their dogs into public places

· adopt measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs.

12. Figure 1 highlights the policy requirements for every territorial authority under the Dog Control Act 1996

13. The Dog Management Bylaw 2012, Ture a Rohe Tiakina Kuri 2012 (the Bylaw) gives effect to the Policy by:

· regulating public places where an owner can take their dog and the control of the dog

· limiting the number of dogs that may be kept on any premises

· requiring dog owner remove their dogs’ faeces in any public place

· prohibiting the owner of any female dog in season to take it into a public place

· requiring the owner of any dog that has repeatedly breached the bylaw for not being kept under control, to get that dog neutered.

Figure 1: Policy requirements under the Dog Control Act 1996

Decisions from the Regulatory Committee have guided the review to date

14. On 14 June 2018, the Committee considered the statutory review findings report titled ‘Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012, 2018 Findings Report’.

15. Key findings from the findings report were:

· there is a continuing need to ensure the problems cause by dogs are minimised

· regional inconsistency has it made it difficult to understand and enforce dog management

· a comprehensive communication approach could benefit the public in understanding dog management, including dog access rules.

16. The Committee resolved (REG/2018/44) that the current policy and bylaw are effective in managing dogs, however they could be improved. A report back on options was also approved.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Balancing the needs of dogs, their owners, and other Aucklanders is still required

17. The review identified that balancing the needs of dogs, their owners and the safety of other Aucklanders is still required. Minimising harm to people, wildlife, and the environment is also needed.

18. The following problems have been identified with regards to dog management in Auckland:

Problem Definition

Need to promote dog registration.

· data shows that the number of dogs in Auckland are on the rise. In 2016/2017 there were approximately 115,544 dogs in Auckland, and 96,699 of those dogs were registered with the council.

Minimise the harm to other people, animals and wildlife caused by dogs.

· in 2016/2017 Animal Management officers responded to 37,699 complaints about dogs. The top three complaints include: roaming dogs, barking and unregistered dogs

· in 2017, ACC reported 4,438 dog-related injuries in Auckland, amounting to $1,147,527 in paid claims

· approximately, 66 per cent of dog-related injuries are not reported^{^[1]}.

Create a regionally consistent approach for dog management.

· there are variations with regard to: the time and season definition, the default rule, and the process for obtaining a multiple dog ownership licence

· additional education is needed to protect vulnerable wildlife and the environment from the harm of dogs.

Communicate dog access rules using a clear, consistent approach.

· complex dog access rules in Auckland have resulted in problems with accurate communication. There are over 140 variations of dog signage that have been created, and issues have been identified to improve the council’s website.

provide a balanced approach in the availability of designated dog exercise areas.

· there are currently 41 designated dog exercise areas, located in eight local board areas. A regional approach to providing dog exercises areas could assist dog owners in accessing public places to adequately exercise their dogs.

Staff recommend the Policy and Bylaw be amended

19. The policy intent we are seeking is to keep dogs as a positive part of the life of Aucklanders while minimising the harm that can be caused by dogs and to dogs.

20. Staff assessed two options that respond to this problem and policy intent:

· option one: status quo- no changes to the Policy and Bylaw

· options two: amend the current Policy and Bylaw.

21. Options two: amend the current Policy and Bylaw by proposing the following changes:

· reorganise the policy and bylaw information into user friendly themes

· remove duplication from the bylaw, which will also simplify amendment processes

· reduce confusion about dog access rules and improve voluntary compliance by:

presenting the rules in the schedule in a consistent manner

applying a consistent time and season definition and multiple dog ownership rule

· address emerging and future issues around dog management by:

including specific reference to the Code of Welfare

extending environmental protection to include flora

clarifying delegations and process for additional designated exercise areas

clarifying the enforcement of neutering of uncontrolled dogs

clarifying council jurisdictional power on privately owned public spaces

promoting responsible dog ownership amongst owners of dogs that have been classified menacing by deed.

22. Attachment A provides an analysis of the current and future problems, policy intent and statutory requirements. An assessment of the options including pros, cons and risks are also outlined.

23. Both of the options meet all of the legal requirements under the Local Government Act 2002 and Dog Control Act 1996.

24. Staff have completed a comparative assessment of the options against two criteria that look at the effectiveness (in achieving the outcome) and efficiency (best possible way). A summary of how effective and efficient each of these options are in addressing the current problems and meeting the policy intent is provided below:

Effectiveness of dog management

Efficiency of dog management

Option one:

status quo – no change to the policy and bylaw

Meets legislative requirements. Does not address all current and future dog management issues. This includes standardising dog management rules across the region, protecting flora/fauna and ensuring dogs are under control.

Difficult to implement and has resulted in regional inconsistencies which are costly and difficult to understand and enforce.

Option two:

amend the current Policy and Bylaw

üü

Meets legislative requirements, and reorganises the content of the Policy and Bylaw to improve the accessibility of information. This option addresses emerging issues related to dog management and will standardize dog management rules.

More efficient than status quo because it:

· improves regional consistency

· improves public understanding of what is expected from dog owners and the council

· improves enforcement.

Key trade-off and summary

25. Staff recommend option two: amend the current Policy and Bylaw as it:

· addresses stakeholder concerns about the complexity of the current rules

· streamlines the process for amending local dog access rules in the future

· reduces long-term costs of the bylaw implementation

· reflects the current and future needs of dog management in Auckland.

26. The key trade-off between preferred option two: amend the current Policy and Bylaw and option one: status quo is that the preferred option will better respond to current and future dog management problems. The preferred option will also have short-term implementation costs that retaining the status quo does not have. This includes additional costs for new dog signage, website content updates, education and awareness raising.

27. Staff consider that the long-term benefits of amendments to improve dog management outweigh the short-term costs.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

28. In June and July 2018, workshops were held with all 21 local boards. Key themes from local board members who attended these workshops are described below:

Key themes

Multiple dog ownership

· a majority of local boards support a regionally consistent approach for dog owners to obtain a Multiple Dog Ownership License

· consideration should be given for urban and rural properties, property size, breed, and fencing

· concern that the process is placing a greater cost burden on responsible dog owners.

Time and season definition

· a majority of local boards support a regionally consistent time and season definition of: 10am to 7pm from Labour Weekend to 31 March

· concerns were raised around the protection of wildlife.

Default rule

· a majority of local boards supported a regionally consistent default rule being dogs under control on-leash

Other dog management concerns raised by local boards

· dog signage and dog walking website require improvements

· availability of council resources for enforcement of dog management rules, including access rules

· the availability of designated dog exercise areas, and the balance as density rises

· education for dog owners and the public

· protection of vulnerable wildlife from dogs

· Governing Body having too much input on local decisions, including time and season definition and designated dog exercise areas.

29. Some local boards chose to submit formal feedback, these are detailed in Attachment B.

30. Local board member feedback has been considered as part of this review. Where possible feedback has been incorporated into the proposed amendments. A lot of the feedback related to the implementation of the Policy and Bylaw rather than content.

31. Examples of where the feedback from the local board has directly influenced the recommended amendments are the new time and season definition. This reflects the most common changes requested by local boards over the past five years. Another key change incorporating their feedback is having different Multiple dog ownership requirements for urban and rural environments.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

32. In August and September 2018, staff engaged with members of the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum.

33. Concerns raised by members are outlined in Table 1, alongside how the comments were incorporated into this review.

Feedback received	How it was considered in this review
Multiple dog ownership licence:
Consider whether hunting dogs are covered by the definition of working dogs. Dogs are only as good as their owners and could still harm native birds. Dogs should be on leash around protected wildlife.	Exemption of rural areas from MDOL requirements will reduce impact on owners of hunting dogs without reducing responsibilities.
Uncontrolled dogs:
Council should seize an uncontrolled dog. Dog should be neutered before returning to the owner, rather than just issuing a fine. However, this may increase the number of dogs being abandoned at the shelter, particularly if owners cannot afford the fines.	Option considered but legal advice was that council cannot neuter dogs unless the dog has been relinquished.
Owners of dangerous and menacing dogs:
Concerns around the cost of registering dangerous dogs combined with potential costs of education/obedience courses (if made a requirement). Additional costs may be a disincentive to register dogs. Consider the enforcement of any new requirements for owners of dangerous and menacing dogs, and the behaviour change of dog owners.	Staff have now recommended incentivising participation in obedience courses rather than making it a requirement.
Classification of owners:
Serious offenders of the Dog Control Act 1996 should be disqualified indefinitely.	Council can impose a maximum five-year disqualification under the Dog Control Act.
Time and season definition:
Ensure that local boards are not going to vary from the default time and season rule. Daylight saving be an easier marker of summer, communication approaches could be ‘change your clocks and remember dog rules have changed’.	Any variation from the time and season definition will need to be approved by the Governing Body.
Privately owned public land:
Suggestion to connect with other co-governance organisations.	Co-governance organisations can determine their own dog access rules without amending the policy.
Environmental protection:
Mana whenua expressed the desire to also be able to identify areas that require protection.	Mana whenua can request temporary prohibitions be imposed without having to amend the bylaw.

34. Further opportunities for Māori to provide formal feedback on the Policy and Bylaw will be available during the public consultation period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

35. Amendments to the Policy and Bylaw that involve changes to dog access rules would result in the development of new signage, which is not budgeted for.

36. To address confusion surrounding dog access rules, improvements will be required to council’s dog walking website. These changes could include an interactive map page and improved approach to writing dog access rules. These adjustments also are not budgeted for.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

37. There is a risk that the public will expect local dog access rules to be reviewed as part of this work. This will be mitigated by clearly communicating that council is undertaking a regional review of the Policy and Bylaw.

38. Some local boards have completed reviewing their local dog access rules in 2017. Council runs a reputational risk of relitigating recently made decisions that impact local dog access rules. This will be mitigated by communicating that a regionally consistent approach to dog access will improve understanding of the rules, voluntary compliance and enforcement activities.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

39. Indicative timeline for next steps:

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Dog management issues and option report	73
b ⇩	Formalised local board feedback	111

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Shilpa Mandoda - Principal Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

08 November 2018

Review of dog access rules in Auckland's Regional Parks

File No.: CP2018/19989

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for amendments to dog access rules in regional parks.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. On 14 June 2018, the Committee considered the statutory review findings report titled ‘Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012, 2018 Findings Report’. A report back on dog access rules in regional parks was also approved (REG/2018/44).

3. Staff recommend that the Committee approve dog access rules amendments in regional parks for:

· the time and season definition for beaches and foreshores. This will ensure a single definition across all of the region’s beaches and foreshores

· the definition of lambing season to create consistency within regional parks

· specific dog access rules to prohibit or allow dog access in areas for Glenfern, Muriwai, Mahurangi, Long Bay, and Whatipu Regional Parks. This will improve wildlife protection.

4. These amendments will reduce public confusion, improve voluntary compliance, and better protect vulnerable wildlife.

5. There is a reputational risk that the public expect local dog access rules to be reviewed as part of this review. This will be mitigated by communicating how the wider review of dog management rules will be implemented, including the future review of local dog access rules.

6. In conjunction, staff are also completing a regional review of the Dog Policy and Bylaw. A separate report will be considered by the Committee at this meeting.

7. If approved, changes to the dog access rules in regional parks will be incorporated into a statement of proposal. This will be presented to the Regulatory Committee in February 2019.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) request a statement of proposal that amends the Schedule of access rules in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 that will give effect to the following:

i) a standard time and season definition of 10am to 7pm, from the Saturday of Labour Weekend to 31 March, in the following regional parks:

· Shakespear Regional Park

· Long Bay Regional Park

· Mahurangi Regional Park

ii) a standard lambing season rule to prohibit dogs from 1 July to 1 December, in the following regional parks:

· Hunua Ranges Regional Park

· Ōmana Regional Park

· Mahurangi Regional Park

· Tāpapakanga Regional Park

· Te Rau Puriri Regional Park

· Waitawa Regional Park

· Wenderholm Regional Park

iii) apply dog access rules that protect wildlife in:

· Glenfern Sanctuary Regional Park to prohibit dogs from the park.

· Long Bay Regional Park to prohibit dogs north of Vaughan Stream, and that an additional designated dog exercise area be identified in the park land behind the beach.

· Mahurangi Regional Park to allow dogs under control on leash on Mita Bay loop track and prohibited from Cudlip loop track, and that a dog friendly campground be created.

· Muriwai Regional Park to prohibit dogs south of the surf tower to protect the gannet colony and that dogs to be allowed under control off leash north of the surf tower.

· Whatipu Regional Park to prohibit dogs from Don Mclean Road onwards, for the protection of the scientific reserve.

Horopaki / Context

8. The Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) ensures the care and control of dogs. Under the Act, Auckland Council (the council) is required to have a policy on dogs.

9. The Act also enables the council to have a bylaw to implement aspects of the policy.

10. The purpose of Auckland Council’s Policy on Dogs 2012, Kaupapa mo nga Kuri 2012 is to:

· maintain opportunities for dog owners to take their dogs into public places

· adopt measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs.

11. Staff were directed by the Regulatory Committee in March 2017 to commence an overall review of the effectiveness of the Policy and Bylaw (REG/2017/16). This included a review of dog access rules at regional parks, beaches and foreshores.

12. The Governing Body is responsible for decision making for dog access rules in regional parks and regional beaches and foreshores.

13. Auckland’s regional parks are currently operating under legacy council dog access rules.

14. On 14 June 2018, the committee considered the statutory review findings report titled ‘Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012, 2018 Findings Report’. A report back on dog access rules in regional parks was also approved (REG/2018/44).

15. Thirty-six regional parks were reviewed through this process, as summarised in Table 2 of Attachment A.

16. Staff are also seeking direction from the Committee on general provisions in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012. A discussion of these are presented in a separate report on the committee agenda.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17. The Findings Report identified that between 2015-2018, there were approximately 469 documented issues with dogs in regional parks. These included:

· dogs being exercised in prohibited areas

· dogs being off leash in on leash areas

· dogs in vehicles

· dogs on playgrounds or campgrounds.

18. More specifically, the following issues were identified with regards to dog access rules in regional parks:

· regional consistency with regards to dog access rules will create easy to understand rules, increase voluntary compliance, and improve council’s ability to enforce the rules

· dogs entering open sanctuaries (e.g. Shakespear Regional Park) is especially concerning

· owners do not always pick up after their dogs on walking trails as they would on a neighbourhood sidewalk or park

· concerns around the impact of dog urine on the environment

· environmental protection needs to be prioritised over dog access in regional parks

· regional parks rules listed in the Schedule of access rules, are not always accurately reflected on the council’s website.

19. The following sections highlight opportunities identified for improved dog access rules in regional parks. These are discussed in greater detail in Attachment A.

Apply a regionally consistent time and season definition

20. The purpose of a time and season definition for beaches and foreshores is to minimise the conflict between dogs, their owners and other members of the public.

21. As part of the regional review of the dog Policy and Bylaw, staff have recommended an amendment to the definition of time and season for beaches and foreshores.

22. Discussion on this is included in a separate report on the agenda of this Committee meeting.

23. Regional parks can also apply a time and season definition to their beaches and foreshore. Four regional parks currently have a time and season definition from their regional park Management Plans. These time and season definitions do not align with the current dog Policy and will not align with the recommended amendment to the time and season definition.

24. The review of dog access rules in regional parks provides an opportunity to align the time and season definition across all beaches and foreshores with regional and local parks.

25. Variation in dog access rules, specifically time and season rules in both regional parks and local parks has resulted in public confusion, non-compliance and difficulties with enforcement.

Staff recommend that the amended time and season definition for beaches and foreshores of 10am to 7pm, from the Saturday of Labour Weekend to 31 March, apply at:

· Long Bay Regional Park

· Mahurangi Regional Park

· Shakespear Regional Park.

26. The impact of amending the time and season definition will mean that all dog owners across the region will know when they can take their dog to the beach. This will improve voluntary compliance and minimise conflict between users.

27. Muriwai Regional Park also has a time and season rule. This matter is addressed through the recommended amendments to dog access rules for wildlife protection.

Apply a consistent lambing season definition within regional parks

28. Currently, 13 regional parks are home to stock, including sheep and cattle.

29. The review identified three approaches to minimising the harm caused by dogs to stock in regional parks that are currently used in Schedule 2 of the dog access rules:

· apply the use of temporary restrictions through clause 10 of the Dog Management Bylaw 2012

· prohibit dogs entirely, based on the number and type of stock in the park

· list specific lambing seasons in the Schedule.

30. Variation in approaches to managing stock are appropriate based on the circumstances of each Regional Park. The definition of lambing seasons used in different regional parks varies.

31. Staff consider that a consistent lambing season definition should be applied in all regional parks. This will reduce public confusion and non-compliance.

Staff recommend amending the lambing season definition to prohibit dogs during lambing season, from 1 July to 1 December to apply at:

· Hunua Ranges Regional Park

· Ōmana Regional Park

· Mahurangi Regional Park

· Tāpapakanga Regional Park

· Te Rau Puriri Regional Park

· Waitawa Regional Park

· Wenderholm Regional Park.

Amending dog access rules to protect Auckland’s vulnerable wildlife

32. Staff have identified additional opportunities to amend dog access rules for the protection of wildlife.

Staff recommend the following amendments to rules managing dog access for wildlife protection at:

· Glenfern Sanctuary Regional Park: dogs be prohibited from the park for the protection of wildlife. This park was acquired by Auckland Council after the adoption of the current Policy and Bylaw. The rules currently displayed on site and on the website are not reflected in the schedule of access rules

· Long Bay Regional Park: dogs be prohibited north of Vaughan Stream to protect vulnerable wildlife, and that an additional designated dog exercise area be identified in the park land behind the beach

· Mahurangi Regional Park: dogs be allowed under control on leash on Mita Bay loop track and prohibited from Cudlip loop track, and that a dog friendly campground be created

· Muriwai Regional Park: dogs be prohibited south of the surf tower to protect the gannet colony and that dogs to be allowed under control off leash north of the surf tower

· Whatipu Regional Park: dogs be prohibited from Don Mclean Road onwards, for the protection of the scientific reserve.

33. No other changes to current dog access rules in regional parks are proposed.

34. There are three regional parks that have ongoing work with regards to dog access rules. Future amendments will need to be made to reflect the decisions in the following regional parks:

· Auckland Botanical Gardens:

issues around dog management were identified within the park. Park staff are working with the local board to identify other off leash areas in local parks adjacent to the Botanical Gardens to minimise conflict of dogs in the gardens.

council staff will continue to work with park staff to gain a better understanding of how dog management can be improved.

· Te Arai Regional Park:

the council is in the process of acquiring additional land north and south of current boundary

once council has completed acquiring the additional land and expanded the regional park boundary, a recommendation can be made on dog access rules.

· Pakiri Regional Park:

dotterel nesting north of Pakiri stream requires protection and an amendment to the off-leash rule along the beach. Reconsidering the rules at Pakiri Regional Park was also raised during engagement with members of the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum

staff will engage with local iwi who manage the land to discuss amendments to dog access in this area.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

35. Staff held workshops with local boards in June and July 2018. For the nine local boards who have regional parks within their boundaries this included a discussion about the access rules in regional parks within their area.

36. Local board members who attended the workshops were generally supportive of recommended amendments.

37. Key feedback is summarised as follows:

· improve public understanding of dog access rules on paths where rules change and on DOC lands adjacent to parks that may have different rules

· protection of wildlife and environment:

consider the impact of dogs on wildlife breeding seasons

concerns over degrading conditions due to dogs (i.e. North Piha Beach)

ensure the protection of wildlife and kauri dieback through the regional review.

· specific feedback on recommended dog access:

consider the effect of dog access rules on pig hunting in the Hunua Ranges

consider changing Long Bay’s rules as there are no longer stock in that park

reconsider recommendations for Mahurangi Regional Park, as Mita Bay is not a very accessible area for dog walkers, Cudlip is more accessible.

· ensure the views of the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority are respected for dog access.

38. Where possible feedback has been incorporated into the proposed amendments for dog access rules in regional parks. Wildlife protection is an example where this has been undertaken.

39. A new feature of has been recommended as part of the Dog Policy to allow easier temporary restrictions for regional issues that may emerge, i.e. kauri dieback. Some concerns are out of scope, such as North Piha beach which is delegated to the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

40. In March 2018, staff consulted with members of the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum. Members identified that regional park dog access is inconsistent across the region, and that it is confusing for visitors.

41. Additional feedback was sought in August and September 2018. Members identified the following concerns for the protection of regional parks. These issues are outlined in Table 1, alongside how the comments were incorporated into this review.

Table 1: Feedback received from the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum

Feedback received	How it was considered in this review
Protection of native species
Te Arai and Pakiri Regional Park have tara iti nesting up there, rarest species that needs protection from dogs.	Protecting vulnerable birds is an important aspect of the regional review of the Policy, Bylaw and dog access rules in Regional Parks. This feedback will be incorporated into the review of Te Arai once the additional land is acquired. Pakiri Regional Park is managed by the local iwi, staff will seek further feedback from local iwi for the support of changing the rules in Pakiri.
Te Henga, Bethels Beach is a native bird breeding area. Dogs running around on the beach hazard to the native birds (O’Neill Bay section). Bethells to Muriwai all need protection.	Te Henga is a local beach and protecting native species will be considered by the local board when they review their dog access rules next. Additional prohibition of dogs has been recommended for Muriwai Regional Park for the additional protection of the gannet colony.
Kauri dieback
Waitakere and Hunua Ranges (Rahui) need protection (kauri dieback). Dogs should not be allowed, as cleaning stations not adapted for dogs.	The regional review of the Auckland Council’s Policy on Dogs 2012 has recommended to include a temporary provision to make changes to dog access rules for the protection of flora. If this recommendation is approved, it will provide a mechanism to further protect against kauri dieback.
Dog aversion training
If dogs are going to go into regional parks, then proof is needed that displays owners have completed training with their dog. There will be issues with enforcement. Hunting dogs should be kiwi trained.	Training of dogs would be at the expense of the owner. While Council cannot require dog owners to kiwi train their dogs, through this review an effort will be made to improve the understanding of access rules to increase voluntary compliance of dog access rules to assist in those areas to protect vulnerable wildlife.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

42. There are up to fifteen regional parks that would require amendments to dog access rules (this includes the three regional parks that are awaiting a review of their dog access rules). These areas would require new signs which are not currently budgeted for.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

43. There is a risk that the public will expect local dog access rules to be reviewed as part of this work. This will be mitigated by clearly communicating that the council is only undertaking a review of regional rules in the Policy and Bylaw and dog access rules in the regional parks.

44. The review of local dog access rules through local boards, will continue once the review of the Policy and Bylaw is complete.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

45. Indicative timeline for next steps

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Review of dog access rules in regional parks	145

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Shilpa Mandoda - Principal Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

08 November 2018

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the report

This report presents the findings from the review of dog access rules within Auckland’s regional parks. This is part of the regional review of Auckland Council’s Policy on Dogs 2012 (the Policy) and the Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (the Bylaw).

1.2 Regional parks in Auckland

There are currently 36 regional parks spread throughout Auckland Region. Dog access rules in regional parks are currently contained in Schedule 2 of the Policy and Bylaw. These rules have been carried over from Regional Park Management Plans from 2010, as specific rules or emptions in order to maintain status quo in 2012. Regional park rules have not been reviewed since then and are included in the regional review of the Policy and Bylaw.

1.2.1 Methodology

Social Policy and Bylaws staff met with regional park rangers and biodiversity staff to understand dog management issues within each regional park in Auckland. This feedback, in conjunction with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012: 2018 Findings Report (the Findings Report) was considered in developing recommendations for future dog management.

1.2.2 Current issues in regional parks

The Findings Report [REG/2018/44] provided a review of issues with dog access rules in regional parks. Table 1 identifies the number of incidents in regional parks, these include:

· dogs being exercised in prohibited areas

· dogs being off leash in on leash areas

· dogs in vehicles

· dogs on playgrounds or campgrounds.

Park rangers have noted that the number of incidents is under reported, and that a new reporting process will more accurately reflect the issue at regional parks in the future. When an issue arises, rangers inform owners of the dog access rules and anecdotally, most dog owners change their behaviour once notified of the breach.

Table 1 Number of dog incidents in Regional Parks, by Auckland Region 2015-2018

Region	Year
	2015	2016	2017	2018	Total
North	129	153	91	43	416
South	1	1	2	0	4
West	7	28	10	2	47
Grand Total as of February, 2018	138	182	103	46	469

The Findings Report also identified the following issues with regards to dog access in regional parks:

· too much inconsistency across the region and within regional parks. Rangers would like consistent, easy to understand rules for the public and for rangers to enforce and inform the public

· dogs entering open sanctuaries (e.g. Shakespear Regional Park) is especially concerning

· owners do not always pick up after their dogs on walking trails as they would on a neighbourhood sidewalk or park

· concerns around the impact of dog urine on the environment

· rangers do not have infringement powers, which makes it difficult to ensure people comply when they are caught with dogs in prohibited areas

· environmental protection needs to be prioritised over dog access in regional parks. In the past, rangers recommended some prohibited areas, but these have subsequently become permitted areas.

It has also been identified that dog access rules in regional parks as listed in the Bylaw are not always accurate when reflected on the council’s dog walking website.

1.3 Dog access principles

In discussions with stakeholders, the following access principles were developed to guide the rationale and thought process around dog access rules in regional parks and foreshores. The proposed recommendations are based on the following dog access principles:

· Creating a balanced approach in identifying dog friendly locations

o If an area is newly identified as being prohibited under this review, where possible, council staff have identified a new space where dogs can be exercised within a regional park or an alternative local park that is close by with off leash access. This allows owners to still have a variety of locations to exercise their dogs.

· Improving the understanding of dog access rules

o Dog access rules are based on sound logic and aim to protect the vulnerable wildlife of the region or minimise the conflict between dogs and the public. For example, ensuring that dogs are prohibited from walking tracks that lead to an area where dogs are prohibited.

· Protecting vulnerable wildlife

o Dogs are prohibited from beaches and foreshores to protect vulnerable wildlife, such as dotterels and penguins.

· Adapting to the changing environment

o Under the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, council staff will still have the ability to work with local boards in changing dog access rules based on protecting wildlife and flora.

The review of regional parks indicated three reasons for amendments to be made to dog access:

· Standardising a time and season definition, within regional parks as well as local parks and beaches

· Standardising a seasonal lambing season rule for those identified regional parks with stock

· Amending specific dog access rules

These recommendations are summarised in Table 2, and further described through this report. Parks that do not require changes for any of these reasons have been recommended as status quo.

Table 2: Summary of recommended dog access rules for regional parks

Regional Park	Amend time and season definition	Standard lambing season rule required	Amend specific dog access rules	Status quo
1. Ambury	No time and season rule	Dogs allowed under control on leash or prohibited	Not required	ü
2. Ātiu Creek	No time and season rule	Dogs prohibited	Not required	ü
3. Auckland Botanic Gardens	No time and season rule	No stock	*	*
4. Āwhitu	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
5. Duder	No time and season rule	Dogs prohibited	Not required	ü
6. Glenfern Sanctuary	No time and season rule	No stock, dogs prohibited	Rules currently not reflected in Schedule	û
7. Hunua Ranges	No time and season rule	ü	Not required	û
8. Long Bay	ü	Dogs prohibited	ü	û
9. Mahurangi	ü	ü	ü	û
10. Muriwai	ü	No stock	ü	û
11. Mutukaroa/ Hamlins- Hills	No time and season rule	Dogs allowed under control on leash	Not required	ü
12. Ōmana	No time and season rule	ü	Not required	û
13. Ōrere Point	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
14. Pakiri	No time and season rule	Dogs prohibited	**	**
15. Scandrett	No time and season rule	Dogs prohibited	Not required	ü
16. Shakespear	ü	Not required	Not required	û
17. Tāpapakanga	No time and season rule	ü	Not required	û
18. Tāwharanui	No time and season rule	Dogs prohibited	Not required	ü
19. Tawhitokino	No time and season rule	No stock, dogs prohibited	Not required	ü
20. Te Arai	No time and season rule	No stock	***	***
21. Te Muri	No time and season rule	Dogs prohibited	Not required	ü
22. Te Rau Puriri	No time and season rule	ü	Not required	û
23. Waitawa	No time and season rule	ü	Not required	û
24. Wenderholm	No time and season rule	ü	Not required	û
25. Whakanewha	No time and season rule	Dogs prohibited	Not required	ü
26. Waitakere Ranges
Atkinson Park	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
Anawhata	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
Armour Bay	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
Arataki	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
Cascade Kauri	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
Cornwallis	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
Exhibition Drive	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
Huia	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
Karekare	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
Piha	No time and season rule	No stock	Not required	ü
Whapitu	No time and season rule	No stock	ü	û

*Botanical Gardens: There have been many concerns around dog access in the Auckland Botanical Gardens. Staff from the Gardens are currently in the process of exploring suitable dog exercise areas that would cause less conflict in the Gardens.

**Pakiri Regional Park: dotterel have been identified to be nesting north of Pakiri stream requires protection and an amendment to the off-leash rule along the beach. Reconsidering the rules at Pakiri Regional Park was also raised during engagement with members of the Parks and Recreation Mana Whenua Forum. Pakiri Regional Park is managed by the local iwi. This co-governance arrangement of park land means that staff cannot make recommendations without engaging local iwi.

***Te Arai Regional Park: Council is in the process of acquiring additional land for the park boundary. Once the areas north and south of the existing park boundary are acquired by Council, then staff would have the ability to recommend dog access rules for the park.

If these outstanding issues can be resolved, recommendations will be included in the statement of proposal prior to public consultation.

2 Time and season definition

2.1 Aligning the time and season definition across Auckland

The Policy provides a time and season definition to manage interaction between dogs, their owners and other Aucklanders. Council can apply a time and season rule in areas within regional parks as required. The majority of regional parks do not currently have any areas where a time and season rule applies. The regional parks that do have time and season areas have carried over time and season definitions from legacy Regional Park Management Plans.

Currently, the time and season definition applied in three of these regional parks does not align with the new definition proposed for the Policy. This variation, in conjunction with local board variation of the time and season definition, is likely to resulted in public confusion and difficulty with enforcement.

As part of the regional review of the Policy and Bylaw, the recommended time and season definition is 10am to 7pm, Saturday of Labour Weekend to 31 March. This rule allows for the creation of three access rules, before 10am, between 10am to 7pm, and after 7pm. A regional park, beach or foreshore, may also have the same access rule throughout the day: dogs under control on leash, off leash or prohibited.

Regional parks that require an amendment to the time and season definition are described further in Table 3. Regional parks not listed do not use a time and season rule, and have applied the same dog access rule throughout the day, i.e. dogs prohibited at all times.

Table 3: Recommended regional parks with amended time and season definition

Regional Park	Current Rule	Recommended amendment	Rational
1. Long Bay	Dogs are allowed under control off a leash on the beach south of Vaughans stream from 6.30pm to 10.00am during daylight saving, and are allowed under control off a leash at all times outside of daylight saving	Apply regional time and season definition	Regional consistency
2. Mahurangi	Dogs are allowed under control on leash in Mahurangi Regional Park East at Scott Point and associated beaches from 7.00pm to 9.00am between the 1st Sunday in October and the 3rd Sunday in March, and at all times from the day after the 3rd Sunday in March to the day before the 1st Sunday in October	Apply regional time and season	Many people take their dogs here and are not aware of the rules. The beach is not very large, should be on leash to minimize conflict between users
3. Shakespear	Dogs are allowed under control off a leash on Army Bay and Okoromai Bay beaches from 7.00pm to 9.00am between the 1st Sunday in October and the 3rd Sunday in March, and are allowed under control off a leash at all times from the day after the 3rd Sunday in March to the day before the 1st Sunday in October. Dogs are prohibited from 9.00am to 7.00pm between the 1st Sunday in October and the 3rd Sunday in March	Apply the regional time and season definition to Army Bay and Okormai Bay beaches	Regional consistency

3 Lambing season definition

Currently there are 13 regional parks that have live stock on them, including sheep, lamb, ram, and cattle. The review of dog access rules revealed regional parks applied three approaches to minimising the conflict between stock and dogs:

· apply the use of temporary restrictions through clause 10 of the Dog Management Bylaw 2012

· prohibit dogs entirely, based on the number and type of stock in the park

· list specific lambing seasons in the Schedule.

A regionally consistent rule for lambing season, would make it easier for the public to understand when dogs are prohibited from identified areas in regional parks. Consultation with staff indicated that the following lambing season definition should be applied those parks with stock:

· dogs are prohibited during lambing season, 1 July to 1 December in identified areas within regional parks with stock.

It was identified that this should apply to the following six regional parks use the temporary restriction through clause 10 of the Bylaw. Table 4 outlines the recommendations for regional parks with stock.

Table 4: Recommended regional parks with amended lambing season rules

Regional Park	Current Rule	Recommended amendment	Rational
1. Ambury	Dogs are allowed under control on a leash on the Ambury Farm loop road connecting Kiwi Esplanade to Ambury Road Dogs are prohibited at all times from all other areas of Ambury Regional Park and associated foreshore (including foreshore associated with the Mangere Waste Water Treatment Plant)	Status quo	Several stock in the park, as well as vulnerable wildlife
2. Atiu Creek	Dogs prohibited to protect wildlife	Status quo	There are approximately 1200-1300 livestock on this park, in addition to vulnerable birds, wildlife, wetlands and kauri dieback
3. Duder	Dogs are prohibited from the park and associated foreshore	Status quo	Stock in the park
4. Hunua Ranges	Explanatory Note: Dogs prohibited in camping areas under Schedule 1 and temporary restrictions may apply during seasonal farming operations (lambing and calving) under Clause 10 of the Dog Management Bylaw	Apply standard lambing season rule	Stock in the park
5. Mahurangi	Dogs are allowed on a leash in Mahurangi Regional Park West on coastal area around Opahi Bay, Mita Bay beach, and from 1 October to 30 June on the Culdip Point Loop Track (outside of lambing season) Explanatory Note: Temporary restrictions may apply under Clause 10 of Dog Management Bylaw	To reflect amendments made to Mita Bay Loop Track and Cudlip Loop Track	See Table 5 for additional detail
6. Mutukoroa – Hamlins Hills	Dogs are allowed under control on a leash	Status quo	Stock in the park
7. Ōmana	Explanatory Note: Temporary restrictions may apply during seasonal farming operations (lambing and calving) under Clause 10 of Dog Management Bylaw	Apply standard lambing season rule	Stock in the park
8. Pakiri	Dogs are allowed under control off a leash on the associated beach, and are prohibited on the Pakiri Regional Park	Status quo	As part of the lease, no dogs are allowed on the land. There are calves on the land
9. Scandrett	Dogs are prohibited from the park and associated beach to protect wildlife	Status quo	Dotterel are nesting on the beach, there are also stock in the park
10. Tāpapakanga	Dogs are prohibited on the park between 1 July and 30 November (lambing and calving)	Apply standard lambing season rule	Stock in the park
11. Te Rau Puriri	Explanatory Note: Temporary restrictions may apply during seasonal farming operations (lambing and calving) under Clause 10 of Dog Management Bylaw	Apply standard lambing season rule	Stock in the park
12. Waitawa	Explanatory Note: Dogs prohibited in camping areas under Schedule 1 and restrictions may apply to protect nesting areas and during seasonal farming operations (lambing and calving) under Clause 10 of Dog Management Bylaw	Apply standard lambing season rule	Stock in the park
13. Wenderholm	Dogs are prohibited from all other areas of the park and associated beach and foreshore areas, including the main car park, bush headlands tracks, picnic areas, along the Puhoi river and wetlands, and during lambing and calving times. Explanatory Note: Temporary restrictions may apply under Clause 10 of Dog Management Bylaw	Apply standard lambing season rule	Stock in the park

4 Amending specific dog access rules

The review of dog access rules identified there are some areas that require amendments to:

· improve public understanding

· minimise conflict between dogs, their owners and others

· protect vulnerable wildlife.

Regional parks with recommended amendments to specific dog access rules are further described in Table 5.

Table 5: Recommended amendments to specific dog access rules in regional parks

Regional Park	Current rule	Recommended amendment	Rationale
1. Glenfern Sanctuary	Dog walking prohibited from Parkland, access roads & adjoining beaches, council land at the park entrance: dogs are prohibited (including dogs in vehicles) This rule is currently indicated by signage and council’s dog walking website, however not in the Schedule of access rules	Add rule to Schedule of access rules	Auckland Council recently acquired Glenfern Sanctuary. These rules are currently not in the Schedule of access of rules, and need to be added to reflect signage on site.
2. Long Bay	Dogs are allowed under control on a leash on the land north of Vaughans stream, on the beach south of Vaughans stream from 10.00am to 6.30pm during daylight saving, and on the Long Bay Marine Reserve foreshore from Western end of Piripiri Point to Toroa Point (DOC Map 9.1)	Prohibit dogs north of Vaughn’s Stream	Long Bay is one of the busiest beaches in Auckland. Dog access rules for the park and beach areas are complicated, difficult to understand for the public and has resulted in compliance issues despite signage. Dogs are prohibited from the park, this makes the beach area difficult to access. In addition, protection of wildlife is required at Long Bay. The impact of dogs has affected bird breeding, and an existing prohibition during bird breeding season has been put in place. It has also been identified that little penguins come into shore after sunset.
2. Long Bay		Park space behind the beach and park area could be used as a designated dog exercise area	Provide an additional piece of land for dog owners to exercise their dogs
3. Mahurangi	Dogs are allowed under control on a leash in Mahurangi Regional Park West on coastal area around Opahi Bay, Mita Bay beach, and from 1 October to 30 June on the Culdip Point Loop Track (outside of lambing season)	• Create a dog friendly campground, this allows for dogs to access Mita Bay beach • Mita Bay loop track – dogs on leash • Cudlip Point Loop – prohibit dogs • Status quo at Mita Bay Beach and Opahi Bay	The camping area is frequented by many people who often bring their dogs. This could be the first dog friendly campground. The campground is located near Mita Bay loop track which could also become on leash. Prohibit dogs from the Cudlip loop track, located closer to the Te Muri Estuary. This will limit dogs from entering the Estuary and protect wildlife. Prohibiting dogs would also remove the need for a lambing season rule in this area.
4. Muriwai	Dogs are allowed under control off a leash at all times in the dog exercise area on Muriwai Beach from a point 450 metres north from Motutara Road for a distance of approximately 10 km to the beginning of the Muriwai Beach Marginal Strip and adjacent Crown foreshore	Dogs are allowed under control off leash at all times north of the surf tower	Use the surf tower as a marker instead of 450m north of Motutara Road. The surf tower is a better marker for the public to understand where the rules start.
4. Muriwai	Dogs are allowed under control off a leash on that part of Muriwai Beach from Motutara Road to a point 450m to the north from 7.00pm to 9.00am between the 1st Sunday in October and the 3rd Sunday in March Dogs are allowed under control off a leash at all times from the day after the 3rd Sunday in March to the day before the 1st Sunday in October Dogs are prohibited from 9.00am to 7.00pm between the 1st Sunday in October and the 3rd Sunday in March	Prohibit dogs south of the surf tower	Prohibit dogs protect the gannet colony
5. Whatipu	Dogs are prohibited from Whātipu Crown foreshore (Whātipu Beach) adjacent to Whātipu Scenic (Scientific) Reserve (Map 6.70)	Additional prohibited recommended, from Don Mclean road onwards should be no dogs	There is a little pocket of land in Whatipu where you can take your dog before you get to the scientific reserve. This area should be prohibited to avoid dogs from being in the reserve.

Regulatory Committee

08 November 2018

Regulatory Management of Earthquake-Prone Buildings - October 2018 Operational Update

File No.: CP2018/20887

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To update elected representatives about progress which the Building Consents department have made in identifying earthquake-prone buildings (EPBs) in Auckland and notifying owners and building users.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In accordance with statutory obligations that came into effect on 1 July 2017, Auckland Council’s Building Consents department have been writing to all owners of buildings identified as earthquake-prone under the previous 2011-2016 local policy. The purpose of these new letters is to alert owners to the new requirement to issue formal notices for EPBs that will be placed physically on their buildings and uploaded to a national register that is accessible by the general public.

3. The department is just over halfway through the notification process and expects to have this phase of work completed by late 2019. After this time, the owners of any remaining un-assessed buildings that still qualify for assessment, will be contacted and asked to provide suitable seismic assessments or be issued with similar notices.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) receive the Regulatory Management of Earthquake Prone Buildings – October 2018 report.

Horopaki / Context

4. The earthquake-prone buildings provisions of the Building Act 2004 have been amended by the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016. The provisions of the Amendment Act came into effect on 1 July 2017. The legislation incorporates a new national system for managing earthquake-prone buildings which is now operative.

5. This memo updates the progress of Auckland Council’s operational implementation of the new earthquake-prone buildings provisions of the Building Act 2004 and more particularly the implementation plan detailed in our memo of 27 October 2017. Under S133AG (2) of the Building Act 2004, territorial authorities are required to formally update the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) on the actions taken to discharge this obligation. This report fulfils this requirement.

6. Whereas council was not statutorily required to report back progress to MBIE until 2020 (low seismic areas have 3 years from date of implementation to provide this report), it was considered appropriate to report early due to the advanced position of Auckland Council in identifying potentially earthquake prone buildings (or parts) within its region.

Implementation process

7. A key consideration for the implementation of the new system and methodology was to avoid re-litigating assessments that had already been completed and the potential imposition of unnecessary costs on building owners.

8. Our implementation approach for the transition to the new earthquake prone provisions in the Building Act 2004 is:

a) For buildings already assessed as ‘not earthquake-prone’:

i) No action required. The Regulations exclude these buildings from being re-assessed under the new methodology.

b) For buildings already assessed as ‘earthquake-prone’ (approx. 1800):

i) Write to building owners advising of change in legislation and giving them the options to:

· Accept the existing earthquake-prone seismic assessment, or

· Engage a suitably qualified structural engineer (at their cost) to undertake a new engineering assessment under the new methodology (EPB Methodology) within 12 months.

c) If they elect to accept the existing earthquake-prone rating Council will:

i) Issue an Earthquake-Prone Building Notice which is required to be displayed in a prominent place in the building, and

ii) Add the building details to the national register of earthquake-prone buildings (EPB Register)

9. Auckland Council’s seismic assessments were completed using the Initial Evaluation Procedure (IEP) methodology which inherently provided a conservative assessment of seismic performance.

10. It is likely that some (5%-10%) of buildings assessed as being earthquake-prone under the new, more detailed EPB Methodology may be re-assessed by building owners as being not earthquake-prone.

11. Given the number of buildings involved, we have taken a phased approach to enable us to effectively manage the resulting queries and issues. It is expected to take 12-15 months to issue letters to all owners. We have adopted the approach of sending the letters by Local Board areas so that where there are clusters of earthquake-prone buildings (e.g. Onehunga, Devonport), all the affected buildings in the same area receive letters (and subsequently earthquake-prone building notices) at the same time.

12. Once the earthquake-prone status of a building has been confirmed, an earthquake-prone building notice is issued. It is the issuance of the notice that triggers the requirement for the building’s details to be added to the national earthquake-prone building register.

13. The timeframe for strengthening earthquake-prone buildings in Auckland (a low seismic zone) is 35 years from the date the earthquake-prone building notice is issued. However, it is important to bear in mind that there are additional triggers requiring strengthening earlier than the 35-year timeframe – if the building is subject to a change of use or a substantial alteration (where the value of alterations is >25% of the rateable value of the building).

14. Timeframe extensions of 10 years for specific heritage buildings and exemptions from strengthening are also possible in accordance with the guidance criteria provided by MBIE.

15. The earthquake prone status of a building or part-building (e.g. individual unit title) is ‘tagged’ on the Land Information Memorandum (LIM) as long as the building or part-building remains earthquake-prone.

Sequence of letters to owners (by Local Board area)

· Puketapapa (Approx. 132)

· Devonport (Approx. 159)

· Albert-Eden (Approx. 381)

· Waitemata (Approx. 795)

· Orakei (Approx 165)

· Maungakiekie-Tamaki (Approx.206)

· Kaipatiki, Henderson-Massey, Whau, Mangere-Otahuhu, Otara-Papatoetoe & Howick (Approx. 213)

· Rodney, Hibiscus Bays, Upper Harbour, Waitakere Ranges, Manurewa, Papakura, Franklin, Waiheke & Great Barrier (Approx. 98)

16. The first Local Board area to receive notification letters in November 2017, the Puketapapa Local Board, had relatively few affected buildings (approx.132) and was used as a pilot to gauge the volume of queries received. Due to the high volume of queries received, the split of suburbs within Local Board areas had to be adjusted in order to manage the work more efficiently.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17. We have completed the process of notifying building owners of buildings assessed under council’s seismic programme or assessed by independent chartered professional engineers engaged by building owners and have subsequently issued earthquake prone building (EPB) notices for the following Local Board areas:

· Puketapapa – 103 EPB notices issued

· Devonport- 109 EPB notices issued

· Albert Eden- 292 EPB notices issued

18. Waitemata LB, having the biggest number of affected buildings, has been spilt into several suburbs and we have completed the process of notification and issuing of EPB notices for the following areas:

· Grey Lynn - 52 EPB notices issued

· Ponsonby - 46 EPB notices issued

· Westmere/Eden Terrace - 49 EPB notices issued

· Parnell Newmarket - 28 EPB notices issued

19. Currently we are in the process of notifying building owners in Auckland Central area.

20. Throughout the implementation phase, our team has engaged with the respective Local Boards and provided them programme sequencing information prior to engaging with building owners in their areas.

21. To date, we have issued 642 EPB notices in the Auckland Council area and currently we have 599 valid EPB notices on the national EPB Register. The difference exists because EPB notices may be revoked and taken off the EPB Register when the buildings are re-assessed to be not earthquake prone after receiving further information.

Current challenges

22. Whilst overwhelmingly the process is working well, from time to time there are some challenges that arise. These include:

· Buildings with individual titles within one building structure (generally apartment or businesses). In such cases, each owner will receive their own Earthquake-Prone Building Notice, but individually may have little way of addressing the seismic issues of the building. The new assessment methodology requires engineers to assess the seismic strength of a building structure as a whole. Multiple owners within a building will need to co-ordinate any seismic assessment or strengthening work.

· Building owners who advise they had not received the notification letter (this is rare). The way the process works, building owners will receive a notification letter and have 30 days in which to say they will accept the prior assessment or engage a suitably qualified engineer to carry out another assessment within a 12-month time frame. If no communication is received the default is to confirm the previous assessment and issue the EPB notice.

· Building owners who refuse to display the EPB Notices in a prominent place on their building (as required by the legislation). There are infringement provisions in the Act for refusing to display the notices, however we would not anticipate we will be using these provisions initially but will work with those owners to achieve the desired outcome.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

23. Earthquake-prone buildings are distributed across all local board areas. We have adopted a staged approach whereby we are addressing EQP buildings one local board area at a time. We have made an effort to pro-actively engage with each local board, offering a programme briefing prior to any letters going out to building owners.

24. We have met with Puketapapa, Albert-Eden, Waitemata, Orakei and Maungakiekie-Tamaki. Devonport-Takapuna were offered a briefing and chose to decline a briefing.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25. The impact of earthquake-prone building management is an item that has been considered since at least 2011 when in the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes the Auckland Council policy on earthquake-prone buildings was created from the amalgamation of the previous territorial authority policies. Investigatory work and consultation at that time found that Maori appear to be less exposed to the direct safety, heritage and financial risks posed by earthquakes for some of the following reasons.

· Maori are less likely to live in the older unreinforced masonry buildings that are at risk in Auckland, and Iwi-owned buildings (marae) especially) are generally more modern and robust (especially those of timber construction) in earthquakes.

· Structures owned by local Iwi as financial investments (such as those around Takutai Square) are typically modern and exempt from assessment requirements, as they are already expected to meet modern seismic performance standards.

26. Where there have been structures of specific interest to Maori that have been captured in our operational programme, we have liaised with the relevant Iwi to guide them through what the regulatory expectations are.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

27. With the change in legislation having mandated that it is the responsibility of building owners to carry out seismic assessments, the financial risks linked to the seismic performance programme and to Auckland Council (in its capacity as a regulator) are limited. As long as we continue to implement the regulations in a reasonable manner and to the best of our abilities.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

28. Given the low-likelihood of a significant seismic event in Auckland, the present approach to the management of earthquake-prone buildings remains the most practical at this stage, as long as Auckland Council works to ensure this programme and its effects (demolition etc) do not adversely impact other aspects of our community (Heritage, Planning etc.).

29. The identification of a building as earthquake prone, could potentially impact patronage/ visitation levels and building insurance premiums. It’s important that sufficient information is available to support people to make fact-based decisions and understand what the real probability and consequence of a seismic event is in a low seismicity zone like Auckland. Monitoring will be required to ensure that the new system achieves the outcomes sought and minimises the risk of an undesirable loss of heritage and character buildings and/or the poorly-informed trading of buildings at below-market rates (as occurred in Auckland in the 1980’s).

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

30. The Building Consents department expect by late 2019 to conclude their notification process for buildings that have already been assessed for their seismic performance and found to be earthquake-prone. Following that, the department will begin identifying any remaining buildings in the region that still fit under the new requirements to qualify for assessment. The owners of such buildings will then be notified that they need to undertake seismic assessments of those structures and provide them to the department in due course.

31. The Regulatory Committee will be provided with a further update when Auckland Council is required to provide an official update to MBIE or if the committee requests one sooner.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Regulatory management of earthquake-prone buildings - October 2018 Operational Update	167

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Ian McCormick – General Manager Building Consents
Authoriser	Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

08 November 2018

Request to Appoint Independant Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 13 - Open Space, to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2018/19511

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To appoint Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan Change 13 – Open Space, to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Plan Change 13 – Open Space, to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) was publicly notified on 20 September 2018. The closing date for submissions was 18 October 2018.

3. The plan change has three components. These seek to:

a) Rezone land recently vested or acquired for open space purposes so that the zoning of the land reflects its purpose and intended use;

b) Correct some open space zoning errors (typically private land that has been incorrectly zoned as open space); and

c) Rezone 10 land parcels that are currently zoned as open space or shown as road in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to either a residential or business zone, depending on the zoning of adjacent land. Auckland Council has either approved the sale of these parcels or they are part of a Panuku Development Auckland regeneration project.

4. 75 submissions have been received to Plan Change 13 – Open Space. The vast majority of these oppose the rezoning of one of Panuku’s proposed changes – 315 Glengarry Road, Glen Eden.

5. Feedback from iwi during consultation prior to public notification of the plan change was that a hearings commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Maori is required for the hearing of the plan change.

6. When feedback was sought from iwi, a possible rezoning of a portion of Puhinui Reserve was included in the draft plan change. The rezoning was intended to facilitate the development of an equestrian centre and pony club. This part of the plan change was however subsequently withdrawn prior to the plan change being considered by the Planning Committee due to strong iwi opposition to the change.

7. In any case, it is appropriate that a hearing commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Maori is appointed given iwi’s interests in and the values associated with open space generally.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint up to three independent commissioners to hear submissions on Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), including an independent commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Maori;

b) delegate to the independent commissioners appointed in a), the authority to make decisions on the Plan Change;

c) delegate to the chair of the Regulatory Committee the authority to make replacement appointments if necessary.

Horopaki / Context

Plan Change 13

8. Plan Change 13 has three components. These seek to:

a) Rezone land recently vested or acquired for open space purposes so that the zoning of the land reflects its purpose and intended use;

b) Correct some open space zoning errors (typically private land that has been incorrectly zoned as open space); and

Land Recently Vested or Acquired for Open Space

9. The rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space is required to apply an appropriate open space zoning to the land. The proposed zoning reflects the land’s open space qualities and intended use and development. This is the second update to the zoning of open space since the Auckland unitary Plan was publicly notified. Plan Change 4 updated the zoning of approximately 400 new open spaces.

Open Space Zoning Errors

10. The Plan Change also includes zoning errors (a total of 13) involving open space zones. These include land that has been zoned open space in error or conversely open space that requires an appropriate zoning. These errors have either been identified by the general public or by Auckland Council staff.

Rezoning of land that Auckland Council has Approval for Sale or are Part of a Panuku Development Auckland Regeneration Project

11. This is the second plan change involving the rezoning of open space zoned land considered surplus to requirements. Plan Change 1 involved the rezoning of eleven land parcels. Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team in the Community Facilities Department have identified ten council owned parcels of land currently zoned open space or shown as road which are surplus to requirements and have been cleared for disposal by the Governing Body. Given the land is no longer required as open space or road, a new zoning is required to allow the future owners to make appropriate use of and/or develop the land.

12. The proposed plan change proposes either residential or business zones where appropriate. The proposed new zones have been determined by the zoning of the adjacent land.

13. The vast majority of the 75 submissions received are in relation to this component of the plan change and one change in particular – 315 Glengarry Road, Glen Eden.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

14. Submissions on Plan Change 13 closed on 18 October 2018. 75 submissions have been received. These are currently being summarised and a summary of submissions will be notified in early November 2018. It is likely that a hearing date (subject to the availability of commissioners) will be in February 2019. Up to three independent commissioners are required to be appointed to hear submissions on Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and to make decisions on the plan change.

15. Feedback from iwi during consultation prior to public notification of the plan change was that a hearings commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Maori is required for the hearing of the plan change.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

16. A memo was sent to all local boards providing a summary of the plan change on 18 July 2017. Feedback was received from the Rodney Local Board, who supported the plan change.

17. In relation to land disposal, local board feedback was considered as part of the disposal process and covered in the disposal recommendation reports to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

18. A draft copy of the plan change was forwarded to all Auckland’s 19 mana whenua entities prior to public notification as required under the Resource Management Act on 20 June 2018.

19. Comments were received from Ngāti Tamaoho who recommended a hearing commissioner that was well versed in tikanga Maori. This was primarily in relation to zone changes at Puhinui reserve which were in the draft plan change but were subsequently removed due to strong opposition from iwi.

20. The rezoning of land recently vested or acquired for open space will have a positive effect on iwi. The rezoning of recently vested or acquired open space applies an appropriate open space zoning to land acquired as open space, either because of subdivision or purchase during the past year. The proposed zoning reflects the land open space qualities and intended use and development. Sites with known or unknown cultural heritage values will be better protected with an appropriate open space zoning.

21. The correction of zoning errors will have a neutral effect, as the land is privately owned and should not have been zoned open space.

22. Panuku’s property rationalisation process involves consultation with mana whenua. Responses from mana whenua are considered as part of the disposal process and addressed in the disposal recommendation reports to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23. The cost of the plan change is part of Plans and Places operational budget.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

24. There are no risks associated with the recommendations made in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25. Delegation is sought to enable the independent commissioners to hear the submissions and make decisions on the plan change. Once a decision has been made and the appeal period has lapsed, the Auckland Unitary Plan will be updated.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

08 November 2018

REGULATORY COMMITTEE FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2018 / 2019 This committee is responsible for regulatory hearings, appointing independent commissioners and for the development of regulatory policy and bylaws.
Area of work	Reason for work	Regulatory Committee role (decision or direction)	Budget/ Funding	Expected timeframes Highlight financial year quarter and state month if known
				FY18	FY19
				12 April 10 May 14 June	12 July 9 Aug 13 Sept	4 Oct 8 Nov	Feb Mar
Alcohol Licensing	Report on the revenue received and the costs incurred for the alcohol licensing process – required by regulation 19 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013.	Note that the majority of alcohol licensing costs were recovered from the existing default licensing fees regime for the twelve months to July 2017. Confirm continuance of the default licensing fees regime. Review the default licensing fees regime after a suitable period of time has elapsed following the implementation of the Local Alcohol Policy.	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Animal Management	Report on Animal Management activities for the year ending June 2018 as required by s10a of the Dog Control Act 1996	Note that the Animal Management Annual Report is required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 and staff will provide the 2017/18 report to the Secretary of Local Government 4 October 2018 Report 2017/2018 Animal Management Annual Report prepared pursuant to s10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 minute REG/2018/70	Within current baselines.	Q4	Q1	Q2 (Oct)	Q3
Earthquake Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011-2016 Review	2011 - Auckland Council was required under s131 of the Building Act 2004 to adopt a policy on earthquake prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings 2018 – Due to the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, Auckland Council’s management of earthquake-prone buildings now falls under the national policy and methodology set by MBIE. Our ongoing work programme for issuing statutory EPB notices, receiving seismic assessments, and identifying residual potential EPBs is being carried out on this basis. Note that dangerous and insanitary buildings continue to have their own local policy that is now under the management of Regulatory Compliance.	Update the Committee on the progress made in implementing Auckland Council’s regulatory obligations with regard to earthquake-prone buildings within its jurisdiction.				Q2 (Nov)
Freedom camping	Explore the need for and options for regulating freedom camping in Auckland Key milestones Nov 2018 - Proposal Late Nov 2018 – mid Feb 2019 - Public consultation April 2019 - Public deliberations May 2019 – Panel’s recommendation to Governing Body	· Receive options report following the completion of the research and pilot. (July 2017) · If a regulatory response is required then the committee will: o Recommend statement of proposal to Governing Body. o Establish the hearings panel for deliberations on submissions. o Recommend final draft of bylaw to governing body for adoption. · An overview programme was presented on 10/08/2017 Item 9 REG/2017/72 resolution REG/2017/72 SCP process · 9 August 2018 report to provide a presentation updating the development of a bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 – minute REG/2018/58 Progress to date 13 September 2018 - report to seek direction on the content of the statement of proposal for the management of freedom camping– minute REG/2018/64	Review is within current baselines. Funding proposals will be required for any recommendations that require capital or operational upgrades.	Q4	Q1 (Aug) (Sept)	Q2 (Nov)	Q3
Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw review	Legislative requirement to review bylaw within 5 years. Committee resolution to “commence the review of the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 at an early date”. Key milestones: Oct 2017 – Findings Mar-Jun 2018 – Options Aug 2018 – workshop Sept 2018 – Proposal Nov 2018 - Public Feedback Jan to Feb 2019 – Panel deliberations Mar 2019 – amended bylaw adopted	· Receive report following the completion of the bylaw review. (Dec ’17 – Feb ‘18) · Recommend statement of proposal to Governing Body. (Q2 or Q3 – FY18) ^# · Establish the hearings panel for deliberations on submissions. (Q2 or Q3 – FY18) · Recommend final draft of bylaw to governing body for adoption. (Q4 – FY18) · Report was considered on 12 Oct. the item was deferred REG2017/94 · 8 Feb 2018 - workshop - seeking preference’s to which clauses of the bylaw should be retained, amended or revoked. - seeking agreement in principle to draft recommendations against 6 key topics, will also highlight next steps, timing and process requirements for completion of the PSN review. · 8 March 2018 - A report on the outcome of statutory review and the direction of any changes to six issues was considered – minute REG/2018/15 · 12 April 2018 - A report on the outcome of statutory review and the direction of any changes to nine issues was considered – minute REG/2018/20 · 10 May 2018 - A report on the review and direct any changes to eight issues within the bylaw was considered - minute REG/2018/36 · 14 June 2018 - A report to determine the outcome of the statutory review and direct any changes to 22 issues was considered on - minute REG/2018/43 9 August 2018 - workshop to discuss outstanding concerns members have on rural fences, ashes, mana whenua beach access, set-netting criteria and obstructions Progress to date: 13 September 2018 a report to recommend that the Governing Body adopt the public safety and nuisance bylaw statement of proposal for public consultation and appoint a panel to deliberate and make recommendations on feedback received – minute REG/2018/65 27 September 2018 a report to Governing Body to receive the recommendations from the Regulatory Committee to adopt the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Statement of Proposal. Minute · Public consultation - scheduled for 26 October to 2 December 2018 · make recommendations to Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended. Length of time required to draft the statement of proposal will depend on the scope of amendments requested following the review findings	Within current baselines.
Dog management Bylaw and Policy on Dogs.	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	· Receive report following the completion of the bylaw review. (November 2017) · Recommend statement of proposal to Governing Body. · Establish the hearings panel for deliberations on submissions. · Recommend final draft of bylaw to governing body for adoption. · Workshop held April 2018 – to seek informal guidance on a few potentially contentious issues related to dog management. Progress to date: 14 June 2018 - A report to endorse the findings of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 statutory review and approve a report back on options that respond to the findings - minute REG/2018/44 ^#public notification is required for bylaw reviews even if no change to the bylaw is recommended.		Q4	Q1 (Aug)	Q2 (Nov)	Q3 (tbc)
Health and Hygiene Bylaw	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	· 12 April 2018 findings report to endorse the findings of the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 statutory review and approve a report back on options that responds to the findings. Minute REG/2018/21 · 10 May 2018 - Options Report - to seek a determination on the outcome of the statutory review on the Auckland Council Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 and make a decision about its future - minute REG/2018/36 · 12 July 2018 – report To recommend the Governing Body adopt the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 (Bylaw) statement of proposal for public consultation and make a decision to appoint a panel to deliberate and make recommendations on feedback received – minute REG/2018/51 Progress to date: 26 July 2018 report went to Governing Body - to receive the recommendations from the Regulatory Committee and adopt the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 Statement of Proposal – minute - GB/2018/120 Next steps: · Public consultation - scheduled for 26 August to 1 October 2018 · make recommendations to Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal
Solid Waste Bylaw review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	· Decision on timing and scope of the review. (December 2017) · Reporting on findings and any options amendments will not be until late 2018		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
Legacy on-site wastewater bylaw review	To complete a review of four legacy on-site wastewater bylaws(legacy bylaws) in Rodney, North Shore, Waiheke and Papakura	· 10 May 2018 - report to endorse the findings of the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws review and begin the process to revoke the four legacy on-site wastewater bylaws - minute. REG/2018/37 · 12 July 2018 - report To recommend the Governing Body adopt the legacy on-site wastewater bylaws statement of proposal for public consultation and make a decision to appoint a panel to deliberate and make recommendations on feedback received – minute REG/2018/52 Progress to date: 26 July 2018 report went to Governing Body - to receive the recommendations from the Regulatory Committee and adopt the Legacy On-site Wastewater Bylaws Statement of Proposal – minute - GB/2018/121 Next steps: · Public consultation scheduled for 1 August to 31 August 2018 · make recommendations to Governing Body on public feedback to the statement of proposal		Q4 May	Q1 (July)	Q2	Q3
Boarding Houses Inspection	Update on the Auckland proactive boarding houses inspections programme. Increase inspections from one to a minimum of three per year.	· For information An update on the initiative was provided at the 15 June meeting item 12 resolution REG/2017/51 item 12 update on boarding house inspections item 11 Next two proactive inspections will be conducted with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employments in August and October 2017 November agenda report was deferred to the February meeting. Progress to date: 8 February 2018 report to provide an update on the proactive boarding houses inspection programme - minute REG/2018/5		Q4	Q1	Q2 (Nov)	Q3 (Feb)
Resource Consents Appeal Update	To provide oversight of the appeals received to resource consent decisions.	Information purposes Monthly updates - Memo	N/A	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
The Regulatory Committee Policy	Reporting on and monitoring of commissioner appointments	Information purposes Memo quarterly		Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3
The Regulatory Committee Policy	Annual review of commissioner pool	Decision: review RMA commissioner pool Memo Quarterly		Q4	Q1 (Aug)
The Regulatory Services Directorate	Report on: · progress implementing the Food Act 2014 · insights into the performance, opportunities and risk of the Resources Consents Dept · progress implementing the Regulatory Compliance programme · update of Building control activity	For information only: 6 monthly update		Q4 (May)	Q1 (Sept)
Alcohol Control Bylaw review	Legislative requirement to review the bylaw and policy after five years.	A report on findings and options will be considered in late 2018.				Q2 (Nov TBC)

Regulatory Committee

08 November 2018

Objection Against a Menacing Dog Classification - Lukah

File No.: CP2018/20503

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine the objection by Mr Stephen John Nahu against the menacing classification issued for his dog Lukah.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Section 33C of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) provides that Auckland Council must classify a dog as menacing when the Council has reasonable grounds to believe the dog belongs wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4. They include:

a) Breed of dog; or

i) Brazilian Fila;

ii) Dogo Argentiono;

iii) Japanese Tosa; or

iv) Perro de Presa Canario

b) Type of dog

i) American Pit Bull Terrier.

3. Section 33E of the DCA provides that where a dog is classified a menacing dog, the owner of the dog must:

a) Not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place, or in any private way, without being muzzled; and

b) Must, if required by the territorial authority, within 1 month, produce to the territorial authority a certificate issued 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

4. The Auckland Council Animal Management Team assessed Mr Nahu’s dog and resolved to classify Lukah a menacing dog.

5. Mr Nahu has objected to the Council’s decision and pursuant to section 33D of the DCA, the matter is now before the Committee for a decision as to whether to uphold or rescind the menacing classification of Lukah.

6. In making its determination the committee must have regard to:

a) The evidence which formed the basis for the decision to classify Lukah menacing; and

b) The matters relied on by Mr Nahu in support of his objection; and

c) Any other relevant matters.

7. Auckland Council must give written notice to the owner of its decision of the objection and the reasons for its decision.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) Hear and determine the objection to the menacing dog classification by Mr Nahu.

b) By either:

i) Upholding the menacing classification; or

ii) Rescinding the menacing classification.

Horopaki / Context

8. On 27 June 2016 Lukah was registered by Mr Nahu and his daughter Ms Ashleigh Nahu.

9. On 3 March 2017 a notice of classification of Lukah being classified as menacing by breed was issued and sent to Ms Nahu, refer to attachment A.

10. On 12 September 2017 Mr Nahu took Lukah into the Animal Shelter and Lukah was assessed by both the Senior Kennel Attendant and Animal Management Customer Service Coordinator.

11. Both officers concluded that Lukah identified as an American Pit Bull Terrier type dog, refer to attachments B and C.

12. Photographs of Lukah were taken during the assessment, refer to attachment D.

13. On 13 July 2018 an Animal Control Officer visited Mr Nahu’s property to follow up on the menacing classification. Auckland Council had not received confirmation that Lukah had been neutered.

14. Mr Nahu verbally objected to the classification. Mr Nahu was advised that he could have another assessment.

15. On 30 July 2018 the Team Leader of the Henderson Animal Shelter received a phone call from Mr Nahu. Another assessment was arranged.

16. On 10 August 2018 Mr Nahu took Lukah into the Henderson animal shelter and Lukah was assessed by both the Team Leader of the Henderson Animal Shelter, and again by the Animal Management Customer Service Coordinator.

17. Both the Team Leader of the Henderson Animal Shelter and the Animal Management Customer Service Coordinator concluded that Lukah identified as an American Pit Bull Terrier type dog, refer to attachments E and F.

18. Photographs of Lukah were taken at the assessment, refer to attachment G.

19. On 10 August 2018 Mr Nahu was served a letter explaining the results and the decision to uphold the classification based on the assessments, refer to attachment H.

20. On 28 August 2018 Mr Nahu confirmed that he wanted to appeal the decision, refer to attachment I.

21. On 30 August 2018 the Team Leader of the Henderson Animal Shelter sent a letter to Mr Nahu confirming that the process for the matter to go to a formal hearing had begun, refer to attachment J.

22. Formal statements from both the Senior Kennel Attendant and the Animal Management Customer Service Coordinator were created for the file, refer to attachment K and L.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

23. Staff advise the menacing classification should be upheld.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

24. The report relates to classification of a menacing dog. The views of the local board have not been sought for this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26. There are no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27. There are no risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. To uphold the decision of the Regulatory Committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	A - Notice of classification as menacing	199
b ⇩	B - Senior Kennel Attendant breed assessment	203
c ⇩	C - Animal Management Customer Service Coordinator breed assessment	205
d ⇩	D - Photographs of Lukah	207
e ⇩	E - Team Leader Western Animal Shelter breed assessment	213
f ⇩	F - Animal Management Customer Service Coordinator breed assessment	215
g ⇩	G - Photographs of Lukah	217
h ⇩	H - Letter to Mr Nahu with assessment results and confirmation of upholding menacing classification	221
i ⇩	I - Mr Nahu filed application for hearing	223
j ⇩	J - Letter confirming hearing process	227
k ⇩	K - Senior Kennel Attendant formal statement	229
l ⇩	L - Animal Management Customer Service Coordinator formal statement	231
m ⇩	M - Team Leader Western Animal Shelter formal statement	233

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Louise Palmer - Team Leader Western Animal Shelter

Authorisers

Sarah Anderson - Manager Animal Management

Craig Hobbs – General Manager Licensing & Regulatory Compliance

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

[1] Ipsos (2018). Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw and Policy Review. Auckland: Ipsos.

Chairperson	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore
Members	Cr Josephine Bartley
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	IMSB Chair David Taipari
	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox

(Ex-officio)	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

Author	Maea Petherick - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services