I hereby give notice that an ordinary
meeting of the Regulatory Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 17
November 2020
10.00am
Room 1, Level
26
135 Albert St
Auckland
|
|
Kōmiti Whakahaere ā-Ture/
Regulatory Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Cr Josephine Bartley
|
|
|
Members
|
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
|
|
|
|
Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
|
|
|
|
Cr Shane Henderson
|
|
|
|
Cr Daniel Newman, JP
|
|
|
|
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
|
|
|
|
IMSB Chair David Taipari
|
|
|
|
Member Glenn Wilcox
|
|
|
|
Cr Paul Young
|
|
|
Ex-officio
|
Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
|
|
|
|
Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore
|
|
(Quorum 5 members)
|
|
|
Maea Petherick
Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua /
Senior Governance Advisor
11 November 2020
Contact Telephone: 021583018
Email: maea.petherick@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
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
·
appointing independent hearings commissioners to a pool of
commissioners who will be available to make decisions on matters as directed by
the Regulatory Committee
·
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)
·
recommending bylaws to the Governing Body for consultation and
adoption
·
reviewing local board and Auckland water organisation proposed
bylaws and making recommendations to the Governing Body
·
appointing panels to hear and deliberate on public feedback
related to regulatory policy and bylaw matters
·
deciding regulatory policies that are not otherwise the
responsibility of another committee
·
deciding regulatory policies, standards and controls associated
with bylaws including those delegated to the former Regulatory and Bylaws
Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 (dogs) and GB/2014/121 (alcohol)
·
receiving local board feedback on bylaw and regulatory policy
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, certificates of compliance, regulatory policy and
bylaws 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 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
Health Act 1956
Land Transport Act 1998
Local Government Act 1974
Local Government Act 2002
Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009
Maritime Transport Act 1994
Psychoactive Substances Act 2013
Resource Management Act 1991
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
Waste Minimisation Act 2008
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
17 November
2020
|
|
ITEM TABLE
OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 9
2 Declaration of
Interest 9
3 Confirmation
of Minutes 9
4 Petitions 9
5 Public Input 9
6 Local Board
Input 9
7 Extraordinary
Business 10
8 Designation of
independent commissioners as duty commissioners to determine resource consent
applications. 11
9 Summary of
Regulatory Committee Information - updates, memos and briefings - 17 November
2020 15
10 Animal Management Bylaw
Options Report 17
11 Regulatory Services update 39
12 Consideration of
Extraordinary Items
An apology from
Mayor P Goff has been received.
2 Declaration
of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
3 Confirmation
of Minutes
|
That the Regulatory Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Tuesday, 13 October 2020, including the
confidential section, as a true and correct record.
|
4 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
5 Public
Input
Standing Order
7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day
prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting
Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet
the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes
is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes
speaking time for each speaker.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
6 Local
Board Input
Standing Order
6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that
Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this
time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson)
shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish
to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any
application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.
This right is
in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the
agenda.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
7 Extraordinary
Business
Section 46A(7) of
the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item
that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local
authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member
explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the
discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of
the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an
item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed
at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor
matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member
explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the
public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or
recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to
a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
|
Regulatory
Committee
17 November
2020
|
|
Designation
of independent commissioners as duty commissioners to determine resource
consent applications.
File No.: CP2020/15611
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
designate a number of independent commissioners as duty commissioners.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The
Regulatory Committee has recently finalised the selection process to determine
a new pool of independent hearing commissioners for a three-year term starting
1 January 2021. From this list a smaller group of ‘on call’ duty
commissioners is required to primarily determine resource consent applications
where staff do not have delegation; where the council or a Council Controlled
Organisation (CCO) is the applicant; and to determine notified applications
that do not require a hearing.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) designate,
in accordance with clause 3.3 of the Regulatory Committee Policy, the
following independent commissioners to act as duty commissioners for the
period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021:
i) Lee
Beattie
ii) Richard
Blakey
iii) Justine
Bray
iv) Mark
Farnsworth
v) Greg
Hill
vi) Barry
Kaye
vii) Cherie
Lane
viii) David
Wren
ix) Ian
Munro
x) Robert
Scott
xi) Dave
Serjeant
b) delegate,
in accordance with clause 3.3 of the Regulatory Committee Policy, to the
General Manager, Unit Managers and Principal Specialist Planners –
Resource Consents, the authority to assign one or more duty commissioners to
make decisions on resource consent applications where no hearing is required.
c) delegate
in accordance with clause 3.3 of the Regulatory Committee Policy, to the
Chairperson, Regulatory Committee and the General Manager Resource Consents the
authority to designate replacement duty commissioners, by the selection of an
alternative professional planner commissioner from the independent
commissioner pool.
d) delegate
in accordance with clause 3.6 of the Regulatory Committee Policy, the staff authority
to assign additional or alternate commissioners beyond the “duty”
group but from the approved list of independent commissioners, as may be
necessary due to unavailability and/or depending on particular skills or
knowledge required for a particular resource consent application or section
357 objection determination.
|
Horopaki
Context
3. The
Regulatory Committee policy anticipates the practice of duty commissioners to
help ensure the efficient determination of applications within statutory
timeframes. The duty commissioners are to be available at short notice to make
decisions, where necessary on resource consents not requiring a hearing.
4. With
the new pool of resource management commissioners now established it is the
practice to select around 10 to 12 duty commissioners from this pool each year.
A new assignment of duty commissioners is therefore required from the start of
2021. It is recommended that eleven of the current commissioners are rolled
over for the coming year.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
5. Duty
commissioner are rostered on call for one week per month in separate pools
covering the region. The commissioners consider approximately 500 primarily
non-notified applications per year typically within 24 hours of receipt.
6. Paragraph
3.3 of the Regulatory Committee Policy provides for duty commissioners and
describes their role. It states;
Following consultation with the independent
commissioners and staff, the Regulatory Committee will designate a number of
independent commissioners appointed to carry out Resource Management Act
functions to be duty commissioners who must be available on short notice to
make decisions.
7. The
Regulatory Committee Policy at Paragraph 3.5 already acknowledges the current
delegation for staff to then assign these duty commissioners.
8. The
benefit of designating duty commissioners is to allow staff to roster the
commissioners to be able to consider applications on an ‘on call’
basis. The designation for a further period will ensure continuity of service
and the determination of resource consents in a timely manner. It further
avoids council staff needing to consider the factors under 3.7 of the policy
for the appointment of commissioners on an application by application basis, as
they will do when selecting a hearing panel for a notified application. The
commissioners sit alone when making decisions so need to have a wide range of
knowledge and expertise.
9. A
group of around 10 to 12 commissioners has provided sufficient cover for the
region over the past recent years and it is recommended to stay within this
range. The intent to rolled over the current commissioners has merit in
providing consistency of decision making with the more complex applications
being processed.
10. Additionally,
the recommendation provides the opportunity for other planners in the pool to
become duty commissioners. A delegation to the Chair and Group manager
-Resource Consents will allow one or more of these commissioners to be swapped
out for other planner commissioners from the wider independent commissioner
pool as required, or on a yearly basis. This will allow for newer planners
within the wider pool to undertake this work in the future if they were to be
interested.
11. There can
also be instances where additional commissioners detailed knowledge or
expertise is required, such as a legal matter, built heritage, previous
consenting knowledge or Te Ao Māori and te Tiriti O Waitangi issues. For
these situations the delegation is flexible to allow the addition of a further
duty commissioner to assist or a specialist to be appointed as the duty
commissioner in such circumstances.
12. Duty
Commissioners have also been used as a consistent pool of hearing commissioners
for section 357 objections where these cannot be resolved through negotiation.
Objections usually revolve around narrow but detailed matters and the use of
duty commissioners for this purpose enables hearings to be arranged speedily to
the benefit of the customer and helps grow a pool of specialist knowledge.
13. There are
also instances where notified applications do not require a hearing and the
decision under the staff delegation manual, is to be made by an independent
commissioner. These include situations where neither the applicant nor
submitters (where there are submitters) wish to be heard. In such situations
the statutory timeframes for a decision is reduced and delegating authority for
duty commissioners to consider these applications will ensure the council is
able to meet strict timeframes.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
14. The
designation of duty commissioners does not influence any decision on climate
impact. Impacts of climate change may however be a matter of consideration with
individual resource consent applications that these commissioner may in the
future be assigned to.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
15. The
selection of duty commissioners does nor impact on other parts of the council
group.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
16. The
designation of duty commissioners is not a matter within the remit of local
boards.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
17. All
independent commissioners are expected to have an understanding of Te Titiri O
Waitangi and Te Ao Māori. The wider commissioner pool also contains
commissioner who are specialist within these areas and with particular
applications they can be assigned to determine these as part of a duty
commissioner panel.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
18. The
designation of duty commissioners will help ensure councils statutory timeframes
are met and therefore avoid processing discounts. The commissioner costs are
otherwise paid by the applicants.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
19. There are
no risks associated with assigning for duty commissioners from the wider pool
whom have already proceeded via a robust and comprehensive selection and
interview process.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
20. n/a.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Robert Andrews - Principal Specialist Planning
|
|
Authorisers
|
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents
Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services
|
|
Regulatory
Committee
17 November
2020
|
|
Summary of Regulatory Committee
Information - updates, memos and briefings - 17 November 2020
File No.: CP2020/16314
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To note the progress on the forward work programme appended as
Attachment A.
2. To
receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that
have been held or distributed to committee members since 13 October 2020.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
3. This
is a regular information-only report which aims to provide public visibility of
information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no
decisions are required.
4. These
documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
· at
the top of the left page, select meeting “Regulatory Committee”
from the drop-down tab and click ‘view’;
· under
‘attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the
document entitled ‘extra attachments’.
5. Note
that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer
questions about the items referred to in this summary. Committee members
should direct any questions to the authors.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) receive
the summary of the Regulatory Committee report – 17 November 2020.
|
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇨
|
Regulatory Committee Forward Work Programme (Under
Separate Cover)
|
|
|
b⇨
|
Region-wide appeals register (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Maea Petherick - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua /
Senior Governance Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services
|
|
Regulatory Committee
17 November
2020
|
|
Animal Management Bylaw Options Report
File No.: CP2020/16375
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
seek a decision on the preferred statutory option to the review of Te Kaunihera
o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Auckland Council
Animal Management Bylaw 2015.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. On
17 March 2020 the committee completed the statutory review findings on the
Animal Management Bylaw (Bylaw) and requested a report back on options (REG/2020/17).
3. The
statutory options are presented and assessed against criteria to help the
committee decide whether to confirm, amend, revoke or replace the Bylaw
(Attachment A).
4. 
Option
two: amend Bylaw scores most favourably against the assessment criteria. It
best addresses the problem definition.
5. Staff
recommend Option two: amend Bylaw as it will:
· retain
a regulatory tool that can help reduce public nuisance, offensive behaviour in
and misuse of council-controlled public places caused by people interacting
with animals and promote public health and safety.
· improve
on the status quo by clarifying the definition of ‘nuisance’,
clarifying rules about the feeding of animals on private and public places,
improving rules about the keeping of bees, and rewording the Bylaw to make it
easier to read and understand.
6. There
is a low risk that stakeholders or the public may express concern about the
recommended option. This risk will be mitigated by future public engagement.
7. If
approved, staff will prepare a statement of proposal (including amended Bylaw)
for approval by the committee and Governing Body. Public engagement will
follow, before a final decision is made by the Governing Body.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) agree
that Option two: amend Bylaw is the most appropriate option to respond to the
statutory review findings on the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki
Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Auckland Council Animal Management
Bylaw 2015.
b) request that staff as delegated by the Chief Executive prepare a
statement of proposal that amends the bylaw in (a) as detailed in Attachment
A, of the agenda report, for Option two: amend Bylaw.
|
Horopaki
Context
The Animal Management Bylaw 2015
regulates the keeping of animals in Auckland
8. Te
Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Auckland
Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw) seeks to regulate the effect of
animals on people by minimising nuisance and offensive behaviour and promoting
public health and safety. The Bylaw establishes a regulatory framework that:
· sets
out both general and specific rules abouts animals enforced by council
· establishes
a licensing system for specific animals in urban areas.
9. The
Bylaw aligns with strategic directions in the Auckland Plan 2050, including
‘Belonging and Participation’, ‘Homes and Places’, and
‘Environmental and Cultural Heritage’.
10. The Bylaw
is one part of a wider regulatory framework. It complements and works with
other legislation, policies and plans about animals.
Table 1: Related legislation, regulations and plans
|
Legislation
|
Auckland Council Regulations and Plans
|
|
· Animal
Products Act 1999
· Animal
Welfare Act 1999 and related codes of welfare
· Biosecurity
Act 1993
· Health
Act 1956
· Impounding
Act 1955
· Reserves
Act 1977
· Resource
Management Act 1991
|
· Auckland
Council Unitary Plan
· Dog
Management Bylaw 2015
· Auckland
Regional Parks Management Plan 2010
· Auckland
Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007-2012
|
A statutory review of the Bylaw found
that it needs to be improved
11. On 17
March 2020 (REG/2020/17) the committee completed its statutory review of the
Bylaw and endorsed the findings that:
· a
bylaw is still the most appropriate way to manage specific animal issues in
relation to people, for example limiting the number of poultry in urban residential
areas minimises noise and odour nuisance to neighbours
· the Bylaw has however, limitations, for example
it is difficult to identify animal owners
· the current Bylaw approach is appropriate but
could be improved, for example clarifying the definition of nuisance
· the current Bylaw does not give rise to any
unjustified Bill of Rights implications.
12. The
committee requested an options report to help decide how best to respond to the
findings and consider whether the Bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked or
replaced.[1]
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Staff recommend amending the Bylaw to
respond to the statutory review findings
13. The
options report for the 2019 review of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 (refer
to Attachment A) defines the problem, objectives, outcomes and options. This
includes a description of the pros, cons and risks of each option.
14. Staff
used the review findings to develop options that respond to the current and
future problem that the bylaw needs to address.
15. This
problem definition sets out a simple statement about the issues associated with
people interacting with animals.
|
Problem definition
The
current and future problem remains that people
interacting with animals can result in public nuisance, offensive behaviour
and misuse of council-controlled public places, and risks to public health
and safety.
Examples
of this include:
· noise
nuisance
· offensive
smells
· unhygienic
behaviour (such as excrement)
· animal
wandering
· causing
injury or illness
Scale
and magnitude of the problem
An April 2019 People’s
Panel survey found that 45 per cent of People’s Panel survey
respondents experienced animal nuisance in the past 12 months.
Complaints data shows there were
10,016 animal complaints to council (excluding dogs) between 2010 to 2013.The
number of complaints between 2015 to 2019 was 13,599, which shows an increase
of 26 per cent. The most common complaints were about wandering stock and
poultry, offensive smells, unhygienic behaviour (such as excrement), animal
attacks and dead animals.
This data shows that public nuisance, offensive behaviour in and misuse of
council-controlled public places, and risks to public health and safety
caused by people interacting with animals continues to occur.
Increasing population and
urbanisation will elevate the potential conflict between humans and
animals.
|
16. Four
statutory options are outlined to help address the problems. The options also
need to respond to the policy outcome for the Bylaw.
|
Policy objectives
The purpose of the
Bylaw is to minimise nuisance, offensive behaviour in and misuse of
council-controlled public places, and risks to public health and safety caused by people interacting with
animals.
Policy outcome
The intended outcome
of the Bylaw is to enable people to interact with animals in a way that
protects the public from nuisance, offensive behaviour, the misuse of
council-controlled public places, and health and safety risks.
|
Statutory options
17. Staff
identified the following options to achieve the outcome sought:
· Option
one: status quo – confirm (retain) current Bylaw
· Option
two: amend Bylaw – improve the status quo
· Option
three: replace Bylaw – new bylaw about animals
· Option
four: revoke Bylaw – no bylaw and instead rely on other existing methods
18. Staff
assessed each option against assessment criteria, which reflect the core
objective to minimise nuisance and offensive behaviour caused by animals.
Table 1: Summary of assessment of options
|
Effectiveness*
|
Efficiency*
|
Valid
and not inconsistent with legislation
|
|
Option one: confirm Bylaw
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Option two: amend Bylaw
|
✓✓
|
✓✓
|
✓
|
|
Option three: replace Bylaw
|
✓
|
ûû
|
✓
|
|
Option four: revoke Bylaw
|
û
|
û
|
✓
|
* refers
to effectiveness and efficiency at minimising nuisance, offensive behaviour,
health and safety and misuse of public places caused by people’s
ownership of or interaction with, animals.
19. Option
two: amend Bylaw, scores most favourably against the assessment criteria.
These options also respond to the problem definition about public nuisance,
offensive behaviour in and misuse of council-controlled public places, and
risks to public health and safety caused by people interacting with animals.
20. Based on
analysis against the assessment criteria, and consideration of the pros and
cons and risks of each option, staff recommend Option two: amend Bylaw because:
· it
balances the need to be effective at minimising nuisance caused by animals
while making it simple for Aucklanders to own and interact with animals
· the current Bylaw has support from the public, operators, animal
owners and in most cases is viewed as a reasonable approach
· it
is more efficient for staff and animal owners to continue with regulations that
are known and understood
· there is not significant evidence to change the overall purpose or
scope of the Bylaw
· efficiencies
can be gained through streamlining council bylaws by including
provisions about the feeding of animals on private property which is currently
included elsewhere.
21. Staff
consider the key trade-offs between the recommendation of Option two –
amend Bylaw and the other options as follows:
· Option
one: status quo is less effective, lacks clarity, and does not include
provisions around the feeding of animals on private property and in public
places
· Option
three: replace Bylaw is less efficient as it would require substantial work for
minimal increase in effectiveness. There is no evidence to change the overall
scope of the Bylaw
· Option
four: revoke Bylaw to be the least effective option. This option would remove a
regulatory tool that helps minimise nuisance and offensive behaviour caused by
animals and promotes public health and safety.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
22. The are
no climate change impacts related to the scope of this report.
23. The
environmental impacts of animals are out of the scope of the Bylaw.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
24. The Bylaw
impacts the Regulatory Compliance team who implement the Bylaw, and the
operations of teams involved in biodiversity, pest management and local board
services.
25. Relevant
staff provided feedback to the review through face-to-face meetings and
participated in workshops to consider improvements addressed in the options
report.
26. Council
teams are aware of the impacts of possible changes to the Bylaw and their
implementation role.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
27. The Bylaw
was identified to be of high community interest to Local Boards. They
were consulted during the development of the findings report.
28. The main
concerns of members included improving the clarity of the Bylaw, the misuse of
council-controlled public places and animal-specific controls, all of which
have been addressed in the options report.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
29. The Bylaw has significance for Māori as kaitiakitanga
of Papatūānuku. Input was sought from mana whenua in April
2018. Concerns such as the management of bee excrement, the enforcement of
fishing rules, and clarifying definitions under the Bylaw are addressed in the
options report. Concerns around hunting are out of scope for the Bylaw as they
relate to environmental management.
30. An
amended Bylaw can contribute to the Māori Plan’s key directions and
aspirations of Manaakitanga (Improve Quality of Life) and Kaitiakitanga (Ensure
Sustainable Futures) by ensuring animals are kept and managed in a way that is
beneficial to people.
31. To
understand the views on animal management and potential impact on Māori, staff reviewed:
· feedback
received during the development of the Bylaw Findings Report
· Māori Plan for Tamaki Makaurau
· Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum Strategic Plan
· mana
whenua and mataawaka submissions to the Auckland Plan 2050
· mana
whenua and mataawaka submission Unitary Plan
· all
available Iwi Management Plans
The main concerns related to pest control, environmental
conservation and fisheries, which are out of scope for the Bylaw but are
addressed through other council regulations, strategies and plans.
32. Mana whenua and mataawaka will be invited to provide
further feedback during the public consultative process for the statement of
proposal.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
33. There
are no financial implications of the report decision as Bylaw review and
development is met within the current budget.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
34. The
following risks have been identified
|
If...
|
Then...
|
Mitigation
|
|
Stakeholders are
opposed or concerned about the recommended Bylaw amendments.
|
There may be negative
attention to council regarding the Bylaw.
|
Communication with public
about their opportunity to provide feedback on any proposed Bylaw amendments
as part of the statutory public consultative process.
|
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
35. If
approved, the next steps are shown in the diagram below. 
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Animal Management Bylaw Options Report 2020
|
23
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Breanna Hawthorne - Policy Analyst
Saralee Gore, Graduate Policy Advisor, Community and
Social Policy
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community
& Social Policy
Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services
|
|
Regulatory
Committee
17 November
2020
|
|
Ture-ā-rohe
Tiaki Kararehe 2015
Animal Management Bylaw 2015
Options Report
February 2020
|
Regulatory
Committee
17 November
2020
|
|
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
3
2. Executive
summary3
3. Status
quo (existing Bylaw)4
4. Problem
definition4
4.1 Current and future problem4
4.2 Scale and magnitude of the problem5
4.3 Stakeholder view of the existing Bylaw5
5. Objectives6
6. Outcomes7
7. Options7
7.1 Summary of options8
8. Analysis
and recommendations8
8.1 Summary of assessment of options against stated objectives8
9. Appendix
One – Detailed options description and analysis11
10. Appendix
Two – Preliminary legal assessment13
11. Appendix
Three – Detailed assessments of improvements to existing bylaw14
Animal Management Bylaw 2015 Review
Options report 2020
1.
Introduction
This report provides advice on options available to Auckland
Council in response to the review of the Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau
Ture-ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe / Auckland
Council Animal Management Bylaw 2015.
This report draws on findings in the “Animal
Management Bylaw 2015: Findings Report 2019” endorsed by the Regulatory
Committee on 11 April 2020 (REG/2020/17).
2. Executive
summary
To
enable Auckland Council to decide how to respond to the findings report on the
review of the Ture-ā-rohe
Tiaki Kararehe/Animal Management Bylaw
2015, staff assessed the following options
using Local Government Act 2002 criteria.
· Option one: confirm
the existing Bylaw
· Option two: amend the
Bylaw
· Option three: replace
the Bylaw with a new bylaw
· Options four: revoke
the Bylaw and have no bylaw on animal management
Staff
recommend option two (amend Bylaw) as the preferred option because:
· it balances the need to be effective at minimising the problems relating
to animals, while still making it simple for Aucklanders to own and interact
with animals in public places
· the existing Bylaw approach has support and in most cases
is viewed as reasonable
· it achieves many of the same outcomes as option three (replace
the Bylaw), while being more efficient for staff and animal owners
· it impacts a comparatively small number of Aucklanders
while minimising some of the largest potential risks to safety and nuisance, or
difficulties in enforcement.
Option three (replace Bylaw) is not recommended
because there is insufficient evidence to suggest the approach of the existing
Bylaw needs to fundamentally change.
Option one (confirm Bylaw) is less effective than
options two and three and Option four (revoke bylaw) is the least
effective of all options. Option four creates a regulatory gap that would
result in greater risk of problems occurring.
3. Status
quo (existing Bylaw)
The Bylaw is made under the
Local Government Act 2002[2]
and Health Act 1956[3].
It was
adopted by Auckland
Council’s Governing Body on 30 April 2015[4].
The Bylaw’s purpose is
to provide for the ownership of animals, excluding dogs, in a way that:
· protects
the public from nuisance
· maintains
and promotes public health and safety
· minimises
the potential for offensive behaviour in council controlled public places
· manages
animals in council controlled public places.
The
Bylaw sets out obligations of animal owners, both in general and in council
controlled public places. These include:
· restrictions on the keeping of bees, stock and poultry, particularly
in urban areas,
· restrictions on the slaughter, hunting, removal and
release of animals and animal remains
· rules for the riding of horses in council
controlled public places.
More detailed controls can be made by:
· the Regulatory Committee about the keeping of bees and
stock in an urban area and conditions for horse riding in regional parks and
associated beaches
· Local Boards about conditions for horse riding in local
parks and associated beaches.
Management of animal welfare or wildlife is covered by other
legislation and is not a part of this bylaw.
The bylaw is administered using a graduated approach to
compliance, with education being the first step and prosecution the last.
4. Problem
definition
4.1 Current
and future problem
The substantive problems have not changed since 2015, for
example:
· owners who are
negligent, have inappropriate animals for their properties or are unable to
control them may cause other people nuisance, result in offensive animal
related behaviour or create risk to public health and safety
· the feeding of
wild animals can still cause a nuisance, offensive behaviour and public health
risks
· the
release or hunting of animals on council controlled public places may still
cause problems related to public safety, offensive behaviour, nuisance and
misuse of public places.
4.2 Scale
and magnitude of the problem
The findings report revealed[5]
4.3
Stakeholder views of the existing Bylaw
Stakeholders have mixed views of the existing Bylaw.
|
|
· Compliance
officers who enforce the bylaw have found limitations, particularly around
numbers of animals allowed in the bylaw.
· Greater clarity
on how the Bylaw is worded and definitions would better support enforcement
· They
believe that changes to numbers of animals allowed for in the bylaw
(particularly bees and stock animals) would make it simpler to enforce.
|
|
|
· Out of 15
beekeepers surveyed, most found the existing bee controls reasonable, fair,
and in the interests of the beekeepers.
· Beekeepers’
suggestions on changes to the controls included a better definition on what
it means to maintain colonies with “calm temperament” and fewer
restrictions on swarming as this is natural behaviour for bees.
· 65 per cent of
respondents felt controls for bees were appropriate
|
|
|
· Out of nine horse riders surveyed, most found the
existing horse controls fair to both riders and the public.
· 91 per cent of those surveyed felt the controls to be
fair
· However, those survey suggested the controls could include
a better description for removing manure requirements and how horses are
expected to cross coastal dunes without causing any damage.
· Horse riders did not want to see further restrictions put
on horses as they feel bridleways are already underprovided and do not know
where the council expects people to ride horses.
|
|
|
· Noise and odour related to chick coops was identified by
some survey respondents
· 65 per cent of those surveyed felt the current
regulations were about right
· Those who wanted more regulations suggested controls on
location of chicken coops and better fencing
· More enforcement of current regulations was recommended
|
|
|
· Cats have the highest rate of ownership at 42 per cent
· Of the 45 per cent of People’s Panel survey respondents
who have experienced animal nuisance, 22 per cent experienced cat-related
nuisance
· Cat-related nuisance made up just one per cent of council
complaints data, with this low level of reported nuisance being attributed to
self-management of the nuisance, tolerating the nuisance, and difficulty
identifying an owner
· Of the 26 per cent of survey respondents who wanted more
animal controls, 57 per cent wanted new controls introduced for cats, such as
mandatory registration and microchipping
· Survey respondents and engagement with compliance
officers revealed that there is confusion around rules around cats,
particularly those who are ‘unowned’.
|
5.
Objectives
The objectives of a regulatory response to the problem are
to:
· minimise nuisance,
offensive behaviour, health and safety and misuse of public places caused by
people’s ownership of or interaction with, animals
· meet
legislative requirements under the Local Government Act 2002 including:
(i) giving
effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and
effective manner (section 14)
(ii) ensuring
any bylaw is valid, including that it is authorised by statute, and is not
repugnant or unreasonable
(iii) ensuring
any bylaw does not give rise to any implications or is inconsistent with the
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (sections 155).
These objectives align with the Auckland Plan 2050 Belonging
and Participation (Focus area 1), Homes and Places (Direction 1, Focus Area 5)
and Environmental and Cultural Heritage (Direction 1, Focus Area 1).
6. Outcomes
The key desired
outcome is to help maintain beneficial human-animal bonds.
Desired short, medium, and long-term
outcomes of animal management regulation
7. Options
Staff identified the following options to achieve the
outcomes in section 6:
7.1 Summary
of options
|
Option
|
Description
|
|
Option
one (confirm Bylaw): keep the existing
bylaw as it is
|
This
option would involve confirming the existing Bylaw as it is and not making
changes.
|
|
Option
two (amend Bylaw): make changes to
improve the existing Bylaw
|
This option would involves making amendments to the bylaw
to reflect changes and learnings since 2015 (outlined in Appendix A).
Including:
· Clarifying the definition of ‘nuisance’
· Clarifying what animal-related issues are and which are
not addressed in the Bylaw
· Considering limits on urban beehives
· Amendments to reflect current best practice drafting
standards
· Moving rules about the feeding of wild or feral animals
on private property to the Bylaw.
|
|
Option
three (replace Bylaw): new bylaw
approach to managing animals
|
This
option would involve making a new bylaw that would replace the existing
bylaw. The new bylaw would take a different approach to managing animals.
Note,
a different approach to the existing bylaw has not been able to be identified to a level of
detail that enables a comparable assessment and is included for completeness
to cover the full range of statutory options contained in the Local
Government Act 2002.
|
|
Option
four (revoke Bylaw): repeal the Bylaw
and rely on other existing regulations
|
This
option would revoke the existing Bylaw and rely instead on council’s Property
Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw, Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw, Health Act,
Impounding Act and Animal Products Act.
|
8. Analysis
and recommendations
Staff considered the general
pros and cons of each of the options, along with their associated risks in
Appendix One and carried out a preliminary legal assessment in Appendix Two.
Staff then completed a comparative assessment against
criteria that reflect the objectives of a regulatory response in section 5 in
the Table below. The “✓”
and “x” reflect the impact of
the option against each criterion relative to other options. The more “✓” the
better the option.
8.1 Summary
of assessment of options against stated objectives
|
Effectiveness*
|
Efficiency*
|
Valid and not inconsistent with legislation
|
|
Option one: confirm Bylaw
|
✓
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Option two: amend Bylaw
|
✓✓
|
✓✓
|
✓
|
|
Option three: replace Bylaw
|
✓
|
ûû
|
✓
|
|
Option four: revoke Bylaw
|
û
|
û
|
✓
|
* refers
to effectiveness and efficiency at minimising nuisance, offensive behaviour,
health and safety and misuse of public places caused by people’s
ownership of or interaction with, animals.
Based on analysis against assessment criteria and the pros
and cons of each option, staff recommend option two (amend Bylaw) as the
most favourable option because:
· The
existing Bylaw has support from the public, operators, animal owners and in
most cases is viewed as a reasonable approach. There is no evidence to support
a change the overall purpose or scope of the bylaw.
· Option
two achieves many of the same outcomes as option one and three, while being
more efficient for staff and animal owners.
· It
balances the need to be effective at minimising the nuisance caused by animals,
while still making it simple for Aucklanders to own and interact with animals.
· Proposed
changes will target the areas that will impact a comparatively small number of
Aucklanders, while minimising some of the largest potential risks to safety and
nuisance, or difficulties in enforcement.
· Allows
staff to include the feeding of animals on private property in the Animal
Management Bylaw, to reflect where Aucklanders would expect to see restrictions
relating to animals.
Option one (confirm Bylaw) is not recommended. There
are clear issues with the existing Bylaw that can be addressed by amending the bylaw.
Option three (replace Bylaw) is not recommended.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest the approach of the existing Bylaw
needs to fundamentally change.
Option four (revoke Bylaw) is the least effective
option. It would create a regulatory gap that would result in greater risk of
problems occurring.
|
Regulatory
Committee
17 November
2020
|
|
APPENDIX ONE: Detailed Options
Description and Analysis
|
Option
One: Confirm Bylaw
|
Option
Two: Amend Bylaw (recommended)
|
Option
Three: Replace Bylaw
|
Option
Four: Revoke Bylaw
|
|
Description
This option would involve confirming the existing Bylaw as
it is and not making changes.
|
Description
This option would involves
making amendments to the bylaw to reflect changes and learnings since 2015
(outlined in Appendix Three). Including:
· Clarifying the definition of ‘nuisance’
· Clarifying what animal-related issues are and which are
not addressed in the Bylaw
· Considering limits on urban beehives
· Amendments to reflect current best practice drafting
standards
· Moving rules about the feeding of wild or feral animals
on private property to the Bylaw.
|
Description
This option would involve making a new bylaw that would
replace the existing bylaw. The new bylaw would take a different approach to
managing animals.
Note, a different approach to the existing bylaw has not
been able to be identified to a level of detail that enables a comparable
assessment and is included for completeness to cover the full range of
statutory options contained in the Local Government Act 2002.
|
Description
This option would
revoke the existing Bylaw and rely instead on the Property Maintenance and
Nuisance Bylaw, Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw, the Health Act 1956, the
Impounding Act 1955 and the Animal Products Act 1999.
|
|
Implementation
Council would confirm the Bylaw using the Local Government
Act 2002 special consultative procedure.
The Bylaw would continue to be implemented as it is
currently using a graduated approach to compliance.
|
Implementation
Council would amend the Bylaw using
the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative procedure.
The amended Bylaw would continue
to be implemented as it is currently using a graduated approach to
compliance.
|
Implementation
Council would make a new bylaw using
the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative procedure.
The amended Bylaw would continue
to be implemented as it is currently using a graduated approach to
compliance.
|
Implementation
Council would revoke the Bylaw using the Local Government
Act 2002 special consultative procedure.
Other regulatory tools or levers would be used to address
problems where possible, or no action would be taken where there is a
regulatory gap.
|
|
Pros
· Although
improvements have been identified, the bylaw is generally effective.
· Compliments
existing legislation (Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw, Public Safety
and Nuisance Bylaw, the Health Act 1956, the Impounding Act 1955 and the
Animal Products Act 1999).
· No change in
compliance costs to public or council implementation.
|
Pros
· Would continue to address the problems and incorporate
the improvements identified in Appendix Three.
· Compliments existing legislation (Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw, Public Safety
and Nuisance Bylaw, the Health Act 1956, the Impounding Act 1955 and the
Animal Products Act 1999).
|
Pros
· Theoretically
would continue to address the problems and incorporate the improvements
identified in Appendix Three.
· Theoretically
would complement existing legislation (Property Maintenance and Nuisance
Bylaw, Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw, the Health Act 1956, the Impounding
Act 1955 and the Animal Products Act 1999).
|
Pros
· More freedom
(less regulations) for people in how they own and interact with animals .
|
|
Cons
• Would
not make improvements identified in Appendix Three.
|
Cons
· Cost of public communication of changes (following
adoption of bylaw amendments) and updating compliance practice documentation
|
Cons
· There is no
evidence to support a different approach to the existing Bylaw.
· Unknown what
different approach is, and if identified would need further time to
investigate implications both to the public and council in terms of
implementation.
|
Cons
· There
would be a regulatory gap.
· Would
not enable a compliance response relating to wandering animals (for example
stock) or noisy animals (for example roosters).
· Increased
risk to public health and safety, with potentially more ACC or insurance
claims, shifting the burden to Aucklanders.
· Would
not support improved animal management.
· Is
unlikely to mitigate conflict between neighbours.
· Issues
associated with animal management are likely to increase.
|
|
Risks and
Mitigation
Council is viewed as unresponsive to identified
improvements. Low risk, as the majority of the Bylaw is considered
acceptable, and awareness of the Bylaw is relatively low. Mitigation
through communication on the internet and with key stakeholders.
|
Risks and
Mitigation
There
is a risk that animal owners could be unhappy with proposed amendments.
This risk is considered low to medium as changes would not impact all
animal owners. Mitigation will occur through engagement with animal
owners during the consultation on amendments.
Council
is perceived to be wasting resource and residents time in consulting on minor
changes to the bylaw. Low risk as the findings report provided
evidence that changes to the Bylaw would provide benefit to residents. Risk
would need to be accepted; a new bylaw must follow the defined regulatory
process.
|
Risks and
Mitigation
Council is perceived
to be wasting resource and residents time in consulting on creating a new
bylaw without evidence a different approach is required. This risk is considered medium. Risk would
need to be accepted as new bylaw must follow the define regulatory
process.
|
Risks and
Mitigation
People experience increase
nuisance or risk to health and safety as a result of the bylaw. This risk is
considered medium to high. The risk would need to be accepted
as there would be a regulatory gap.
|
|
Effectiveness*
ü Somewhat effective, as identified in the Animal
Management Findings Report.
û Would not make
improvements identified in Appendix Three.
|
Effectiveness*
ü Would improve the existing Bylaw to better address the problems.
ü Streamline council bylaws by consolidating all council’s
animal related rules in a single bylaw.
ü Council
Bylaw easier to read and understand.
|
Effectiveness*
û Unknown what the different approach is, meaning a
comparable determination of effectiveness is not possible.
ü Would theoretically improve the existing Bylaw to better address the problems.
ü Would theoretically streamline council bylaws by
consolidating all council’s animal related rules in a single bylaw.
ü Would theoretically make council bylaws easier to read
and understand.
|
Effectiveness*
û Unlikely to be effective as it relies primarily on
non-regulatory tools (like signage) and bylaws not related to animals.
û Could result in increased problems relating to animals.
|
|
Efficiency*
ü No change to compliance costs to public or to council
implementation.
|
Efficiency*
ü Would improve the existing Bylaw to better address the problems.
ü Similar compliance costs to public or to council implementation
as existing bylaw.
|
Efficiency*
û Increased time and resource for council to identify, investigate
the implications of, and to make a new bylaw, especially when there is no
evidence to support a different approach.
|
Efficiency*
ü Reduced compliance costs for people which currently
require council approval to keep certain animals.
û There would be no mechanism to address problems where
there is a regulatory gap.
|
*
refers to effectiveness and
efficiency at
minimising nuisance, offensive behaviour, health and safety and misuse of
public places caused by people’s ownership of or interaction with,
animals.
|
Regulatory
Committee
17 November
2020
|
|
APPENDIX TWO: Preliminary legal
assessment
Bylaws must comply with certain legal requirements to be
valid, including that they be authorised by statute, and not be repugnant or
unreasonable.
Option one, two and three are likely to meet these
requirements.
Option four does not require a legal assessment as it does
not require the preparation of a bylaw. However, it would not be repugnant or
unreasonable.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 assessment
Under the Local Government
Act 2002, a bylaw review must consider whether a bylaw has any implications
under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Legally, a bylaw cannot be
inconsistent with this Act.
The existing Bylaw could
potentially limit the right of manifestation of religion and belief under the
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (section 15). This section refers to the
right “to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship,
observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with
others, and either in public or in private”.
For example, the Bylaw
prohibits releasing or abandoning animals in a council controlled public place
unless the council has given prior written approval. This may restrict the
Buddhism practice of “life release” which is the practice of saving
the lives of beings that were destined for slaughter by releasing them back
into the environment.
Releasing animals can lead
to negative environmental impacts, including introducing invasive species into
non-native environments. This can cause nuisance by reducing the enjoyment
other people can experience in a space. This rule in the Bylaw justified as it
does not prohibit the release of animals but requires permission from the
council first. It is also already an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 1999
to release an animal in captivity that is likely to suffer unreasonable or
unnecessary pain or distress, which releasing into the wild may do.
Options two and three are likely to impede the Bill of
Rights Act 1990 in the same way as the existing bylaw, and therefore justified.
Option four does not require the preparation of a bylaw and
therefore a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment is not required.
APPENDIX
THREE: Detailed
assessment of improvements to existing Bylaw
The following table assesses the suggested improvements
identified in the findings agenda report to the Regulatory Committee on 17
March 2020 (REG/2020/17) against assessment criteria that reflect the core
objective.
|
Suggested
amendment from findings
|
Recommended
|
Comment
|
|
Clarify the definition of ‘nuisance’
|
Yes
|
Clarification of the definition of ‘nuisance’
is recommended to align with the definition in Te Ture ā-Rohe Marutau
ā-Iwi me te Whakapōrearea / Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013.
This will improve consistency across council bylaws and better reflect the
inclusion of animal-related matters from the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw
in 2019 (GB/2019/22) and recommended inclusion of animal-related matters from
the Property Maintenance Bylaw.
This does not include more specific definitions suggested
in findings because this is a matter better addressed by operational practice
(for example implementation of the FIDOL (frequency, intensity, duration,
offensiveness, location) approach to measuring nuisance.
|
|
Clarify the definition of ‘owner’
|
No
|
The current definition of ‘owner’ accurately
reflects the scope of the Bylaw for the rules to which it applies.
Other recommended amendments address underlying concerns
by this suggestion (for example the feeding of animals).
|
|
Clarify what animal-related issues are and which are not
addressed in the Bylaw
|
Yes
|
Amendments either to clauses or to related information
notes are recommended to clarify what the Bylaw does and does not address.
For example, the amendments will clarify:
· Which animals
the council manages under the Bylaw, and which ones are managed by other
organisations or legislation, policies or plans
· The limitations
of the Bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Health Act 1956,
which do not give council the power to make a bylaw to protect animal welfare
or wildlife
· That the Bylaw
covers all members of the animal kingdom except dogs and humans
· Terminology
around stock, poultry and companion animals
· How stray, wild
or feral animals, such as pests, are manged by the Auckland Regional Pest
Management Plan 2019-2029, and unowned cats in significant ecological areas
· The limitation
of enforcement for unowned animals and removal of wild animals, such as
roosters or chickens
· Land that is
covered by the Bylaw, such as how the rules apply to papakiānga, or that
the Bylaw does not apply to land that is administered by the co-governance
entity
· Management of
nuisance across the urban and rural boundary
· Variations in
regulations for stock in urban areas and rural areas, specially in relation
to wandering stock.
|
|
Consider controls on cats to prevent nuisance including
non-regulatory controls
|
No
|
Findings data suggests that cat nuisance is not so
significant to warrant additional regulation above that for animals in
general. Less than half (45 per cent) of Peoples Panel respondents had
experienced animal nuisance. Less than half of those people (22 per cent)
experienced cat-related nuisance. Cat complaints represented one per cent of
complaints between Jan 2015 – Feb 2019.
In addition, suggestions of a cat register, tagging or
microchipping are best addressed by central government (in a similar way to
dogs).
New
guidelines for cat ownership have been developed to help owners better manage
their cats. This was co-created by SPCA, Auckland Zoo, New Zealand
Companion Animal Council and Stray Cats New Zealand
|
|
Consider greater animal identification requirements
|
No
|
Tagging or microchipping are best addressed by central
government (in a similar way to dogs).
|
|
Consider limits on urban beehives
|
Yes
|
A control to limit hive size in urban properties under
2000m2 would better address problem while still allowing for the
keeping of bees in urban areas.
|
|
Consider specific location controls for chicken coops
|
No
|
Approximately six per cent of people own chickens and
roosters. Only three per cent of residents in urban areas have
chickens.
Noise complaints are the most prevalent form of complaint
related to poultry. They make up less than one per cent of complaints, and
moving the coop is unlikely to mitigate this nuisance. Smell, from such
things as chicken coops also made up less than one per cent of nuisance
complaints.
Implementing specific location controls could be confusing
for residents and is unlikely to have significant impact on nuisance.
The Bylaw provides guidelines for appropriate chicken coop
management, which if followed, would mitigate nuisance.
Evidence suggests more enforcement rather than more
controls are preferable.
|
|
Clarify controls about the removal of horse manure and
minimising damage to coastal dunes
|
No
|
The existing controls are considered adequate to address
underlying concerns about manure and damage to dunes.
91 per cent of People Panel respondents felt the current
controls to be fair.
Descriptions or notes, however, could be improved.
|
|
Amendments to reflect current best practice drafting
standards
|
Yes
|
This will make the Bylaw easier to read and understand.
While this will change the appearance of the Bylaw in
terms of both structure and wording, the intent and scope of the rules will
remain unchanged or as required to implement the above recommended
amendments.
|
|
Other suggested amendments
|
|
Move rules about the feeding of wild or feral animals on
private property to the Bylaw
|
Yes
|
Moving this clause to the Bylaw was suggested in the
review findings to the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw (REG/2020/50).
Moving this clause would streamline council bylaws by consolidating all
animal-related rules into a single bylaw.
Most noise complaint about birds involved people feeding
and attracting noisy birds to neighbouring properties (362 complains between
Jan 2015 – Feb 2019).
|
|
Regulatory
Committee
17 November
2020
|
|
Regulatory Services update
File No.: CP2020/16837
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. Provide
the Regulatory Committee with an overview and an update on performance,
opportunities and risks of Regulatory Services.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. A
powerpoint presentation will be provided by the Director of Regulatory Services
and the General Managers of:
· Building
Consents
· Licensing
and Regulatory Compliance
· Operations
and Optimisation
· Resource
Consents
· Regulatory
Engineering
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) receive
the Regulatory Services overview and update presentation.
|
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Maea Petherick - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua /
Senior Governance Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services
|
