|
Regulatory and Community Safety Committee
05 December 2023
|
|
New Waste
Management and Minimisation Bylaw Control
File No.: CP2023/16355
Te
take mō te pūrongo
Purpose
of the report
1. To adopt
a new waste management and minimisation bylaw control about the storage and
deposit of waste associated with kerbside collections.
Whakarāpopototanga
matua
Executive
summary
2. To
ensure council rules about how waste collected from public places (kerbside
collections) is stored and deposited are up to date, staff have reviewed the
rules contained in two bylaw controls contained in the Waste Management and
Minimisation Bylaw 2019 (WMM 2019 bylaw).
3. The
‘Containers for Kerbside Collection Control’ and ‘Separation
of Domestic Waste Control’ have been unchanged since they were introduced
in the Solid Waste Bylaw 2012. The controls prescribe
rules that relate to what people can place in refuse and recycling bins/bags,
times to place a bin/bag on the kerbside, and the maximum weight of waste that
can be placed in bins/bags.
4. The
Regulatory and Community Safety Committee has delegated authority from the
Governing Body to decide controls (GB/2022/112).
5. Staff
undertook a review of these two controls in 2023. The review was triggered by
central government changes to standardise kerbside recycling services across
the country which comes into force from 1 February 2024, and to address
operational concerns with the two controls since the adoption of the Waste
Management Minimisation Bylaw 2019. Operational concerns included maximum bin
weights that are no longer fit for purpose with smaller food scrap bins, and
bin/bag set out times specified by commercial, urban and rural areas which were
not defined.
6. The
review findings highlighted the current controls are out-of-date and require
improvement, including changes to align with government regulation, see Table
2. Staff assessed two options - Option 1 status quo and Option 2 new
control, with Option 2 being the most appropriate response to the review
findings, see Table 3. Staff then developed a new control (Attachment A) in
response to the findings and options.
7. Staff
recommend that the committee agree to the findings, endorse Option 2, adopt the
new control in Attachment A to commence from 1 February 2024, and then revoke the current controls that apply to people using kerbside
collection services on 1 February 2024. Controls that apply to waste
collectors under the Waste Bylaw would remain.
8. Taking
this approach will help the council to better manage and minimise waste,
protect the public from health and safety risks and nuisance, manage the use of
council-controlled public places, and better align with the Waste Management
and Minimisation Bylaw 2019 and new government standards for council kerbside
collections. This approach also allows for the continued transition of rules
that apply to waste collectors to new and renewed waste collection licences.
9. There is
a minor reputational risk that iwi, local boards or members of the public or
industry may feel they have not had an opportunity to have their say on the new
control. This can be mitigated by communicating that the new control aligns
with the government requirement for standardised collections which was publicly
consulted and that other changes are operational having positive impacts to
public and waste collectors. Lastly community views obtained from previous
public consultations were considered in the development of the recommended
changes to the controls.
10. There are no
financial implications to the council in adopting the new control.
11. If approved, staff
will update the bylaw controls on the council website, carryout a
communications campaign to address the changes from government’s
standardising kerbside collections, inform waste collectors and transition
rules that apply to waste collectors in the current controls to new and renewed
licences.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and
Community Safety Committee:
a) whakaae
/ agree to the key finding that the current 2012 Auckland Council’s
Containers for Kerbside Collection Control and Separation of Domestic Waste
Control are out-of-date and require improvement.
b) ohia
/ endorse that a new control is the most appropriate option to manage
and minimise waste, protect the public, and to manage the use of public places
associated with the storage and deposit of waste for kerbside collection as
detailed in Option 2 of this agenda report.
c) whai
/ adopt the new Auckland Council Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw
(Collections) Control 2023 in Attachment A of this agenda report with effect
from 1 February 2024.
d) whakakore
/ revoke on 1 February 2024, the ‘Separation of Domestic Waste
Control’ saved under clause 31(3) of the Auckland Council Waste
Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019.
e) whakakore
/ revoke on 1 February 2024, rules in the ‘Containers for Kerbside
Collection Control’ saved under clause 31(3) of the Auckland Council
Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019 that apply to people using a kerbside collection service. For
the avoidance of doubt, rules that apply to waste collectors are retained.
f) tuku mana / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to the
General Manager responsible for Waste Solutions to make any amendments to the
control in Attachment A of this agenda report to correct any errors or
omissions and add a te reo Māori
title to the control.
Horopaki
Context
Council uses a bylaw and bylaw controls to manage and
minimise waste
12. The Governing Body
adopted Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Te Ture ā-Rohe Whakahaere me
te Whakaiti Tuku Para 2019, the Auckland Council Waste Management and
Minimisation Bylaw 2019 (WMM 2019 bylaw) on 22 August
2019 (GB/2019/83).
13. The
WMM 2019 bylaw supports Auckland’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
2018 (waste plan 2018) by managing and minimising waste, protecting the public
from health and safety risks and nuisance, and by managing the use of
council-controlled public places.
14. The WMM 2019 bylaw
contains general rules for how people may store and deposit waste for
collection from public places (‘kerbside collection’) in clause 7
of the bylaw. The detail for each general rule is prescribed in a bylaw
control. Clause 19 of the WMM 2019 bylaw allows a control to be made under
delegated authority in a separate document, instead of ‘in the
bylaw’.
15. The council uses
bylaw controls in several of its bylaws as an effective and efficient way to
maintain rules that may be location specific (for example alcohol bans) or
activity specific (for example keeping chickens). Table 1 below provides an
example of how controls relating to kerbside collections can be used to
implement the general rules in the bylaw.
Table
1. Example of bylaw and bylaw control rule for kerbside collection
|
Bylaw general rule
|
Bylaw control detailed rules
|
|
18. That
waste must be placed:
· in an approved container
· at certain times
· at certain locations.
|
19. That
refuse for collection must be placed:
· in
an approved refuse bin or bag
· no
earlier than 5pm of the day before scheduled collection
· as
close as practicable to the roadway edge without obstructing any footpath,
bus stop, cycle path or shared path.
|
16. Currently the WMM
2019 bylaw has two controls for kerbside collections, the Containers for
Kerbside Collection Control and the Separation of Domestic Waste Control.
17. Both controls were
made under the Auckland Council Solid Waste Bylaw 2012, by the then Regional
Development and Operations Committee on 19 September 2013 (RDO/2013/164) and
remain in force (were saved) under clause 31(3) of the current WMM 2019 bylaw.
18. While
a bylaw must be reviewed every five or ten years according to the Local Government
Act 2002, there is no statutory requirement to review a bylaw’s control
within a specified period. The current controls have not been reviewed since
being made in 2012.
19. The process to
decide the controls requires the council to comply with the decision-making
requirements under Subpart 1 of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. This
includes the consideration of options and community views in proportion to the
significance of the decision and alignment with any council policy or plan.
20. The Regulatory and
Safety Committee currently has delegated authority from the Governing Body to
decide controls (GB/2022/112).
Staff
review of the bylaw controls for kerbside collections
21. In early 2023 Waste
Solutions staff commenced a review of the two current controls for kerbside
collections to identify and assess key operational improvements.
22. The review
methodology included engagement with staff in relevant council departments and
an evaluation of changes to central government waste policy.
23. The review was
triggered by the need to align with government changes to standardise kerbside
recycling services nationally, that were publicly consulted on during 2021 and
2022. Other reasons for the review included the need to align the controls
(adopted in 2012) with the WMM 2019 bylaw. See Table 2 for further information.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
The review found that the current controls are
out-of-date and require improvement
24. Table 2 summarises
the feedback gathered from staff on the two current controls, which found the
controls are out-of-date and require improvement.
Table
2. Summary of findings from review of bylaw
controls
|
Issue/Opportunity
|
Summary of
feedback
|
|
Content and
structure issues
|
· The controls are overly
prescriptive and complicated, especially by specifying different set-out
times for collections in commercial, urban and rural areas which are not
identified and no longer relevant.
· There should be a consistent
approach in requiring people to put the correct materials in each bin rather
than specifying a percentage of inappropriate material that must not be
exceeded.
· The maximum weights in
the controls need to allow more flexibility according to bin/bag
specifications, and food scraps and waste collection methodologies by council
and commercial service providers.
· A maximum
bin size should be specified noting that Auckland Transport’s
Activities in the Road Corridor Bylaw 2022 does not allow for bins or other
waste containers to be placed in the road corridor (such as skip bins) unless
in accordance with the WMM bylaw 2019. A maximum size under the WMM bylaw
2019 ensures that oversize bins are not set out on a public place.
· Minor
alterations are needed to allow for missed bin/bag collections, to provide
for consolidated collection points on public land (e.g. in rural areas), and
to prevent placement of bins/bags obscuring sightlines for road users,
or preventing access to bus stops and other shared paths or cycleways.
|
|
Misalignment
issues
|
· Waste
collector responsibilities that are currently specified in the existing
controls should be transferred to the licences issued as part of the WMM 2019
bylaw’s waste collector approval process. This is because the
WMM 2019 bylaw does not provide for controls to apply over waste collector
responsibilities. This means that the current controls that apply to waste
collectors need to be retained until the transition process is completed.
This includes rules related to kerbside collection times, provision of
bins/bags that are fit for purpose and provision of information to customers.
· The controls need to be
aligned to the central government
Gazette Notice (Standard Materials for Kerbside Collections Notice
2023) issued on 13 September 2023. The gazette notice is part of the Ministry
for the Environment’s work to standardise collection services across
the country. From 1 February 2024, all councils’ kerbside collection
services must accept the standard materials as specified by government.
· Alignment is needed with the
Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan 2020-2030 in terms of pest plant
materials that may be placed in a council refuse container.
|
|
Opportunities
to strengthen outcomes (environmental, health and safety, operational
aspects)
|
· The controls can be
strengthened by identifying the types of wastes that should not be collected
(prohibited waste) to reduce health and safety risks to the public and
collection workers, as well as prevent damage to property and equipment.
· The controls could be
strengthened to ensure a consistent approach requiring people to use their
approved containers correctly.
|
25. The review also
identified that the next review of the WMM 2019 bylaw (scheduled to commence in
2024), should consider enabling controls to be made for the storage and deposit
of waste for collection from private property. Currently the WMM 2019 bylaw
only enables controls for kerbside collections and relies on waste collection
licence conditions to regulate private property collections (for example from
multi-unit developments). Suggestions include:
· clarifying
the requirement to put materials in the correct bin or bag
· clarifying
requirement to not exceed maximum weight limits for bins or bags
· controls
to prevent wind-blown litter and pollution from unsecured waste.
The
most appropriate regulatory option is to make a new control
26. The objectives
associated with the review relate to ensuring any control is effective,
efficient and valid in relation to the WMM 2019 bylaw’s purpose.
27. This approach is
appropriate because the WMM 2019 bylaw already determines that a control is the
most appropriate way to achieve its purpose. The WMM 2019 bylaw’s purpose
in relation to the storage and deposit of waste for kerbside collection is to
manage and minimise waste, protect the public from health and safety risks and
nuisance, and to manage the use of council-controlled public places.
28. Staff identified
two options as the most appropriate regulatory response to the review findings.
Staff then completed a comparative assessment of the options in the table
below. Each option includes a description, pros and cons and assessment
against criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, and validity (i.e.
not being inconsistent with legislation including the Waste
Minimisation Act 2008 and WMM 2019 bylaw). The
assessment uses a classification system of ticks “✔” and crosses “û” to illustrate the relative
achievement of an option against each criterion.
Table 3. Assessment of each
option against criteria
|
Option
|
Description,
Pros and Cons
|
Effectiveness
|
Efficiency
|
Validity
|
|
Option 1 status quo
|
Retain the current
two kerbside collection controls.
Pros:
· No change to rules familiar to the public.
· Retains controls that apply to waste collectors until
included in new or renewed licences.
Cons:
· Does not align with government’s regulation for standardised
materials in recycling and food scraps collections, which also creates a
reputational risk.
· Misses the opportunity to improve prescriptive and
confusing elements of the controls.
· Misses the opportunity to clarify and introduce rules to
help reduce health and safety risks to the public and collection workers, as
well as prevent damage to property/equipment.
· Misses the opportunity to align with operational
practices to collect bins/bags accidentally not collected during a scheduled
service, and to provide for council-approved consolidation locations.
|
🗶
|
✔
|
🗶
|
|
Option 2 new control
|
Combine the two
controls into a new control which addresses the key findings from the review
and retain current controls that apply to waste collectors.
Pros:
· Aligns with government’s standard for materials in
recycling and food scraps collections.
· Reduces reputational risk and public confusion from
having a control that is misaligned with government regulation.
· Strengthens the regulatory approach for prohibited items and
contamination in recycling bins.
· Is less prescriptive and simpler to understand.
· Aligns with operational practices to collect bins/bags
that were accidentally not collected during a scheduled service, and to provide
for council-approved consolidation locations.
· Ensures the current controls that apply to waste
collectors are retained until the transition process to include those rules
in new and renewed waste collector licences is completed.
Cons:
· Reputation risk that a new control has been made without
public consultation (mitigation noted in para 48 below).
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
29. Based on the above
analysis, staff recommend Option 2 new control because it addresses most
of the current problems and opportunities identified by the review to help
achieve the WMM 2019 bylaw objectives.
Staff
have developed a new kerbside
collection control
30. Staff have
developed a new control (Attachment A) in response to the review findings and
options assessment.
31. The new control
introduces changes and improvements that are largely operational, having
negligible impacts for the public and waste collectors, or are to align with
government’s new recycling standards that we publicly consulted on in
2022. Key operational improvements are listed below.
· The two current
controls are simplified by combining them into a single control which makes the
rules easier to understand and less prescriptive.
· The removal of rules
relating to waste collector responsibilities that the WMM 2019 bylaw regulates
as part of council’s waste collector approval (licensing) process.
· Clarification of the
types of waste which are prohibited from being collected from public land to
reduce the risk of injury to people or waste collection workers, and prevent
damage to collection equipment (e.g. gas bottles explosions, or truck fires
linked to lithium batteries).
· Specification of materials accepted in council kerbside recycling and food
scraps collections to align with new government standards that start on 1
February 2024.
· Clarification of the rules regarding where and at what time waste
can be placed on a public place for collection to manage efficient waste
collection services while protecting pedestrian and vehicular safety and
access. This includes provisions to allow for missed collections and to
specify consolidated collection points, and to protect sightlines, and access
to bus stops or shared paths. These measures are already in place, but the
rules clarify these measures.
· Clarification of
rules regarding the weight of material that can be placed in bin/bags to be
within container specifications and to not endanger waste collectors or
equipment.
· Help promote consistent recycle-right
messaging and enable enforcement actions to happen where necessary.
32. In developing the
new control, consideration was given to community views obtained from previous
public consultations about kerbside collections for the waste plan 2018, WMM
2019 bylaw and 2021 and 2022 council submissions on proposed changes to
national waste policy and operational interactions with the public and waste
collectors.
Staff
recommend the committee accept the review findings and adopt a new control
33. Staff recommend
that the committee:
· agree
to the review findings, endorse Option 2 – new control as the most
appropriate response, and adopt a new Auckland Council Waste Management and
Minimisation Bylaw (Storage and Deposit of Waste) Control 2023 as contained in
Attachment A that commences on 1 February 2024
· revoke
the current Separation of Domestic Waste Control on 1 February 2024
· revoke
only those rules in the current Containers for Kerbside Collection Control that
apply to people using kerbside collection services on 1 February 2024, and
retain those rules that apply to waste collectors.
34. Taking this
approach will help to better manage and minimise waste, protect the public from
health and safety risks and nuisance, manage the use of council-controlled
public places, and align with the WMM 2019 bylaw and new government standards
for council kerbside collections, while allowing for the transition of rules
that apply to waste collectors to waste collection licences.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
35. The new control
continues to contribute to council's response to climate change and the actions
set out in council’s Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's
Climate Plan. This is because the new control continues to support initiatives
to divert recycling and food scraps from landfill and sets rules that support
people to ‘recycle right’ which in turn can improve the quality of
the material collected.
36. Kerbside collections
that divert material from landfill are important methods to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions associated with landfill disposal and through recovering
recyclable material for reprocessing. The improvements in the new control are
more operational in nature however, meaning there is no significant change to
current impacts.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā
tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
37. The new control
does not present significant impacts on the council group.
38. Waste Solutions
staff obtained feedback from staff across multiple council group departments, including
Public Law, Environmental Services, Community and Social Policy, Regulatory,
and Auckland Transport during the review and to input on the development of a
new control. This feedback informed the summary in Table 2.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
39. The new control
aligns with both the waste plan 2018 and the WMM 2019 bylaw which reflect
public feedback received at that time.
40. In 2021 and 2022
Council provided submissions to the Ministry for the Environment on proposed
changes to national waste policy, relating to the review of New Zealand Waste
Strategy and the government’s plans to standardise kerbside recycling
collections. The submissions included views from all local boards.
41. While adopting a
new control under the bylaw has no impact on local governance, there are local
aspects that have a positive impact on communities which may be of interest to
local boards, for example, reducing the likelihood of truck fires. In the development
of the new control, staff considered local board projects and previously
expressed views, however, did not seek specific feedback given the new control
focuses on improvements which are largely operational (refer paragraph 32).
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
42. As part of the
review of the controls, Waste Solutions staff considered iwi and Māori
views on waste minimisation and management as previously expressed through
Māori priorities articulated in council’s waste plan 2018, past
engagement on the WMM 2019 bylaw, and recent engagement with mana whenua to
develop council’s submissions on waste policy changes to the Ministry for
the Environment in 2021 and current review of the waste plan 2018.
43. Given the changes
with a new control are largely operational to protect the health and safety of
collection staff and the public, and to improve waste minimisation, they should
have a positive impact on the community and Māori.
The new control will also align with the WMM bylaw 2019, the Regional Pest
Management Plan 2020, and the required nation-wide recycling standards that
were publicly consulted by the Ministry for the Environment. Staff did
not seek specific feedback from iwi or Māori due to the operational nature
of the changes.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
44. Adopting and implementing the new control will be cost neutral and will
therefore not present financial implications for the council group.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
45. The following table
identifies the main risk with adopting a new control and associated mitigation
measures.
|
Risk
|
Impact
|
Mitigation
|
|
Stakeholders or the public
are opposed or concerned about changes to the WMM 2019 bylaw controls
|
Minor reputational risk to
council about its review
process and consultation.
|
The new control is largely
operational, having negligible impacts for the public and waste collectors or
align with new nationwide recycling standards that were publicly consulted on
in 2022. The new control also addresses health and safety risks consistent
with the government’s Standardisation
of kerbside collections: Health and Safety review.
In developing the new control,
consideration was given to community views obtained from previous public
consultations about kerbside collections for the waste plan 2018, WMM 2019 bylaw
and 2021 and 2022 council submissions on proposed changes to national waste
policy and operational interactions with the public and waste collectors.
|
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
46. Staff will update
the council’s website with the new control and inform waste collectors
through a special newsletter about the transition of rules to waste collector
licences.
47. A communications
campaign is being planned separately to advise the public of the changes to
kerbside recycling and food scraps based on government’s standardisation.
That campaign will be funded through existing budgets.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇨
|
Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw (Collections)
Control 2023
|
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Hana Perry - Relationship Advisor
Sarah Le Claire- Waste Planning Manager
Parul Sood - General Manager Waste Solutions
|
|
Authorisers
|
Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental
Services
Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services
|
|
Regulatory and Community Safety Committee
05 December 2023
|
|
Determination of Objection against Disqualification
of Dog Owner Jarrod Sykes
File No.: CP2023/15344
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To hear
and determine the objection by Mr Jarrod Sykes against his disqualification to
own dogs pursuant to Section 25 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA).
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Mr Sykes
was the owner of a 3-year old male Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross Huntaway
named Dax. The dog was unregistered and not microchipped. On 12 May 2021 Mr
Sykes was convicted on a charge under section 58 of the DCA for an attack by
Dax on a child that caused serious injuries. The court sentenced Mr Sykes to 95
hours community work, $2 500 reparation to the victim and ordered the
destruction of Dax. The destruction order was executed on 29 June 2021.
3. Section
25(1)(c) of the DCA provides that a territorial authority must disqualify a
person from being an owner of a dog if that person is convicted of an offence
(not being an infringement offence) against the DCA.
4. On 4 May
2023 Animal Management decided to disqualify Mr Sykes from owning dogs. The
period of disqualification is for 5 years commencing on 3 February 2020 being
the date of the offence and ending on 3 February 2025. (Refer Attachment A).
5. The
effect of the disqualification is that Mr Sykes may not own or be in possession
of a dog at any time during the period of disqualification.
6. Mr Sykes
objects to his disqualification on the following grounds (Refer Attachment B):
· There
was an undue delay in the disqualification process.
· His
relationship with his partner is being impacted because she owns a dog.
· He
now acknowledges and appreciates his obligations under the DCA.
7. The
purpose of disqualifying a person from owning dogs is to –
· Prevent
re-offending that may cause a nuisance or harm to persons or animals by
prohibiting the person from owning dogs,
· Serve
as a general deterrence to other dog owners, and
· Bring
home to a dog owner the consequences of their failure to comply with their
obligations and responsibilities under the DCA which may cause a nuisance or
harm to persons or animals.
8. Section
26 of the DCA provides the right to a disqualified person to be heard in
support of their objection to the disqualification. The Regulatory and Safety
Committee (the Committee) must hear the objection and decide whether to –
a) Uphold,
b) Bring forward the date
of termination, or
c) Immediately terminate
the disqualification.
9. Mr Sykes
has the right of appeal to the District Court if he is dissatisfied with the
decision of the Committee.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Regulatory and
Community Safety Committee:
a) whakaae
/ agree to hear and determine the objection, and
b) whakaae
/ agree to uphold the disqualification of Mr Jarrod Sykes for the period of 5
years from 3 February 2020 to 3 February 2025.
Restatement
c) whakaae
/ agree that the matter remain confidential until the conclusion of the hearing
and then be restated in the open minutes.
Horopaki
Context
10. The
Governing Body of the Auckland Council has delegated to the Committee the
responsibility for regulatory hearings in Resolution No. GB/2019/109 which was
adopted on 12 November 2019. The regulatory hearings which the
Committee is responsible include, amongst others, decisions under the DCA in
relation to the consideration of objections under the DCA.
11. Section 26(3) of
the DCA determines that in considering an objection to the disqualification of
a person, the Committee should have regard to the following:
a) The circumstances and
nature of the offences in respect of which the objector was disqualified,
b) The competency of the
objector in terms of responsible dog ownership,
c) Any steps taken by the
objector to prevent further offences,
d) The matters advanced in
support of the objection, and
e) Any other relevant
matters.
The circumstances and nature of the
offence in respect of which Mr Sykes was disqualified
12. On 3 February 2020 at approximately 12.30pm the victim, a two-year
old boy, was with his father visiting Mr Sykes. The victim’s father
placed the victim on the lounge floor next to Dax. The victim was playing
with a wooden toy which connected Dax on its nose. Dax then bit the victim on
his face and rag-dolled him in an arch of about 2 metres. Mr Sykes and
victim’s father restrained Dax and pulled him off the victim. The victim
was taken to Waitakere Hospital but was transferred to Middlemore Hospital for
emergency surgery. He sustained significant injuries to his face requiring
multiple surgeries. (Refer Attachment C for the victim’s clinical
record)
Mr
Sykes’s competency in terms of responsible dog ownership
13. Mr Sykes informed
the investigating animal management officer that prior to the attack he had
seen that Dax was showing anxiety about the presence of the victim and his
father. A responsible dog owner would under such circumstances have secured the
dog away from the young child.
14. Dax was
unregistered, not microchipped, and not neutered.
Steps taken by Mr Sykes to
prevent further offences
15. On 21 February 2022
Mr Sykes became the registered owner of an American Staffordshire Terrier,
called Buddy. Buddy is classified as menacing by breed under section 33C of the
DCA. It is not known whether Mr Sykes and Buddy attended any dog training and
dog obedience classes.
16. On 30 May 2023 and
after the service of the disqualification notice, Mr Sykes transferred
ownership of Buddy to his partner.
Matters advanced by Mr Sykes
in support of his objection
17. It is not a
judicial but administrative decision to disqualify a person from owning a dog.
The delay in the issuing and serving the notice on Mr Sykes is because his
current address was unknown.
18. According to Animal
Management records, Mr Sykes and his partner do not live at the same address.
We cannot comment whether Mr Sykes’s relationship with his partner came
to an end because of him not being allowed to own or possess a dog.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
19. Public safety is at the heart of the DCA. For this reason, the
purpose of disqualifying a person from owning a dog or placing a dog owner on
probation is to protect public safety by reducing the likelihood of
re-offending that may cause a nuisance or harm to persons or animals.
20. In the case of a probationary owner, the likelihood of re-offending
is reduced by educating the dog owner in their obligations under the DCA and by
limiting the number of dogs that they may own; and requiring the owner to undertake
a dog owner education programme and/or a dog obedience course.
21. In
the case of a disqualified owner, the purpose is to prevent re-offending by
prohibiting the person from owning dogs, and to bring home to a dog owner the
consequences to their failure to comply with their obligations.
22. Section 25 of the DCA determines that the Council must
disqualify a repeat offender from owning a dog unless it is satisfied that the
circumstances of the offences are such that –
a) Disqualification
is not warranted, or
b) The
person should rather be classified as a probationary owner under section 21 of
the DCA.
23. The effect of
section 25 of the DCA is that the classification as a probationary owner can
only occur if the territorial authority is first satisfied that a
disqualification is not warranted because of the circumstances of the offences
and the offender.
24. It was decided to
disqualify Mr Sykes and not place him on probation for the following reasons:
a) The offence is too
serious to warrant a probationary classification.
b) The importance of
general deterrence.
c) By the time that Mr
Sykes’s address became known, it would have been ineffectual to issue him
with a probationary classification.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
25. This is a report
about dog ownership which has no climate impact.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
26. This is a report
about dog ownership which does not require council group views.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
27. This is a report
about dog ownership which has no local impact. Local Board views have not been
sought.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
28. This is a report
about dog ownership which has no impact on Māori.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
29. The decision by the
Committee on the disqualification of a dog owner has no financial implications.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
30. Mr Sykes has the
right of appeal to the District Court if he is dissatisfied with the decision
of the Committee. The risk of the Committee’s determination being
overturned on appeal is low.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
31. The Committee must
give Mr Sykes written notice of its decision and the reasons for it as soon as
practical.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇨
|
Notice of disqualification
|
|
|
b⇨
|
Objection to disqualification
|
|
|
c⇨
|
Clinical notes of victim
|
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Chrisna Nortje - Principal Specialist Animal
Management
|
|
Authorisers
|
Eleanor Waitoa, Manager Animal Management
James Hassall - General Manager, Licensing and Regulatory
Compliance
Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services
|
