Regulatory and Safety Committee

03 December 2024

Update on erosion and sediment control on small building sites project

File No.: CP2024/16158

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Regulatory and Safety Committee on the Closing the Gap Project, a proactive erosion and sediment control inspection programme undertaken by the Compliance unit of Licensing and Compliance, in the Community directorate.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Closing the Gap Project team consists of four full time compliance officers and a project specialist. The team proactively visits small construction sites across the region during the early stages of construction to ensure compliance in relation to erosion and sediment control.

3. In the 24 months from 1 September 2022 to 30 September 2024 the Closing the Gap Project conducted 28,888 site inspections. From these inspections 2320 abatement notices were issued (across 1830 sites) and 720 infringement notices were issued.

4. Building site compliance with erosion and sediment control has improved since the project started. Now, eight out of ten sites are compliant when first visited. This contrasts with 2019, when it was one out of ten sites.

5. Technology trials including in-water turbidity sensors and remote-access camera installations have been used by the Closing the Gap Project team to prioritise proactive responses on small sites.

6. Discussions are underway to see how the remit of the project could expand to encompass medium and large earthworks – including those from other compliance areas i.e., bulk earthwork, however this is reliant on future funding availability.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) whiwhi / receive the update on erosion and sediment control on small building sites project.

Horopaki

Context

7. Across Auckland, land disturbance from small sites is estimated at 600 hectares annually, which collectively presents a significant risk of sediment discharge. By comparison, large or consented earthworks activity is estimated at 480 hectares.

8. Each year over 10,000 new build residential building consents are issued across the Auckland region. Around 20 per cent of these sites require land use consents where earthworks are monitored as a condition of the consent.

9. Therefore, 80 per cent of new builds do not require a land use consent and can undertake earthworks activity as a Permitted Activity (for example, site clearance, excavation, fill placement). There is no statutory monitoring or inspection regime.

10. The Closing the Gap Project was established to focus on small construction site compliance to ensure that earthwork practices were improved to reduce sediment discharge risks.

11. The Compliance unit (formerly within the Regulatory Services directorate) has been running the project since 2019.

12. The Closing the Gap Project is funded from the Water Quality Targeted Rate.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Compliance rates continue to steadily track upwards based on the first-visit pass / fail rates. The current rate of 80 per cent is a significant lift from 10 per cent at 2019 (refer Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. Small construction site first site visit compliance levels since 2019

A graph of a graph of a number of different colored lines

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

14. The average number of monthly site inspections conducted by the Closing the Gap Project team continues to rise, from 1006 in 2023 (January to December) to 1362 in 2024 (January to October). This is attributed to the enhancements made to the Closing the Gap Project inspection platform, EasiPlan.

15. EasiPlan is a geospatial worklist dashboard developed in-house for the Closing the Gap Project and refined over the last 18 months. It gives full visibility of small building sites regionally (refer Figure 2). EasiPlan assists officers to prioritise sites as well as optimise the number of scheduled inspections per day, by showing near-by sites (refer Figure 3).

16. In the 24 months from 1 September 2022 to 30 September 2024 the Closing the Gap Project conducted 28,888 site inspections. From these inspections 2320 abatement notices were issued (across 1830 sites) and 720 infringement notices were issued.

Figure 2. EasiPlan geospatial worklist dashboard

Figure 3. EasiPlan near view illustrating nearby work sites and site status

Site Status index
ABN	An abatement notice has been issued.
WNYB	Works have not started on the site.
Inspection letter	This letter acknowledges that a site visit occurred.
Congratulation letter	This letter is sent after a site visit where there were no issues.
EIN	An Environment Infringement Notice was issue to this site.
Waste	There was an issue with building waste on site.
EPA/H&S	EPA - This site was visited with the Environmental Protection Agency. H&S – there was a health and safety issue on site.
Complaint	A complaint has been received about the site.
P2 Complaint	A complaint has been received via the pollution hotline.
No status	This site does not have a status.
Multiple Sites	There is more than one small building site at this location.

17. The Closing the Gap Project has been supporting the Heathy Waters and Flood Resilience department in trialing continuous turbidity sensors as part of a water-quality alert system. Sensors have been installed downstream of known development sites, and are monitored live, with a trigger value.

18. The Closing the Gap Project has also been supporting staff from the Natural Environment Strategy unit in the Policy department, and the Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience department to trial remote-access cameras installed downstream from construction sites (refer Figure 4). Machine learning is being trialed to notify compliance staff of a discharge, allowing them to mobilise quickly to the discharge site.

Figure 4. Site locations of cameras capturing sediment discharge off small construction sites

A road with a hole in the ground

Description automatically generated

19. Staff are working to link up the cameras and turbidity sensors with the Closing the Gap Project EasiPlan software to show sediment discharge alerts in real time on small construction sites and in streams near construction sites.

20. The Closing the Gap Project continues to support the Strategic Approach to Sediment programme and contributes towards council meeting its statutory responsibilities for the natural environment.

21. Due to the success of the Closing the Gap Project on proactive erosion and sediment control discussions are underway to see how the remit of the project could expand to encompass medium and large earthworks – including those from other compliance areas i.e., bulk earthwork. This is reliant on obtaining additional funding.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. The key points of Auckland Council’s position on sediment and erosion control are minismising disturbance, runoff management, stabilisation and regular maintenance. The environmental benefits of addressing these are:

a) improved water quality of streams, rivers, lakes and coastal waters plus habitat protection

b) preservation of aquatic habitats and biodiversity which can be severely impacted by excessive sediment, and

c) improved health of ecosystems by preventing soil degradation and maintaining natural water flow patterns.

23. The Closing the Gap Project addresses the immediate environmental concerns of sediment and erosion control on small building sites but also supports the long-term sustainability and resilience of Auckland’s natural landscape.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. This is a project update report and there are no council group impacts and views have not been sought.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

25. The Closing the Gap Project is an Auckland wide initiative. This a project update report and no local impacts or local board views have been sought.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. The Closing the Gap Project proactive erosion and sediment control inspection programme aims to improve water quality, and this is of importance to Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. The Closing the Gap Project is fully funded through the Water Quality Targeted Rate through to June 2025. Further funding will be sought to continue the project for a further three years.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. There are no risks associated with this project update report as the material is for information only.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. There are no next steps associated with this project update report as the material is for information only.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Adrian Wilson – Manager Compliance

Authorisers

Mervyn Chetty – Acting General Manager Licensing and Compliance

Rachel Kelleher – Director Community

Regulatory and Safety Committee

03 December 2024

Proposed changes to council cemetery bylaw and code

File No.: CP2024/16855

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To complete a statutory bylaw review and seek a decision on the preferred option in response to the review of Auckland Council’s cemeteries and crematoria Bylaw and Code.

2. To seek a recommendation to the Governing Body that it adopt for public consultation, a proposal to:

· amend the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 (Bylaw)

· revoke the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014 (Code).

3. To appoint two Governing Body members and invite one Houkura / Independent Māori Statutory Board representative to a Bylaw Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4. The Regulatory and Safety Committee requested a report that completes a statutory bylaw review and develops options and a proposal in response to the findings from a review of Auckland Council’s cemeteries and crematoria Bylaw and Code (RSCCC/2024/46).

5. Staff used the review findings and engagement with local boards, the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and mana whenua to inform the statutory bylaw review determinations (Paragraphs 25 – 26), options report (Attachment B) and proposal (Attachment A).

6. The review findings enable council to complete the statutory bylaw review.

7. Staff recommend that the committee agree that a bylaw is still required, but that the current Bylaw could be improved.

8. The options report focuses on whether to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the Bylaw and / or the Code in response to the review findings.

9. Staff recommend that the committee agree that the most appropriate option is to:

· amend the current Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014

· revoke the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014.

10. The proposal in Attachment A gives effect to the recommended option. The main proposals in comparison to the existing Bylaw and Code are:

· use a bylaw to set cemetery rules in a way that allows cemetery staff to manage the daily operation of council cemeteries and crematoria, and to revoke the Code of Practice

· clarify rules about when council approval is required and about adornments, maintenance, and preparing a casket for burial and cremation

· update the bylaw structure, definitions, and wording for clarity.

11. Staff seek a recommendation from the committee that the Governing Body adopt the proposal for public consultation.

12. Taking this approach will commence the process of simplifying the regulatory framework by removing one of three layers of rules (in the bylaw, code and operational guidance) while continuing to help Aucklanders access cemetery and crematoria services that meet their social, cultural, and physical needs. The proposal does not impact the public’s current use of council cemetery and crematoria services.

13. There is a low reputational risk that people may express concern about the options or proposal. This risk is mitigated by communicating the public consultation on the proposal.

14. Adoption of the proposal by the Governing Body will start the statutory public consultation process. Public feedback will be sought from Monday 20 January to Sunday 23 February 2025 (five weeks). A Bylaw Panel will consider any public feedback and local board views on feedback, and make recommendations to the Governing Body in mid-2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that in July 2024, Auckland Council completed a review of the Auckland Council Ture ā-Rohe mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 and Arataki Tikanga mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014.

b) whakaae / agree that a statutory bylaw review of the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 is complete, including that:

i) a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to help minimise public safety risks, misuse, obstruction, and damage at council cemeteries and crematoria

ii) the current Bylaw does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

iii) the current Bylaw is not the most appropriate form of bylaw (could be improved).

c) whakaae / agree that Option 2C, to amend the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 and to revoke the Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014, is the most appropriate option to respond to the review findings.

d) tūtohungia / recommend that the Governing Body whai / adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report for public consultation using the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative procedure to:

i) amend the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014

ii) revoke the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014.

e) tūtohungia / recommend the Governing Body whakaū / confirm that the proposed amended Auckland Council Ture ā-Rohe mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014:

i) is the most appropriate form of bylaw

ii) does not give rise to any implications under, and is not inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

f) tūtohungia / recommend that the Governing Body tautapa / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to correct errors or omissions or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory and Safety Committee.

g) kopou / appoint a chair and select one member from the Governing Body and invite Houkura / the Independent Māori Statutory Board to appoint one representative to form a Bylaw Panel to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events where appropriate, hear local board views on public feedback and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report.

h) tautapa / delegate authority to the Regulatory and Safety Committee chair to make replacement appointments to the Bylaw Panel if a panel member is unavailable.

i) tautapa / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to:

i) appoint staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events

ii) make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to correct errors or omissions, or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory and Safety Committee or the Governing Body.

Horopaki

Context

The Bylaw and Code help to manage council cemeteries and crematoria

15. Auckland Council in 2014 made the Ture ā-Rohe mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014 and Arataki Tikanga mo ngā Wāhi Tapu me ngā Whare Tahu Tupāpaku | Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014 (GB/2014/67). The Bylaw was reviewed and subsequently amended in 2021 for ease of understanding (GB/2021/10).

16. The Bylaw and Code seek to help manage over 50 cemeteries controlled by Auckland Council. This includes three main cemeteries with crematoria at Manukau Memorial Gardens, North Shore Memorial Park and Waikumete Cemetery.

A review found a bylaw is still required but there could be improvements

17. The Regulatory Committee (REG/2022/10) initiated the first review of the Code since it was made in 2014, to determine if it was still ‘fit for purpose’.

18. The scope of the review is limited to matters relating to the general operation of council-controlled cemeteries and crematoria. This does not include, for example, private cemeteries and urupā, space allocation or capacity, or technical matters such as burial agreements.

19. Staff carried out research and engagement to complete the Code review. The review identified opportunities to improve the Bylaw. Staff expanded the review to include the Bylaw to enable the committee to consider options to improve the whole regulatory framework.

20. The Regulatory and Safety Committee endorsed the findings in the ‘2024 Review Findings Report: Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw and Code 2014’ on 2 July 2024 (RSCCC/2024/46). See the Box below for key findings.

Key findings from review of Auckland Council Bylaw and Code on cemeteries and crematoria

· the Bylaw and Code could be improved as they are unclear and outdated, for example:

o to clarify when an approval from council is required and how council makes the decision

o to ensure the rules reflect current practice (for example adornments are allowed on plots for up to 28 (not 14) days following interment)

o to improve administration and enforcement (for example to clarify delegations for bylaw administration and to clarify authority for staff to use legislative bylaw powers).

· a bylaw is needed because national legislation is unclear and uncertain

· the Bylaw and Code help minimise risk of high-impact problems at council cemeteries and crematoria.

The committee decided to initiate a statutory review, and request options and a proposal

21. The Regulatory and Safety Committee, in response to the findings at the same meeting on 2 July 2024, requested a report that completes a statutory bylaw review and develops options and a proposal for improvements (RSCCC/2024/46).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The findings informed a statutory bylaw review, options and a proposal for improvements

22. Staff used the July 2024 review findings to inform the statutory bylaw review and to develop options in the ‘2024 Statutory Bylaw Review and Options Report’ in Attachment B. This included developing options for each of the five topics in the review findings and assessing each option against assessment criteria.

23. Staff then developed a Statement of Proposal for public consultation that gives effect to the recommended option for each topic in the ‘Proposed updates to the council cemetery and crematorium bylaw’ in Attachment A. This included seeking the views of staff across council, local boards, and the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel.

24. Relevant Local Government Act 2002 criteria was applied to the statutory bylaw review, options and proposal, to comply with statutory requirements.

The findings problem, objective and outcome relate to managing council cemetery services

25. Based on the findings, the problem, objective and outcome can be defined as follows:

Current and future problem	Objective	Outcome sought

Public safety risks, misuse, obstruction, and damage from the use of council cemeteries and crematoria by the public.	To minimise public safety risks, misuse, obstruction, and damage from the use of council cemeteries and crematoria by the public.	Aucklanders have access to cemetery and crematoria services that meet their social, cultural, and physical needs.

The findings identify a bylaw is still required, but the current Bylaw could be improved

26. The review findings provide sufficient information to make the necessary statutory bylaw review determinations under the Local Government Act 2002 that:

· a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the problem

· the current Bylaw is not the most appropriate form of bylaw (could be improved)

· the current Bylaw does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

27. The review findings identified that:

· national legislation relies on use of a bylaw for council to manage its cemeteries and crematoria

· there are no feasible alternatives to a bylaw to address the problems,^{^[1]} for example alternatives lack clear powers to address all matters currently addressed by the Bylaw

· the Bylaw (not code) should include key matters, for example an approval framework that clarifies when and how council approval is required

· the Bylaw has justified implications for rights and freedoms, for example any implications for freedom of expression about the placement of adornments are proportionate and reasonable, and limited to the extent necessary, to achieve Bylaw objectives and outcomes.

Six options were identified and assessed in response to the findings for each of five topics

28. Staff identified the following six options in response to the review findings, that could be applied to each of the five topics contained in the findings report:

· Option 1 (Confirm) – Confirm current Bylaw and Code (status quo)

· Option 2A (Amend) – Confirm Bylaw, amend Code

· Option 2B (Amend) – Amend Bylaw and Code

· Option 2C (Amend) – Amend Bylaw, revoke Code

· Option 3 (Replace) – Replace Bylaw and / or Code

· Option 4 (Revoke) – Revoke Bylaw and Code and rely on other regulatory powers.

29. Staff carried out a comparative assessment of the two most reasonably practicable options (Options 2B and 2C)^{^[2]} for each topic against criteria. This included a description of each option as it relates to the topic (including any improvements identified in the findings report), how it would be implemented, its effectiveness, efficiency, validity and risks to minimise the problem and recommendation.

30. The table below provides a summary of the assessment of the two most reasonably practicable options contained in the Attachment B.

Topic	Option	Effectiveness	Efficiency	Validity	Recommend
Burial (Topic 1)	Option 2B (Amend Bylaw and Code)	û	û	ü	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)
Burial (Topic 1)	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)	ü	ü	ü	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)
Cremation (Topic 2)	Option 2B (Amend Bylaw and Code)	û	û	ü	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)
Cremation (Topic 2)	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)	ü	ü	ü	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)
Built structures and vegetation (Topic 3)	Option 2B (Amend Bylaw and Code)	û	û	ü	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)
Built structures and vegetation (Topic 3)	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)	ü	ü	ü	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)
Adornments (Topic 4)	Option 2B (Amend Bylaw and Code)	û	û	ü	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)
Adornments (Topic 4)	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)	ü	ü	ü	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)
Disinterment (Topic 5)	Option 2B (Amend Bylaw and Code)	û	û	ü	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)
Disinterment (Topic 5)	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)	ü	ü	ü	Option 2C (Amend Bylaw, revoke Code)

Key: ‘ü’ and ‘û’ reflect the impact of the option against each criterion relative to other options.

Option 2C to amend the Bylaw and revoke the Code is recommended for all topics

31. Based on the assessment of options for each of the five topics, staff recommend Option 2C for all topics, to amend the current Bylaw and to revoke the current Code.

32. Taking this approach would:

· help to achieve the outcome of Aucklanders having access to cemetery and crematoria services that meet their social, cultural, and physical needs

· address the problems from use of council cemeteries and crematoria in relation to public safety risks, misuse, obstruction and damage

· improve the current flexible approach to council cemetery service provision that:

o sets detailed rules in operational guidance, not the Code (for example, in agreements and council’s website about approval for burial, cremation and monuments)

o recognises implementation of the approval system is an operational matter appropriately managed by cemetery staff (similar to staff administration of other approvals, for example under the Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022).^{^[3]}

· simplify the regulatory framework and remove duplication by removing one of the three layers of rules in the bylaw, code and operational guidance

· clarify current operational practice, including to require approvals and relocation of adornments from the plot to the concrete berm 28 (not 14) days after burial

· taking a more reasonable and authoritative approach that is easier to administer, implement and enforce (for example, an approval framework is more transparent and better located in a bylaw, not a code)

· being easier to understand and comply with and aligning with best practice drafting standards, for example by removing repetition and duplication of legislation.

· reducing costs to the council and the public (avoid future time and expense associated with reviewing and updating two regulations)

· provides structural improvements (the proposal does not impact the public’s current use of council cemetery and crematoria services).

33. Option 2B Amend Bylaw and Code, would retain an unnecessary layer of regulation (the Code).

The proposal implements recommended Option 2C to improve cemetery management

34. Staff have drafted a Statement of Proposal in Attachment A to give effect to the recommended options for each of the five topics, that includes:

· amending the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014

· revoking the Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Code of Practice 2014.

35. The proposal:

· improves the regulatory framework for council cemeteries and crematoria (See Table).

· does not impact the public’s current use of council cemetery and crematoria services.

Main proposals	Reasons for proposals
Use a bylaw to set cemetery rules in a way that allows cemetery staff to manage the daily operation of council cemeteries and crematoria, and to revoke the Code of Practice.	To simplify the regulatory framework and improve the current approach to the management of council cemeteries and crematoria. For example, to: · clarify more transparently in a bylaw when council approval is required and how council makes decisions · remove duplication in the Code with agreements, monument size guidelines, and information on council’s website.
Clarify rules about when council approval is required and about adornments, maintenance, and preparing a casket for burial and cremation.	Better reflect current operational practice and be easier to understand and comply with. For example, to clarify: · council approval is required for burial, cremation, monuments, vaults, mausolea, ash scattering and disinterment. · adornments must be relocated from the plot to the concrete berm 28 (not 14) days after burial.
Update the bylaw structure, definitions, and wording for clarity.	· Reflects current operational practice. · Easier to understand and comply with. · Aligns with best practice drafting standards, for example removes repetition, duplication of legislation, and internal operational matters.

The proposal complies with statutory requirements

36. The proposal has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements to:

· help minimise public safety risks, misuse, obstruction, and damage from the use of council cemeteries and crematoria by the public

· use a structure, format and wording that is easier to read, understand and comply with than the current bylaw and code and meets current bylaw drafting practices

· be authorised by the Local Government Act 2002 and the Burial and Cremation Act 1964

· not conflict with other New Zealand legislation (are not repugnant)^{^[4]} and be reasonable

· not give rise to any implications under, and not be inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

· use the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative procedure as the best way to consult on a topic that has cultural and social significance for Aucklanders.

Bylaw related delegations can be updated as an internal matter

37. The review findings identified the need to update delegations for bylaw administration and to clarify authority for staff to use legislative bylaw powers. These administrative matters can be updated as an internal matter.

Staff recommend the committee commence the process to adopt the proposal

38. Staff recommend the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

· agree with the statutory bylaw review findings that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address the problem, does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, but could be improved

· agree that Option 2C to amend the Bylaw and revoke the Code for each of the five topics is the most appropriate way to respond to the statutory bylaw and Code review findings

· recommend that the Governing Body adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A for public consultation using the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative procedure to give effect to the Option 2C to amend the Bylaw and revoke the Code

· appoint two Governing Body members (including a chair) and invite one Houkura / Independent Māori Statutory Board representative to a Bylaw Panel to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate, hear local board views and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the proposal

· delegate authority to staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate or in case a Panel member cannot attend.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

39. The proposal supports the climate change goals in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan by clarifying current practice that adornments must not include materials that may cause litter or damage to the environment.

40. Council continues to take an education-focused approach to implementation. For example, council encourages sustainable use of adornments, such as use of natural flowers instead of plastic. This sets behavioural expectations while continuing to support council cemetery and crematoria services that meet Aucklander’s social, cultural, and physical needs.

41. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42. The draft proposed changes impact the Cemetery Services and the Aotea Great Barrier Island service centre which provide council cemetery services.

43. Relevant staff input was sought to inform the statutory bylaw review, options and proposal, and staff are aware of the impacts of the changes and their implementation role.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

44. The proposal has a potential impact on local governance with low public interest based on feedback to previous reviews.^{^[5]}

45. Based on the agreed principles and processes in the Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, views from interested local boards were sought on draft options and proposal^{^[6]}, and will again be sought on any public feedback.

46. In October and November 2024, 12 interested local boards provided formal views on draft options and a proposal. The proposal, its intention or public consultation is supported or noted by all the local boards (Attachment C).

47. Bylaw-specific feedback is summarised in the table below.

Local board feedback	How proposal addresses feedback
Concern about approval rules being made by staff discretion, rather than in regulation made by the Governing Body, due to cultural and emotional sensitivities.	· Most approval rules are already located in operational guidance, not the Code (for example, monument size rules). This recognises that rules that are operational in nature can and are appropriately determined by cemetery management. · There are no changes to current approval rules in the existing Code (for example, about burial), which continue to apply, were already made by resolution in 2014 following public consultation and are unlikely to change.
Concern that proposal is too restrictive and should enable culturally diverse practices in commemorating the dead.	· There are no changes to current operational practice, for example rules focus on ensuring adornments do not obstruct maintenance, rather than regulating their type, and a flexible or education-focused approach to compliance remains that accommodates cultural, religious, and diverse practices.
Note that proposal should ensure strict mausoleum burial practices.	· Bylaw approval framework requires council approval for burial and supports burial rules already located in operational guidance (for example, exclusive right of burial agreement). · Bylaw clarifies responsibilities of people preparing for burial.

48. Other feedback focused on operational,^{^[7]}, public consultation^{^[8]} or non-bylaw related matters and will be referred to the relevant council units where appropriate.^{^[9]}

49. All local boards will have a further opportunity to provide their views on public feedback to the proposal formally by resolution, and to the Bylaws Panel, in mid-2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

50. The proposal supports whanaungatanga, rangatiratanga, manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga in Houkura / the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Schedule of Issues of Significance by providing regulation that supports council services to meet social, cultural and physical needs, and supports the role of the Waikumete Urupā Komiti (Komiti) at Te Urupā o Waikumete (Waikumete Cemetery).^{^[10]}

51. Staff notified the Komiti, 19 mana whenua groups, and nine mataawaka marae and other groups of the opportunity to input into the bylaw and code review.

52. Feedback from three mana whenua representatives highlighted concerns with burial capacity and costs, waste associated with adornments, and climate change impacts, at urupā and council cemeteries. Feedback from the Komiti included to clarify the Komiti role. The proposal addresses feedback by clarifying current practice that adornments must not include materials that may cause litter or damage to the environment. Other matters are operational and may be addressed as internal matters.

53. Mana whenua, mataawaka, and Komiti feedback on the proposal will be sought during public consultation to ensure Māori are able to provide their views.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

54. The cost of the public consultation and implementation of the proposal (if adopted) will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

55. The following risk and risk mitigation has been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
the proposal for public consultation does not reflect the views of the public	the council there is a low reputational risk that council may be perceived negatively in terms of the review process and engagement to date (for example, being unresponsive to stakeholder views).	Public opportunity to provide feedback through a variety of engagement methods, including online, by phone, in-person and to an appointed Bylaw Panel. Feedback will be considered before a final decision is made.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

56. If approved, the next steps are shown in the diagram below:

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Proposed updates to the council cemetery and crematorium bylaw
b ⇨	2024 Statutory Bylaw Review and Options Report
c ⇨	Local Board views

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Osborne – Senior Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Wilson – Senior Policy Manager

Louise Mason – General Manager Policy

Rachel Kelleher – Director Community

Regulatory and Safety Committee

03 December 2024

Proposed changes to council dog policy and bylaw

File No.: CP2024/16785

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on the preferred option in response to the review of Auckland Council’s policy and bylaw on dogs.

2. To seek a recommendation to the Governing Body that it adopt for public consultation, a proposal to amend both the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2019.

3. To appoint two Regulatory and Safety Committee members and invite one Houkura / Independent Māori Statutory Board representative to a Policy and Bylaw Panel.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4. In July 2024, the Regulatory and Safety Committee requested options and a proposal for improvements in response to the findings from a review of Auckland Council’s Policy and Bylaw on dogs (RSCCC/2024/47).

5. Staff used the review findings, additional information, and engagement with local boards, the Seniors and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panels and mana whenua to complete the options report (Attachment B) and proposal (Attachment A).

6. The options report focuses on whether to confirm or amend the Policy and to confirm, amend, replace, or revoke the Bylaw.

7. Staff recommend that the committee agree that the most appropriate option is to:

· amend the current Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 (Policy)

· amend the current Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2019 (Bylaw).

8. The proposal in Attachment A gives effect to the recommended option. The main proposals include:

· setting a limit to the number of dogs a person may ‘walk’ in council-controlled public places

· improve structural problems with dog access rules on Regional Parks

· clarify the policy to neuter classified dogs and who can provide a behavioural assessment

· clarify residential properties where a licence is required to keep multiple dogs

· clarify some Auckland-wide rules

· updating access rules on Tūpuna Maunga.

9. Staff seek a recommendation from the Regulatory and Safety Committee that the Governing Body adopt the proposal for public consultation.

10. Taking this approach will commence the process to limit walking multiple dogs, update dog access rules of regional significance and make the Policy and Bylaw easier to understand.

11. There is a medium reputational risk that people may express concern about the options or proposal. These risks are mitigated by communicating the opportunity for public feedback.

12. Adoption of the proposal by the Governing Body will start the statutory public consultation process. The public will be invited to provide feedback from Monday 20 January to Sunday 23 February 2025. A Policy and Bylaw Panel will consider public feedback and local board views on feedback and make recommendations to the Governing Body in mid-2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that in July 2024, Auckland Council completed a statutory review of the Auckland Council’s Kaupapa no ngā Kurī | Policy on Dogs 2019 and Ture ā Rohe Tiakina Kurī | Dog Management Bylaw 2019 (RSCCC/2024/47).

b) whakaae / agree that Option 2, to amend both the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019, is the most appropriate option to respond to the findings of the statutory review completed in July 2024.

c) tūtohungia / recommend that the Governing Body whai / adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report for public consultation using the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative procedure:

i) to amend the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019

ii) to amend the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2019.

d) tūtohungia / recommend that the Governing Body whakaū / confirm that the proposed amended Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019:

i) has regard to matters in section 10(4) of that Dog Control Act 1996

ii) is the most appropriate form of bylaw

iii) does not give rise to any implications under, and is not inconsistent with, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

e) tūtohungia / recommend that the Governing Body tautapa / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report and Policy on Dogs 2019 to correct errors or omissions (including errors in the migration of dog access rules into the Policy adopted in GB/2019/71), insert maps or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory and Safety Committee or the Governing Body.

f) kopou / appoint a chair and one member selected from the Governing Body and invite Houkura / the Independent Māori Statutory Board to appoint one representative to form a Policy and Bylaw Panel to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events where appropriate, hear local board views on public feedback and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report.

g) tautapa / delegate authority to the Regulatory and Safety Committee chair to make replacement appointments to the Policy and Bylaw Panel if a panel member is unavailable.

h) tautapa / delegate authority through the Chief Executive to a manager responsible for bylaws to:

i) appoint staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events

ii) make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A of this agenda report to correct errors or omissions, insert maps or to reflect decisions made by the Regulatory and Safety Committee.

Horopaki

Context

The Policy and Bylaw aims to keep dogs as a positive part of the lives of Aucklanders

13. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires Auckland Council to have a policy on dogs and a bylaw to give effect to it by specifying rules that dog owners must comply with.

14. The Auckland Council’s Kaupapa no ngā Kurī / Policy on Dogs 2019 (Policy) and Ture ā Rohe Tiakina Kurī / Dog Management Bylaw 2019 (Bylaw) were originally made in 2012 (GB/2012/157). In 2019, the Policy was amended, and the Bylaw replaced (GB/2019/71).

15. Council’s objective is ‘to keep dogs as a positive part of the lives of Aucklanders’ by:

· maintaining opportunities for owners to take their dogs into public places

· adopting measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs (including by promoting responsible dog ownership)

· protecting dogs from harm and ensuring their welfare.

A review found a policy and bylaw is still required but there could be improvements

16. The Regulatory Committee (RSCCC/2023/40) initiated a statutory review of the Policy and Bylaw to determine if they were still ‘fit for purpose’.

17. The scope of the review covered council’s overall approach to dog management and structural problems with dog access rules on regional parks. This included council’s objective, key focus areas and actions, the matters to be regulated in a bylaw and whether dogs classified as menacing should be neutered.

18. The review of structural problems with local dog access rules were considered separately by local boards. Public consultation on any proposed changes to local dog access rules will be combined with consultation on any proposed changes in this report.

19. Staff carried out research and engagement against statutory criteria to complete a findings report. This included engagement with internal and external stakeholders, local boards, the Senior’s and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and a public survey.

20. The Regulatory and Safety Committee endorsed the findings report and completed the statutory review on 2 July 2024 (RSCCC/2024/47). See box below for key determinations.

Key determinations from a statutory review of Auckland Council’s Dog Policy and Bylaw

That the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee agree that the statutory review of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019 is complete, including that:

i) the Policy and Bylaw have helped (and a bylaw is still the most appropriate way) to address the risk of danger, distress, nuisance, damage and risk of not meeting the needs of dogs and their owners from irresponsible dog ownership and the inherent conflict between users of shared spaces in Auckland.

ii) the current Bylaw does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

iii) the current Policy and Bylaw (and associated delegations) could be improved, including to:

A) investigate if additional rules are required to ‘walk’ multiple dogs in shared spaces

B) address regional park dog access rules that impact responsible dog owners or cause conflict

C) make the Policy and Bylaw easier to read, understand and administer

D) update and remove duplicated, inconsistent, and redundant delegations.

The committee decided to request an options report and proposal for improvements

21. The Regulatory and Safety Committee, in response to the findings at the same meeting on 2 July 2024, requested an options report and proposal on improvements (RSCCC/2024/47).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The findings report was used to develop an options report and proposal for improvements

22. Staff developed options in the ‘2024 Review Options Report: Auckland Council Policy and Bylaw on Dogs 2019’ in Attachment B. This included using information in the findings report, completing a further investigation about walking multiple dogs and updating information on dog-related injuries in Auckland from studies that looked at the impact of dogs at home and in public spaces. Options were then developed for each of the five topics in the findings and assessed against criteria.

23. Staff then developed a proposal for public consultation to give effect to the recommended option for each topic in the ‘Proposed updates to the dog policy and bylaw’ in Attachment A. This included seeking the views of staff across council and local boards.

24. Relevant Dog Control Act 1996 and Local Government Act 2002 criteria was applied to the options and proposal, to comply with statutory requirements.

The problem, objective and outcome relates to dog management

25. Based on the findings report, the problem, objective and outcome can be defined as follows:

Current and future problem	Objective	Outcome sought

Risk of danger and distress to people, stock, poultry, domestic animals and protected wildlife, nuisance to people, damage to property and environment and not meeting the needs of dogs and their owner from irresponsible dog ownership and the inherent conflict between users of shared spaces in Auckland.	To minimise the risk of danger and distress to people, stock, poultry, domestic animals and protected wildlife, nuisance to people, damage to property and environment and not meeting the needs of dogs and their owners from irresponsible dog ownership and the inherent conflict between users of shared spaces in Auckland.	Aucklanders are happy and healthy with access to public places that cares for the natural environment and cultural heritage.

Four options were identified and assessed in response to the findings for five topics

26. Staff identified the following four options in response to the review findings that could be applied to each of the five topics contained in the findings report:

· Option 1 (Confirm) – Retain current Policy and Bylaw (status quo)

· Option 2 (Amend) – Amend Policy and / or Bylaw (may include sub-options)

· Option 3 (Replace) – Replace current Bylaw with a new Bylaw

· Option 4 (Revoke) – Revoke current Bylaw.

27. Staff carried out a comparative assessment of the two most reasonably practicable options (Options 1 and 2)[11] for each topic against criteria. This included a description of each option as it relates to the topic (including any improvements identified in the findings report), how it would be implemented, its effectiveness, efficiency, validity, and risks to minimise the problem and recommendation.

28. The table below provides a summary of the assessment of the two most reasonably practicable options contained in the Attachment B.

Topic	Option	Effectiveness	Efficiency	Validity	Recommended option
Approach to dog management in Auckland (Topic 1)	Option 1 (Confirm)	û	û	ü	Option 2 (Amend)
Approach to dog management in Auckland (Topic 1)	Option 2 (Amend)	ü	ü	ü	Option 2 (Amend)
Approach to managing dog access rules in shared spaces (Topic 2)	Option 1 (Confirm)	û	û	ü	Option 2 (Amend)
	Option 2 (Amend)	ü	ü	ü	Option 2 (Amend)
Region-wide dog access rules (Topic 3)	Option 1 (Confirm)	û	û	ü	Option 2 (Amend)
Region-wide dog access rules (Topic 3)	Option 2 (Amend)	ü	ü	ü	Option 2 (Amend)
Regional Park dog access rules (Topic 4)	Option 1 (Confirm)	û	û	ü	Option 2 (Amend)
Regional Park dog access rules (Topic 4)	Option 2 (Amend)	ü	ü	ü	Option 2 (Amend)
Walking multiple dogs (Topic 5)	Option 1 (Confirm)	ü	ü	ü	Option 2 (Amend)
Walking multiple dogs (Topic 5)	Option 2B (Amend)	üü	üü	ü	Option 2 (Amend)

Key: ‘ü’ and ‘û’ reflect the impact of the option against each criterion relative to other options.

Option Two to amend the Policy and Bylaw is recommended for all topics

29. Based on the assessment of options for each of the five topics, staff recommend Option 2, to amend the current Policy and Bylaw for all topics.

30. Taking this approach would:

· better achieve the outcome of keeping dogs a positive part of the lives of Aucklanders

· address the problems caused by taking dogs into public places and adopt measures to minimise the problems, protect dogs from harm and ensure their welfare.

· improve public understanding of the Policy and Bylaw as they would be easier to understand and comply with and align with best practice drafting standards (for example by removing repetition, duplication and unnecessary detail).

31. Other options would not address the findings that the Policy and Bylaw are in general ‘fit for purpose’ but could be improved. Options 1 (Confirm) does not make any improvements, Option 4 (Revoke) removes a still needed bylaw and Option 3 (Replace) is unnecessary.

The proposal improves our approach to dog management in Auckland

32. Staff have drafted a Statement of Proposal in Attachment A to give effect to the recommended options for each of the five topics, that includes:

· amending the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019

· amending the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2019.

33. The main proposals are contained in the Table below.

Main proposals	Reasons for proposal
Set a limit to the number of dogs a person may ‘walk’ in a council-controlled public place at one time (maximum of six dogs of which no more than three may be under control off a leash at any one time).	· Set an upper limit to minimise nuisance and distress to public, while still providing for the needs of dogs and their owners. · Rule easy to understand and comply with.
Auckland Botanic Gardens · Change the off-leash area to align with the current signposted off-leash boundaries, to provide for temporary changes for events and to transition to on-leash as parts of the off-leash area are developed in accordance with the Gardens Master Plan. · Prohibit dogs from waterways. · Prohibit dogs from the Huakaiwaka Visitor centre, Café area (except the western café terrace), designated food concession areas and Potter Children’s Garden. · Clarify rules in other areas.	· Minimise increasing risks to people in current off-leash area, risks of damage to natural habitat around waterways and risks to people (in particular children) in high-risk areas. · Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.
Hunua Ranges Regional Park · Prohibit dogs from tracks and roads that connect to the Kohukohunui track, the Kokako Management Area and Piggott’s Habitat and on single use mountain bike tracks (currently on-leash).	· Creates a buffer to protect endangered wildlife in Kokako Management Area and Piggott’s Habitat. · Minimise risks to mountain bikers on tracks specially for biking with no walking access and more technical terrain (e.g. steep, narrow, and bumpy course).
Long Bay Regional Park · Amend the summer daytime rule for the beach south of Vaughan Stream from on-leash to prohibited (off-leash access before 10am and after 5pm in summer and at any time in winter unchanged). · Clarify rules in other areas, including access to beach from southernmost carpark and prohibited tracks and bays.	· Minimise risks to people on beach at busy times consistent with other popular beaches. · Provide practical access from southernmost carpark near Beach Road to Long Bay Beach. · Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.
Mahurangi Regional Park · Prohibit dogs on Cudlip Point Loop Track (currently on-leash). · Allow dogs on-leash at all times at Scott Point (currently on-leash time and season). · Clarify rules in other areas (including dogs prohibited at Mahurangi Regional Park (East) and heritage grounds at Scott Point.	· Create a buffer to protect endangered species in areas accessed off the Loop Track, including in nearby Te Muri Estuary and stream. · Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.
Pākiri Regional Park · Prohibit dogs on the associated beach.	· Protect significant ecological area and critical habitat for endangered species such as fairy tern and New Zealand dotterel.
Shakespear Regional Park · Apply an on-leash time and season rule to the open grass areas between Army Bay and Okoramai Bay (currently off-leash). · Clarify rules in other areas (such as boundary of Army Bay and Okoramai Bay beaches, on-leash tracks and prohibited areas).	· Minimise risks to people at busy times in areas between Army Bay and Okoramai Bay and risks to wildlife in the Shakespear Open Sanctuary. · Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.
Tāpapakanga Regional Park · Provide off-leash access on beach and on-leash access on area between beach and car park at any time (currently prohibited during lambing season) · Clarify rules in other areas (such as prohibited at camping areas and bach, and during lambing).	· Provide more dog access in areas not used for farming. · Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.
Te Ārai Regional Park · Prohibit dogs on Forestry Beach (Te Ārai Beach South to Pakiri Beach) and associated coastal tracks. · Clarify access to off-leash area at disused quarry.	· Protect wildlife (including dotterels) on coastal areas between Te Arai and Pakiri. · Provide practical access from car park nearest the off-leash area in quarry.
Waitawa Regional Park · Change eastern part of Mataitai Beach from off-leash to on-leash (western part of beach to remain off-leash). · Change Waitawa Beach from off-leash to on-leash. · Prohibit dogs on single use mountain bike tracks. · Clarify other areas where dogs prohibited (such as farm paddocks during lambing, campground and bach).	· Minimise risks to people in area of Mataitai Beach close to the busy community area (BBQ stations, picnic and car parking areas), risk of conflict with horses on Waitawa Beach and risks to mountain bikers on tracks specially for biking with no walking access and more technical terrain (steep, narrow and bumpy). · Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.
Whakanewha Regional Park · Provide on-leash access on tracks from Omiha (Rocky Bay) to the on-leash area of the Park.	· Provides a more direct route for local residents to access the main on-leash area in the Park using the westernmost tracks nearest Omiha currently prohibited to dogs.
Ambury, Muriwai, Tāwharanui and Wenderholm regional parks · Clarify current rules (no change to dog access).	· Easier for park visitors to understand and follow and for staff to administer.
Reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content, including: · using a goal, focus area, action and rule structure · clarifying the policy to neuter classified dogs and who can provide behavioural assessments · clarifying approach to setting dog access rules · clarifying Auckland-wide dog access rules such as for council carparks and camping grounds, working dogs, dogs in vehicles and private ways · clarifying or correcting errors in Schedule 2 dog access rules · removing outdated information in Schedule 2 dog access rules for example outdated landmarks · updating dog access rules on Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains) · removing Bylaw content that is covered in the Policy or is outdated.	· Improve certainty of council’s approach to dog management and Bylaw rules. · Make the Policy and Bylaw easier to read, understand and enforce. · Update information. · Remove unnecessary duplication.

Main proposals

Reasons for proposal

Set a limit to the number of dogs a person may ‘walk’ in a council-controlled public place at one time (maximum of six dogs of which no more than three may be under control off a leash at any one time).

· Set an upper limit to minimise nuisance and distress to public, while still providing for the needs of dogs and their owners.

· Rule easy to understand and comply with.

Auckland Botanic Gardens

· Change the off-leash area to align with the current signposted off-leash boundaries, to provide for temporary changes for events and to transition to on-leash as parts of the off-leash area are developed in accordance with the Gardens Master Plan.

· Prohibit dogs from waterways.

· Prohibit dogs from the Huakaiwaka Visitor centre, Café area (except the western café terrace), designated food concession areas and Potter Children’s Garden.

· Clarify rules in other areas.

· Minimise increasing risks to people in current off-leash area, risks of damage to natural habitat around waterways and risks to people (in particular children) in high-risk areas.

· Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.

Hunua Ranges Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs from tracks and roads that connect to the Kohukohunui track, the Kokako Management Area and Piggott’s Habitat and on single use mountain bike tracks (currently on-leash).

· Creates a buffer to protect endangered wildlife in Kokako Management Area and Piggott’s Habitat.

· Minimise risks to mountain bikers on tracks specially for biking with no walking access and more technical terrain (e.g. steep, narrow, and bumpy course).

Long Bay Regional Park

· Amend the summer daytime rule for the beach south of Vaughan Stream from on-leash to prohibited (off-leash access before 10am and after 5pm in summer and at any time in winter unchanged).

· Clarify rules in other areas, including access to beach from southernmost carpark and prohibited tracks and bays.

· Minimise risks to people on beach at busy times consistent with other popular beaches.

· Provide practical access from southernmost carpark near Beach Road to Long Bay Beach.

· Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.

Mahurangi Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on Cudlip Point Loop Track (currently on-leash).

· Allow dogs on-leash at all times at Scott Point (currently on-leash time and season).

· Clarify rules in other areas (including dogs prohibited at Mahurangi Regional Park (East) and heritage grounds at Scott Point.

· Create a buffer to protect endangered species in areas accessed off the Loop Track, including in nearby Te Muri Estuary and stream.

· Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.

Pākiri Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on the associated beach.

· Protect significant ecological area and critical habitat for endangered species such as fairy tern and New Zealand dotterel.

Shakespear Regional Park

· Apply an on-leash time and season rule to the open grass areas between Army Bay and Okoramai Bay (currently off-leash).

· Clarify rules in other areas (such as boundary of Army Bay and Okoramai Bay beaches, on-leash tracks and prohibited areas).

· Minimise risks to people at busy times in areas between Army Bay and Okoramai Bay and risks to wildlife in the Shakespear Open Sanctuary.

· Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.

Tāpapakanga Regional Park

· Provide off-leash access on beach and on-leash access on area between beach and car park at any time (currently prohibited during lambing season)

· Clarify rules in other areas (such as prohibited at camping areas and bach, and during lambing).

· Provide more dog access in areas not used for farming.

· Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.

Te Ārai Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on Forestry Beach (Te Ārai Beach South to Pakiri Beach) and associated coastal tracks.

· Clarify access to off-leash area at disused quarry.

· Protect wildlife (including dotterels) on coastal areas between Te Arai and Pakiri.

· Provide practical access from car park nearest the off-leash area in quarry.

Waitawa Regional Park

· Change eastern part of Mataitai Beach from off-leash to on-leash (western part of beach to remain off-leash).

· Change Waitawa Beach from off-leash to on-leash.

· Prohibit dogs on single use mountain bike tracks.

· Clarify other areas where dogs prohibited (such as farm paddocks during lambing, campground and bach).

· Minimise risks to people in area of Mataitai Beach close to the busy community area (BBQ stations, picnic and car parking areas), risk of conflict with horses on Waitawa Beach and risks to mountain bikers on tracks specially for biking with no walking access and more technical terrain (steep, narrow and bumpy).

· Rules easier to understand and follow and staff to administer.

Whakanewha Regional Park

· Provide on-leash access on tracks from Omiha (Rocky Bay) to the on-leash area of the Park.

· Provides a more direct route for local residents to access the main on-leash area in the Park using the westernmost tracks nearest Omiha currently prohibited to dogs.

Ambury, Muriwai, Tāwharanui and Wenderholm regional parks

· Clarify current rules (no change to dog access).

· Easier for park visitors to understand and follow and for staff to administer.

Reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content, including:

· using a goal, focus area, action and rule structure

· clarifying the policy to neuter classified dogs and who can provide behavioural assessments

· clarifying approach to setting dog access rules

· clarifying Auckland-wide dog access rules such as for council carparks and camping grounds, working dogs, dogs in vehicles and private ways

· clarifying or correcting errors in Schedule 2 dog access rules

· removing outdated information in Schedule 2 dog access rules for example outdated landmarks

· updating dog access rules on Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)

· removing Bylaw content that is covered in the Policy or is outdated.

· Improve certainty of council’s approach to dog management and Bylaw rules.

· Make the Policy and Bylaw easier to read, understand and enforce.

· Update information.

· Remove unnecessary duplication.

The proposal complies with statutory requirements

34. The proposal has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements to:

· help minimise the risk of danger and distress to people, stock, poultry, domestic animals and protected wildlife, nuisance to people, damage to property and environment and not meeting the needs of dogs and their owners from irresponsible dog ownership and the inherent conflict between users of shared spaces in Auckland

· be authorised by the Dog Control Act 1996 and Local Government Act 2002

· have regard to matters in section 10(4) of that Act

· not conflict with other New Zealand legislation (not repugnant)[12] and be reasonable

· not give rise to any implications under and not be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

· use the Local Government Act 2002 special consultative procedure in accordance with section 10(8) of the Dog Control Act 1996 for the Policy and council’s significance and engagement policy for bylaws likely to generate a high degree of public interest.

Policy and Bylaw related delegations can be updated as an internal matter

35. The review findings identified the need to update delegations for policy and bylaw administration. These administrative matters can be updated as an internal matter.

Staff recommend the Regulatory and Safety Committee commence the process to adopt the proposal

36. Staff recommend the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

· agree with the recommended options for each of the five topics.

· appoint two Governing Body members (including a chair) and invite one Houkura / the Independent Māori Statutory Board representative to a Policy and Bylaw Panel to attend ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate, hear local board views and make recommendations to the Governing Body on public feedback to the proposal.

· delegate authority to staff to receive public feedback at ‘Have Your Say’ events as appropriate or in case a Panel member cannot attend.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37. The Policy and Bylaw do not directly address the climate change goals in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan. For example, the Policy and Bylaw focuses more on keeping dogs as a positive part of the lives of Aucklanders.

38. There are no implications for climate change arising from decisions sought in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39. The Policy and Bylaw impacts the Animal Management, Biodiversity and Natural Environment units who have participated in the review findings and suggested improvements to the Policy and Bylaw.

40. Relevant staff input was sought to inform the proposed changes, and staff are aware of the impacts of the changes and their implementation role.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

41. The Policy and Bylaw impact local governance and are of high interest (8028 public submissions in 2019).

42. A Joint Working Group (that included local board members) considered options in response to the findings for each topic and recommended the preferred options in this report.[13]

43. Staff sought the views of all local boards on draft proposed changes in October 2024. Local boards generally supported the proposed changes but had varying views on walking multiple dogs (Attachment C), including a number suggesting the investigation of licencing commercial dog walkers.

44. Staff further investigated an option to licence commercial dog walkers. The licensing option and local board views were then considered by the Joint Working Group who did not recommend any changes to the proposal.

45. The Table below summarises the local board feedback in the context of the proposal.

Local board feedback	Recommended response
Concerned about proposed limit on walking multiple dogs. · 3 support · 7 support a different limit[14] · 8 do not support · 4 do not clearly support or oppose.[15]	Proposal balances the requirements of Section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996 which requires council to have regard to the: · need to minimise distress and nuisance · use of public places without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs · needs of dogs and their owner Proposal sets an upper limit that is proportionate to the evidence.
Investigate licensing of Commercial Dog Walkers (13).	No change to the proposal. Licensing: · unlikely to mitigate distress and nuisance to members of the public who encounter people walking high numbers of multiple dogs · unlikely to minimise the significant risk that a person will be unable to control different combinations of high numbers of multiple dogs at all times in unpredictable settings (for example a local park) · no change in enforcement powers as enforcement still relies on the ability to identify offenders and the increase in penalties is not significant ($300 for failure to hold a licence instead of $200 for failure to control dogs) · additional cost to council to establish system and fees, and cost of fees and charges to affected dog owners and commercial dog walkers to fund the cost of a system · no recognized qualification, accreditation, or way of ensuring that people are experienced in walking multiple dogs before they are allowed in a public place.
General support for proposed changes to Regional Parks with additional suggestions.	No change to the proposal for regional parks, noting that local boards will have further opportunity to comment on public feedback to proposed changes before a final decision is made.
General support for proposal to reorganize, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content with suggestions.	No change to the proposal, noting some suggestions are addressed through current practices.

46. Other feedback focussed on operational matters[16] and public consultation[17] that will be referred to the relevant council department where appropriate.

47. Local boards will have further opportunity to provide their views on public feedback to the proposal formally by resolution, and to the Policy and Bylaw Panel, in mid-2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48. The Policy and Bylaw support manaakitanga, whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga in the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Schedule of Issues of Significance by providing regulations that help protect people and the environment from harm caused by dogs.

49. Feedback from Ngati Manuhiri support prohibiting dogs at Te Ārai South as several endangered species and vulnerable flora systems require care and protection there.

50. Staff will further engage with mana whenua during public consultation to ensure Māori are able to provide their views on any proposed improvements.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

51. The cost of the public consultation and implementation of the proposal (if adopted) will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

52. The following risks and risk mitigations have been identified:

If...	Then...	Mitigation
stakeholders or the public are concerned about suggested improvements and engagement to date	there may be a negative perception of the council about its review process and consultation to date and moving forward (Medium reputational risk).	Clearly communicate that no decision is being made at this stage and that stakeholder and the public feedback on any proposed improvements will be sought and considered before a final decision is made.
stakeholders or the public expect a review of local dog access rules	there might be concerns about the completeness and validity of the review (medium reputational risk).	Clearly communicate the review finding that in general most local dog access rules are ‘fit for purpose’ and that improvements to specific rules will be considered by the relevant local board alongside this proposal.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53. If approved, the next steps are shown in the diagram below:

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Proposed updates to the dog policy and bylaw
b ⇨	2024 Review Options Report: Auckland Council Policy and Bylaw on Dogs 2019
c ⇨	Local Board views

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill – Principal Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson – Senior Policy Manager

Louise Mason – General Manager Policy

Rachel Kelleher – Director Community

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Resource Consent Appeals as at 18 November 2024

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Regulatory and Safety Committee Forward Work Programme - 3 December 2024
b ⇨	Letter to Hon Chris Bishop, Minister for Housing, from Cr Josephine Bartley regarding boarding house register
c ⇨	Response letter from Chris Bishop, Minister for Housing, to Cr Bartley regarding boarding house regulation
d ⇨	Letter to Ministers Brown and van Velden regarding support for significant dog issues

Regulatory and Safety Committee

03 December 2024

Objection to stormwater works at 78 Onewa Road

File No.: CP2024/17879

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine an objection to proposed stormwater works at 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane, Northcote, pursuant to section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A developer has obtained approval from the council to connect a new development at 78 Onewa Road to the public stormwater manhole that is located within the shared accessway of 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane.

3. The proposed works involve the construction of a 25-metre long 200mm diameter stormwater pipe below the shared accessway of 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane (see Attachment A – Engineering Planning Approval). The work is estimated to take up to two weeks. Once constructed, this pipe will be vested in the council as a public stormwater asset.

4. The owner/s of 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane have refused the developer access to their property for this purpose.

5. A site inspection and assessment for the pipe considered the following alternative options:

· option one: extending the public network from the shared accessway of 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane (recommended option)

· option two: extending the public network from 24 Bush View Lane, Northcote

· option three: extending the public network from 2/78A Onewa Road, Northcote

· option four: do nothing.

6. Council staff have determined that the works constitute necessary public stormwater works and that option four (do nothing) is not viable. Council has issued a notice under Section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 informing the landowners of its intention to construct the works as a council project in option one.

7. The landowners of 10 Bush View Lane have lodged a written objection to the works, on the grounds that the works will affect the owner’s ‘comfortability’ and access to drive vehicles in and out of their property (see Attachment B).

8. The landowners of 12 and 14 Bush View Lane have lodged a written objection to the works, on the following grounds:

· that the stormwater on Bush View Lane will worsen in any future rain events if additional properties are connected into the stormwater line.

9. The landowners voice an expectation that if works proceed despite their objection, then:

· that they require unrestrained access to and from their properties and that the works will be safe for children

· they work from home, and they are concerned about noise levels

· all aspects of the stormwater in Bush View Lane shall be council owned and maintained

· any damage to the lane or the properties will be remedied and paid for by the council.

10. This report recommends that the Regulatory and Safety Committee resolve that council proceeds with the proposed public stormwater works in option one for the approved consented development at 78 Onewa Road which affect 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane Northcote.

11. If the Regulatory and Safety Committee determines that the works should proceed, construction will begin as soon as possible (weather dependent). It is proposed that the pipe will be installed by horizonal directional drilling, which is a trenchless methodology designed to minimise disruption caused by construction. The works will take approximately 10 days to complete.

12. It has been explained to all the affected property owners that they have the right to claim injurious affection (if established) under the Public Works Act 1981.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) hear and determine the objections by the owners of 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the staff recommendation is to whakatau / resolve that Auckland Council will proceed with the extension of the public stormwater network from 78 Onewa Road (as shown in Attachment A – approved engineering plans), according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

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

13. Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience department is responsible for managing and maintaining the public stormwater network in Auckland, much of which is located on private land.

14. Section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 empowers the council to ‘construct works on or under private land or under a building on private land that it considers necessary for sewage and stormwater drainage’.

15. Such works require either the prior written consent of the owner of the land, or that the council follows the process set out in Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

16. Schedule 12 requires that affected owners and occupiers are provided with a description of the proposed works, including plans, and are given the opportunity to object to the works within one month of notification.

17. If an objection is made, a hearing must be arranged. After hearing objections, the council must then determine to either abandon the works proposed, or proceed with the works proposed, with or without any alterations that the council thinks fit.

Enabling stormwater management on 78 Onewa Road, Northcote.

18. A developer has been granted resource consent by Auckland Council’s Resource Consents department to develop a property at 78 Onewa Road. A condition of that resource consent is that the new development connects to the public stormwater system.

19. The developer has obtained engineering approval to connect the subdivision to the existing public stormwater network located within the shared accessway of 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane, refer to Attachment A. It is proposed that the connecting pipe will be drilled from the development site of 78 Onewa Road, under the shared access of 14 Bush View Lane, to the new manhole over the existing line between 10 and 12 Bush View Lane. A minor excavation is required to install the new manhole.

20. Staff propose that a new 200mm diameter stormwater pipe be directionally drilled from 78 Onewa Road to connect to the existing line within the shared accessway of 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane.

21. Excavation and concrete / asphalt cutting will be required around the proposed new manhole location as per the drawings in Attachment A.

22. The new pipe, once connected to the stormwater network, will be vested in Auckland Council as a public stormwater asset to be owned and maintained by Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience.

Objections received from landowners at 10, 12 and 14 Bush Lane

23. The owners of 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane have refused to allow the developer to connect to the stormwater network via their property. The developer applied to the council to undertake the proposed project as a public project under the Local Government Act 2002.

24. Engagement by the developer with the affected residents commenced in June 2021. The council then assessed the developer’s works (as detailed below) and determined that the works were necessary public works, and that they would undertake the works as a council project under the powers of the Local Government Act 2002. This enables public works to be undertaken on private land without the owner’s consent, provided the requirements of the Act are met.

25. The council issued a notice of their intention to construct the works to the affected landowners under section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 on 20 September 2024.

26. Following the issue of this notice, the council has continued to communicate with the landowners.

27. Pursuant to schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, the landowners had until 25 October 2024 to formally object to the Section 181 notice. Objections were received on 27 September 2024 (10 Bush View Lane), 2 October 2024 (14 Bush View Lane) and 21 October 2024 (12 Bush View Lane).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

28. The council is empowered to construct works on private land that it considers necessary for stormwater drainage. When determining the best option, the council looks at a range of possible options to achieve the required stormwater outcomes for the public good, and at the same time, to carefully balance any impacts on individual property owners.

29. The council analysed four alternative alignments for connecting the development at 78 Onewa Road, Northcote to the public stormwater system (see Attachment C).

30. These options were:

· option one: extending the public network from the shared accessway of 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane (recommended option)

· option two: extending the public network from 24 Bush View Lane, Northcote

· option three: extending the public network from 2/78A Onewa Road, Northcote

· option four: do nothing.

31. The four options were analysed against relevant criteria as shown below in Table 1.

Table 1. Analysis of alignment options against various criteria

	Option one Extend public network 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane. Yellow in Attachment D)	Option two Extend public network 24 Bush View Lane. Blue in Attachment D	Option three Extend public network 2/78A Onewa Road. Pink in Attachment D	Do nothing
Interference with existing services	Minor	Minor	Minor	Not applicable
Disruption to property owners	Minor	Major	Minor	Not applicable
Cost	$	$$	$	Not applicable
Route to existing stormwater network	Less direct (Approx 25 m)	Least direct (Approx 75 m)	Most direct (Approx 6 m)	Not applicable
Ability for third-party properties to connect to proposed infrastructure	N/A	N/A	N/A	Not applicable
Access for future maintenance	Easy	Difficult	Easy	Not applicable
Duplication of existing stormwater infrastructure	No	No	No	Not applicable
Impact on development potential	No	No	No	Not applicable
Constructability risk	Medium	High	Medium	Not applicable
Compliance with Stormwater Code of Practice	Yes	Yes	No	Poor

Most positive

Moderately positive

Moderately negative

Most negative

Key

Analysing options for stormwater management on 78 Onewa Road

32. Option one as demonstrated by the weightings set out in Table 1 above, is the preferred option for the following reasons:

· the route does not interfere with any existing services

· the location of the works does not affect any existing structures on the landowners’ properties, resulting in minimal disturbance

· the land proposed to be crossed is a driveway and not land that could be developed for housing or other structures

· the route does not duplicate existing stormwater infrastructure.

33. In addition to these factors, Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience engineers have determined that option one can be constructed using a trenchless method, which would have minimal impact on the affected property owners.

34. Option two has not been considered as the preferred alignment option as it would require approximately 75m of piping, through to the public network on 24 Bush View Lane. This alignment would require an open-cut method due to the steepness of the surrounding terrain. Also, the reinstatement of an open-cut method in this area has been deemed extremely costly and the constructability has been deemed a higher risk. An open cut method would be highly disruptive to affected residents.

35. Option three has not been pursued as the preferred alignment option as it would require the installation of a manhole on 2/78A Onewa Road. The manhole level would be too high and a suitable level unachievable. Auckland Council staff assessed whether a ‘siphon system’ could be used instead, it was however identified that a siphon system would only be able to service approximately 10 per cent of the site area. To service the whole site, a stormwater tank and pump system would be required, which is against the stormwater code of practice and carries the potential risk of flooding during large rain events. This option would incur a minor disruption to affected residents.

36. Option four considers doing nothing. This would involve the council walking away from the situation and leaving the developer to continue to negotiate with the owner/s. This option is not supported, as it means the developer is likely to pursue option two. As described above, this option would mean higher risk in relation to constructability, future maintenance, remediation, and the impacts on affected owners.

Negotiating with the landowners

37. Negotiations with the landowners have been ongoing since June 2021. Negotiations were held directly between the developer and the landowners, with the council becoming involved from 22 August 2022 onwards. Once the council was involved, negotiations ceased, and stakeholder engagement became the primary focus.

38. The council has attempted to engage with the landowners to offer advice on the proposed works and to ensure any reasonable requests regarding the works could be met.

39. Attachment D shows the council’s response to the objection letter and the correspondence log.

Summary of objections received

40. Table 2 below details the grounds upon which the landowner objects to the works and Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience response:

Table 2. Summary of objections

Objection points	Response from Healthy Waters
10 Bush View Lane: · Comfortability · Accessibility for vehicles	· Access can be given at any time with very short notice to both pedestrians and vehicles, our contractors are highly experienced with this work and are able to stop work, put down large trench covers and allow for the required access over any potential excavations.
12 and 14 Bush View Lane: · Owners are concerned that flooding which occurred during the January 2023 Auckland rain event’s will be made worse during any future events due to the increase in stormwater connections into the line. *Conditions and concerns raised by landowners if works proceed:* · Requests that the stormwater within Bush View Lane become council property and all future maintenance be carried out by Auckland Council · Any damage to the lane structure/properties will be remedied and paid for by the council. · Property owners will have access to get in / out of their properties at any time and the site will be safe for four children. · Noise to be considered due to property owners working from home.	· The proposed pipe is the optimal stormwater solution for servicing the area in line with consents issued by the council. Our stormwater network has been designed to service 10-year rainfall event while the flood event from January 2023 far exceeded the capacity requirements set for the public pipe network. No flooding risk will increase due the proposed pipe installation. 41. Response to conditions and concerns raised: · The stormwater network within Bush View Lane is already a public network and is maintained by council, this does not, however, include the private catchpits which the 28 owners of Bush View Lane are required to maintain due to the private road status. · A pre and post works survey will be undertaken which allows Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience to accurately document any changes to the affected property. Any changes will be recorded and remedied to their pre-works condition. · As per 10 Bush View Lane’s objection, access can be granted at any time at short notice. All works are governed by Health and Safety Plans and work are predominantly below ground. · Contractors are ready to accommodate any requests, within reason, relating to work hours / timing and as long as prior notice is given, they can ensure any reasonable requested times throughout the day remain quiet.

Objection points

Response from Healthy Waters

10 Bush View Lane:

· Comfortability

· Accessibility for vehicles

· Access can be given at any time with very short notice to both pedestrians and vehicles, our contractors are highly experienced with this work and are able to stop work, put down large trench covers and allow for the required access over any potential excavations.

12 and 14 Bush View Lane:

· Owners are concerned that flooding which occurred during the January 2023 Auckland rain event’s will be made worse during any future events due to the increase in stormwater connections into the line.

Conditions and concerns raised by landowners if works proceed:

· Requests that the stormwater within Bush View Lane become council property and all future maintenance be carried out by Auckland Council

· Any damage to the lane structure/properties will be remedied and paid for by the council.

· Property owners will have access to get in / out of their properties at any time and the site will be safe for four children.

· Noise to be considered due to property owners working from home.

· The proposed pipe is the optimal stormwater solution for servicing the area in line with consents issued by the council. Our stormwater network has been designed to service 10-year rainfall event while the flood event from January 2023 far exceeded the capacity requirements set for the public pipe network. No flooding risk will increase due the proposed pipe installation.

41. Response to conditions and concerns raised:

· The stormwater network within Bush View Lane is already a public network and is maintained by council, this does not, however, include the private catchpits which the 28 owners of Bush View Lane are required to maintain due to the private road status.

· A pre and post works survey will be undertaken which allows Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience to accurately document any changes to the affected property. Any changes will be recorded and remedied to their pre-works condition.

· As per 10 Bush View Lane’s objection, access can be granted at any time at short notice. All works are governed by Health and Safety Plans and work are predominantly below ground.

· Contractors are ready to accommodate any requests, within reason, relating to work hours / timing and as long as prior notice is given, they can ensure any reasonable requested times throughout the day remain quiet.

Recommended stormwater management option

42. Staff recommend that construction of the proposed stormwater works proceed at 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane, Northcote as per option one in this report.

43. The works are necessary to enable development at 78 Onewa Road and to meet the council’s stormwater standards. Works are expected to take up to 10 days to complete, and staff will work with the landowners to ensure minimal disruption occurs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. Auckland Council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan on 21 July 2020. Some of the key elements of the plan include how we will adapt to climate change, taking a precautionary approach and preparing for our current emissions pathway and the prospect of a 3.5 degrees warmer region.

45. One of the expected consequences of rising global temperatures is increased and more intense rainfall. To contribute to increasing Auckland’s resilience to climate change, the Auckland Council Stormwater Code of Practice requires all new infrastructure to be designed to deal with these expected impacts and severe weather events.

46. The proposed pipe has been designed to cater for 10 per cent annual exceedance probability (one in 10-year average recurrence interval) storm events, including allowance for climate change. This has the effect of making the network more resilient to storm events and reducing the likelihood of flooding of properties.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47. Watercare and Auckland Transport assets will not be impacted by the proposed works if option one is undertaken.

48. The pipe once constructed will be vested in the council and will form part of the public stormwater network to be maintained by Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

49. The Kaipātiki Local Board has not been informed or consulted on the proposed stormwater works, as the pipe will be constructed on private land.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

50. The developer has not consulted local iwi on the proposed stormwater works outlined in this report.

51. Council staff notified iwi representatives of the proposed project through Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience monthly email of all active projects. Iwi representatives were asked to indicate whether they would like to be engaged on this project, however, no feedback has been received from iwi to date.

52. Improved water quality for Tāmaki Makaurau is a priority for mana whenua. The recommended option will contribute to a better functioning stormwater management system, reducing the impact of the development on water quality.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

53. The recommended option is the most cost effective for the council while complying with the Stormwater Code of Practise. If approved, the pipe will be constructed by the council, with costs of the works to be paid for by the developer upfront.

54. The council will be responsible for any proven injurious affection to private land pursuant to section 181(6) of the Local Government Act 2002, and the Public Works Act 1981. The likelihood of an injurious affection claim being brought is considered low, see Table 3.

55. To minimise any risk to council which may arise from a potential Injurious Affection claim, a $100,000 bond is held for up to two years from the developer following the completion of the works.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

56. Staff have undertaken a risk assessment as shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Risks and mitigations arising from option one: crossing land at 10, 12 and 14 Bush View Lane, Northcote

Risk	Likelihood and consequence	Mitigation
Legal risk – Objectors argue that this is in fact a private pipe and Auckland Council ought to use section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 instead of section 181 Local Government Act 2002.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	The pipe will be vested in the council once constructed and will form part of the public stormwater system which the council is responsible for maintaining. It is being built to the council’s standards for public stormwater infrastructure and will serve a wider catchment as the area develops further.
Financial risk – If the landowner appeals the Regulatory and Safety Committee’s decision, the council may become liable for the cost of defending a District Court case.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Low	Given that the Regulatory and Safety Committee and District Court’s decision-making discretion is limited only to questions of the works being necessary and compliance with legal process, and not matters of compensation, it is considered unlikely that an appeal would be brought. Even if it was, the risk of the council losing on appeal is considered low, due to the works being necessary, and the section 181 process being followed correctly. If the landowner is unsuccessful in any legal challenge, they may be liable to pay court costs.
Compensation - The landowners could seek injurious affection (if evidenced) through the Land Valuation Tribunal, arguing that the public works have reduced the value of their property.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Low	The potential for an injurious affection claim is considered low in this case for the following reasons: · the proposed pipe does not involve the taking of any land · the area affected by the works is a concrete driveway and the installation of this pipe would not impact any potential future development · the proposed methodology will cause minimal impact to the driveway which will be reinstated upon completion of the works · a $100,000 bond provided by the developer is held for up to two years following the completion of the works. If the landowners are unsuccessful, they will be liable to pay court costs.
Infrastructure risk - low quality assets being vested to the council.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	The works will be undertaken by an approved council contractor who will have in place sufficient insurances to cover the risk of failure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

57. If the Regulatory and Safety Committee determines to proceed with the project (under Schedule 12 clause 1(e)(ii)), the next step will be to notify the landowner in writing of the council’s intention to proceed with the works.

58. The landowner has up to 14 days to lodge a further appeal to the District Court. If this occurs, then the council’s legal team will support this process. If no appeal is lodged, the council would look to proceed with the works as soon as possible, with the works taking approximately 10 days to complete.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Engineering approved plans
b ⇨	Objections letters
c ⇨	Alternative alignment options
d ⇨	Correspondence log

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Thomas Parsons – Healthy Waters Specialist, Commercial & Property Team

Shaun McAuley – Commercial & Property Team Leader, Healthy Waters

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Resilience and Infrastructure

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

Regulatory and Safety Committee

03 December 2024

Determination of an objection against disqualification of a dog owner by Ms Suli Adimimfine

File No.: CP2024/16152

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine the objection by Ms Suli Adimimfine against her disqualification to own dogs pursuant to Section 25 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ms Adimimfine is the owner of a four-year-old male entire rottweiler called Cboi, and a three-year-old male entire rottweiler called Zeus.

3. Section 25(1)(a) and 25(3) of the DCA provide that a territorial authority must disqualify a person from being an owner of a dog for a period not exceeding five years if that person commits three or more infringement offences (not relating to a single incident or occasion) against the DCA within a continuous period of 24 months.

4. Between the period 26 November 2022 to 16 August 2024, Animal Management received 16 complaints about the dogs. Most of these complaints were about the dogs roaming. Arising from these complaints:

a) Cboi has been impounded five times

b) Zeus has been impounded four times

c) Ms Adimimfine was issued with 16 infringement notices for offending against the DCA. Some of these offences relate to a single incident or occasion.

5. Consequently, on 16 August 2024 Animal Management decided to disqualify her from owning dogs for a period of three years, commencing on 15 May 2024, and ending on
15 May 2027 (refer Attachment A).

6. The effect of the disqualification is that Ms Adimimfine:

a) may not own or be in possession of a dog at any time during the period of disqualification

b) must dispose of any dog owned by her

c) may not dispose of her dogs to a person who resides at the same address as her.

7. The purpose of disqualifying a person from owning dogs is to:

a) prevent re-offending that may cause a nuisance or harm to persons or animals by prohibiting the person from owning dogs

b) serve as a general deterrence to other dog owners

c) reinforce 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. This is in line with the purpose of the DCA to prevent harm and nuisance caused by dogs and is consistent with objectives of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019, page 2 to minimise problems caused by dogs.

9. On 21 August 2024, Ms Adimimfine objected to her disqualification on the following grounds (refer Attachment B):

a) The dogs had been left under the supervision of her elderly father during the day, while she was at work. Her father had failed to keep the dogs under control or to confine them within the property, that resulted in the infringement notices being issued to her.

b) Her father was no longer living with her, and she has taken steps to prevent the dogs from getting out from her property.

10. 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.

11. Ms Adimimfine has the right of appeal to the District Court if she is dissatisfied with the decision of the committee.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) kohuki / hear and determine the objection, and

b) whakaū / uphold the disqualification of Ms Suli Adimimfine for the period of three years from 15 May 2024 to 15 May 2027(recommended),

whakakore / revoke the disqualification of Ms Suli Adimimfine.

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

12. The Governing Body has delegated to the Regulatory and Safety Committee responsibility for hearing and determining objections under the DCA (resolution GB/2022/112 item 7, adopted on 17 November 2022).

13. 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 offences in respect of which
Ms Adimimfine was disqualified

14. Between the period 26 November 2022 to 16 August 2024, Animal Management received 16 complaints about Cboi and Zeus.

15. The jobs for these complaints are summarised in the table below.

No.	Date	RFS*	Offence Circumstances	Outcome
1	26/11/2022	8101164669	Cboi and Zeus roaming on the road. Cboi not registered for the registration period 2022 – 2023. Zeus not registered at all.	Formal warning issued under Section 20(5) of the DCA for failing to keep dogs under control on leash in public place contrary to Clause 7.1 of the Dog Management Bylaw 2019, page 7. Ms Adimimfine was educated about confinement of the dogs. Cboi and Zeus were registered on site for the registration period 2022 – 2023.
2	7/1/2023	8101190867	The complainant saw one of the rottweilers leaving her property at about 5am. At about 10am the complainant sighted both dogs entering Ms Adimimfine’s property.	Infringement notices 61000432525 and 61000432538 were issued under Section 53(2) of the DCA for failing to keep dogs under control.
3	26/2/2023	8101223697	Both dogs were roaming on the road on 25/2/2023 at about 9am. Ms Adimimfine explained that the dogs ran off when they were let out of the house.	Ms Adimimfine was informed that she needs to keep her dogs confined on her property. Infringement notices 61000434433 and 61000434417 were issued under Section 20(5) of the DCA for failing to keep dogs under control on leash in public place contrary to Clause 7.1 of the Dog Management Bylaw 2019, page 7.
4	5/3/2023	8101228408	Cboi was found at large on private property at about 10.45am.	Cboi was impounded and returned to Ms Adimimfine. The infringement notice 61000435863 was issued under Section 20(5) of the DCA for failing to keep Cboi under control on leash in public place contrary to Clause 7.1 of the Dog Management Bylaw 2019, page 7.
5	23/3/2023	8101240080	Zeus was seen at large on a private property at about 9.15am. The dog was barking aggressively at the complainant. Ms Adimimfine was not at home. She informed the animal management officer that she had left both dogs chained when she left home.	Infringement notice 61000446008 was issued under Section 52A(3) of the DCA for failing to keep Zeus confined or controlled.
6	11/6/2023	8101292443	One of the dogs was seen at large on a private property at about 4.30pm.	Refer to RFS 8101294770 below.
7	14/6/2023	8101294770	Both dogs seen at large on private property at about 10pm. Both dogs were reported as barking aggressively at the complainant. Ms Adimimfine explained that she was at hospital with a family emergency.	No enforcement action.
8	21/6/2023	8101298468	Both dogs were roaming from about 4.30am to about 6.30am. Ms Adimimfine explained that her children had let the dogs out.	Infringement notices 61000459193 and 61000459207 were issued under Section 20(5) of the DCA for failing to keep dogs under control on leash in a public place contrary to Clause 7.1 of the Dog Management Bylaw 2019, page 7.
9	22/2/2024	8101472971	Both dogs were seen roaming near a school at about 9.45am. The dogs were reported as being aggressive to the complainant’s dog. Both dogs were not registered for the registration period 2023 – 2024.	Both dogs were impounded on school grounds. Registration for both dogs was renewed. The dogs were returned to Ms Adimimfine.
10	26/2/2024	8101356528	Both dogs were seen roaming on school grounds at about 9.45am. An occupant at Ms Adimimfine’s property explained that dogs had escaped by jumping through the open window in the sunroom.	Both dogs were impounded and returned to Ms Adimimfine. No enforcement action was taken.
11	14/5/2024	8101530313	Both dogs were observed roaming by a patrolling animal management officer at about 1.45pm.	Both dogs were impounded and later returned to Ms Adimimfine. Infringement notices 61000541426 and 61000541405 were issued under Section 20(5) of the DCA for failing to keep dogs under control on leash in public place contrary to Clause 7.1 of the Dog Management Bylaw 2019, page 7.
12	28/7/2024	8101582207	Both dogs were seen roaming at about 12.30pm. The complainant returned the dogs to Ms Adimimfine who had been out looking for the dogs.	Infringement notices 61000566429 and 61000566437were issued under Section 53(2) of the DCA for failing to keep dogs under control.
13	11/8/2024	8101591306	Both dogs were reported roaming at about 10.30am. The dogs were observed roaming by the animal management officer. Neither dog was registered for the registration period 2024 – 2025.	Ms Adimimfine was warned to renew registration. Infringement notices 61000572933 and 61000572941 were issued under Section 20(5) of the DCA for failing to keep dogs under control on leash in public place contrary to Clause 7.1 of the Dog Management Bylaw 2019, page 7.
14	16/8/2024	8101594848	Both dogs were seen roaming at about 11.05am.	Refer to RFS 8101594920 below.
15	16/8/2024	8101594920	Both dogs were seen roaming at about 11.15am. The dogs were observed roaming by animal management officers at about 12pm and followed home.	The dogs were impounded and returned to Ms Adimimfine. Infringement notices 61000575282 and 61000575606 were issued under Section 20(5) of the DCA for failing to keep dogs under control on leash in public place contrary to Clause 7.1 of the Dog Management Bylaw 2019, page 7.
16	16/8/2024	8101594879	Both dogs were seen roaming at about 11.45pm.	Refer to RFS 8101594920 above.

*Request For Service number

Ms Adimimfine’s competency in terms of responsible dog ownership

16. Responsible dog ownership does not only involve the care and welfare of dogs, but also keeping them under control or confined to their property at all times so that they cannot cause a nuisance or be a safety risk to others.

17. It is accepted that in some of the above complaints the dogs had been left in the care of
Ms Adimimfine’s elderly father and that he had failed to control the dogs or to confine them within the property. This did not relieve Ms Adimimfine from her obligation to ensure that her father was a responsible person with skills and resources fit for the care of her dogs. Despite the many infringement notices issued to her, she failed to take alternative steps to ensure that her dogs were confined to her property.

18. The infringement notices issued to her in quick succession and the many impoundments of her dogs did not have the desired effect of deterrence.

19. Ms Adimimfine failed to register her dogs in due time for the registration periods 2022 – 2023, 2023 – 2024, and 2024 – 2025.

Any steps taken by Ms Adimimfine to prevent further offences

20. Ms Adimimfine’s father is no longer looking after the dogs.

21. Ms Adimimfine may address the committee about the control of her dogs when she is at work.

22. The property is fenced and the gate is padlocked. However, given the recurrent nature of the offending, her future willingness to comply with her obligations is questionable.

The matters advanced by Ms Adimimfine in support of her objection

23. These matters are discussed in paragraph 20 to 22 above.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. Public safety is at the heart of the DCA. For this reason, the purpose of disqualifying a person from owning a dog is to protect public safety by prohibiting a person to own dogs thereby preventing re-offending that may cause a nuisance or harm to persons or animals.

25. Disqualification from owning dogs has the added effect of:

a) reinforcing to a dog owner the consequences to their failure to comply with their obligations

b) acting as a general deterrent to other dog owners who are lacking responsibility to comply with their obligations

c) improving public safety by reducing events that have a likelihood of harm

26. 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.

27. The effect of Section 25 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.

28. It was decided to disqualify Ms Adimimfine for the following reasons:

a) she was educated on her obligations to keep her dogs confined and under control

b) her failure to ensure her dogs are under control and confined to her property has continued despite being issued with infringement notices and the dogs being impounded

c) her repeat offending shows a disregard of her obligations under the DCA.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29. 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

30. 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

31. The staff have not sought local board views because this report relates to statutory provisions on dog ownership.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. This is a report about dog ownership which has no direct impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. 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

34. The table below covers the risks and mitigations identified for this issue.

If…

Then…

Mitigation

If the disqualification is terminated by the committee.

· There may be a negative public perception around council’s ability to effectively influence dog ownership behaviours.

· This would be against the intention of the DCA.

Staff will continue to:

· respond to requests for service involving Ms Adimimfine’s dogs.

· educate her on her obligations under the DCA.

If the disqualification is upheld.

· There may be a financial implication if Ms Adimimfine decides to appeal the decision to the District Court.

The risk of the committee’s determination being overturned on appeal is low because of Ms Adimimfine’s significant repeat offending under the DCA and the consequent nuisance and harm her dogs may pose to the public.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. The committee must give Ms Adimimfine written notice of its decision and the reasons for it as soon as practical.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Notice of disqualification of dog owner
b ⇨	Objection to disqualification of dog owner

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Chrisna Nortje – Principal Specialist, Animal Management

Authorisers

Aaron Neary – Acting Manager Animal Management

Robert Irvine –- General Manager Licensing and Compliance

Rachel Kelleher – Director Community

Regulatory and Safety Committee

03 December 2024

Determination of an objection to a dangerous dog classification by Ms Sharon Reti

File No.: CP2024/18055

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and consider Ms Sharon Reti’s objection to her dog, Hunter, being classified as dangerous under Section 32 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Ms Reti is the owner of a three-year and seven-month-old male entire American Pit Bull Terrier called Hunter.

3. On 6 July 2023, Hunter attacked a visitor of a tenant at Ms Reti’s property in Westmere. The visitor was feeding Hunter when the attack occurred. The victim sustained serious injuries to her right hand that necessitated urgent medical intervention.

4. On 13 July 2023, Hunter was impounded and kept in retention pending the outcome of a prosecution under the DCA. Animal Management believed that Hunter’s release would threaten the safety of others.

5. During Hunter’s custody at the Henderson Animal Shelter:

a) the shelter staff noted their concern about his aggression towards them and dogs kept in the shelter

b) he showed signs of food aggression

c) he chewed and pulled back on of the bars on his kennel front

d) the veterinary service provider prescribed a daily dosage of medication to calm him and reduce his anxiety.

6. Prosecution under Section 58 of the DCA was commenced against Ms Reti for owning a dog that attacked a person causing serious injury. On 12 September 2024, the charge was withdrawn against Ms Reti because ownership of the dog at the time of the attack could not be proven.

7. Upon Hunter’s release on 18 September 2024, Hunter was classified as menacing by breed. This required Ms Reti to have Hunter desexed and to provide the council with a veterinary certificate as proof thereof within one month from receipt of the notice of classification.

8. Hunter was also classified as dangerous under Section 31 of the DCA. This is because reasonable grounds exist to believe that Hunter constitutes a threat to the safety of persons and dogs (refer Attachment A).

9. This is in line with the purpose of the DCA to prevent harm caused by dogs and is consistent with objectives of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019, page 2 to minimise problems caused by dogs.

10. Ms Reti is objecting to the dangerous classification on the basis that Hunter is a loving and loved pet who would not harm others (refer Attachment B).

11. Ms Reti:

a) does not reject that Hunter attacked the victim under the circumstances as described

b) acknowledges that Hunter has food aggression

c) is unable to deny that Hunter is suffering from severe anxiety.

12. Section 31(4) of the DCA determines that the Regulatory and Safety Committee (the committee) must hear the objection and may either uphold or rescind the classification.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Safety Committee:

a) kohuki / hear and determine the objection, and

b) whakaū / uphold the dangerous classification of Hunter (recommended),

whakakore / revoke the dangerous dog classification of Hunter.

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

Jurisdiction of the Regulatory and Safety Committee

13. The Governing Body has delegated to the Regulatory and Safety Committee responsibility for hearing and determining objections under the DCA (resolution GB/2022/112, item 7, adopted on 17 November 2022).

The Dog Control Act 1996

14. Section 31(1)(b) of the DCA provides that a dog must be classified as dangerous if there are reasonable grounds to believe, based on sworn evidence attesting to the aggressive behaviour by the dog on one or more occasions, that the dog constitutes a threat to the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife.

15. Section 32(1) requires the owner of the dog that is classified as dangerous, to:

a) within a month of service of the notice, ensure that there is dog-free access to at least one door of the owner’s dwelling

b) not allow the dog to be at large or in a public place or in any private way without being muzzled

c) within a month of service of the notice, provide a certificate by a veterinarian that the dog is or has been desexed.

16. It is an offence under Section 32(2) of the DCA, if the owner fails to comply with these requirements. An infringement notice for $300 may be issued for this offence (per Schedule 1). In addition, an animal management officer may seize and retain custody of the dog under Section 32(5) until the owner has demonstrated a willingness to comply.

17. The owner of a dangerous dog may be prosecuted under Section 32(2) where the maximum penalty for this offence is $3000, and the court must order the destruction of the dog if the person is convicted.

18. Section 31(4) explains what the committee must consider during their deliberations on whether the classification should be upheld or rescinded. These are:

a) the evidence which formed the basis for the classification

b) any steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of person or animals

c) the matters relied on in support of the objection, and

d) any other relevant matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Considerations

Evidence which formed the basis for the classification

19. The manager of the Henderson Animal Shelter provided an affidavit setting out the reasons for her belief that Hunter is dangerous (refer Attachment C). These are his:

a) food aggression

b) aggressive behaviour towards staff

c) aggressive behaviour to other dogs in the shelter

d) anxiety that requires medication to calm him down.

Steps taken by Ms Reti to prevent any threat to persons or animals

20. Animal Management has not yet been provided with proof that Hunter has been desexed.

21. It is not known whether Ms Reti’s current residential property has dog-free access to at least one door of her dwelling.

22. When Hunter was released, the shelter manager explained to Ms Reti that Hunter is on medication due to his level of anxiety and hyperactivity and advised her to carry on with his medication. Ms Reti may address the committee further on this.

Matters relied on in support of the objection

23. Ms Reti mentions that Hunter is a ‘scared’ dog. This behaviour speaks of poor socialisation which often leads to fear, arousal, anxiety, and aggression.

24. Ms Reti informed the team leader of Animal Management West that Hunter is a therapy dog for her family, and especially her children. It is submitted that public safety should receive preference over a person’s need for emotional support.

25. Being classified as dangerous means that Hunter will be required to be desexed, live at a property with dog-free access to the front door, and to be muzzled when in public. Staff note that classifying Hunter as dangerous will put additional precautions in place to improve safety of people and animals around Hunter but will not limit Ms Reti and her family’s time with their pet.

Other relevant matters

26. On 6 July 2023, Hunter attacked a visitor of a tenant at Ms Reti’s property. The attack happened when the visitor was feeding Hunter. The victim sustained serious injuries to her right hand which necessitated urgent medical intervention. Prosecution under Section 58 of the DCA was commenced against Ms Reti, but the charge was withdrawn because of a lack of evidence on ownership of the dog at the time of the attack.

27. Hunter’s anxiety is demonstrated by him chewing and pulling back the bars at the front of his kennel. Photographs of the damage done to the kennel are in Attachment D.

Committee decision

28. On the basis of the information provided above, staff consider that the classification of Hunter as a dangerous dog is accurate and appropriate and is consistent with the intent of the legislation. It is therefore recommended that the committee uphold the dangerous dog classification.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

29. This section is not relevant to the subject of this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. The staff have not sought wider views because this report relates to statutory provisions on the control of dangerous dogs.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

31. We have not sought local board views because this report has no local impact.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. This is a report about an objection to the dangerous classification of a dog which has no direct impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. The decision by the committee on the dangerous classification of a dog has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. The table below covers the risks and mitigations identified for this issue.

If…	Then…	Mitigation
If the committee do not uphold the dangerous dog classification.	· There may be a negative public perception around council’s ability to effectively influence dog ownership behaviours. · It is contrary to the intent of the DCA. · Public safety remains at risk.	Staff will continue to: · respond to requests for service relating to Hunter · educate Ms Reti on her obligations under the DCA · enforce the requirements of the menacing classification that Hunter must be desexed, and muzzled when in a public place or private way.
If the committee uphold the dangerous dog classification.	Ms Reti has no legal recourse but may file a complaint about the decision with the Ombudsman.	Staff will assist the Office of the Ombudsman in their enquiries and investigation.
The public are concerned with the rise in aggressive behavioural / roaming incidents concerning dogs.	There may be a negative perception around council’s ability to effectively influence dog ownership behaviours.	Effective communication to the public that additional proactive initiatives aiming to increase desexing are being implemented into the 2024-2025 work programme, and that dog owner education initiatives (such a desexing campaigns and events) are being held to raise awareness.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. The committee must give Ms Reti written notice of its decision as soon as practicable.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Dangerous dog classification notice
b ⇨	Objection to the dangerous dog classification notice
c ⇨	Affidavit from the Henderson Shelter Manager
d ⇨	Photographs of the bars on Hunter's kennel

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Chrisna Nortje – Principal Specialist, Animal Management

Authorisers

Mervyn Chetty – Acting General Manager Licensing and Compliance

Rachel Kelleher – Director Community

[1] Aside from the Litter Act 1979 to address illegal dumping of adornments around cemeteries.

[2] The remaining options would not address the findings that the Bylaw should be improved (for example, Option 1 (Confirm) and Option 2A (Amend) which confirm the current Bylaw, or Option 3 and Option 4 which replace or revoke the Bylaw).

[3] Noting that there are no changes to approval rules currently in the existing Code (for example, about burial), which continue to apply and were already made by resolution in 2014 following public consultation.

[4] For example, the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and Cremation Regulations 1973.

[5] Local boards have delegated authority for council cemeteries that are inactive (function as local parks; no longer in regular use) and active (on Aotea Great Barrier Island only). Only 17 local boards have council cemeteries in their area (not Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Manurewa or Ōrākei).

[6] Local boards were consulted on a draft that was updated for this report based on feedback from relevant council staff.

[7] This included a request for clarity about disinterment attendance and approval processes for headstone designs; and about mausolea casket material, durable metal liners, hermetically sealed caskets, and proof of embalming.

[8] This included to request that council advisory panel feedback is sought prior to public consultation; that public feedback is sought on each separate proposed change including any suggestions for amendments; to provide a summary of public feedback by local board area; and to consult on how to address costs and enhance capacity at council cemeteries. Public consultation approach includes most suggestions. Proposal was considered low interest to panels due to focus on structural improvements only. Views of the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel were sought in November 2024 due to the Panel’s high interest in cemetery services. Consultation addresses bylaw changes only, however operational feedback received will be referred to relevant council units.

[9] This included to note the need for ongoing education, engagement, and communication about the bylaw rules to different communities to ensure understanding and reduce risk of offence to grieving families; and to note that Aotea / Great Barrier cemetery services operate differently to the mainland.

[10] Committee with an advisory role for Te Urupā o Waikumete in partnership with council.

[11] Option 3 (Replace) would not address the findings that the Policy and Bylaw are largely ‘fit for purpose’ and Option 4 (Revoke) would not address the findings that the Policy and Bylaw are required.

[12] For example, the Dog Control Act 1996.

[13] Councillors Turner and Filipaina, Local board members Carter and Matthews and Houkura member Wilcox.

^{^[14]} Suggestions: maximum of 2 on-leash, 4 on-leash, 6 on-leash with 4 off-leash, and 8 on-leash with 4 off-leash (and licensing).

^{^[15]} Noting one local board opposed the proposal and supported a limit other than the proposed.

[16] This included for example providing more resourcing and investment into enforcement, investigating the limited capacity of animal shelters, and providing proactive education campaigns.

[17] This included requests for the results on consultation. Engagement will be advertised in a variety of ways with options for in person and online engagement. The local boards may provide comment on their constituent’s feedback in 2025.

Chairperson	Cr Josephine Bartley
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Lotu Fuli
Members	Houkura Member Edward Ashby
	Houkura Member Ngarimu Blair
	Cr Julie Fairey
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM
	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Kerrin Leoni
	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Ex-officio	Mayor Wayne Brown
	Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP

Resolution Number	Item	Status
RSCCC/2024/70	Findings from a review of Council's Health and Hygiene Code	Staff have begun assessing options for each service the Code currently regulates. This includes planning further engagement with select internal and external stakeholders. An Options report is being prepared, with the goal of reporting to committee in the first quarter of 2025.
RSCCC/2024/71	Retrospective approval of Auckland Council’s Smokefree Submission	Council’s submission was provided to the Health Select Committee. Cr Bartley, Chair of the Regulatory and Safety Committee, presented to the Health Select Committee on the submission on 9 October.
RSCCC/2024/72	Animal Management Annual Report 2023-2024	The Chair of the Regulatory and Safety Committee sent a letter to the relevant central government officials (Hon Brooke van Velden and Hon Simeon Brown) outlining the animal management challenges facing Tāmaki Makaurau, seeking support and requesting to meet.
RSCCC/2024/75	Proposed joint traffic-related bylaw for Auckland	The Governing Body adopted the proposal for public consultation at its 24 October 2024 meeting.

Date	Subject
22/10/2024	Letter to Hon Chris Bishop, Minister for Housing, from Cr Josephine Bartley regarding boarding house register
05/11/2024	Response letter from Chris Bishop, Minister for Housing, to Cr Bartley regarding boarding house regulation
14/11/2024	Letter to Hon Simeon Brown, Minister for Local Government, and Hon Brooke van Velden, Minister for Internal Affairs, requesting support on significant dog issues

Author	Phoebe Chiquet-Kaan - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Rachel Kelleher - Director Community