Agenda of Hearings Panel - Other

N-logotype-black-wide Hearings Panel - Other

6 March 2018

Page No.

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Temporary Road Closures - Police Station Open Day and Tug of Peace 7 - 12

Document number R8886

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other:

Receives the report Temporary Road Closures - Police Station Open Day and Tug of Peace (R8886) and its attachments (A1903172, A1903442); and

Approves the application for the temporary road closures for the Police Station Open Day and the Tug of Peace.

6. Street Naming Application - Principle Developments Ltd (Farleigh Street) 13 - 18

Document number R8890

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel:

Receives the report Street Naming Application - Principle Developments Ltd (Farleigh Street) (R8890) and its attachments (A1899695 and A1899696); and

Approves the name of “Koura Road” for the roads to vest in Council shown as Roads 1 and 2 on the Scheme Plan for RMSH165005, in Attachment 1 (A1899695) to this report R8890; and

Notes the name of “Komako Way” for the private Right of Way shown as ROW 3 on the Scheme Plan for RMSH165005, in Attachment 1 (A1899695) to this report R8890.

7. Street Naming Application - Inhaus Developments Ltd - 10 Daelyn Drive 19 - 23

Document number R8893

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel:

Receives the report Street Naming Application - Inhaus Developments Ltd - 10 Daelyn Drive (R8074) and its attachments (A1899796 and A1899794); and

Approves the name of “Kakano Lane” for the road to vest in Council shown as Lot 15 on the Scheme Plan for RM175200, in Attachment 1 (A1899796) to this report, R8893.

8. Street naming application - Brooklands Road subdivision 24 - 28

Document number R8943

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel:

Receives the report Street naming application - Brooklands Road subdivision and its attachments (A1899877 and A1899879); and

Notes the name of “Chamerion Way” for the Private Right of Way servicing Lots 1 to 9 on the Scheme Plan for RM165329, in Attachment 1 (A1899877) to this report, R8943.

9. Application for naming of a Private Right of Way - 253, 255 and 255A Nayland Road 29 - 33

Document number R8966

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel:

Receives the report Application for naming of a Private Right of Way 253, 255 and 255A Nayland Road, and its attachment (A1909837); and

Declines to note the name of “Rose Way” for the private Right of Way servicing lots 1 and 2 DP 8019, (255 and 255A Nayland Road), and Proposed Lots 1 to 4 on the Scheme Plan for Resource Consent RM175063 (253 Nayland Road) in Attachment 1 (A1909837) to this report R8966.

10. Objection to Bark Notice - Yuri Schokking and Leita McKellar - Dog named "Kobe" 34 - 59

Document number R8834

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

Receives the report Objection to Bark Notice - Yuri Schokking and Leita McKellar - Dog named "Kobe" (R8834) and its attachments (A1912555, A1850872, A1912567, A1912569, A1912581, A1912611 and A1912621); and

Dismisses the objection of Yuri Schokking & Leita McKellar; and

Confirms the written notice (bark notice) served on 25 September 2017.

11. Objection to Classification of a Dog as Dangerous - Mr Robertus Schiefer and Ms Silvia Randma - Dog named "Ebba" 60 - 89

Document number R8833

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

Receives the report Objection to Classification of a Dog as Dangerous - Mr Robertus Schiefer and Ms Silvia Randma - Dog named "Ebba" (R8833) and its attachments (A1913472, A1913478, A1913491, A1876343 and A1878144); and

Dismisses the objection of Mr Robertus Schiefer and Ms Silvia Randma; and

Upholds the classification of “Ebba” as dangerous.

Item 6: Temporary Road Closures - Police Station Open Day and Tug of Peace

Hearings Panel - Other

6 March 2018

REPORT R8886

Temporary Road Closures - Police Station Open Day and Tug of Peace

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider and decide on the temporary road closure applications for the following events:

1.2

· Police Station Open Day on Sunday 11 March 2018.

· Tug of Peace on the Thursday 5 April 2018.

2. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other:

Receives the report Temporary Road Closures - Police Station Open Day and Tug of Peace (R8886) and its attachments (A1903172, A1903442); and

Approves the application for the temporary road closures for the Police Station Open Day and the Tug of Peace.

3. Background

3.1 It is a requirement that temporary road closures made under Schedule 10 Clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974 come to the Hearings Panel - Other for approval.

4. Discussion

Police Station Open Day

4.1 On 16 January 2018, the Police applied for the closure of Harley Street and St John Street for Sunday 11 March from 9am until 3pm for a Police Station Open Day.

4.2 The Open Day is an opportunity for the public to tour the Police headquarters, for children to access fingerprinting kits and see displays in the Police buildings and in their yards.

4.3 Council placed an advertisement in the Nelson Mail on Saturday 27 January 2018 to notify of the applicant’s intention to close these roads, and asking the public for feedback by Thursday 15 February 2018. The advertisement was also delivered directly to affected businesses and residents. No feedback was received.

4.4 This event does not require a resource consent for noise.

4.5 The applicant has shown evidence of adequate public liability insurance.

4.6 Council officers are working with the applicant about the required traffic management.

4.7 Council officers recommend that this application be approved.

Tug of Peace

4.8 On 22 January 2018, Nelmac applied for the closure of the top of Trafalgar Street for Thursday 5 April from 1pm until 6pm for the Tug of Peace.

4.9 The Tug of Peace is a long-running Nelson fixture involving a tug of war between business teams. No complaints have been received about this event in recent years. This is a charity event to raise awareness for the Nelson Tasman Hospice.

4.10 Council officers placed an advertisement in the Nelson Mail on Saturday 27 January 2018 informing of the proposed closure and asking for written feedback by Thursday 15 February 2018. (See Attachment 2). The organiser distributed this advertisement to directly affected businesses. No feedback was received.

4.11 Noise generated by the event is not expected to exceed the noise limits specified in the Nelson Resource Management Plan, and therefore no resource consent is required.

4.12 The Police have approved the closure.

4.13 The applicant has shown evidence of adequate public liability insurance.

4.14 Emergency access to all areas of the closed road will be provided at all times.

4.15 Council officers will work with the applicant about the required traffic management plan closer to the time of the event.

4.16 Council officers recommend that this application be approved.

5. Options

5.1 The Hearings Panel has two options, either to approve or decline the temporary road closure applications. Officers recommend approving both temporary road closures.

5.2 It is recommended that both temporary road closures be approved.

Melissa Ramsay

Roading Network Coordinator

Attachments

Attachment 1: Police Station Open Day advertisement proof (A1903442) ⇩

Attachment 2: Tug of Peace advertisement (A1903172) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

· The following are applicable:

· The Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 10, Temporary Prohibition of Traffic;

· The Local Government Act 2002, Clause 78, Community Views in Relation to Decisions;

· The temporary road closures fit with the purpose of local government.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

These events contribute to our community outcomes by assisting our community to celebrate their identity and community.

3. Risk

Enabling these events to proceed requires temporary road closures. If the temporary road closures are not approved, these community events are at risk of not going ahead.

4. Financial impact

There are no cost implications to Council for these events.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low to medium significance because of the small number or people affected and the short duration of the events. A request for feedback was advertised in the Nelson Mail, on the Council’s website and distributed to affected businesses for feedback and no feedback was received.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have not been consulted on this matter.

7. Delegations

The Hearings Panel - Other has the responsibility to consider and determine applications for temporary road closures made under Schedule 10 Clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Hearings Panel - Other

6 March 2018

REPORT R8890

Street Naming Application - Principle Developments Ltd (Farleigh Street)

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 For the Hearings Panel to approve or decline an application for the naming of a road to vest in the Council, and to note the name of a Private Right of Way for inclusion in Council records.

2. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel:

Receives the report Street Naming Application - Principle Developments Ltd (Farleigh Street) (R8890) and its attachments (A1899695 and A1899696); and

Approves the name of “Koura Road” for the roads to vest in Council shown as Roads 1 and 2 on the Scheme Plan for RMSH165005, in Attachment 1 (A1899695) to this report R8890; and

Notes the name of “Komako Way” for the private Right of Way shown as ROW 3 on the Scheme Plan for RMSH165005, in Attachment 1 (A1899695) to this report R8890.

3. Background

3.1 The applicant, Principle Developments Ltd, has submitted the name of “Koura Road” for the road to vest in Council shown as Roads 1 and 2 on the scheme plan attached to RMSH165005, Farleigh Street Development (Attachment 1). The location plan is attached as Attachment 2.

3.2 The applicant has submitted the name of “Komako Way” for the Private Right of Way shown as ROW 3 on the attached scheme plan (Attachment 1).

3.3 The Council has the authority to name roads, pursuant to Section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

3.4 In relation to private roads, the Council has no authority to approve under the Local Government Act 1974, but may note the name for inclusion in Council records.

3.5 Each proposed road name is assessed against the criteria in the Road Naming Guidelines, as follows:

3.5.1 The name should not be the same as or similar to any other street in the Nelson/Tasman regions.

3.5.2 Where appropriate, due regard should be given to historical associations within the City.

3.5.3 Where possible, the name should be consistent with other names in the area, or consistent with a theme in the area/subdivision.

3.5.4 The name should not be likely to give offence.

3.5.5 The name should not be commercially based.

3.5.6 The length of the name should be appropriate to the length of the street (ie. short names for short streets - for mapping purposes).

3.5.7 The name should not be likely to cause semantic difficulties, i.e. spelling, pronunciation, or general understanding.

3.5.8 As a general rule, the proposed name should not be that of a living person, except in exceptional circumstances.

4. Evaluation

4.1 “Koura Road”

4.1.1 The choice of the name “Koura” is based on the fact that Koura (freshwater crays) are a dominant feature of the creek that runs through the development. The applicant has commented that this creek (unnamed) has become their focal point for the subdivision, as it encapsulates the environmental values of the subdivision and native regeneration process. The developers plan to plant over 3500 native plants in the creek reserve to improve eel and koura populations, as well as to provide a pleasant public space with a walkway. They believe that the name “Koura” provides a connection to the local area and it is unique and in keeping with the Maori tradition of giving names that are associated with local area.

4.1.2 There are no similar road names in the Nelson or Tasman area that are likely to cause confusion with this name.

4.1.3 There are similar names in Nelson, ie “Koru Place”, “Kotua Place” (both in the Nayland Industrial estate) and “Kotuku Way”, but these are sufficiently different as to not cause confusion.

4.1.4 The proposed name does not conflict with the criteria of the Road Naming Policy.

4.2 “Komako Way”

4.2.1 The choice of name of “Komako” (Maori name for the Bellbird) is based on the presence of Bellbirds within this locality.

4.2.2 There are no names within the Nelson or Tasman area that are likely to cause confusion with this name. There is a “Kokako Road” in Tapawera, but this is sufficiently different as to not be likely to cause confusion.

4.2.3 The proposed name does not conflict with the criteria of the Road Naming Guidelines.

5. Options

5.1 The Hearings Panel has two options in relation to the naming of the public road as “Koura Road”:

5.1.1 To approve the name; or

5.1.2 To decline the name and to ask the applicant to submit alternative names.

5.2 The Hearings Panel has two options in relation to the naming of the Private Right of Way as “Komako Way”:

5.2.1 To note the name for inclusion in Council records; or

5.2.2 To decline to note the name for inclusion in Council records

5.3 The recommendation is to approve the name Koura Road and note Komako Way.

Kathy Mardon

Consents Administration Coordinator

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1899695 - RMSH165005 - Scheme Plan ⇩

Attachment 2: A1899696 - 35 Farleigh St - location of subdivision ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Council has the authority to name roads, pursuant to s.391 of the Local Government Act 1974.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

There are no relevant policies relating to the recommendations in this report.

3. Risk

Checks are carried out to ensure that the proposed name will not cause confusion to the public or to any emergency services.

4. Financial impact

No additional resources are required.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The recommendations outlined in this report are not considered significant in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The applicants have liaised with Ngati Koata kaumatua, who have advised that they support the proposed names.

7. Delegations

6.18.3 The Hearings Panel has the power to:

* name all features within the city requiring naming including roads, streets, service lanes, plazas, parking areas, parks, reserves, gardens and all public facilities or infrastructure;

* and the power to provide advice to applicants on appropriate names for private roads, rights of way or other legal forms of private access to property

Hearings Panel - Other

6 March 2018

REPORT R8893

Street Naming Application - Inhaus Developments Ltd - 10 Daelyn Drive

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 For the Hearings Panel to approve or decline an application for the naming of a road to vest in the Council.

2. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel:

Receives the report Street Naming Application - Inhaus Developments Ltd - 10 Daelyn Drive (R8074) and its attachments (A1899796 and A1899794); and

Approves the name of “Kakano Lane” for the road to vest in Council shown as Lot 15 on the Scheme Plan for RM175200, in Attachment 1 (A1899796) to this report, R8893.

3. Background

3.1 The applicant, Inhaus Developments Ltd, has submitted the name of “Kakano Lane” for the road to vest in Council shown as Lot 15 on the attached scheme plan (Attachment 1). Lot 15 is located in Daelyn Drive, between numbers 8 and 12. The location plan is attached as Attachment 2.

3.2 The Council has the authority to name roads, pursuant to Section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

3.3 Each proposed road name is assessed according to the criteria in the Road Naming Guidelines, as follows:

3.3.1 The name should not be the same as or similar to any other street in the Nelson and Tasman regions.

3.3.2 Where appropriate, due regard should be given to historical associations within the city.

3.3.3 Where possible, the name should be consistent with other names in the area, or consistent with a theme in the area/subdivision.

3.3.4 The name should not be likely to give offence.

3.3.5 The name should not be commercially based.

3.3.6 The length of the name should be appropriate to the length of the street (ie. short names for short streets - for mapping purposes).

3.3.7 The name should not be likely to cause semantic difficulties, i.e. spelling, pronunciation, or general understanding.

3.3.8 As a general rule, the proposed name should not be that of a living person, except in exceptional circumstances.

4. Evaluation

4.1 There are no similar road names in the Nelson or Tasman regions that are likely to cause confusion with this name. There are 2 streets with similar names in Nelson, “Kaka Street” and “Kakenga Road” in Stoke, but these are sufficiently different in sound and spelling as to not be likely to cause confusion.

4.1.1 The name “Kakano” has meanings of seed, kernel, pip, berry and grain. The developers have proposed this name because of its association with the land as the site was previously used as a berry farm.

4.1.2 The other road names approved for this subdivision/general area include “Daelyn Place” and “Taranaki Place”.

4.1.3 The proposed name does not conflict with the criteria of the Road Naming Guidelines.

5. Options

5.1 The Hearings Panel has two options:

5.1.1 To approve the name; or

5.1.2 To decline the name and to ask the applicant to submit alternative names.

Kathy Mardon

Consents Administration Coordinator

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1899796 - RM175200 - Scheme Plan ⇩

Attachment 2: A1899794 - 10 Daelyn Drive - Location of subdivision ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Council has the authority to name roads, pursuant to s.391 of the Local Government Act 1974.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

There are no relevant policies relating to the recommendations in this report.

3. Risk

Checks are carried out to ensure that the proposed name will not cause confusion to the public or to any emergency services.

4. Financial impact

No additional resources are required.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The recommendations outlined in this report are not considered significant in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The Developers have liaised with the Te Atiawa Trust, who advise that they are not aware of any negative connotations with the use of the name.

7. Delegations

6.18.3 The Hearings Panel has the power to name all features within the city requiring naming including roads, streets, service lanes, plazas, parking areas, parks, reserves, gardens and all public facilities or infrastructure

Item 9: Street naming application - Brooklands Road subdivision

Hearings Panel - Other

6 March 2018

REPORT R8943

Street naming application - Brooklands Road subdivision

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 For the Hearings Panel to note the name of “Chamerion Way” for the private Right of Way servicing lots 1 to 9 on the Scheme Plan for Resource Consent RM165329.

2. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel:

Receives the report Street naming application - Brooklands Road subdivision and its attachments (A1899877 and A1899879); and

Notes the name of “Chamerion Way” for the Private Right of Way servicing Lots 1 to 9 on the Scheme Plan for RM165329, in Attachment 1 (A1899877) to this report, R8943.

3. Background

3.1 The applicant, Selkirk Properties, has proposed the name of “Chamerion Way” for the Private Right of Way servicing lots 1 to 9 on the Scheme Plan for RM165329 (Attachment 1; the location plan is attached as Attachment 2). The name “Chamerion” refers to a wildflower that flourishes following forest fires in the Selkirk Mountain Range in British Columbia, Canada. The applicant has selected this name as it has connections with his business name of Selkirk Properties.

3.2 The applicant had requested the suffix “Rise”, but the Council’s policy is to generally require private access ways to be named “Way”. (Note the name “Rise” is on Attachment 1.)

3.3 The Council has the authority to name public roads, pursuant to section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

3.4 The Council has no authority to name private roads or ways, other than to note a name for inclusion in Council’s records.

4. Discussion

4.1 There are no similar names in the Nelson or Tasman regions.

4.2 The proposed name is not likely to cause confusion with any other name. The proposed name can therefore be noted for inclusion in Council’s records.

5. Options

5.1 The Hearings Panel has two options:

5.1.1 To note the name of “Chamerion Way” for inclusion in Council’s records; or

5.1.2 To decline to note the name for inclusion in Council’s records.

Kathy Mardon

Consents Administration Coordinator

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1899877 - RM165329 - Scheme Plan ⇩

Attachment 2: A1899879 -Subdivision of 70 Brooklands Rd - location plan ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Council has the authority to name roads, pursuant to s.391 of the Local Government Act 1974. The Council does not have authority to name Private Rights of Way, but may agree to note and record the names in Council systems.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

There are no relevant policies relating to the recommendations in this report.

3. Risk

Checks are carried out to avoid the proposed private road names causing confusion for the public if there are existing similar names. Confusion and inefficiencies can also be avoided if the Council records the private road names in our systems so searches can be carried out when a customer refers to this address.

4. Financial impact

No additional resources are required

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The recommendations outlined in this report are not considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted in this application for naming a private Right of Way.

7. Delegations

6.18.3 The Hearings Panel has the power “to provide advice on appropriate names for private roads, rights of way or other legal forms of private access to property”.

Item 10: Application for naming of a Private Right of Way - 253, 255 and 255A Nayland Road

Hearings Panel - Other

6 March 2018

REPORT R8966

Application for naming of a Private Right of Way - 253, 255 and 255A Nayland Road

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 For the Hearings Panel to note the name of “Rose Way” for the private Right of Way servicing Lots 1 and 2 DP 8019 (255 and 255A Nayland Road), and Proposed Lots 1 to 4 (currently 253 Nayland Road) as shown on the Scheme Plan for Resource Consent RM175063.

2. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel:

Receives the report Application for naming of a Private Right of Way 253, 255 and 255A Nayland Road, and its attachment (A1909837); and

3. Background

3.1 The applicant, Trubet Building & Joinery Ltd, has proposed the name of “Rose Way” for the Private Right of Way servicing the existing Right of Way shared by 255 and 255A Nayland Road, and a new Right of Way to be created under Resource Consent RM175063, servicing 4 lots, currently 253 Nayland Road.

3.2 The name “Rose Way” has been proposed by the applicant as the access way is directly across the road from the rose gardens alongside Broadgreen Historic House.

3.3 The Council has the authority to name public roads, pursuant to section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

3.4 The Council has no authority to name private roads or ways, other than to note a name for inclusion in Council’s records.

4. Discussion

4.1 There are some roads within Nelson City that include “Rose”, ie. Roseberry Way, Rosemary Place and Rosebank Terrace. However, the use of “Rose” alone should not cause confusion with these names.

4.2 Under the Road Naming Guidelines, all the users of a Private Right of Way must agree to the change of a name, or a new name. The properties at 253 and 255 Nayland Road are owned by the same person, who is the applicant. The only property from which written approval is required is 255A Nayland Road. The owners of this property have provided their approval.

4.3 This application involves the naming of 2 right of ways. The right of way servicing proposed Lots 1 to 4 (253 Nayland Road) will be a separate legal entity from the existing right of way servicing 255 and 255A Nayland Road. The proprietors of proposed Lots 1 to 4 will not have an easement over the existing right of way used by 255 and 255A Nayland Road. The proprietors of 255A Nayland Road will not have an easement over the right of way servicing proposed Lots 1 to 4. Under the subdivision application, it is proposed that the proprietor of 255 Nayland Road will have an easement over proposed Lots 1 to 4.

4.4 This application is unusual in that it involves the naming of two separate right of ways under one name. Under Council’s Road Naming Guidelines, the Council will consider the naming of a private right of way if it services 6 or more properties; neither of these right of ways service 6 properties (one currently services two properties and the proposed new right of way will service five properties).

4.5 Therefore it is recommended that the application be declined as it does not meet the Council guidelines, as it involves the naming of two separate right of ways, neither of which service six or more properties. The area will have the appearance of two right of ways each of which will function separately.

5. Options

5.1 The Hearings Panel has two options:

(a) To note the name of “Rose Way” for inclusion in Council’s records; or

(b) To decline to note the name for inclusion in Council’s records.

Kathy Mardon

Consents Administration Coordinator

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1909837 RM175063 -Scheme Plan ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

There are no relevant policies relating to the recommendations in this report.

3. Risk

4. Financial impact

No additional resources are required

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The recommendations outlined in this report are not considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted in this application for naming a private Right of Way.

7. Delegations

The Hearings Panel has the power “to provide advice on appropriate names for private roads, rights of way or other legal forms of private access to property”.

Item 11: Objection to Bark Notice - Yuri Schokking and Leita McKellar - Dog named "Kobe"

Hearings Panel - Other

6 March 2018

REPORT R8834

Objection to Bark Notice - Yuri Schokking and Leita McKellar - Dog named "Kobe"

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide on an objection to a Bark Notice issued pursuant to section 55 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

2. Summary

2.1 Section 55(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides for a Dog Control Officer to take action to abate the nuisance created by a barking dog.

2.2 The section provides that where a Dog Control Officer has received a complaint and has reasonable grounds for believing that a nuisance is being created by the persistent and loud barking or howling of a dog, the Officer may give the owner of a dog a written notice (a bark notice). Such a notice requires the owner to make reasonable provision on the property to abate the nuisance, as shall be specified in the notice.

2.3 Section 55(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides a right to the person on whom a bark notice is served to object in writing to the territorial authority against the requirements of that notice.

2.4 On 25 September 2017 following complaints about a barking dog at 82 Bisley Avenue a bark notice was served on Jurrian Schokking, the registered owner of a Golden Retriever/Samoyed cross dog named ‘Kobe’ (Attachment 1). The notice required the owner to fit a functioning bark collar, to not leave the dog outside when nobody is home or to make other such arrangements to abate the nuisance being created by the persistent and loud barking or howling of the dog.

2.5 On 19 October 2017 a written objection was received from Yuri Schokking and Leita McKellar (Attachment 2).

3. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

Receives the report Objection to Bark Notice - Yuri Schokking and Leita McKellar - Dog named "Kobe" (R8834) and its attachments (A1912555, A1850872, A1912567, A1912569, A1912581, A1912611 and A1912621); and

Dismisses the objection of Yuri Schokking & Leita McKellar; and

Confirms the written notice (bark notice) served on 25 September 2017.

4. Background

4.1 Nelson City Council is not aware of any previous dog control history involving Kobe.

5. Discussion

Dog Control Act 1996 provisions

5.1 Section 55 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (Attachment 3) provides for a Dog Control Officer to take action in relation to the nuisance created by barking dogs.

5.2 Section 55(1) enables a Dog Control Officer, who has received a complaint and has reasonable grounds for believing that a nuisance is being created by the persistent and loud barking or howling of any dog, to give the owner of the dog written notice. Such a notice can require the owner to make such reasonable provisions on the property to abate the nuisance as shall be specified in the notice.

5.3 Section 55(2) outlines that any person on whom such a notice is served may object to the requirements of that notice and (under Section 55(4)) shall be entitled to be represented and to be heard and may submit evidence and call witnesses in support of the objection.

5.4 Section 55(3) outlines that the territorial authority shall consider the objection and may confirm, modify or cancel the notice.

5.5 Section 55(5) outlines that on the determination of the objection, the territorial authority shall give to the objector a further notice stating the decision of the authority, and, if the effect of the decision is to modify the requirements of the Dog Control Officer or Dog Ranger, shall set out those requirements as so modified.

5.6 Section 56 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (Attachment 4) enables a Dog Control Officer or Ranger to remove a barking dog causing distress (if a notice issued under section 55 is not being complied with).

Matters for Consideration

5.7 The evidence which formed the basis for the bark notice

5.7.1 Nelson City Council has received a number of complaints from Mr Darryl Ware in relation to a barking dog at 82 Bisley Avenue.

5.7.2 The first of these complaints was received on 9 January 2017 (which resulted in a letter being sent to the owners of the dog advising them that a complaint had been received). Then a further complaint was received on 18 January 2017 and again on 31 July 2017.

5.7.3 The investigating Dog Control Officers, as per normal procedures have undertaken a number of sound checks in the area in an attempt to corroborate the complaint as well as talking to the owner of the dog. On 9 August 2017 Officers completed a letter drop to surrounding properties in an attempt to gauge the extent of the nuisance (Attachment 5 is an example of the letter).

5.7.4 The investigating Dog Control Officer did not hear Kobe (or any other dog in the area) barking while undertaking sound checks. Mr Ware was advised of this and encouraged to (if he wished to pursue the complaint) complete a bark log noting when and for how long the dog was barking.

5.7.5 Mr Ware has provided two separate bark logs; the first for the period between 9 January 2017 – 28 March 2017 (Attachment 6) and the second for the period between 1 August 2017 and 31 August 2017 (Attachment 7). The log indicates that there is frequent barking.

5.7.6 On 25 August 2017 the investigating Officer received a call from Tania Lunn who lives nearby. She was responding to the letter regarding barking dogs and says that if it’s the dog she thinks it is then it is an absolute nuisance. She has been in bed sick listening to it and it has been going on for months and months. The investigating Officer confirmed with Tania that the barking is coming from the property where Kobe resides. Tania advises the barking has been going on for the last year to 18 months, although it has been better in recent weeks.

5.7.7 As a result of the evidence received the Dog Control Officer had reasonable grounds for believing a barking nuisance exists and the barking notice was issued.

5.8 Matters relied on in support of the objection

5.8.1 The written objection is accompanied by several letters from surrounding neighbours advising that they have not heard Kobe creating a nuisance.

5.8.2 The objection responds to and questions the evidence which formed the basis of the classification, including the identity of the dog and the motives of the complainant.

5.8.3 The objection also outlines the steps the owners have taken since becoming aware of the complaint.

6. Options

Option 1: The objection be dismissed and the bark notice confirmed (recommended option)
Advantages	· This will enable Dog Control Officers to take action (by removing the dog pursuant to section 56 of the Dog Control Act 1996) if further confirmed complaints about barking are received.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The owners of the dog are subject to the requirements of the notice.
Option 2: The objection be upheld and the bark notice cancelled
Advantages	· The owners are not subject to the requirements of the notice.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Dog Control Officers will be unable to remove the dog if further confirmed complaints are received.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Since serving the barking notice there have been no further complaints about the dog.

7.2 It is considered that the notice has had the desired effect of resulting in the barking nuisance being abated and should remain in place.

Brent Edwards

Manager Environmental Inspections

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1912555 Bark Notice ⇩

Attachment 2: A1850872 Written Objection ⇩

Attachment 3: A1912567 Section 55 of the Dog Control Act 1996 ⇩

Attachment 4: A1912569 Section 56 of the Dog Control Act 1996 ⇩

Attachment 5: A1912581 Example Barking Dog Letter Drop ⇩

Attachment 6: A1912611 Bark Log 9 January 2017 - 28 March 2017 ⇩

Attachment 7: A1912621 Bark Log 1 August 2017 to 23 August 2017 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The regulatory functions are to be performed in a manner that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. The Dog Control Act 1996 provisions are being applied to appropriately minimise the risk and nuisance to the public.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation aligns with Council’s Dog Control policy by having regard to the need to minimise distress and nuisance to the community generally caused by dogs and/or by non-compliant owners.

3. Risk

Council has an obligation under the Dog Control Act to follow correct legal process.

There is also an ongoing risk to the amenity of the community from dog barking.

4. Financial impact

There is no additional cost to the Council should the recommendation be approved.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The recommendations outlined in this report are not considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted on this matter.

7. Delegations

The Hearings Panel – Other has power to hear and determine objections to the classification of dogs, and all other procedural matters for which a right of objection and hearing is provided for under the Dog Control Act, 1996; and to recommend changes to the Council’s Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw

Item 12: Objection to Classification of a Dog as Dangerous - Mr Robertus Schiefer and Ms Silvia Randma - Dog named "Ebba"

Hearings Panel - Other

6 March 2018

REPORT R8833

Objection to Classification of a Dog as Dangerous - Mr Robertus Schiefer and Ms Silvia Randma - Dog named "Ebba"

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide on an objection to the classification of a dog as dangerous pursuant to section 31 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

2. Summary

2.1 Section 31(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides for a dog to be classified as dangerous if the territorial authority has, on the basis of sworn evidence attesting to the aggressive behaviour of the dog on one or more occasions, reasonable grounds to believe that the dog constitutes a threat to the safety of any domestic animal.

2.2 Section 31(3) of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides a right to the owner of a dog classified as dangerous to object to the classification and be heard in support of the objection.

2.3 On 4 December 2017 a dog named “Ebba” owned by Robertus Schiefer was classified as dangerous. This was due to the receipt of sworn evidence that “Ebba” attacked and killed a cat.

2.4 On 5 December 2017 an objection was received from Mr Robertus Schiefer and Ms Silvia Randma.

3. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

Dismisses the objection of Mr Robertus Schiefer and Ms Silvia Randma; and

Upholds the classification of “Ebba” as dangerous.

4. Background

4.1 Nelson City Council is not aware of any previous dog control history involving Ebba.

5. Discussion

Dog Control Act 1996 Provisions

5.1 Section 32 of the Dog Control Act 1996 outlines that if a dog is classified as dangerous the owner must comply with the following-

(a) ensure that, from a date not later than one month after the receipt of the notice of classification, the dog is kept within a securely fenced portion of the owner’s property and that this area is not necessary to obtain access to at least one door of any dwelling on the property; and

(b) not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place or in any private way, except when confined completely within a vehicle or cage, without being—

(i) muzzled in such a manner as to prevent the dog from biting but to allow it to breathe and drink without obstruction; and

(ii) controlled on a leash; and

4. (c) must produce to the territorial authority, within 1 month after the receipt of the notice of classification, a certificate issued by a veterinarian certifying—

5. (i) the dog is or has been neutered; or

6. (ii) that for reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a fit condition to be neutered before a date specified in the certificate; and

(d) must, if a certificate under paragraph (c)(ii) is produced to the territorial authority, produce to the territorial authority, within 1 month after the date specified in that certificate, a further certificate under paragraph (c)(i); and

8. (e) must, in respect of every registration year commencing after the date of receipt of the notice of classification, be liable for dog control fees for that dog at 150% of the level that would apply if the dog were not classified as a dangerous dog; and

10. (f) must not, without the written consent of the territorial authority in whose district the dog is to be kept, dispose of the dog to any other person.

5.2 Under Section 31(3) of the Dog Control Act 1996, if a dog is classified as dangerous the owner has 14 days in which to object to the classification and shall be entitled to be heard in support of the objection.

5.3 Section 31(4) outlines that in considering any objection under this section the territorial authority shall have regard to-

11. (a) the evidence which formed the basis for the original classification; and

12. (b) any steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons and animals; and

13. (c) the matters advanced in support of the objection; and

14. (d) any other relevant matters—

and may uphold or rescind the classification.

5.4 Section 31(5) outlines that the territorial authority shall give notice of its decision on any objection, and the reasons for its decision to the owner as soon as practicable.

Criteria for consideration

5.5 The evidence which formed the basis for the original classification

5.5.1 On 1 November 2017 Nelson City Council received a report from Ms Andrea Taylor of 23 Clovelly Street in Atawhai that her cat named Tilly was attacked and injured by a dog. The dog was at the vet being treated. She further advised that the attack was witnessed by her neighbour from 8 Gipps Street. Andrea later advised that her cat had died of its injuries.

5.5.2 Further inquiries revealed that Jacob Fearnley a 14 year old from 8 Gibbs Street witnessed the attack. Jacob advised that he was outside sitting near two cats (one of which was his and one the neighbours) when another neighbour’s dog Ebba ran onto their property and attacked both cats. He described the dog getting hold of Tilly and mauling her. He also advised that this is not the first time the dog has come onto the property to attack the cats. Jacob later provided a sworn statement.

5.5.3 Jacob’s father Kelly Fearnley did not witness the attack but advised the dog has come onto his property between 10-12 times in the past trying to attack their cat. He has spoken to the owner in the past and told him he would kill his dog if their cat was harmed.

5.5.4 Dog Control Officers spoke with Robertus Schiefer and Silvia Randma about the attack. Silvia explained that they were coming back from a walk and the dog was in front of her. The next thing it was on the neighbours’ property with a hold on the cat. The dog was told to release the cat which it did. Silvia advised they would pay the vet bill.

5.6 Steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons and animals

5.6.1 The owners have not provided details of any steps taken to prevent the threat to the safety of persons or animals.

5.7 Matters advanced in support of the objection

5.7.1 The objection has not raised any matters in support of the objection.

5.8 Other relevant matters

8.8.1 There does not appear to be any other relevant matters.

6. Options

Option 1: The objection be dismissed (recommended option)
Advantages	· This will result in the classification being upheld. Requirements include the owner having to install fencing, muzzling the dog whenever out in public and neutering. This will reduce the risk of other domestic animals being attacked.
Risks and Disadvantages	· This may have a negative impact on the activities Ebba and her owners currently enjoy.
Option 2: The objection be upheld
Advantages	· This will result in no additional requirements for the owners of Ebba.
Risks and Disadvantages	· This will increase the risk of other domestic animals being attacked.

7. Conclusion

7.1 There is clear evidence that Ebba poses a risk to other domestic animals.

7.2 It is considered that in order to reduce the risk of attack to other domestic animals that the dangerous dog classification should be in place.

7.3 The objector has not raised any matters to support their written objection.

7.4 It is recommended that the objection be dismissed and the classification of Ebba as a dangerous dog be upheld.

Brent Edwards

Manager Environmental Inspections

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1913472 Sections 31 and 32 of the Dog Control Act 1996 ⇩

Attachment 2: A1913478 Sworn Statement of Jacob Fearnley ⇩

Attachment 3: A1913491 Halifax Vet Report ⇩

Attachment 4: A1876343 Notice of Classification ⇩

Attachment 5: A1878144 Written Objection ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The regulatory functions are to be performed in a matter that is most cost effective for households and businesses. The dog Control Act 1996 provisions are being applied appropriately to minimise the public risk.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation aligns with the Council’s Dog Control Policy by having regard to the need to minimise the danger, distress and nuisance to the community caused by dogs and/or by non-compliant owners.

3. Risk

Council has obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996 to follow the correct legal process.

There is also a risk to the community from future incidents.

4. Financial impact

There is no additional cost to Council should the recommendation be approved.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The recommendations outlined in this report are not considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted on this matter.

7. Delegations

The Hearings Panel – Other has the power to hear and determine objections to the classifications of dogs and all other procedural matters for which a right of objection and hearing is provided for under the Dog Control Act 1996; and to recommend changes to the Council’s Dog Control Policy and the Dog Control Bylaw.