Agenda of Hearings Panel - Other

Item 4: Temporary Road Closures - Sanitarium Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon and Road Safety Stopping Demonstration

Hearings Panel - Other

27 February 2019

REPORT R9911

Temporary Road Closures - Sanitarium Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon and Road Safety Stopping Demonstration

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the temporary road closure application for the Sanitarium Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon on 3 March 2019.

1.2 To approve the temporary road closure application for Road Safety Stopping Demonstrations on 25 March until 29 March 2019.

2. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

Receives the report Temporary Road Closures - Sanitarium Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon and Road Safety Stopping Demonstration (R9911) and its attachments (A2111145, A2119950 and A2119004); and

Approves the temporary road closures for Sanitarium Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon on 3 March 2019, and Road Safety Stopping Demonstrations on 25 March until 29 March 2019.

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

Sanitarium Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon

4.1 Council officers received an application from SMC Events on 9 January 2019 to close the roads listed below on Sunday 3 March 2019 between the hours of 6am and 1pm (as shown in Attachment 1). This closure is to enable the annual Sanitarium Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon to take place at Tahunanui Recreation ground.

4.1.1 Beach Road from approximately no. 21 Beach Road to Golf Road

4.1.2 Golf Road from Beach Road to Parkers Road

4.1.3 Hounsell Circle.

4.2 As per point 11 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, consultation with Police has been undertaken and they have given approval for this event. Consultation with NZTA has not been undertaken for this event due to this having no impact on the state highway.

4.3 As per 11(e) of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, this proposed road closure will not exceed the aggregate of 31 days for any year.

4.4 As per point 11A of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, Council placed a notification in Our Nelson on 18 December 2018 to notify of its intention to close these roads and inviting feedback until Friday 18 January 2019. The advertisement was also posted on the Council’s website. No feedback was received. Event organisers will be distributing a letter as per Attachment 2 to directly affected residents approximately two weeks before the event.

4.5 This event does not require a resource consent for noise and evidence of public liability insurance has been provided. The event organisers and Council officers are working with Safe Traffic NZ Ltd regarding traffic management. Resident access will be managed by onsite traffic management staff when safe to do so.

4.6 Council officers are satisfied that the road closure will not unreasonably impede traffic because alternate routes are available, the extent and duration is limited and there have been no issues raised in the past years this event has been run. Council officers recommend that this application be approved.

Road Safety Stopping Demonstrations

4.7 Council officers have initiated the process to implement the closure of the roads listed below as shown in Attachment 3. These closures are to enable road safety stopping demonstrations to take place.

4.7.1 Tipahi Street from Motueka Street to Tukuka Street on Monday 25 March 2019 at 8.30am until 11am

4.7.2 Totara Street on Monday 25 March 2019 at 11.30am until 3.30pm

4.7.3 Norwich Street on Tuesday 26 March 2019 at 9.00am until 3.00pm

4.7.4 Rui Street on Wednesday 27 March 2019 at 8.30am until 11.30am

4.7.5 Ranui Road from Titoki Street to Willow Avenue on Wednesday 27 March 2019 at midday until 3pm

4.7.6 Nile Street from Tasman Street to Domett Street on Thursday 28 March 2019 at 8.30am until 3pm.

4.8 Road safety stopping distance demonstrations will be held at six different locations and presented to school students. Demonstrations will involve a car travelling along the road at different speeds and braking at the same point each time, demonstrating how long it takes a car to stop when travelling at those speeds. Costs incurred are met by existing road safety education budgets.

4.9 As per point 11 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, consultation with Police has been undertaken and they have given their approval. Consultation with NZTA has been undertaken for Rui Street, due to this location having impact on the state highway and they have approved this, provided all Traffic Management requirements are met.

4.10 As per 11(e) of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, this proposed road closure will not exceed the aggregate of 31 days for any year.

4.11 As per point 11A of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, Council placed a notification in Our Nelson on 11 December 2018 to notify of its intention to close these roads and invited feedback until Friday 18 January 2019. The advertisement was also posted on the Council’s website. No feedback was received.

4.12 This event does not require a resource consent for noise and the event will be covered by Council’s public liability insurance. Council officers will engage a traffic management company to assist with this event. Resident access will be managed by onsite traffic management staff when safe to do so.

4.13 Council officers are satisfied that the road closure will not unreasonably impede traffic because alternate routes are available and the extent and duration is limited. There have been no issues raised in the past years this event has been run. Council officers recommend that this application be approved.

5. Options

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

Author: Melissa Ramsay, Roading Network Coordinator

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2111145 - Weet-Bix TRYathlon Map ⇩

Attachment 2: A2119950 - Weet-Bix TRYathlon resident letter ⇩

Attachment 3: A2119004 - Road Stopping Maps ⇩

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

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

4. Financial impact

There is no financial impact to Council for these road closures.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because of the number of people affected and the short duration of the events. A request for feedback was advertised in Our Nelson and on the Council’s website.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

The Hearings Panel - Other has the following delegations to consider temporary road closures:

Functions:

· To conduct hearings and/or determine under delegated authority applications relating to the Dog Control Act 1996, all matters relating to Temporary Road Closures pursuant to Schedule 10 clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974, matters relating to naming features within the city, and any other matters required for determination by Council under legislation as determined by Council.

Item 5: Objection to classification of dog as menacing - Charles Riley - dog name: MAX

Hearings Panel - Other

27 February 2019

REPORT R9901

Objection to classification of dog as menacing - Charles Riley - dog name: MAX

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide on an objection to the classification of a dog as menacing pursuant to section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

2. Summary

2.1 Section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides for a dog to be classified as menacing if the territorial authority considers that the dog may pose a threat to any person because of observed or reported behaviour of the dog. (Attachment 1)

2.2 Section 33B of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides a right to the owner of a dog classified as menacing to object to the classification and be heard in support of the objection. (Attachment 1)

2.3 Charles Robert Riley owns a five year old male black Retriever/Labrador named Max. On 24 October 2018, at about 07.00am, Max was with his owner, Dr Charles Riley (known as Rob) on the Grampian Track. Another dog owner was walking her dog, a female Terrier/Retriever/Labrador cross named Mango near the top of the hill above Collingwood St. She saw Dr. Riley talking with a group of people and Max was with him but not on a lead. (Attachment 2)

2.4 Having experienced problems with the dog Max before, the owner of Mango held her dog’s collar and tried to keep the gate between her and Max closed. Max saw Mango and managed to get through the gate and attacked Mango.

2.5 Using her walking pole, Mango’s owner attempted to separate Max from her dog. Dr. Riley took no physical action to get Max off Mango and simply called to Max with little effect. Max was finally removed from Mango but soon got free again and resumed his attack on Mango.

2.6 As a result Mango sustained a wound on the left hind leg which required veterinary treatment which included 3 staples to close the wound. (Attachment 3)

2.7 In explanation, Dr. Riley said there had been a “sudden skirmish with an outburst of growling and barking that had lasted less than a minute.” (Attachment 4)In explanation, Dr. Riley said this was not the first time the 2 dogs had “snarled at each other” and he had tried to avoid contact between the two. He said he had owned Max for 3 years and suspected he had been “damaged” by the previous owner and as a result had not been good with other dogs but had made progress and was now able to be taken to Tahunanui Back Beach and the Grampians track where he meets with other dogs, remaining calm and not reacting aggressively. (Attachment 4)

2.8 After consideration of all the facts, on 29 October 2018, Charles Riley was advised via formal Notice of Classification that his dog Max had been classified as menacing. (Attachment 5)

2.9 On 15 November 2018, Council received a letter via e-mail from Charles Riley appealing the menacing classification. (Attachment 6)

3. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel:

Receives the report Objection to classification of dog as menacing - Charles Riley - dog name: MAX (R9901) and its attachments (A2134555, A2134654, A2134661, A2134673, A2134675 , A2136844 and A2136855); and

Dismisses the objection of Charles Riley; and

Upholds the classification of Max as menacing.

4. Background

4.1 Nelson City Council is not aware of any previous Dog Control history of aggression involving Max.

5. Discussion

5.1 Section 33E of the Dog Control Act requires that if a dog is classified as menacing, the following must be complied with:

(a) The owner must not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place or private way, without being confined completely within a vehicle or cage, or without being muzzled in such a manner as to prevent the dog from biting but to allow it to breathe and drink without obstruction.

(b) If required by the territorial authority the dog must be neutered.

Note the Nelson City Council Dog Control Policy requires that all dogs classified as menacing are neutered. Max has already been neutered.

5.2 Under Section 33B(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996, if a dog is classified as menacing the owner has 14 days in which to object to the classification and has the right to be heard in support of the objection. (Attachment 1)

5.3 Section 33B(2) outlines that the territorial authority considering an objection may uphold or rescind the classification, and in making its determination must have regard to:

(a) The evidence which formed the basis for the classification; and

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

(d) Any other relevant matters (Attachment 1)

5.4 Section 33B(3) outlines that the territorial authority must, as soon as practicable, give written notice to the owner of-

(a) Its determination of the objection; and

(b) The reasons for its determination. (Attachment 1)

Criteria for consideration

5.5 The evidence which formed the basis for the classification

5.5.1 In the morning of 24 October 2018, Nelson City Council received a complaint from a dog owner who had been walking her dog Mango on the Grampian’s Track earlier that morning. Her dog had been attacked and bitten by another dog (Max) on the track. Max had initially been stopped from attacking Mango but during a second attack had taken a piece of flesh out of Mango which required a Veterinary Surgeon to insert 3 staples to close the wound. (Attachment 2)

5.5.2 A Veterinary report on the wound caused to Mango stated: “Single laceration, 2cm in length – angled. Underlying tissue mildly disrupted but clean. 3 staples to close wound.” (Attachment 3)

5.5.3 In a statement, the owner of Mango said when she had been walking her dog on the Grampian’s Track she had seen Dr Riley with Max ahead of her. Max was off-lead and Dr Riley was talking to other people. She said she had experienced issues with Max on previous occasions, whether he is on-lead or not.

5.5.4 On seeing Max she had grabbed her dog’s collar and tried to keep the gate on the track shut. She said Max had managed to get through the gate and attacked her dog, Mango. Using her walking pole, she managed to stop Max attacking Mango. She said Dr. Riley had taken little action to control Max apart from standing to one side, calling Max by name, taking no physical actions. She had called for Dr. Riley to grab his dog’s collar, but he had not done so.

5.5.5 After managing to remove Max from Mango, he soon got free and attacked Mango again. Mango tried to run away from Max but was caught and attacked again. During the second attack Max has bitten Mango and taken a piece of flesh out of her left thigh. (Attachment 2)

5.5.6 The injury to Mango was viewed and photographs of the injury were taken by a Nelson City Council Animal Management Officer. (Attachment 3)

5.5.7 Dr. Riley, owner of Max was contacted and advised the attack had been reported to Nelson City Council. He said that he apologised to the owner of Mango for what had happened. He viewed the incident differently, saying there had been a “sudden skirmish with an outburst of growling and barking, which lasted less than 1 minute and was witnessed by another group of walkers.” (Attachment 4)

5.5.8 He said that when the dogs were separated they calmed and he had apologised and patted Mango, checking that there was no broken skin or wounds. He said it was not the first time the 2 dogs had snarled at each other and he had tried to avoid contact between the two. (Attachment 4)

5.5.9 In explanation for his dog’s behaviour, Dr Riley said he had owned Max for 3 years and suspected he had been “damaged” by his previous owners in his first 18 months of life. He said when he got Max he had been hyperactive and not good with other dogs but had made enormous progress over the last 2 years. Max is often taken to the Tahunanui Back Beach dog exercise area and the Grampian’s Track where he meets with other dogs and remains calm.

5.5.10 Dr. Riley said he was extremely upset over the incident and planned to seek further professional training and intended to keep Max on a lead and muzzle him if Council felt that to be necessary. (Attachment 4)

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

5.6.1 Dr Riley has said he will-

(a) Ensure Max is kept on a lead.

(b) Seek professional training for Max.

5.7 Matters relied upon in support of the objection

5.7.1 Dr Riley has stated his dog Max was damaged by his first owners and as a result was hyperactive and not good with other dogs. (Attachment 4)

5.7.2 Dr Riley states Max has made enormous progress over the last 2 years and in visits to Tahunanui Back Beach has never been involved in fights or issues with other dogs or experienced issues with other dogs when walking on the Grampian’s tracks. (Attachment 4)

5.7.3 Dr Riley is planning to seek further professional training for Max and to keep him on a lead and muzzled if Council deem this to be necessary. (Attachment 4)

5.7.4 Dr Riley has written a submission regarding the classification. (Attachment 7) His submission is:

5.7.4.1 INCIDENT

· On my daily walk up the Grampians with our Labrador, Max (off lead) on 24/10/18, I stopped at the top Ronaki gate to talk to some friends. Yasmin suddenly appeared with her dog Mango. There was immediate growling and a skirmish lasting about 10 seconds. We parted the dogs and I put Max on the lead. I patted and inspected Mango and could see no lacerations and no blood. No lacerations on Max.

· I subsequently received a Vet Bill from Yasmin for $87 (Consult $50 with Skin Clips). I paid this and apologised to her with a card.

· I received an Infringement notice from the Nelson City Council for “Failure to keep dog under control” with fine of $200. This I paid. I also received notice that Max be classified as a “Menacing Dog” under section 33A (2) of the Dog Control Act 1996.

· We are now at a Review Hearing to appeal the classification that Max be defined as “menacing” with the implication that he would need to be muzzled in public places for the rest of his life.

5.7.4.2 BACKGROUND

· We have owned Max for 3 years. He is registered, neutered and has a microchip. He has walked the Grampians most mornings over these years. He has never had a fight with or bitten another dog. He has had numerous visits to the back beach with constant sniffing and contact with other dogs. He has never been in a “dog battle”. He mingles with children aged 2 and 3 months. He is never aggressive despite their pulling or poking him. He loves to retrieve, drop the object, then retrieve again. He sits on command and empties his bladder on command. Over the last year, I had taken him off the lead on the Grampians as I was satisfied that he would not run off, not attack other dogs and come when called.

· We have engaged Sue Walsh, “behaviour expert for Dog Almighty” to assess and provide training for dog v dog meetings.

5.7.4.3 PAST HISTORY

· We have owned 4 other dogs over 40 years. Our last 3 have walked the Grampians almost daily. All 3 dogs have had occasional skirmishes with other dogs on the track. One never knows what starts it and which dog is the aggressor. The owners always say “not mine”. The barking and growling is over in seconds and we walk on. The dogs are happy.

5.7.4.4 MAX and MANGO

· Max had met Mango on 2 previous occasions, both times resulting in aggressive barking. Mango’s owner Yasmin yelled at me to, ”get my dog muzzled”. Mango is obviously greying and ageing. Older dogs often want to protect their territory: I have seen it with my previous animals. Obviously, the above incident would have been shortened and controlled if Max had been on a lead.

5.7.4.5 SUMMARY

· I am an experienced dog owner of 40 years.

· Our Max is not an aggressive, dangerous dog. He is friendly and always seeks to please.

· Doggie v doggie confrontations are common. It is often hard to see the trigger.

· I have apologised to Yasmin and paid her Vet bill as well as the $200 infringement.

· The skirmish would have been shortened and managed if Max had been on a lead.

· We have engaged a Canine Behaviour Expert to work with Max.

5.7.4.6 CONCLUSION

· We are unhappy that this incident took place.

· “Muzzling for life” is unnecessary and extreme.

· We could accept that Max be always on a lead on public paths and walkways.

5.8 Matters relied upon in support of the Classification

5.8.1 There are no other relevant matters.

6 Options

Option 1: The objection be dismissed (recommended option)
Advantages	· This will result in Max being legally required to wear a muzzle whenever out in public. This will reduce the risk of people, other dogs and animals being attacked and injured should another aggression incident occur.
Risks and Disadvantages	· This may have a negative impact on life activities Max and his owner enjoy.
Option 2: The objection be upheld
Advantages	· Max will not legally be required to wear a muzzle in public.
Risks and Disadvantages	· This will increase the risk of other dogs being attacked and injured if Max was to again become aggressive.

7 Conclusion

7.1 The behaviour of Max on 24 October 2018 shows that he can behave in an aggressive manner and is a real risk to other dogs and the public.

7.2 It is considered that in order to reduce the risk of an attack on other dogs or a member of the public that Max should be muzzled whenever in a public place.

7.3 A menacing classification is the lowest level of classification that requires the use of a muzzle when in public.

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

Author: Mandy Bishop, Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2134555 Dog Control Act 1996 Sections 33A & 33B ⇩

Attachment 2: A2134654 Complaint of Yasmin Barrington ⇩

Attachment 3: A2134661 Vet Report and Photos of injured dog Mango ⇩

Attachment 4: A2134673 Response from Rob Riley ⇩

Attachment 5: A2134675 Notice of Classification of Dog as Menacing Charles Robert Riley ⇩

Attachment 6: A2136844 Rob Riley Letter of Appeal against Menacing Classification ⇩

Attachment 7: A2136855 Submissions of Rob Riley against Classification of dog Max as menacing ⇩

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 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 Financial impact for Council.

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

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

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.

Item 6: Objection to classification of dog as menacing - Pirikotahi Phelan - dog name: ROSA

Hearings Panel - Other

27 February 2019

REPORT R9902

Objection to classification of dog as menacing - Pirikotahi Phelan - Dog name: ROSA

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide on an objection to the classification of a dog as menacing pursuant to section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

2. Summary

2.2 Section 33B of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides a right to the owner of a dog classified as menacing to object to the classification and be heard in support of the objection. (Attachment 1)

2.3 Pirikotahi Phelan (known as Piri) owns a three year old female Labrador/Pit Bull cross named Rosa.

2.4 In the afternoon of 20 September 2018, a woman was walking a friend’s Maltese dog past Phelan’s address at 32 Weka Street, Nelson. As they neared the property she saw two dogs on the property, one being a young dog and the other a “Pit Bull type” adult dog. Both dogs ran at the front fence and reacted aggressively in response to her and the dog she was walking. The adult dog (Rosa) jumped over the fence and attacked the Maltese dog being walked past the address, biting it around the neck. (Attachment 2)

2.5 A woman leaving the address called Rosa and the dog released the smaller dog, returning to the property. The Maltese dog was not injured, but it is believed this was only due to the woman leaving the address calling Rosa off. (Attachment 2)

2.6 Visits by Animal Management Officers to Piri Phelan’s address at 32 Weka Street on 24 and 25 September 2018 found no one at the address. On 26 September 2018, Piri Phelan, the owner of Rosa was written to by a Nelson City Council Animal Management Officer and advised of the complaint regarding the attack. He was asked to comment but did not reply to the letter. (Attachment 3)

2.7 After careful consideration, Piri Phelan was advised on 16 October 2018 via formal Notice of Classification that his dog Rosa had been classified as menacing. (Attachment 3)

2.8 On 6 November 2018, Council received an undated a letter from Piri Phelan appealing the menacing classification. (Attachment 4)

3. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

Receives the report Objection to classification of dog as menacing - Pirikotahi Phelan - dog name: ROSA (R9902) and its attachments (A2134555, A2134558, A2134560 and A2134593); and

Dismisses the appeal of Pirikotahi Phelan; and

Upholds the classification of Rosa as menacing.

4. Background

4.1 A check of dog records for Rosa shows her owner, Piri Phelan moved to Nelson in mid-2018 from Christchurch where he had failed to register Rosa.

4.2 Rosa was reported as wandering in the Weka Street, Nelson area on 25 July 2018 and an unregistered dog and a 7-day notice to register was issued. Rosa was not registered as required so an Infringement Notice for Failing to Register a dog was issued on 7 August 2018 to Piri Phelan.

4.3 On 5 September 2018, as Rosa remained unregistered she was seized and impounded. During this seizure, Rosa jumped the fence at 32 Weka Street. Once registered and the fees were paid she was released.

5. Discussion

5.1 Section 33E of the Dog Control Act requires that if a dog is classified as menacing, the following must be complied with:

5.2 The owner must not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place or private way, without being confined completely within a vehicle or cage, or without being muzzled in such a manner as to prevent the dog from biting but to allow it to breathe and drink without obstruction.

5.3 If required by the territorial authority the dog must be neutered.

Note that the Nelson City Council Dog Control Policy requires that all dogs classified as menacing are neutered. Rosa has not been neutered.

5.4 Under Section 33B(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996, if a dog is classified as menacing the owner has 14 days in which to object to the classification and has the right to be heard in support of the objection.

5.5 Section 33B(2) outlines that the territorial authority considering an objection may uphold or rescind the classification, and in making its determination must have regard to:

(a) The evidence which formed the basis for the classification; and

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

(d) Any other relevant matters (Attachment 1)

5.6 Section 33B(3) outlines that the territorial authority must, as soon as practicable, give written notice to the owner of-

(a) Its determination of the objection; and

(b) The reasons for its determination. (Attachment 1)

Criteria for consideration

5.7 The evidence which formed the basis for the classification

5.7.1 During the afternoon of 20 September 2018, a woman was walking her friend’s Maltese dog on Weka Street, Nelson. As they neared Pirikotahi Phelan’s address at 32 Weka Street, his two dogs ran at the front fence reacting aggressively towards the woman and the dog she was walking. One of the dogs (Rosa) jumped over the fence and attacked the Maltese dog, biting it around the neck. (Attachment 2)

5.7.2 The dog which made the attack (Rosa) is a Pit Bull/Labrador cross, owned by Pirikotahi Phelan (Piri), who at the time was living at 32 Weka Street, Nelson.

5.7.3 Although the smaller Maltese dog was not injured in the attack it is believed this was only due to a woman leaving the address calling Rosa off.

5.7.4 Visits to Phelan’s address at 32 Weka Street, Nelson revealed the fencing was inadequate to contain the 2 dogs housed there. On one visit the dog Rosa jumped easily over the fence when approached by Animal Management Officers.

5.7.5 Nelson City Council Animal Management Officer, Jeff Welch wrote to Piri Phelan on 26 September 2018 and advised of the attack by his dog Rosa. The details of the attack were outlined and he was asked to comment, as Council were considering enforcement action in relation to the attack. Piri Phelan has not responded to that letter.

5.8 Steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons or animals

5.8.1 Piri Phelan has not taken any steps to improve the fencing at his Weka Street address or taken any steps to prevent any threat to the safety of persons or animals.

5.9 Matters relied on in support of the objection

5.9.1 The undated letter from Piri Phelan, received by Council on 6 November 2018 is the only matter in support of the objection (Attachment 4)

5.9.2 In his letter Piri Phelan states: “This was a one-off incident where somebody walking their past our property into an area that Rosa would consider her territory. Also, my mother who is close with Rosa was exiting the gate when the person walking their dog were approaching my mother, this is when Rosa, considering this approaching dog to be in her territory, investigated the threat, jumping the fence to do what dogs do and that is protect!

5.9.3 Piri Phelan submits that the classification of Rosa as menacing is not warranted and is “unreasonable” because it was a “one-off incident”. He says Rosa is a good dog and this is shown as she stopped “investigating” and returned to her property on command.

6. Options

Option 1: The Objection be Dismissed (Recommended Option)
Advantages	· This will result in Rosa being legally required to wear a muzzle whenever out in public. This will reduce the risk of people, other dogs and animals being attacked and injured should another aggression incident occur.
Risks and Disadvantages	· This may have a negative impact on life activities Rosa and her owner enjoy.
Option 2: The objection be upheld
Advantages	· Rosa will not legally be required to wear a muzzle in public.
Risks and Disadvantages	· This will increase the risk of other dogs being attacked and injured if Rosa was to again become aggressive.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The behaviour of Rosa on 20 September 2018 shows that she can behave in an aggressive manner and is a real risk to other dogs and the public.

7.2 It is considered that in order to reduce the risk of an attack on other dogs or a member of the public that Rosa should be muzzled whenever in a public place.

7.3 A menacing classification is the lowest level of classification that requires the use of a muzzle when in public.

7.4 It is recommended that the objection be dismissed and the classification of Rosa as a menacing dog be upheld, noting the dog will be required to be neutered.

Author: Mandy Bishop, Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2134555 Dog Control Act 1996 Sections 33A & 33B ⇩

Attachment 2: A2134558 Statement of Complaint Adrienne Fraser ⇩

Attachment 3: A2134560 Piri Phelan Classification Notice Menacing dog Rosa ⇩

Attachment 4: A2134593 Piri Phelan Letter of Appeal against Menacing Classification of dog Rosa ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

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 Financial impact for Council.

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

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

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.