Agenda of Hearings Panel - Other

N-logotype-black-wide Hearings Panel - Other

19 February 2020

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. Confirmation of Minutes

There are no minutes to be confirmed

6. Street Naming Application - Montebello Village 7 - 12

Document number R13770

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Street Naming Application - Montebello Village (R13770) and its attachment (A2331367); and

2. Approves the names of “Old Farm Road” and “Hill Tops Way” for the roads as shown on Attachment 1 of report R13770 (A2331367).

7. Application for naming of a private right of way - Stag Ridge subdivision 13 - 17

Document number R13778

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Application for naming of a private right of way - Stag Ridge subdivision (R13778) and its attachment (A2336359); and

2. Accepts the name of “Mansfield Way” for the right of way identified as ROW C on Attachment 1 of report R13778 (A2336359).

8. Te Manu Reserve - stormwater easement 18 - 26

Document number R12563

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Te Manu Reserve - stormwater easement (R12563) and its attachments (A2337197 and A2335791); and

2. Resolves to publicly notify the proposal to grant a stormwater easement over Te Manu Reserve (Lot 1 DP 4341) in favour of Nelson City Council under section 48 (1) and in accordance with the requirements of sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977; and

3. Notes that officers will report back on the public notification process to enable the Hearings Panel - Other to make a decision on the proposed easement, subject to final consent of the Council (as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate).

9. Temporary Road Closure - Summer Challenge 27 - 32

Document number R13720

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Temporary Road Closure - Summer Challenge (R13720) and its attachments (A2307342); and

2. Approves the temporary road closure for the Summer Challenge on 31^st March 2020.

10. Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules 33 - 71

Document number R10345

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R10345) and its attachments (A2330168 and A2338700); and

2. Approves amendments detailed in the report R10158 to the following Schedules of the Bylaw, Parking and Vehicle Control (2011), No 207 (A2338700):

· Schedule 4

· Schedule 5

· Schedule 7

· Schedule 8

· Schedule 9

· Schedule 13

· Schedule 14

3. Declines the application for the Valerie Place no stopping detailed in 4.14 in the report R10158; and

4. Defers any decision on the Harper Street Resident Only Parking application for reasons detailed in 4.10 in the report R10158

11. Objection to Classification of dog as menacing.
Marek Holoubek. Dog Loui. 72 - 104

Document number R11509

Note: Mr Holoubek is travelling from Christchurch to attend the Hearings Panel meeting and will be present at 10.00am.

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Objection to Classification of dog as menacing. Marek Holoubek. Dog Loui. (R11509) and its attachments (A2271572, A2275167, A2134555, A2275364, A2282550, A2282555); and

2. Dismisses the objection of Marek Holoubek; and

3. Upholds the classification of the dog Loui as menacing.

Item 6: Street Naming Application - Montebello Village

Hearings Panel - Other

19 February 2020

REPORT R13770

Street Naming Application - Montebello Village

1. Purpose of Report

To approve or decline an application for the names of “Old Farm Road” and “Hill Tops Way” for the roads shown as Roads E and F on the attached scheme plan (Attachment 1).

2. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Street Naming Application - Montebello Village (R13770) and its attachment (A2331367); and

2. Approves the names of “Old Farm Road” and “Hill Tops Way” for the roads as shown on Attachment 1 of report R13770 (A2331367).

3. Background

3.1 The applicant, Stoke Valley Holdings, has requested the names of “Old Farm Road” and “Hill Tops Way” for the roads shown as Roads E and F on the attached Scheme Plan (Attachment 1).

3.2 The background to the name selection is as follows:

3.2.1 Old Farm Road: This name has been suggested as Road E leads from Montebello Avenue into farm land that historically encompassed the Ngawhatu Hospital and which is now known as “The Old Farm” to those who are familiar with this area.

3.2.2 Hill Tops Way: This name has been suggested as it reflects the beautiful views afforded from the ridge that this road follows of the nearby hill tops in all directions.

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

3.4 Road Naming Guidelines.

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

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

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

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

3.4.4 The name should not be likely to give offence.

3.4.5 The name should not be commercially based.

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

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

3.4.8 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 City Council or Tasman District Council areas that are likely to cause confusion with these names.

4.2 The proposed names do not conflict with any other criteria of the Road Naming Guidelines.

5. Alternative names

5.1 The applicant has provided two alternative names for Road E being Hill Farm Road or High Farm Road.

5.2 The alternative names for Road F are Hill Tops Road and West Ridge Road.

6. Options

6.1 The Hearings Panel has three options:

6.1.1 To approve the names of “Old Farm Road” and “Hill Tops Way”; or

6.1.2 To approve alternative names from the options provided; or

6.1.3 To decline the proposed names and to ask the applicant to submit alternative names.

6.2 Council officers recommend approving the names of “Old Farm Road” and “Hill Tops Way”.

Author: Mandy Bishop, Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2331367 Scheme plan for Roads E and F ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The decision in this report supports the community outcome that our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective and community engagement.

3. Risk

This is a low risk decision as checks have been carried out to ensure that the proposed road names will not cause confusion to the public or to emergency services, if there are existing similar names. The name will not cause offence.

4. Financial impact

No additional resources are required.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because there is no impact on any private person. No consultation is required.

6. Climate Impact

Not applicable for the naming of roads in an existing subdivision

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Hearings Panel has the following delegations to consider

Areas of responsibility:

· Matters relating to naming features within the city

Powers to decide:

· 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, aside from those impacted by the Naming Rights and Sponsorship Policy for Community Services Facilities (5.19.3)

Item 7: Application for naming of a private right of way - Stag Ridge subdivision

Hearings Panel - Other

19 February 2020

REPORT R13778

Application for naming of a private right of way - Stag Ridge subdivision

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To accept or decline to accept an application for the naming of a private right of way joining Sunningdale Drive shown as ROW C on the attached plan (Attachment 1).

2. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Application for naming of a private right of way - Stag Ridge subdivision (R13778) and its attachment (A2336359); and

2. Accepts the name of “Mansfield Way” for the right of way identified as ROW C on Attachment 1 of report R13778 (A2336359).

3. Background

3.1 The name “Mansfield Way” was in memory of the developer’s relative who passed away last year. The name is also consistent with the existing surrounding street names that are of English origin and reflect the exotic English trees that have been established in the area in the 1950s. The surrounding names include Sunningdale Drive, Bridgewater Lane, Woodford Lane and Greenfield Lane.

4. Discussion

4.1 The Council has no authority to name private roads or ways, other than to accept a name for inclusion in Council records.

Compliance with Council road naming guidelines

4.2 In considering an application for the naming of a private right of way, the Council should consider the following relevant road naming guidelines:

4.2.1 Whether the name is similar in sound or spelling to any road name in the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council areas; and

4.2.2 Whether the name is likely to cause any offence.

Evaluation of the proposed name

4.3 There is a Masefield Street in the “poets’ corner” area of Stoke. Mansfield does not sound similar to Masefield and is considered sufficiently different in spelling when Masefield Street and Mansfield Way are compared.

4.4 The applicant has also suggested naming the right of way as “Ken Mansfield Way” which would reduce any potential confusion with Masefield Street. General practice however is to have shorter names for shorter streets or right of ways.

4.5 The name is not likely to cause any offence.

5. Options

5.1 The preferred option is to accept the name “Mansfield Way”. The alternative options are for Council to accept the name “Ken Mansfield Way” or to decline to accept these names and ask the applicant to submit an alternative name.

Author: Mandy Bishop, Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2336359 Right of Way C scheme plan ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Council has the authority to name roads, pursuant to s 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974. The Council does not have the authority to name private rights of way, but may accept and record the name in Council systems and records.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The decision in this report supports the community outcome that our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective and community engagement.

3. Risk

This is a low risk decision as checks have been carried out to ensure that the proposed name will not cause confusion to the public or to emergency services, if there are existing similar names. The name will not cause offence.

4. Financial impact

No additional resources are required.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because there is no impact on any private person (no building on these lots has commenced). No consultation is required.

6. Climate Impact

Not applicable for the naming of a private right of way in an existing subdivision.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Hearings Panel has the following delegations to consider

Areas of Responsibility:

· Matters relating to naming features within the city (5.19.1)

Powers to Decide:

· 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 (5.19.3)

Item 8: Te Manu Reserve - stormwater easement

Hearings Panel - Other

19 February 2020

REPORT R12563

Te Manu Reserve - stormwater easement

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve public notification of the proposal to grant an easement in gross to Nelson City Council over Te Manu Reserve for stormwater control.

2. Summary

2.1 Officers consider that it is necessary to increase the level of stormwater control in Te Manu Reserve in order to protect the reserve and improve flood protection for nearby residential properties on Emano Street.

2.2 Council requires an easement over Te Manu Reserve in order to carry out the works.

2.3 The Council, as administering body of the reserve, may grant an easement under section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 (RA) for specified purposes, including drainage of any other land not forming part of the reserve, subject to assessment of whether public notification is required and subject to the final consent of the Minister of Conservation.

2.4 The Hearings Panel – Other has been delegated the administering body powers. The Minister’s power to grant final consent has been delegated to Council.

3. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Te Manu Reserve - stormwater easement (R12563) and its attachments (A2337197 and A2335791); and

4. Background

4.1 The subject land was first set aside under the Land Act 1948 and at the same time vested in the Council as reserve under the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 for recreation purposes.

4.2 The Certificate of Title for the land (1993) states “NELSON CITY COUNCIL in trust as a reserve for recreational purposes”. The land is therefore a reserve administered under section 16(6) of the Reserves Act 1977 (RA), as if it were classified as recreation reserve.

4.3 Council adopted the name Te Manu Reserve in 2018. The name acknowledges Wi Katene Te Puoho, the Māori chief of Wakapuaka that Emano St was incorrectly named after. Te Manu was the chief of Wakapuaka, and the son of Te Puoho ki Te Rangi, the Ngāti Tama ariki (paramount chief) and warrior.

4.4 Te Manu Reserve has been subject to slips in the past as stormwater from Matipo Terrace was not piped or controlled and was simply discharged onto the slopes of the Reserve. An open polyethylene channel approximately 20 metres long was installed from Matipo Terrace into the Reserve sometime in the early 2000s. This existing channel can be seen in Attachment One.

4.5 During heavy rainfall in 2014 stormwater discharge from the open channel caused a slip to occur on the Reserve leading to a large quantity of vegetation being carried down to Emano Street. (Attachment One.)

4.6 Council proposes to construct a rock lined channel to direct stormwater runoff from Matipo Crescent through the Reserve to Emano Street

4.7 A walking track linking Matipo Crescent to Emano Street will also be constructed as part of the project. The design and exact location of this track have not yet been finalised.

5. Discussion

5.1 Nelson City Council is currently planning to increase the level of stormwater control in Te Manu Reserve in order to protect the Reserve and improve flood protection for nearby residential properties on Emano Street. See Attachment Two for a diagram of the intended works.

5.2 The works in Te Manu Reserve will involve:

5.2.1 Improvements to the current corrugated polyethylene (PE) flume channel;

5.2.2 The construction of a new rock lined stormwater channel from the end of the PE flume channel to the bottom of Te Manu Reserve;

5.2.3 Development of a wetland adjacent to Emano Street;

5.2.4 Connection via a pipe under Emano Street to Toi Toi Stream.

5.3 The planned works will control and direct stormwater thereby reducing the risk of slips in the Reserve and the flooding of downhill properties. It is hoped that the wetland area will provide a habitat for Banded Kokopu and the connection to Toi Toi Stream will include a fish ladder. Piping the stormwater under the road will also make the road safer to use during heavy rain events.

5.4 The project is currently in the detailed design phase with tenders expected to be released in May 2020 with construction underway by August 2020.

5.5 Granting the easement for these works in Te Manu Reserve is best practice for the Council because:

5.5.1 It formalises the terms of the easement granted to satisfy what rights are being provided and over what area of the reserve land.

5.5.2 If the stormwater infrastructure needed maintenance and that part of the reserve is temporarily inaccessible to the public, the Council has the legal documentation to permit this.

5.5.3 The registration of the easement on the title provides public notice of the existence of the easement rights and infrastructure if, for instance, another party requested an easement over the reserve or the reserve was ever to be sold or the use of the reserve changed.

5.6 The Council, as the administering body of the reserve, may grant an easement under section 48(1) of the RA for specified purposes, including “ providing or facilitating… the supply of water to or the drainage of any other land not forming part of the reserve…”.

5.7 Before granting any easement, the administering body must give public notice in accordance with the requirements of sections 119 and 120 of the RA, unless it determines that:

5.7.1 The reserve is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged; and

5.7.2 The rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected.

5.8 The administering body’s power to grant the easement is also subject to the final consent of the Minister of Conservation. The Hearings Panel – Other has been delegated the powers of Council as the administrating body. The Minister’s power to grant final consent has been delegated to the Council (and cannot be sub-delegated).

5.9 The Hearings Panel – Other is therefore required to decide whether or not to give public notice of the proposed easement, applying the tests set out in paragraph 5.7 above. If it decides to give public notice, the requirements of sections 119 and 120 of the RA must be followed, including giving full consideration to every objection or submission that is received before deciding to proceed with the proposal.

5.10 Officers consider that this proposal will materially alter the reserve as the storm water channel is not a natural feature and will need to be constructed on the reserve.

5.11 As the public have full rights of access over the entire reserve a right-of-way easement for the walking track is not required.

6. Options

6.1 The Hearings Panel - Other has the options of approving or declining the proposal to publicly notify the intention to grant the easement. Approving the proposal is the recommended option.

Option 1: Approve public notification of the proposal to grant the stormwater easement
Advantages	· Allows the community to make their views known · Improves stormwater drainage from Matipo Terrace · Reduced risk of slips within the Reserve · Reduced risk of flooding of Emano Street properties
Risks and Disadvantages	· Possible objections from the community
Option 2: Decline public notification of the proposal to grant the stormwater easement
Advantages	· Officer time available for other matters · CAPEX savings
Risks and Disadvantages	· Continued risk of further slips in the Reserve · Continued risk of flooding of Emano Street properties
Option 3: Approve the proposed stormwater easement without public notification (subject to final consent of the Council as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate)
Advantages	· Improves stormwater drainage from Matipo Terrace · Reduced risk of slips within the Reserve · Reduced risk of flooding of Emano Street properties
Risks and Disadvantages	· Community views unknown · Risk of challenge on process · Negative view of Council

7. Conclusion

7.1 Approving an easement in gross across Te Manu Reserve will allow Council to upgrade stormwater controls and reduce the risk of flooding. Officers consider that granting the easement will materially alter the reserve and that public notification of the easement is required. This is a matter that the Hearings Panel – Other can make a decision on.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Distribute the Public Notice in Our Nelson and lodge it on the Council website. Copies of the proposal will also be sent to surrounding owners and occupiers and officers will meet with the community. If objections or submissions are received officers will prepare a further Report to the Hearings Panel – Other detailing the objections and submissions for the Panel to consider. If there are no objections or submissions the further report will seek a decision to grant the easement subject to the approval of Council acting under a delegation from the Minister of Conservation.

Author: Peter Hunter, Team Leader Property

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2337197 - Te Manu Reserve images ⇩

Attachment 2: A2335791 - Te Manu Reserve - Stormwater Upgrade Plan ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendation in this report is aligned with the purpose of Local Government in enabling “democratic decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities” as it allows the community to have a say in the use of Te Manu Reserve.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Supports community outcomes –

· Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

3. Risk

The granting of an easement will ensure that Council can access the stormwater infrastructure in the future for repairs and maintenance and temporarily restrict the public’s access to that area of the reserve.

4. Financial impact

The costs of advertising, surveying and registering the easement will be funded from the project budget.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance, based on previous feedback regarding the importance of the Reserve to the local community. Officers consider that public notification is required under section 48 (2) of the Reserves Act 1977 and the community will be given the opportunity to make their views known under the Act’s section 119 public notification process.

6. Climate Impact

Improving stormwater controls in Te Manu Reserve will increase the capability to cope with additional or extreme rainfall events.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Hearings Panel – Other has the following delegations to consider this matter –

· The power to administer the administering body functions under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 on proposed rights of way and other easements on reserves vested in Council

Item 9: Temporary Road Closure - Summer Challenge

Hearings Panel - Other

19 February 2020

REPORT R13720

Temporary Road Closure - Summer Challenge

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve/decline the temporary road closure application for the Summer Challenge on 31^st March 2020.

2. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Temporary Road Closure - Summer Challenge (R13720) and its attachments (A2307342); and

2. Approves the temporary road closure for the Summer Challenge on 31^st March 2020.

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.

3.2 It is a requirement that consultation with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is undertaken to temporarily close any road under Schedule 10 Clause 11 of the Local Government Act 1974. Nelson City Council (NCC) and NZTA have an agreement whereby specific consultation is only required if the closure affects state highway or their assigned detour routes.

Summer Challenge

3.3 Council officers received an application on 26 November 2019 from Ten Events Ltd to close Trafalgar Square – between Church Street and Trafalgar Square East on 21 March 2020 from 11am until 6pm as per Attachment 2. The Summer Challenge event is a Women’s only adventure race combining kayaking, mountain biking and hiking and the closure is to facilitate a race hub and finish point.

3.4 As per clause 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.

3.5 Consultation with NZTA has not been undertaken due to this event not having any impact on the State Highway or its detour routes.

3.6 Consultation with Police has been undertaken and they have given their approval for this event.

3.7 As per clause 11A of schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, Council placed a notification in Our Nelson on 11 December 2019 to notify of the applicant’s intention to close these roads and inviting feedback by 25 December 2019. The advertisement was also placed on the Council website and a letter drop was undertaken to directly affected businesses/residents. No feedback from the public was received.

3.8 No noise consent is required for this event and evidence of public liability insurance has been provided.

3.9 Council officers are satisfied that the road closure will not unreasonably impede traffic because alternative routes are available and the extent and duration is limited. Council officers recommend that this application be approved.

4. Options

4.1 The Hearings Panel - Other has two options, either to approve or decline the temporary road closure applications. Officers recommend approving the temporary road closure for the Summer Challenge.

Author: Gillian Dancey, Contracts Supervisor - Roading

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2307342 - 2020 Summer Challenge ⇩

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. Climate Impact

This decision will have no impact on the ability of the Council or District to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. 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 10: Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules

Hearings Panel - Other

19 February 2020

REPORT R10345

Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve proposed alterations to Schedules of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207, to give effect to minor safety and parking improvements, roading improvements carried out as part of the capital works programme and changes from new subdivisions.

2. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R10345) and its attachments (A2330168 and A2338700); and

2. Approves amendments detailed in the report R10158 to the following Schedules of the Bylaw, Parking and Vehicle Control (2011), No 207 (A2338700):

· Schedule 4

· Schedule 5

· Schedule 7

· Schedule 8

· Schedule 9

· Schedule 13

· Schedule 14

3. Declines the application for the Valerie Place no stopping detailed in 4.14 in the report R10158; and

4. Defers any decision on the Harper Street Resident Only Parking application for reasons detailed in 4.10 in the report R10158

3. Background

3.1 The Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 allows for the Council by resolution, to add, amend or delete specifications contained within the Schedules. The Council has delegated this power to the Hearings Panel -Other. To ensure that the Bylaw is enforceable it is important to ensure that the Schedules are updated on a regular basis. The Bylaw Schedules were last updated in December 2019.

3.2 Minor alterations and additions are proposed to Schedules 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of the Bylaw as detailed in section 4.

3.3 The proposed alterations and additions are shown for indicative purposes only by plans attached to this report. The purpose of these plans is to assist the panel to easily and quickly understand the nature of the changes proposed. These plans will not form part of the final bylaw. The actual changes as they will be incorporated into the final Bylaw, and with the level of detail required for enforcement purposes, are set out in the schedule of changes appended as Attachment 2.

4. Discussion

Schedule 4 – Special Parking Areas

4.1 Bicycle Park – Buxton Carpark

4.1.1 Following a request from eateries and businesses in Buxton Square, Council has installed a bicycle stand along the southern boundary of Buxton Carpark to cater for bicycle parking demand of both nearby businesses and eateries. In order to prevent cars parking across this bike stand, a formalised bicycle parking area in the form of a yellow box is required. This bicycle stand has become a popular location for office workers to park bicycles during the day, and was supported by the adjacent property owners. The bicycle stand location is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.1. There was no loss of car parking as a result of this installation.

4.2 Bicycle Park – Hardy Street

4.2.1 As a result of the development of Kismet Cocktail & Whisky Bar on Hardy Street, and subsequent removal of the bicycle stand to accommodate this development, Council has received a request that the bicycle stand be reinstated in the area. Demand for bicycle parking occurs in this area on weekends, particularly during Saturday Markets and CBD events. Officers have investigated suitable options and discussed the proposed installation with the adjacent retailer who is supportive of this installation. The proposed bicycle stand location is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.2.

4.3 Bicycle Park – Church Street

4.3.1 Following a request for additional bicycle parking near the Nelson English Centre, officers have been in discussion with retailers on the corner of Church Street and Selwyn Place, and have identified a suitable location for additional bicycle stands. The proposed bicycle stand location is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.3. This location was supported by the nearby businesses and does not result in the loss of any on-street car parking. Although close to the second bicycle park on Hardy Street referred to in 4.2, both bicycle parks are required due to user preference and the occasional overflow demand that occurs during peak times.

4.4 Mobility Parks (Upper Trafalgar Street)

4.4.1 Following the pedestrianisation of upper Trafalgar Street, four mobility parks have been provided, two at each end of Upper Trafalgar Street to replace those lost as a result of the closure, and to provide additional mobility parks for those less able to access the pedestrian area. The locations of the installed mobility parks are the same as used during the previous trials and are shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.4.

4.5 St Vincent Street Bus Stop

4.5.1 Recent changes to the way Nelson Christian Academy delivers its bus service has meant that larger buses are now frequently using the St Vincent Street bus stop opposite The Warehouse. This bus stop was recently formulated to accommodate route 5 buses which are medium size buses. The new school buses are now full size 13m buses, thus requiring a larger bus stop as well as longer entry and exit tapers. Officers support this change as per the SBL recommendation to accommodate school buses. The proposed alteration is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.5. No feedback was sought regarding this alteration due to Council owning the adjacent land. Refer also to 4.25 for associated no stopping.

4.6 Halifax Street Bus Stop (Millers Acre)

4.6.1 At peak summer times there is a need to accommodate both the beach summer bus and cruise liner buses near Millers Acre. The need for two bus stops arise at peak times when more than one bus needs to access the area. The second bus stop is referred to within 4.7 below. To accommodate this bus stop currently, applicants have had to submit and setup a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) which is costly and time consuming and results in cones and signs within the CBD which look both unappealing and temporary. To reduce the need for this, officers recommend making the area shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.6 a dual purpose car park and bus stop. The current car parking will be switched to a bus stop when needed by unfolding a customised sign. No feedback other than from SBL was sought due to Council owning the adjacent land. SBL supports this recommendation.

4.7 Trafalgar Street Bus Stop (Millers Acre)

4.7.1 As referred to in 4.6 above, there is a need for two bus stops near Millers Acre to cater for the current demand. Officers recommend making the area shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.7 a dual purpose car park and bus stop. The current car parking will be switched to a bus stop when needed by unfolding a customised onsite sign. No feedback other than SBL was sought due to Council owning the adjacent land. SBL support this recommendation.

4.8 Authorised Parking Area – Trafalgar Street

4.8.1 As a result of safety concerns regarding parking behind Civic House, officers have been asked to accommodate an Authorised Vehicles Only parking space near Civic House for the Mayor. Three parking spaces currently exist behind Civic House, and concern has been raised about the safety of reversing vehicles around pedestrians and cyclists. To resolve this issue, these carparks will be removed. Of the three carparks, both the Chief Executive and Deputy Mayor will forgo their current carparks, and park where they can in and around the CBD. To accommodate the Mayors carpark, Officers are proposing that one ‘Pay and Display P60’ carpark be removed and replaced by one Authorised Vehicle Only carpark. No feedback was requested due to Council being the adjacent land owner. The proposed parking alteration is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.8.

Schedule 5 – Metered Parking including pay and display

4.9 Upper Trafalgar Street

4.9.1 As a result of the pedestrianisation of upper Trafalgar Street, there is no need for on-street car parking in that area. All ‘pay and display’ parking previously included within the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw on Trafalgar Street, between Hardy Street and Trafalgar Square can now be removed from the bylaw. The extent of parking to be removed from the bylaw is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.9.

Schedule 7 – Resident Parking Spaces

4.10 Harper Street Resident Only Park

4.10.1 Council has received an application for a Resident Only Park at 17 Harper Street. Officers have confirmed that this application meets the requirements of the resident parking policy. The proposed Resident Only Carpark is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.10.

4.10.2 Whilst neighbouring properties were consulted and no substantive feedback was received, the Group Manager Infrastructure (in light of a report coming to the 20 February Infrastructure Committee on the issue of Resident Only Parking) has recommended this application come to the Hearings Panel – Other for a decision.

4.10.3 That report to the Infrastructure Committee will deal with proposed increases in fees for Resident Only Parks, but also recommends a moratorium on issuing any new Resident Only parks until such time as a Parking Strategy is developed in 2020/21.

4.10.4 Consequently officers recommend that this application be put on hold pending consideration as part of that report to the Infrastructure Committee.

Schedule 8 – Time Limited Parking Areas

4.11 Port Nelson Layout Changes

4.11.1 Following the road layout changes on Rogers Street aimed to alleviate truck stacking on Vickerman Street, time limited parking was installed as shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.11. P30 parking was installed to ensure turnover for the nearby businesses as a result of the significant loss of parking on the southern side of Rogers Street. This installation was supported by the nearby businesses and will remain in place until Port Nelson Ltd (PNL) complete its log sorting and container terminal improvements. The removal of parking by means of no stopping mentioned above is referred to within 4.15.

Schedule 9 – No Stopping and No Parking Areas

4.12 30 Arapiki Road No Stopping

4.12.1 Following feedback from road users, it’s been suggested that the current no stopping near the crest of Arapiki Road be connected, to improve visibility for oncoming vehicles and prevent vehicles needing to cross the centreline to navigate parked vehicles. This installation is supported by officers on safety grounds. Feedback from 30 Arapiki Road outlined that retaining on-street parking was preferable, however the resident felt the request was understandable. The area of proposed no stopping is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.12.

4.13 Cambria Street / Tasman Street Intersection No Stopping

4.13.1 Following feedback from a concerned motorist, officers have reviewed the need for no stopping at the Tasman Street/Cambria Street intersection. Due to high parking demand, vehicles are frequently parking closer than 6m to the intersection. Although NZ driving rules currently prohibit this behaviour, officers recommend installing no stopping as shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.13, thus to clearly define the 6m rule and to match that of the surrounding corners of the intersection. No feedback was sought due to this restriction already being imposed by NZ driving rules.

4.14 Valerie Place No Stopping

4.14.1 Officers were contacted by a concerned Valerie Place resident in regard to the perceived access issues along Valerie Place. Concerns arise when vehicles elect to park on both sides of Valerie Place.

4.14.2 Much of Nelsons hillside developments result in a compromise between lot sizes and the available roading corridor width. As a result, many hillside developments result in narrower streets and a balance between access and parking. Valerie Place was constructed in accordance with the Land Development Manual (LDM) of the time, adopted by Council.

4.14.3 Valerie Place has 18 properties and is considered a local road in Councils road hierarchy. The installation of No stopping would result in the approximate loss of 12 carparks.

4.14.4 The installation of no stopping is likely to have the undesired effect of increasing speed, as one lane will become unobstructed. No stopping Valerie Place also goes against the design standard set by Council, and would set precedent for similar developments across Nelson. Officers do not support the installation of no stopping in this location, and seek a decision whether to approve or decline this installation, and thus give officers direction for future situations that are deemed similar, that are also compliant with the LDM adopted by Council. The extent of no stopping requested is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.14. Officers recommend that this application be declined.

4.15 Port Nelson Layout Changes

4.15.1 Following a significant amount of feedback regarding trucks parking on Vickerman Street waiting to get into Port Nelson Ltd (PNL), Council officers implemented rapid changes to both Carkeek Street and Rogers Street to accommodate additional truck stacking. Officers felt that the behaviour that had begun to occur was impacting the safety of road users, and that there was a moderate/high chance of an accident occurring. The road layout changes made were implemented in April 2019 to improve the safety for road users of Vickerman Street, and alleviate parking issues for the nearby businesses. As result of the changes, a significant amount of no stopping was required to prevent parking along the newly designated ‘trucking lane’. Officers seek to retrospectively add these parking restrictions to the bylaw. The extent of no stopping is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.11.

4.16 101 Princes Drive No Stopping

4.16.1 Following feedback from the resident of 101 Princes Drive, officers have reviewed the need for no stopping within the white edge line taper of Princes Drive, outside 101 Princes Drive. Due to the taper of the white edge line, parking in this location would result in vehicles parking over the white line, and thus into the live traffic lane. To prevent this, officers recommend the installation of no stopping, similar to that on the opposite side of Princes Drive to prevent this parking behaviour. The extent of proposed no stopping is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.16.

4.17 Forests Road Corner – No Stopping

4.17.1 Following feedback from a nearby trucking company, it is proposed that no stopping be installed around the bend at 22 Forests Road to improve both visibility and access for larger vehicles. Officers can confirm that vehicles parking around this corner impact the turning movement of large B-train trucks, thus requiring them to cross the centreline with limited visibility. Feedback was received from 22 Forests Road who objected to having the no stopping installed due to the loss of parking. Officers feel that the current driving behaviour and pedestrian access are impacted by this parking, and therefore recommend proceeding with this installation based on health and safety grounds. The extent of proposed no stopping is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.17.

4.18 Putaitai Library Entrance No Stopping

4.18.1 Following the resealing of Putaitai Street, it has been observed that members of the public regularly park over the entrance to the Stoke Library. It’s understood that the inconspicuous nature of the vehicle entrance results in members of the public parking across the driveway inadvertently. To prevent this parking behaviour in future, officers took the opportunity whilst on-site to install no stopping, and now seek for this to be added to the bylaw. No consultation was undertaken as it is already deemed a traffic offence to park in this location. The extent of no stopping is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.18.

4.19 Songer Street (Greenmeadows Centre Carpark)

4.19.1 Following the opening of the new Greenmeadows Centre, concern has been raised about the visibility for vehicles exiting on to Songer Street. Given the nature of the venue and the demographic of its users, it is proposed that no stopping be installed west of the current driveway to improve visibility of vehicles travelling east from Main Road Stoke. The extent of proposed no stopping is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.19. No feedback was sought due to Council owning the adjacent land and building.

4.20 Main Road Stoke Bus Stop opposite Saxton Lodge

4.20.1 Following feedback from SBL, it’s been noted that vehicles parking directly adjacent to the Main Road Stoke bus stop opposite Saxton Lodge are impeding the safe and efficient access to the bus stop. It is proposed that 15m of no stopping be installed north and south of the current bus stop to improve access. The proposed installation of no stopping is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.20. Due to the amount of parking on Main Road Stoke, and ability for the adjacent properties to park off-street, no feedback was sought for this change.

4.21 Main Road Stoke Bus Stops – at Ernest Rutherford

4.21.1 Following feedback from SBL, it’s been noted that vehicles parking directly adjacent to the Main Road Stoke bus stops at Ernest Rutherford are impeding the safe and efficient access to the bus stops. It is proposed that no stopping be installed north and south of the current bus stops to improve access. The proposed installation of no stopping is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.21. Due to the amount of parking on Main Road Stoke, and the ability for the adjacent properties to park off-street, no feedback was sought for this change. This no stopping also has the added benefit of ensuring adequate visibility for pedestrians crossing Main Road Stoke at the nearby pedestrian refuge.

4.22 Milton Street / Weka Street Intersection No Stopping

4.22.1 Visibility concerns at the Milton Street/Weka Street intersection have been raised by a nearby resident. Officers have reviewed the intersection layout, including the visibility for vehicles turning out of Weka Street east. Due to the lack of visibility and road layout, officers recommend installing no stopping on Milton Street, directly south of Weka Street to improve visibility to the south. The extent of no stopping proposed is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.22. The applicant for this no stopping lives at 101 Milton Street and is therefore supportive of this change.

4.23 Nile Street Bus Stop at NMIT

4.23.1 SBL has suggested a change to the Nile Street bus stop outside NMIT. SBL drivers are finding it difficult to access the bus stop with larger and more frequent buses. Nearby angled parks limit the bus driver’s ability to access the bus stop, and prevent them from parking adjacent to the kerb. The result is that buses park out into the road way, often reducing visibility of the nearby pedestrian crossing and officers support the request to have two angled carparks removed to allow the safe and efficient access to this bus stop. The proposed no stopping is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.23. Officers have discussed the proposal with NMIT, and have gained their support for the proposal on the grounds of access and safety for children.

4.24 2 Tasman Street No Stopping

4.24.1 Concern has been raised by the owners of 2 Tasman Street with regard to vehicles repeatedly parking over their driveway blocking their access. Tasman Street near Weka Street has a high parking demand due to the nearby backpackers. The design and layout of the historic houses make the entrance to 2 Tasman Street inconspicuous, thus leading to vehicles repeatedly extending across the northern half of the driveway. Officers have altered the white parking lines in an attempt to resolve the issue, however vehicles are still parking in this location causing issues for the owners of 2 Tasman Street. To resolve this issue, and make it legally enforceable, officers propose installing no stopping as shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.24. No feedback was sought from surrounding neighbours as access takes priority over on-street parking.

4.25 St Vincent Street Bus Stop No Stopping

4.25.1 To facilitate the extension of the bus stop on St Vincent Street near The Warehouse, the installation of no stopping is required prior to the bus stop to enable larger buses to safely and efficiently enter the bus stop. Refer 4.5 for further details of the bus stop extension. The extent of no stopping proposed is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.5.

Schedule 13 – Stop Signs

4.26 Toi Toi Street/Montreal Road Stop Sign

4.26.1 Feedback regarding the safety of the Montreal Road/Toi Toi Street intersection has been received. Officers have reviewed the intersection sight lines (from Montreal Road South), and note that visibility along Toi Toi Street is restricted for vehicles exiting from Montreal Road South. For this reason, officers support and recommend changing the current Give Way, to a Stop sign. This recommendation has been supported by Police. The location of the proposed Stop Sign is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.26. No consultation was undertaken as this is deemed a matter of public safety.

Schedule 14 – Give Way Signs

4.27 Elderberry Lane Give Way

4.27.1 Concern has been raised regarding the roading layout at the intersection of Sanctuary Drive and Elderberry Lane. To better define the priorities of the intersection and make the roading layout more self-explaining, it is proposed that Elderberry Lane be controlled by a Give Way. No consultation was undertaken as this change is considered a matter of public safety. The location of the proposed Give Way is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.27.

5. Options

5.1 There are limited options for the items presented in this report as the majority in schedules 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 are proposed changes to improve safe and efficient traffic movement. Option 1 is the preferred option.

Option 1: Adopt changes as attached for Schedules 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 without changes
Advantages	· Changes to Schedules are designed to improve safety and efficiency
Risks and Disadvantages	· Minor loss of parking in some places
Option 2: Do not adopt changes as attached for Schedules 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14.
Advantages	· There are no identified advantages
Risks and Disadvantages	· Failure to approve changes could result in unsafe and inefficient use of the roading network. · Failure to update Schedules will open enforcement to challenge. · Failure to approve changes will delay or prevent development under the Resource Management Act (RMA).

Author: Matt Bruce, Team Leader Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2330168 - Proposed changes shown indicatively on aerials ⇩

Attachment 2: A2338700 - Schedule of proposed changes to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The report recommendation meets current and future needs of communities in contributing to the safe use of the roading and parking network in the City

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The content and recommendations of this report are consistent with Council’s Community Outcomes – “Our Infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”. In particular that we have good quality, affordable and effective infrastructure and transport networks. This report is directly aligned to the requirements of the Parking Policy, the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw and with Council’s strategic direction through the Regional Land Transport Strategy.

3. Risk

To ensure that the Bylaw is enforceable, it is important to ensure that the Schedules are updated on a regular basis. Failure to update Schedules will open enforcement up to challenge.

4. Financial impact

Costs are within allocated annual budgets for road maintenance or capital projects.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance. Nearby businesses and residents that could be affected, have been consulted.

6. Climate Impact

This decision will have no impact on the ability of the Council or District to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Hearings Panel - Other has the following delegations to consider changes to the Parking and vehicle Control Bylaw.

Powers to Decide:

· The power to make changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw that do not require public consultation

· The power to hear submissions and recommendations on proposed changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw requiring public consultation

Item 10: Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules: Attachment 2

Hearings Panel - Other

19 February 2020

REPORT R11509

Objection to Classification of dog as menacing.
Marek Holoubek. Dog Loui.

1. Purpose of Report

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

2. Summary

2.1 On Wednesday 7 August 2019, at about 10.15am Marek Holoubek took his male black Retriever Labrador dog Loui for a walk on the Grampians track at the top of Collingwood Street, Nelson.

2.2 Mr Holoubek let Loui off his leash and about 200 metres up the track Loui saw a sheep and chased it down the hill, off the track.

2.3 Mr Holoubek lost sight of both his dog and the sheep and when he found them some time later the sheep was caught in the boundary fence.

2.4 Loui was next to the sheep which showed signs of injury.

2.5 Mr Holoubek called Loui away, reattached his leash and called the police who contacted the SPCA who in turn advised Nelson City Council Animal Control to attend.

2.6 The owner of the sheep, Andrew Newton who leases the Grampians Reserve area and runs stock there attended and found his sheep had serious dog bite injuries to its rear left leg and rump.

2.7 The injuries sustained by the sheep were so serious it had to be euthanised.

2.8 As a result of the attack, Nelson City Council Officers classified Loui as menacing pursuant to Section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996. (Attachment 1)

2.9 Marek Holoubek has objected to the classification. (Attachment 2)

3. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Objection to Classification of dog as menacing.
Marek Holoubek. Dog Loui. (R11509) and its attachments (A2271572, A2275167, A2134555, A2275364, A2282550, A2282555); and

2. Dismisses the objection of Marek Holoubek; and

3. Upholds the classification of the dog Loui as menacing.

4. Background

4.1 Nelson City Council is not aware of any previous dog control history involving aggression or attacks by the dog Loui.

5. Discussion

Circumstances of the Attack:

5.1 On Wednesday 7 August 2019, at about 10.15am, Marek Holoubek took his unleased dog Loui for a walk on the Nelson City Council public reserve known as The Grampians.

5.2 Loui chased and attacked a sheep which was so severely injured it had to be euthanised.

Legislation around classification of a dog as menacing

5.3 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, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of observed or reported behaviour of the dog. (Attachment 3)

5.4 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.

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.

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.

5.7 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: Nelson City Council Dog Control Policy requires that all dogs classified as menacing are neutered.

The Evidence which formed the basis for the Classification

5.8 In his statement, Marek Holoubek admits he took his dog Loui for a walk on the Grampians track and that Loui was not on a leash. He admits Loui saw and chased a sheep. He lost sight of both Loui and the sheep. After searching for a time and being directed by another person in the area, he found Loui with the sheep which was “caught in the fence”. (Attachment 4)

5.9 The attack was not seen by anyone but Loui was beside the severely injured sheep when his owner Mr Holoubek found him.

5.10 In his statement, the owner of the sheep, farmer Andrew Newton said on his arrival he “tested” Loui’s reaction to the sheep by having him released from his leash and observing the dog’s behaviour. He reported the dog immediately ran towards the sheep and tried to attack it. A tree branch was used to discourage Loui. (Attachment 5)

5.11 Very experienced in dog behaviour, Mr Newton in his statement describes Loui as being “a full on stock worrier with a very high level of malicious intent.”

5.12 Mr Newton examined the injuries to his sheep and reported the injuries could not have been caused by the sheep simply getting caught in the fence. The injury sustained was caused by a dog with a powerful bite. The injury was not just a bite, there was meat chewed off the rump of the back left leg and the leg bone was broken. Mr Newton said this could only have been caused by a dog with a strong bite.

5.13 Dog Control Officer William (Bill) Gaze, with 14 years experience, investigated the attack and reported the injuries he observed on the sheep were consistent with it having been attacked by a dog. He said the wound was a bite and tear wound and the injuries were not survivable, and would not have been caused by the sheep simply being caught in a fence. (Attachment 6)

5.14 Photographs taken by Bill Gaze show the injuries sustained by the sheep were of a serious nature. (Attachment 6 - graphic)

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

5.15 Marek Holoubek initially took responsibility for the attack. He did the correct thing at the time by contacting the SPCA and spoke willingly to the investigating Dog Control Officer, Bill Gaze.

5.16 Mr Holoubek has recompensed the owner of the sheep for its value of $400.

Matters relied on in support of the objection

5.17 Marek Holoubek has submitted a written objection to the classification of his dog Loui as menacing. (Attachment 2)

5.18 In his submission Mr Holoubek states, “On August 7, while exercising Loui in Grampians Reserve there was a situation with a sheep being caught in a fence and not sure how to help the sheep, called the police.”

5.19 He further submits that, “as a result of (his) limited English and inability to describe the circumstances leading up to the sheep becoming caught in the fence he has implicated himself and Loui in an offence.”

5.20 Mr Holoubek claims he did not lose control of Loui and Loui returned directly to him when called.

5.21 Mr Holoubek further submits Loui did not cause the injury to the sheep – it broke its leg when caught in the fence.

5.22 Loui is described as an extraordinarily good natured dog whose character does not fit the classification.

5.23 Material supplied in support of the objection includes an assessment of Loui by a Dog Behaviourist from a company called “Sit-Happens” and 4 testimonies from friends, neighbours and family members plus 3 photos of Loui and his Christchurch City Council dog registration form.

Any other relevant matters

5.24 The dog in question is Loui and is owned by Brendon Morris and his partner Alice Blackburn of 529 Hereford Street, Linwood, Christchurch.

5.25 On 7 August 2019, at the time of the incident Brendon and Alice were away visiting family in Denmark for an extended period of time. While they were away, Marek Holoubek took “ownership” of Loui.

5.26 The Dog Control Act 1996 defines that owner, in relation to any dog, means every person who—

(a) owns the dog; or

(b) has the dog in his or her possession, whether the dog is at large or in confinement, otherwise than for a period not exceeding 72 hours for the purpose of preventing the dog causing injury, damage, or distress, or for the sole purpose of restoring a lost dog to its owner.

5.27 Therefore, by definition, at the time of the attack, Marek Holoubek was the owner of Loui as he had been in his possession for a period of longer than 72 hours.

6. Options

Option 1: The Objection be Dismissed (Recommended Option)
Advantages	This will result in Loui being legally required to wear a muzzle whenever out in public. He will also be required to be neutered. 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 the dog Loui and his owner enjoys.
Option 2: The Objection be Upheld
Advantages	Loui will not legally be required to wear a muzzle in public or be neutered.
Risks and Disadvantages	This will increase the risk of other animals being attacked and injured if Loui were to again become aggressive.

7. Conclusion

7.1 It has been submitted that Loui is a lovely, calm, friendly good natured dog with no issues of aggression towards people, other dogs and even cats. He is well behaved and responds to commands. This description of Loui, when he is around people, other dogs and even cats is not disputed – however – the evidence is that Loui is a sheep worrier.

7.2 None of the people who supplied testimonies have witnessed how Loui reacts with sheep. The Dog Behaviourist, Lisa Sturm states in her report that she “cannot comment on Loui’s behaviour around sheep.”

7.3 The evidence is clear from the farmer, Andrew Newton who tested Loui’s reaction to the sheep, that Loui reacts in an aggressive manner towards sheep and will attack them.

7.4 The most lovely, calm, playful family dog is very capable of becoming a sheep worrier when around sheep. Loui is considered to be one such dog.

7.5 It is considered that in order to reduce the risk of an attack on other animals, stock or a member of the public that Loui should be muzzled whenever in a public place. A menacing classification is the lowest level of classification and requires the use of a muzzle when in public. A muzzle would not be required when Loui is on private land.

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

Author: Brian Wood, Team Leader Regulatory (Environmental Inspections)

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2271572 Menacing Classification Papers - Dog Loui ⇩

Attachment 2: A2275167 Marek Holoubek Objection to Menacing Classification - Dog Loui ⇩

Attachment 3: A2134555 Dog Control Act 1996 Section 33A & 33B ⇩

Attachment 4: A2275364 Marek Holoubek Statement re Dog Attack ⇩

Attachment 5: A2282550 Andrew Newton Sheep owner Statement ⇩

Attachment 6: A2282555 Bill Gaze Dog Control Officer Statement and photos ⇩Please note contains graphic photos

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 a risk to the community from future incidents if the recommendation is not supported.

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. Climate Impact

This decision will have no impact on the ability of the Council or District to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Hearings Panel – Other has the following delegations: 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.

Hearings Panel – Other

Functions:

Membership:

Powers to Decide: