Agenda of Hearings Panel - Other

Hearings Panel - Other

5 August 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 - 3B Hill Street 5 - 11

Document number R18094

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Street naming application - 3B Hill Street (R18094) and its attachment (A2396577); and

2. Approves the names of “Ara Kaitangata”, “Ara Ngāti Koata”, “Ara Te Ātiawa” and “Ara Ngā Hekenga for the roads as shown on Attachment 1 of report R18094 (A2396577).

7. Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules 12 - 19

Document number R16999

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R16999) and its attachments (A2424883 and A2425269); and

2. Approves amendments detailed in the report R16999 to the following Schedules of the Bylaw, Parking and Vehicle Control (2011), No 207:

· Schedule 8 – Nile Street Time Limited Mobility Parking

· Schedule 9 – Franklyn Street No Stopping.

8. Objection to Classification of dogs Boston and Rarka as menacing. Kyran Taylor and Talia Samuels. 20 - 55

Document number R17007

Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Objection to Classification of dogs Boston and Rarka as menacing. Kyran Taylor and Talia Samuels. (R17007) and its attachments (A2370278, A2370259, A2426520, A2134555, A2415873 and A2426645); and

2. Dismisses the objection of Kyran Taylor and Talia Samuels to the Classification of dogs Boston and Rarka as menacing; and

3. Upholds the classification of both dogs Boston and Rarka as menacing.

Item 6: Street naming application - 3B Hill Street

Hearings Panel - Other

5 August 2020

REPORT R18094

Street naming application - 3B Hill Street

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve or decline an application for the names of “Ara Ngāti Tama”, “Ara Ngāti Koata”, “Ara Te Ātiawa” and “Ara Ngā Hekenga” for the roads within the subdivision development at 3B Hill Street shown on the attached scheme plan (Attachment 1).

2. Summary

2.1 Three of the four names proposed for the subdivision meet the criteria of the Road Naming Guidelines. An alternative is recommended for the fourth street, to avoid confusion for the community and emergency services with a very similar existing street name.

3. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

1. Receives the report Street naming application - 3B Hill Street (R18094) and its attachment (A2396577); and

2. Approves the names of “Ara Kaitangata”, “Ara Ngāti Koata”, “Ara Te Ātiawa” and “Ara Ngā Hekenga for the roads as shown on Attachment 1 of report R18094 (A2396577).

4. Background

4.1 The applicant, Wakatū Incorporation, has requested the names of “Ara Ngāti Tama”, “Ara Ngāti Koata”, “Ara Te Ātiawa” and “Ara Ngā Hekenga” for the roads shown on the attached scheme plan (Attachment 1). Note the plan has not been updated since Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) advised the term “Ara” or “Te Ara” can be used instead of Street or Lane.

4.2 Wakatū has approximately 4,000 shareholders who descend from the original Māori land owners of the Nelson, Tasman and Golden Bay Regions – Te Tau Ihu. Wakatū Incorporation membership comprises of descendants of four iwi, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Koata, Ngāti Tama and Te Ātiawa. Their arrival in Te Tau Ihu during the 1800s is recorded as Ngā Hekenga (the migrations) and was undertaken over a series of migrations from the Taranaki and Kāwhia regions.

4.3 The applicant advises that due to the collective nature of the naming concept, to exclude one of the iwi from this group may cause slight to the mana of the excluded iwi. The names should be considered collectively and not in part.

4.4 There is an existing Ngati Rarua Street off Champion Road (that will be extended into the development at 3B Hill Street), Ngatitama Street off Hampden Street and Ngatiawa Street also off Hampden Street in Nelson.

4.5 The Council has the authority to name roads, pursuant to Section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974. Each proposed road name is assessed according to the criteria in the Road Naming Guidelines, as follows:

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

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

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

d) The name should not be likely to give offence.

e) The name should not be commercially based.

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

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

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

4.6 LINZ has advised that it is incorporating the use of “Ara” or “Te Ara” as road types in conjunction with Māori road names and there are several roads using this format including in Waikanae and Hastings. Road names using these road types are still checked against current criteria to ensure there is no duplication or similarities that could cause confusion or location problems.

5. Evaluation

5.1 Officers indicated to the applicant that Ara Ngāti Tama may not be approved as it is too similar to the existing Ngatitama Street. The applicant feels that as Ngatitama Street in Nelson City is in a different suburb and is spelt as one word, the name “Ara Ngāti Tama” would be sufficiently different and should therefore be considered.

5.2 Officers consider that criteria a) is not met for Ara Ngāti Tama as it is too similar to Ngatitama Street. While Ara is different to Street the main name Ngāti Tama sounds the same as Ngatitama. Ngatitama Street is in the Nelson South suburb and Ara Ngāti Tama will likely be given the Richmond postcode. However, the use of suburb names in the Nelson Richmond area is not as common as in larger centres. Even with this difference the names are checked for similarities within the Nelson and Tasman regions.

5.3 Officers requested an alternative name as a second option for the Hearings Panel to consider should “Ara Ngāti Tama” not be approved. The alternative name is outlined in section 6.

5.4 Criteria a) is met for all other proposed names including the alternative name. All other criteria are met for all proposed names.

6. Alternative names

6.1 The applicant has provided one alternative name for Ara Ngāti Tama being “Ara Kaitangata”.

6.2 Kaitangata is the name of a Pa site in Collingwood and a reference to a group of original peoples from the Ngāti Mutunga region in Taranaki. They are informally identified within Wakatū as the fifth iwi.

7. Options

7.1 The Hearings Panel has three options:

a) To approve the names of “Ara Ngāti Tama”, “Ara Ngāti Koata”, “Ara Te Ātiawa” and “Ara Ngā Hekenga”; or

b) To approve the names of “Ara Kaitangata”, “Ara Ngāti Koata”, “Ara Te Ātiawa” and “Ara Ngā Hekenga”; or

c) To decline some or all of the proposed names and to ask the applicant to submit alternative names.

7.2 Council officers recommend approving option b), the names of “Ara Kaitangata”, “Ara Ngāti Koata”, “Ara Te Ātiawa” and “Ara Ngā Hekenga”. While the application to name the roads in a collective manner to recognise the migration of those iwi is understood, officers consider that “Ara Ngāti Tama” is too similar to the existing Ngatitama Street and would cause confusion and location problems for the community and emergency services.

Author: Mandy Bishop, Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2396577 3B Hill Street - plan of proposed names ⇩

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

The recommended names will avoid confusion but there is a high risk that Ara Ngāti Tama will cause confusion if this name is approved. Should this lead to problems in the future for emergency services this could lead to reputational damage for the Hearings panel and the street naming process.

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 if the recommendation is approved. No consultation is required. If the Hearings Panel was considering approval of Ara Ngāti Tama then potentially all residents and owners of Ngatitama Street properties would be impacted. Engagement with them, emergency services and postal services would be warranted before a decision is made.

6. Climate Impact

Not applicable for the naming of roads in an approved subdivision.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori by staff has been undertaken in preparing this report. The applicant has consulted with the Boards of Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Koata, Ngāti Tama and Te Ātiawa.

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

Hearings Panel - Other

5 August 2020

REPORT R16999

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 (R16999) and its attachments (A2424883 and A2425269); and

2. Approves amendments detailed in the report R16999 to the following Schedules of the Bylaw, Parking and Vehicle Control (2011), No 207:

· Schedule 8 – Nile Street Time Limited Mobility Parking

· Schedule 9 – Franklyn Street No Stopping.

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 February 2020.

3.2 Minor alterations and additions are proposed to Schedules 8 and 9 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 8 – Time Limited Parking Areas

4.1 Nelson Centre of Musical Arts (NCMA) Time Limited Mobility Parking

4.1.1 Council recently installed a mobility carpark on Nile Street near the NCMA following request from patrons (this was approved by the Hearing Panel – Other on the 20 June 2019). Since installation, the mobility carpark has been occupied by one particular permit holder almost 100% of the time, thus making it unavailable for other patrons of the NCMA who also hold mobility permits and require nearby parking. Officers have been asked by the original applicant to make the current mobility carpark time limited. Officers propose installing a P180 time limit to the current mobility carpark to create turnover and to function as originally intended. No feedback was sought for this minor change given support for the original installation of the mobility carpark. The proposed parking alteration is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.1.

Schedule 9 – No Stopping and No Parking Areas

4.2 Franklyn Street No Stopping

4.2.1 Following a request from members of the Hampden Street School community for improved pedestrian safety on walking routes to school at the Franklyn Street/Waimea Road intersection, officers have worked through a number of options. This was most recently discussed at the 2 July 2020 Infrastructure Committee.

4.2.2 The longer term solution is subject to the outcome of the Nelson Future Access study, but as an interim measure the current preferred officer option is the installation of a pedestrian refuge in Franklyn Street near the intersection with Waimea Road approximately 30m west of the intersection. This option has been subject to a road safety audit which shows that in order to safely accommodate a pedestrian refuge, the current traffic lanes must be diverted around the pedestrian refuge which has the effect of pushing the traffic lanes toward the kerb. To address this and due to the limited road width, this will result in the net loss of approximately eight carparks and will require the installation of no stopping lines. The proposed installation of no stopping is shown in Attachment 1, titled 4.2

4.2.3 Officers have sought feedback regarding the installation of no stopping, and subsequent loss of parking as detailed below. Officers note that if traffic signals are progressed at this intersection as part of any long term solution, it is unlikely that the parking could be retained.

· Feedback was received from the manager of Franklyn Village who was against the installation of no stopping. The manager’s view was that Franklyn Village needed more car parking, not less. The manager also felt that there was insufficient demand from pedestrians crossing the road to warrant the proposed level of investment

· Feedback was received from the Hampden Street School Principal who supported the installation of a refuge, stating that anything that made walking or scootering to school safer would have the schools support.

· Feedback was received from the Public Health Unit of the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board (NMDHB) who were in support of the installation. The Public Health Unit staff supported making it easier for children to cross the road as well as those accessing the hospital. Staff requested that the refuge be wide enough for two prams/wheelchairs (which officers have allowed for) and to request that Council consider installing traffic signals at the Waimea Road/Franklyn Street intersection in the future to assist safe active modes crossing.

4.2.4 Officers support the installation of no stopping, noting the safety of pedestrians outweighs the loss of parking.

5. Options

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

Option 1: Adopt changes as attached for Schedules 8 and 9 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 8 and 9
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.

Author: Matt Bruce, Team Leader Transport and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2424883 - Proposed changes shown indicatively on aerials ⇩

Attachment 2: A2425269 - 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

Item 8: Objection to Classification of dogs Boston and Rarka as menacing. Kyran Taylor and Talia Samuels.

Hearings Panel - Other

5 August 2020

REPORT R17007

Objection to Classification of dogs Boston and Rarka as menacing. Kyran Taylor and Talia Samuels.

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide on an objection to the classification of two dogs named Boston and Rarka as menacing pursuant to Section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

2. Summary

2.1 On Thursday 20 February 2020, at 09.22am Nelson City Council received a complaint from David Wilson of Wilson Dental that there was an aggressive dog wandering on their property at 82 Waimea Road, Nelson.

2.2 Two dogs were seized pursuant to the Dog Control Act 1996, Sections 52A (Control of dogs on owner’s property), 57A (Dogs rushing at persons, animals or vehicles) and 42 (Dogs not registered). The appropriate seizure notification forms were left for the dog owners in their letter box at 80 Waimea Road.

2.3 Neither dog was registered and after considering the public reported and observed behaviour of Boston and the observed behaviour of both dogs, Nelson City Council classified Boston and Rarka as menacing pursuant to Section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996. (Attachments 1, 2 & 4)

2.4 The dogs are in joint ownership; Kyran Taylor and Talia Samuels. The owners have objected to the classification of both dogs. (Attachment 3)

2.5 Rarka is registered with this spelling however the owners in their objection papers spell the dog’s name as Raka.

3. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

2. Dismisses the objection of Kyran Taylor and Talia Samuels to the Classification of dogs Boston and Rarka as menacing; and

3. Upholds the classification of both dogs Boston and Rarka as menacing.

4. Background

4.1 Apart from the non-registration of both dogs, Nelson City Council is not aware of any previous dog control history for either Boston or Rarka.

5. Discussion

Legislation around classification of a dog as menacing

5.1 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, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of observed or reported behaviour of the dog.

5.2 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 4)

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.

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.

5.5 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.

5.6 This recommendation is unlikely to be inconsistent with any other previous Council decision.

The Evidence which formed the basis for the Classification

5.7 On 20 February 2020 at about 09.20am, Mr David Wilson of Wilson Dental, 82 Waimea Road, Nelson reported a dog on his property. He described the dog as, “a ferocious (a Pitbull I think) roaming on my property.”

5.8 In his statement Mr Wilson said there had been a big brown dog with no collar on his property and he watched the dog bark at one of his patients, a 94 year old man who the dog would not allow entry to the dental premises. He reported his patients were scared and found it difficult to enter or leave his premises. (Attachment 5)

5.9 On his first arrival Dog Control Officer Bill Gaze found the dog, a medium to large sized brown dog in the car park area of Wilson Dental.

5.10 The dog acted in an aggressive manner towards the Dog Control Officer, snarling at him with its hackles raised and teeth bared. Mr Gaze was unable to get close to the dog which disappeared off the property, back to 80 Waimea Road.

5.11 This dog was later identified as being Boston, an unregistered American Pitbull-cross from 80 Waimea Road.

5.12 Due to the aggressive nature of the Pitbull-cross dog encountered by Dog Control Officer Bill Gaze, when Mr Wilson contacted Council a second time, on his return Mr Gaze took a second officer.

5.13 On arrival, and confronted with 2 aggressive dogs at 80 Waimea Road, the 2 Dog Control Officers called a third officer to attend because it was believed 3 officers would be needed to control the 2 dogs.

5.14 Both dogs were observed by all 3 Officers to be acting very aggressively, snarling and barking and running aggressively at the officers. These dogs were identified as Boston and Rarka.

5.15 All 3 Dog Control Officers provided reports on the aggressive behaviour they observed by Boston and Rarka. (Attachment 6)

5.16 The report from Dog Control Officer Sandy Vale states that both dogs were acting territorial and fearful at the same time, with teeth bared, hackles raised, low grumbling in the back of their throats with bursts of barking and lunging forward.

5.17 The report from Dog Control Officer Jeff Welch reports that on his arrival at 80 Waimea Road both dogs reacted in a territorial manner and that he and Dog Control Officer Bill Gaze both felt the dogs were sufficiently territorial that it was not safe to enter the property without further support.

5.18 Dog Control Officer Jeff Welch goes on to report that to catch and secure the 2 dogs it was necessary to use catch poles as he believed both dogs may constitute a bite risk.

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

5.19 Kyran Taylor and Talia Samuels submit in their objection papers that the following steps have been taken to ensure a similar situation will never happen again:

· Both dogs were registered and all fees paid the day of the incident.

· A builder was hired the same day to fix the fence through which the dog Boston had escaped.

· They paid for a dog behaviour expert from Christchurch to come to assess both dogs and the report states neither dog poses a threat to public safety. (Attachment 3)

· That this was a one-off occasion due to a broken fence that was not known about and if the gap in the fence had been known about Boston would not have been allowed outside without the hole being fixed.

Matters relied on in support of the objection

5.20 Kyran Taylor and Talia Samuels submit that they have taken steps to ensure the same situation never happens again – as outlined above.

5.21 The Objector has produced reports from dog behaviour specialists Bark Busters which support the objector’s view that neither dog is menacing. It is worth noting, the behaviour specialist who conducted the testing of the dogs did so at the dog’s property with the owners present.

5.22 The report from Bark Busters New Zealand on Boston states he was “not aggressive but was slightly stand offish”.

5.23 The report on Rarka states “This dog is of good temperament and doesn’t look or show to be a concern for safety.”

5.24 The objectors assert that the classification of their dogs has been inflicted as a means of punishment.

6. Options

Option 1: The Objection be Dismissed (Recommended Option)
Advantages	· This will result in Boston and Rarka being legally required to wear a muzzle whenever out in public. They 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 dogs Boston and Rarka and their owners enjoy.
Option 2: The Objection be Upheld
Advantages	· Boston and Rarka 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 or people being attacked and injured if Boston and Rarka were to again escape and become aggressive.

7. Conclusion

7.1 A member of the public has reported their observed behaviour of the dog Boston, reporting him as being aggressive.

7.2 Three Dog Control Officers observed and reported that the behaviour of both Boston and Rarka was aggressive, territorial and fearful with both snarling and lunging at them.

7.3 The 3 experienced Dog Control Officers all consider both Boston and Rarka to be potential bite risks.

7.4 Given the evidence of a member of the public and that of 3 Dog Control Officers, the dogs Boston and Rarka were justifiably classified as menacing.

7.5 It is submitted that the Bark Busters reports should be viewed in light of the fact the dogs were “tested” at home and with their owner present so would therefore be less likely to show signs of aggression.

7.6 It is considered that in order to reduce the risk of an attack on other animals, stock or a member of the public that the dogs Boston and Rarka 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 the dogs are on private land.

It is recommended that the objection be dismissed and the classification for both Boston and Rarka as menacing dogs be upheld.

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

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2370278 - Menacing Classification papers for dog Boston ⇩

Attachment 2: A2370259 - Menacing Classification papers for dog Rarka (Raka) ⇩

Attachment 3: A2426520 - Kyran Taylor & Talia Samuels - Objection to Menacing classification ⇩

Attachment 4: A2134555 - Dog Control Act 1996 Sections 33A & 33B ⇩

Attachment 5: A2415873 - David Wilson - Statement ⇩

Attachment 6: A2426645 - Dog Control Officer's Reports ⇩

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.