1.
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.
2.
Membership:
·
All elected members aside from the Mayor, in
rotation. Each Hearing Panel will be made up of three members.
·
The Chair of each Panel will be an elected
member who has previously completed the ‘Making Good Decisions’
course.
·
Each Hearings Panel will include no more than
one elected member in their first triennium of Council
·
The Group Manager Environmental Management
may appoint one or more Independent Commissioners to either assist the Hearing
Panel or to hear and determine any particular application, such as when Council
or a Council-Controlled Organisation or Council-Controlled Trading Organisation
is (or could be perceived to be) an interested party, other than applications
made for temporary road closure under Schedule 10 Clause 11(e) of the Local
Government Act 1974.
3.
Powers to Decide:
·
The power to appoint a panel to hear and
determine with any other consent authority any application requiring a joint
hearing
·
The power to hear and recommend appropriate
actions from hearings of designations and heritage orders
·
The power to hear, consider and attempt to
resolve contested road stopping procedures
·
The power to consider and determine
applications for temporary road closures made under Schedule 10 Clause 11(e) of
the Local Government Act 1974
·
The power to hear and determine all matters
arising from the administration of the Building Act 1991, and the Building Act
2004
·
The power to hear and determine objections to
the classification of dogs, and all other procedural matters for which a right
of objection and hearing is provided for under the Dog Control Act, 1996
·
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
·
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
·
The power to make changes to the schedules to
the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw
·
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.
Hearing Panel Minutes - 9 February
2024
Present: Councillors
R Sanson (Chair), M Courtney and C Rollo
In
Attendance: Deputy Chief Executive/Group Manager
Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Governance Adviser (R Byrne) and Assistant
Governance Adviser (A Bryce)
Apologies : Nil
Karakia
and Mihi Timatanga
1. Apologies
2. Confirmation of
Order of Business
There was no change to the order
of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the
Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
4.1. Kevin Johnston - Trafalgar
Street Road Closure 03 March 2024
Document number R28290
|
Kevin Johnston spoke against the proposed Trafalgar Street
Road Closure for the Nelson Italian Festival on 03 March 2024. Mr Johnston
addressed concerns over lack of event notifications posted to residents of
the area and impacts from the road closure on his current ill health,
including restricted access for medical vehicles.
|
4.2. Club Italia Nelson
Incorporated - Trafalgar Street Road Closure 03 March 2024
Document number R28291
|
Flavia Spena (member) and
Salavatore Gargiulo (vice president) of Club Italia Nelson Incorporated spoke
to a PowerPoint (tabled 1982984479-7176) about the Trafalgar Street Road
Closure for the Nelson Italian Festival on 03 March 2024.
|
|
Attachments
1 1982984479-7176 Club Italia Nelson Inc PowerPoint
|
4.3. Urgent Plumbing Services Ltd -
The Proposed and Current No Parking Yellow Lines on Quebec Road
Document number R28314
|
Les Kint from Urgent Plumbing Services Ltd spoke about the
Traffic and Parking Bylaw Updates, specifically, against the proposed and
current no parking yellow lines on Quebec Road noting tradespeople require
access to parking.
|
4.4. Angel Esvella and Lavana
Ramsteijn-Whyte - The Proposed No Parking Yellow Lines on Quebec Road
Document number R28315
|
Angel Esvella and Lavana
Ramsteijn-Whyte spoke to a PowerPoint (tabled 1982984479-7180) about the
Traffic and Parking Bylaw Updates, specifically, against the proposed no
parking yellow lines on Quebec Road. They tabled a petition which could not
be formally accepted as it was received outside of the timeline stated in
S17.2 of Standing Orders. However, the petition has been attached as
supporting information.
|
|
Attachments
1 1982984479-7180 Angel and Lavana PowerPoint
2 1982984479-7182 Angel and Lavana Supporting
Information
|
4.5. Amy Shattock - Supporting the
Proposed Road Marking Changes and Installation of Yellow Lines on Bills Drive
Document number R28320
|
Amy Shattock spoke about the
Traffic and Parking Bylaw Updates, specifically, supporting the proposed road
marking changes and installation of yellow lines on Bills Drive.
|
|
Attachments
1 1982984479-7179 Amy Shattock PowerPoint
|
4.6. Kirsten Rodsgaard-Mathiesen -
Safety Issues with People Parking in Quebec Road
Document number R28319
|
Kirsten Rodsgaard-Mathiesen
supported with amendments, the proposed Traffic and Parking Bylaw Updates,
specifically, the safety issues with people parking in Quebec Road too close
to Henrietta Way and provided the meeting with an amendment to the current
proposal for the no parking lines, shortening half the area.
|
|
Attachments
1 1982984479-7160 Kirsten Rodsgaard-Mathiesen PowerPoint
|
4.7. Vanessa Smith - Opposes Change
to the Current Layout of Bills Drive
Document number R28321
|
Vanessa Smith spoke about the
Traffic and Parking Bylaw Updates, specifically, opposing any changes made to
the current layout of Bills Drive.
|
4.8. Zane Smith, Jude Spencer and
Dave Spencer - Opposes the Reduction of On Street Parking on Bills Drive.
Document number R28322
|
Zane Smith and Jude Spencer spoke about the Traffic and
Parking Bylaw Updates, specifically, their opposition to the reduction of on
street parking on Bills Drive.
|
The meeting was adjourned from
10.05a.m. until 10.12a.m.
5. Confirmation of
Minutes
5.1 1
December 2023
Document number M20396, agenda
pages 8 - 10 refer.
|
Resolved HEA/2024/001
|
|
|
That the Hearing Panel
1. Confirms
the minutes of the meeting of the Hearing Panel, held on 1 December 2023, as
a true and correct record.
|
|
Sanson/Courtney Carried
|
6. Temporary Road
Closure - Nelson Italian Festival
Document number R28228, agenda
pages 11 - 20 refer.
Contracts Supervisor –
Roading, Gillian Dancey, took the report as read and advised that officers had
addressed the notification issues and answered questions on the notification process
for the festival.
The Panel made an informal
request that when communication from Council goes to the Italian club around
this and future events, Council encourages the club to have personal contact
with the surrounding residents and specifically their neighbour, Kevin Johnston,
to ease his and other concerns.
|
Resolved HEA/2024/002
|
|
|
That
the Hearing Panel
1. Receives the report
Temporary Road Closure - Nelson Italian Festival (R28228) and its attachments (340448201-5758
and 1355221503-13638); and
2. Approves the temporary road closure attached (340448201-5758) per
report R28228
for the
Nelson Italian Festival on 3 March 2024.
|
|
Courtney/Rollo Carried
|
7. Traffic and Parking
Bylaw Updates
Document number R28312, agenda
pages 21 - 40 refer.
Manager Transport and Solid
Waste, Margaret Parfitt, Safe and Sustainable Transport Adviser, Gina Persico,
took the report as read and answered questions on each proposal.
Following information provided by
speakers earlier in the meeting, members asked for clarification on the outcome
if the proposed no parking lines at Quebec/Henrietta Way were amended. Mrs
Parfitt advised that officers would review the proposal, and it would be
brought to a future meeting.
|
Resolved HEA/2024/003
|
|
|
That
the Hearing Panel
1. Receives the report
Traffic and Parking Bylaw Updates (R28312)
and its attachments (1355221503-14224, 1355221503-13463, 1355221503-13523,
1355221503-132000, 1355221503-13464, 1355221503-12947); and
2. Approves
amendments of
a. Proposed
no stopping at Hill Street North
(1355221503-13523); and
b. Layout Change Rawhiti Street
(1355221503-13200); and
c. Bus Stop Layout Change Westbrook
Terrace (1355221503-12947).
|
|
Sanson/Courtney Carried
|
8. Nelson Airport -
Naming a new private road
Document number R28289, agenda
pages 41 - 48 refer.
Development and Naming Adviser,
Bernadette Power, took the report as read.
|
Resolved HEA/2024/004
|
|
|
That
the Hearing Panel
1. Receives the report
Nelson Airport - Naming a new private road (R28289) and its attachments
(756385493-54630 and 756385493-54631); and
2. Accepts
the name Kuaka Way for the private road shown on the attachments
(756385493-54630 and 756385493-54631).
|
|
Rollo/Courtney Carried
|
9. Proposed Easements
over Part of Wastney Terrace Road Reserve
Document number R28284, agenda
pages 49 - 56 refer.
Senior Property Officer, Susan
Mathieson, took the report as read and advised a one month public notification
was underway. Should any submissions be received, a report would come back to
the Hearing Panel.
|
Resolved HEA/2024/005
|
|
|
That
the Hearing Panel
1. Receives the report
Proposed Easements over Part of Wastney Terrace Road Reserve (R28284) and its attachment
(714127617-20601); and
2. Grants
the easements for right of way, retaining wall, right to drain sewage, right
to drain water, right to convey water, right to convey electricity and
telecommunications, over Part of Wastney Terrace Road Reserve (Lot 9
Deposited Plan 15070) in favour of Part Section 12 District of Suburban North
(NL1A/974) subject to public
notice under section 48 (2) of the Reserves Act 1977 resulting in no
objections or submissions and with all costs associated with the easements to
be met by the applicant, subject to final consent of the Council (acting as
the Minister of Conservation’s delegate).
3. Notes
that if any objections to the proposed easement are received, a further
report will be brought to the Hearings Panel to enable consideration and
decision on those objections.
4. Notes
that if no objections or submissions to the proposed easements are received,
a report will be taken to Council for consent to the easements pursuant to
delegation from the Minister of Conservation under section 48(1) of the
Reserves Act 1977.
|
|
Courtney/Sanson Carried
|
10. Proposed Easements over Railway
Reserve via Browning Crescent Local Purpose Reserve (Esplanade)
Document number R28287, agenda
pages 57 - 63 refer.
Senior Property Officer, Susan
Mathieson, took the report as read.
|
Resolved HEA/2024/006
|
|
|
That
the Hearing Panel
1. Receives the report
Proposed Easements over Railway Reserve via Browning Crescent Local Purpose
Reserve (Esplanade) (R28287)
and its attachment (714127617-20604); and
2. Grants an easement
for right to convey electricity and telecommunications over Local Purpose
Reserve (Esplanade) (Section 150 SO 12047 and Lot 1 DP 16994) in favour of
Network Tasman with all costs associated with the easements to be met by the
applicant, subject to final consent of the Council (acting as the Minister of
Conservation’s delegate).
3. Notes
that under section 48 (1) Reserves Act 1977 that public notice is not
required.
|
|
Courtney/Rollo Carried
|
Karakia
Whakamutanga
There being no further business the meeting ended at 11.00a.m.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by
resolution on (date)
Item 6: Objection to
Classification of dog Max as Dangerous Richard (Ricky) Tasker
|
|
Hearing Panel
22 March 2024
|
Report
Title: Objection
to Classification of dog Max as Dangerous Richard (Ricky) Tasker
Report
Author: Chris Bascombe -
Team Leader - Regulatory
Report
Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental
Management
Report
Number: R28207
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To decide on an
objection to the classification of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier named Max as Dangerous,
pursuant to section 31(1)b and 31(1)c of the Dog Control Act 1996.
2. Summary
2.1 On Friday 16 July
2023, Nelson City Council received a report that stated on 13 June 2023 at
about 10am, a large dog wearing a muzzle had leaped at the customer whilst she
was on her bike on the railway reserve in Stoke, the contact made by the dog
leaping at the customer had caused her to fall off her bike, hit her head and
lose consciousness.
2.2 The Victim recalled
the person in possession of Max at the time mentioned to them that they walked
this dog for their neighbour.
2.3 Animal Control Officer
Welch talked to Animal Control Officer Jacobson after receiving the report,
Animal Control officer Jacobson suggested making contact with the Taskers as
officer Jacobson had recently investigated and classified Max as menacing for a
similar complaint in the same area.
2.4 Animal Control Officer
Welch Contacted Mr Tasker who denied it could be his dog as their neighbour had
“not walked the dog for some time” as he had serious medical
issues.
2.5 Animal Control Officer
Welch contacted Mr Tasker’s neighbour, Neil Thomason to explain why he
had contacted Mr Tasker.
2.6 Mr Thomason confirmed
knowledge of the incident and explained his recollection of the dog
“Max” making contact and subsequently injuring the complainant.
2.7 Due to Max’s
extensive history of aggressive behaviour the decision was made to classify him
as a dangerous dog under section 31(b) as despite abiding by the menacing
classification he still constituted a threat to the safety of a person during
this incident.
2.8 Mrs Tasker also
emailed Animal Control Officer Welch after receiving the notice of
classification. In this email she states that she is “not comfortable
with him being out without a muzzle” as they did not know why he had
previously bitten. 31(c).
2.9 An appeal was made
against the classification.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Hearing Panel
1. Receives
the report Objection to Classification of dog Max as Dangerous Richard
(Ricky) Tasker (R28207) and its
attachments (832826773-47632, 832826773-47592 and 832826773-47593); and
2. Dismisses the objection of Mr
Tasker to the classification of dog Max as Dangerous; and
3. Upholds the classification of
dog Max as Dangerous.
|
4. Background
4.1 24.11.22 Max was
adopted by Monique Tasker from the SPCA.
4.2 18.05.23 NCC received
a report that Max being off lead had bitten a Post Officer twice during the
same incident whilst preforming his duties.
4.3 26.05.23 NCC received
a report Max had while on lead jumped at and bit a member of public, this
person then had to dismount their bike and use it as a barrier as Max was still
presenting aggressive behaviour.
4.4 29.05.23 Officer
Jacobson on behalf of NCC classified Max as a menacing dog so he would be
required to be muzzled in public.
4.5 16.06.23 NCC received
a report that whilst wearing a muzzle but off lead, Max made contact with a
cyclist causing significant injury.
4.6 13.07.23 Officer Walch
on behalf of NCC classified Max as dangerous so he would be required to be
muzzled and on lead when in public.
4.7 25.09.23 Mr Tasker
submitted a formal appeal application against the dangerous classification
placed on Max.
5. Discussion
Legislation
around classification of a dog as Dangerous
5.1 Section 31 of the dog
control act states, the territorial authority must classify a dog as Dangerous
if:
a. The owner of
the dog has been convicted of an offence in relation to the dog under section
57A(2); or
b. The territorial authority has, on the basis of sworn evidence
attesting to aggressive behaviour by the dog on 1 or more occasions, reasonable
grounds to believe that the dog constitutes a threat to the safety of any
person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife; or
c. the owner of the dog admits in writing that the dog
constitutes a threat to the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic
animal, or protected wildlife.
5.2 Section 31(2) states,
where any dog is classified as a dangerous dog under subsection (1), the
territorial authority shall immediately give notice in the prescribed form of
that classification to the owner.
5.3 Section 31(3) states where
any dog is classified as a dangerous dog under subsection (1)(b), the owner may,
within 14 days of the receipt of notice of that classification under subsection
(2), object to the classification in writing to the territorial authority and
shall be entitled to be heard in support of his or her objection.
5.4 Section
31(4) states, In considering any objection under this section, the territorial
authority shall have regard to:
(a) the
evidence which formed the basis for the original classification; and
(b) any
steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons and
animals; and
(c) the
matters advanced in support of the objection; and
(d) any
other relevant matters —
and may
uphold or rescind the classification.
5.5 Section
31(5) states, the territorial authority shall give notice of its decision on
any objection, and the reasons for its decision, to the owner as soon as
practicable.
5.6 Section 32(1) of
the Dog Control Act requires that If a dog is classified as a dangerous dog
under section 31, the owner
of the dog—
(a) Must
ensure that from a date no longer than one month after the receipt of notice of
classification, the dog is kept within a securely fenced portion of the
owner’s property that it is not necessary to enter to obtain access to at
least one door of any dwelling on the property; and
(b) Must
not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place or in any private way,
except when confined completely within a vehicle or cage, without being:
(i) Muzzled
in such a manner a to prevent the dog from biting but allow it to breathe and
drink without obstruction; and
(ii) Controlled
on a leash (except when in a dog exercise area specified in a bylaw made under
section 20(1)(d)); and
(c) Must
produce to the territorial authority, withing one month after the receipt of
the notice of classification, a certificate issued by a veterinarian and
certifying-
(i) That
the dog is or has been neutered; or
(ii) That
for the reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a
fit condition to be neutered before a date specified in the certificate; and
(d) Must,
if a certificate under paragraph (c)(ii) is produced to the territorial
authority, produce to the territorial authority, within one month after the
date specified in that certificate, a further certificate under paragraph
(c)(i); and
(e) Must,
in respect of every registration year commencing after the date of receipt of
the notice of classification, be liable for dog control fees that for that dog
at 150% of the level that would apply if the dog were not classified as a
dangerous dog; and
(f) Must
not, without the written consent of the territorial authority in whose district
the dog is kept, dispose of the dog to any other person.
5.7 Section 32(2) states Every
person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable
on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000.
5.8 Section 32(3) states If
a court convicts a person of an offence against subsection (2), the court must
also make an order for the destruction of the dog unless satisfied that the
circumstances of the offence were exceptional and do not warrant destruction of
the dog.
5.9 Section 32(4) states Every
person who sells or otherwise transfers, or offers to sell or transfer, to any
other person any dog known by that person to be classified as a dangerous dog
without disclosing the fact of that classification to that other person commits
an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000.
5.10 Section
32(5) states if a person fails to comply with subsection (1), a dog control
officer or dog ranger may-
(a) Seize
and remove the dog from the person’s possession; and
(b) Retain
custody of the dog until the territorial authority has reasonable grounds to
believe that the person has demonstrated a willingness to comply with
subsection (1).
The
Evidence which formed the basis for the Classification
5.11 The affidavit received by Juliet
McLintock after the incident on 13 June 2023 (Attached).
5.12 Eyewitness accounts of the
displayed aggression during the two previous attacks.
5.13 Extensive history including three
separate reported attacks on people within a month.
5.14 ACO’s
recollection of the conversation with the person in possession of Max after the
third reported incident, confirming that Max was wearing a muzzle but not on
lead.
Steps
taken by the dog owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons or
animals
5.15 The only steps taken by the dog
owner have been those specified by the classification placed on Max after the
reported attacks.
Menacing (requirement to wear a
muzzle)
Dangerous
(requirement to muzzle and be kept on lead)
Matters
relied on in support of the objection
5.16 Mr
Tasker submits that he does not believe “the information received to the NCC to be 100% accurate”.
6. Options
|
|
|
Advantages
|
· This
will result in Max being legally required to wear a muzzle and be leashed
whenever off his property. This will reduce the risk of people, other animals
being attacked and injured or killed should another incident occur.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· This
may have a negative impact on Max and his owner’s enjoyment when in
public. Max’s registration cost will increase by $76.50.
|
|
|
|
Advantages
|
· Max
will not legally be required to be leashed in public (in accordance with the
relevant bylaw).
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· This
will increase the risk of people or other animals being attacked or injured
or killed if max were to again be involved in an incident.
|
7. Conclusion
7.1 Several members of
public have reported having observed the behaviour of Max as constituting a
risk to public safety on numerous occasions.
7.2 The evidence is clear
that Max has caused injury on multiple occasions including after a menacing
classification was place on him.
7.3 It is considered that
in order to reduce the risk to the safety of members of public and other
animals that the dog Max should be muzzled and on lead whenever in a public
place. A dangerous classification is the only classification that requires the
dog to be leashed and muzzled when in public. A muzzle and a lead would not be
required when on private land, and a lead would not be required when in a
specified dog exercise area.
7.4 It is recommended that
the objection be dismissed and the classification of Max as a dangerous dog be
upheld.
8. Next Steps
8.1 If NCC’s
recommendation is upheld there are no further steps as the Taskers and Max are
compliant with the dangerous classification.
Attachments
Attachment 1: 832826773-47632
Affidavit Juliet Mary McLintock July 2023 ⇩
Attachment 2: 832826773-47592
DCA1996 S31 Dangerous Classification ⇩
Attachment 3: 832826773-47593
DCA1996 S32 Dangerous Classification Effect ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
Fit with Purpose of Local Government
The regulatory function is 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.
|
|
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 non-compliant
owners
|
|
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.
|
|
Financial impact
This decision will have no financial impact on NCC
or the community, immediate or long term.
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
Inclusion of Māori in the
decision making process
No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in
preparing this report.
|
|
Legal
context
· Council has
power to make this decision under section 31 of the Dog Control Act 1996.
· Council’s
decision must be made in accordance with Part 6 of the Local Government Act
2002.
|
|
Delegations
The Hearings Panel – Other has the following
delegations:
· To hear and
determine objections to the classifications of all dogs and all other
procedural matters for which a right of objection and hearing is provided for
under the Dog Control Act 1996
|
