Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning and Strategy Committee MEETING

7 June 2017

Order of Business

(NOTE: The commencement time for this meeting coincides with the commencement time for the Sport and Recreation Committee and the Extraordinary Council meetings. The format for the meeting will be that the Planning and Strategy Committee and Extraordinary Council meetings will open, take apologies and adjourn immediately to allow the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting to consider its business. At the conclusion of the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting and then the Extraordinary Council meeting will resume to consider its business.)

1. Apologies

2. Notification of Additional Items

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion. No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

3. Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other Committee matters.

(NOTE: If the Committee wishes to consider or discuss any issue raised that is not specified on the Agenda, other than to receive the comment made or refer it to the Chief Executive, then a resolution will need to be made in accordance with clause 2 above.)

4. Confirmation of Minutes Page 7

“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 1 May 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

5. Univer-City Page 11

Memorandum, dated 3 April 2017 from the General Manager - City Future, Sheryl Bryant.

6. Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2011 Review - S155 Determination Report Page 17

Report, dated 16 May 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Ann-Marie Mori.

7. Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2011- Review Page 33

Report, dated 15 May 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Ann-Marie Mori.

8. Committee Work Schedule Page 43

9. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered		Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution
10.	Proposed Land Acquisition by a Commerical Interest	Commercial Activities	s7(2)(h)

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

Acting Chief Executive (David Wright), Chief Financial Officer (Grant Elliott), General Manager, City Enterprises (Ray McIndoe), General Manager, City Future (Sheryl Bryant), General Manager, City Networks (Ray Swadel), General Manager, Customer Services (Peter Eathorne), General Manager, Libraries and Community Services (Debbie Duncan), Human Resources Manager (Wayne Wilson) and Strategic Communications Manager (Mark Torley) because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with advice on matters both from an organisation-wide context (being members of the Council’s Management Team) and also from their specific role within the Council.

Legal Counsel (John Annabell), because of his knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with legal and procedural advice.

Governance and Support Team Leader (Kyle Whitfield) and Committee Administrators (Penny Odell, Carly Chang and Rachel Corser), because of their knowledge and ability to provide the meeting with procedural advice and record the proceedings of the meeting.

< add officers who are authors of reports or their substitutes > because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report and answering questions, noting that such officer will be present at the meeting only for the item that relate to their respective report.

<add third parties, e.g. authors of third party reports being considered>, because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 01 May 2017, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Duncan McCann (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.

Apologies:

Councillor Tangi Utikere for lateness and Councillor Vaughan Dennison.

Councillor Tangi Utikere entered the meeting at 9.57am during consideration of clause 27. He was not present for clauses 23 to 26 inclusive.

23-17

Apologies

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Bruno Petrenas.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

24-17

Presentation - Manawatu SPCA

Mr Danny Auger and Ms Bobby O’Fee made a presentation regarding the issue of unwanted cats and kittens in Palmerston North. The SPCA had recently created a petition to stop pet shops being able to sell cats and kittens in Palmerston North. Offences towards cats were increasing and there were many cats that were a nuisance to residential and business properties around the city. They were also a real danger to the bird population of New Zealand.

In conclusion, Mr Auger stated that the SPCA sought mandatory micro-chipping of all cats over three months of age, and for cats over six months of age without a permit, and the banning of entire cat/kitten sales in pet shops.

The Committee believed it would be appropriate to refer the presentation to be considered with the s155 report on the Animals and Bees Bylaw later in the year.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive the presentation for information.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Duncan McCann.

2. That the SPCA presentation be referred to the Chief Executive to be considered with the S155 report on Animals and Bees Bylaw in June/August 2017.

25-17

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 3 April 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

26-17

Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2017 - Deliberations on Submissions and Adoption of Bylaw

Memorandum, dated 6 April 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Rachel Bowen.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the suggested officer response to issues raised by the submitter, as shown in attachment 3 to the memorandum dated 6 April 2017 entitled `Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2017 – Deliberations on Submissions and Adoption of Bylaw’, be received.

2. That the Council confirms that the draft Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2017 is the most appropriate form of bylaw and does not give rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3. That the Council adopt the draft Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2017 and the draft Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw Administration Manual 2017, as attached in attachments 1 – 2 to the memorandum dated 6 April 2017 entitled `Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2017 – Deliberations on Submissions and Adoption of Bylaw.’

4. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the draft Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw 2017 and the draft Palmerston North Wastewater Bylaw Administration Manual 2017 prior to publication.

27-17

'Passport to Play Palmy' Delivery

Memorandum, dated 19 April 2017 from the Senior Planner, Jeff Baker and the Policy Planner, Keegan Aplin-Thane.

Councillor Tangi Utikere entered the meeting at 9.57am

The Committee amended the wording of 27.2 to read `in partnership with’ instead of `led by’ the community.

Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council acknowledge the efforts of Heather Knox, Kate Parlane and Helen Page in operating the 2016/17 Passport to Play Palmy promotion and the success it achieved.

2. That Council endorses the production of another Passport to Play Palmy promotion in the 2017/18 Financial Year, in partnership with the community, with support and funding through existing budgets in the City Future Unit.

28-17

Elected Members - Let's Talk Engagement

Memorandum, dated 26 April 2017 from the Chief Executive, Paddy Clifford.

The Committee altered recommendation 28.2 to recommend funding the trial from existing budgets.

Moved Rachel Bowen, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That Council endorse a staff supported Elected Member “Let’s Talk” engagement trial until March 2018

2. That Council approve a trial, funded from existing budgets.

29-17

Conference Opportunity - Effective Meetings

Memorandum, dated 10 April 2017 from the Governance & Support Team Leader, Kyle Whitfield.

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee approve the attendance of up to four elected members to attend, with expenses paid, to ‘Effective Meetings’ course by LGNZ being held in Palmerston North on 26 May 2017.

2. That registrations of interest be invited from elected members wishing to attend, with expenses paid, and advise the Governance and Support Team Leader, Kyle Whitfield, by 12 noon Friday 5 May 2017.

30-17

Conference Opportunity - Representation Review Forum

Memorandum, dated 6 April 2017 from the Governance & Support Team Leader, Kyle Whitfield.

Moved Grant Smith, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee approve the attendance of up to six elected members to attend, with expenses paid, to ‘Representation Review Forum’ by SOLGM being held in Wellington on 23 June 2017.

31-17

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Duncan McCann, seconded Aleisha Rutherford.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive its Work Schedule dated May 2017.

The meeting finished at 10.34am

Confirmed 7 June 2017

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 June 2017

TITLE: Univer-City

DATE: 3 April 2017

AUTHOR/S: Sheryl Bryant, General Manager - City Future, City Future

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO COMMITTEE

1. That the information be received.

1. ISSUE

To report on the outcome of the Univer-City proposal submitted by Massey University to the 2015/25 Long Term Plan.

2. BACKGROUND

Massey University submitted a proposal to the Council’s Long Term Plan seeking the establishment of a working party to collaboratively investigate the feasibility of becoming a “Univer-City” (attached). The proposal recognised the mutual relationship that had existed since 1927 and had developed over time leading to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the University in 2012. The MOU provided a renewed focus on collaboration, however, the proposal recognised that this might not be enough to make a difference when competing on a world stage.

At its 24 June 2015 meeting, the Council resolved “that the submission from Massey University regarding the Univer-City be referred to the Chief Executive for follow up by September 2015.”

On 21 July, the Vice-Chancellor hosted a dinner to launch the discussion on Univer-City to key stakeholders and to put out a call to action. The event included a panel discussion chaired by Councillor Tangi Utikere. As a result of the event, a number of people put their names forward to develop the concept further.

On 11 August 2015, Palmerston North City Council hosted the first workshop. This was followed closely by a further workshop on 15 September hosted by Linton Army Camp. In addition, there was extensive one-on-one engagement led by the Campus Registrar for Massey University, Sandi Shillington. The concept evolved into Uni-City to place greater emphasis on collaborating for impact through the connections with people, business and place. Through discussions, there was recognition of the extensive collaboration that was already occurring in the City as well as new initiatives, such as Talent Central.

Through comprehensive stakeholder engagement, it was concluded that while the Uni-City concept provided a significant catalyst for change in a number of city and university collaborations internationally, there was a challenge in adapting the model to local needs and challenges. This is because there are already a number of initiatives and collaborations and there was no need to add a further layer, as such the Uni-City proposition will be transitioned to an eco-system of collaborative projects and relationships to work more with what is already going on. Massey University has established Tuia Kia Tipu leadership group who is currently developing a draft strategy that includes collaborative opportunities for Massey University and the community. This strategy, along with the MOU, would form the basis for enhancing the already strong relationship between Massey University and the City.

3. NEXT STEPS

Palmerston North City Council and Massey University worked very closely throughout the Uni-City process. The learnings and knowledge gathered will focus and enhance the action plan that the Council and University develop each year under the MOU.

Attachments

Submission by Massey University on Univer-City ⇩

Sheryl Bryant

General Manager - City Future

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 June 2017

TITLE: Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2011 Review - S155 Determination Report

DATE: 16 May 2017

AUTHOR/S: Ann-Marie Mori, Policy Analyst, City Future

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That it be agreed that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the public health and safety, and nuisance problems, caused by the keeping of animals (other than dogs) within Palmerston North.

Summary of options analysis for animals and bees bylaw review

Problem or Opportunity	The Animals and Bees Bylaw 2011 is due for review and will expire in October 2018 unless the review process is completed.
OPTION 1:	Determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to deal with the keeping of animals (including stock, pigs, cats, poultry and bees) in order to protect the general public, neighbours and property owners from health risks and general nuisances related to keeping animals.
Community Views	Initial community views on this bylaw have not yet been sought.
Benefits	Enables on-going regulatory framework for the animals covered by this bylaw; ensures bylaw is ‘fit for purpose’.
Risks	No risks identified.
Financial	Costs can be met within current budgets.
OPTION 2:	Do not determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address any health and general nuisances related to keeping the specified animals.
Community Views	Initial community views on this bylaw have not yet been sought.
Benefits	No benefits identified.
Risks	Current bylaw will ultimately lapse and Council will have no regulatory ability in response to any nuisance complaints from residents.
Financial	Costs will be incurred in terms of staff time and external legal advice if a new bylaw is subsequently required should the current 2011 bylaw lapse.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	Animal control is not directly addressed by a particular strategy document. The Safe City Strategy, however, identifies a Safe Environment as a key driver. A bylaw that seeks to control and minimise any risks associated with the keeping of animals contributes to this driver by ensuring that residents are protected from any nuisance and danger caused by the animals in this bylaw.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Most local councils have bylaws covering the keeping of domestic animals in order to control any resultant health risks and general nuisances. Council’s Animals and Bees Bylaw 2011 outlines the local rules relating to ownership and requirements around keeping stock (alpacas, cattle, deer, donkeys, horse, sheep, and goats), cats, pigs, poultry and bees.

1.2 The keeping of dogs is covered in the Palmerston North Dog Control Bylaw 2011.

1.3 The problems or perceived issues that the bylaw seeks to address are such things as:

a. Stock – issues such as noise, flies and vermin, odours caused by manure, and potential for damage to property.

b. Cats - the cat population can give rise to a number of issues such as:

- Cats competing for territory can lead to fighting (causing a noise nuisance and injury to other cats) and aggressive behaviour;

- Uncontrolled breeding leading to unwanted kittens and cats and potential for stray or feral populations (and then causing nuisance effects);

- Digging and defecating in neighbouring properties;

- Catching and killing local wildlife (e.g. birds);

- Entering private property to eat food or raid rubbish bins.

c. Pigs – noise, and odours caused by effluent/manure and pig sties.

d. Poultry – may give rise to noise nuisance such as rooster crowing, scratching and digging in adjoining properties upon escape, and odours from droppings.

e. Bees - bees may create a risk to health due to allergic reactions from stings and bee droppings (frass) fouling private property such as cars, windows, outdoor furniture and washing.

1.4 Emerging issues in relation to cats have recently been brought to the Council’s attention through a deputation by the Manawatu SPCA to the May meeting of the Planning and Strategy Committee. The SPCA’s presentation raised issues associated with an over-population of cats and how this gives rise to nuisances such as cats digging and defecating in non-cat owner gardens, destroying rubbish and killing native birds. In their view the issue of over-population has been caused by some pet shops selling entire cats and kittens (i.e. cats that haven’t been de-sexed). They would like:

· Mandatory micro-chipping of all cats over 3 months of age

· Mandatory de-sexing of all cats over 6 months of age without a permit

· The banning of pet shops being allowed to sell entire cats

The SPCA has been promoting a petition calling for mandatory de-sexing of all cats (and dogs) sold by pet shops in the Manawatū area. Their stance is that fewer unwanted animals lead to fewer animal cruelty incidents and fewer stray/wild cats.

1.5 As part of reviewing this bylaw the Council must consider whether a bylaw is the most appropriate option. The Council must also consider whether it is the most appropriate form and whether it gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. If Council does consider that a bylaw is the most appropriate option, then it must make a determination under s155 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

1.6 Council needs to make these s155 determinations while also having regard to s64(1)(a) of the Health Act 1956, which state that every local authority may make a bylaw for the purposes of “improving, promoting, or protecting public health, and preventing or abating nuisance.”

1.7 An analysis of the relevant information necessary to make the decisions required by s155 report is attached as Appendix One.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 The current Animals and Bees Bylaw was adopted in 2011. In 2013 a number of technical amendments were made to the Bylaw. It replaced the Dog Control, Other Animals, and Bees Bylaw 2004.

2.2 The Council decided during the 2011 review to separate the bylaw into two bylaws – dogs, and other animals. The reason for this separation is because specific processes apply to the development and adoption of a dog control bylaw that don’t apply to a bylaw relating to other animals. The Dog Control Bylaw/Policy is being reviewed separately but concurrently, recognising the different processes.

2.3 The Draft Animals and Bees Bylaw 2011 attracted 95 written submissions. Most submitters were opposed to the draft Bylaw as proposed and a number of changes were made to address the concerns raised through the public consultation process.

2.4 The resultant 2011 Bylaw promotes a permissive approach that aims to strike a balance between protecting health and safety by regulating the keeping of animals, while contributing to the city’s easy lifestyle by enabling most residents to keep animals without onerous requirements.

2.5 The current bylaw allows enforcement by Council’s Animal Control Team should there be any breaches of the bylaw. A review of Requests for Service from 2011 to the present suggests there are around 50 animal-related enquiries, including complaints, per year from the public. Most enquiries relate to cats (49%) and poultry/roosters (41%). Relatively few enquiries have been made in relation to the other types of animals covered by the bylaw such as stock, pigs and bees.

3. Description of options

3.1 The first option is to accept the recommendations contained in the s155 report and determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to deal with the keeping of animals (including stock, pigs, cats, poultry and bees) in order to protect the general public, neighbours and property owners from health and general nuisances related to keeping animals.

3.2 The second option is to determine that a bylaw is not the most appropriate way to address any health risks and general nuisances related to keeping the specified animals.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 The assessment of options is contained in the report attached as Appendix One and recommends that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems. This is because it is considered as a more effective regulatory response to local issues when compared to reliance on existing legislation or non-regulatory measures such as education.

4.2 If it is agreed that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the public health and safety and nuisance problems associated with the keeping of animals (including stock, pigs, cats, poultry and bees, but excluding dogs) pre-draft consultation with a range of stakeholders and the general community will begin. This will help inform whether any parts of the current bylaw need amending. A draft (revised) Animal and Bees Bylaw will then be presented to the Planning and Strategy Committee to obtain approval to carry out the formal consultation process.

4.3 If it is not agreed that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing any issues related to the keeping of animals then the Council will be implicitly revoking the current Bylaw. This could be formalised by a decision to revoke the current Bylaw, or the Council could simply allow the current Bylaw to expire in October 2018. Alternative solutions to the issues identified in the S155 report would need to be further explored and reported back to Council.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Officers recommend that the Council determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing public health and safety, and any nuisance problems, caused by the keeping of animals within Palmerston North.

6. Next actions

6.1 If the Council accepts the recommendation officers will proceed with the review process. Pre-consultation activities will be conducted and a draft bylaw will be presented to the Committee in the coming months.

- Outline of community engagement process

6.2 The following community engagement activities are planned:

6.2.1 Media release to be distributed via The Square Circular, PNCC website and Facebook to advise on the opportunity to raise any issues and capture general community views on the current bylaw.

6.2.2 Discussion with stakeholders, interest groups and individuals including:

- Rangitāne

- Animal welfare and advocacy organisations such as the Manawatū SPCA and the Humane Society of NZ

- Clubs such as cat, bird and bee-keeping clubs, (e.g. Palmerston North Cat Club, Manawatū Poultry and Pigeon Club and the Manawatū Bee Keepers Club)

- Small-holders association

- Government agencies – Ministry of Primary Industries, Horizons Regional Council

- Veterinarians

6.3 Feedback gathered will be used to inform the recommendation of any amendments to the current Bylaw.

6.4 Formal consultation on a draft Bylaw will then take place later in 2017.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual	No
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

Palmerston North City Council Animals and Bees Bylaw Review - S155 Determination Report ⇩

Ann-Marie Mori

Policy Analyst

Report

TO: Planning and Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 7 June 2017

TITLE: Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2011- Review

DATE: 15 May 2017

AUTHOR/S: Ann-Marie Mori, Policy Analyst, City Future

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Committee agrees to a review of the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2011.

Summary of options analysis for DOG CONTROL bylaw review

Problem or Opportunity	The Dog Control Bylaw 2011 will lapse in October 2018 unless a review of the Dog Control Policy 2011 takes place allowing a replacement Bylaw to be prepared.
OPTION 1:	Agree to a review of the Dog Control Policy under the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA 1996).
Community Views	Initial community views on the Policy and its related Bylaw have not yet been sought.
Benefits	Enables on-going regulatory framework for the control of dogs and ability for Council to operate under the Policy and Bylaw. Ensures both the Policy and Bylaw are ‘fit for purpose’ and reflect any emergent issues as well as meet the legislative requirement.
Risks	No risks identified.
Financial	Costs can be met within current budgets.
OPTION 2:	Do not agree to the review of the Dog Control Policy.
Community Views	Initial community views on this bylaw have not yet been sought.
Benefits	No benefits identified.
Risks	Current bylaw will expire in October 2018 and Council will have no regulatory ability to carry out enforcement in response to any dog related complaints from residents.
Financial	Costs will be incurred in terms of staff time and external legal advice if a new bylaw is subsequently required should the current 2011 bylaw lapse.
Contribution of Recommended Option to Council’s Strategic Direction	Dog control is not directly addressed by a particular strategy document. The Safe City Strategy, however, identifies a Safe Environment as a key driver. A bylaw that seeks to control and minimise any risks associated with the keeping of dogs contributes to this driver by ensuring that residents are protected from any nuisance and danger. The Dog Control Policy also contributes to the city’s financial sustainability as collecting registration fees helps fund dog control services and provide dog-friendly facilities across Palmerston North.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 A review of the Dog Control Policy 2011 is advised in order to trigger the process to replace the Dog Control Bylaw 2011 that gives effect to that Policy. Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) provisions, as the bylaw was not reviewed within five years after its initial adoption, it will expire in October 2018 (unless revoked earlier).

2. Background and previous council decisions

Legislative Context

2.1 The Council is required to adopt a Dog Control Policy under section 10(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996. The Council is also obliged under section 10(6) to give effect to that policy by adopting a bylaw consistent with the Dog Control Policy no later than 60 days after adopting that policy.

2.2 The requirements of the Dog Control Policy are set out in section 10(3):

- specifying the nature and application of bylaws to be made under section 20 - s10(3)(a)

- identifying any public places in which dogs are to be prohibited, either generally or at specified times, pursuant to a bylaw made under section 20(1)(a) – s10(3)(b)

- identifying any particular public places or areas in which dogs (other than working dogs) in public places are to be required by a bylaw made under section 20(1)(b) to be controlled on a leash – s10(3)(c)(ii) and (ii)

- identifying those areas or parts of the City in respect of which no public places or areas are to be identified under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) – s10(3)(d)

- identifying any places within areas or parts of the City to be designated by a bylaw under section 20(1)(d) as dog exercise areas in which dogs may be exercised at large - s10(3)(e)

- stating whether dogs classified as menacing dogs under section 33A or 33C are required to be neutered under section 33E(1)(b) and, if this applies to all such dogs or if not, the matters taken into account by it in requiring any particular dog to be neutered – s10(3)(ea)

- stating whether dogs classified by any other territorial authority as menacing dogs under section 33A or 33C are required to be neutered under section 33EB(2) if the dog is registered with the territorial authority and, whether the requirement applies to all such dogs; and if not, the matters taken into account by it in requiring any particular dog to be neutered – s10(3)(eb)

- other details as the Council thinks fit including such as:

o fees or proposed fees

o owner education programmes

o dog obedience courses

o the classification of owners

o the disqualification of owners

o the issuing of infringement notices – s10(3)(f)

2.3 Council is also obliged under section 10(4) to have regard to the following matters:

(a) the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

(b) the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

(c) the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

(d) the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

2.4 There is no set review timeframe for the Dog Control Policy, although the consequent Dog Control Bylaw, which was adopted in 2011, was required to be reviewed by October 2016. Because the review was not conducted in time (due to staff resources), it will automatically be revoked in October 2018.

2.5 The operation of the Dog Control Act in relation to the Dog Control Policy and the related bylaw makes it necessary to review the policy first. Any amendments that might be made to the bylaw during a review could possibly require an amendment to the policy. Therefore, it is practical to begin with a review of the policy and later adopt a bylaw that is consistent with an amended policy.

PNCC Dog Control Policy & Bylaw Making History

2.6 The current Dog Control Policy, and associated bylaw, were adopted by Council in 2011. In 2013 a number of technical amendments were made to a number of the bylaw clauses.

2.7 The current Animals and Bees Bylaw was adopted in 2011. In 2013 a number of technical amendments were made to a number of clauses. It replaced the Dog Control, Other Animals, and Bees Bylaw 2004.

2.8 The Council decided during the 2011 review to separate the bylaw into two bylaws – dogs, and other animals. The reason for this separation was because specific processes apply to the development and adoption of a dog control bylaw that don’t apply to a bylaw relating to other animals.

2.9 The Council’s Dog Control Policy was made under section 10 of the DCA 1996 with the purpose of expressing how the Council will fulfil its responsibilities under that Act. It identifies where dogs are prohibited, where dogs must be controlled on a leash, areas where dogs can be exercised without being controlled on a leash, and where dogs are not prohibited or required to be controlled on a leash. The Policy also outlines the obligations and responsibilities of dog owners.

2.9.1 The Objectives of the Policy are to:

a) Minimise danger, distress and nuisance to the community generally;

b) Avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not children might be accompanied by adults;

c) Enable, as far as practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs;

d) Provide for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

2.10 The current 2011 Dog Control Policy objectives therefore essentially reflect the requirements of section 10(4) of the DCA 1996.

3. Dog Registration and Enforcement

3.1 Currently there are over 8,000 registered dogs in the City with registered numbers having increased each year for the past 5 years. This is shown in the table below:

3.2 Council’s Animal Control Team is responsible for enforcing the Bylaw. In the Annual Dog Control Report for the 2015/16 year there were 4,208 dog-related complaints. There was one prosecution and 175 infringements issued in the 2015/16 year.

3.3 The table below shows the type of dog-related complaints received over the past five years:

From this graph a relatively consistent level of dog-related complaints for each type are observed over the five year period. Most complaints relate to roaming dogs and barking dogs. It is these types of activities that the policy, and associated bylaw, aims to control.

4. Analysis of options

4.1 The first option is to initiate the review of the Dog Control Policy.

4.2 The second option is to not proceed with a review of the Dog Control Policy.

4.3 If it is agreed to review the Policy, consultation with a range of stakeholders and the general community will begin. This will help inform whether, and how, any parts of the current Policy need to be amended. A draft (revised) Dog Control Policy will then be presented to the Planning and Strategy Committee later this year to obtain approval to carry out the formal consultation process.

4.4 If the Committee does not agree to proceed with reviewing the Dog Control Policy, then the current policy will continue in its current form. The current Dog Control Bylaw will be automatically revoked in October 2018, and therefore a new bylaw (which must be consistent with the Dog Control Policy) must be made. This could be achieved by the Council determining under S155 of the Local Government Act 2002, that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems, having regard to the matters identified in section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996. The Council would then be required to consult on a draft bylaw in accordance with S156 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.5 The first option is the recommended option if the Council anticipates that some changes to the Dog Control Policy are necessary. An initial assessment by officers suggests that some changes are possible, and on that basis it would make sense to proceed with option one and start with reviewing the Dog Control Policy.

4.6 The second option would only be recommended if Council does not anticipate any changes to the Dog Control Policy. The Council would still be required to consult on a draft replacement bylaw, although that bylaw could be practically identical to the current bylaw. However, if that consultation identified changes that resulted in consequent changes to the Dog Control Policy, the Council would be required to halt the bylaw consultation process to ensure that the policy was amended accordingly before adopting any amended bylaw. On that basis, it is more efficient to begin by reviewing the Dog Control Policy.

5. Scope and nature of policy review

5.1 The suggested scope of the policy review includes dog control areas (dog exercise areas, on-leash areas, dog prohibited areas) and dog ownership requirements including:

- preferential ownership obligations

- ownership education

- fee setting processes

- dog management and care, and

- menacing dog restrictions.

5.2 This review will also be guided by feedback from stakeholders and the wider community regarding current issues. Initial feedback from Environmental Protection and Animal Control officers indicate that there may be interest in:

- Reviewing areas in which dogs are currently prohibited, on-leash and off-leash.

- The ability to be flexible and responsive around the use of Prohibited Areas (e.g. for special events) through granting exemptions.

- Reviewing in more depth some of the complaints or service requests received since the Policy and Bylaw were adopted (over the last 6 years) e.g. requests to add or remove off-leash areas.

- The obligations and responsibilities of dog owners, such as keeping dogs under control and expectations around care and management.

5.3 General improvements to the Policy to improve any interpretation issues, such as checking definitions and readability, would also be considered in the review.

6. Conclusion

6.1 There is a complex legislative relationship between the requirement to prepare a Dog Control Policy, and a Dog Control Bylaw to give effect to the Policy, as required under the DCA 1996 alongside the general bylaw-making provisions contained in the LGA 2002.

6.2 A review of the Dog Control Policy 2011 is advised in order to trigger the process to replace the Dog Control Bylaw 2011 that gives effect to that Policy. Under the LGA 2002 provisions, as the bylaw was not reviewed within five years after its initial adoption it will expire in October 2018 (unless revoked earlier).

6.3 An initial assessment of the topics likely to arise during a review suggests that changes to the current Policy are probable. It is therefore timely to review the Policy, as this will allow the Bylaw review process to be initiated. Together, the Policy and Bylaw will provide the most appropriate way of addressing public health and safety and any nuisance problem caused by the keeping of dogs within Palmerston North.

7. Next actions

7.1 If the Council accepts the recommendation the officer will proceed with the review process. Pre-consultation activities will be conducted and a draft Policy will be presented to the Council in the coming months.

8. Outline of community engagement process

8.1 The following activities are planned:

8.1.1 Media release to be distributed via The Square Circular, PNCC website and Facebook to capture general community views on the current policy and bylaw.

8.1.2 Discussions with Rangitāne, stakeholders, interest groups and individuals such as relevant government agencies (e.g. Department of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Primary Industries, Animal Health Board), kennel clubs, vets, dog walking groups, and the SPCA.

8.2 Feedback gathered will be used to inform any recommended changes to the current Policy.

8.3 Consultation will be carried out alongside the review of the Animals and Bees Bylaw 2011.

8.4 Formal consultation on a draft Policy will then take place under the LGA 2002 provisions in late 2017. This is a formal submission process with Hearings.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual	No
Are the decisions significant?	No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?	No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?	No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?	No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?	Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?	No

Attachments

NIL

Ann-Marie Mori

Policy Analyst

Duncan McCann (Chairperson)
Aleisha Rutherford (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Leonie Hapeta
Susan Baty	Jim Jefferies
Rachel Bowen	Lorna Johnson
Adrian Broad	Karen Naylor
Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke	Bruno Petrenas
Vaughan Dennison	Tangi Utikere
Lew Findlay QSM