PALMERSTON NORTH CITY
COUNCIL
Report
TO: Planning and Strategy Committee
MEETING DATE: 2 October 2017
TITLE: Draft Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw - Approval for
Consultation
DATE: 15 September 2017
AUTHOR/S: Ann-Marie Mori, Policy Analyst, City Future
|
RECOMMENDATION(S) TO COMMITTEE
1. That
the Council determines the form of the draft
Animals and Bees Bylaw 2017 and Administration Manual (contained in Appendix
1) is, subject to the outcome of public consultation, considered to be the
most appropriate form of bylaw.
2. That
the Council confirms that it has considered the draft Animals and Bees Bylaw
2017 and determines that it does not give any rise to any implications under
the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
3. That
the Consultation Document (including the draft Animals and Bees Bylaw 2017
and Administration Manual) (attached as Appendix 1) be approved for
consultation.
4. That
delegated authority is given to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of
the Planning and Strategy Committee for the approval of any minor amendments
to the Consultation Document.
|
Summary of options analysis for
DRAFT ANIMALS AND bEES BYLAW CONSULTATION
|
Problem or Opportunity
|
The Palmerston North Animals and Bees
Bylaw 2011 contributes to public health and safety by providing a clear set
of rules that regulate the keeping of animals and bees within Palmerston
North. It expires in October 2018 so requires review under section 158
of the Local Government Act 2002. A draft Animals and Bees Bylaw has
been prepared that better defines animals subject to the Bylaw, gives more
clarity on keeping cats and bees, and recommends additional clauses relating
to wandering stock. The opportunity is for Council to approve the draft Bylaw
for public consultation.
|
|
OPTION 1:
|
Consult on the draft Animals and Bees
Bylaw as presented in the Consultation Document (Appendix 1).
|
|
Community Views
|
Some community views have been sought through
pre-drafting engagement activities and have shaped the scope of changes
recommended. Further community input through the formal submission
process would be initiated.
|
|
Benefits
|
Consultation with the community and key stakeholders
will provide an opportunity for Council to receive further feedback on the
bylaw leading to its improvement. Conducting consultation would ensure the
bylaw is reviewed in a timely fashion before it expires.
|
|
Risks
|
Following consultation, substantial changes may be
needed which require further time to analyse and report back to
Council. This could lengthen the review process.
|
|
Financial
|
Costs can be met within current budgets.
|
|
OPTION 2:
|
Not consult on the draft Bylaw if Council
does not wish to proceed with the draft Bylaw as presented in the
Consultation Document.
|
|
Community Views
|
The community may be frustrated that there is no
consideration of the issues raised and are no changes proposed to the bylaw.
|
|
Benefits
|
No further work will be required.
|
|
Risks
|
If the Bylaw is allowed to expire this could lead to
increased nuisance problems, and possible health and safety concerns, as any
enforcement would not take place.
|
|
Financial
|
Additional 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
|
The Animals and Bees Bylaw contributes to
the outcomes identified in the Council’s new draft strategic direction
expressed in the Draft Connected Community Strategy and the Draft Safe
Community Plan. The Draft Bylaw will contribute to the health and
safety of the community.
|
Rationale for the recommendations
1 Overview
of the problem or opportunity
1.1 Under
146(a)(v) of the Local Government Act 2002 the Council has specific
bylaw-making powers for the purposes of keeping animals, bees, and poultry. The
Palmerston North Animals and Bees Bylaw 2011, made under these powers, is due
for review under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002. The review
allows an opportunity for the bylaw to be examined and any changes recommended
that better respond to the current issues relating to the range of animals it
covers. It is noted that dogs are covered in the Dog Control Bylaw 2011 (as
determined by the Dog Control Act 1996).
1.2 If
the current bylaw is not reviewed it will expire in October 2018. This
would potentially place the community at increased risk from any nuisances
caused by keeping animals and bees, as well as any resultant health and safety
concerns.
1.3 A
key consideration for Council when reviewing this bylaw is striking the right
balance between placing restrictions on the keeping of animals without unduly
affecting people’s private property rights, or human rights under the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The level of intervention Council
chooses through the bylaw, therefore, becomes an important deliberation when
Council is considering its regulatory response under the Local Government Act
2002.
1.4 Initial
informal consultation and research has indicated that the Bylaw only requires
minor changes that assist with interpretation and administration. The
draft Animals and Bees Bylaw, therefore, is intended to replace the current
Bylaw before it automatically expires in October 2018.
2 Background
and previous council decisions
2.1 A Section 155 report was considered at the 7 June 2017 Planning and
Strategy Committee. The report concluded that a bylaw is the most
appropriate way of addressing the range of public health and safety, and
nuisance problems, caused by the keeping of animals (other than dogs) within
Palmerston North. It was noted in the S155 report that a bylaw is not
entirely effective on its own, and the issues that arise through the keeping of
(domestic) animals in the City need to be supported with education and on-going
support to animal welfare agencies such as the SPCA.
2.2 It
was noted in the S155 report that a review of Requests for Service from 2011
until the present suggests there are around 50 animal-related enquiries,
including complaints, per year from the public. Over this period, most queries
have related to cats (49%) and poultry/roosters (41%). In comparison
there have been very few complaints to Council about the other animals covered
by the Bylaw. This could indicate that the Bylaw is providing an effective
level of regulation and that most people that keep animals do so responsibly
and in a way that does not lead to nuisance or health and safety concerns.
2.3 A
key benefit of the current Bylaw is that it gives Council the ability to
investigate and act on any nuisance-related complaints. It also provides
a regulatory framework for granting permits for the keeping of more than three
cats in the urban area, to seek variations from bee-keeping conditions, and to
grant permits for other departures sought from the rules.
3 PRE-DRAFT
ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
3.1 Following the presentation of the S155 determination report the
review process began with a range of pre-drafting consultation activities
including inviting comment from a range of interested parties, an article in
the Square Circular, and an online survey on the Council’s website.
3.2 The
review was raised at the Rangitāne Bimonthly Meeting in June. No concerns were raised at the
time in relation to the Bylaw.
3.3 The
May issue of the Square Circular included an article inviting early feedback on
the Bylaw and any issues relevant to its review. This generated several
emails and phone calls.
3.4 Information
about the Bylaw review was sent in late May to animal-related club contacts and
followed up in late June. People were invited to make contact via email
or to set up meetings with Council officers. Vets, Horizons Regional
Council and pet shops were sent information in June inviting any initial
comments on the current bylaw. This initial engagement included meetings with
Danny Auger (General Manager) from the SPCA and Jake Schultz (Lecturer –
Apiculture) from UCOL.
3.5 In
August an online feedback form was posted on the Council’s website and
was available for a three week period. This was followed up with a
Facebook post and a reminder for people to submit feedback on the bylaw. This
has been a successful engagement tool with over 90 responses received.
Further comments were also generated from the Facebook post, particularly about
microchipping cats.
3.5.1 While
general feedback was sought, particular feedback was invited through the online
form on the following topics:
· Council placing
restrictions on the number of cats and whether these restrictions should be
higher, lower or stay at the current level.
· Council encouraging
people to microchip their cats.
· Inviting general
comments on the bylaw section on cats and on other animals covered in the
bylaw.
3.6 The
main points gained from respondents to the on-line engagement were:
· General support for Council
to place restrictions on the number of cats per property in the urban area.
· A mixed level of
support for the restrictions to be higher, lower or stay the same; with a
tendency for respondents to support retention of the current restrictions.
· General support for
the Council to encourage people to microchip their cats.
· A wide range of
views on nuisance issues, and other suggested animal controls.
1. A summary of the feedback given through pre-drafting consultation
activities is included as Appendix 2.
3.7 A
wide range of views on the keeping of animals have been articulated through the
initial stages of the review process. It should be noted that some of the
issues raised by the community are not able to be dealt with effectively by a
bylaw. It may be appropriate, therefore, to develop an “Animal
Keeping Policy” alongside the Bylaw, and to provide additional education
material as a way of responding to the concerns raised by the community.
Development of ‘fact sheets’ or brochures that support the Bylaw
are initiatives that could result from this approach.
4 Description
of options
4.1 For
the principal recommendation (to consult on the draft Bylaw) there are two
options: to consult or not to consult.
4.1.1 Option
1: Consult on the draft Bylaw as presented in the Consultation
Document (Appendix 1). The main changes recommended to the Bylaw are:
- A new definition of
‘Animal’.
- Deletion of the definition
for ‘Public Place’.
- Removal of the “area
less than 2000m2” in clause 8.1 relating to restrictions on
cat numbers in the urban area.
- Inclusion of an
Administration Manual that provides guidance, and a generic form, for multiple
cat permits and bee keeping (and any other contraventions of the Bylaw).
2. A full description of the changes, and reasons for them, is attached
as Appendix 3.
4.1.2 The
rules relating to keeping cats, in particular, have required close analysis and
these are discussed in greater detail in Section 5.1.2.
4.1.3 Some
considerations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) were
covered in the S155 report to this Committee in June 2017. In a general sense,
all bylaws impinge on human rights to some extent, so it must be asked if the
level of impingement is justifiable. It is considered that the proposed
changes to the bylaw are justifiable in the interests of the community.
4.1.4 Option
2: Not consult on the draft Bylaw if Council does not wish to proceed
with the draft Bylaw as recommended. If no further action was taken, then
the current Animals and Bees Bylaw would automatically lapse on 18 October
2018.
5 Analysis of
options
5.1 The
first option – consult on the draft Bylaw– allows for community
views to be sought. In particular, key identified stakeholders will be
asked to provide input on the draft Bylaw. A public consultation process would
ensure that the community is made aware of the proposed changes, and given the
opportunity to make a submission. Submissions make the Council aware of
potential issues that submitters may identify and could lead to improvements to
the draft Bylaw.
5.1.1 Part
Four - Cats
3.
The draft Bylaw presented for consultation
does not include any new clauses relating to the inclusion of clauses on
microchipping and de-sexing cats. A key consideration in making
recommendations to change parts of a bylaw is a demonstration of the problem.
The feedback collected from the pre-drafting stage of the Animals and Bees
Bylaw indicates that there is a nuisance problem associated with cats in the
City. While the scale of the nuisance problem is largely unquantified,
there is evidence gained from:
· The Deputation made
by the Manawatū branch of the SPCA that brought to Council’s
attention the rising cat population and potential for increased issues
associated with an over-population of cats and how this gives rise to a variety
of nuisances. In its 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). The SPCA asked Council to consider:
o Mandatory micro-chipping of all cats
over 3 months of age
o Mandatory de-sexing of all cats over 6
months of age without a permit
o The banning of pet shops being allowed
to sell entire cats
4. The SPCA is considered to be best placed to comment on the issues
arising from cat ‘over-population’ given its mandate to enforce the
Animal Welfare Act 1999;
· The number of
‘requests for service’ relating to cats over the last six years
represents about half of all enquiries related to the animals covered by the
bylaw. In addition there appears to be a rise in people requesting cat
cages from Council to deal with cats causing nuisance;
· During the
pre-drafting engagement phase a range of nuisance issues have been identified
that suggest that the Council needs to take a stronger position on some aspects
of the Bylaw as well as potentially consider other non-regulatory approaches.
5.1.2 Notwithstanding
the matters described above it is not recommended to add clauses to the Bylaw
relating to micro-chipping and de-sexing cats as many of nuisance effects
described cannot be entirely attributable to over-population or unidentified
cats. The advantages and disadvantages of including new clauses on
micro-chipping and de-sexing cats are summarised in the table below:
|
5.
Advantages of including cat
micro-chipping and de-sexing clauses within bylaw
|
6.
Disadvantages of including cat
micro-chipping and de-sexing clauses within bylaw
|
|
- Signals a clear commitment to Council proactively addressing
nuisance issues associated with cat over-population
- Presents an opportunity to work in partnership with agencies such
as the SPCA
- Complements existing Animal Welfare legislative and Code of
Welfare where these procedures are recommended as best practice
- Could be supported by an education campaign to increase
effectiveness
|
- May be seen as over-stepping animal owners’ rights to choose
to carry out these procedures
- Could be open to legal challenge as the problem to be addressed is
not fully quantified
- May pre-empt possible national ‘cat control’
legislation
- Would require additional staff resourcing to enforce and provide
education
- Potentially creates distress for animals owners who may choose not
to do these procedures or cannot afford to
|
5.2 The
second option – not consulting on the draft Bylaw– would bring the
review process to an end. The current Bylaw would continue to apply, however it
would be automatically revoked on 18 October 2018 in accordance with section
160A of the Local Government Act 2002.
6 DISCUSSION
6.1 Alongside
the specific issues raised through the initial consultation phase there are a
number of other factors that have influenced the recommended level of change to
the Bylaw: the potential for national legislation to
‘control’ cats similarly to dogs, the experience of other Councils
in striking the right balance of regulatory controls to respond to local
issues, the interface this type of bylaw has with animal welfare, and the
Council’s ability to use bylaws as an effective ‘enforcement’
tool.
6.2 In September 2016 a Draft National Cat Management Strategy (NCMS)
was released. The key principles of the strategy are “the promotion
of responsible cat ownership, humane cat management, and environmental
protection.” The Strategy makes a point of recognising the positive
benefits and value in cat ownership, but also acknowledges the impact cats have
on native species.
6.3 Key recommendations in the
Draft NCMS worth highlighting are:
· Nation-wide responsible cat ownership education programmes and
legislation to encourage and reinforce responsible ownership
· Introduction of nation-wide mandatory microchipping and chip
registration
· De-sexing initiatives for companion cats and stray cats that are
accessible for all those who need access to these services
· Restrictions on the number of cats allowed to be kept on a property
· Nation-wide mandatory de-sexing and microchipping of cats and
kittens at point of sale or transfer of
ownership
6.4 In July 2017 Local
Government NZ passed a remit to lobby the government on the importance of
implementing the recommendation of the final version of the National Cat
Management strategy. The remit came from Dunedin City Council, and was
supported by this Council. It noted that current law only allows councils to
impose controls on cats to protect people from nuisance, and health and safety
risks.
6.5 With the decision on national
legislation pending, the Council could take the approach of waiting for the
outcome of national legislation relating to cat control rather than amend the
Bylaw section on cats. The timeframe for any outcome is unknown. If a
Bill was successfully voted by the House of Representatives then public
consultation would follow and this is also an unknown element.
6.6 Another
major consideration for Council would be that any new regulatory regime
introduced for cats would be a large undertaking and would require Council to
increase resourcing in the Animal Control activity for both administration and
enforcement. Any such increase in the level of service as a result of
changes to the bylaw would then need to be reflected in the Council’s 10 Year
Plan process.
7 Conclusion
7.1 The current Bylaw promotes a
relatively permissive approach and it is not recommended that this approach
changes. It is recommended that the Bylaw is largely retained in its current
form as the controls set out in the Bylaw are considered reasonable to balance
the rights of people to keep animals with regard to the need to protect the
public from any health and safety, and nuisance issues caused by animals.
7.2 Most
issues raised have been in relation to cats and there are fewer concerns
related to keeping other animals covered by the Bylaw. The exception is
roosters, however it is considered that the Bylaw provides an effective tool to
respond to nuisance (noise in particular) issues arising from poultry keeping.
The parts of the Bylaw relating to other animals (stock, bees, and pigs) are
not considered to require extensive change due to the relative infrequency of
complaints. It is concluded that most people exercise a common sense approach
to keeping these types of animals in semi-rural or rural environments to
minimise any disruption to neighbours and to provide adequate space to meet
these animals’ needs.
7.3 The
recommended option is option one – consult on the draft Animals and Bees
Bylaw and Administration Manual. This will allow community views to be sought
and considered.
7.4 There
is merit to also consider non-regulatory options, alongside the Bylaw, to more
effectively manage the issues that arise from keeping animals in the City.
These include:
· Meetings with key
stakeholders, and businesses such as pet shops, to reach agreement around
approaches to issues raised;
· Education –
partnering with other organisations like the SPCA and UCOL to get key messages
out to animal owners on best practice care, such as through reference to Codes
of Welfare prepared under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and education
opportunities;
· Development of
factsheets for each type of animal and publishing these on Council’s
website or in printed form;
· Possible development
of an ‘Animal Keeping’ Policy – to cover aspects that are
better covered outside of a bylaw framework.
7.5 Any
additional non-regulatory requirements regarding animal ownership would have
financial and operational implications for Council. A more proactive (and
non-regulatory) approach, an increase in education programmes or material and
offering financial incentives for microchipping and de-sexing, would need to be
considered in the context of current Plans being developed under the
Council’s new Vision and Goals. These matters would need to be considered
in the upcoming 10 Year Plan process.
7.6 The
Committee could choose to modify the draft Bylaw presented in Appendix 1.
Depending on the scope or significance of any such amendments it may be
necessary to revise the Consultation Document and resubmit it to the Committee
for approval prior to public consultation.
8 Next
actions
8.1 If
the Council approves the draft Bylaw included within the Consultation Document,
then staff will begin public consultation as described in the next
section.
9 Outline
of community engagement process
9.1 S156
of the Local Government Act 2002 states that a local authority must use the
Special Consultative Procedure if the bylaw concerns a matter identified in the
Significance and Engagement Policy as being of significant interest to the
public, or if the local authority considers that there is a significant impact
on the public due to the proposed bylaw changes. The control of animals
and bees is not identified in the Policy as being of significant interest to
the public, and the proposal is to largely retain the status quo, with only
minor changes. Therefore, it is suggested that the Special Consultative
Procedure is not required for consultation on this Bylaw.
9.2 Nevertheless,
the mode of consultation proposed for the draft Animals and Bees Bylaw will be
similar to that used under the Special Consultative Procedure. A consultation
document is provided, which includes a description of the proposal, the reasons
for the proposal, and an analysis of the options considered during the review
of the Bylaw, along with the draft Bylaw proposed to be adopted. This document
will be directly distributed to the key identified stakeholders:
- Those
known animal owners/keepers/carers already engaged in the review process
- Animal
welfare and advocacy organisations including the Manawatū SPCA
- Clubs
including cat, bird and bee-keeping clubs, (e.g. Palmerston North Cat Club,
Manawatū Poultry and Pigeon Club and the Manawatū Bee Keepers’
Club)
- Relevant
government agencies – Ministry of Primary Industries, Horizons Regional
Council
- Environmental
groups
- Veterinarians
9.3 In
addition, officers will meet with representatives of Rangitāne o
Manawatū via the bimonthly meetings to discuss the draft Bylaw.
9.4 The
general public will be notified through the usual promotion channels – a
media release will be made, and a story placed in the Square Circular. The
consultation will also be promoted through Council’s social media
channels.
9.5 Public submissions will be
invited from 4 November to 15 December 2017 with hearing of oral submissions
planned for March 2018, and deliberations on submissions planned for May 2018.
Compliance and administration
|
Does the Committee have delegated authority to
decide?
If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations
Manual 168.2
|
i.
Yes
|
|
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?
|
No
|
|
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of
Council’s policies or plans?
|
No
|
Attachments
|
1.
|
Appendix 1: Consultation Document Draft
Animals and Bees Bylaw 2017 ⇩ 
|
|
|
2.
|
Appendix 2: Analysis of Feedback ⇩
|
|
|
3.
|
APPENDIX 3 Summary of description of
changes to Animals and Bees Bylaw ⇩ 
|
|
|
Ann-Marie Mori
Policy Analyst
|
|
|
