Source: http://palmerstonnorth.infocouncil.biz/Open/2017/12/PLA_20171204_AGN_4627_AT.htm
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 14:23:40
Document Index: 515814709

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 2', 'art 4', 'art 2', 'ART 3', 'ART 4', 'art 2', 'art 4']

Agenda of Planning and Strategy Committee - 4 December 2017
NOTE: The Planning and Strategy Committee meeting coincides with the ordinary meeting of the Sport and Recreation Committee meeting. The format for the meeting will be as follows:
- Sport and Recreation Committee will open and adjourn immediately to following Planning and Strategy Committee
“That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 6 November 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”
5. Review of Palmerston North Dog Control Policy - Approval for Consultation Page 13
6. Opportunities to address unsecured roaming dogs Page 75
7. Bikes In Schools Programme Assessment Page 85
8. Remits for LGNZ AGM Page 131
9. Plan Change 22A-G Page 133
NOTE: Due to its size the Section 32 Report and provisions have been limited and attached separately to this Agenda. A copy of the document may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre.
10. Committee Work Schedule Page 139
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 06 November 2017, commencing at 9.00am
The Mayor (Grant Smith) (for early departure) and Councillors Vaughan Dennison (for lateness) and Tangi Utikere.
Councillor Vaughan Dennison entered the meeting at 9.06am during consideration of clause 72. He was not present for clauses 70 and 71 inclusive.
The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 9.58am at the conclusion of clause 75. He was not present for clauses 76 and 77 inclusive.
Clause 70-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:
1. That the minutes of the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting of 2 October 2017 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.
Clause 71-17 above was carried 13 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:
The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Lew Findlay QSM, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.
1. That the Planning and Strategy Committee receive its Work Schedule dated November 2017.
Clause 72-17 above was carried 14 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:
Clause 73-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:
Clause 74-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:
Amendments to Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2016 - approval for consultation
Report, dated 9 October 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.
1. That the Consultation Document on the proposed amendments to the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2016 and Administration Manual, attached as attachment 1 to the report titled “Amendments to Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2016 – approval for consultation” and dated 9 October 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge, be approved for public consultation.
2. That delegated authority is given to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee for the approval of minor amendments to the Consultation Document prior to publication.
Clause 75-17 above was carried 15 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:
The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 9.58am.
Clause 76-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:
Draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 - approval for consultation
Report, dated 17 October 2017 from the Policy Analyst, Peter Ridge.
1. That the Consultation Document (including the draft Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2018 and Administration Manual), as shown in attachment 1 be approved for consultation.
2. 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 prior to publication.
Clause 77-17 above was carried 14 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:
On a motion that “For reasons of safety and clarity, the Chief Executive be directed to include parking restrictions at intersections, consistent with the NZTA Road User Rules, in the Administration Manual of the draft bylaw for consultation and that “For reasons of safety and clarity, the Chief Executive be directed to include prohibition of parking in cycle lanes in the Administration Manual of the draft bylaw for consultation. The motion was tied 7 votes to 7. The chairperson declared the motion lost due to a lack of a majority, the voting being as follows:
Councillors, Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Duncan McCann, Karen Naylor and Aleisha Rutherford.
Councillors Susan Baty, Adrian Broad, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Lew Findlay QSM, Jim Jefferies, Lorna Johnson and Bruno Petrenas.
On a motion that “The Chief Executive investigate and report to Council by March 2018 on options to accelerate community adoption of Electric Vehicles in our city, including a trial of free parking and/or other options available to local government.” The motion was tied 7 votes to 7. The chairperson declared the motion lost due to a lack of a majority, the voting being as follows:
Councillors Brent Barrett, Rachel Bowen, Adrian Broad, Leonie Hapeta, Jim Jefferies, Duncan McCann and Karen Naylor.
Councillors Susan Baty, Gabrielle Bundy-Cooke, Vaughan Dennison, Lew Findlay QSM, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas and Aleisha Rutherford.
Confirmed 4 December 2017
MEETING DATE: 4 December 2017
TITLE: Review of Palmerston North Dog Control Policy - Approval for Consultation
Summary of options analysis for DOG CONTROL POLICY REVIEW
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).
Approve the draft Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2018 for consultation.
Initial views on the current 2011 Policy have been sought and have informed the development of the draft Policy.
Enables the regulatory framework for the control of dogs to continue and therefore safeguards Council’s ability to operate under the Policy and Bylaw reflective of current issues.
No risks are identified.
Do not approve the draft Palmerston North Dog Policy 2018 for consultation.
This option would not allow community views to be taken into account.
The existing Policy and Bylaw would be brought back to Council with an adjusted date and therefore the status quo would remain in force.
The Policy would not reflect Council’s new strategic direction or enable alteration to the policy due to identified policy gaps.
Fewer costs would be involved due to ‘rolling-over’ the existing legal framework for dog control.
The purpose of the draft Safe Community Plan is to ensure we have a city where people feel safe and are safe. The Dog Control Policy aims to balance dog control and public safety while recognising the health, well-being, and wider community benefits of dog ownership. Dog control is a statutory activity undertaken by Council under the Dog Control Act 1996, with an overall purpose to maintain and improve public safety.
1.1 The Council is required to adopt a Dog Control Policy under Section 10(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act). 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.
1.2 Due to requirements of the Dog Control Act in relation to the preparation of the Dog Control Policy, and the related bylaw, it is necessary to review the policy first. Any amendments that might be made to the bylaw during a review could possibly require a subsequent 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 the amended policy.
1.3 Provided the Council has followed the required consultation procedure for the policy review, no further consultation would be required to adopt a bylaw consistent with that Policy.
2.1 The objectives of the Council’s current 2011 policy reinforce Section 10(4) of the Act, and are:
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.
2.2 The Act specifies a number of provisions which the Dog Control Policy must contain, including:
a. The nature and application of bylaws made under Section 20 of the Act;
b. Identifying public places in which dogs are to be prohibited, where dogs are to be controlled on a leash, and where dogs can be exercised at large (i.e. off leash);
c. Whether dogs classified as menacing are required to be neutered.
2.3 The Act states that the Policy may also include details of fees, owner education programmes, dog obedience courses, classification of owners, disqualification of owners, and the issuing of infringement notices.
2.4 In June 2017 the Council resolved to commence the review of the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2011.
2.5 Since June, pre-draft consultation has involved engagement with a range of stakeholders, the Environmental Protection Team and Animal Control officers, Parks and Reserves officers, and members of the community. Research into other councils’ policy approaches, and reference to Department of Internal Affairs ‘Enforcement Guidelines under the Dog Control Act 1996 (2009)’, have also helped shape the scope of recommended changes to the current Policy.
2.6 Key observations of the current 2011 Policy are:
- The similarity of the policy content to the Dog Control Bylaw 2011 may cause confusion to dog owners;
- The Policy deals with issues in a general way and is not specifically focused on responding to Palmerston North’s dog control issues;
- There is no stated rationale for the City’s various dog control areas;
- The Policy is not particularly user-friendly or accessible.
2.7 The Council’s Annual Section 10A Dog Control Act 1996 Report to the Secretary of Local Government, reported to September meeting of the Planning and Strategy meeting, identified the following City trends and issues relevant to the policy review:
- An increasing number of registered dogs (8,130 dogs were registered in 2016/17 to 6,548 owners);
- High numbers of roaming/uncontrolled dogs (~1700/yr) and dogs reported as lost (~400/yr);
- Increasing and high number of barking dog complaints (~ 1000/yr);
- Difficulties in ensuring all dogs are registered and micro-chipped (unidentified/reported unregistered ~500/yr);
- The need to minimise the number of dog attacks and intimidation (aggressive/rushing dogs (~200/yr) and dog attacks (~100/yr).
3. pre-draft engagement activities
3.1 The review process began with a range of pre-drafting engagement activities which included inviting comments from a range of interested parties, an article in the Square Circular, and an online survey on the Council’s website. Meetings with Animal Control staff and Parks staff have also taken place.
3.2 The May issue of the Square Circular included an article inviting early feedback on the Policy (and associated Bylaw) and any issues relevant to its review. This article generated several emails and phone calls. Information about the Policy review was sent to dog-related club contacts, veterinarian practices, pet shops and the Manawatū Branch of the SPCA. Some communication with these parties followed.
3.3 The review was raised at the Rangitāne Bimonthly Meeting in June. No concerns were raised at the time in relation to the Policy.
3.4 In August an online feedback form was posted on the Council’s website and was available for a three week period. More than 90 responses were received on the following topics:
- Consideration of allowing dogs on-leash in these prohibited public places: Council owned sportsgrounds and sportsfields, Central Business District (CBD) streets within the “Ring Road” (Ferguson/Princess/Grey/Pitt Streets), The Square, Council cemeteries and Memorial Park;
- Consideration of on-leash areas that could be off-leash – or even prohibited public place;
- Consideration of the current 19 ‘off-leash’ exercise opportunities to be designated as ‘on-leash’ areas;
- Adding areas of dog control.
3.5 The main points gained from pre-draft engagement activities are summarised as:
- Interest in relaxing restrictions to create a more dog friendly city;
- Concern about intimidating dogs;
- Emphasis on improving owner education;
- Enforcement approach - move to more proactive enforcement, frustrated by inability to deal with complaints (e.g. have to record dog barking to get complaint addressed);
- Reviewing the allocation of dog on leash/dog exercise areas. Particular concern about dogs off leash on the Bridle Track and the Mangaone Walkway, and the conflicts created between dogs/owners, cyclists, pedestrians (especially children);
- Disposal of dog faeces – suggestions for more bins and bag stations.
3.5.1 The key points of specific feedback provided through the online form are summarised as:
- There was a mixed level of support (roughly a 50/50 split) to generally relax prohibited public place to ‘on-leash’ areas;
- Support to retain the current ‘on-leash’ areas, but noting some appetite to relax restrictions to ‘off-leash’ in some parks, reserves, walkways and playgrounds;
- Support to retain off-leash areas, but with suggestions to consider the Mangaone Stream walkway, Edwards Pit Park and all of the Bridle Path (Manawatū Riverside Pathway) to be on-leash;
- Suggested new control areas were: Clearview Park playground (prohibited public place), Memorial Park (on-leash), enclosed dog off-leash areas/equipment, The Square (on-leash – currently prohibited public place), Papaeoia and Paneiri Parks (on-leash - currently prohibited public place as both are sportsfields) and Riverside walkway (off-leash with control).
A summary of feedback is attached as Appendix 2.
4.1 For the principal recommendation (to consult on the draft Policy) there are two options for the Committee to consider:
1. Approve the Draft Dog Control Policy 2018 for consultation.
2. Do not approve the draft Palmerston North Dog Policy 2018 for consultation.
4.2 Option 1: Consult on the Draft Dog Control Policy 2018 as presented in the Statement of Proposal (Appendix 1).
The main changes recommended to the Policy (and highlighted in grey in Appendix 1) are:
Introduce a new ‘Overview’ section
Provides context to the Policy including the overall rationale behind legislated dog control, the relationship the Policy has to the Dog Control Act 1996, information about the dog control issues in Palmerston North and an explanation of Council’s animal control function. It also summarises the legal requirements for dog control, making the link between the Act, the Policy and the related Bylaw.
Objectives - Two new objectives are proposed
These objectives expand on the Act’s Section 10 requirements as a response to local issues and feedback.
Review - A policy review period is included
This aligns with the need to review the Bylaw every 5 years under the Local Government Act 2002.
These have been moved to a new Appendix in the Policy.
PART 2 – ADMINISTRTAION AND ENFROCMENT
Nature and Application od Dog Control Bylaw - New section describing the nature and application of the dog control bylaw
This is a requirement of Section 10 of the Act and was not in the 2011 Policy.
1.1 Enforcement Tools - A new section has been added to ‘enforcement tools’
This gives greater clarity on the enforcement tools available to the Council.
Infringement Notices - A new section on infringement notices has been included
This provides information on infringement notices.
‘Dogs classified as menacing must be neutered’ section
This section has been moved from Part 4 of the Policy into Part 2.
Dog Attacks and Dangerous Dogs, Barking Dogs, Roaming Dogs, Dogs not Kept Under Proper Control - New sections have been included that outline Council’s response to dog attacks and dangerous dogs, barking and roaming dogs, and dogs not kept under proper control.
The current Policy does not contain anything specific about these local issues so they have been included to provide direction on Council’s response to these concerns.
PART 3 – AREAS OF DOG CONTROL
Control of Dogs in Public Places - A new section is added that outlines Council’s three dog control area categories and other requirements owners must follow to control their dog/s. A link to maps showing the control areas on Council’s website is included.
Although lists of dog control areas are in the 2011 Policy, there is currently no introductory section explaining the reasons for the different types of dog control areas.
New sections have been added to provide the rationale for each of the dog control areas.
These aim to provide better understanding about the reasons for each of the control areas.
Prohibited public places (PPP)
See table below in Section 5.2.5 for more detailed analysis and reasons for proposed changes to PPP control areas.
Events in prohibited public places - this is a new section
This section reflects that there is a need for some flexibility to allow events in PPP for specified times. At the moment the Council has no ability under the Policy or bylaw to enable events to take place due to the PPP control area.
Removal of (c) Mangaone Stream Walkway (where it passes through the Awapuni Racecourse)
Addition of some walkways in Aokautere gullies to this category of dog control area.
The walkway is now around the Racecourse. Any rules the Racing Club want to put on dog control through their property is its decision.
Poutoa Walkway, Titoki walkway and Pari Reserve and Walkway have all been proposed as on-leash areas due the confined nature of these walkways as they have developed over time.
An introduction to the list of areas has been added.
Classification of Areas under other legislation - A new section has been added relating to classifications by other organisations
This is a requirement of the Act.
PART 4 – DOG OWNERSHIP
Responsible Dog Ownership - A new section is proposed that outlines dog owner responsibilities
The policy review process provides an opportunity to reinforce to dog owners the legal requirements for dog ownership. Reference to the Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare 2010, has also been included to reinforce dog ownership expectations.
Preferred Owner Scheme - ‘Preferred owner scheme’ criteria has been clarified.
The 2011 Policy refers to ‘Preferential Ownership’ and is old terminology. The Policy has been aligned with current processes.
Other fees – section has been added
This section has been added for completeness with a link to Council’s animal control fees and charges.
Emergency preparedness section – section has been added
A new section is proposed that sets out expectations for the care and welfare of dogs in a state of emergency.
Dog and owner education - section has been added to
This section has been added to set a clear expectation to dog owners.
Probational owner’s education - section
An introductory paragraph has been added to set context for this section.
New definitions have been added for ‘nuisance’ and ‘under control’
Definitions have been shifted to the back of the Policy.
These have been introduced to ensure that people have an awareness of how these terms are defined.
4.3 Option 2: Do not approve the draft Palmerston North Dog Policy 2017 for consultation.
If the draft policy is not approved for consultation, then the current Dog Control Policy will remain. The Council will still be obliged under Section 10 of the Dog Control Act to make a bylaw to give effect to the policy. This would effectively mean resolving to adopt the current bylaw without any changes, and without taking into account current issues.
5.1 The first Option – consult on the draft policy – allows for further community views to be sought. In particular, key stakeholders, including all registered dog owners, will be asked to provide input on the draft Policy. A public consultation process will ensure that the wider community is made aware of the proposed policy changes, and given the opportunity to make submissions.
5.2 There are a number of matters that have been considered in the drafting phase that have guided the scope of the proposed changes to the Policy:
· Consideration of how Council’s new (draft) vision and goals may influence dog control activities and policy approaches;
· Overall approach to dog control and the challenges of balancing dog ownership needs with broader health and safety concerns or risks;
· Allowing some flexibility for dogs and their owners to attend, or be part of, events and special occasions in the CBD that contribute to the City’s vibrancy as well as allowing events that are ‘dog’ focussed e.g. pet days, Rural Games;
· Understanding the relationship between all of the dog control legal requirements, including enforcement approaches of the Act, and of the Policy and Bylaw that are required to be prepared under the Act;
· A detailed analysis of dog control areas and options available.
Each of these matters are further discussed below:
5.2.1 Council’s new (draft) vision and goals: influence on dog control activities and policy approaches
The Vision of ‘Small City, Big City Ambition’ seeks to provide residents with a great quality of life and to develop a future-focused city offering a vibrant urban environment and quality public spaces. Councillors have expressed a desire to ensure regulations facilitate health and safety, without impeding low risk activities or events. The purpose of the draft Safe Community Plan is to ensure we have a city where people feel safe and are safe. Council is committed to increasing and promoting safety in a range of areas so that there is a direct link to dog control that has an overall purpose of maintaining and improving public safety.
5.2.2 Overall approach to dog control: balancing dog ownership needs with broader health and safety concerns
This issue includes understanding the implications of how Council’s dog control objectives contained in the Policy may influence the decisions on designating dog control areas and the degree of restriction or permissiveness. Providing some flexibility to temporarily exempt areas to be ‘prohibited public places’ for a specified time (such as for particular events) and potentially enabling trials to allow dogs ‘on leash’ in some public places have been contemplated.
Through the pre-drafting consultation and research phase, there has been consideration as to whether the Council could be more “dog-friendly” city. This can be achieved in a number of ways, and adopting a less restrictive approach in terms of the number, and extent, of prohibited public places is a one potential policy change. There is a growing trend in more urbanised areas (in New Zealand and overseas) to relax restrictions to allow dogs in central or inner city areas and, instead, permit dogs on-leash. This trend is particularly observed where more people are being encouraged to live in areas traditionally seen as commercial, business or retail areas.
Increased urbanisation, and residential intensification is causing a re-think on how people interact with public places. Allowing dogs into central city areas, for example, is a major decision as there is the potential for adverse effects such as faeces on footpaths, barking and increased risk of intimidation or attacks. These are all serious matters that need to be balanced with the lifestyle needs of dog owners who may live, conduct business or socialise, with their dogs present.
5.2.3 Flexibility for “dog friendly” events
At the moment there is no ability for the Council to grant an exemption, or a permit, to event organisers wanting to hold events in The Square, or the wider CBD, with dogs present as part of the event, or for dogs and their owners to attend events. Examples of the types of events are annual collections for animal welfare groups, dog agility displays, and “Doggy Days Out” (particular events that are commonly held by councils elsewhere to educate about dog ownership and dog-related issues).
5.2.4 Relationship between all legal requirements for dog control
The policy review process presents an opportunity to reinforce, and educate, what the responsibilities are within the dog control legal framework. In doing so, a stronger connection between the development of the Policy in light of the operational aspects of dog control, including reflecting the dog control issues being experienced in the City, has been a goal.
The current 2011 Policy covers the statutory requirement of the Dog Control Act but does not give a sense of the local issues that should be addressed through the Policy. As a result there are new sections proposed to give an overview of the local context and to outline Council’s approach to prevalent issues such as roaming dogs and barking dogs.
It is noted that any policy changes in this area could impact on the levels of service for the animal control activity. An increased level of service, for example for Council to provide more educational resources, would need to be considered as part of the 10 Year Plan process. At the moment current resourcing levels impact on the level of proactive activities, and the focus is on acting responsively to reports and complaints, as well as carrying out day-today regulatory requirements of the Act, Policy and Bylaw.
5.2.5 Detailed analysis of dog control areas and options available
Confirming dog control areas is a key aspect of the Policy and one that will generate a wide range of perspectives from the community. Feedback received during the pre-drafting phase on relaxation of current restrictions (i.e. prohibited public places) was reasonably evenly divided as to whether, overall, a more permissive approach should be applied through the review of current dog control areas.
As there are different types of ‘public places’, different control options can be considered and these are shown in the following table:
Type of Prohibited Public Place (PPP)
Control options considered
CBD area within the ‘Ring Road’ (including The Square)
- Retain status quo
- Change to on-leash
- Change to on-leash outside of trading hours
- Reduce extent of control area to apply restriction to specific streets / smaller area
- Trial a specific street or section of the CBD as on-leash for a limited period, review and make decision through an amendment to the Policy (and Bylaw)
- Apply an exemption to the control area to allow dogs on-leash for particular events for up to 10 occasions per year
- Retain status quo (all sportsfields remain PPP)
- Apply the PPP designation only when formalised/organised sports are being played, and outside of this time they are on-leash areas
- Apply the PPP to only the playing surfaces marked for sports events with the ‘unmarked’ areas being available for on-leash use at all times
- Change to on-leash at all times
- Allow on-leash at certain times e.g. prior to 8am and after 7pm
- Apply the PPP designation only when sports are being played and outside of this time sportsfields are designated on-leash
Children’s play areas and paddling pools
- Reduce the 30 metre restriction to 20 metres (or less)
Sports Facilities (tennis and netball courts, Arena Manawatū)
- Apply Council discretion to allow dogs on-leash for particular events
5.2.6 Overall, there are two main policy changes proposed to give some flexibility to the control areas: firstly, to allow dogs and their owners to attend some events into areas where dogs are not allowed or to have dog-related events in prohibited public places (refer Section 5.2.3) and secondly, to allow dog owners to exercise dogs on-leash on parks when sporting uses (to include competition and social games, training, tournaments) are not being held.
5.2.7 With respect to the proposed change to sportsfields, it is considered that this strikes a balance for the community to meet an objective of the Policy for dog and owner exercise. On-leash control is available for the City’s parks and reserves and the community may not realise the difference between a ‘park’ where dogs on-leash are allowed and a sportsfield (particularly when it’s not in use). This is a commonly taken approach elsewhere (although there is wide variance between councils in relation to dogs on sportsfields) and considered to reflect use that occurs anyway. There is concern about dog faeces – or dogs causing interruption to games being played – and this is an issue that would need highlighting and reminders made regarding the infringement offence under the bylaw (attracting a $300 fine).
5.2.8 As opinion was evenly divided through the pre-drafting consultation phase regarding on-leash control within the CBD area no change has been recommended other than what is suggested above. In the other public places there are legitimate safety concerns regarding the interface issues between children’s play areas, including paddling and swimming pools, and dogs, and these have led to the recommendation to retain the status quo. For cemeteries no change from the status quo is recommended. The current pre-drafting feedback on the review of the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw is revealing a wide spectrum of views on the matter of restrictions on taking dogs to cemeteries.
5.3 In summary the key changes, and reasons, proposed in the draft Policy aim to:
· Introduce new sections to comply with the requirements of Section 10 or to provide context to existing section of the Policy;
· In Part 2 – Areas of Dog Control:
o Introduce a section on the control areas and explain the rationale for each type of control area;
o Promote some flexibility in the prohibited public place category of dog control areas by providing an exemption 10 times per year to allow dogs on-leash, or events that have a dog focus, for particular events. This would mainly apply to events in the CBD or The Square but could apply to other Council facilities where the prohibited public place restriction applies;
o Reflect the names of features in the Victoria Esplanade and add the new Junior Road Safety Park in the prohibited public place list;
o Recommend that the prohibited public place designation on sportsfields only applies when formalised/organised sports events are being played and outside of these occurrences, that these designated parks are on-leash areas;
o No changes are recommended to the prohibited public place status around children’s play areas, and paddling pools or Council controlled cemeteries;
· It is noted that once the Policy and Bylaw has been adopted, any new playgrounds constructed since 2011, areas added to existing parks and boundary changes made to the Kelvin Grove Cemetery or to other areas, will require maps to be amended.
· In Part 4 – Dog Ownership:
o Responsibilities of dog ownership have been outlined. While this section replicates the requirements set out in the Act, reinforcement of these aspects are considered worthwhile as part of the Policy review process. This is because many of the comments raised during the engagement raise concerns about what it means to be a responsible dog owner.
6.1 The recommendation is to consult on the draft Dog Control Policy in Appendix 1. It is proposed that the Summary of Information will be distributed to every registered dog owner in Palmerston North, and the Statement of Proposal, Summary of Information, and submission form will be available on Council’s website, at the Customer Service Centre, the Central Library and branch libraries.
7.1 If the draft Dog Control Policy is adopted for consultation, engagement will start on 27 January 2018, with submissions closing on 2 March 2018. Hearings will be scheduled for April, with deliberations to follow in May/June 2018.
7.2 Council staff will prepare the consultation documents, and distribute them as described above.
8.1 The proposed consultation process for the draft Policy is the Special Consultative Procedure, in accordance with 10(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996. The requirements for the Special Consultative Procedure are outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002.
8.2 In addition, officers will update Rangitāne representatives through the bi-monthly forum to discuss the proposal further.
8.3 The identified stakeholders for this proposal include dog interest groups, relevant government agencies, kennel clubs, vets, dog walking groups, and the SPCA. Engagement with these parties will take place alongside other opportunities explored to generate feedback on the Policy changes.
8.4 Under Section 10(2) of the Dog Control Act, Council must, under section 83(1)(e) of the Local Government Act 2002, give notice of the draft policy to every registered dog owner. In addition all people that responded to pre-draft consultation activities will be advised of the consultation process.
8.5 The general public will be notified through the usual promotion channels – a media release will be prepared and distributed to media outlets, and an article placed in the Square Circular. The consultation will also be promoted through Council’s social media channels.
Appendix 1 - Statement of Proposal and Summary of Information ⇩
Appendix 2 - Pre-Policy Drafting Consultation Feedback ⇩
TITLE: Opportunities to address unsecured roaming dogs
AUTHOR/S: Graeme Gillespie, Head of Environmental Protection Services, Customer Services
Opportunities to address the issue of unsecured roaming dogs.
No issues relating to roaming dogs after-hours were raised in initial engagement on Dog Control Policy, although that specific issue was not canvassed. Customer surveys and general feedback from the Community has also not highlighted the need for such a service to be provided.
Will enable the limited resources available after hours to be used in a targeted and cost effective manner in dealing with priority 1 matters ie dog attacks, aggressive dogs, secured dogs, and stock on roads.
Continued community perception that community and dog safety risks are not being adequately addressed.
That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a trial basis for a 4 month period by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That a maximum of 1 hour will be spent on dealing with each individual notification
Public perception that action is being taken. Enables a review and assessment of the effectiveness and cost of the initiative to inform consideration of longer term options.
Due to the unknown extent of the number of roaming dogs the response by Council may not meet community expectations. Depending on the level of demand for such a service it could also result in the response to priority 1 issues not being timely.
Additional cost of up to $3,000 plus the cost of engaging external resource to undertake a review of the results of the trial.
That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a permanent basis by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That a maximum of 1 hour be spent on dealing with each individual notification
Public perception that action is being taken.
Due to the exact number of roaming dogs not being known the response by Council may not meet community expectations. Depending on the level of demand for such a service it could result in fewer resources being available to deal with priority 1 issue’s on a timely basis.
Additional on-going cost of approximately $9,000 per year, based on current number of notifications.
That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a permanent basis by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That there will be no limit on the time spent on dealing with each individual notification.
Public perception that action is being taken. Increased chance of finding notified roaming dogs.
Lack of identified value for money. Highly likely that it will result in fewer resources being available to deal with priority 1 issues on a timely basis.
Unknown at this stage but likely to require a notable increase in funding of the service which would have some impact on the level of fees paid by dog owners.
It will contribute to Councils Safe City Strategy and Safe Community Plan (currently being developed).
1.1 At the Planning and Strategy Committee meeting on 4 September 2017 it requested the following;
“That the Chief Executive report back to the Planning and Strategy Committee on opportunities to address the issue of unsecured roaming dogs.”
1.2 The request was made as a result of the Committee consideration of the proposed report on the Dog Control Policy and operation practices for Council for 2016/17 that is sent to the Secretary of Local Government under section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.
1.3 It is understood the concern centres on a view that Council is not providing a suitable level of service to address roaming dog notifications in a timely manner and could compromise public safety leading to more severe incidents such as dog attacks.
1.4 Concern had also been raised by several Councillors during the service level reviews in June 2017 as to how the Contact Centre was advising callers on what service was available in terms of roaming dog notifications. At that time callers were informed that Council only responded to those incidents where a dog was secured. This led unintentionally to callers believing that Council would respond to a roaming dog incident if the dog was secured. Such action could have placed the callers at risk of injury.
1.5 The animal control services operates on a 24/7 basis. During normal business hours (7am to 6pm, Monday to Friday) Council staff deliver the full range of animal control services such as answering customer queries, undertaking patrolling, pound duties and dealing with dog incidents. It also responds to roaming dog notifications. During the after-hours period (all other hours not covered by the day service including weekends and statutory days) a contractor deals only with priority 1 matters. These consist of dog attacks, aggressive dogs, secured dogs and stock on roads. The Council does not currently respond to roaming dog notifications during this period.
1.6 From 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2017 Council logged 2,953 notifications of roaming dogs. A total of 847 (29%) of those were logged afterhours with the balance of 2,106 (71%) logged during normal business hours. This equates to an average of 24 notifications per month over this period during after-hours.
2.1 Experience has highlighted it is very difficult to find roaming dogs particularly at night which can require a significant level of resourcing in responding to such incidences.
2.2 The rationale of not responding to roaming dog notifications after-hours is due to a lack of efficacy. In the majority of cases the dog has returned to its home, or been located by the owner, in the time between the notification and the officer responding. This may impact on the ability to respond to priority 1 matters in a timely manner.
2.3 When responding to roaming dog notifications a dog is located in around 5-6% of notifications. At night it is unlikely that a roaming dog would be located at all. It could also result in the dog being hit by a vehicle as it seeks to avoid capture.
2.4 If a notification is received after hours it is always followed up the next business day. If Council receives multiple notifications regarding the same area/street the frequency of patrolling is increased to target that location. In some limited cases this can locate the dog but more often than not the dog is not found.
2.5 There is no evidence that reported roaming dogs are responsible for any dog attacks. In the last 12 months 4 dead dogs have been recovered from the City roads and streets. There is no information available to establish whether any of these were notified as roaming.
2.6 A survey through the LGNZ Animal Control Network of other local authority’s after-hours response has revealed that, of the 14 local authorities who responded, only Kawerau District Council currently provides an after-hours response to roaming dogs. The Councils that responded to the survey were; Tauranga, Kawerau, Wellington, Rotorua, Porirua, Thames Coromandel, Whanganui, South Waikato, Whakatane, Manawatu, Rangitikei, Buller, Tararua and Horowhenua.
2.7 No issues relating to roaming dogs were raised in the initial engagement on the review of the Dog Control Policy, however views on roaming dogs were not actively sought. The draft Dog Control Policy proposes to include a new section on ‘roaming dogs’ in response to the high number of roaming dogs in the city (as reported in the section 10A report). The inclusion of this section will potentially generate some response from the community and may change the level of service being provided.
2.8 Effectiveness could be improved through asking people reporting roaming dogs to track or secure the dog and to follow and provide locational information to assist in their capture. As these strategies are considered to place such persons at risk of harm they have not been considered.
2.9 In terms of the concern as to how the Contact Centre was responding to roaming dog notifications changes have been made. The messaging has now been changed whereby a caller advising of a roaming dog is only informed that Council does not currently respond to such issues after hours. That the notification will be followed up during the next business day. No mention is now made that Council would respond if a dog was secure.
3.1 Option 1 - The status quo.
3.2 Option 2 –That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a trial basis for a 4 month period by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That a maximum of 1 hour be spent on dealing with each individual notification.
3.3 Option 3 – That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a permanent basis by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That a maximum of 1 hour will be spent on dealing with each individual notification.
3.4 Option 4 - That the level of service for the after-hours animal control service be increased on a permanent basis by including a provision to respond to roaming dog notifications. That there will be no limit on the time spent on dealing with each individual notification.
4.1.1 This represents no change to the current level of service. It would not change any perception that community and animal safety is being put at risk. This option would incur no additional cost to Council.
4.1.2 It would have notifications recorded by the Contact Centre for follow up by animal control staff on the next business day. If a number of calls are received regarding a particular location patrolling would be increased during the next business day to seek to locate the animal.
4.1.3 A sub-option of the status quo would be to consider an increased level of service to respond to roaming dogs after-hours following consultation on the Dog Control Policy. This would allow community views to be taken into account.
4.2.1 It would result in an increase in the level of service during the after-hours period by providing for a response to roaming dog notifications for a trial period of 4 months. The community would also have greater comfort that a perceived issue of community safety was being actively addressed. It would be of value to report back to the Committee the results of the trial regarding its effectiveness and cost, for consideration. The trial period would also allow the uncertainties in demand to be identified and managed
4.2.2 The proposal to limit the time spent on a specific incident enables some priority still to be given in responding to priority 1 matters. A priority 1 matter will though be given greater priority if there is a competing demand on resources.
4.2.3 Assuming the current level of after-hours notification of roaming dogs is accurate the trial could cost up to $6,000. This covers the additional resources required to be provided by the contractor and to undertake a review of the impact of the trial.
4.2.4 The potential cost is difficult to forecast though as there may be an unknown level of under-reporting of roaming dogs after-hours due to knowledge that Council does not currently offer such a service. The cost under this option would be controlled to a certain extent through the placing of a cap of one hour on the time committed to looking for a roaming dog.
4.2.5 It is difficult to predict the value of any impound revenue through impound fees of roaming dogs after hours to offset the cost. A very low number of dogs would be located and of those caught a number will be registered without any history of offending, and therefore returned to the owners. Based on the known number of after hour notifications to the Contact Centre for the last 3 years (847), if 5% of the roaming dogs notified resulted in impounding and they remained in the Pound for 2 days the revenue in 4 months would be approximately $700. If 75% of the captured dogs were returned to their owners without impounding the total revenue would be less than $200.
4.2.6 The cost of the trial would be funded from the approved 2017/18 operating budget for Animal Control Services.
4.3.1 This option would increase the service coverage of the existing after-hours service to include responding to roaming dog notifications on a permanent basis. This will include a 1 hour limit for each notification issue.
4.3.2 This option has the same benefits as option 2 without the opportunity to review the outcomes of the increased service provision. There is the risk though of reducing the response time to priority 1 incidents given the uncertainty over the extent of the problem.
4.3.3 The annual cost is difficult to estimate due to uncertainty in forecasting the demand. Based on the current level of after-hours roaming dog notifications it would be approximately $9,000.
4.3.4 Funding the initiative from Animal Control fees would increase the fees by 1.4% across all fee categories.
4.4 Option 4
4.4.1 This option would increase the level of service to include responding to roaming dog notifications without any limit on the time invested in locating a notified roaming dog.
4.4.2 This option has the same benefits as option 2 but would create an uncapped level of service with unknown financial risk to Council. There is also the risk of reducing the response time to priority 1 incidents.
4.5 Proposed Option
4.5.1 It is considered that option 2 will provide an appropriate response to community concerns that Council is not doing enough to manage the roaming dog issue. A trial enables the extent of the issue to be more clearly defined and the effectiveness of having a managed approach after hours to be assessed. It will more clearly define the financial implications of the increased level of service and any impact on dealing with priority 1 matters.
5.1 There is a community perception that roaming dogs create a risk to community and dog safety. As illustrated by the number of notifications to Council of roaming dogs there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the issue warrants a trial being implemented to gauge the extent of the problem and the impact of the proposed approach. By limiting the time committed to following up individual notifications it would minimise the risk of the contractor not being able to respond to priority one issues.
5.2 It is acknowledged that the response to roaming dog notifications has limited benefit as many of the dogs notified as roaming return to their homes or are recovered by their owners before officers can respond. There is also a limited opportunity for the response to roaming dogs after-hours to be self-funded from impounds and infringement fees as very few dogs are located and most are returned to the owners once located.
5.3 Given the lack of accurate information, as to the extent of the number of roaming dogs and the financial implications it is considered a trial for a 4 month period would help improve the understanding of the issue. This would enable an informed consideration to be given to any longer term solution.
6.1 If the recommendations are adopted, the trial will commence in February 2018. This recognises there is insufficient time to organise suitable resources and advise the community of the increased level of service in regards to the trial before then. The trial will be over the period February to May 2018
6.2 A report on the results of the trail will be submitted to the June 2018 meeting of the Committee.
7.1 Council has recently had some initial engagement to inform any proposed changes to the Dog Control Policy. Formal consultation will be undertaken early next year which may generate more comments on the issue of roaming dogs. There was nothing explicitly related to roaming dogs identified by those who provided comments or ideas in the initial engagement. However, it should be noted that comment was not sought on the issue of roaming dogs.
TITLE: Remits for LGNZ AGM
AUTHOR/S: Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager, City Future
Local Government New Zealand’s Remit Policy offers the opportunity for councils to propose remits that are supported by at least one zone or sector group meeting, or five Councils.
Remits must be relevant to local government as a whole rather than exclusively relevant to a single zone or sector group (or an individual council).
Remits should be of a major policy nature (constitutional and substantive policy) rather than matters that can be dealt with by administrative action.
As in previous years, therefore, Councillors have the opportunity to identify issues which they would like to progress through this process. Remits must be accompanied by background information and research to demonstrate the relevance and importance of the issue.
In 2016 two remit proposals were put forward by the Palmerston North City Council (following endorsement by the Metro sector): “That LGNZ advocates to central government to provide co-ordination and policy requirements for local authorities to enable them to assist New Zealand meeting its commitment under the Paris Agreement” and “That LGNZ advocates to central government to amend the Litter Act 1979 to enable local authorities to legally issue infringement notices where there is evidence of an offence.” In adopting the second remit, the metro sector meeting amended it to read: “As the impacts of Climate Change will impact on every part of New Zealand, we ask that central government provide leadership on Climate Change ensuring that central government and local government are working together collaboratively on the clear goals of meeting our Paris target.”
The climate change remit was referred by LGNZ into another process (not the AGM), and the litter remit was endorsed by the AGM. There has not yet been any report from LGNZ about any advocacy activity on the 2016 Litter Act remit.
Councillors are invited to forward proposals and background information for any potential remits to the Strategy and Policy Manager by Friday 9th February 2018. These will be collated and reported to the March Council meeting for a decision about which remits, if any, are to be put forward to the Metro sector meeting in May 2018.
TITLE: Plan Change 22A-G
AUTHOR/S: Jono Ferguson-Pye, Senior Policy Planner, City Future
1. That Sectional District Plan Review Proposed Plan Change 22A-G be approved for public notification under Clause 5, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
2. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be authorised to make minor amendments to Sectional District Plan Review Proposed Plan Change 22A-G.
3. That the Chief Executive be authorised to make amendments to those parts of Sectional District Plan Review Proposed Plan Change 22A-G affected by any consent notice issued by the Environment Court relating to appeals to Plan Change 15A-G.
The Sectional District Plan Review (SDPR) commenced in 2010. In 2017 the Council is now approaching the end of the SDPR process. The SDPR broke down the review of the District Plan into sections and over 7 years the Council has completed 17 plan changes.
Proposed Plan Change 22 A-G (PPC22A-G) is the final plan change of the SDPR. The focus of PPC22A-G is on those sections of the District Plan that have not been reviewed or sections that have only been reviewed in part. PPC22A-G contains the following topic areas:
The current District Plan was prepared in the early 1990s and became fully operative in 1995. The Council is required to commence a review of District Plan provisions that have not been reviewed in the last 10 years, pursuant to section 79 of the RMA.
PPC22A-G reviews those remaining sections of the District Plan that have not been reviewed or only reviewed in part by the SDPR. In this regard, PPC22A-G seeks to complete the SDPR and ensure the Council meets its statutory obligations under section 79 of the RMA.
A summary of the District Plan amendments proposed by PPC22A-G are provided below:
Introduction, Information Requirements and Monitoring:
- Minor update of land area and land use table in introduction section.
- Review of information requirements that accompany resource consent applications.
- Amendments to provide flexibility in how the Council meets its section 35 monitoring obligations under the RMA.
- The streamlining of the way noise is measured and assessed throughout the Plan.
- Alignment of noise assessment with 2008 versions of NZS 6801 and NZS 6082 and refreshing references to other noise standards.
- Review of noise standards in the Fringe Business Zone and Flood Protection Zone.
- Increased flexibility and relaxation of sign controls where the residential and non-residential zones meet.
- Amended policies that focus on visual amenity and safety for road users, and new policies relating to non-site related signage and illuminated signs.
- A tightening of controls for above ground floor signs in the Inner Business Zone.
- Amended controls for non-site related signs and illuminated signs, new controls for temporary signs and increased flexibility for sponsorship signs at specified sporting facilities.
- Consolidation, tidy-up and amendment to provisions to remove repetition, declutter and align the subdivision section with development that has occurred on the ground.
- No change to the activity status of any type of subdivision.
- Amendments to introduction to reflect RMA amendments.
- Minor amendments to issues and policies that have not been reviewed.
- Review of objectives and policies with a focus on the need for the transport network to:
Be maintained and developed so that people and goods move safely and efficiently through and within the city.
Be safe, convenient and efficient while managing adverse effects on communities and the amenity and character of the City.
Protect the safety and efficiency of the land transport network from the adverse effects of land use activities, subdivision and development.
- Increased policy focus on the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.
- Review of access, loading, car parking formation, and vehicle queuing standards.
- New bicycle parking requirements and the provision of end of trip facilities.
- Largely the status quo has been retained but with a recognition of the importance of natural hazards as required by the 2017 RMA amendments.
- Policy focus on managing risks associated with unstable land, liquefaction and wildfire.
- Updated information relating to seismic hazards and liquefaction.
- Relocation of rules controlling restructuring of land in the Aokautere Development Area from the Natural Hazards section to the Subdivision section of the Plan.
- Removal of a protected heritage dwelling from the Schedule of Buildings and Objects of Cultural Heritage Value in Section 17: Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Plan.
- Correction of a zoning anomaly at 123A Botanical Road from Residential Zone to Local Business Zone.
The section 32 report and options analysis required by the RMA demonstrates that PPC 22A‑G is the most efficient and effective option of meeting the purpose of the RMA 1991.
PPC22A-G aligns with the following Council strategies:
(i) Integrated Transport Strategy – the review of the Transportation Section of the Plan seeks to promote transport choices as part of an easy to use and efficient transport system that meets the needs of people, businesses, and the environment.
(ii) Economic Well Being Strategy – PPC22A-G seeks to enable development and activities in a way that improves the long term economic wellbeing of businesses and the community.
(iii) Sustainable City Strategy – PPC22A-G is required achieve the purpose of the RMA. The purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable use and development of natural and physical resources in a way and at rate that enables the social and economic wellbeing of the community.
(iv) Urban Design Strategy – PPC22A-G seeks to enable a built urban form that contributes to the Urban Design Strategy’s vision for a city that is recognised as vibrant, caring, creative and sustainable.
(v) Heritage Strategy – PPC22A-G will continue the District Plan’s focus of protecting and conserving the city’s built heritage where robust information supports heritage protection.
(vi) PPC22A-G is also considered to be consistent with the new strategic direction emerging as part of the preparation of the 2018 Long Term Plan.
The first schedule of the RMA prescribes the consultation process a change to the District Plan is required to undertake. PPC22A-G has met its obligations under clause 3 of the first schedule of the Act to consult on the draft plan change. Council officers are now seeking the Committee’s approval for formal consultation on PPC22A-G under clause 5 of the first schedule of the Act.
By approving PPC22A-G for public consultation the Council will be:
- Enabling democratic local decision-making on behalf of the community
- Enable the Council to meet its statutory obligations pursuant to section 79 of the RMA
- Approving the final plan change of the SDPR
If the Committee approves the recommendations the next step will be for the Council to publicly notify PPC22A-G for submissions.
Clause 182 of the Delegations Manual
PC22A General Introduction Info Requirements Monitoring Section 32 Report (attached separately)
PC22B Signs Section 32 Report (attached separately)
PC22C Noise Section 32 Report (attached separately)
PC22D Subdivision Section 32 Report (attached separately)
PC22E Transportation Section 32 Report (attached separately)
PC22F Natural Hazards Section 32 Report (attached separately)
PC22G Miscellaneous Section 32 Report (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 1 General Introduction (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 4 Definitions (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 5 Information Requirements (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 6 General Rules (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 7 Subdivision (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 9 Rural Zone (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 10 Residential Zone (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 11 Business Zones (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 12 Industrial Zone (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 12A North East Industrial Zone (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 13 Airport Zone (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 14 Hazardous Substances (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 15 Recreation (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 16 Caccia Birch (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 17 Cultural and Natural Heritage (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 19 Institutional Zone (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 20 Transportation (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 21 Race Training Zone (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 22 Natural Hazards (attached separately)
Provisions - Section 25 Monitoring (attached separately)
Jono Ferguson-Pye
Committee Work Schedule - December 2017 ⇩