|
|
Regulatory Subcommittee
30 November 2021
|
Part
A Reports
Results of consultation on review of Keeping
of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw
Department: Customer and Regulatory
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 At
its 27 October 2020 meeting Council resolved to review the Keeping of Animals
(excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw (the bylaw) early, with a view to address
ongoing noise issues with roosters.
2 At
its 28 September 2021 Council approved a statement of proposal and Draft
Keeping of Animals Bylaw for consultation purposes.
3 This
report to the Regulatory Subcommittee summarises the 150 submissions received
during the consultation period.
4 General
support for the proposed bylaw changes was split. 45% of submitters agreed
overall, 45% didn’t not agree. The remaining 10% focused on other matters
outside of consultation scope. Responses were also split on options to manage
noise issues with roosters. A late submission from the SPCA had been
received on Monday, 22 November. The submitter also wishes to be heard.
5 Twelve
submitters wish to be heard.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Subcommittee:
a) Decide whether to accept the late submission from the SPCA.
b) Consider the submissions on the review of the
Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw
c) Make recommendations to the Council on the review of the Keeping
of Animals (excluding Dogs) Bylaw.
|
BACKGROUND
Purposes
of bylaws
6 Bylaws
can be made under the Local Government Act for one or more of the following
general purposes:
a) Protecting
the public from nuisance
b) Protecting,
promoting, and maintaining public health and safety and
c) Minimising
the potential for offensive behaviour in public places (section 145).
7 The
Act also allows bylaws to be made specifically to regulate the keeping of
animals, bees, and poultry (section 146(a)(v)).
8 The
Act requires new bylaws to be reviewed five years after adoption and then at
ten-year intervals (with a two-year additional period to complete a review if
required).
Bylaw
history and purpose
9 The
Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw was made in October 2010.
It does not extend to dogs which are regulated by the Dog Control Act 1996.
10 The
bylaw’s purpose is to protect the public from
nuisance and to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety by
controlling the keeping of animals and birds within the residential district
and rural-residential district. It was last reviewed in 2016 when only minor
wording changes were made.
11 The
current bylaw regulates how animals and birds must be kept. It allows the
Council to impose a limit on the number and/or species of animals or birds kept
at a property and covers offences and penalties according to the Act. In
practice, the bylaw has focused primarily on controlling the nuisance effects
of keeping animals rather than controlling specific actions or limiting
residents to a specific number of animals per property.
12 Another
way to address issues relating to the keeping of animals is public and owner
education. While this has been used for a number of years, it has not been
sufficient to deal with nuisance as there is no ability to enforce
non-compliant behaviour. A bylaw is considered the most appropriate way of
addressing these issues.
Proposed
Keeping of Animals Bylaw
13 On
the 27 October 2020, the Council approved the early review of the bylaw with a
view to include provision to address ongoing noise issues with roosters.
14 Following
review included initial consultation, then a new Keeping of Animals Bylaw was
proposed. The main proposed change is to ban the keeping of roosters in
residential zone areas unless owners have written permission. This was in
response to feedback and noise nuisance issues. Permission would be at the
discretion of the Council and may be conditional.
15 It
was also proposed that the bylaw allows the Council to make controls for
animals between bylaw reviews. This would allow greater flexibility should the
city’s needs change. There would be appropriate community engagement on
any proposed future amendments.
16 Some
minor amendments are proposed to clarify some sections. Explanatory notes have
been added.
DISCUSSION
Community
engagement
17 Initial
community engagement has informed the bylaw review. This included Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Lifestyle Block Association of New
Zealand, Dunedin Poultry Club, Cat Rescue Dunedin, Dunedin Beekeepers Club and
Predator Free Dunedin. Community Boards circulated information and a survey
through their community networks. Community engagement also included a
People’s Panel survey. Results of this consultation were reported to the
Council in September 2021.
18 Formal
consultation took place from Monday 18 October until Wednesday 17 November.
Methods included information on the Dunedin City Council (DCC) website and in
the Otago Daily Times noticeboard, FYI, posts on social media, and targeted
emails to the stakeholders mentioned above.
Results
of consultation
19 The
majority of the 150 submissions received were from individuals. Some
represented organisations such as the Dunedin Poultry, Pigeon and Cage Bird
Club, Predator Free NZ Trust, NZ Forest and Bird, and Community Boards.
General support
20 The
submission form asked: Overall do you agree with the proposed Keeping of
Animals Bylaw?
21 Responses
to this question were split, with 45% agreeing overall with the proposed bylaw
and 45% disagreeing. The remainder did not answer this question.
|
Options
|
Number
|
%
|
|
Yes
|
67
|
45%
|
|
No
|
67
|
45%
|
|
Did not answer
|
16
|
10%
|
|
Total
|
150
|
100%
|
Table 1: Agreement with proposed bylaw by number and
percentage
22 The
submission form asked: Why/why not?
23 The
main reasons given for those who agreed with the proposed bylaw were:
· roosters
should be banned because of noise issues (21 comments)
· roosters
are not appropriate in residential areas (5 comments)
· support
for animals/birds (2 comments).
24 The
main reasons given for those who did not agree with the proposed
bylaw were:
· support
for roosters/importance for breeding (29 comments)
· no
change needed/deal with case by case (16 comments)
· other
noises are worse (9 comments)
· need
for sustainable food source (4 comments)
· public
right to keep roosters (3 comments)
· need
to address cat issues (3 comments)
· not
all residential areas are equal (3 comments).
Roosters
25 The
submission form asked: Which of the following options do you support in
relation to keeping roosters?
26 Responses
were split for this question with about half supporting the status quo of not
specifically restricting keeping of roosters in any area and 44% supporting a
ban of some sort
(28% supporting a complete ban of keeping roosters in residential areas and 16%
supporting the proposed option of a ban unless owners have written permission
from Council).
|
Options
|
Number
|
%
|
|
Option 1: Ban keeping of
roosters from residential areas unless written permission from Council
(proposed)
|
24
|
16%
|
|
Option 2: Do not specifically
restrict keeping of roosters in any area (status quo)
|
76
|
51%
|
|
Option 3: Ban keeping of
roosters completely from residential areas.
|
41
|
27%
|
|
Did not answer
|
9
|
6%
|
|
Total
|
150
|
100%
|
Table
2: Support for options by number and percentage
27 The
submission form asked: Why?
28 The
main reasons for those who supported Option 1 (banning from residential
unless written permission) were:
· to
address noise issues (5 comments)
· neighbours
consent needed for permission (4 comments)
· prevent
court cases (2 comments).
29 The
main reasons for those who supported Option 2 (no specific restrictions
– status quo) were:
· support
for poultry/importance of breeding (19 comments)
· deal
with on case by case basis (13 comments)
· other
noises are worse (4 comments)
· roosters
should be allowed (4 comments)
· no
reason to change (3 comments)
· should
be different for different areas (3 comments)
· needed
for food source (3 comments).
30 The
main reason given for those who supported Option 3 (banning from residential
completely) was to address noise issues (32 comments).
General comments
31 The
submission form asked: Do you have any other comments to make about the
proposed Keeping of Animals Bylaw?
32 The
most common topics were to address cat issues (too many cats, cat litter, wild
cats, attacking wildlife, fighting) and the importance of keeping roosters for
breeding purposes (maintaining breeds and genetic diversity).
|
Topics
|
Number
|
|
Importance of roosters/poultry
breeding
|
10
|
|
Cats – include
restrictions
|
9
|
|
Deal with rooster issues case
by case
|
5
|
|
Roosters –
noise/nuisance issues
|
5
|
|
Rural-residential/urban areas
have different requirements
|
3
|
|
Include areas bordering
residential
|
3
|
|
Other e.g. feral
poultry/other animals/conditions/animal welfare
|
16
|
Table 3: Summary of other comments by number
33 The
preferred option to address cat issues was approved by the Council on 28
September 2021. This was to work with local organisations to promote responsible
animal ownership through education, information, and promotion of good
practice.
34 Submissions
received relate to the number of cats, cats wandering and cats attacking
wildlife. These issues do not, in themselves, pose a nuisance to the public or
impact public health and safety. Therefore, this falls outside the scope of the
bylaws made under the Act which is aimed at protecting people and communities
rather than wildlife.
35 Alternative
options to address cat issues include the:
· Reserves
Act 1977 allows the Council to seize and destroy, sell or otherwise dispose of
an animal that is trespassing on a Council reserve and where there is no
evidence of ownership.
· Health
Act can be used to address a health nuisance posed by animals, including cats.
· Otago
Regional Council’ pest management strategy under the Biosecurity Act
1993.
Social media
36 People
were invited to comment on this bylaw review via DCC Facebook and Twitter.
Posts asked what people thought about roosters being kept in residential areas.
Key topics commented on were:
· support
for roosters (34 comments)
· ban
in residential/not appropriate in residential (29 comments)
· other
noises are worse (13 comments)
· dogs
barking (8 comments)
· thought
already banned in residential (6 comments)
· address
cat issues (5 comments)
· what
about hens that crow (4 comments)
· roosters
support food source (3 comments)
· feral
poultry issues (2 comments).
OPTIONS
37 There
are no options with this report as its purpose is to present a summary of
submissions.
NEXT STEPS
38 Next
steps are for the Subcommittee to consider consultation results, hear the
submitters and make recommendations to the Council regarding the bylaw review.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Anne Gray - Policy Analyst
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Ros MacGill - Manager Compliance Solutions
Claire Austin - General Manager Customer and Regulatory
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
|
SUMMARY OF
CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose of Local Government
This decision enables
democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities
and promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the
future.
|
|
Fit with strategic framework
|
|
Contributes
|
Detracts
|
Not applicable
|
|
Social Wellbeing Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Economic Development
Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Environment Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Arts and Culture Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
3 Waters Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Spatial Plan
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Integrated Transport
Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Parks and Recreation
Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Other strategic
projects/policies/plans
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
This decision contributes to
the healthy and safe people priority of the Social Wellbeing Strategy and the
liveable city priority of the Spatial Plan.
|
|
Māori Impact Statement
There are no specific
impacts for Māori.
|
|
Sustainability
There are no specific
implications for sustainability.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure
Strategy
There are no implications
for these documents.
|
|
Financial considerations
There are no financial
implications at this stage. Should the Council decide to ban roosters in
residential zone areas, there may be related fees and charges which would be
consulted through the Annual Plan process.
|
|
Significance
This summary report is
considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement
Policy.
|
|
Engagement – external
The special consultative
procedure was used to consult on this bylaw review, as required by the Local
Government Act. Methods included
information on the Dunedin City Council (DCC) website, in the Otago Daily
Times noticeboard and posts on DCC social media. A media release was
circulated and there were targeted emails to stakeholders such as animal
interest organisations and Community Boards asking them to circulate
information through their networks. The People’s Panel was also
advised.
|
|
Engagement - internal
There has been internal
engagement with Corporate Policy (People’s Panel) and Council
Communications and Marketing (community engagement) for this report.
|
|
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.
There are no identified
risks associated with this summary report.
|
|
Conflict of Interest
There is no known conflict
of interest.
|
|
Community Boards
Community Boards are
identified as key stakeholders and are being engaged with throughout this
review. They were asked to circulate information on the review and the
consultation through their community networks. Some Community Boards have
made submissions to the review.
|
