Notice of Meeting:

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory Subcommittee will be held on:


Date:                                                    Tuesday 30 November 2021

Time:                                                   9.30 am

Venue:                                                Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin


Sandy Graham

Chief Executive Officer


Regulatory Subcommittee

Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw






Cr Andrew Whiley






Cr Sophie Barker

Cr Rachel Elder


Senior Officer                                               Claire Austen, General Manager Customer and Regulatory


Governance Support Officer                  Rebecca Murray




Rebecca Murray

Governance Support Officer



Telephone: 03 477 4000






Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.


Regulatory Subcommittee

30 November 2021



ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                                                                         PAGE


1             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                    4

2             Confirmation of Agenda                                                                                                                                        4

3             Declaration of Interest                                                                                                                                           5      

Part A Reports (Subcommittee has power to decide these matters)

4             Results of consultation on review of Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw       9

5             Speaking Schedule                                                                                                                                                15             



Regulatory Subcommittee

30 November 2021



1          Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2          Confirmation of agenda

Note: Any additions must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Regulatory Subcommittee

30 November 2021


Declaration of Interest




1.         Members are reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.


2.         Elected members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable, including amending the register at this meeting if necessary.




That the Subcommittee:

a)     Notes/Amends if necessary the Elected Members' Interest Register attached as Attachment A; and

b)     Confirms/Amends the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests.








Regulatory Subcommittee - Keeping of Animals (Excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw Hearing Panel Register of Interest



Regulatory Subcommittee

30 November 2021


PDF Creator


PDF Creator



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





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.


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.



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.


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.










Did not answer






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).


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).




Option 1: Ban keeping of roosters from residential areas unless written permission from Council (proposed)



Option 2: Do not specifically restrict keeping of roosters in any area (status quo)



Option 3: Ban keeping of roosters completely from residential areas.



Did not answer






             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).



Importance of roosters/poultry breeding


Cats – include restrictions


Deal with rooster issues case by case


Roosters – noise/nuisance issues


Rural-residential/urban areas have different requirements


Include areas bordering residential


Other e.g. feral poultry/other animals/conditions/animal welfare


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).


37        There are no options with this report as its purpose is to present a summary of submissions.


38        Next steps are for the Subcommittee to consider consultation results, hear the submitters and make recommendations to the Council regarding the bylaw review.



Anne Gray - Policy Analyst


Ros MacGill - Manager Compliance Solutions

Claire Austin - General Manager Customer and Regulatory


There are no attachments for this report.



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




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.


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.


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.


Regulatory Subcommittee

30 November 2021



Speaking Schedule

Department: Civic





1          Please find attached the speaking schedule as at 25 November 2021.






Rebecca Murray - Governance Support Officer






Speaking Schedule as at 25 November 2021




Regulatory Subcommittee

30 November 2021


PDF Creator