|
|
Customer & Regulatory Services Committee
21 May 2024
|
Review of Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy
Department: Customer and Regulatory
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 In
August 2023, the Council resolved to commence review of the Dog Control Bylaw
(the Bylaw) and Dog Control Policy (the Policy). This review must be carried
out under requirements of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) and the Local
Government Act 2002 (LGA).
2 This
report presents the results of early engagement on the review of the Bylaw and
Policy, conducted in November 2023. This early engagement has informed the
development of a draft Bylaw and Policy.
3 In
order to meet requirements of the Act and the LGA, and for consultation
purposes, this report asks the Committee to:
a) Approve
a draft Dog Control Bylaw - see Attachment A
b) Approve
a draft Dog Control Policy - see Attachment B
c) Adopt
a statement of proposal (SOP) - see Attachment C.
4 Proposed
changes to the Bylaw and Policy seek to:
· Improve
opportunities for the recreational needs of dogs and their owners: for example,
proposing that dogs are allowed on-leash in central business district areas
(such as the Octagon) where they are currently prohibited.
· Protect
wildlife and minimise the potential for danger, distress or nuisance, by
requiring:
i) dogs
to be on-leash in all coastal dune areas, including access paths
ii) the
number of dogs an owner may have on-leash in a public place is limited to six,
and off-leash is limited to two at any one time.
· Make
the Bylaw and the Policy clearer and simpler, providing notes explaining the
Bylaw and Policy and removing duplication, for example of maps.
5 Proposed
changes, including reasons for the proposals and an analysis of options, are
set out in the SOP.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Committee:
a) Notes the
review’s early engagement results.
b) Approves the draft Dog
Control Bylaw and draft Dog Control Policy for consultation purposes, subject
to any amendment.
c) Adopts the Statement
of Proposal, for consultation purposes, subject to any amendment.
d) Resolves that the
proposed draft Dog Control Bylaw meets the requirements of section 155 of the
Local Government Act, in that:
i) the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate form of Bylaw
ii) the proposed Bylaw does not give rise to any implications
under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
BACKGROUND
Dog Control Act 1996
6 The
Act states that any territorial authority may, in accordance with the LGA 2002,
make dog-control bylaws for the following purposes:
a) prohibiting
dogs, whether under control or not, from specified public places
b) requiring
dogs, other than working dogs, to be controlled on a leash in specified public
places, or in public places in specified areas or parts of the district
c) regulating
and controlling dogs in any other public place
d) designating
specified areas as dog exercise areas
e) prescribing
minimum standards for the accommodation of dogs
f) limiting
the number of dogs that may be kept on any land or premises
g) requiring
dogs in its district to be tied up or otherwise confined during a specified
period commencing not earlier than half an hour after sunset, and ending not
later than half an hour before sunrise
h) requiring
the owner of any dog that defecates in a public place or on land or premises
other than that occupied by the owner to immediately remove the faeces
i) requiring
any bitch to be confined but adequately exercised while in season
j) providing
for the impounding of dogs, whether or not they are wearing a collar having the
proper label or disc attached, that are found at large in breach of any bylaw
made by the territorial authority under this or any other Act
k) requiring
the owner of any dog (being a dog that, on a number of occasions, has not been
kept under control) to cause that dog to be neutered (whether or not the owner
of the dog has been convicted of an offence against Section 53 of The Act)
l) any
other purpose that from time to time is, in the opinion of the territorial
authority, necessary or desirable to further the control of dog.
7 The
Act also requires that territorial authorities must have a policy on dogs which
details:
· the
outline, nature and application of any dog control bylaw
· the
public places where dogs are to be controlled and how they are to be controlled
· any
designated dog exercise areas, and
· whether
menacing dogs are to be neutered.
8 In
adopting the Policy, the Council must have regard to:
· the
need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally
· the
need to avoid danger from dogs having uncontrolled access to public places
frequented by children
· the
importance of public use of public places without fear of attack or
intimidation by dogs, and
· the
exercise and recreational needs of dogs and dog owners.
9 Dog
control bylaws are required to give effect to the mandatory Dog Control Policy.
Bylaws cannot be inconsistent with the Policy.
Review requirements
10 The Act requires
that a dog control bylaw must be made and reviewed in accordance with the LGA
and that dog control policies are to be reviewed whenever the bylaw is
reviewed.
11 The DCC’s
Bylaw and the Policy were last reviewed in 2015/2016 with the current version
taking effect from 1 July 2016. The LGA requires that bylaws are reviewed no
later than ten years after their last review.
12 A review of this
nature requires use of the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP).
DISCUSSION
Early community engagement
13 To inform any
changes to the Bylaw or the Policy, early engagement with key stakeholders was
carried out during November 2023. Methods included circulating a web survey to
key stakeholders via email, publication in “FYI”, media release,
advertisements on Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) social media page, and a
People’s Panel survey.
14 Questions
focussed on rules about some specific locations, satisfaction with controls and
more general questions. The survey also sought feedback on satisfaction with
dog exercise parks, long-life metal registration tags and dog poo bag vouchers.
15 Key stakeholder
engagement included SPCA, rῡnaka, Community Boards, Department of
Conservation (DoC), Blind Foundation, the Police, surf lifesaving clubs,
Athletics Otago as well as dog owners and non-dog owners.
Web survey results
16 There were 383
responses to the web survey which ran from 1-30 November 2023. Of these the
majority (70%) were dog owners and 29% were not dog owners.
17 See Attachment D
for the full web survey results and key findings.
People’s Panel survey results
18 The Dunedin
People’s Panel is an online panel of people who want the opportunity to
give feedback on a range of DCC issues can opt in to. At the time of the
survey, there were around 1,200 people on the panel.
19 There were 239
responses to the People’s Panel survey. Of these, 58% did not own a dog
and 42% did own a dog.
20 See Attachment E
for the full People’s Panel results and key findings.
Social media feedback
21 On 1 and 27
November 2023, the DCC Facebook page posted information about the Dog Control
Bylaw and Policy review. These posts provided links to early engagement
questions. 8,046 users saw the first post and 793 engaged with the content
(i.e. liked, shared, reacted or commented). 12,711 users saw the second post
and 1,237 engaged with the content.
22 The main topics
discussed in the social media chat were enforcement, education, compliance,
signage, cats, dog swim areas, wandering dogs, dogs in the CBD, dog poo bins
and dog parks.
Other councils
22. Staff
also researched other councils’ approach to dog control best practice.
The proposed updated Bylaw and Policy have been informed by the Christchurch
City Council’s 2016 Dog Control Bylaw and Policy model. This seeks to
better inform and engage dog owners by providing clear information and explanations.
Proposals
23 Our early
engagement suggests that while many current controls work well, there are some
opportunities for improvement.
24 These include:
· improving
opportunities for the recreational needs of dogs and their owners
· minimising
the potential for danger, distress or nuisance to people, other animals,
protected wildlife, and
· making
the Bylaw and Policy clearer and simpler to read.
25 Proposed changes
are summarised in the tables below. For current rules, reasons for proposed
changes and an analysis of options, as required by the LGA and the Act, see the
SOP at Attachment C.
Improving opportunities for the recreational needs of dogs
and their owners
|
Location
|
Proposed change
|
|
Octagon, Library Plaza and the areas of Princes
Street and George Street between the Exchange and Knox Church
|
Allow dogs on leash - but not allowed to be
left tied up and unattended
|
|
King Edward Street, South Dunedin between Hillside
and Macandrew Roads
|
Allow dogs on leash - but not allowed to be
left tied up and unattended
|
|
Ross Creek tracks – excluding the track
around the Reservoir
|
Allow dogs off leash
|
|
Te Rauone Beach – ONLY the beach south
of Te Rauone Reserve
|
Allow dogs off leash
|
|
Pῡrākaunui Beach
|
Allow dogs off leash
|
|
Mosgiel Memorial Garden – track only
|
Allow dogs on leash
|
|
Woodside Glen – unformed legal roads
|
Allow dogs off leash on unformed legal roads
|
|
Frasers Gully Recreation Reserve – track
|
Allow dogs off leash on the track
|
|
Jubilee Park – tracks
|
Allow dogs off leash
|
|
Bethunes Gully - picnic area
|
Allow dogs off leash
|
|
McGouns track
|
Allow dogs off leash
|
Minimising potential for danger, distress or nuisance
|
Location/Topic
|
Proposed change
|
|
Limiting dog numbers per owner in public places
|
Limit the number of dogs a person may have in their
charge in a public place to six (6) with no more than two (2) off-
leash at any time
|
|
All coastal dune areas including access pathways
|
Dogs must be on leash, but are not allowed
in any coastal dune areas that are prohibited areas
|
|
Westwood Recreation Reserve – from Ocean View
carpark to Kaikorai Estuary
|
Dogs must be on leash
|
|
Caledonian Grounds
|
Dogs are not allowed within the grounds
|
Other proposed changes
|
Topic
|
Proposed change
|
|
Exemptions for dogs from restricted areas
|
Council may exempt dogs from the requirements that
otherwise apply in restricted areas with written permission
|
|
Playgrounds definition
|
Definition is within one metre of fenced or surfaced
playground area, or playground equipment, and includes skateparks and outdoor
basketball areas
|
|
Right of review
|
An owner affected by a decision
made under the bylaw may apply in writing to the Chief Executive for a review
of the decision within 14 days after receiving notification of the decision.
(This does not apply to dangerous dog etc. classifications which are
decisions made under the Act and are subject to the objection process in the
Act.)
|
Making the Bylaw and Policy clearer and simpler
26 Some of the
changes to make the Bylaw and Policy clearer and to avoid confusion are:
· adding
explanatory notes;
· removing
the current set of maps from the Bylaw, replacing these with schedules and
· retaining
an interactive map which can be used as a guide (but is not part of the Bylaw
or Policy).
27 See Attachment F
for the current Dog Control Bylaw 2016 and see Attachment G for the current Dog
Control Policy 2016.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA) implications
28 The Council and
its Committees must ensure that any bylaw doesn’t unreasonably limit the
right to certain freedoms under the NZBoRA.
29 The intent of dog
control bylaw is the prevention of harm (either to people, wildlife, other
animals, or property). In this sense, limiting the movement of people (when
accompanied by their dogs) in some public places and for specified reasons, is
a proportionate response and is considered a justified limitation for the
prevention of harm.
Consultation
30 The Act requires that
the SCP is used for the review of the Bylaw and the Policy and consultation. It
is proposed that this is conducted from Monday 10 June until Friday 19 July
2024. This meets the LGA requirement that consultation is open for at least one
month.
31 Engagement
methods will include sending information to dog owners, advertising on the DCC
website, social media pages, on the Otago Daily Times noticeboard and in The
Star, a media release, and “FYI” article. Key stakeholders will be
advised of the review and invited to comment. Stakeholders include the Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Community Boards, Yellow-Eyed Penguin
Trust, Wildlife Hospital, Department of Conservation, Blind Foundation, the
Police, surf lifesaving clubs, Athletics Otago, bird clubs, dog owners and
non-dog owners.
32 There will be the
opportunity for people to present their views at hearings after July.
OPTIONS
33 Given the
statutory requirement for this review, the two main options are to approve the
proposed Bylaw and proposed Policy for consultation with or without any
amendments. The third option of not having a bylaw and policy would not meet
legislative requirements.
Option One – Approve the draft Bylaw and draft
Policy, and adopt the statement of proposal for consultation (Recommended)
Advantages
· The
draft Bylaw and draft Policy are informed by early engagement and feedback.
· The
proposed Bylaw, Policy, SOP and review process comply with the Act and LGA
statutory requirements including the SCP.
· Feedback
will inform Dunedin’s dog control matters and decision-making
· Proposals
will improve opportunities for recreational needs of dogs and their owners.
· Proposals
will minimise potential for danger, distress or nuisance.
· Proposals
will make the Bylaw and Policy clearer and simpler.
Disadvantages
· There
are no known disadvantages.
Option Two – Approve the draft bylaw and draft
policy, and adopt the statement of proposal for consultation, with amendments
34 This is the same
as Option One, but with any amendments specifically recorded in the
Committee’s resolutions.
Option Three – Do not have a Dog Control Policy or
Dog Control Bylaw
Advantages
· There
are no known advantages.
Disadvantages
· The
Council would be in breach of Dog Control Act requirements.
NEXT STEPS
35 When the
Committee approves the Bylaw, Policy and SOP for consultation, the following
proposed next steps are:
|
Action
|
Timeframe
|
|
Consultation – using special consultative
procedure
|
Monday 10 June until Friday
19 July 2024
|
|
Hearings
|
Around August/September 2024
|
|
Hearings Committee report to the Council with
proposed final bylaw and policy
|
To be confirmed
|
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Anne Gray - Policy Analyst
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Ros MacGill - Manager Compliance Solutions
Claire Austin - General Manager Customer and Regulatory
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
⇩a
|
Proposed Dunedin Dog
Control Bylaw
|
37
|
|
⇩b
|
Proposed Dunedin Dog
Control Policy
|
44
|
|
⇩c
|
Proposed Statement of
Proposal for Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy review
|
63
|
|
⇩d
|
Web survey results
|
74
|
|
⇩e
|
People's Panel report
|
91
|
|
⇩f
|
Current Dog Control
Bylaw
|
113
|
|
⇩g
|
Current Dog Control
Policy
|
125
|
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose of Local Government
This decision enables democratic local
decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.
This decision 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
|
✔
|
☐
|
☐
|
Review of the bylaw and policy contributes to priorities
of ‘safe people’ in the Social Wellbeing Strategy, ‘healthy
environment’ in Te Ao Tῡroa, ‘liveable city’ in the
Spatial Plan, and ‘treasuring parks’ and ‘open spaces
supporting communities to thrive’ in the Parks and Recreation Strategy.
|
|
Māori Impact Statement
Local rῡnaka are identified as stakeholders and are
being engaged with as part of this review.
|
|
Sustainability
The proposed Bylaw and Policy contribute to environmental
sustainability as they aim to minimise potential for danger, distress or
nuisance to the community generally including, for example, removal of dog
faeces from public places and protection of wildlife.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure
Strategy
There are no implications for these strategies and plans.
Timing of consultation has been planned so as to not confuse other engagement
and consultation processes.
|
|
Financial considerations
There are no financial implications. The changes proposed
to the bylaw and policy will be administering within existing operational
budget.
|
|
Significance
This decision is considered low-medium in terms of the
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. It is anticipated that
there will be strong interest in the review with some divided views amongst
the community.
|
|
Engagement – external
Early engagement was carried out in November 2023 and the
results are presented in this report. The special consultative procedure must
be used when reviewing the Bylaw and the Policy and this is planned for June/July
2024. Key stakeholders include Community Boards, Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals, Yellow-Eyed Penguin Trust, Wildlife Hospital,
Department of Conservation, Blind Foundation, the Police, surf lifesaving
clubs, Athletics Otago, bird clubs as well as dog owners and non-dog owners.
|
|
Engagement - internal
There has been internal engagement with In-House Legal
Counsel, Parks and Recreation, Business Information Services, and
Communications and Marketing.
|
|
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.
There are no identified legal or health and safety risks
with this proposal. The draft Bylaw and Policy have had external legal
review.
|
|
Conflict of Interest
There are no known conflicts of interest.
|
|
Community Boards
Community Boards are identified as key stakeholders and
are being engaged with as part of this review.
|
|
|
Customer & Regulatory Services Committee
21 May 2024
|
Trading in Public Places Bylaw review
Department: Customer and Regulatory
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The
Trading in Public Places Bylaw (The Bylaw) was made on 27 October 2020 and came
into effect on 1 January 2021. The Local Government Act 2002 (The Act)
requires that a bylaw must be reviewed within five years after being made.
2 This
report recommends that the Customer and Regulatory Committee (the Committee)
determines that a bylaw continues to be the most appropriate way to address
public trading issues in Dunedin.
3 It
seeks approval to commence review of the Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2020
(the Bylaw).
4 The
Act requires these decisions to be made before commencing the bylaw review.
5 See
Attachment A for the Bylaw.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Committee:
a) Determines that a
bylaw is the most appropriate way to address public trading issues in Dunedin.
b) Approves commencement
of the review of the Trading in Public Places Bylaw.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of bylaws
6 Under
the Act, bylaws can be made for one or more of the following general purposes:
protecting the public from nuisance; protecting, promoting, and maintaining
public health and safety; and minimising the potential for offensive behaviour
in public places (section 145).
7 The
Act also allows bylaws to be made specifically to regulate trading in public
places (section 146(1)(a)(vi).
Dunedin Bylaw history and purpose
8 The
Bylaw was made on 27 October 2020 with the date of effect 1 January 2021. It
replaced the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw which had been in place
for more than 30 years regulating mobile trading and temporary stalls only.
9 As
substantial changes were intended, the Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw
was revoked, and a new bylaw was made.
10 From 2021, the
Bylaw required permits for a wider range of public trading activities than were
addressed in the previous Mobile Trading and Temporary Stall Bylaw, including
rental scheme operators (e.g. e-scooter companies), street fundraising, street
performing, touting, and commercial use of footpaths. Requirements within the
Bylaw include operators complying with conditions of their permit and that safe
pedestrian access in public places is maintained. Under the Bylaw, the Council
may charge a fee for permits.
11 The Act requires
that a new bylaw is initially reviewed within five years of being made.
Thereafter the review period is ten years.
12 While the purpose
of the Bylaw is to “provide reasonable controls to protect health and
safety, to protect the public from nuisance and to regulate trading in public
places” it is also important to acknowledge the benefits that public
trading can contribute to the city, including vibrancy, liveliness and
attractive lifestyle options.
DISCUSSION
Bylaw is appropriate
13 Before commencing
the bylaw review process, Council is required to determine whether a bylaw is
the most appropriate way to address the perceived issue.
14 A bylaw is still
proposed to be the most appropriate way to address issues with public trading
in Dunedin. Initial evidence indicates that the Bylaw works well. Operators
generally comply with the Bylaw and the relevant trading conditions. Along with
a balance of education, the Bylaw ensures appropriate standards of health and
safety, and pedestrian access are maintained for all people using our public
places including people with disabilities. For example, the introduction of
rental scheme operations (such as e-scooter companies) as a trading activity in
2021 means that these companies now require a permit to operate. They are
required to pay a fee and comply with conditions (including always maintaining
safe pedestrian access).
15 Without a bylaw,
there is a risk that operators trade in public places without any health and
safety or pedestrian access controls. The Council would have limited mechanisms
to manage issues should they arise. Education alone is considered insufficient
to manage public place trading in Dunedin.
16 The review will
consider how well the Bylaw is working for each of the trading activities, and
if there are opportunities for improvement.
Review of trading conditions
17 While the Bylaw
requires trading operators to comply with conditions for their trading
activity, the conditions themselves sit outside and are separate to the Bylaw.
These conditions are monitored and can be reviewed by staff and amended as
needed with appropriate levels of community engagement. This allows flexibility
to respond to changing needs without the requirement to amend the Bylaw itself,
which can only be done by use of the special consultative procedure process and
Council resolution.
18 As an example,
the code of practice conditions for rental e-scooter operators were updated
recently, to meet evolving best practice, and in preparation for the tender
process for permit renewal. Mobile trading sites and street performing
conditions are also able to be updated to align with city upgrades.
19 Particular
attention is planned for the conditions and sites for mobile trading and for
street performing. While separate to the Bylaw review, this work will be
carried out around the same time.
Special consultative procedure
20 The Act requires
the use of the special consultative procedure as part of the review.
OPTIONS
21 Options are
whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address trading in public places
issues in Dunedin and whether to permit the bylaw review process to commence.
Option One
– The Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address related issues in
Dunedin (recommended)
Advantages
· Bylaw
ensures management of appropriate standards of health and safety, and pedestrian
access across all public trading operators.
· Bylaw provides the
means to address issues arising from public trading in Dunedin.
Disadvantages
· There are some
administrative costs of managing the Bylaw.
Option Two
– A Bylaw is NOT the most appropriate way to address trading in public
places issues in Dunedin
Advantages
· Administrative
overheads could potentially be reduced.
Disadvantages
· Appropriate
standards of health and safety, and pedestrian access may not be maintained
with education and information alone.
The DCC would have limited mechanisms to protect public
health and safety and minimise offensive behaviour and public nuisance in the
event that issues arise from public trading. NEXT STEPS
22 Once the review
commences, next steps are to carry out early engagement before reporting back
to the Committee with a draft Statement of Proposal and draft Bylaw.
23 The draft Bylaw
will incorporate any proposed changes. The recommendation will then be to
approve a draft Bylaw and draft Statement of Proposal for consultation using
the special consultative procedure, as required by the Act.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Anne Gray - Policy Analyst
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Ros MacGill - Manager Compliance Solutions
Claire Austin - General Manager Customer and Regulatory
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
⇩a
|
Trading in Public
Places Bylaw
|
138
|
|
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 and economic 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
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
The proposal to review the Bylaw contributes to most of
the strategic framework as the Bylaw purpose is to “provide
reasonable controls to protect health and safety, to protect the public from
nuisance and to regulate trading in public places”. In doing so, it
is important to acknowledge the benefits of trading in public places
including vibrancy, liveliness and attractive lifestyle options for the city.
|
|
Māori Impact Statement
There are no known specific impacts for tangata whenua.
|
|
Sustainability
There are no known implications for sustainability.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure
Strategy
There are no implications for these documents.
|
|
Financial considerations
There are no financial implications as management of the
Bylaw is carried out within existing budgets.
|
|
Significance
The decision to commence review of the Bylaw is considered
low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The
Act requires that the special consultative procedure is used to review the
Bylaw.
|
|
Engagement – external
There has been no external engagement to date. Once the
review commences, there will be early engagement with key stakeholders
followed by formal consultation.
|
|
Engagement - internal
There has been initial internal engagement with Transport,
Urban Design, Creative Partnerships, Compliance Solutions, Governance,
Communications and Marketing, and In-House Legal Services.
|
|
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.
There are no identified risks.
|
|
Conflict of Interest
There is no known conflict of interest.
|
|
Community Boards
There are no specific implications for Community Boards.
|
