Agenda of Regulatory Compliance Committee Meeting

	Authorising Body	Mayor/Council
	Status	Standing Committee
COUNCIL COMMITTEE	Title	Regulatory Compliance Committee Terms of Reference
	Approval Date	19 December 2019
	Responsible Officer	Chief Executive

Purpose

The purpose of the Regulatory Compliance Committee (the Committee) is to implement and monitor regulatory compliance and statutory matters on behalf of the Governing Body. The Committee will conduct hearings (except those under the Resource Management Act 1991) and undertake any functions as requested or delegated by Council from time to time provided the functions conform to the Local Government Act 2002.

The Committee will have functional responsibility for the following aspects:

· Hearings (excluding RMA and DLC)

· Regulatory activities

· Regulatory policies and bylaws

· Regulatory compliance

· Mana Whakahono

To perform his or her role effectively, each Committee member must develop and maintain his or her skills and knowledge, including an understanding of the Committee’s responsibilities and key legislation.

Delegations

The Regulatory Compliance Committee shall have the following delegated powers and be accountable to Council for the exercising of these powers. In exercising the delegated powers, the Regulatory Compliance Committee will operate within:

· policies, plans, standards or guidelines that have been established and approved by Council;

· the overall priorities of Council;

· the needs of the local communities; and

· the approved budgets for the activity.

Power to Delegate

The Regulatory Compliance Committee may not delegate any of its responsibilities, duties or powers.

Membership

The Council will determine the membership of the Regulatory Compliance Committee.

The Regulatory Compliance Committee will comprise of at least six elected members (one of which will be the chairperson).

When the Regulatory Compliance Committee is meeting as a Hearing Committee, the Chairperson and a majority of the Committee members must be accredited commissioners under the relevant Act.

When the Regulatory Compliance Committee is meeting as a Hearing Committee, the Chairperson shall hold the ‘chair certification' as per the Act.

The Committee membership for each hearing shall be appointed by the Chairperson of the

Regulatory Compliance Committee together with the Chief Executive and will normally comprise the core Regulatory Compliance Committee members.

The Regulatory Compliance Committee will comprise of at least six elected members (one of which will be the chairperson).

Mayor John Carter

Kelly Stratford – Chairperson

Dave Collard – Deputy Chairperson

John Vujcich

Rachel Smith

David Clendon

Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Belinda Ward – Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Chair

Adele Gardner – Te Hiku Community Board Chair

Non-appointed councillors may attend Regulatory Compliance Committee (but not Hearings) with speaking rights, but not voting rights.

Quorum - Committee

The quorum at a meeting of the Regulatory Compliance Committee is 4 members.

Frequency of Meetings

The Regulatory Compliance Committee shall meet every 6 weeks but may be cancelled if there is no business.

Committees Responsibilities

The Committees responsibilities are described below:

Hearings, Objections and Appeals

· Conduct hearings, as delegated by Council, in accordance with the relevant legislative and policy requirements (excluding Resource Management Act and District Licensing)

· Approve and monitor Council’s list of hearing Commissioners for Resource Management Act and District Licensing hearings.

Regulatory Activities

· Assess and provide advice to Council on level of service and policy issues relating to:

o regulatory matters; and

o provision of services

· Reviewing and making recommendations to the Chief Executive in respect to functions and activities within the purpose of the Committee regarding codes of practice.

Policies and Bylaws

· Recommend the development and review of Council’s regulatory policies and district bylaws

· Make a recommendation where in a bylaw the Council has specified that a matter be regulated, controlled or prohibited by the Council by resolution (eg dog areas under the dog control bylaw, speed limits)

Compliance

· Ensure that Council’s planning and regulatory functions comply with legislative requirements and Council policy and processes

· Monitor operational functions comply with legislative requirements and Council policy

o BCA (building consents)

o RMA (resource consents)

· Ensure that consents associated with Council's infrastructure are being met and renewals are planned for

· Receive traffic light reports on regulatory compliance (policy, plans, functions and bylaws) such as:

o District Plan (when proposed)

o Building Act

o Resource Management Act

o Licences (various acts)

o Animal management

Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe (Mana Whakahono)

Monitor regulatory matters arising from Mana Whakahono under the Resource Management Act 1991.

The committee seeks to foster and encourage participation and engagement with constituents.

HEARINGS, OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS

Regulatory Compliance Committee, meeting as a Hearing Committee

The Regulatory Committee, when meeting as a Hearing Committee, shall be delegated authority to hear and determine matters as follows:

Public Works Act 1981

Public work requirements.

Local Government Act 2002

Objections against the construction of public works on private land.

Local Government Act 1974

Objections and appeals to road stopping proposals.

Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

Applications for exemption, waiver or compliance.

Delegated decisions

· Requests for review or objections to delegated decisions by the Committee and/or delegated officers.

· Appeals against decisions made by officials acting under delegated authority in accordance with approved Council Policy.

Dog Control Act 1996

Objections.

Gambling Act 2003, Health Act 1956 and Building Act 2004

Hearings, objections and related matters.

And any other such matters as required under the legislation (but not Resource Management Act or the Supply and Sale of Alcohol Act for matters outside the district licensing committee).

Rules and Procedures

Council’s Standing Orders and Code of Conduct apply to all the committee’s meetings.

Annual reporting

The Chair of the Committee will submit a written report to the Chief Executive on an annual basis. The review will summarise the activities of the Committee and how it has contributed to the Council’s governance and strategic objectives. The Chief Executive will place the report on the next available agenda of the governing body.

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE - MEMBERS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

Name	Responsibility (i.e. Chairperson etc)	Declaration of Interests	Nature of Potential Interest	Member's Proposed Management Plan
Hon John Carter QSO	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Program
Hon John Carter QSO	Carter Family Trust
Kelly Stratford (Chair)	KS Bookkeeping and Administration	Business Owner, provides book keeping, administration and development of environmental management plans	None perceived	Step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts
	Waikare Marae Trustees	Trustee	Maybe perceived conflicts	Case by case basis
	Bay of Islands College	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Karetu School	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Māori title land – Moerewa and Waikare	Beneficiary and husband is a shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Sister is employed by Far North District Council			Will not discuss work/governance mattes that are confidential
	Gifts - food and beverages	Residents and ratepayers may ‘shout’ food and beverage	Perceived bias or predetermination	Case by case basis
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Chef and Barista	Opua Store	None perceived
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Māori title land – Moerewa	Shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict of interest I would step aside from decision making
David Collard (Deputy Chair)	Snapper Bonanza 2011 Limited	45% Shareholder and Director
David Collard (Deputy Chair)	Trustee of Te Ahu Charitable Trust	Council delegate to this board
David Clendon	Chairperson – He Waka Eke Noa Charitable Trust	None		Declare if any issue arises
	Member of Vision Kerikeri	None		Declare if any issue arises
	Joint owner of family home in Kerikeri	Hall Road, Kerikeri
David Clendon – Partner	Resident Shareholder on Kerikeri Irrigation
Deputy Mayor Ann Court	Waipapa Business Association	Member		Case by case
	Warren Pattinson Limited	Shareholder	Building company. FNDC is a regulator and enforcer	Case by case
	Kerikeri Irrigation	Supplies my water		No
	Top Energy	Supplies my power		No other interest greater than the publics
	District Licensing	N/A	N/A	N/A
	Top Energy Consumer Trust	Trustee	Crossover in regulatory functions, consenting economic development and contracts such as street lighting.	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Ann Court Trust	Private	Private	N/A
	Waipapa Rotary	Honorary member	Potential community funding submitter	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Properties on Onekura Road, Waipapa	Owner Shareholder	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Property on Daroux Dr, Waipapa	Financial interest	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Flowers and gifts	Ratepayer 'Thankyou'	Bias/ Pre-determination?	Declare to Governance
	Coffee and food	Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage	Bias or pre-determination	Case by case
	Staff	N/A	Suggestion of not being impartial or pre-determined!	Be professional, due diligence, weigh the evidence. Be thorough, thoughtful, considered impartial and balanced. Be fair.
	Warren Pattinson	My husband is a builder and may do work for Council staff		Case by case
Ann Court - Partner	Warren Pattinson Limited	Director	Building Company. FNDC is a regulator	Remain at arm’s length
	Air NZ	Shareholder	None	None
	Warren Pattinson Limited	Builder	FNDC is the consent authority, regulator and enforcer.	Apply arm’s length rules
	Property on Onekura Road, Waipapa	Owner	Any proposed FNDC capital work in the vicinity or rural plan change. Maybe a link to policy development.	Would not submit. Rest on a case by case basis.
Rachel Smith	Friends of Rolands Wood Charitable Trust	Trustee
	Mid North Family Support	Trustee
	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member
Rachel Smith (Partner)	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member and Treasurer
John Vujcich	Board Member	Pioneer Village	Matters relating to funding and assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Waitukupata Forest Ltd	Potential for council activity to directly affect its assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Rural Service Solutions Ltd	Matters where council regulatory function impact of company services	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Kaikohe (Rau Marama) Community Trust	Potential funder	Declare interest and abstain
	Partner	MJ & EMJ Vujcich	Matters where council regulatory function impacts on partnership owned assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Member	Kaikohe Rotary Club	Potential funder, or impact on Rotary projects	Declare interest and abstain
	Member	New Zealand Institute of Directors	Potential provider of training to Council	Declare a Conflict of Interest
	Member	Institute of IT Professionals	Unlikely, but possible provider of services to Council	Declare a Conflict of Interest
Belinda Ward	Ward Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee
	Kenneth Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee
	Residence in Watea
Belinda Ward (Partner)	Ward Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee and beneficiary
	Kenneth Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee and beneficiary
	Residence in Watea	Trustee
Adele Gardner	N/A - FNDC Honorarium
	The Far North 20/20, ICT Trust	Trustee
	Te Ahu Charitable Trust	Trustee
	ST Johns Kaitaia Branch	Trustee/ Committee Member
	I know many FNDC staff members as I was an FNDC staff member from 1994-2008.
Partner of Adele Gardner	N/A as Retired

Regulatory Compliance Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

File Number: A2968376

Author: Marlema Baker, Meetings Administrator

Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services

Purpose of the Report

The minutes of the previous Regulatory Compliance Committee meeting are attached to allow the Committee to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record.

Recommendation

That the Regulatory Compliance Committee confirms that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held 8 September 2020 are a true and correct record.

1) Background

Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 clause 28 states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings. The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings.

2) Discussion and Options

The minutes of the meeting are attached. Far North District Council Standing Orders Section 27.3 states that no discussion shall arise on the substance of the minutes in any succeeding meeting, except as to their correctness.

Reason for the recommendation

The reason for the recommendation is to confirm the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meeting.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision as a result of this report.

Attachments

1. 2020-09-08 Regulatory Compliance Meeting Minutes - A2952131 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	This is a matter of low significance
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	This report complies with the Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	It is the responsibility of each meeting to confirm their minutes therefore the views of another meeting are not relevant.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	There are no implications on Māori in confirming minutes from a previous meeting. Any implications on Māori arising from matters included in meeting minutes should be considered as part of the relevant report.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.	This report is asking for the minutes to be confirmed as true and correct record, any interests that affect other people should be considered as part of the individual reports.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision arising from this report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

Regulatory Compliance Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020

MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Regulatory Compliance Committee Meeting
HELD Virtually via Microsoft TEAMS
ON Tuesday, 8 September 2020 AT 1.00 pm

PRESENT: Cr Kelly Stratford, Mayor John Carter (HWTM), Cr David Clendon, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Cr Rachel Smith, Cr John Vujcich, Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Belinda Ward, Member Adele Gardner

IN ATTENDANCE:

STAFF PRESENT: Dr Dean Myburgh, Marlema Baker, Aisha Huriwai, Aliesha Vaka, Casey Gannon, Michael Boyd, Richard Edmondson, Rochelle Dean, Trent Blakeman.

1 Karakia TimatAnga – Opening Prayer

Chair Stratford declared the meeting open and commenced with a karakia timatanga/opening prayer.

2 Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Committee Resolution 2020/10

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

That apologies from Cr Dave Collard be received and accepted.

In Favour: Crs Kelly Stratford, John Carter, David Clendon, Ann Court, Rachel Smith, John Vujcich, Belinda Ward and Adele Gardner

Against: Nil

Carried

3 Deputation

No deputations received for this meeting.

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 4.1 document number A2942229, pages 14 - 15 refers

Committee Resolution 2020/11

Moved: Member Adele Gardner

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

That the Regulatory Compliance Committee confirms that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held 30 July 2020 are a true and correct record.

In Favour: Crs Kelly Stratford, John Carter, David Clendon, Ann Court, Rachel Smith, John Vujcich, Belinda Ward and Adele Gardner

Against: Nil

Carried

5 Information Reports

5.1 Building Compliance Update Report

Agenda item 5.1 document number A2941666, pages 20 - 22 refers

Committee Resolution 2020/12

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Mayor John Carter

That the Regulatory Compliance Committee receive the report Building Compliance Update Report.

In Favour: Crs Kelly Stratford, John Carter, David Clendon, Ann Court, Rachel Smith, John Vujcich, Belinda Ward and Adele Gardner

Against: Nil

Carried

5.2 Annual Report on Dog Control Policy and Practices 2019/2020

Agenda item 5.2 document number A2940064, pages 23 - 26 refers

Committee Resolution 2020/13

Moved: Mayor John Carter

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the Regulatory Compliance Committee receives the Annual Report on Dog Control Policy and Practices 2019/2020.

In Favour: Crs Kelly Stratford, John Carter, David Clendon, Ann Court, Rachel Smith, John Vujcich, Belinda Ward and Adele Gardner

Against: Nil

Carried

5.3 Update Report: Council Animal Shelter Projects

Agenda item 5.3 document number A2940730, pages 34 - 38 refers

Committee Resolution 2020/14

Moved: Member Adele Gardner

Seconded: Cr Rachel Smith

That the Regulatory Compliance Committee receive the report Animal Shelter Projects Update.

In Favour: Crs Kelly Stratford, John Carter, David Clendon, Ann Court, Rachel Smith, John Vujcich, Belinda Ward and Adele Gardner

Against: Nil

Carried

6 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Chair Stratford closed the meeting with a karakia whakamutunga/closing prayer.

7 Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 2:15pm.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Regulatory Compliance Committee Meeting held on 20 October 2020.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

Regulatory Compliance Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020

5 Reports

5.1 Update Report: Environmental Services Monitoring and Compliance

File Number: A2965291

Author: Rochelle Deane, Manager - Environmemental Service

Authoriser: Dean Myburgh, General Manager - District Services

Purpose of the Report

To provide an update to the committee on:

· The Monitoring of Resource Consent Conditions

· District Plan Breaches

Executive Summary

Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), local authorities are responsible for monitoring to ensure activities meet requirements under the RMA, plan rules and resource consents.

Monitoring provides a feedback mechanism for FNDC that tests the efficiency and effectiveness of planning processes and provides a quality control mechanism.

The RMA does not prescribe how councils should carry out this function - councils have discretion to determine how to achieve compliance in their respective areas.

FNDC use compliance promotion (such as education, on-site directions and awareness-raising) as the preferred method for encouraging compliance. When necessary, FNDC can use formal enforcement action to discourage and penalise non-compliance and direct remediation of the damage.

Recommendation

That the Regulatory Compliance Committee receive the report Update Report: Environmental Services Monitoring and Compliance.

Background

The FNDC Compliance and Monitoring team helps to ensure the protection and enhancement of our district environments.

We achieve this through education, monitoring and enforcement of resource consent conditions, and compliance with the District Plan and Resource Management Act 1991.

The team's functions include:

· monitoring and enforcing land-use resource consent conditions

· monitoring compliance with the requirements of the FNDC District Plan

· monitoring compliance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

· responding to and investigating District Plan related and resource consent related complaints

· working with site owners and the general public as to their obligations under the District Plan and/or resource consent

When a resource consent is granted it may be subject to specific conditions. These can be wide- ranging and cover many aspects. Council’s Monitoring Officers check that all the conditions outlined in resource consents are complied with throughout the development and for the life of the consent. Some typical conditions relate to:

· building and structure site location

· car parking layout

· landscaping requirements

· hours and conditions of operation

There is a range of non-compliance activities requiring investigation. Some of the more common ones include:

· Non-complying home-based activities in which the subject site is located.

· signage on private land

· setback infringements

· noncomplying earthworks

Enforcement action can be taken in cases of non-compliance with the Resource Management Act, a resource consent condition, or a District Plan rule.

There are several enforcement options available to Council. The decision about which option to use is based on:

· the nature and scale of the non-compliance

· effects generated

· perceived level of deterrence required

Discussion and Next Steps

Resource Consent Monitoring

Councils have the discretion to determine what resource consents to monitor and how often. Not all Resource Consents (RC) are issued with conditions that require monitoring.

The graph below shows total Resource Consents Monitored (RCM) over the past two financial years and current year to date.

· The position of Resource Consent Monitoring officer was transitioned into the Monitoring team from the Resource Consents team as a result of the ‘Fundamental Review’ restructure in 2018. This move triggered a complete review of how many consents were outstanding and what practices and procedures were in place for monitoring them.

· At the time this revealed a back log of approximately 1600 un-monitored Resource Consents. This backlog was caused by Resource Consents being issued whilst not having enough resources available to monitor them efficiently in the past. Consequently, an extra fixed term position was approved to assist in reducing the backlog. Great progress has been made to date reducing this figure to 629, (as at 30 September 2020).

· There have been several changes in both the full time and fixed term monitoring roles over the past two years. These changes as well as being unable to monitor during the covid-19 period have resulted in delays in reducing the backlog and in addressing new Resource Consents.

Improvements

· There is currently a review of the Monitoring of Resource Consent process taking place. Three obvious areas for business improvements are the use of digital technology for site inspections; removing the requirement to lodge a Monitored RC application in Pathways; and writing clearer conditions.

· The Monitoring Officers are currently trialling digital tablets that allow data, reports and photographs to be automatically downloaded into Objective, saving administration time in the office. As this is a new area of technology there are still some challenges to overcome but new version of Objective being rolled out will be positive.

· The process for lodging Resource Consents requiring monitoring is currently under review. This new process will remove the need for Monitoring RC lodgement into pathway, stopping the double handling, maintain one unique RC reference number, and free up time for the Monitoring Officer’s to be in the field and addressing the backlog.

· The Monitoring Officers have also been working with the Resource Consents team to ensure that conditions are written in such a manner that they can be easily enforced. An example would be putting a timescale on when a condition must be met such as ‘within six months of the date of issue’.

District Plan RFSs

The Monitoring and Compliance team investigates breaches of the District Plan.

The graph below shows the number of RFS’s received for potential District Plan breaches for the last two financial years and the current year. District Plan RFSs have increased, which may reflect the increasing population of the District.

A rule breach equates to a breach of section 9 of the RMA. Compliance can be gained through advice, letters, abatement notices, infringements and prosecution. The Monitoring team’s policy is to promote voluntary compliance with the District Plan, however there have been times during an investigation where it becomes necessary to escalate our enforcement process, as directed by the VADE model (pictured below).

The RMA allows a warranted monitoring officer to issue an abatement notice to direct an offender to do something or cease something that is causing a breach of the RMA. Usually this means ceasing a breach of a rule in the District Plan. Abatement notices can also be issued for failing to comply with a condition in a resource consent. The graph below shows how many abatement notices have been issued by the Monitoring team from 2018 to present.

Abatement notices are issued with a specific date by which the offender must comply. If an offender has not complied with an abatement notice and is not showing a willingness to cooperate with council an Environmental Infringement Notice (EIN) of $750 can be issued. The graph below shows how many EIN’s have been issued by the monitoring team from 2018 to present.

No EINs have been issued so far in 2020. This is partly due to Covid and partly due to the level of gaining compliance without having to infringe.

Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial or other resource implications regarding this report.

Attachments

Nil

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation

to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Low Significance – this matter does not meet the criteria/threshold for a matter of significance
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Resource Management Act 1991 FNDC District Plan Local Government Act 2002 FNDC Bylaws LTP Community Outcomes: Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable. A wisely managed and treasure environment that recognises the special role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	District Wide Significance
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	No specific implications
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	Information report only
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Regulatory Compliance Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020

5.3 Objection to the Classification of a Dog as Menacing by Breed/Type (Section 33c of the Dog Control Act 1996)
Dog Owner: Pamela Ann Backhouse-Smith
Dog Name: Richard

File Number: A2976064

Author: Rochelle Deane, Manager - Environmemental Service

Authoriser: Dean Myburgh, General Manager - District Services

Purpose of the Report

For the Committee to hear and determine the objection by Ms. Pamela Ann Backhouse-Smith of 18A State Highway One, R D 2, Kaikohe, or her representative, against the menacing classification issued against her dog ‘Richard’.

Executive Summary

1. The Dog Control Act 1996, section 33C, does state that a territorial authority must classify as menacing any dog that the territorial authority has reasonable grounds to believe belongs wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of that Act.

2. A dog may be classified as menacing if it applies to this section.

3. If a dog is classified as a menacing dog under section 33C, the owner of the dog:

(a) must not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place, or in any private way, except when confined completely within a vehicle of cage, without being muzzled in such a manner as to prevent the dog form biting but to allow it to breath and drink without obstruction; and

(b) must, if required by the territorial authority, within 1 month after receipt of notice of the classification, produce to the territorial authority a certificate issue by a veterinarian certifying:

(i) That the dog is or has been neutered; or

(ii) That for reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a fit condition to be neutered before a date specified in the certificate; and

(c) must, if a certificate under paragraph (b)(ii) is produced to the territorial authority, produce to the territorial authority, within 1 month after the date specified in that certificate, a further certificate under paragraph (b)(i).

4. Ms Backhouse-Smith has made an objection to the classification pursuant to section 33D of the Dog Control Act 1996. Any objection must be supported by evidence that the dog is not of the breed listed in Schedule 4 Of the Dog Control Act 1996.

5. Section 33 D of the Dog Control Act 1996 gives the power to the territorial authority to consider the objection and either uphold or rescind the classification. In making its determination the territorial authority must have regard to:

a) The evidence which formed the basis for the classification; and

b) The matters relied on in support of the objection; and

c) Any other relevant matters.

6. The territorial authority must, as soon as practicable, give written notice to the owner of:

a) Its determination of the objection; and

b) The reasons for its determination.

7. The Animal Management department of the Far North District Council recommend upholding the decision to classify Ms Backhouse-Smiths’ dog Richard as a menacing dog pursuant to s33C of the Dog Control Act 1996.

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Compliance Committee:

a) hear and determine the objection to the menacing dog classification by the owner Ms Pamela Ann Backhouse-Smith and/or her representative, pursuant to section 33C of Dog Control Act 1996

b) either;

i) uphold the Animal Management department decision to classify Ms Pamela Ann Backhouse-Smith’s dog ‘Richard’ as a menacing dog, or

ii) rescind the classification of the dog ‘Richard’ as menacing.

1) Background

On 22 July 2019 at 1332 hrs a service request was logged through the Far North District Council Call Centre in relation to two dogs chasing stock on a property in Ohaeawai. It was reported that the dogs were described as one full tan dog and one black dog which were chasing the stock at the time the call was being made to Council. The request for service (RFS) number is 4964095 (refer to Attachment A).

Animal Management Officer’s (AMO’s) Robert Maslamani and Paparangi Pirini attended on the 22 July 2019 and seized two dogs from 22 State Highway One; Ohaeawai at 2.10pm that were identified as the two dogs chasing the stock. The dogs were described by the Officers as a black Beardie cross and a tan Pitbull cross. A seizure notice was left at the address (refer to attachment B).

Both dogs were impounded on the 22 July 2019 (refer attachment C1 and C2).

On 22 July 2019 at 3.25pm the owner of the black dog contacted council stating that he was advised his dog was collected from his address as someone said his dog was chasing cattle. He advised that his dog was harmless and wanted to get it out of the pound as soon as possible.

On the 23^rd July 2019 the black Beardie cross dog was collected from the shelter by its owner and fees paid.

On the 29^th July 2019 the impound record shows that the owner of the second dog, a tan Pitbull cross contacted Council.

The breed was noted as a Pitbull type dog. As the dog was not registered at the time of impounding, the registration fees were paid which in turn resulted in the owner and dog details being loaded into the Council Dog Register system. This in turn resulted in an automatic Menacing Classification for Breed being sent by Council administration staff.

The Menacing Classification was sent on the 12 August 2019 (refer attachment D).

In an email dated 29 August 2019, Ms Leonie Exel of BOI Watchdogs contacted Council objecting to the Classification on behalf of the dog owner Ms Pamela Ann Backhouse-Smith. (refer attachment E).

In an email dated 29 August 2019 June 2014, Pamela Ann Backhouse-Smith gave approval for Ms Leonie Exel to act on her behalf in relation to the objection (refer attachment E).

2) Discussion and Options

The Committee must

either:

i) uphold the Animal Management department decision to classify Ms Pamela Ann Backhouse-Smith’s dog ‘Richard’ as a menacing dog, or

ii) rescind the classification of the dog ‘Richard’ as menacing.

Reason for the recommendation

Section 33 D of the Dog Control Act 1996 gives the power to the territorial authority to consider the objection and either uphold or rescind the classification.There are no financial Implications or budgetary provisions regarding this report.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Section 33 D of the Dog Control Act 1996 gives the power to the territorial authority to consider the objection and either uphold or rescind the classification.

There are no financial Implications or budgetary provisions regarding this report.

Attachments

1. Attachment A - RFS 3964095 - A2971419 ⇩

2. Attachment B - Seizure Notice 3206 - A2971420 ⇩

3. Attachment C1 - Impound 3901 - A2971421 ⇩

4. Attachment C2 - Impound 3902 - A2971422 ⇩

5. Attachment D - Menacing Classification - A2971424 ⇩

6. Attachment E - Objection to classification of dog as menacing email - A2971425 ⇩

7. Attachment F - Reference - American Pitbull Terrier Type - A2971426 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Low Significance – this matter does not meet the criteria/threshold for a matter of significance
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Dog Control Act 1996 FNDC Dog Management Bylaw 2018 FNDC Dog Management Policy 2018 LTP Community Outcome: Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	District Wide significance
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	No specific implications
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	FNDC Community (Dog Owners and Non-dog owners) Department of Internal Affairs
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	No specific financial implications
Chief Financial Officer review.	The CFO has reviewed this report.