This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
26. 2. 97
SPECIAL COMMITTEE (DOG CONTROL POLICY)
12 DECEMBER 1997
A meeting of the Special Committee (Dog Control Policy)
was held on Thursday 12 December 1996 at 4.00 pm
PRESENT: Councillor Carole Evans (Chairman),
Councillors David Close, Graham Condon,
David Cox, Anna Crighton, Newton Dodge,
Pat Harrow, Lesley Keast, Charles Manning,
Margaret Murray, Denis O'Rourke
and Gail Sheriff.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted
from the Mayor and Councillor Barbara Stewart.
Councillor Gail Sheriff retired at 4.40 pm
during discussion on clause 1.
Councillor Denis O'Rourke retired at 4.50 pm
during discussion on clause 1.
Councillor Anna Crighton retired at 4.55 pm
during discussion on clause 1.
The Committee reports that:
PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
1. DRAFT DOG CONTROL POLICY -
christchurch city council RR 4049
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy & Planning Manager | Terence Moody Principal Environmental Health Officer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Health Policy Vol II P.7.2.text.12 |
This report is the "draft dog control policy" as considered by the Special Committee (Dog Control Policy) for release to dog owners and publicly as required under the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996.
INTRODUCTION
The Dog Control Act 1996, which replaced the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982, came into force on the 1 July 1996
The Act requires the Council to adopt a policy on dogs in public places, and this must be introduced by the special consultative procedure set down in the Local Government Act 1974. Specific notice of the draft policy must be given to each owner of a registered dog in the district.
The policy must contain information on proposed bylaws to be made under the Act; public places in which dogs are prohibited; public or other places in which dogs are to be controlled on a leash; public places where prohibition or leashing is not required; areas designated by a bylaw as dog exercise areas; identify land which is either a controlled dog area or open dog area under the Conservation Act 1987, or a National Park under the National Park Act 1980.
The policy may contain policy in relation to fees or proposed fees; owner education programmes; dog obedience courses; classification of owners; the disqualification of owners; the issuing of infringement notices; and other information and advice relating to dogs as the Council thinks fit.
The Council will be required to give effect to the policy adopted by making bylaws to come into force currently by not later than 1 July 1997, and by repealing any bylaws inconsistent with the policy by that date. No bylaws may be made that would be inconsistent with the policy. Any amendments to the policy must be undertaken in accordance with the special consultative procedure.
DOG CONTROL WORKING PARTY CONSIDERATIONS
The Committee at its meeting on the 12 June 1996 considered a discussion document on a draft dog control policy and set up a working party of Councillors Dodge, Evans, Manning, and Stewart to consider the document and to report back to the Committee. In addition the Committee requested a focus group be formed to consider the document and for the document to be referred to Community Boards.
The discussion document was referred to each Community Manager for the consideration of the respective Community Boards and the Focus Group met on two occasions.
The Parks Committee has discussed the matters regarding controls of dogs on parks and reserves and the suggested prohibited areas or those where control by leash would be required are set out the Appendices 4 and 5 of the discussion document. These have also been included in the Appendix 6 list of parks and reserves.
Some minor changes have been made to the discussion document to reflect comments from the Focus Group. There are, however, further matters of policy arising from the Focus Group that need to be considered by the Council and these are set out below.
(i) The costs of rehoming a dog from the Pound. The suggestion was made that there should be some provision for a rebated registration fee for dogs rehomed from the pound to new owners. Another suggestion was that the $25 fee could be given back to the new owner on production of evidence that the dog had been neutered within a certain period, say three months or less.
(ii) Providing requirements or incentives for neutering dogs, particularly those going to new owners from the Pound. Suggestions included reduced or nil registration fees in the first year; the rebate of the uplifting fee; and the provision of a voucher system for neutering.
More education was considered necessary as to the availability of any incentives in the future.
(iii) The Focus Group saw a need for the Council to provide a full time education officer to promote and publicise dog control matters. The suggestion was made that a booklet of advice to new owners should be produced for issue to new owners covering all dog care and control matters.
These are not matters that are required to be included in a policy under the Act. They are matters which could have significant financial implications, and could be reflected in either increased dog registration fees or in the need to provide additional rate funding to the dog control operations. As such it is considered inappropriate that these should be considered as part of a policy at this time. They will be able to be reviewed, however, as part of the Annual Plan and Budget process.
Some of the other matters raised during the Focus Group discussions are not necessarily policy matters but to a large extent operational. This applies to the matter of entering tattoo identifications into the register; the production of a list of protected wildlife; and the investigation of the card system for distribution at various outside Council facilities.
THE DRAFT DOG CONTROL POLICY
The draft dog control policy will be the basis for undertaking the Special Consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 1974. This will be sent to all registered dog owners and publicly notified in The Press and suburban newspapers once adopted by the Council. The discussion paper on which it is based will be made available at Service Centres and Libraries for further reference.
The timetable for considering and implementing the policy is constrained by the requirements of the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996. The Council will be required to give effect to the policy adopted by making bylaws to come into force currently by not later than 1 July 1997, and by repealing any bylaws inconsistent with the policy by that date.
To enable the Special Order procedure for the making of bylaws to be fulfilled, within the limit of the 1 July, any bylaw would have to be introduced not later than the May 1997 Council meeting for confirmation at the June 1997 meeting. Ideally it should be presented at the Council meeting in April 1997 to enable any further comments to be considered before its confirmation. Whether this will be able to be done will depend on the number of submissions that will need to be heard.
The release of the policy should therefore occur in December 1996 with the time for making any submissions being until the 28 February 1997.
DRAFT POLICY CONSIDERATION BY SPECIAL COMMITTEE
The Special Committee was delegated authority to consider the draft Dog Control Policy, make any amendments necessary and release the policy for public consultation.
Members were invited to put forward any suggestions they had for amendment to the draft policy document, as reported to the November Council meeting.
The following amendments were made by the Special Committee pursuant to delegated powers:
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
(i) Add to recommendation 2 "or non-dog owners on request".
(ii) Recommendation 5 be altered to read "that a panel comprising three of any of the following (Councillors Dodge, Evans, Manning, Stewart, Alpers and Moore) be appointed to hear submissions on the policy".
INFORMATION PAMPHLET
(i) Any policy information sent out needs to be simple and understandable, with the key issues highlighted.
(ii) The submission forms should be available as part of the pamphlet with room for the name and address of the sender to be recorded.
PROPOSED POLICIES
(i) Clause 9(i) (Cathedral Square) be rewritten to clarify what is actually meant.
(ii) Sumner Beach
It was suggested that the area of Sumner Beach dog prohibition area should be extended to the whole of Sumner Beach between Shag Rock and Cave Rock. This is a highly used area for various sporting activities and dog owners using the beach appear to have little regard for the restricted area.
Following debate the amendment was put and declared lost on a division by 7 votes to 4, the voting being as follows:
For (4): Councillors Close, Condon, Evans and O'Rourke.
Against (7): Councillors Cox, Crighton, Dodge, Harrow, Keast, Manning and Murray.
DOG PARK EXERCISE AREAS
(i) The provision of further exercise areas additional to those specified in clause 12 was suggested.
It was resolved that the public be consulted on the provision of additional dog park exercise areas.
DOG CONFINEMENT IN VEHICLES
Clause 4 needed to be reworded to include "dogs needed to be totally contained within confines of the vehicle deck".
CATHEDRAL SQUARE
Clause 9(i) to be amended to include "all other functions".
SWIMMING POOL PREMISES
Clause 9(viii) to be amended to read "Council owned or operated swimming pool premises".
REGISTRATION FEES
Clause 1 to be amended to read "that the responsible dog ownership category be continued with the concessionary fee as reviewed by the Council from time to time".
THE ISSUE OF INFRINGEMENT NOTICES
The various references to dog, label or disc to also be inserted in the plural (s) where this occurs in the section.
PARKS AND RESERVES
(i) Spit Reserve
It was suggested that because this is an important wildlife bird resting area all dogs should be prohibited.
It was agreed that a submission should be made in respect of this to the Parks and Recreation Committee.
INFRINGEMENT NOTICES
It was suggested that at present there is no alternative means of penalising people for infringements except by prosecution. A sliding scale of prosecution fees was not allowed.
It was agreed that clause 53(1) should be amended by changing the words "infringement fee" to "issue of infringement notice".
RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER STATUS
In appendix 2 of the policy, the reference to a dog should also include a reference to dogs.
It was agreed that the criteria for classification of responsible dog owner status should be considered by the Environmental Committee in February or March 1997.
DOG WELFARE
The point was raised that there was evidence of dogs not being well cared for. Regard should be given to this through the likes of having an objective in respect of the good treatment of dogs by dog owners. While this is referred to also in the Dog Control Act 1996, it was considered that it could be repeated in the foreword to the dog policy.
BARKING DOGS, DANGEROUS DOGS AND DISQUALIFICATION OF OWNERS
It was left for Council officers to consider whether there should be further reference to these matters in addition to that provided.
The Committee resolved:
1. That the draft Dog Control Policy, as amended, be approved for release for public consultation under the provisions of section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 with a closing date for the receipt of submissions of 28 February 1997.
2. That copies of the draft Dog Control Policy be sent to each dog owner on the dog register of the Council who hold current registration of a dog or dogs, or non-dog owner on request.
3. That copies of the discussion document on the draft Dog Control Policy be available for examination at service centres and other appropriate Council facilities.
4. That a panel be established to hear any submissions on the draft Dog Control Policy.
5. That a panel comprising three of any of the following (Councillors Alpers, Dodge, Evans, Manning, Moore and Stewart) be appointed to hear submissions on the policy.
DOG CONTROL BUDGET 1997/98
Members were advised that the dog control budget next year would not require any rate subsidy, but that an education officer was being looked at as a new appointment, for which external funding would be required.
The meeting concluded at 5.30 pm
CONSIDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1997
MAYOR