Invercargill CITY COUNCIL

NOTICE OF MEETING

Notice is hereby given of the Meeting of the Regulatory Services Committee to be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 101 Esk Street, Invercargill on Tuesday 2 July 2013 at 4.00 pm

His Worship the Mayor Mr TR Shadbolt JP Cr 0 J Ludlow (Chair) Cr G J Sycamore (Deputy Chair) CrC G Dean CrA G Dennis Cr I L Esler CrG D Lewis Cr IR Pottinger Cr L S Thomas

EIRWEN HARRIS MANAGER, SECRETARIAL SERVICES

Finance and Corporate Services Directorate Civic Administration Building • 101 Esk Street • Private Bag 90104 Invercargill • 9840 • New Zealand DX No. YA90023 • Telephone 032111777. Fax 03 211 1433

AGENDA

Page

1. APOLOGIES

Cr GJ Sycamore.

2. PUBLIC FORUM

3. SUBMISSIONS TO INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL BYLAW I 2013/2 − KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES Appendix 1 5 Appendix 2 7 Appendix 3 105 Appendix 4 133

4 MONITORING OF SERVICE PERFORMANCES 141 4.1 LEVELS OF SERVICE 142 4.1.1 Animal Control 143 4.1.2 Building Consents 144 4.1.3 Compliance 145 4.1.4 Environmental Health 145 4.1.5 Resource Management 148 4.1.6 Valuation

5. MONITORING OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCES 149 5.1 DIRECTORATE OVERVIEW 149 5.2 ADMINISTRATION 149 5.3 ANIMAL CONTROL

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 150

5.5 BUILDING 150

5.6 LIQUOR LICENSING 150

5.7 VALUATION 150 5.8 COMPLIANCE 150

5.9 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 150

5.10 FINANCIAL SUMMARY 151

6 ACTIVITY PLAN REVIEW

N/A.

7 DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES/BYLAWS

N/A.

8 ACTION SHEET

9. OTHER BUSINESS

9.1 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES

9.1.1 District Licensing Committee Under the Sale of Alcohol Act 159 2012

9.1.2 Environmental Court Appeal 163

Appendix I 165

9.1.3 Delegation for Environment Court Mediation 171

9.1.4 Christchurch Assistance 173

10. URGENT BUSINESS

11. PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION

Moved, seconded that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting; namely

(a) Report by the Director of Environmental and Planning Services

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1)(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: General subject of Reason for passing this Ground(s) under each matter to be resolution in relation to Section 48(1) for the considered each matter passing of this resolution

7 Hoffman Court To enable any local Section 7(2)(i) authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

HEARING TIMETABLE

TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013

BYLAW 2013/2 − KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES

Time Submitter's Name Submission Page No No.

4.00 pm KABIIOMay −andRehabilitationRussell Evans − Bush Haven Native Bird Trust KABII5 4.10 pm Vic Thompson − Southland Avicultural Society KABII6−KABII7

4.20 pm Kim Reilly − Federated Farmers KABI40−KABI52

4.30 pm Alan Swallow KABI7I−KABI80

4.40 pm Richard Butler KAB030−KAB035

4.50 pm Katrina Robertson KABI23−KABI38

OOC.j 0002 TO: REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013

SUBMISSIONS TO INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL BYLAW 201312 − KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES

Report Prepared by: Melissa Short − Corporate Planner John Youngson − Environmental and Compliance Manager

SUMMARY

Twenty six submissions have been received and six submitters have requested to be heard.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the submissions (Appendix 2) be received and considered by Council;

AND

That after hearing and considering submissions, a decision is made to adopt the Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2013/2 − Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, subject to amendments arising from submissions;

AND

That the following delegations be made with respect to the Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2013/2 − Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees: That the Director of Environmental and Planning Services have the authority to determine on behalf of the Council that the criteria established in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Invercargill City Council Bylaw 201312 − Keeping of Animals, Poultry or Bees has been met or breached.

That the Director of Environmental and Planning Services, the Environmental and Compliance Manager, the Senior Animal Control Officer, Animal Control Officers and After Hours Animal Control Officer have the authority to enforce Invercargill City Council Bylaw 201312 − Keeping of Animals, Poultry or Bees.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Yes 2. Is a budget amendment required? No

0003 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council's Policy on Significance? No 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? Yes, the recommendation in this report results in a new Council Bylaw. 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required?

The Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2013/2 − Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees has been publicly notified and submissions received.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The financial implications of this bylaw have been included in the 2013/14 Annual Plan budgets.

INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL BYLAW 2013/2— KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES

The Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2013/2 − Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees was publicly notified for submission on 13 April 2013 with the closing date for submissions being 17 May 2013. Twenty six submissions were received, with six submitters requesting to be heard in support of their submission. A timetable, based on an allocation of ten minutes per submitter has been developed (Appendix 1).

All submissions received have been collated for Council's consideration (Appendix 2) and a summary of those submissions, including graphical displays of the number of submitters who agree or disagree with a proposed clause, with a staff response has been included as (Appendix 3).

On considering submissions, staff have recommended a number of amendments to the Draft Bylaw for adoption. These changes are presented through 'track changes' in Appendix 4.

Should Council determine to adopt the proposed bylaw, the delegation of tasks specified in the Bylaw will enable its efficient administration and enforcement. It is recommended that the Director of Environmental and Planning Services be delegated the authority to determine whether any of the clauses have been met or breached. This will enable situations arising under the Bylaw to be dealt with in a timely manner. It is further recommended that the Director of Environmental and Planning Services, the Environmental and Compliance Manager, the Senior Animal Control Officer, Animal Control Officers and After Hours Animal Control Officer have the authority to enforce the Bylaw.

0004 APPENDIX I

HEARING TIMETABLE

TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013

BYLAW 2013/2 − KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES

Time Submitter's Name Submission Page No. No.

4.00 pm MayKABIIO−andRehabilitationRussell Evans − Bush Haven Native Bird Trust KABI 15 4.10 pm Vic Thompson − Southland Avicultural Society KABII6−KABII7

4.20 pm Kim Reilly − Federated Farmers KABI40−KAB152

4.30 pm Alan Swallow KABI7I−KABI80

4.40 pm Richard Butler KAB030−KAB035

4.50 pm Katrina Robertson KAB123−KABI38

0005 0006 APPENDIX 2

Miss Cheryl Anderson KAB7 − KAB23

Do You Clause Comment

2. I agree with the regulations imposed by the council. 6. While the Director of Environmental and Planning would no doubt make all decisions after consultation and expert advice, the animal owner should at all times be kept well informed and have the opportunity to appeal any decisions. 8.2 Yes Agree with this statement. Just like with dog ownership, an application could be made to council to own more than three cats, with strict requirements and responsibilities to be met and monitored by council compliance staff. 8.1 Yes 9.5 Yes Someone has to oversee and govern the ownership of pigs in an urban or semi−urban area, and the local government is the obvious body to do this. 9.2 No 9.3 Yes 9.4 Yes 10.2 Yes Any chickens should be kept in a humane fashion. 10.3 Yes This is common sense, and questions would be asked why someone in a built up area woulds require more than 12 chickens for their 'hobby'. 10.4 Yes I do agree with this, but a simple solution could be reached before it got to this point, and I firmly believe the owner of the chickens in this scenario should have the opportunity to hear/see in full the complaint made and the reasons for the complaint, and have the opportunity to rectify it. 10.5 Yes 10.1 Yes 11.2 Yes Any sort of animal ownership in a built up area needs to be monitored. Although this seems a bit 'big brotherish' it is a necessity of living in an urban area. 12.1 Yes Definitely in a residential area. 14. Yes

0007 0008 Mr Warren Tuckey KAB24 [ Do YouComment Clause Agree? I I 1. I support the proposed bylaw in full.

0009 0010 Miss Fleur Rodway KA625 − KAB29 Do YouComment Clause Agree? 8.1 Yes 8.2 Yes 12.1 Yes 13.1 No This provision is overly restrictive. It might be appropriate for a small animal (such as a chicken or rabbit) to be slaughtered in an urban environment for personal consumption or animal welfare reasons.

0011 0012 Mr Richard Butler KAB30 − KAB35 Do YouComment Clause Agree? I 2. Insert; "The Invercargill City Council acknowledges that keeping bees is of benefit to the whole community because of the pollination of plants, fruits and vegetables and encourages this activity." 7.1 No The words "in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services" do not allow for the natural justice as described in New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 section 25. and is unlawful. Allowing one individuals opinion which is based on their own bias, prejudice, experience or even ignorance, has the potential to turn previously law abiding residents into criminals without the due process of law. 7.2 No The words "in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services" do not allow for the natural justice as described in New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 section 25. and is unlawful. Allowing one individuals opinion which is based on their own bias, prejudice, experience or even ignorance, has the potential to turn previously law abiding residents into criminals without the due process of law. 11.1 No The words "in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services" do not allow for the natural justice as described in New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 section 25. and is unlawful. Allowing one individuals opinion which is based on their own bias, prejudice, experience or even ignorance, has the potential to turn previously law abiding residents into criminals without the due process of law. 11.2 No The number of hives may be set but their siting is a mater of welfare to to bees and should be left to qualified beekeepers. The council should engage the services of Quality Assure or Agribussiness Training when dealing with these matters.

0013 0014 Mrs Pat Hoffman KAB36 − KAB37 YouAgree?Do Clause Comment

8.1 Yes I support this because it is fair. The wording of the bylaw gives responsible cat owners the opportunity to have more than 3 cats and to manage them in a way that prevents them from becoming a nuisance. At the same time, it gives the community a way to report property owners whose cats are creating a nuisance. I'm not sure how it is possible to prevent more than 3 cats from causing a nuisance in their neighbourhood, but it is up to the owners to find a way. In addition, I would like to see a limit imposed where there is evidence that the cats are having a negative impact on birds, lizards and insects in the neighbourhood. New Zealand's native biodiversity needs to be protected and reducing the cat population will go a long way towards protecting birds, lizards and insects. 11.1 No I agree with the clause, in principle, but I think some of the wording is problematic. Consider the procedure for setting up a hive: this does not currently require an application to be sent to the Director of Environmental and Planning Services − so there is no mechanism by which the Director can prevent someone from setting up a hive on a property. So I would delete the words "keep or" from this sentence so that it reads as follows: "No person shall continue to keep bees". The current wording also seems to imply that if bees cause a nuisance on one property, the Director can prohibit the beekeeper from keeping bees on ANY property. I think it would be more appropriate to say: "No person shall continue to keep bees on a property, if the keeping of such bees ON THAT PROPERTY is likley to ... become dangerous, injurious to health or a nuisance to any person."I also think the scope of "dangerous, injurious to health or a nuisance to any person" may be too broad. Keeping bees carries some risks − but this fact alone should not make it impossible for people to keep bees in urban areas. I think the Director will need more guidelines to help him/her assess how severe the risk is to neighbours.

0015 0016 Mr Tim Riding − McQueens Valley Trust KAB38 − KAB59 Do YouComment Clause Agree? 3. If not already covered in other bylaws, there should also be a maximum number of dogs allowed to be kept on a property− being 2 or three at most. 7.1 Yes 7.2 Yes 8.1 Yes 8.2 Yes There should be a maximum allowed number of cats on any one property of three, not a maximum recommended no. 9.1 Yes 9.4 Yes 9.5 Yes 10.1 Yes 10.3 Yes 10.4 Yes 12.1 Yes 12.2 Yes 12.3 Yes 13.1 No Dont agree with this section, as long as the remaining sections are forfulled then this shouldn't be an issue. 13.2 Yes 13.3 Yes 13.4 Yes 13.5 Yes 13.6 Yes 13.7 Yes

0017 0018 Mr Cain Duncan KAB60 − KAB66 YouAgree?Do Clause Comment

4. Add definition of cat to insure all key terms in the bylaw are specified. 7.1 Yes Provisions should be made for impacts on neighbouring pets. "causes or is likely to cause, a nuisance by, including but not limited to, noise, odour, dust, the attraction of flies or vermin or the indangerment of neighbouring animals. 8.2 Yes In section a. ; "and" should be added at the end of the line. A complaint should not automatically trigger the powers to impose a limit on cat/kitten numbers it should only apply if the criteria in b and c are also met. 9.2 Yes In principle but with the provision that this should be allowed in circumstances where the prior approval of the Director if Environmental and Planning Services is obtained. 9.5 Yes See 8.2 10.2 Yes Add "No person shall keep any poultry on any land unless they have the means to contain them within that property .... At the request of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services a person shall contain any poultry within their property" 10.3 Yes See 8.2

0013 0020 Bonnie Harper KAB67 − KAB75 Do You Clause Comment Agree? 2. The first sentence needs to also refer to keeping a pet and livestock have benefits since the bylaw applies to both 3. It should also exclude commerically operated/home business catteries 7.1 Yes What does 'suffer to be kept' mean? Please refrain from using legal jargon and stick to plain English. 8.1 Yes I don't see why cats should be treated that differently from dogs. They also need to be registered with a collar and ID tag certified that they have had proper vaccinations. There should also be a requirement for spaying or neutering unless you are a registered breeder. 8.2 No This statement seems weird and seems to conflict with 8.1 Why is this a recommendation? Either the limit is 3 cats or if you want to have more you apply for a permit. It should be black and white but this introduces a gray area. 11.3 Yes Who do you register your hives with? Please provide this information in this section 13.2 No Society is changing and in order to be more resilient to things like climate change, people need to be aware of where their food comes from. More people might resort to growing and processing food for their own consumption. The way society has put the slaughtering of animals 'out of sight, out of mind' has led to unsustainable meat consumption. The more visible and unrestricted this process is, the better society will be able to adapt to the need to change lifestyle choices. 13.7 No see comments for 13.2 Thank It is unclear what happens to residences that already have dozens of cats. You Are they required to get rid of them apart from 3? If getting rid of an animal is deemed part of a solution, how is the animal's welfare secured. Does the SPCA get involved in removing 'extra' animals? This bylaw should not result in a worse situation for the animals.

0021 0022 Mr Murray Christensen KAB76 − KAB77 Do You Clause Comment Agree? 11.1 No How qualified is the Director of Environmental and Planning Services to decide weather or not a bee hive is or is likely to become dangerous, inurious or a nuisence to any person.( given that bees are not only naturally occuring but play a very important roll in our food chain). This not intended to be dissrespectfull, but bees are a very complex insect and here one persons opinion will decide. Unless this person has a good knowlege of bee keeping practice this could bring about an ill informed and unjust outcome. I have researched other Councils bylaws on beekeeping and some involve the local bee club to regulate the conditions bees may be kept under. There is a group of qualified apiarists working on starting a club in Invercargill as of now and there are people available that are well qualified to offer input to the council. 11.1 The plite of bees and the concerns about problems with pollination have been in the news both in NZ and around the world in recent times. City councils the world over are changing there stance on bee keeping and bees are being kept rite in the heart of some of the most populated cities in the world. I see that a Christchurch city councilor has reccognised that they have a problem with a lack of bees to pollinate fruit and other crops and is trying to get 1200 bee hives within the city limits. I have a pear tree in my back yard that bare vary poorly unless I bring a hive into the back yard when it is in flower. There is just very few bees around and now is your chance to do something to encourage bee keeping under a well structured set of guide lines. Be a forward thinking council and make a difference in our city.

0023 0024 Miss Kirsten Meijer KAB78 − KAB80 YouAgree?Do Clause Comment

8.1 Yes Agree that the number of cats should be regulated in urban areas. Three cats per property is a good limit 8.2 Yes Agree, however this should be a limit rather than a recommendation. No more than 3 cats should be allowed in urban areas. 10.5 No A maximum of 6 hens is adequate in urban areas. There is no need for 12 hens in the city as 6 would provide more than enough eggs for a family.

0025 0026 Mr Cohn Robertson KAB8I − KAB86 YouAgree?Do Clause Comment

2. I agree with the object of this bylaw.

8.1 Yes Any complaint received by the Council should be actioned within 24 hours with appropriate followup to ensure those causing the nuisance comply with council's decisions. 8.2 No Two cats per property is more appropriate, e.g. a household with 5 neighbours would have 10 neighbouring cats, without counting their own (if any). Less cats would reduce the potential negative impact on bird life. Restricting the number to two should reduce the workload for the SPCA over time. 13.2 No Many life−style blocks are farmed and slaughtering and hanging of livestock is a recognised farming activity. People who choose to live in a life−style block area should be aware that such normal farming practices will be part of the daily activities in their neighbourhood. 13.7 No Effective screening is not possible in some situations. Neighbours have the option of not looking if they are offended by what they see, or they could close their drapes in their home. I liken this to viewing something offensive on television − there is an OFF button. 14. Yes Query: are these fines sufficient to cover the costs of Council enforcing bylaw compliance? $50 per day does not pay much labour. I would suggest that a person who breaks the bylaw is going to be difficult to deal with − is the $50 per day per property or per animal?

0027 0028 Mr Chris McMillan KAB87 Do You Clause Comment Agree? 8.1 Yes Cats are territorial animals. Every cat owner should be able to own a act that can claim its owners land as its territory. A property owner with more that 1−2 cats poses a risk to a neighbors cats territory and is likely to impact on cats health and well being.There is also a significant impact on bird life from cats. Properties with large numbers of cats are likely to have hungry cats due to the nature of competition for food and this would result in a high predation on native birds. Cats should also be loved and enjoyed. How can a person with multiple cats give each cat the attention it needs. There is also an issue with respect to unwanted pregnancies and the resultant dependent cats. If people want to have more cats they should build a cat farm and contain them in a rural setting not an urban setting.l would suggest that 1−2 cats should be a reasonable number.

0029 0030 C 4,+G q, − 7013 Attention: Invercargill City Council SCANNED Submission − Draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw

Private Bag 90104, Invercargill

15.04.13

To whom it may concern,

Re: "Keeping of Animals Bylaw"

I write a submission in support of the Draft "Keeping of Animals Bylaw" which addresses the issue of "nuisance" animals.

In particular I wish to support the following Sections:

Section 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS

7.1 No person shall keep, permit or suffer to be kept any animal, bird or bees, which in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance by, including but not limited to, noise, odour, dust or through the attraction of flies or vermin.

7.2 No person shall keep, permit or suffer to be kept any animal, bird or bees, in a manner that in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services is or is likely to become offensive to the occupier of an adjoining property or a threat to public health.

Section 8. KEEPING OF CATS AND KITTENS.

8.1 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may impose a limit on the number of cats and kittens which may be kept on private land, such limit being no more than three, where: −

(a) the Council has received a complaint about the number of cats kept on the private land.

(b) the number of cats is creating a nuisance or is likely to create a nuisance; and

(c) the person keeping those cats fails to comply with any reasonable request of an Authorised Officer to abate or prevent the nuisance.

8.2 The Invercargill City Council recommends the keeping of no more than three cats on any private property.

Section 14. OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

Every person who breaches this Bylaw commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500.00 and in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding $50.00 for every day on which the offence has continued, pursuant to Section 66 of the Health Act 1956.

Kind regards,

Danica Tauri

85 Quintin Drive

0031 0032 APR qA

r!' i$T C.4r ivazg− d79

cyT −i11 ci'rk− 1 P Dh qovE koflb

rJ' Iri749 −

•U',− 4.bf&E f84 tJ79, #vlisJf #iJ−Pør − : eF 4ë44fr ' frL ig• 1 'i4 s'

zr5,yz− o to 4 − o WCJ A V JT11L6;−7 t

' Lj. irr1Yi!?7)/

0033 f I ,A5IOcJ C'b!'t −7c'TA #c4 −

Lcr irLl4L,. ,a c−jL pi)(− ,qg

aT rT&777iLzZ bE rizi. / i 1

170

,qiL−2t? Zkff

.144JT

c−4' __liI.VV

Lew),

IJE

iJ I44 Cf ' −if I /1I I−h4 U :10 L/ t4 00'7

7)i ffo%*Ivrvf,, V £1,JZ L.• 0034 V −

)H,tCJO

.i, . (p Fpj4JI Lf , sf8, $ i1ET t:1:rJ j−: 1 . 17v)A TV t19i1 /ç 1±•

#' JiT&/ v1rs ,'PW 7'−−r44 .1,JOiii &F PIP −

(QtJTc4

0035 0036 k*3 SCANNED 19 APR 2013

Invercargill City Council Invercargill 17' April 2013

I would like to resubmit this submission first sent to you in April 2012,since then everything has increased,i.e.the number of cats on the adjoining property the amount of the accounts paid to the vet and the stress involved having to share her property with the neighbours 30 cats. Thank you,

Yvonne Frew 13 Mill Road North 2.R.D. Invercargill 9872

0037 AtA Animal Control

I would like to put forward a submission whereby the Invercargill City Council invoke a by− law restricting the number of adult cats to be kept on a residential property to two. Comment. I have witnessed the absolute loss of quality of life suffered by a friend who has had 17 cats move in next door and there seems to be nothing she can legally do. By nature cats are wanderers and 17 straying into this avid gardeners section constitute a health hazard —she is unable to eat any of what little produce is left by these diseased cats. Her own cat is bullied and tormented by these 17 cats resulting in vet bills she shouldn't have to face. 17 cats on one property is surely a pest problem please Invercargill City Council help make Invercargill a nicer place to live. Signed

Yvonne Jean Frew 13 Mill Road North R.D.2 Invercargill 9872 Phone 2170798.

0038 e−/V7,cO17 26 APR 2013

Submission Number:

CONTACT DE3OJLS (Please print clearly)

Name

Contact Person; (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address: , ......

ct...... fione9 ..IIS....I...... Email: Daytime Tel Slgnature:..L

I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes 0 No L1'

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLA.g +,s K4 evi tk(4 fV'4 JMISSIOV\kJt hid ...f−L.−...4.... a fikAA tk.MM ...... tk.(L.. j.r4GA4i...... ('J1L..

...... etd .,....kc". •.C.OAS 4Y.−...... t . V1 .. j 0 − t!.CA+W.€

kO.4LQL/ (Please turn over)

Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission — Bylaw 2013/2 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public

0039 .(include extra pages if you wish)

0040 06 7013 SCANNED Submission Number:

Invercargill City Council Private Bag 90104 Invercargill 9840

1 May 2013

SUBMISSION − Bylaw 2013/2 − Keeping of animals, poultry and bees

We do not wish to be heard in support of our submission

This is a personal submission on the keeping ofpoultry.

We oppose this bylaw as we are breeders ofrare breeds ofpoultry and we feel it is important to keep these old breeds ofpoultry going. We have had poultry for over 25 years on our 11/2 acre property in Otatara and have never had a complaint about our poultry being a nuisance.

Keeping of roosters: We feel that roosters should be permitted on a property as long as they are looked after properly and there are no objections from neighbours.

Limit on poultry numbers on a property: We also feel that there should be no restriction on the number ofhead ofpoultry for hobbyists like ourselves.

Exemption for Poultry Club members: We feel there should be an exemption from these bylaws for members ofPoultry Clubs.

We are both life members ofthe Invercargill Poultry and Pigeon Club which currently has approximately 50 members from around Southland. This Club promotes good practices for managing poultry and holds monthly meetings and annual shows. These bylaws would have severe implications for our Club and its members. Our Club is affiliated to the NZ (SI) Poultry, Pigeon & Cage Bird Association.

We show our birds at poultry shows around New Zealand and ifno roosters are permitted on urban properties, this would curtail breeding ofany birds in the future. And if the numbers ofpotiltry were restricted, this would limit a member's chances ofshowing quality birds in shows.

David & Yvonne Service 108 Oreti Road Otatara, RD 9 Invercargill 9879 email: [email protected] Phone: 027 3798459 (Yvonne)

0041 0042 Ocl SCANNED 08 MAY 2013 Submission

Invercargill City Council Number: Private Bag 90104 Invercargill 9840

6 May 2013

SUBMISSION − Bylaw 2013/2 − Keeping of animals, poultry and bees

We do not wish to be heard in support of our submission

This is a submission from and on behalf of the members of the Invercargill Poultry, Pigeon and Cage bird Club.

We oppose any changes to bylaws relating to the keeping of poultry. As our members are interesting in breeding and showing rare breeds ofpoultry we are against anything to curtail this activity. None ofour members have ever had a complaint about their keeping of poultry either through noise, smell, encouraging pests etc. I believe this shows responsible owners can operate under the existing laws without causing a nuisance to their neighbours.

Keeping of roosters: We feel that roosters should be permitted on a property as Long as they are looked after properly and there are no objections from neighbours. Roosters are needed for breeding and no different to a dog barking or lawnmowers operating.

Limit on poultry numbers on a property: We also feel that there should be no restriction on the number of head ofpoultry for hobbyists like ourselves. To have successful show animals you need to breed quite a lot but only keep a few. A responsible breeder will know what is a sensible number of birds to an area, too many causes problems to the successful breeding ofbirds.

Exemption for Poultry Club members: We feel that our members are not causing any issues for the Invercargill City Council as they pursue their hobby. If there is going to be a change to the byelaws relating to the keeping of poultry, please consider how it could affect some ofthese rare or heritage breeds of birds and their continued survival.

Bryce Horrell Secretary Invercargill Poultry and pigeon club Oreti No 3 RD Winton 9783 email: [email protected] Phone: 03 2360 513

0043 0044 0 10 MAY 2013 SCANNLE 13 MAY 2013 Bush Haven Native Bird Rehabilitation Trust

49 Bryson Road Otatara RD 9 Invercargill 9879 Ph=03.2 130530

9 May 2013

City Council, Submission − Bylaw 2013/2 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Private Bag 90104 INVERCARGILL

Dear Council

SUBMISSION FROM RUSSELL AND MAY EVANS, BUSH HAVEN NATIVE BIRD REHABILITATION TRUST, 0 FMARA

Please consider our submission as attached. We certainly think it is timely to have some form of bylaw about cats, and we have made some comments about some aspects ofthe proposal.

Unfortunately we are going to be out of the country between 11 May and 23 June so if the submissions hearing is within this period, we will not be able to present it.

However, a friend, Randall Mime is happy to present it for us if it falls within this period. His address is: Mr R Milne 68 Watt Road Otatara R D 9 INVERCARGILL Contact phone evenings, 2130851

If the hearing is to be after 23" June we will be happy to present our own submission.

Yours faithfully

May & Russell Evans Bush Ha en Native Bird Rehabilitation Trust

0045 PROPOSED INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL BYLAW 201312 − KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) Name: Russell and May EVANS, Trustees of Bush Haven Native Bird Rehabilitation Trust Contact Person: May Evans, Secretary and Trustee Postal Address: 49 Bryson Road, Otatara RD 9, Invercargill DaytimeTelephone. 03.2130530 .... Email: [email protected] ...... Signature: ...... if(

We would like to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about our submission but we are out of the country at present and have asked our friend, Randall Mime to speak for us.

OUR SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS:

The first objection we have against the proposed bylaw is that in Clause 7, subsections 7.1 and 7.2 the word 'bird' is mentioned. Everywhere else in both documents Proposed Bylaw and Statement of Proposal, the word 'poultry' appears. Whilst we agree that poultry are birds, not all birds are poultry. We would therefore request the word 'bird' be removed and 'poultry' retained in its place.

2 If your intention is to include birds other than poultry, we submit the following: 2.1 We have kept a parrot collection for many years and have lived at our present address for 27 years, over which time one neighbour has only once complained about the noise from our birds − a native kaka. This matter was resolved amicably by moving the birds further away from the boundary and the neighbour's home. However it later came to light that some of the noise from the birds was actually caused by the neighbour coming home late at night and shining car lights through the bush onto the aviary. This person was a tenant, not the property owner. The actual owner has had no complaints at all with the birds at any time.

2.2 At our property, as well as our parrot collection, we house injured native birds, especially kereru and tui at the latter stage of rehabilitation before release. We hold the required permits to do so. We occasionally have visits from local and school groups and our parrot collection, especially the South Island Kaka, is an added attraction for these groups. 004 2.3 As part of our charitable trust policy, we endeavour to educate groups on the importance of our native birds, to the eco−system of our country. We fear that if this bylaw is approved as written, and properties near us were sold, a new neighbour could easily use the bylaw to stop us holding parrots and in turn this would probably cause us to stop our rehab activities as well, because the collection is a drawcard to visitors; thus we could not carry out the education part of our trust requirements.

2.4 We are not interested in a special exemption under Clause 6 as we feel it is giving one person too much power. We have many friends in a local club, Southland Aviculture Society, which we helped start several years ago. These people also keep parrots and other birds and they are as entitled to consideration as we are. All of these people keep their birds in appropriate aviaries and their primary consideration is to look after the health and welfare of their birds, some of which are becoming rare in their native Australia. Many also keep native New Zealand parakeets, which are also becoming rare.

2.5 None of these people make a great deal of money from breeding the birds − it is a hobby. Like them we count ourselves lucky if we breed and sell enough birds to pay the seed bill each year. The expertise and knowledge gained from looking after a parrot collection is very beneficial in working with injured birds of all types.

2.6 We feel that in the unlikely event of a problem arising between neighbours because of some occasional noise from a few parrots, this should be able to be resolved between the neighbours, not by anyone in an office because of some special paper.

3 You state that during the 2012 Long Term Plan consultation process one submifter requested that Council investigate nuisance caused by other animals at the same time.

3.1 We certainly applaud controls being placed on the number of cats allowed per household and we believe that all likely breeders of cats should be registered, other pet cats be neutered, and some sort of rules applied to this breeding, bearing in mind the welfare of the cats themselves.

3.2 We are strongly against anyone dumping unwanted cats and kittens out of the city, which are left to either fend for themselves by killing birdhfe or starving.

4 With regard to bees, we agree that quarter−acre sections are not the ideal place for these − however we do need bees to pollinate most plants and many trees, and it would be a shame if beekeepers on quite suitable properties at present on the city outskirts were forced to give them up as the boundaries of the city are regularly extended. 0047 0048 SCANNED 14 MAY 2013 k14a 1/6 −/17 I Submission Number:

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly)

Name: ...... Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation) UJC......

Postal Addr as: ...... 6?. /A1V rz 4f IV TelePh7 .U(' Daytime i...... Email: C.'"

.. Signature: .....

I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes No 0

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS:

/LJg4: 'i0tS ? ic.... −:A ...... \.v'j.øsi'e ...e...... Lo'. .L −° ...... 7.:..f. .−(Please .....

turn over)

Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylaw 201312 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public

0049 0050 'p SCANNED 15 MAY 2013 r Submission Number:

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) X ..... Name

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address: ......

/VIF. 4 C 1i1 ,iL . Daytime Telephone:...11../L...... EmaiI...... Signature:...... "

I wish to speak to tfe Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes EJ No 1'

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS:

(Please turn over)

Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylaw 2013/2 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public 0051 Statement of Proposal !. Summary The Tnv&carg4l City Couri,t has dev&oed a prcpsed bylaw to regtJtate the keping of an.imaJs,(induding C:ig piI47, bees, I stxk an&çts) within the district to ensure they do not cree a J6uatce èr endanger hea4th. rd egJlate the sIughtnng OC4nu−p1s w,trn .cew of peop4e nearby as many pope c..flr4 this Qffeve• The ;LP'c! Gove eiit Act_2002r4 reath Act (95€. antzctpa Coundis adopting wtcont?O4 The ktjrigofmaó,S • a reasonable−' e− o1publi heatn 3ri arety. • Puruaro the t..oc& Gcverr rri Act 2002 4 M State−taternet of Propsa1 has be.prpaed. It s avUahte forrn irs2ectcr at the Hedek the lwtrcarg! Ciy trciL Oi Esk Street, lnverca4fl, at the B1Lf1 Stwvke Centre, and .a the • tnvercargill Public Library Copes are a'aiiable on ion from the Lr3ry.

The Sta'.emet of Propo ry.aiso be found on the Irrcargill City Corici Subrnsons are invited an s PrpaL Subr rn L 9e ii tter form, cearshing the adre.s and contact numbtr • pne 2.rgn4.SUBMISONe addresei b the un& ed − Bvt?. 20i312. •− Kee;. of Animals, Po4trv Od

3. lndcave whetber.,Ihe subm!ter wishes to he heard y t Coulin upoort. f strr ibrission. (Ncte the utarKe of the srnonshou e r wrng4 Verbal prentat'ors thdb rtftctd% nnutes)

4. Bereceived by 500 pm.qn nday. 17 Mot .•

•

. DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANDPLANNING SERVICES gU INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL

Proposed BY−Law 201312 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees

Submission: In general I supportthe proposed By−Law for keeping of animals but would recommend that theCouncil take another look at the reasons and restrictions on keeping of cats.

Presently there are rules relating to the keeping of dogs and keeping them under control when not on owner's property. These rules appear to be working well.

Even though there have been no rules regarding the keeping of goats, ferrets, deer, cows, horses, alpaca, sheep and hens within the city boundary, the owner's of these animals are aware they have to be properly fenced in or controlled for the animal's own safety and not become a nuisance to road users and neighbours.

Why then should the same rules not apply to the keeping of cats? They should be contained by the owner on their own property, particularly at night. It is at night that they tend to wander, digging up gardens especially amongst seedlings and bulbs and defecating, creating unwanted smells, thus causing a nuisance. I realize that cats are a wandering animal but if they were contained during the hours of darkness this would lessen the impact on neighbouring properties.

I have no objection to a greater number than 3 cats being kept providing they are kept on their own property, particularly at night. At present it is wandering cats that are the problem. Only last night I had at least 3 cats visit my property as 3 of them left their smelly mess behind. It is these wandering cats, maybe strays or neighbour's cats and I'm sure it is not the desire of any neighbour to have to take some positive action against any well kept neighbour's cat.

If one could be sure that domesticated cats are not causing the nuisance, because they are being kept in at night, then any action taken to rid these other cats by the property owner should be encouraged.

I would therefore like to see the draft by−law amended to take care of this issue.

0053 OO5 AD AME1 SCANNED 41 2_ 1 15 MAY 2013 Submission Number:

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly)

Name

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address: .0Z.€ .flø2..0 .Sfl ......

Daytime Telephone' .....&..2...... Email: ...... A Signature: .Iii..*...... I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes 0 No E'

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS: r*.r...... i.Q d. 1W..wt (2.) C:cs...... ihc4h....Th.−e ...... Ah....C4I ci&.fle*....oa/v...... '6 ...... O.y,.4etf....u.tt.W,...... kc.I—..L.Th ...... CAI ..scvc1...... tø...... pic4..cJ−(Please

turn over)

0055 0056 Miss Nikki Tarbutt KAB122 Do YouComment Clause Agree? 8.2 Yes

0057 0058 Katrina Robertson KAB123 − KAB139 Do You Clause Comment Agree? 1. 7.2 Yes 8.1 Yes I support this and the limit imposed being no more than three cats. Will there have to be a certain number of complaints received from a number of different people before the pet owner receives a visit from/is contacted by the council? 8.2 Undecided as I think there will be instances where more than three cats can be kept on a private property without causing a nuisance e.g. if they were all indoors cats. It wouldn't be possible to police such a rule as it would be difficult to work out which cats come from which property. However I do feel if not a rule if its possible there should be a recommendation that there is no more than three cats per property if they go outdoors as if each property has three outdoor cats in an urban environment that would add up to a lot of cats in a built up area and create animal welfare issues as well as health ones. 9.3 What about existing use rights whereby urban sprawl has moved into a previously rural area, someone who has always kept pigs may no longer be able to do so even though they were there before the urban sprawl started? 9.5 As per my feedback on 9.3, what about existing use rights whereby urban sprawl has moved into a previously rural area, someone who has always kept pigs may no longer be able to do so even though they were there before the urban sprawl started? 10.4 What about existing use rights whereby urban sprawl has moved into a previously rural area, someone who has always kept poultry may no longer be able to do so even though they were there before the urban sprawl started? 11.3 What about existing use rights whereby urban sprawl has moved into a previously rural area, someone who has always kept bees may no longer be able to do so even though they were there before the urban sprawl started? 12.1 What about existing use rights whereby urban sprawl has moved into a previously rural area, someone who has always kept livestock may no longer be able to do so even though they were there before the urban sprawl started? 12.2 Yes 12.3 Yes 12.4 Yes 13.1 No What about existing use rights whereby urban sprawl has moved into a previously rural area, someone who has always slaughtered their livestock may no longer be able to do so even though they were there before the urban sprawl started? 13.2 No This is not always possible. 13.3 No This is not always possible

0059 Do YouComment Clause Agree? 13.6 Yes 14. Yes However, there will be some instances where people will be unable to pay the fine and not be worried about it accumulating over time. In these instances I think alternative penalties need to be available as a back−up. For example in the case of issues with a large number of cats, the compliance officer needs to be able to resort to removing the cats from the owner's care if they do not comply or co−operate.

0060 k4−/i /t0—icZ

SUBMISSION FEUEREO FRIVIERS 0800 327 646 iWEBSITE OF NEW ZEALAND

To: Invercargill City Council

Attention Melissa Short [email protected]

On the Proposed Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2013/2 − Keeping Of Animals, Poultry and Bees

By Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Date: 6 May 2013

Contact: Kim Reilly Policy Advisor South Island Federated Farmers of New Zealand

P: 03 477 2435 F: 03 479 0470 E: kreillyfedfarm.orq.nz

We wish to be heard in support of our submission

Kim Reilly

Federated Farmers of New Zealand P0 Box 5242, Dunedin 03 477 2435 034790470 kreillyfedfarm.org.nz 006−1 SUBMISSION TO INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL ON THE INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL DRAFT BYLAW 2013/2 − KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Federated Farmers of New Zealand welcomes the opportunity to provide further comment on the Invercargill City Council Draft Bylaw 2013/2 − Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees. As an interested stakeholder we appreciate the opportunity to provide additional feedback.

1.2 We note and appreciate the incorporation of changes we suggested during the consultation phase of the process being part of the Draft Bylaw now presented for public consultation.

1.3 Council must consider the needs of a community when proposing a plan or bylaw. In doing so it must determine what problem needs to be addressed and what the most effective and cost efficient way of achieving the outcome is. We support Council's rationale for why a bylaw is needed and consider a bylaw is the most effective way of addressing the issues raised.

2. SPECIFIC COMMENTS

2.1 Provision in the Draft Bylaw 1. Short Title and Commencement This bylaw is Invercargill City Council Bylaw 201312 − Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees. This bylaw comes into force on (Date to be advised) Federated Farmers supports the short title Summary of Reasons for this Submission Federated Farmers supports Council amending the title of the bylaw to the 'Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees' as per our earlier feedback. The proposed amended title offers greater clarity to bylaw users and is consistent with that used in other Councils across New Zealand, including Southland District Council and Clutha District Council.

Relief Sought . That Council adopt the title as proposed

2.2 Provision in the Draft Bylaw 2. Object of Bylaw The Invercargill City Council acknowledges that keeping a pet has benefits for the wellbeing of the owner and members of the household. This bylaw regulates the keeping of animals (including pigs, poultry, bees, livestock and cats) within the district to ensure they do not create a nuisance or endanger health; and regulates the slaughtering of animals within view of people nearby as many people can find this offensive

Kim Reilly

Federated Farmers of New Zealand P0 Box 5242, Dunedin F 034772435 : 034790470 kreillyfedfarm.org.nz 0062 Federated Farmers opposes the provision in part Summary of Reasons for this Submission Federated Farmers has concerns with the introductory line of the object. Given the bylaw is to also apply to farm livestock and bees, reference to the wellbeing benefits of a pet to a household seems out of place. While the statement may well be true, it does add confusion as to what the bylaw is endeavouring to address.

Federated Farmers also has concerns with the line "this bylaw regulates the keeping of animals (including pigs, poultry, bees, livestock and cats)..." Given the amendment of the bylaw's title to the keeping of 'animals, poultry and bees', it may be more cohesive to include similar reference within the bylaw's object.

Our concerns remain with the wording of the last line of the objective. Issues surrounding slaughter are covered off within the District Plan, the Health Act 1956, the Animal Products Act 1999 and the Animal Welfare Act 1999, so there is a question as to why this additional line is necessary within the bylaw objective itself. If such reference is to remain, it is more succinct to delete the subjective reference to some nearby people finding slaughter offensive.

Relief Sought That Council make the following amendments, or with similar purpose, to clause 2: Object of Bylaw The Invercargill City Council acknowledges that keeping a pot has benefits for the wellbeing of the owner and members of the household. This bylaw regulates the keeping of animals, poultry and bees (including pigs, poultry, bees, livestock and cats) within the district to ensure they do not create a nuisance or endanger health and It also regulates the slaughtering of animals within view of people nearby as many people can find this offensive.

2.3 Provision in the Draft Bylaw 7. General Provisions 7.1 No person shall keep, permit or suffer to be kept any animal, bird or bees, which in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance by, including but not limited to, noise, odour, dust or through the attraction of flies or vermin

7.2 No person shall keep, permit or suffer to be kept any animal, bird or bees in a manner that in the opinion of an the Director of Environmental and Planning Services is or is likely to become offensive to the occupier of an adjoining property or a threat to public health.

Federated Farmers opposes this provision in part

Kim Reilly

Federated Farmers of New Zealand P0 Box 5242, Dunedin P 03 477 2435 F 03 479 0470 S. kreiIlyfedfarm.orp.nz 0063 Summary of Reasons for the Submission The provision is framed in a very subjective manner, making it difficult for bylaw users to reasonably know what expectations are and what sort of activities would be acceptable. It is difficult to base compliance upon the opinion of a third party. The provision would be difficult to monitor and enforce on that basis. We suggest more objective wording would be both more reasonable and user−friendly.

There is also concern with the subjective manner of 7.2 relating to the keeping of any animal, bird or bees being or likely to become offensive to an occupier of an adjacent property owner. Neighbours can have difficult relationships and it is more appropriate to keep matters within the scope of the bylaw, that being to focus on actual or likely nuisances and risks to public health and safety, rather than what may be considered to be offensive to a neighbour.

Relief Sought That Council redraft Provision 7 as follows, or similar: 7. General Provisione 74 No person shall keep, permit or suffer to be kept any animal, bird or bees, which in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance by, including but not limited to, noise, odour, dust or through the attraction of flies or vermin

2.4 Provision in the Draft Bylaw 9.1 No person shall keep any pigs in such a manner, where in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services, it will or is likely to create a nuisance, or which is likely to be injurious to health or offensive. Federated Farmers opposes this provision in part Summary of Reasons for the Submission The provision is again framed in a very subjective manner, making it extremely difficult for bylaw users to reasonably know what the expectations are and what sort of activities would be acceptable.

We suggest more objective wording would be both more reasonable and user−friendly. Relief Sought 9.1 No person shall keep any pigs in such a manner, where in the opinion of an Authoricod Officer, itthat will or is likely to be create a nuisance, or a threat to Public health and safety which is likely to be injurious to health or offensive. Kim Reilly POIACY ADVISOR

Federated Farmers of New Zealand P0 Box 5242, Dunedin 03 477 2435 1 03 479 0470 kreillyfedfarm.orpnz 0064 2.5 Provision in the Draft Bylaw 9.3 No person shall construct or allow any pigsty to remain, or any pigs to be at large or range, at a distance less than 50 metres from any dwelling, or any wholly or partly occupied building, or any street or public place used for the preparation, storage or sale of food for human consumption, or from any boundary of any adjoining property. Federated Farmers opposes this provision in part Summary of Reasons for the Submission The purpose of the bylaw is to avoid nuisance or threats to public health and safety. However, it is unclear how a 50 metre boundary is necessary in each of the specified situations, particularly outside the defined urban area. While a 50 metre setback from dwellings may be reasonable, it is difficult to see how a similar setback from adjoining property or street is necessary to avoid nuisance or public health and safety issues. In both those situations a 20 metre setback is more reasonable and more in line with the purpose of the bylaw. Relief Sought 9.3 No person shall construct or allow any pigsty to remain, or any pigs to be at large or range, at a distance less than within 50 metres from any dwelling, or any wholly or partly occupied building, or any street or public place used for the preparation, storage or sale of food for human consumption, or within 20 metres from any boundary of any adjoining property.

2.6 Provision in the Draft Bylaw 10.3 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may impose a limit on the number of poultry which may be kept on private land, such limit being no more than twelve head of poultry, where: (a) the Council has received a complaint about the number of poultry kept on the private land. (b) the number of poultry is creating a nuisance or is likely to create a nuisance; and (c) the person keeping the poultry fails to comply with any reasonable request of the Authorised Officer to abate or prevent the nuisance. Federated Farmers opposes this provision in part Summary of Reasons for the Submission It is a reasonable expectation for there to be more than 12 hens on private land within the rural area. It is unlikely, given the larger size land parcels at issue that this number will be of issue for adjacent properties.

If the rule is to address issues caused by lifestyle farmers in particular, rules should specifically address these land types and sizes.

Kim Reilly

Federated Farmers of New Zealand P0 Box 5242, Dunedin P 034772435 03 479 0470 kreiIlyfedfarm.orgnz 0 Relief Sought That Council make the following amendment or similar: 10.3 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may impose a limit on the number of poultry which may be kept on private land, such limit being no more than twelve head of poultry outside the rural area where.... OR 10.3 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may impose a limit on the number of poultry which may be kept on private land under 1000m2 in size, such limit being no more than twelve head of poultry, where....

2.7 Provision in the Draft Bylaw 11.1 No person shall keep or continue to keep bees if, in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services, the keeping of such bees is, or is likely to become dangerous, injurious to health or a nuisance to any person. Federated Farmers opposes this provision in part Summary of Reasons for the Submission As discussed previously, the concern here is with the subjective nature of the provision. How is a plan user to know what sort of opinion is likely to be held? There are issues such as whether the Director of Environmental and Planning Services is qualified to have an opinion on the specific health or hazard risks of bees, or what level of knowledge is held on beekeeping. It may be prudent to involve a commercial beekeeper in any considerations to ensure decisions are based on sound knowledge and experience.

Relief Sought That Council make the following amendment: 11.1 No person shall keep or continue to keep bees if, in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Service, the keeping of such bees is, or is likely to become dangerous, injurious to health or a nuisance to any person.

2.8 Provision in the Draft Bylaw 11.3 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may order the relocation or removal of a hive or hives, where: (a) the Council has received a complaint about the location of a hive or hives; (b) The Council's Director of Environmental and Planning Services is satisfied that the location of the hive or hives has resulted in bees causing a nuisance on any property in the vicinity of the hives Federated Farmers supports this provision in part Summary of Reasons for the Submission While it is reasonable for there to be capacity for Council to order the relocation of removal of a hive, this should only occur when the hive is, or is I:,ikely to be dangerous, offensive or Kim Reilly JY AEJvSoF<

Federated Farmers of New Zealand P0 Box 5242, Dunedin P 03 477 2435 03 479 0470 kreillyfedfarm.orp.nz injurious to any person. This will ensure complaints have a reasonable basis behind them and that Council makes a decision based on sound knowledge and experience. Relief Sought That Council adopt the provision as proposed but ensure a reasonable approach to complaint management is adopted.

2.9 Provision in the Draft Bylaw 12 Keeping of Livestock 12.1 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may impose a limit on the number of livestock which may be kept on private land, where: (a) the Council has received a complaint about the livestock being kept on the private land (b) the keeping of livestock is creating a nuisance or is likely to create a nuisance; and (c) the person keeping the livestock fails to comply with any reasonable request of the Authorised officer to abate or prevent the nuisance. 12.2 All livestock must be controlled by way of fencing or tethering so as to contain the animal(s) from any roadway or other property. 12.3 The fencing or tethering of animals must, in the opinion of an Authorised Officer, be adequate to prevent all livestock from wandering and all road gates to paddocks must be able to be securely closed and/or locked.

Federated Farmers opposes this provision in part Summary of Reasons for the Submission Federated Farmers has concerns with the application of provision 12.1 to farming land within the rural area, where there should be a reasonable expectation for higher numbers of livestock. If the provision was to apply to all land within the district, there is potential for issues of reverse sensitivity to arise − whereby newcomers to the rural area could feel justified in complaining about normal farming practices, such as noisier stock around weaning time, tailing, drenching and other key farming activities. We consider the rule should either be deleted or reduced in scope to the urban area − where stock numbers on small parcels of land may be a valid issue.

Most farmers' livelihoods depend on livestock, so the safety and security of that stock is a crucial component of farm management and reasonable precautions to contain stock will already be taken. We have concerns with the potential for the provision to be taken as requiring road gates to be locked. Any such requirement would not only interfere with everyday farm management but also raise potential for stock safety issues during emergencies and other access issues to arise. We consider wording changes within rule 12.3 are necessary to both reflect issues raised earlier around subjective 'opinions' and also to ensure a practical approach is taken to requirements around the closing or securing of road gates.

Kim Reilly P01 ICY ADVISOR

Federated Farmers of New Zealand P0 Box 5242, Dunedin P 03 477 2435 F 03 479 0470 kreiIly(fedfarmorg.nz 0067 Relief Sought That Council either delete the provision or amend the provision as below: 12 Keeping of Livestock 12.1 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may impose a limit on the number of livestock which may be kept on private land in the urban area where: (a) the Council has received a complaint about the livestock being kept on the private land (b) the keeping of livestock is creating a nuisance or is likely to create a nuisance; and (c) the person keeping the livestock fails to comply with any reasonable request of the Authorised officer to abate or prevent the nuisance. 12.2 All livestock must be controlled by way of fencing or tethering so as to contain the animal(s) from any roadway or other property. 12.3 The fencing or tethering of animals must, in the opinion of an fluthorised Officer, be adequate to prevent all livestock from wandering and all road gates to paddocks must be able to be securely closed and/or locked.

3 ABOUT THE FEDERATION 3.1 Federated Farmers welcomes the opportunity to comment on Invercargill City Council's Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw.

3.2 Federated Farmers of New Zealand is a voluntary, member−based organisation that represents farming and other rural businesses. Federated Farmers has a long and proud history of representing the needs and interests of New Zealand farmers.

3.3 The Federation aims to add value to its members' farming businesses. Our key strategic outcomes include the need for New Zealand to provide an economic and social environment within which:

Our members may operate their business in a fair and flexible commercial environment; • Our members' families and their staff have access to services essential to the needs of the rural community; and Our members adopt responsible management and environmental practices.

Kim Reilly POU',—Y ADVISOR

Federated Farmers of New Zealand P0 Box 5242, Dunedin P 03 477 2435 F 03 479 0470 0068 kreilIyfedfarm.orp.nz 17 MAY 2013 SCANNED 1 Submission Number:

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly)

Name: ...... t1...h...i..../ttQ,r ...... Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal...... Address:I ...... kT1hu...... •.V'je...... P ...fl9...... Email:\9SL Daytime Telephone: (1 Woo ...... I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes 0 No fr

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS:

(Please turn over)

0069 I am in total agreement with the Draft plan proposed by the Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2013/2 re restricting the number of animals (namely cats/kittens), to three on any given private property in an urban area.

The following is a day in the life of a resident in a neighbourhood besieged by cats due to one resident reportedly owning 27 although I have only witnessed 12 together at any one time.

Yay, it is the weekend. You waken, it is day break, the birds are chirping in the trees, you jump out of bed and pull back the drapes to view a clear sky and the sun just starting to rise above the horizon. Oh how wonderful, another brilliant Southland summers day. It has been a really balmy night so it will be wonderful to open all the windows and doors to take in that lovely fresh morning air. Wrong. it is no longer possible to have windows and doors open. The backyard is like State Highway 1 with a continuous procession of cots passing through who like to poke around every door and window on their way looking for a possible entry point.

Seeing as the birds are about I will just feed them now and enjoy listening to and watching them as I eat breakfast on the decking. The pleasure, not only for me but for young children, of having so many birds visiting the property, listening to their delightful singing and watching such a variety of breeds interacting has gone. it is no longer realistic to encourage the birds into the property by continuing to feed them. Why entice them where it is no longer a safe sanctuary.

Time to get the paper and I can flick through that while having breakfast too. When I go out the front of my property in the morning to pick up the paper there is a moss exodus of cats who have spent the night either on the car or in the nearby woodpile. The woodpile is not only a place for the cats to sleep and be dry but is also somewhere they can use as their toilet facility. When it comes to winter I don't have the expense of purchasing wood shavings and perfumed oil to provide a refreshing aroma in the house. The larger wood I buy has a dual purpose it not only burns to keep the house warm but if It is stored indoors it releases an aroma which is quite unique and intensified by the warmth —you guessed it the smell of cat urine!

Nice time of day to get a couple of special items of clothing washed, pegged out and back in again before the sun is at its strongest and fades them. It is no longer possible to rush out to peg up those couple of items of clothing leaving the door open for a couple of minutes. If you look through the windows on your way back you are likely to find a cat indoors and! don't mean my own one.

Lovely day to mow the lawns, dig and plant the vege garden, weed and tidy the flower garden, wash down the dust and cobwebs from the house and freshen up the fences which encompass and divide the property. Be prepared to do some work before you actually start on these tasks. You have to be the 'Popper scooper'. This service is often required between mowing the lawns as well. The days of having a vegetable garden are over. I've come indoors from digging It over and ready for planting at 10:30 p.m. and when I look at 6:00 am the following morning it is like the elves and the shoemaker have visited overnight and excavated it again. There is no expense required for the purchase offertiliser as that is readily provided but unfortunately it is usually left on the surface. Not only the surface of the soil but on the leaves of rhubarb for example.

OO?O Yes well the neighbouring cats are very fortunate in that this property has a very well tended flower garden making very easy scratching. At the entry point to the property is where the first well tended section of garden is and is easy digging. This section of garden is easy access for the offenders as at this point there are no obstacles, it is just a walk in off the Street. The cats have dug this area so many times it isn't just the new faeces remaining on the surface it is likely to be what has been deposited earlier due to the number of times this garden has been used. In the height of summer, this being the entry point to my property isn't very welcoming − in short it 'stinks' Care of the fences is a full time job removing the dirty paw prints not to mention the gouging of the pain twork.

Oh I may as well wash the car while still outdoors. I can pretty much guarantee that has dirty paw prints all over it even before I get to drive it.

My much loved pedigree cat can be Out enjoying mooching around the property, chasing the butterflies, lazing under the trees, or shading under the foliage of the carrots. This past time is no longer possible for the much loved pedigree cat. It isn't me keeping her shut in but her own choice now. The smell from the presence of these other cats is just too stressful. In fact It is stressful for her remaining indoors also as she watches these unwanted visitors marking her territory. Their presence sees her running from room to room and window to window as she tracts their movements. My cat has taken to excessively cleaning her coat and has required veterinary treatment.

Now it is time to have the house completely opened up and enjoy the indoor/outdoor living and a good old BBQ. Children playing happily in the well fenced yard with everyone feeling totally relaxed in the knowledge that they are safe. Wrong. Trying to enjoy a BBQ isn't a relaxing affair as you are constantly on look out for unwanted cats who are likely to be found sneaking indoors. It is a health issue having young children playing in the section without being a 'pooper scooper' first.

Now with the visitors with young children away home perhaps it is time to drop in on friends and go for an evening walk. Doesn't matter if Its late and dark when I return as Its Sunday tomorrow. On returning when approximately two properties from home one generally witnesses cots leaving the property. Not so bad during the day but at night when they jump out of trees as you are exiting the vehicle is quite something else. As you drive in you actually wonder if you are in the Waitomo Caves with all the eyes glistening in just like glow worms

It's been a busy day so now time to head to bed for a well deserved rest and good nights sleep. You must be joking. You would think that you would enjoy going to bed to relax after such a busy day but even that simple pleasure can be like a nightmare. The sensors lights are constantly going on and offal! night as if you were in Vages. Then there is the sound of small feet walking over the roof followed by usually two thuds. This is the exit point right at my bedroom. First jump is onto a wooden windbreak before the second thud as they land on the ground below.

Welcome to my world. By imposing a restriction of the number of cats permitted on any one property to three this might eradicate the nuisance issues outlined above. One property should then be able to sustain this number instead of with such mass numbers the cats needing to extend their boundaries to the extent outlined above.

0071 0072 SCANNED 1,740 Zb is Submission Number: II

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) Name:Nn.

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal...... Address:I ...... I ...... TQJ ...... S3, ...... tI ...... I ...... I ...... IAOPSC

' OkAl Daytime Teleph n...... Enl .... j2.:LC'.J signature:.... aou't I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors my submission: Yes 0 No

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS: eocc......

...... - ...... I ...... −−A ......

(Please turn over)

Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission Bylaw 2013/2 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on IT May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address,'will be included in papers which are available to the public

0073 0074 SCANNtL 17 MAY 2013 /6o Submission Number: I

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) ..M...... ax.\!A Name: ...... T1C...... Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address:

...... c?..Slgnature...... }...J...... Daytime Telepho: . Email: .1r

...... thlMayor I wish to speak o and Councillors about my submission: Yes 0 ...... No 0

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS: 44't LiJ'C− U It) S(JppOk k4q specc ...... cdc.r−t .S.1...... CVA.e a o ct...... ccb...ir....oc...... kcp' ...... t... ø−i Cc:tj AwoQr'9x.I Q'...Q.....ct ...... Q...... c".... 'J jt (PaseJmover)() 2013/2 Animals, Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylaw Keeping of Poultry and Bees, Pnvate Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public

0075 (Te +0 −jeW Z so oi cwjneci 4' kh− a J id c1Aoe cxfi cccx '4 CO'j2 LAp c r,s CLQ dD c30 cykoC (−4−** ke*+ t C6cel−\ 03'c−ed

0076 tCANNEb 17 MAY 2013 k413 /i—/6 3 Submission Number:

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) Name:.....N.1 W. I J2−,K04D ...... Contact Person: (lithe name above is an organisation)

Postal Address:

......

Daytime Telephone: ..O21..EmaiI......

Signature'...... 21' I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes 0 No

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS: . . 4.ocv se−....s.r'14'..ctLi−...... (cL...... cLJL

Y3'C− .. ..−t 4 .....k...... cwv ei.cc ...... ktQw4 ....kk ......

(Please turn ove,j

Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − BylaW 2013/2 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note That submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public

0077 01−

U ...... • cLk

.Xtr

.:H. çc−.)(•••f• seLc..

1f .w−X

A k4 kae p—c4 4 ct W(L

1; Ai ...... jY

LCK. • ge.−.W. M. 6)S.* . e.•jt45pv" (9 aAy4s.A I..... (include extra pages if you wish) −. . Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylaw 2013/2 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public 0078 f(cLx*1cL1 L1i − .. − − . • fl4t IL e−LY ç', taUt1.C.tj 1k7 or LAcov ntj' :− FW CV IVI • fl(4641( at __ c' U kLtNØ L1 keg− 0V rtie E, wtv1 −

allt $ SOIC tP6vfk! (L1J Ja cL ccctc ii L1çtkJ L'ic "jo ri .• COW−47c . .− °' uJL VQek − • rcL Qr%444I 'i f−:'jV kczyc1 o 4t4 dote 44c.

'c 4ro*J 1&a4 FC

.• 4A •h −. c As −

− VJ&rp h1+(a

V e4 Y k c1 − C−IIL

− 0 C − . —•••− − − . ; . : • . . . . S . • − .

I Lfr cLu

VVfI I "4: 3Cd1s cc!4kk −

S . •\ • ,; S. S • I f−.. • F &: • 'fl: •: ' ? .j . .59 : ...− ; ;S. •: − , •:•5 .− . .__ ' . 4. − . . S_ • ' . • −'c ":i r−−−2− _ − − . •−− −• . − − −

'• −'1_

IS'

., ''!.fU t';1 I . − −− − − −−−−5−______— — •' 4. '.i' %

)?J I Iii

1− 'S .S5 −' ••. 5 .55• S. .

T− 5

−

− −5− − − − − − − − − − −

−S• ..S:5S.

− −

p 5,

− − 1 − − −− −

•.5 •5S .2 S•5S_. S. S5 :−−−−−−•−_•− − − −r−

J−− ••, — 2 − −− 5 − − s— • − − − − − −

r−−

−'' − − 17 P'f4Y1fl13. SCANNED /A/3 /64 —/6$ Submission Number: L 1

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) Name:

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address: 2L1IR

.3:.fl−iL Daytime Telephone: Email: ...... SIgnature:../O.6'4'...... I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes 0 No Ei

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS:

4.M&&.dk....Lo...... :..:::t: ...... OtI...... &.64vN...... 4

c7t4aa ILa4 . (Please turn over)

Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylaw 213I2 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public

0081 1& V AU4AJ Z/' 6cdI Q& 1 4W4j 4Qi)

.4.i4ctt. kAsy ......

(include extra if wish) • pages you Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylaw 2013/2 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on IT May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public

0082 SCANNED 17 MAY Z kl−48 /6−'6c Submission Number:

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly)

Name: ..JL.

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address:

• Daytime Telephone:...... Email: Signature......

I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes D No −

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS:

.....çQ ce4 i−iS oJ 4 O{ ...... ,....O......

QO4

......

0083 kA!−..

4zW.4−0eQ QJ ...... Q

−

,QJ. r− r.

...... (include extra pages if you wish)

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) Name: ..tJ ...... Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

PostalAddress: Daytime ...... 1−r1U C,0rY\ Telephone:...12.......... Email: "a" Signature.....0. .

I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes 0 No íA

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS:

II11Ii:?...... Id

......

(Ptease turn over)

of Animals, Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylaw 2013/2 Keeping Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public

0085 0086 SCANNED 17 MAY 23/

Submission Number:

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly)

Name: 4j.fl S−wa−11−ow ...... Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

...... Postal Address: 1—**C−h,0.1.!,n.,5.912.r.d .....$.fr.eI..

...... )7#...... Daytime Telephone: Email: ... ..S."J.... cc V)Z Signature...... 4—Al . . I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors...... about my submission: Yes 21' No 0

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS: d...u.rri .

(Please turn ovel)

Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylav 2013/2 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public 0087 162a, Chelmsford Street, INVERCARGILL 9810 [email protected] P.M. Gare, Director of Environmental and Planning Services, Invercargill City Council, 101, Esk Street, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill.

SUBMISSION Bylaw 20 1312 Keepiny of Animals Poultry and Bees

Your Worship and councillors thank you for the invitation to comment on this proposed Bylaw which I consider to be timely, if not overdue, addition to Council's regulatory functions.

By and large I support this Bylaw which hopefully will encourage people to keep animals on their premises within prescribed limits. Animals are very beneficial in a domestic sense particularly by engaging children in the care, maintenance and responsibility for the well being of another living creature. The educational aspects cannot be overstated neither can the companionship to be gained from having a pet animal. The expectation of their eventually contributing to the meal table is a bonus probably not universally applauded.

However it is equally important to ensure that one person's enjoyment is not at the expense of a lowering of someone else's quality oflife. It is with these reasons in mind that I submit these comments for what they are; − my personal opinions

Without a Bylaw prescribing peoples rights to own animals or be protected from the collateral consequences of suffering them as neighbours the local authority becomes local without authority.

Case law swgests that permanent prohibition of certain activities that the community may wish to undertake may impose unreasonable limits for example prohibiting the ownership of cats. Define; − the community. − is it numerical, territorial or residential?

Council's Dog Control Bylaw appears to be working satisfactorily and could be adopted as a template for this Bylaw.

While no longer responsible for any household pets or animals I approach this matter from the disinterested position of becoming casually involved without having any responsibility or preference for any particular species. The land area available for the purpose and proximity to adjacent properties boundaries are critical to framing a fair and reasonable Bylaw. Urban land is mentioned in this regard but perhaps some definitions may be included to distinguish between urban, suburban and 'life style' blocks. Each would present its own limitations.

0088 Pa 2 The Perceived Problems. (From complaints received)

A) Noise B) Odour. Defecation and other problen&c. D) Attracting Rodentt. E) Uncontrolled Breeding. F) Trespassing − (Wandering) − Animals. − Confinement G) Slaughter ofAninsuis.

Issues related to keeping animals in a way that can came a nuisance to neighbouring properties. 1) Lack ofknowledge/education aboat the proper caring for animaLs 2) Lack ofckar direction ofwhat Lc/not acceptable to keeping animaLs In the dLslricL 3) Hoarding and uncontrolled breeding. 4) Inadequate fencing ofpropeilies. 5) Providing staff with the power to deal with matters in a timely manner.

Provisions;7) General−−manner that in the opinion ofthe Director ofEnvironment and Plannin2 Ser#ice is or likely to become offensive This is a subjective − even arbitrary − measure of an actual/possible breach. Ideally the opinion should/could be defined by physical or quantifiable measurements, decibels for noise, detectable odours, exposed faeces, sighting or evidence of rodents, etc. −−or a threat to public health − 8) The Keeping of Cats and Kittens. Here the Bylaw focuses predominantly on the number ofcats/kittens kept on private land.

8.1 & 8.2 relate to the number of cats/kittens kept on a private property and likely to cause a nuisance. However the most common nuisance is not likely to be on the private property the cats/kittens are KEPT ON (out of direct public vision) but on the adjoining land − the neighbours − they trespass, wander or defecate on.

A) Cats become very noisy during the night when mating.

B) The odour persisting where cats have urinated is very pungent, lingering and offensive. Invariably on someone else's property which is why it is so objectionable.

E) Cats defecate on fine, freshly cultivated soil needed to set small seeds, spring bulbs and transplants, first scratching a hole then burying the faeces by scraping soil over them. This effectively hides their presence until the unfortunate gardener, trying to repair the damage unearths them and becomes contaminated in the process.

F) We take it as a given that animals in Sections 9 (Pigs), 10 (Poultry), 11 Bees & 12 (Livestock) and also Dogs, will be confined, tethered, fenced, restrained or specifically housed. None of those requirements apply to cats/kittens. This is a glaring inconsistency and the root of many of the complaints giving rise to this Bylaw.

Any Regulations applying to a dog, goose or pig should surely apply to the cat. 2

003 This includes all the conditions applying to keeping dogs; − registered, micro−chipped, fitted with a collar (containing a bell) and confined within the owner's property.

Cats unlike other domestic animals stalk the birds who gather each morning for the bread crumbs that we put out for them. Any birds that are caught are toyed with before being despatched.

Cats are a source of disease − Toxoplasmosis and the fungal infection Ringworm affecting children especially. These are demonstrable health risks.

9 Keeping of Fins No pigsties to be erected within the Urban Area. Presumably permitted in Suburban and Lifestyle areas.

50 metres from any dwelling. This the only occasion when a defined distance from habitations is specified. Nowhere do we read of the minimum area − square metres − per animal required to ensure adequate isolation, health and well being of the animals referred to. Some mention may need to be included in regard to farrowing sows which may cause the numbers (etc), to fluctuate.

Congestion whether within the pigsty or foraging space can influence the amount of noise, odour and health of the animals. − that in the oDinion oft!,. Director ofEnvironment and Plannb Service − 'In the opinion off can lead to resentment of the person whose opinions are being expressed. Being able to quote precise directions which apply to the case at issue diverts resentment toward the regulations and away from the officer.

101KeeDiaf of Poultry

10.2 No more than 12 bead per property without defining the area required for this purpose is open to challenge. Free range or cooped becomes a consideration. 12 may be too many depending on the total available space. Creating or likely to cause a nsãance becomes a matter ofperception whereas defined parameters can be quoted and applied as a compliance requirement.

DUCKS (noise) and RABBiTS (odour) may also have to be considered.

111 Beekeenina.

11.1 No person shall keep or continue to keep Ls likely to become dangerous, Injurious to health or a nuisance to any person.

Hive bees/honey bees are not likely to become dangerous (except when swarmed), kill any intrusive wasps, they keep themselves and their hives scrupulous clean, harbour no infectious diseases (fowl brood no danger to humans), emit no odour or noise beyond a low pitched intermittent 'hum'.

11.2 may prescribe conditions limiting the number and location of hives on private IwuL The number and their location should be defined in relation to the area of the private land, and distance from boundaries, where the hives are to be sited.

000 113) a) Delete this sub−clause. As written a simple receipt ofa complaint alone could be interpreted as grounds to move or remove the hives.

b) Evidence to satisfy the Council's Director that a genuine nuisance exists and or non− compliance with the conditions of the Bylaw has occurred before the hives are required to be moved.

c) All hives must be registered (E.S.?), location, and owner, licensed and inspected by a competent 'Hive man'.

d) The adult owner or similar responsible person must have successfully completed a recognised course in bee−keeping. (S.I.T.).

Bees fill an important niche in healthy plant growth by pollinating flowers, some fruit trees, vines, vegetables clovers etc. They forage up to five kilometres from their hives so benefiting over a wide area.

Perhaps most importantly is the educational value to young people in learning how a bee colony operates, their relationship with plants, the production of honey etc. Well worthy ofconsideration for a place in the urban landscape.

12) KCeDIDE of Livestock.

12.1 Again some definition of minimum land area per animal and number of animals permitted should be specified. Lambs, sheep, calves, cattle, ponies and horses not appropriate in urban areas, suburbs perhaps, life style blocks definitely.

13) Slaughter of Livestock and Poultry

Slaughter of livestock not permitted within the urban area (From 12.1 livestock not permitted − much less dispatched in urban areas). Slaughter of poultry and rabbits permitted in the urban area only in compliance with sections 13.2 −13.7.

The range of animals permitted to be kept on the same urban (residential), property should be given special consideration, e.g. One pig, eight fowls four ducks, four rabbits one bee hive, together would certainly constitute a nuisance but individually they may not.

Developing and adopting the Bylaw may be an interesting exercise but thought must be given to how it will be enforced. Obviously staffing and finding will be a stumbling block to a satisfactory operation. Funding from registration fees will go some way to meeting costs. Staffing using delegated volunteers − for preliminary inspections − may be worth exploring.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Alan Swallow. Ph 217−4759

0091 HU0b14 o__ — 2−_u,;e 000 VQ)I− •_.,

92 #'IIlIuii S t 45 • u).0 c 04 fi..J −−o c

C3 o woo 0 cis CL) U 0 cc2 04 s ______41

C •g1 ( 2 .t V

cd ca I El 04,0 ) g ca 0

49 •: D0 3°o •− ca − − cz −

C − − _5 c o WD <1)• − i c bo 4. it •E CJ •s

= cc go 40 • MIS d —

4) .0 J1 C 0 _1l1 9A44R. il h Q) . C3 C

' w f−0052 gfl SCANN 17 MAY 2013

Submission Number:

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) MQC4tICe Name: ......

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address: 4qi −Ie'rb(.r+ *

...... 7i.' .. . Daytime Telephone.....O3...... 71.4...... Email: ...... Signature:" ......

0 13" I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes No

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS: 7 re F c. k..q c.t'° .'ie'/....of ......

(Please turn over)

0093 0094 SCANNED 17 MAY 2013 k−4i I7−/1 Submission Number

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) Name: .....H.1..T1

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address:

ieci2/2 ..T Daytime Telephone: EmsL...... Signature: ...... I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes 0 No

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS:

. 71 i 11

I−p ......

ale−32C7 rjl.—V thQ /V 76 T29 ...... (Please turn over)

Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylaw 201312 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Private Bag 90104, Invercargill SUbmISSIOnS close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address will be included in papers which are available to the public

0095 r.

4QQ.h4A. Pc. • ...... IL• .cL.i.efl.ey.22Ny. .". AthV.7j

/YY. 47.fr&''1$S.

..14sr.c(N./Y6$7ç. .fLPI."22/. • l(V PL2.'QRiP. .

156 r 14 no A O42 . &V.Z.

: ...... I 9 . .

Ajb

(Include e)dm if wish) ...... pages you Post this fomi to Invercargill City Council. Submission — Bylaw 201312 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees. Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 MIy 2013 Please note that submissions, including your nwe and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public

0096 17 MAY 2013 SCANNED q/5 I lO.ic1 I 1 Submission Number:

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) ....4I2...... Name:

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address: 17−/4y 5;; 2teJ 1 3. ..

Daytim2peak opEMayor7..2.'f Email: ...... Signatu.

I wish tto nd Councillors about my submission: Yes 0 No I

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS: −V ....Z?.'.... v. ewc−ga 0S Sf

− . 4.i#377 .P4.'ii...... i7.' ...... 3......

(Please turn over)

0097 0098 SCANNED 17 MAY 2013 k3/c72 Submission Number: L

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly) .E. Name: ......

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address: d...,......

:° c,..\fl......

Daytime Telephone: 2.\LQ.3.O...... Email: .c..t.c& ... SIgnature:...& ...... I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes D No iY

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW

'. . / ..5 −.5 ......

......

...... I I ...... I ......

...... I ...... I I ...... (Please turn over)

0100 09 MAY 2013 SC− ANNFn 29 Eden Crescent Invercargill 9−5−13 J14−z3 !ciL(cro

The Mayor and Councellors

Dear Sirs,

Cats.

We have a very large section, 1\3dacre covered mainly with trees and shrubs' some flower and vege. gardens, a glass and a tunnel house. Cats have been a problem to us over the years, scratching out seeds and deffacating all over the place. We have 5 next door neighbours, 3 properties over the back and one each side. Both the side properties could be sub.divided, which would certainty add to our problem. I submit that three cats Is far too many, and wonder what happened to the previous Council proposal of a few years ago to restrict the number of cats to two per household. I for one understood that had been implemented, although It had not been very successful.

15 cats or maybe 21 in the future, is not a happy thought. We have in the past had to put up with being inundated with untold numbers of cats from a neighboulsneighbourg cats, so add that into the three cat mix and you will appreciate the impossible task Mr. Bird will have, no matter how big a team you give him. I wonder whether the ultimate answer might not be that all those of us who do not want cats roaming our properties should run a wire around our perimiters, which has a low charge on it to deter cats that are fitted with a receptive collar. I understand that this system works well with dogs, to keep them at home. 9j0L4''A,'i %2dit'444E Such a system would have to be compulsory for all cats and would be cheap for owners who care for their petsny people who do not care enough would lose the right to have cats; and any cats without the collar would have to be either sent to S.P.C.A or disposed of. I hope that this suggestion will be acted on.

Yours sincerely, K.R.McKenzle.

p 41

0101 0102 SCANNED 20 MAY 2013

/CZ

AAL3 L/e_ Submission Number:

CONTACT DETAILS (Please print clearly)

Name: .(Sct.—

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation)

Postal Address: P:...L'.

Q.Z.t6.9 Daytime Telephone: Email: •SLA.L..) 00"

Signature......

I wish to speak to the Mayor and Councillors about my submission: Yes 0− No 0

MY SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW IS: ...... Zt'−ec.cA.. .a.A# .... .dr...... pc ...... −te... zhe,. −....oC

......

...... eAs......

cer−...I..a.−c'...

(Please turn over)

Post this form to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylaw 2013/2 Keeping or Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public

0103 III11IIIIIIIe..IIe..Q..II1IIII1II1IITIII1 4#.w ...... Ac Me. cc1c LcJ...... 4

4k b...... cLo...J c... . I.e .....rr

...... o.− C 1j ;.− − ...... ccer−...... −ce−k.br

.... .CA...... \o.−0 .....Lk.q.po4 €1...... cik−A7( becj kkiMcc ...... Th. 0t..a....r.4e.i—....4S....p.j...... car− ....

4c...... do c.re— ...... s.Lc...... br (avcLccrq−d ....

...... (includeextpages if you wish)

Post thiiorm to Invercargill City Council, Submission − Bylaw 2013/2 Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees, Private Bag 90104, Invercargill Submissions close at 5.00 pm on 17 May 2013 Please note that submissions, including your name and address, will be included in papers which are available to the public

0104 OVERALL COMMENTS

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB07− Cheryl Anderson I agree with the regulations imposed by the council. Submission acknowledged. KAB23

KAB07− Cheryl Anderson While the Director of Environmental and Planning would no Procedures will be put in place to ensure that the animal KAB23 doubt make all decisions after consultation and expert owner is kept informed of proceedings and has the ability to advice, the animal owner should at all times be kept well address concerns and voice their opinion throughout the informed and have the opportunity to appeal any decisions. process. KAB24 Warren Tuckey Supports the proposed bylaw in full. Submission acknowledged. Tim Riding KAB38− If not already covered in other bylaws, there should also be a Council's Bylaw 2008/2 − Animal Control limits ownership of KAB59 McQueens Valley maximum number of dogs allowed to be kept on a property− dogs to a maximum of 3 without a licence. Trust being 2 or 3 at most.

KAB81 − Cohn Robertson Agrees with the object of the bylaw. Submission acknowledged. KAB86

KAB88− Danica Tauri Supports Section 7 − General Provision; Section 8 − Keeping Submission acknowledged. 0 KAB92 of Cats and Kittens and Section 14 − Offences and Penalties. 0 LM KAB123− Katrina Robertson Clause 9.3, 9.5, 10.4, 11.3, 12.1 − What about existing use Clause 6 is available if it is determined that compliance with KABI39 rights whereby urban sprawl has moved into a previously the bylaw would needlessly cause loss without rural area, someone who has always kept pigs, poultry, corresponding benefit to the community. If an activity is bees, or livestock may no longer be able to do so even causing nuisance Council need the ability to address it, though they were there before the urban sprawl started? whether or not it would have caused or been considered a nuisance in the past. KABI71− Alan Swallow No mention of the minimum area per animal required to Animal welfare is beyond the scope of this Bylaw. In KAB1 84 ensure adequate isolation, health and well−being of the circumstances where Council Officers are concerned about animals referred to. the welfare of animals, they report it to the SPCA. Council KAB 171− Alan Swallow Staffing and funding will be a stumbling block to a does not intend to implement a registration process KAB 184 satisfactory operation. Funding from registration fees will go for animals. The cost / benefit analysis undertaken for the some way to meeting costs. Staffing using delegated report to Council in October 2012 demonstrated that the introduction of a Bylaw was the more appropriate way of −o volunteers − for preliminary inspections − may be worth exploring, achieving results. The Animal Control activity will implement −o the Bylaw. Funding of the Bylaw will be mostly rates driven m due to the public good component of the work. z KAB192− Eric and Rebecca Fully support this bylaw. Submission acknowledged. KAB1 93 Galbraith 0 >< () No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB197− Susan Hodson The nuisance factor is often / sometimes in the form of Council will make evidence−based decisions on the KAB200 vexatious neighbours rather than the poultry. Have been in existence of nuisance. A complaint does not immediately the situation where complaints are received by Council and mean there is a nuisance, but it will instigate an found to be completely false. This proposal gives those investigation. neighbours all the power. 0 COMMENCEMENT CLAUSE I − SHORT TITLE AND

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment Submission acknowledged. KABI40− Kim Reilly − Federated Supports the Short Title. Requests Council adopt the title as KABI52 Farmers proposed.

−11 CLAUSE 2—OBJECT OF BYLAW

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment KAB30− Richard Butler Requests the insertion of "The Invercargill City Council Staff acknowledge the benefit of bees to the community, and KAB35 acknowledges that keeping bees is of benefit to the whole have recommended a change to Clause 2, which would community because of the pollination of plants, fruits and address this submission. vegetables and encourages this activity" to Clause 2. KAB67− Bonnie Harper The first sentence in Clause 2 needs to also refer to keeping Staff recommend amending Clause 2 by removing 'a pet' KAB75 a pet and livestock have benefits since the bylaw applies to and replacing with 'animals, poultry or bees'. both. of pre−consultation KAB140− Kim Reilly − Federated Clause 2 − First sentence may cause confusion as it Well−being was added at the request KABI 52 Farmers discusses wellbeing benefits of pets. The wording inside the comments to address the positives that can come from bracket should be amended to refer to the bylaw's title. The animal ownership. subjective reference in the slaughtering of animals sentence Council staff recommend removing the subjective reference should be removed. The Clause should read "This bylaw to slaughtering of animals in Clause 2. regulates the keeping of animals, poultry and bees within the district to ensure they do not create a nuisance or endanger health. It also regulates the slaughtering of animals within the view of people." C

C 00 CLAUSE 3 − EXCLUSIONS

No Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB67− Bonnie Harper Clause 3 should also exclude commercially operated/home If catteries are causing a nuisance, they should be subject to KAB75 business catteries. same rules. A commercial business could apply for exemption under Clause 6.

C CLAUSE 4−INTERPRETATION

No. Name Summary of Submission 1 Staff Comment KA1360− Cain Duncan Add definition of cat to ensure all key terms in the bylaw are Council staff believe it is not necessary to define cat' in the KAB66 specified. Bylaw.

0 CLAUSE 6— DISPENSING OF POWER

No. Name Summary of Submission I Staff Comment

KAB110− May and Russell Opposes Clause 6 − Consider Bush Haven and other Clause 6 has been included to give the option of dispensing KABII5 Evans aviculturists who look after the health and welfare of birds, with the Bylaw should compliance be deemed inappropriate including natives and injured. Issues should be sorted in a certain circumstance. between neighbours, not someone in an office. Clause 6 gives one person too much power.

C CLAUSE 7— GENERAL PROVISIONS

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment KAB30− Richard Butler Opposes Clauses 7.1 7.2 and 11.1. The words "in the Section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 relates KAB35 opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning to criminal procedure and sets out standards for any person Services" do not allow for the natural justice as described in charged with an offence. People will have the ability to make New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 section 25, and is their case before the Director of Environmental and Planning unlawful. Allowing one individuals opinion which is based on Services and procedures will be put in place to assist with their own bias, prejudice, experience or even ignorance, has compliance with the Bylaw. If charged with an offence the potential to turn previously law abiding residents into against the Bylaw, the case goes before the Courts where criminals without the due process of law. the minimum standards of criminal procedure under Section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 will be observed. Staff do not consider that these clauses are unlawful. Have recommended the removal of "in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services" from Clauses to ensure the wording of the Bylaw is objective. KAB60− Cain Duncan Provision should be made in Clause 7.1 for impacts on Council staff have received complaints relating to 'cat KAB66 neighbouring pets, "Causes or is likely to cause, a nuisance bullying'. The addition of this provision allows Council to by, including but not limited to, noise, odour, dust, the consider another form of nuisance that is created by some attraction of flies or vermin or the endangerment of owners of animals. Add to Clause 7.2. neighbouring animals. KAB67− Bonnie Harper What does 'suffer to be kept' mean? Please refrain from The term 'suffer' is used to convey the idea of not taking KAB75 using legal jargon and stick to plain English. action rather than an affirmative step. It is used to address someone not doing anything about the issue. KAB1 10− May and Russell In Clause 7.1 and 7.2, request 'bird' be removed and 'poultry' Bird was included as a catch all in case nuisance was KAB115 Evans retained in its place. caused by non−poultry birds. "offensive" which is not covered by KAB116− Vic Thompson − Opposes Section 7.2. The paragraph is open−ended and Clause 7.2 addresses KAB117 Southland Avicultural should be removed. Believe 7.1 covers any issue. nuisance in Clause 7.1. Society Recommend the removal of all references to the opinion of KAB 140− Kim Reilly − Federated Difficult to base compliance upon the opinion of a third party. KAB152 Farmers Clause 7.1 should read: "No person shall keep, permit or the Director of Environmental and Planning Services. This suffer to be kept any animal, bird or bees, which causes, or would mean that an objective test was set in the bylaw. A is likely to cause, a nuisance by, including but not limited to, delegation from Council would be needed that allows the noise, odour, dust or through the attraction of flies or Director of Environmental and Planning Services to vermin", determine if the activity has met the "nuisance test". from bylaw altogether. Clause 7.2 is it addresses "offensive" which is KAB140− Kim Reilly − Federated Too subjective. Remove Clause 7.2 necessary as KAB152 Farmers not covered by Clause 7.1. No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment KAB171− Alan Swallow In Clause 7.1 and others '...in the opinion of the Director of Nuisance is defined in the Health Act. Recommend the KAB184 Environmental and Planning Services" is a subjective removal of all references to the "opinion of the Director of measure of an actual I possible breach. Ideally the opinion Environmental and Planning Services". This would mean that should /could be defined by quantifiable measures i.e. an objective test was set in the bylaw. A delegation from decibels for noise, detectable odours. '...in the opinion of the Council would be needed that allows the Director of Director ...' can lead to resentment of the person whose Environmental and Planning Services to determine if the opinions are being expressed. Being able to quote precise activity has met the "nuisance test". directions which apply to the case at issue diverts resentment toward the regulation and away from the officer.

KAB171− Alan Swallow Ducks − noise and Rabbits − odour may also have to be Clause 7.1 would cover these issues. KAB184 considered.

KAB171− Alan Swallow The range of animals permitted to be kept on the same This is a good point and something Council Officer's will KAB184 residential property should be given special consideration, need to be aware of. This situation would be adequately e.g. one pig, eight fowls, four ducks, four rabbits, one bee− covered by Clauses 7.1 and 7.2. hive together would constitute a nuisance although individually they may not.

Overall, 13 people responded to these questions. C l−−' 7. General Provisions

4.5

3.5 42 513

g • Agree 2.5 SI a Disagree

E1.5 z 1

0 7.1 7.2 Bylaw Clause CLAUSE 8— KEEPING OF CATS AND KITTENS

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB07− Cheryl Anderson Agree with Clause 8.2. Just like with dog ownership, an It is not the intent of the Bylaw to impose a permitting KAB23 application could be made to Council to own more than three system. Council will assess complaints made and deal with cats, with strict requirements and responsibilities to be met nuisance cases as they arise. and monitored by council compliance staff. KAB36− Pat Hoffman Supports Clause 8.1. The wording of the bylaw gives The Council has taken a 'one city' approach to the Bylaw. No KAB37 responsible cat owners the opportunity to have more than 3 limits are being imposed unless a nuisance is proven, and a cats and to manage them in a way that prevents them from property owner does not take reasonable steps to rectify the becoming a nuisance. At the same time, it gives the situation. community a way to report property owners whose cats are creating a nuisance. Would like to see a limit imposed where there is evidence that the cats are having a negative impact on birds, lizards and insects in the neighbourhood. New Zealand's native biodiversity needs to be protected and reducing the cat population will go a long way towards protecting birds, lizards and insects. KAB38− Tim Riding In relation to Clause 8.2 there should be a maximum allowed The Bylaw was drafted to address nuisance cases. Some KAB59 McQueens Valley number of cats on any one property of three, not a maximum owners are not causing nuisance and this suggestion would Trust recommended number. unfairly limit them. KAB60− Cain Duncan In Clause 8.1, section (a), and" should be added at the end Staff recommend addition of and I or' to enable Council to KAB66 of the line. A complaint should not automatically trigger the initiate the process if needed, preventing the process only powers to impose a limit on cat/kitten numbers it should only being able to be commenced through a complaint. apply if the criteria in b and c are also met. Also applies to Clauses 9.5 and 10.3. KAB67− Bonnie Harper Supports Clause 8.1. Cats should be treated the same as Council does not intend to implement a registration process KAB75 dogs. Need to be registered with a collar and ID tag certified for cats. The cost / benefit analysis undertaken for the report that they have had proper vaccinations. There should also to Council in October 2012 demonstrated that the be a requirement for spaying or neutering unless you are a introduction of a Bylaw was the more appropriate way of registered breeder. achieving results. KAB67− Bonnie Harper Opposes Clause 8.2. Seems to conflict with 8.1. Either the Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB75 limit is 3 cats or If you want to have more you apply for a maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able permit. to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. No. Name Summary of Submission I Staff Comment KAB67− Bonnie Harper It is unclear what happens to residences that already have Animal welfare is always a consideration of Council officers KAB75 dozens of cats. Are they required to get rid of them apart when addressing nuisance. from 3? If getting rid of an animal is deemed part of a solution, the animal's welfare must be secured. This bylaw should not result in a worse situation for the animals. KAB78− Kirsten Meijer Agree that the number of cats should be regulated in urban Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB80 areas. Three cats per property is a good limit however this maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able should be a limit rather than a recommendation. No more to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a than 3 cats should be allowed in urban areas. nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. KAB81− Cohn Robertson Supports Clause 8.1 and adds any complaint received by the Council staff will initiate action within 24 hours of a KAB86 Council should be actioned within 24 hours with appropriate complaint, but resolution of the issue may take longer. follow up to ensure those causing the nuisance comply with council's decisions.

KAB81− Cohn Robertson Opposes Clause 8.2 − Two cats per property is more Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB86 appropriate. Less cats would reduce the potential negative maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able impact on bird life. Restricting the number to two should to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a reduce the workload for the SPCA over time. nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed.

KAB87 Chris McMillan Supports Clause 8.1 − Cats are territorial animals. Every cat Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats 0 owner should be able to own a cat that can claim its owners maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able land as its territory. A property owner with more that 1−2 cats to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a poses a risk to a neighbour's cat's territory and is likely to nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. impact on cats health and well−being. There is also a significant impact on bird life from cats. If people want to have more cats, they should build a cat farm and contain them in a rural setting, not an urban setting. Suggest that 1−2 cats should be a reasonable number. KAB93 RM Antony Opposes Clause 8.1 as concerned that good cat owners that Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats own over 3 cats will be unfairly treated. Caring and maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able responsible cat owners should be able to keep as many cats to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a as they can do responsibly. nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. KAB94− Yvonne Frew Would like the number of cats restricted to 2 per property. Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB95 maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed.

KAB96− Gwynn Collins Supports Section 8 − Keeping of Cats and Kittens. Neutering I spaying is beyond the scope of this Bylaw. KAB97 Limit the number of cats to 3 after complaint and also have Council encourages responsible cat ownership and is them neutered I speyed. investigating providing a subsidised sterilisation service for Invercargill City pet owners. No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB110− May and Russell Supports Clause 8.1 − Applaud controls being placed on Neutering I spaying is beyond the scope of this Bylaw. KAB115 Evans number of cats. Breeders of cats should be registered and Council encourages responsible cat ownership and is pet cats neutered with rules applied to the breeding of cats. investigating providing a subsidised sterilisation service for Strongly against anyone dumping unwanted cats and kittens. Invercargill City pet owners. Council does not intend to implement a registration process for cats. The cost / benefit analysis undertaken for the report to Council in October 2012 demonstrated that the introduction of a Bylaw was the more appropriate way of achieving results. KAB118− Russell Brash Supports this bylaw. No objection to more than 3 provided Staff contend there would be difficulty in monitoring / KAB119 they are kept on their own property, particularly at night. It is enforcing the keeping of cats on one's own property. Council wandering cats that are the problem. Draft bylaw should be is unable to impound cats and would need Central amended to address this issue. Government to change legislation before we could do so. KAB121 Doreen Sinclair Would like the number of cats restricted to 2 per property Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats and for them to be spayed. maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. 0 KAB 122 Nikki Tarbutt Supports Clause 8.2. Submission acknowledged. KAB123− Katrina Robertson Supports clause 8.1 and the limit imposed being no more Procedures will be put in place to ensure that the animal C, KABI39 than three cats. Will there have to be a certain number of owner is kept informed of proceedings and has the ability to complaints received from a number of different people before address concerns and voice their opinion throughout the the pet owner receives a visit from/is contacted by the process. Council will investigate beginning with the first council? complaint.

KAB123− Katrina Robertson Clause 8.2 − I think there will be instances where more than Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB139 three cats can be kept on a private property without causing maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able a nuisance e.g. if they were all indoors cats. Should be a to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a recommendation that there is no more than three cats per nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. property if they go outdoors. KABI53− Heather Adams Supports limit of three cats / kittens on any given property in Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB154 an urban area. maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed.

KAB155− Ann and Graham Supports the provisions contained within the draft bylaw − Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB158 Alsweiler especially those related to cats and kittens. maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment•

KAB159− Tracy and Pat Cunliffe Supports the bylaw. Common sense says 1−2 cats per Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB 160 property so as not to cause distress to the people around. maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. KAB 161− Nikki Broad How will Council differentiate between genuine complaints & Processes will be in place to assist with determining genuine KAB163 complaints that come from the sector of the population who nuisance. Council may seek expert advice if necessary. A dislike cats on sight. Cats properly cared for cause no health complaint will not be enough to impose a limit or prove a hazard or physical harm. A large number of fixed and healthy breach of the Bylaw. Council must be satisfied that there is cats at any one address is a 'cat family' not a 'cat hoard'. an actual nuisance or danger. Fully support the inclusion of 'MAY' in the wording of Clause 8.1. Give as a first resort cat owners who receive complaints the option of enclosing a part of their section to prevent cats roaming. KAB 161− Nikki Broad Fully support the wording 'recommends' in Clause 8.2. Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KA6163 maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. KAB164− Doreen Chisholm The proposal to limit the number of cats kept on private land Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB165 is sensible. maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. KAB 169− Owen Peterson Believe there should only be 2 cats allowed per property. Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB170 maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. Council KAB 171− Alan Swallow Focus is on number of cats / kittens kept on a property, but does not intend to implement a registration process KAB 184 nuisance is usually caused on the neighbouring properties. for cats. The cost I benefit analysis undertaken for the report Believe that any condition applying to keeping a dog should to Council in October 2012 demonstrated that the introduction of a Bylaw was the more appropriate way of apply to cats including − registered, micro−chipped, fitted with a collar (containing a bell) and confined within the owner's achieving results. property. Cats are a source of disease. These are demonstrable health risks. KABI85− Maurice Toole Should only be 3 cats per household. Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB186 maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB190− Garry Wallis It's about time cats are registered like dogs are and a limit of Council does not intend to implement a registration process KAB191 3 per household would be appropriate. It is time for action. for cats. The cost / benefit analysis undertaken for the report to Council in October 2012 demonstrated that the introduction of a Bylaw was the more appropriate way of achieving results. Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. KAB194− KR McKenzie Opposes Clause 8.2 − Three cats per property is too many. Clause 8.1 deals with nuisance. Council recommends 3 cats KAB196 maximum as Council believes in most instances 3 are able to be kept without nuisance. If an owner is not causing a nuisance, they will not have a maximum limit imposed. KAB194− KR McKenzie Those who do not want cats should run a wire around the The legality of the submitter's suggestion is not clear. The KAB196 perimeter which has a low charge that deters cats who would implementation of the Bylaw will address nuisance caused. be fitted with a receptive collar. Such a system would be compulsory for all cats.

C Overall, 32 people responded to these questions.

8. Keeping of Cats and Kittens

12 8 • Agree 9.10 4 r Disagree

E6 Z 4

0 8.1 8.2 Bylaw Clause CLAUSE 9— KEEPING OF PIGS

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB07− Cheryl Anderson Someone has to oversee and govern the ownership of pigs The Council will deal with nuisance complaints it receives. KAB23 in an urban or semi−urban area, and the local government is This may involve notifying the Ministry of Primary Industries the obvious body to do this. or Environment Southland who also have controls. KAB60− Cain Duncan Supports Clause 9.2 in principle, but with the proviso that This proviso is not necessary as is covered by Clause 6. KAB66 this should be allowed in circumstances where the prior approval of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services has been obtained.

KAB140− Kim Reilly − Federated Clause 9.1 is too subjective, suggest rewording: "No person Recommend the removal of all references to the "opinion of KAB1 52 Farmers shall keep any pigs in such a manner that will or is likely to the Director of Environmental and Planning Services". This create a nuisance, or a threat to public health or safety'. would mean that an objective test was set in the bylaw. A delegation from Council would be needed that allows the Director of Environmental and Planning Services to determine if the activity has met the "nuisance" or "threat to public health or safety" test.

KABI40− Kim Reilly − Federated 50 metre setback is reasonable for a dwelling, but a 20 The draft Bylaw has included 50 metres as this is standard KABI 52 Farmers metre setback from any boundary of any adjoining property practice among other Territorial Authorities. The intention of is more reasonable and in line with the purpose of the bylaw. the Bylaw could still be met under the Clause proposed by 0 the submitter. Clause 9.3 to read: "No person shall construct or allow any pigsty to remain, or any pigs to be at large or range, within 50 metres from any dwelling, or any wholly or partly occupied building, or public place used for the preparation, storage or sale of food for human consumption, or within 20 metres from any boundary of any adjoining property". Overall, 9 people responded to these questions.

9. Keeping of Pigs

2.5

Agree w U Disagree 1.s

C 0.5 rZ 0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Bylaw Clause CLAUSE 10— KEEPING OF POULTRY

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB07− Cheryl Anderson Agree with Clause 10.2. Any chickens should be kept in a The Animal Welfare Act 1999 is important legislation and KAB23 humane fashion. Council reports any potential welfare breaches to the SPCA. KAB07− Cheryl Anderson Agree with Clause 10.3. Question why someone in a built up Submission acknowledged. KAB23 area would require more than 12 chickens for their 'hobby'. KAB07− Cheryl Anderson Agree with Clause 10.4, but a simple solution could be Procedures will be put in place to ensure that the animal KAB23 reached before it got to this point. The owner of the chickens owner is kept informed of proceedings and has the ability to in this scenario should have the opportunity to hear/see in address concerns and voice their opinion throughout the full the complaint made and the reasons for the complaint, process. and have the opportunity to rectify it. KAB60− Cain Duncan Supports Clause 10.2 with the addition of "Further, no This request addressed another potential nuisance. KAB66 person shall keep any poultry on any land unless they have Recommend that further, no person shall keep any poultry the means to contain them within that property". "At the on any land unless they have the means to contain them request of the Director of Environmental and Planning within that property is added to the existing clause. Services a person shall contain any poultry within their property"

KAB78− Kirsten Meijer Opposes Clause 10.5 − A maximum of 6 hens is adequate in 12 head of poultry is in line with other Territorial Authorities' KAB80 urban areas. There is no need for 12 hens in the city as 6 Keeping of Animals Bylaws. would provide more than enough eggs for a family.

KAB101− David and Yvonne Opposes Clause 10.1 − Roosters should be permitted as We could amend Clause 10.1 to be nuisance driven, but it is KAB104 Service long as no objection from neighbours. staff's experience that roosters cause nuisance in the urban area.

KAB101− David and Yvonne Opposes Clause 10.5 − No restriction on the number of Hobbyists could also cause nuisance, but no limit is imposed KAB104 Service poultry for hobbyists. if no nuisance caused. KAB101− David and Yvonne Opposes Bylaw as should be an exemption from these Could be granted through Clause 6, but it is not appropriate KAB104 Service bylaws for members of poultry clubs, to exempt as a block group individual members as could still cause nuisance.

KAB105− Bryce Horrell − Addition of exemption for poultry club members consider Could be granted through Clause 6, but it is not appropriate KAB109 Invercargill Poultry how it could affect some rare or heritage breeds. to exempt as a block group individual members as could still and Pigeon Club cause nuisance.

KAB105− Bryce Horrell − Opposes Clause 10.1 − Roosters should be permitted We could amend Clause 10.1 to be nuisance driven, but it is KAB1O9 Invercargill Poultry provided no objections from neighbours. staff's experience that roosters cause nuisance in the urban and Pigeon Club area.

KAB1O5− Bryce Horrell − Opposes Clause 10.5 − No restriction on the number of Hobbyists also could cause nuisance, but no limit is imposed KABI09 Invercargill Poultry poultry for hobbyists. if no nuisance caused. No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment and Pigeon Club

KAB105− Bryce Horrell − Opposes any changes to the bylaw relating to keeping of Submission acknowledged. KAB1 09 Invercargill Poultry poultry. and Pigeon Club

KABI40− Kim Reilly − Federated It is a reasonable expectation for there to be more than 12 Provided that no nuisance is caused, there would not be any KAB152 Farmers hens on private land within the rural area. If the rule is to limit imposed. It is not necessary to differentiate between address issues caused by lifestyle farmers in particular, rules property types as the keeping of poultry on any property type should specifically address these land types and sizes. could potentially cause a nuisance to be addressed. Request add either "outside of the rural area" or "under 1000m2 in size" to Clause 10.3 to clarify this intention.

KAB166− Ruth Jenkins Opposes Clause 10.1 − Do not blanket ban roosters. Need We could amend Clause 10.1 to be nuisance driven, but it is KAB168 male poultry for breeding of rare breeds. staff's experience that roosters cause nuisance in the urban area.

KAB166− Ruth Jenkins Opposes Clause 10.5 − Allow up to 24 birds − 12 is too 12 head of poultry is in line with other Territorial Authorities. KAB168 restrictive. If there is no nuisance caused a limit will not be imposed. KAB187− Maurice CH Tucker Opposes Clause 10.1 Risk to Heritage Breeds. Roosters We could amend Clause 10.1 to be nuisance driven, but it is C − KAB189 are a necessary part of any breeding programme. Poultry staff's experience that roosters cause nuisance in the urban keeping within the city should be allowed to continue with the area. major changes. KAB 187− Maurice G H Tucker Poultry keeping within the City should be allowed to continue Those poultry owners who do not cause nuisance will not KAB 189 without major changes. have any limits / restrictions imposed.

KAB197− Susan Hodson Opposes Clause 10.1 − 10.5. Opposed to the total ban on We could amend Clause 10.1 to be nuisance driven, but it is KAB200 roosters and the 12 head maximum on poultry. staff's experience that roosters cause nuisance in the urban area. KAB197− Susan Hodson Ask that Council reconsider the maximum being 12 head of 12 head of poultry is in line with other Territorial Authorities. KAB200 poultry. If there is no nuisance caused a limit will not be imposed. Overall, 20 people responded to these questions.

10. Keeping of Poultry

4−C w

CL Agree w • Disagree

C I

10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 Bylaw Clause CLAUSE 11 — BEE KEEPING

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB07− Cheryl Anderson Agree with Clause 11.2. Any sort of animal ownership in a Submission acknowledged. KAB23 built up area needs to be monitored. nuisance. Council KAB30− Richard Butler Opposes Clause 11.2 − The number of hives may be set but The purpose of the Bylaw is to address KAB35 their siting is a matter of welfare to bees and should be left to would engage experts if and when this is necessary. qualified beekeepers. The council should engage the services of Quality Assure or Agribusiness Training when dealing with these matters. KAB36− Pat Hoffman Agree with Clause 11. 1, in principle, but thinks some of the It was not the intention of the Bylaw to require a permitting KAB37 wording is problematic. Consider the procedure for setting up system for the keeping of bees. Staff recommend the a hive: this does not currently require an application to be deletion of the works "keep or" from Clause 11.1 as sent to the Director of Environmental and Planning Services requested in the submission. − so there is no mechanism by which the Director can prevent someone from setting up a hive on a property. Delete the words "keep or" from this sentence so that it reads as follows: "No person shall continue to keep bees". KAB36− Pat Hoffman The scope of "dangerous, injurious to health or a nuisance to Where necessary, Council will engage experts to assist with C KAB37 any person" may be too broad. Keeping bees carries some assessing danger or nuisance. risks − but this fact alone should not make it impossible for people to keep bees in urban areas. The Director will need more guidelines to help him/her assess how severe the risk is to neighbours. KAB36− Pat Hoffman The current wording also seems to imply that if bees cause a The Bylaw addresses nuisance and public safety. If a KAB37 nuisance on one property, the Director can prohibit the beekeeper can prove that the keeping of bees is not likely to beekeeper from keeping bees on ANY property. More become dangerous, injurious to health or a nuisance to any appropriate to say: "No person shall continue to keep bees person on a particular property, there would be no grounds property, if the keeping of such bees ON THAT under the Bylaw worded to prevent bees being kept. on a ... as PROPERTY is likely to become dangerous, injurious to health or a nuisance to any person". KAB67− Bonnie Harper Provide in Clause 11.3 who you register your hives with. Staff believe this is more appropriate in an educational KAB75 pamphlet. For the submitters information, the current place to register hives is AsureQuality Ltd.

KAB76− Murray Christensen Opposes Clause 11.1 − How qualified is the Director of Director of Environmental and Planning Services would KAB77 Environmental and Planning Services to decide whether or decide based on the information provided. This would not a bee hive is or is likely to become dangerous, injurious include staff reports and could include expert advice if or a nuisance to any person, (given that bees are not only necessary. naturally occurring but play a very important roll in our food No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment chain). This not intended to be disrespectful, but bees are a very complex insect and here one person's opinion will decide. There is a group of qualified apiarists working on starting a club in Invercargill as of now and there are people available that are well qualified to offer input to the council. KAB76− Murray Christensen The plight of bees and the concerns about problems with The Bylaw is not intended to encourage or discourage bee KAB77 pollination have been in the news both in NZ and around the keeping. The Bylaw would not prohibit bees but is a tool to world in recent times. City councils the world over are avoid dangerous or health threatening practices. This bylaw changing their stance on bee keeping and bees are being will assist with providing guidelines and other agencies have kept right in the heart of some of the most populated cities in educational material that Council officers direct people to. the world. There is just very few bees around and now is your chance to do something to encourage bee keeping under a well structured set of guide lines. KAB1I0− May and Russell Agree quarter acre sections not ideal for bees. However we The Bylaw is intended to be complaints based, but Clause 6 KAB1 15 Evans do need bees to pollinate most plants and trees and it would has been included to give the option of dispensing with the be a shame if beekeepers on suitable properties at present Bylaw should compliance be deemed inappropriate in a were forced to give them up as the urban boundary is certain circumstance. extended. of C KAB140− Kim Reilly − Federated Concern with the subjective nature of the provision. Suggest Recommend the removal of all references to "the opinion KABI52 Farmers removing "in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and the Director of Environmental and Planning Services". This Planning Services" from Clause 11.1. would mean that an objective test was set in the bylaw. A delegation from Council would be needed that allows the Director of Environmental and Planning Services to determine if the activity has met the "nuisance test". the animal KAB140− Kim Reilly − Federated Supports Clause 11.3 but ensure a reasonable approach to Procedures will be put in place to ensure that KAB152 Farmers complaint management is adopted. owner is kept informed of proceedings and has the ability to address concerns and voice their opinion throughout the process.

KABI71− Alan Swallow Clause 11.2 − The number and location should be defined in The Director of Environmental and Planning Services would KAB184 relation to the area of the private land and distances from the do this after receiving expert advice. boundaries where the hives are to be sited.

subKAB171−KAB184− Alan Swallow Delete Clause 11.3 − As written a simple receipt of a Recommend that the word and' is added to the end of complaint alone could be interpreted as grounds to move or clause 11.3(a) to rectify this. remove hives. Evidence to satisfy the Council's Director that a genuine nuisance exists and or non−compliance with the conditions of the Bylaw has occurred before the hives are required to be moved. Overall, 8 people responded to these questions.

11. Beekeeping

3.5

In *1 2.5 .5 a Agree W cc N Disagree

0.5

0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Bylaw Clause CLAUSE 12— KEEPING OF LIVESTOCK

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB07− Cheryl Anderson Definitely agree with Clause 12.1 in a residential area. Submission acknowledged. KAB23 compliance with KABI40− Kim Reilly − Federated Concerns with the application of Clause 12.1 to farming land Clause 6 is available if it is determined that KAB152 Farmers within the rural area. Potential for issues of reverse− the bylaw would needlessly cause loss without sensitivity to occur. Consider that this should either be corresponding benefit to the community. If an activity is deleted or reduced in scope to the urban area. causing nuisance Council need the ability to address it, whether or not it would have caused or been considered a nuisance in the past. Clause 12.3 KAB140− Kim Reilly − Federated Concerns with the potential for Clause 12.3 to be taken as Council staff recommend amending as KABI52 Farmers requiring road gates to be locked. This would interfere with requested by the submitter. everyday farm management and also stock safety in emergencies. Suggest clause should read: "The fencing or tethering of animals must be adequate to prevent livestock from wandering and all road gates to paddocks must be able to be securely closed". KAB171− Alan Swallow Some definition of minimum land area per animal and Animal welfare is beyond the scope of this Bylaw. In KAB184 number of animals permitted should be specified in Clause circumstances where Council Officers are concerned about 12.1. the welfare of animals, they report it to the SPCA. Overall, 8 people responded to these questions.

C CLAUSE 13— SLAUGHTER OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB25− Fleur Rodway Opposes Clause 13.1 − provision is overly restrictive. It might The slaughtering of poultry / rabbits is not prohibited in the KAB29 be appropriate for a small animal (such as a chicken or Urban Area. The prohibition is on livestock as defined in rabbit) to be slaughtered in an urban environment for Clause 4. Any slaughter must comply with Clauses 13.2 to personal consumption or animal welfare reasons. 137. KAB38− Tim Riding Opposes Clause 13.1 as long as the remaining sections are Council staff contend that even with adequate screening KAB59 McQueens Valley fulfilled then this shouldn't be an issue. measures, it is still likely to be inappropriate to slaughter Trust livestock in the urban area.

KAB67− Bonnie Harper Opposes Clause 13.2 − Way society has put the slaughtering The purpose of the Bylaw is to prevent/ address nuisance or KAB75 of animals 'out of sight, out of mind' has led to unsustainable potentially offensive practices. The Bylaw does not address meat consumption. The more visible and unrestricted this sources of food. process is, the better society will be able to adapt to the need to change lifestyle choices.

KAB81− Cohn Robertson Opposes Clause 13.2 − Many life−style blocks are farmed The intention of the Bylaw is not to prevent the humane KAB86 and slaughtering and hanging of livestock is a recognised slaughtering of livestock, but to enable this practice to be farming activity. People who choose to live in a life−style undertaken in a way this is considerate of neighbouring block area should be aware that such normal farming properties who may find it offensive. C practices will be part of the daily activities in their neighbourhood.

KAB81− Cohn Robertson Opposes Clause 13.7 − Effective screening is not possible in The clause relates to the slaughtering of animals for KAB86 some situations. Neighbours have the option of not looking if consumption, when planning to slaughter an animal, property they are offended by what they see. owners will need to consider how they can best screen the process. Euthanising animals for welfare reasons would not be inconsistent with the clause even if it weren't screened. Recommend a definition of "slaughter" be added to the definitions section to clarify this.

KABI23− Katrina Robertson Clause 13.1 − What about existing use rights whereby urban The clause will not prevent property owners from being able KAB139 sprawl has moved in a previously rural area, someone who to slaughter their animals, but will ensure that the practice is has always slaughtered their livestock may no longer be able undertaken in a way that it will not cause offense to to do so even though they were there before the urban neighbouring properties. sprawl started? KAB123− Katrina Robertson Opposes Clause 13.2 and 13.3 as is not always possible. The clause relates to the slaughtering of animals for KAB139 consumption, when planning to slaughter an animal, property owners will need to consider how they can best screen the process. Euthanising animals for welfare reasons would not be inconsistent with the clause even if it weren't screened. Recommend a definition of "slaughter" be added to the definitions section to clarify this. KAB171− Alan Swallow Slaughter of poultry and rabbits should be permitted within The slaughtering of poultry I rabbits is not prohibited in the KAB184 the urban area but only in accordance with sections 13.2 − Urban Area. The prohibition is on livestock as defined in 13.7. Clause 4. Any slaughter must comply with Clauses 13.2 to 13.7.

Overall, 13 people responded to these questions.

13. Slaughter of Livestock and Poultry

3.5

c 2.5

C 0 CL 2 • Agree W • Disagree 15 w E 1 z

0.5

0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.413.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 Bylaw Clause CLAUSE 14— OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

No. Name Summary of Submission Staff Comment

KAB81− Cohn Robertson Are the fines in Clause 14 sufficient to cover the costs of The maximum fine is set by Central Government legislation. KAB86 Council enforcing bylaw compliance? $50 per day does not Council would need to go to Court to get any of the fine pay much labour. imposed.

KAB123− Katrina Robertson Supports Clause 14 − However, there will be some instances Council must follow due process. Council does not have the KAB139 where people will be unable to pay the fine and not be jurisdiction to impound cats. If a person does not comply the worried about it accumulating over time. In these instances I Council can apply to the District Court for an injunction. think alternative penalties need to be available as a back−up. For example in the case of issues with a large number of cats, the compliance officer needs to be able to resort to removing the cats from the owner's care if they do not comply or co−operate.

Overall, 4 people responded to this question.

14. Offences and Penalties

4.5

3.5

) 3

2.5 w ' 2 w E 1.5 z

0.5

0 Disagree Agree 0132 APPENDIX 4

Formatted: Font: l4pt PROPOSED INVERCARGILLCITY COUNCIL BYLAW 2013/2 − KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BE

Pursuant to the powers vested in it under Section 145 and Section 146 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the powers under Section 64 of the Health Act 1956, the Invercargill City Council makes this bylaw.

SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT

This bylaw is Invercargill City Council Bylaw 2013/2 − Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees. This bylaw comes into force on Date to be advised2 September 2013.

2. OBJECT OF BYLAW

The Invercargill City Council acknowledges that keeping a petanimals, poultry or bees has benefits for the wellbeing of the owner and members of the household. This bylaw regulates the keeping of animals (including pigs, poultry, bees, livestock and cats) within the district to ensure they do not create a nuisance or endanger health; and regulates the slaughtering of animals within view of people nearby− &anypeople can find this offencive.

3. EXCLUSIONS

This Bylaw does not apply to dogs. ??ci This Bylaw does not include Animal Welfare matters. Animal— −[Formatted: Indent: Left: welfare is dealt with by the Ministry of Primary Industries and the SPCA.

4. INTERPRETATION

In this Bylaw, unless the context requires otherwise −

Authorised Officer means a person appointed by Council to exercise the powers of an enforcement officer in relation to offences against, and infringement offences under, the Local Government Act 2002, including enforcement of the bylaws of Council.

0133 Council means the Invercargill City Council.

District means the area controlled by the Invercargill City Council.

Hive means a box or container for the keeping or housing of bees.

Kitten means any cat less than six months of age.

Livestock means farm and herd animals, including but not limited to, cattle, horses, goats, deer, donkey, alpaca, llama and sheep.

Nuisance shall have the meaning assigned to it by the Health Act 1956 and any amendments to it.

Offence means a breach of this bylaw.

Person includes a natural person, incorporated company and a body of persons whether incorporated or not.

Pigsty means a partly covered enclosure for the keeping of pigs in.

Poultry includes but is not limited to geese, ducks, pigeons, turkeys and domestic fowls of all descriptions.

Slaughter means the killing of animals for food and does not include euthanising animals for welfare purposes.

Urban Area is as defined in the operative Invercargill City District Plan and includes the urban areas of Invercargill and Bluff.

0134 5. APPLICATION OF THIS BYLAW Formatted: Font: 14

This Bylaw should be read in conjunction with the operative Invercargill City District Plan and any other relevant legislation or Invercargill City Bylaws.

Note: The Invercargill City Council recommends attention to both the Health Act 1956 and the Animal Welfare Act 1999 prior to keeping animals.

6. DISPENSING POWER

It shall be lawful for the Director of Environmental and Planning Services to dispense with any of the following requirements of this bylaw where, in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services, full compliance would needlessly cause harm, loss or inconvenience to any person or business without corresponding benefit to the community.

7 GENERAL PROVISIONS

7.1 No person shall keep, permit or suffer to be kept any animal, bird or bees, which opinion of the Director of oentaLand−anning−Servies−causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance by, including but not limited to, noise, odour, dust or through the attraction of flies or vermin.

7.2 No person shall keep, permit or suffer to be kept any animal, bird or bees, in a manner that in the opinion of the Director of nvironrnental and Planning Servicec is or is likely to become offensive to the occupier of an adjoining property,−of a threat to public healthor an endangerment to neighbouring animals.

8. KEEPING OF CATS AND KITTENS

8.1 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may impose a limit on the number of cats and kittens which may be kept on private land, such limit being no more than three, where:

0135 (a) the Council has received a complaint about the number of cats kept on the private land; and! or (b) the number of cats is creating a nuisance or is likely to create a nuisance; and (c) the person keeping those cats fails to comply with any reasonable request of an Authorised Officer to abate or prevent the nuisance.

8.2 The Invercargill City Council recommends the keeping of no more than three cats on any private property.

9 KEEPING OF PIGS

9.1 No person shall keep any pigs in such a manner, where in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services, it will or is likely to create a nuisance, or which is likely to be injurious to health or offensive.

9.2 No person shall erect, or cause to be erected any pigsty within the Urban Area.

9.3 No person shall construct or allow any pigsty to remain, or any pigs to be at large or range, at a distance less than 50 metres from any dwelling, or any wholly or partly occupied building, or any street or public place or any place used for the preparation, storage, or sale of food for human consumption, or from any boundary of any adjoining property. Alternative below

9.3 No person shall construct or allow any pigsty to remain, or any pigs to be at large or range, within 50 metres from any dwelling, or any wholly or partly occupied building, or any place used for the preparation, storage or sale of food for human consumption, or within 20 metres from any boundary of any adioining property.

9.4 All pigs must be controlled by way of fencing so as to contain the animal(s) from any roadway or other property. The fencing of animals must, in the opinion of an Authorised Officer, be adequate to prevent all pigs from wandering.

0.Lh 9.5 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may order the relocation or removal of pigs or a pigsty, where:

(a) the Council has received a complaint about the location of the pigs or pigsty; and (b) the Council's Director of Environmental and Planning Services is satisfied that the location or number of the pigs or location of the pigsty has resulted in a nuisance being caused on any neighbouring property.

10. KEEPING OF POULTRY

10.1 No person shall keep any rooster in an urban area. Alternative below.

10.1 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may order the removal of a rooster where: (a) the Council has received a comolaint about the rooster: and (b) the Director of Environmental and Planning Services {Formatted: Indent: Left: 2.54cm 1 satisfied that the keeping of the rooster on that property has resulted in a nuisance being caused on any neighbouring property.

10.2 No person shall keep any poultry on any private land in an urban area except in a properly constructed poultry house or secure enclosure.Further, no person shall keep any poultry on any land unless they have the means to contain them within that property.

10.3 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may impose a limit on the number of poultry which may be kept on private land, such limit being no more than twelve head of poultry, where:

(a) the Council has received a complaint about the number of poultry kept on the private land and−−. (b) the number of poultry is creating a nuisance or is likely to create a nuisance; and (c) the person keeping the poultry fails to comply with any reasonable request of an Authorised Officer to abate or prevent the nuisance.

013 10.4 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may order the relocation or removal of poultry or a poultry house, where:

(a) the Council has received a complaint about the location of the poultry or poultry houseTand; (b) the Council's Director of Environmental and Planning Services is satisfied that the location or number of the poultry or location of the poultry house has resulted in a nuisance being caused on any neighbouring property.

10.5 The Invercargill City Council recommends the keeping of no more than twelve head of poultry on any private property.

11. BEEKEEPING

11.1 No person shall keep Of continue to keep bees ifT in the opinion of the Director of Environmental and Planning Services, the keeping of such bees is, or is likely to become dangerous, injurious to health or a nuisance to any person.

11.2 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may prescribe conditions limiting the number of hives kept and prescribing the location of such hives on the private land.

11.3 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may order the relocation or removal of a hive or hives, where:

(a) the Council has received a complaint about the location of a hive or hives and; (b) the Council's Director of Environmental and Planning Services is satisfied that the location of the hive or hives has resulted in bees causing a nuisance on any property in the vicinity of the hives.

Please note − If you keep bees in New Zealand it is a legal requirement that you register your hive(s).

0138 12. KEEPING OF LIVESTOCK Formatted: Font: 14

12.1 The Director of Environmental and Planning Services may impose a limit on the number of livestock which may be kept on private land, where:

(a) the Council has received a complaint about the livestock being kept on the private landand;7 (b) the keeping of livestock is creating a nuisance or is likely to create a nuisance; and (c) the person keeping the livestock fails to comply with any reasonable request of an Authorised Officer to abate or prevent the nuisance.

12.2 All livestock must be controlled by way of fencing or tethering so as to contain the animal(s) from any roadway or other property.

12.3 The fencing or tethering of animals mustT n−the−opic4on−−of−−an Authorised Officer, be adequate to prevent all livestock from wandering and all road gates to paddocks must be able to be securely closed−−and [of400ked.

12.4 Clauses 12.2 and 12.3 do not apply to driving, leading or riding of any livestock.

13. SLAUGHTER OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY

13.1 No person shall slaughter or permit to be slaughtered any livestock within the Urban Area.

13.2 Subject to clauses 13.4 to 13.7 no person shall slaughter or permit to be slaughtered any livestock,−−of poultry or other animal, in such a manner as to be in view of any person nearby other than the contractor or owner or occupier on whose land the activity is carried out.

13.3 Subject to clauses 13.4 to 13.7 no person shall dispose of any waste associated with the slaughter of livestock—oi poultry or other animal in such a manner as to be in view of any person nearby.

0133 13.4 The slaughter of any livestock−e+ poultry or other animal and disposal of waste shall be carried out in such a manner so that no nuisance is created, and the procedure is not offensive to persons nearby.

13.5 No person shall fail to immediately remove any waste associated with the slaughter of livestock−or poultryor other animal.

13.6 No person shall dispose of the body, any part of the body, bodily fluids or effluent of any animal belonging to the person, or in that person's charge or keeping in a manner that will produce odour, cause a nuisance or a threat to public health.

13.7 If the slaughtering or processing of livestock (including skinning, gutting and cutting of a carcass) is likely to be in view of any person nearby, including from a residence:

(a) Adequate screening must be provided around the slaughtering or processing site: and (b) The screening must be of sufficient height and size to cut out the line of sight by any such persons so as to prevent the slaughtering or processing operation from being seen.

14. OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

0140 TO: REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013

LEVELS OF SERVICE REPORT —1 JULY 2012 TO 31 MAY 2013

Report Prepared by: Melissa Short − Corporate Planner

SUMMARY

Reporting on the Regulatory Services levels of service measures for the period comprisinç 1 July 2012 to 31 May 2013.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the report be received.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? The report monitors performance in relation to levels of service measures identified in the Long Term Plan and the Annual Plan. 2. Is a budget amendment required? No 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council's Policy on Significance? No 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? No 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? No

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No financial implications result from this report.

0141. ANIMAL CONTROL

1 July 2011 1 July 2012 to 31 May to 31 May 2012 2013 Dog Registrations Registered Dog Population 8,211 8,312 Dogs classified as aggressive (dangerous or menacing) 170 157 Ratio of dogs classified as aggressive to registered dogs 1:48 1:53 Pound Activity Dogs Impounded 428 488 Dogs Euthanised 179 120 Dogs Claimed 249 270 Dogs Held 98 Stock Impounded 5 cattle I 4 sheep /2 3pigsl pigs 2 sheep Requests for Service Complaints received and actioned for wandering dogs 1 089 1,125 (including stock) , Complaints received and actioned for barking dogs 541 666 Complaints received and actioned for aggressive dogs 177 196

0142 BUILDING CONSENTS

I July 2011 I July 2012 to 31 May to 31 May 2012 2013 Building Consent Applications Number of consents lodged 1,379 1,399 Number (percentage) of consents processed within statutory 9656% 97.28% timeframes (LTP measure) Number (percentage) of consents receiving requests for 5545% 45.03% further information (L TP measure)

Number of Building Consents Lodged

200 180 C 160 140 0 o 120 V 4P 100 a. .80 −J 60

L. 40 20

2011112 2012/13 Year

IJuly •Auqust oSeptember O0ctober DNovember ODecembe IJanuary O Feb ruary QMarch •ApriI OMay •June Graph of number of consents lodged.

Value of Building Consents Lodged

18,000.000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 40 8.000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 2011112 2012/13 Year

]July •Au9ust DSptember D0ctob& QNovmbc ODcQmbeI January •F€bruary DMarch QAprit UMay DJur Graph of value of consents lodged.

0143 COMPLIANCE

1 July 2011 1 July 2012 to 31 May to 31 May 2012 2013 Parking Infringements Issued Total infringements issued for pedestrian safety 1,149 819 Total infringements issued for vehicle safety 2,881 2,833 Total infringements issued for parking nuisance 18,882 17,512 Average hours patrolling week (LTP 80 hours) New per target = 101 Measure

Infringement Notices Issued 3000 (I) 4.. C 000 Cr

.EiSOOI.. 1000 so

2011112 2012113 Year

DJuIy •August OSeptember DOctober ONovember DDecernber •Jarivary D Feb ruary DMarch UApriI OMay UJune Graph of Infringement Notices Issues

Total Mobility

January February March April May 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Total Trip 3963 4099 4526 3862 4190 Numbers*

* This number is for Invercargill trips only. The Total Mobility Scheme is also administered by the Invercargill City Council on behalf of Gore and Southland.

0144 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION

1 July 2011 1 July 2012 to 31 May to 31 May 2012 2013 Inspections Number of premises holding a Liquor Licence and 145 125 percentage inspected (LTP measure) (39%) (78.9%) Number of high risk food premises and percentage New 174 inspected/ audited (LTP measure) measure (100%) Number of medium risk food premises and percentage New 68 inspected/ audited (L TP measure) measure (29.48) Number of low risk food premises and percentage inspected New 28 / audited (LTP measure) measure (28.6%) Number of premises with food safety plan. New 18 measure Excessive Noise Number of noise complaints received and percentage 2,847 1,677 responded to within one hour (95%) (96.01%)

Due to reassessing properties, Environmental Health have moved some categories and changed status on a number of premises. Environmental Health have just completed a review of all premises for 2013/14 inspections.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION

I July 2011 I July 2012 to 31 May to 31 May 2012 2013 Resource Consent Applications Number of consents lodged 169 180 Number of non notified consents and percentage processed 144/146 149/149 within statutory timeframes (LTP measure) (98.6%) (100%) Number of notified consents and percentage processed 6/6(100%) 9/9(100%) within statutory timeframes (LTP measure)

0 145 Map Illustrating Location of Processed Resource Consents

O14:; Map Illustrating Location of Processed Resource Consents

O14 VALUATION

QV no longer provide the map previously included in this section. The information below shows residential price movement and is provided on QV's website.

−− Average 12 month 3 month Since 2007 market Territorial Authority current value change% change% peak Change 1/6 Invercargill 208,188 2.0% 1.0% −7.2% Central Otago 298,162 1.8% 1.8% −6.1% Queenstown Lakes 633,197 4.5% 1.9% −11.4% Dunedin 284,346 4.2% 0.2% −0.8% Clutha 163,758 1.1% −0.4% −9.7% Southland 208,487 −2.2% 1.5% −10.4% Gore 183,355 0.7% −0.2% 3.7% ____••__•i−−−−−−−__−._. Auckland Area 640,106 12.7% 1 3.5% 17.0% Wellington Area 444,085 2.7% 0.8% −3.5%

Notes on the above data: 1. The information included in the above table is based on the monthly property value index. This index is calculated based on the sales data entered into PropertylQ's system in the previous 3 month period. For example, information for the period ending June will be calculated based on sales entered between April 1 and June 30.

2. The average current value is the average (mean) value of all developed residential properties in the area based on the latest index. It is not an average or median sales price, as both of those only measure what happens to have sold in the period.

3. The percentage change over three months, twelve months and since the 2007 market peak are based on the change in the property value index between that time and the current.

0148 TO: REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING AND SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013

DIRECTORATE FINANCIAL COMMENTS

Report Prepared by: Pamela M Gare − Director of Environmental and Planning Services

SUMMARY

The Directorate isoperating within budget.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Yes. 2. Is a budget amendment required? No. 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council's Policy on Significance? No. 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? Nil. 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? No.

DIRECTORATE OVERVIEW

Administration and Valuations:

The administration section is tracking within budget at this time.

Animal Control:

This area is currently tracking within budget but close monitoring is being undertaken. This is due to a loss in revenue and unexpected expenses particularly in legal fees and projects. Indications are that despite this we will remain within budget.

0149 Environmental Health:

Within budget.

Liquor Licensing:

Within budget.

Compliance:

Within budget but current vacancies are having an impact on revenue. Vacancies are expected to be filled within the next month.

Report prepared by: John Youngson Manager − Environmental Compliance

Building:

The building section is still within budget although both income and expenditure are down on budget.

Report of the unbudgeted item. The ICC has paid the Waitaki District Council the sum of $5,717.80 for its contribution for the Earthquake Buildings Study.

This study formed part of the submission to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment on earthquake buildings.

Council have not received any further information from MBIE regarding the future direction of earthquake buildings.

Report prepared by: Simon Tonkin Manager − Building Regulation Services

Resource Management:

The Resource Management activity is operating within budget.

Valuations

The Valuation activity is operating within budget.

Report prepared by: Terence Boylan Manager − Planning

**********

0150 Directorate Administration Operational Statement Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 Month Actual Budget Variance Budget

Operational Income

Administration 595,731 CR 582,435 CR 13,296 CR 776,576 CR Valuations 24,240 CR 24,750 CR 510 33,000 CR

Total Income 619,971 CR 607,185 CR 12,786CR 809,576 CR

Operational Expenditure

Administration 584,679 589,228 4,549 CR 791,425 Valuations 228,772 238,096 9,324 CR 316,551

Total Expenditure 813,451 827,324 13,873 CR 1,107,976

Net Operational 193,479 220,139 26,660 CR 298,400

Appropriation Account

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 Month Actual Budget Variance Budget

Capital Expenditure

Capital Expenditure 31,476 47,500 16,024 CR 229,493

Total Capital Expenditure 31,476 47,500 16,024CR 229,493

Capital Movements

Administration 0 0 0 244,342 CR Valuations 0 0 0 5,000CR

Total Capital Funds 0 0 0 249,342CR

Rates Required 224,955 267,639 42,684 CR 278,551

0151 Building Consents Operational Statement

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date l2mth Actual Budget Variance Budget

Operational Income

Building Inspectors 1,349,039 CR 1,500,822 CR 151,783 2,001,100 CR

Total Income 1,349,039 CR 1,500,822 CR 151,783 2,001,100 CR

Operational Expenditure

Building Inspectors 1,642,564 1,852,020 209,456 CR 2,529,101

Total Expenditure 1,642,564 1,852,020 209,456 CR 2,529,101

Net Operational 293,525 351,198 57,673 CR 528,001

Appropriation Account

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 mth Actual Budget Variance Budget

Capital Expenditure

Building Inspectors 25,899 36,000 10,101 CR 66,000

Total Capital Expenditure 25,899 36,000 10,101 CR 66,000

Capital Movements

Building Inspectors 0 0 0 66,000 CR

Total Capital Funds 0 0 0 66,000CR

Rates Required 319,424 387,198 67,774 CR 528,001

f4r U.LtJ i Liquor Licensing Operational Statement

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 Month Actual Budget Variance Budget

Operational Income

Liquor Licensing 69,722 CR 64,500 CR 5,222 CR 75,000 CR

Total Income 69,722 CR 64,500 CR 5,222 CR 75,000 CR

Operational Expenditure

Liquor Licensing 113,175 116,574 3,399CR 158,120

Total Expenditure 113,175 116,574 3,399CR 158,120

Net Operational 43,453 52,074 8,622 CR 83,120

Appropriation Account

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 mt/i Actual Budget Variance Budget

Net Operational b/fwd 43,453 52,074 8,622 CR 83,120

Capital Expenditure

Liquor Licensing 0 0 0 0

Total Capital 0 0 0 0

Capital Movements

Liquor Licensing 0 0 0 0

Total Capital Funds 0 0 0 0

Rates Required 43,454 52,074 8,621 CR 83,120

0153 Animal Control Operational Statement

Nine months to 31 March 2013 Year to Date 12 Month Actual Budget Variance Budget

Operational income

Animal Control 409,592 CR 457,125 CR 47,533 487,500 CR

Total Income 409,592 CR 457,125 CR 47,533 487,500 CR

Operational Expenditure

Animal Control 395,807 455,959 60,152 CR 614,986

Total Expenditure 395,807 455,959 60,152CR 614,986

Net Operational 13,785 CR 1,166 CR 12,619 CR 127,486

Appropriation Account

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 mth Actual Budget Variance Budget

Net Operational b/fwd 13,785CR 1,166CR 12,619CR 127,486

Capital Expenditure

Animal Control 46,857 0 46,857 0

Total Capital 46,857 0 46,857 0

Capital Movements

Animal Control 0 0 0 7,727

Total Capital Funds 0 0 0 7,727

Rates Required 33,073 1,166 CR 34,238 135,213

0154 Environmental Health Section Operational Statement

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 Month Actual Budget Variance Budget

Operational Income

Environmental Health 90,465 CR 91,000 CR 535 100,000 CR

Total Income 90,465 CR 91,000 CR 535 100,000 CR

Operational Expenditure

Environmental Health 535,008 592,204 57,196CR 838,314

Total Expenditure 535,008 592,204 57,196CR 838,314

Net Operational 444,543 501,204 56,661 CR 738,314

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 mth Actual Budget Variance Budget

Net Operational b/fwd 444,543 501,204 56,661 CR 738,314

Capital Expenditure

Environmental Health 28,241 45,000 16,759 CR 45,000

Total Capital 28,241 45,000 16,759CR 45,000

Capital Movements

Environmental Health 0 0 0 110,000CR

Total Capital Funds 0 0 0 110,000CR

Rates Required 472,784 546,204 73,420 CR 673,314

0155 Compliance Operational Statement

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 Month Actual Budget Variance Budget

Operational Income

Compliance 693,778 CR 635,256 CR 58,522 CR 847,000 CR

Total Income 693,778 CR 635,256 CR 58,522 CR 847,000 CR

Operational Expenditure

Compliance 503,364 562,453 59,089 CR 763,166

Total Expenditure 503,364 562,453 59,089 CR 763,166

Net Operational 190,414 CR 72,803 CR 117,611 CR 83,834 CR

Appropriation Account

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 mth Actual Budget Variance Budget

Net Operational b/fwd 190,414CR 72,803CR 117,611CR 83,834 CR

Capital Expenditure

Compliance 11,222 14,000 2,778 CR 18,000

Total Capital 11,222 14,000 2,778CR 18,000

Capital Movements

Compliance 0 0 0 18,000CR

Total Capital Funds 0 0 0 18,000CR

Rates Required 179,192 CR 58,803 CR 120,389 CR 83,834 CR

O15 Resource Management Operational Statement

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 Month Actual Budget Variance Budget

Operational Income

Income 141,149 CR 150,372 CR 9,223 200,500 CR

Total Income 141,149 CR 150,372CR 9,223 200,500 CR

Operational Expenditure

Expenditure 951,084 980,135 29,051 CR 1,362,673

Total Expenditure 951,084 980,135 29,051 CR 1,362,673

Net Operational 809,935 829,763 19,828 CR 1,162,173

Appropriation Account

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Year to Date 12 Month Actual Budget Variance Budget

Capital Expenditure

Capital Expenditure 2,534 2,000 534 2,000

Total Capital Expenditure 2,534 2,000 534 2,000

Capital Movements

Capital Movements 0 0 0 56,000CR 0 Total Capital Funds 0 0 0 56,000CR

Rates Required 812,469 831,763 19,294 CR 1,108,173

0157 Regulutory Services Committee Financial Summary

Nine months to 31 March 2013

Operational Statement

Year to Date 12 Month Actual Budget Variance Budget

Administration 193,479 220,139 26,660 CR 298,400 Building and Resources 293,525 351,198 57,673 CR 528,001 Environmental Health 444,543 501,204 56,661 CR 738,314 Animal Control 13,785 CR 1,166 CR 12,619 CR 127,486 Liquor Licensing 43,453 52,074 8,622 CR 83,120 Compliance 190,414 CR 72,803 CR 117,611 CR 83,834 CR Resource Management 809,935 829,763 19,828 CR 1,162,173

Total Operational 1,580,736 1,880,409 299,674 CR 2,853,660

Nine months to 31 March 2013 Appropriation Account

Administration 224,955 267,639 42,684 CR 278,551 Building and Resources 319,424 387,198 67,774 CR 528,001 Environmental Health 472,784 546,204 73,420 CR 673,314 Animal Control 33,073 1,166 CR 34,238 135,213 Liquor Licensing 43,454 52,074 8,621 CR 83,120 Compliance 179,192 CR 58,803 CR 120,389 CR 83,834 CR Resource Management 812,469 831,763 19,294 CR 1,108,173

Rates Required 1,726,967 2,024,909 297,944 CR 2,722,538

0158 TO: REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013

DISTRICT LICENCING COMMITTEE UNDER THE SALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL ACT 2012

Report Prepared by: Melissa Short − Corporate Planner John Youngson − Environmental and Compliance Manager

SUMMARY

This report gives an update on the implementation of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and seeks endorsement for a suggested regional District Licensing Committee model in conjunction with the Southland District Council and Gore District Council.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the suggested Regional District Licencing Committee model is supported, conditional on the Southland District and Gore District Councils resolving similarly.

AND

That a decision is made on whether to produce a shortlist of District Licencing Committee Members for consideration by the post−October election Council.

AND, if a shortlist is to be prepared,

That a decision is made on whether the shortlist should consist of only Elected Representatives or also include members of the public.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? Yes 2. Is a budget amendment required? No 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council's Policy on Significance? No 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? The District Licencing Committee will be a new committee of Council and will need to be included in the Governance Statement following its implementation. 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? No public consultation is required as this is an operational matter.

0159 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No financial implications arise from this report.

BACKGROUND

Staff along with staff from Southland District Council and Gore District Council are working very closely in the implementation of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. Workgroups have been established as follows:

( District Licensing Local Alcohol Policy Committees Chair: Chair: John Youngson, ICC Michael Sarfaiti, SDC Environmental Health Environmental Health Manager Manager

Administration Licensing Inspectors Processes Chair: Chair: Sarah Wilson, SDC Lyndsay Philp, ICC Licensing Inspector Quality Officer

Southland District Council and Gore District Council staff advise that it is likely that their Councils will resolve to have a joint Local Alcohol Policy. Mr Bill Watt has been appointed to assist in the development of the joint Local Alcohol Policy, It is anticipated that reports regarding the Local Alcohol Policy will be presented to the three Councils soon.

DISTRICT LICENCING COMMITTEES

A Ministry of Justice factsheet on District Licencing Committees (DLC) is included in Appendix 1. From 18 December 2013, the new Invercargill DLC will determine most liquor applications in the District. Presently this function is delegated to the Director of Environmental and Planning Services.

The post October Council will make appointments to the DLC.

Chairperson Whether the DLC has a Chairperson or Commissioner depends on whether the Mayor or a Councillor wishes to have the role following the 2013 Local Body Elections. If no elected member expresses interest in the role, then a Commissioner will be needed.

A former Councillor may be appointed as a Commissioner by the Chief Executive upon the recommendation of the Council following the elections.

0160 The Chairperson is the quorum for unopposed applications and will determine these applications on his I her own.

Deputy Chairperson This is a discretionary position, where Council "may appoint a member of that territorial authority to be Deputy Chairperson, and act in place of the Chairperson if the Chairperson is unable to act because of illness or absence from New Zealand, or for other sufficient reason" (s.189(3) of the Act).

In the event that the Chair and Deputy were both absent, Council could approve various members from the list as commissioners, who the Chief Executive could appoint as Commissioner on an "as needed" basis.

List The people appointed as list members to the DLC are those who are called upon to determine opposed applications. Two list members and the Chairperson of the DLC make a quorum when an application has been opposed.

List members may be sought from the community, or Councillors may be appointed to the list. Whether each DLC has a preference for Invercargill City Council members to sit on the Invercargill DLC and use other list members as backup, or encourage a mixed membership, is something that will need to be decided in conjunction with Southland District Council and Gore District Council at a later time.

A former Councillor may also be included on this combined list.

As outlined above, the quorum for opposed applications is three. However, most applications are unopposed and therefore the majority of DLC meetings will have a quorum of one, who must be the chair; and members of the combined list will not be needed. As the combined list will not need to be drawn from regularly, it should not be a large list of members.

Restrictions on who may be appointed A person must not be appointed as a Commissioner, or included on the list, if − (a) the territorial authority believes that person has, directly or by virtue of his or her relationship with another person, such an involvement or appearance of involvement with the alcohol industry that he or she could not perform his or her duties without actual bias or the appearance of bias; or (b) the person is a constable, a Medical Officer of Health, an inspector, or an employee of the territorial authority.

The Chief Executive may only appoint a person as a Commissioner if that person is of good standing in the community and has the necessary knowledge, skill, and experience relating to matters that are likely to come before the committee.

A territorial authority must not approve a person to be included on the list unless that person has experience relevant to alcohol licensing matters.

0161 SUGGESTED REGIONAL DISTRICT LICENCING COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

The following diagram suggests a model of the DLC structure in the region.

Southland DLC Invercargill DLC Gore DLC

rhree members hree members Three members Chair/Commissioner Chair/Commissioner Chair/Commissioner + + + Two from the combined list Two from the combined list Two from the combined list iL Combined Listt(at least 6 members) Made up of at least two members from each Council. Members may be Councillors, and/or from the community.

This model is recommended, as it is consistent with both Invercargill City Council and Southland District Council's earlier resolutions stating a preference for a shared list, and provides a clear direction for the three Councils for transitional planning purposes. Southland District Council and Gore District Council are also being presented with reports recommending the endorsement of this model at their next Council meetings.

Under the Act, the DLC may be composed entirely of Councillors, and this would be consistent with the other Committees of Council. Councillors are well suited to DLC membership as they are elected representatives of the community and have experience with quasi−judicial decision making at Council. Councillors thus have "experience relevant to alcohol licensing matters" which is a prerequisite to appointment on the list (it does not say "experience in alcohol licensing matters").

Appointing members of the public with the necessary prerequisite skills who do not have an actual or potential appearance of bias is the other alternative available to fill the two positions on the list. postCouncil−October may elect to produce a shortlist of potential members of the DLC for the Council to consider. The Southland District Council staff report has outlined that, following discussions with their legal advisors, the production of a shortlist is not recommended. The reason for this recommendation is that there is no benefit in the preparation of a shortlist prior to the election, due to significant uncertainties of whether postCouncillors−election interested in DLC membership will return to Council, the views of the Council; and whether new post−October Councillors wish to be members of the DLC.

It would assist staff to have an indication from Councillors whether there is likely to be sufficient interest from Elected Members to fill the positions on the DLC. If there is not likely to be sufficient interest staff would be able to commence preparation for the process of appointment of members of the public.

01G2 TO: REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013

ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL

Report Prepared by: Terence Boylan, Manager − Planning

SUMMARY

The New Zealand Transport Agency has lodged an appeal to grant consent to the subdivision and land use consents to KG Richardson and Sons Ltd at Lorneville. In particular the appeal relates to the non inclusion of a condition regarding the access to Lot 2 if in the future it is utilised for commercial/industrial activities.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? N/A. 2. Is a budget amendment required? N/A. 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council's Policy on Significance? N/A. 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? N/A 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? N/A.

0163 The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) appeal specifically relates to the non−inclusion of a condition that would require any commercial I industrial development on Lot 2 to access the site via right of way A. The decision of the Hearings Panel included this requirement as an advice note. NZTA considers that it should have been included as a condition at the time of subdivision. This would ensure that any future development on Lot 2 would have to utilise the right of way and close the existing crossing. This appeal should be able to be settled through the mediation process. The development plan and notice of appeal are attached as Appendix 1.

**********

0164 APPENDIX 1

CU I• DCUI—I—! ° co − o −(3 C., Z5ZF—LO(DD.−−WCDN CO — .— Lei I−flu NIFWO1 cl ® ®®coco9Ol. 77 J 1WO°'OWcn−O)— cw_1h > _ fl id ffl H cu U−− − ilHJ 0 − − —1rrW 3 LLJLO) H co Ln −−−7

[9HS)A\1AAH9IH 31ThANIDINDINIAA.

(3 U− —−___I

0 k\\ CUE L 000 CII −m —J co

o 1;

0 CO b = −r−U−U

o I:LLJOJ EC

L0cU 76

0 IIwQW>— U−(0

a, I −C v −(3

P−F−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−z< / In the Environment Court at ChristchurchENV−2013−CHC−under:

the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

in the matter of: an appeal pursuant to section 120 of the RMA

between: NZ Transport Agency Appellant

and: Invercargill City Council Respondent

and: KG Richardson and Sons Limited Applicant

Notice to Environment Court of Appeal on decision on applications concerning resource consent

Dated: 18 June 2013

CkapanTrLpp 1 10 Customhouse QuayIwwxhapmantrlpp.com CHAPMANo 64 4499 5999 P0 Box 993. Wellington 6140 Aucklant Wellington. TRIPP F.644472 7111 1 NswZeatand 01 Christchurch Form 16

NOTICE TO ENVIRONMENT COURT OF APPEAL ON DECISION ON APPLICATIONS CONCERNING RESOURCE CONSENT

Section 121 Resource Management Act 1991

To The Registrar Environment Court Christchurch

1 NZ Transport Agency (the NZTA) appeals against a decision on the following matter:

1.1 Applications for subdivision and land use resource consents by KG Richardson and Sons Limited (KGR), relating to land at the northwestern corner of the State Highway 6 (SH6) and State Highway 99 (SH99) intersection, north of Invercargill (the Applications).

2 The NZTA made a submission on the Applications.

3 The NZTA received notice of the decision on 30 May 2013.

4 The decision was made by the Invercargill City Council (the Council).

5 The NZTA is not a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308D of the Resource Management Act 1991.

6 The decision that the NZTA is appealing is the Council's decision to grant the Applications subject to conditions. The NZTA is appealing the following aspects of the decision:

6.1 The decision not to impose a condition on the subdivision consent, requiring that Easement A serve as a Right of Way over Lot 1 in favour of Lot 2.

6.2 The decision not to impose a condition on the subdivision or land use consents, which ensures a 5H6 access is constructed and access to Lots 1 and 2 is obtained from the Easement A area (with the existing residential access to Lot 2 closed), prior to Lots 1. and 2 being further developed.

6.3 The decision not to impose a condition on the subdivision or land use consents requiring all industrial and commercial activities within Lots 1 and 2 to enter and exit the State highways via Easement A.

7 The land and resource affected are:

100063996/1751573.1 018? 7.1 The land affected is Part Lot 1 OP 4549, Lot 1 DP 4697, Part Lots 5 & 6 DE 43, Lot 5 DP 5466, Lot 4 OP 5466, Part Lot 2 2301, Lot 2 DP 4549, Part Lot 4 DE 43, Lot 1 DP 11070, Lots 2 & 3 DP 5466, and Part Sec 47 BIk IX Invercargill Hundred.

7.2 The resource affected is the State highway network which is a physical resource of national importance. The site is located on the northwestern corner of the SH99/SH6 intersection and is bounded by SH99 to the south, and SH6 to the east.

Reasons for the appeal 8 NZTA considers that, in respect of the conditions identified and described in more detail below, the Council's decision:

8.1 Is Inappropriate;

8.2 Will have adverse effects on the environment, namely the safe and efficient functioning of the State highway network, and does not appropriately avoid, remedy or mitigate those effects;

8.3 Will not promote the sustainable management, or the efficient use and development, of natural and physical resources;

8.4 Is contrary to good resource management practice; and

8.5 Is otherwise inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), including the purpose and principles of the RMA under Part 2.

9 In particular, but without limiting the generality of the above:

Right of way 9.1 The lack of a condition securing access over Lot 1 in favour of Lot 2 by way of consent notice is contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the Invercargill City District Plan, including:

3.10.2 Transportation Policies Policy (A) Effects on Transportation Networks − To provide for the safe and efficient operation of transportation networks by controlling the effects of other land uses on the transportation network, including glare and electrical interference.

Policy (F) Effects on Roading − To manage the adverse effects ofland use activities on the roading network by considering, in relation to applications for resource consent:

0168 100063996/1751573.1 (4) The location and structure of site accesses and egresses.

3.12.1 Subdivision of Land Objective 2 − To enable the subdivision of land to occur, while at the same time ensuring that any adverse effects of subdivision and associated development are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

9.2 It is appropriate that such access conditions are determined at the time of subdivision, as appropriate access could be impossible to achieve in the future, particularly if Lots 1 and 2 are in different ownership.

9.3 Securing access to the State highway network for activities on Lot 2 at the time of subdivision, via properly formed intersections rather than existing driveways, will better achieve the purpose of the RMA by enabling provision for the health and safety of people and communities, and sustainable management of the State highway resource.

SH6 and internal access 9.4 By not requiring industrial and commercial activity access to Lot 2 to be via Easement A, the decision is contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the Invercargill City District Plan, Including those listed above.

9.5 The conditions sought by the NZTA will ensure adverse traffic effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The decision relies on the evidence of the NZTA to support findings on traffic effects, but fails to impose conditions which the NZTA considers are necessary to ensure effects will be acceptable.

Relief sought 10 The NZTA seeks the following relief:

10.1 That the consent conditions be amended as follows:

(a) That a condition be imposed on the subdivision consent requiring that Easement A serve as a Right of Way over Lot 1 in favour of Lot 2.

(b) That a condition be imposed on the subdivision or land use consents requiring a new SH6 access be constructed and that access to Lot 2 is obtained via Easement A (with the existing residential access to Lot 2 closed) prior to Lots 1 and 2 being further developed:

10.2 That subdivision condition (8) be amended to read:

That all traffic entering and exiting Lot 1 shall be via State Highway 99 Eascmcnt A relating to the

100063996/1751573.1 commercial/industrial activities within Lots 1 and 2 will enter and exit the State highway via Easement A. This shall be registered against the certificate oftitle.

10.3 Such further or other relief which addresses the NZTA's concerns;

10.4 That consent be dedined unless such conditions are imposed; and

10.5 Costs.

Appendices 11 The following documents are attached to this notice*:

11.1 a copy of the NZTA's submission;

11.2 a copy of the decision; and

11.3 a list of names and addresses of persons to be served with a copy of this notice.

Signed for and on behalf of NZ Transport Agency by its solicitors and authorised agents Chapman Tripp

John Hassan Partner 18 June 2013

Address for service of person:

NZ Transport Agency c/− Nicky Mclndoe Chapman Tripp Level 14 10 Customhouse Quay Wellington Email address: [email protected]

0170

100063996/1751573.1 TO: REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013

DELEGATION FOR ENVIRONMENT COURT MEDIATION

Report Prepared by: Terence Boylan, Manager − Planning

SUMMARY

A delegation is requested to allow the Director of Environmental and Planning Services in consultation with the Chair or Deputy Chair of the Hearings Panel to sign off mediated agreements to Environment Court Appeals.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that:

The Director of Environmental and Planning Services in consultation with either the Chair or Deputy Chair of the Hearings Panel is given the delegation on behalf of Council to sign off mediated agreements to Environment Court Appeals.

IMPLICATIONS

0171 TO: REGULATORY SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM: THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES

MEETING DATE: TUESDAY 2 JULY 2013

CHRISTCHURCH ASSISTANCE

Report Prepared by: S J Tonkin − Manager Building Regulation Services

SUMMARY

The Invercargill City Council is providing assistance to the Christchurch City Council with respect to processing of building consents.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Has this been provided for in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan? N/A. 2. Is a budget amendment required? N/A. 3. Is this matter significant in terms of Council's Policy on Significance? N/A. 4. Implications in terms of other Council Strategic Documents or Council Policy? N/A. 5. Have the views of affected or interested persons been obtained and is any further public consultation required? N/A.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

0173 CHRISTCHURCH ASSISTANCE

Through the media the Invercargill City Council became aware that the Christchurch City Council's building consent authority (BCA) was having issues maintaining their accreditation as a BCA.

An offer was made to Christchurch to assist where possible. Christchurch requested that the Invercargill City Council process some of the backlog of building consents.

To date 31 dwelling building consents have been forwarded to the Invercargill City Council to process.

To ensure that the Invercargill City Council continues to provide services to the Invercargill City Council customers, the Christchurch consents have been processed after hours − nights and weekends. In addition an ex−inspector has been employed to assist. This is on a week by week basis.

The Invercargill City Council building staff have responded extremely well to assist Christchurch's backlog of building consents.

The benefits to the Invercargill City Council include seeing how other councils deal with consents in terms of processing checklists and how an electronic system may work.

Note the Government has signalled that all BCAs will have to go to an electronic system in the future.

The Invercargill City Council has emailed IANZ to check that the Invercargill City Council offer will not cause any issues with assisting Christchurch − their answer was no issues.

Also the Invercargill City Council's insurance company has been notified that the Invercargill City Council is undertaking work for Christchurch − again no issues.

The process is that the Invercargill City Council will process the building consents to a point where the Invercargill City Council can recommend to Christchurch to issue the building consent.

Christchurch makes the final decision as to whether the consent can be issued.

**********

0174