Agenda of Hearings Subcommittee

6 15 November 2018

Hearings Subcommittee

08 November 2018

File: (18/1774)

Report no: HSC2018/5/143

Control of Animals Bylaw: Hearing

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the relevant information to assist the Subcommittee with the hearing of submissions.

Recommendation

That the report be received.

Background

2. Attached is the following information:

a. A complete set of the consultation documents: The Summary of Proposal, Statement of Proposal and Draft Control of Animals Bylaw.

b. Three submissions have been received and are attached to this memorandum.

3. Tom Kay (Forest and Bird) wishes to speak to his submission. Britta Fromow and Glen Inwood do not want to speak to their submissions.

4. Attachments 8, 9 and 10 provides data from Council records on bee complaints, cat complaints and the original stats used when developing the draft bylaw. Staff have the following comments to add.

Bee hive complaints.

5. There appears to be an increasing number this year compared to previous years. As noted a commercial beekeeper, Sam Pegg is associated with three of the sites, two of which were on Council Reserve land. He may send his comments for consideration as he is not entirely sympathetic towards people who complain about bees causing a nuisance.

6. Officers advise that the proposed clause 6 of the bylaw concerning bees is expected to provide them with the necessary power to manage those situations.

Cat Complaints

7. There are relatively few complaints about numbers of cats on private property. The complaints about feral or stray cats are mainly about wanting a cage to trap a cat or wanting Animal Services to arrange to take away a wild cat captured. There are only a few complaints about wild colonies of cats.

8. Staff have contacted Greater Wellington Regional Council and they have advised they do not monitor feral or domestic cats.

9. Based on the evidence outlined in this memorandum Council does not have enough evidence of a ‘perceived problem’ to support a bylaw to control cats. However the submission from Tom Kay (Forest and Bird) will be presenting reasons why Council should include a section in the bylaw to control cats.

10. It should be noted that the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the Act), prescribes that one has to become an inspector or auxiliary officer to undertake the functions of an approved organisation as defined in the Act. To undertake those functions the criteria requires that the organisation has to undertake a full range of welfare activities. Hutt City Council does not have the ability to undertake the functions required to be approved or have a welfare plan, in respect to cats.

11. There has been a recent ruling by the Crown that Councils could face a conflict of interest if they were to have the functions of an approved organisation and Auckland Council’s recent application to become an approved organisation with regard to cats, under the Act was declined.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Summary of Proposal – Control of Animals Bylaw June 2018	8
2 ⇩	Statement of Proposal: Control of Animal Bylaw June 2018.	9
3 ⇩	Draft Control of Animals Bylaw 2018	16
4 ⇩	SCA18/1 - Submission to The Control of Animal Bylaw - Tom Kay on Behalf of Forest and Bird	22
5 ⇩	SCA18/2 - Submission to The Control of Animal Bylaw - Britta Fromow	29
6 ⇩	SCA18/2 - further submission from Britta Fromow	33
7 ⇩	SCA18/3 - Submission to The Representation Review - Glenn Inwood - Late	35
8 ⇩	Bee Hive Complaints as at 29 October 2018	39
9 ⇩	Control of Animals Stats as at 29 October 2018	41
10 ⇩	Cat complaints as at 29 October 2018	42

Author: Graham Sewell

Principal Policy Advisor

Reviewed By: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 2

Statement of Proposal: Control of Animal Bylaw June 2018.

STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL

TO MAKE THE

HUTT CITY COUNCIL BYLAW 2018

Control of Animals

AND REVOKE THE

HUTT CITY COUNCIL BYLAW 2008

Control of Animals

July 2018

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.. 3

2. background.. 3

2.1 The perceived problem... 3

2.2 Most appropriate way to address perceived problem... 4

2.3 Most appropriate form of bylaw... 5

2.4 Implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”) 5

3. the proposed bylaw... 5

3.1 Additions, modifications and deletions made in respect of existing bylaw... 6

3.2 Explanation of the proposed Bylaw content 6

Proposed clause 1 - Interpretation. 6

Proposed clause 2 – General conditions of keeping animals. 6

Proposed clause 3 – Keeping of Goats. 6

Proposed clause 4 – Keeping of poultry. 6

Proposed clause 5 – Noise from animals. 6

Proposed clause 6 – Health and safety issues from beekeeping. 6

Proposed clause 7 – Trapping devices. 7

4. process for the development of the proposed bylaw... 7

1. INTRODUCTION

Hutt City Council proposes to replace the existing Hutt City Council Bylaw 2008 Control of Animals (“the Bylaw 2008“) with a new bylaw relating to the control of animals (“the proposed Bylaw”).

This Statement of Proposal has been prepared in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”). It includes information about the review process and whether it is appropriate for the Council to have a bylaw relating to the control of animals.

2. background

The Council is required to review the 2008 bylaw before 1 July 2018, as required by section 159 of the LGA. Under sections 159 and 155, the review of a bylaw must take the form of reconsideration of the matters that the Council is normally required to consider before making a bylaw.

The Council must therefore determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. If so, the Council must determine whether the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw, and whether the proposed Bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”). No bylaw can be inconsistent with the NZBORA. In reviewing a bylaw, the Council must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83.

Under section 145, the Council may make bylaws for its district with the purposes of:

protecting the public from nuisance;

protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety;

minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

The Council can also make bylaws for specific purposes as listed in section 146, for example, for the purpose of regulating the keeping of animals, bees and poultry (section 146(a)(v)).

The 2008 Bylaw can be viewed by visiting the Council’s website:

www.huttcity.govt.nz

2.1 The perceived problem

A wide range of animals are kept within the district without causing any problems. Occasionally, however, the keeping of animals may create a nuisance or endanger health which then needs to be addressed by the Council. These activities may cause:

· health or safety hazards - for example, failure to maintain appropriate hygiene or environmental standards e.g. not keeping animals properly fed, watered and housed or their living area clean ;

· damage to property or the environment - for example, when an animal is not kept under proper control damage can be caused to people and property; or

· disruptive behaviour - for example, when an animal creates a noise nuisance that impacts on adjoining neighbours.

The perceived problem means that a bylaw about the control of animals is consistent with the provisions in the LGA relating to the Council’s bylaw-making powers. The Council considers that it is still necessary to have a bylaw relating to animal control for the purposes of:

· protecting the public from nuisance (section 145(a));

· protecting, promoting and maintaining public health and safety (section 145(b));

· minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places (section 145(c));

· regulating the keeping of animals, bees and poultry(section 146(a)(v)).

The proposed Bylaw therefore seeks to regulate a wide range of activities to do with animal control within Hutt City so as to maintain standards for public health and safety and protect the public from nuisance.

Hutt City Council has a commitment to achieving city-wide outcomes identified by the community. Community Outcomes (set out at page 7 of the Hutt City Council’s Long Term Council Community Plan 2015 – 2025) states that the city’s goal is to provide a city that is safe. In order to achieve this goal, the Council considers it necessary to have in place measures to regulate the control of animals.

The Council therefore proposes to make the proposed Bylaw to regulate the control of animals within the city. The proposed Bylaw is generally intended to ensure adequate controls and monitoring are retained to meet public expectations of the Council’s maintenance of safe and enjoyable places within Lower Hutt.

2.2 Most appropriate way to address perceived problem

Consideration has been given to a range of options for addressing the problems identified above.

Non-regulatory options

A wide range of animals are kept without causing concern, and most people voluntarily comply with the Council’s policies and practices. Education is used to inform members of the public about policies and practices, which encourages voluntary compliance. For example Council staff, if asked, provide general advice to members of the public with respect to proper animal care and control.

However, there are some instances where voluntary compliance and education cannot be relied on to address the perceived problem. Educative measures may not reach everyone, nor may they provide an effective deterrent to everyone. In these circumstances, the activities have an effect on the general public, property, and the environment which means it is necessary for the Council to have a greater ability to enforce its policies and practices.

Hutt City District Plan

The proposed Bylaw is consistent with, and complimentary to, the provisions of the Hutt City District Plan. The proposed Bylaw provides a mechanism that allows the Council to:

· address matters relating to, but not explicitly provided for, in the Hutt City District Plan; and

· adopt an alternative and more practicable enforcement option than provided for under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Other regulatory options

In reviewing the Bylaw 2008, the Council concluded that most of the provisions of that Bylaw are still relevant and necessary to address the perceived problems as noted above. However it was felt that roosters and goats should be banned from urban areas of the city unless written permission has been granted by Council.

Summary

Although other regulatory and non-regulatory measures may assist in managing the perceived problem, the Council does not consider that these other measures are able to address the perceived problem to the extent necessary. In addition, other measures may not be appropriate in every instance.

The Council considers that the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem. The Council also considers that the proposed Bylaw will contribute to achieving the community outcomes identified in the Council’s Long Term Plan.

2.3 Most appropriate form of bylaw

The proposed Bylaw addresses the perceived problem by preventing nuisance and number of unwanted consequences from the keeping of animals.

The proposed Bylaw is flexible and allows changing circumstances to be recognised. The proposed Bylaw clearly states the Council’s position by stating whether or not an activity is permitted and which activities constitute an offence of the bylaws. The Bylaw sets out what action needs to be taken to comply with it, for example, whether prior written permission of the Council is required. The proposed Bylaw reflects a number of the Council’s existing policies and practices, and also reflects community goals that have been identified by the Council.

The proposed Bylaw is therefore the most appropriate form of bylaw. It clearly states the Council’s position, how the Bylaw can be complied with, reflects the Council’s existing policies and practices, and addresses the perceived problem.

2.4 Implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”)

Section 155(2)(b) of the LGA requires the Council to determine whether the Control of Animals Bylaw gives rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is the Council’s view that no provision of the proposed Bylaw is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3. the proposed bylaw

This section outlines the outcome of the review of the existing Bylaw, and provides an explanation of the proposed Bylaw.

The proposed Bylaw is based on the existing Bylaw 2008 that was adopted under the Local Government Act 1974.

3.1 Additions, modifications and deletions made in respect of existing bylaw

Much of the content of the Bylaw 2008 has been amended to refine the clauses so that each more specifically addresses the aspect of the perceived problem that the Council intended them to address. Below is an outline of the one proposed change:

· Clause 2 General conditions of keeping animals – a new clause that outlines clearly the general conditions relating to how animals should be kept.

3.2 Explanation of the proposed Bylaw content

In general terms, the proposed Bylaw provides a mechanism by which the Council can prevent or manage the perceived problem associated with a range of activities that occur with respect to the control of animals. The following outlines the rationale for the inclusion of each of the clauses in the proposed bylaw.

Proposed clause 1 - Interpretation

This clause is proposed so that the meaning of terms used in the bylaw is clear.

Proposed clause 2 – General conditions of keeping animals

This clause is proposed to clearly outline the general conditions relating to how animals should be kept.

Proposed clause 3 – Keeping of Goats

The purpose of this clause is to ensure that no goats are permitted in the urban area unless written permission has been granted by Council. Also specifying other requirements if a goat is permitted in the urban area.

Proposed clause 4 – Keeping of poultry

The purpose of this clause is to specify the terms and conditions associated with the keeping of poultry in any urban area. It also bans roosters in any urban area unless written permission has been granted by Council.

Proposed clause 5 – Noise from animals

The purpose of this clause is to establish that it is a breach of the bylaw if a person keeps an animal that creates a nuisance by frequent or long continued noise.

Proposed clause 6 – Health and safety issues from beekeeping

The purpose of this clause is to establish the legal framework that enables a person to keep bees.

Proposed clause 7 – Trapping devices

The purpose of this clause is to ban the use of trapping devices including gin traps, within the city.

4. process for the development of the proposed bylaw

The special consultative procedure will end 4.00pm on Friday 31 August 2018. Hearings and meetings on the proposed bylaw will be open to the public, and people may speak to their submissions at the relevant committee meeting.

An analysis of all submissions will then be presented to the relevant council committee for consideration. The proposed bylaw will then be referred to the Council for consideration and adoption.

CONTENTS

1.... INTERPRETATION. 3

2..... GENERAL CONDITIONS OF KEEPING ANIMALS. 3

3..... KEEPING OF GOATS. 3

4..... KEEPING OF POULTRY. 4

5..... NOISE FROM ANIMALS. 4

6..... HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES FROM BEEKEEPING.. 4

7..... TRAPPING DEVICES. 5

8..... OFFENCES. 5

SCHEDULE ONE. 6

1. INTERPRETATION

1.1 In this Bylaw:

“Animal” has the meaning defined in the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and means any live member of the animal kingdom that is a mammal, bird, bee, or any other member of the animal kingdom that is declared from time to time by the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to be an animal.

“Authorised Officer” means any person appointed or authorized by the Council on its behalf.

“Commercial poultry shelter or run” means any commercial poultry operation containing more than 8 head of poultry.

“Council” means the Hutt City Council.

“Domestic Animal” means any animal (including a bird or reptile, but excluding bees) kept as a domestic pet; any working dog; any other animal kept by any person for recreational purposes or for the purposes of that person’s occupation or employment.

“Nuisance” refers to the dictionary definition (a person, thing, or circumstance causing trouble or annoyance; anything harmful or offensive to the community or a member of it and for which a legal remedy exists) or to a statutory nuisance as defined in Section 29 of the Health Act 1956.

“Owner’s Property” includes any property the owner of an animal has a legal right to use for the purposes of keeping the relevant animal.

“Poultry” includes geese, ducks, turkeys, domestic fowls, roosters, or any birds kept as show birds.

“Trapping device” means any trap or other similar device made of metal or other hard material having two jaws closing on each other and operated by a spring and includes without limitation a gin trap but does not include any trap designed for trapping mice or rats.

“Urban area” means the area identified as urban area in the map in Schedule 1. Council may amend this map by resolution.

2 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF KEEPING ANIMALS

2.1 All animals shall be kept in a manner that is not, or is not likely to become, a nuisance, dangerous, offensive, or injurious to health.

2.2 All animals shall be kept in a manner that ensures they have adequate physical well-being through acceptable nutrition, environmental, health and behavioural stimulus, and adequate mental well-being.

2.3 All domestic animals, other than domestic cats, found at large and not within their owner's property may be seized and impounded by an authorised officer.

2.4 The Council may sell, re-home or otherwise dispose of any animal seized and impounded that has not been claimed or returned within 7 days after it was seized and impounded.

3 KEEPING OF GOATS

3.1 No goats are to be kept in any Urban Area, unless written permission has been granted by Council.

3.2 The Council may grant permission to keep a goat on such conditions as the Council considers appropriate. If there is a breach of any condition, Council may revoke its permission.

3.3 All goats must be fitted with an ear tag or collar with sufficient details to allow the owner to be traced or contacted, if the goat is seized.

3.4 All goats must be kept within private property, unless written permission has been granted by Council to do otherwise.

4 KEEPING OF POULTRY

4.1 Poultry must be adequately contained within the owner’s property, so as not to cause (or be likely to cause) nuisance, offence or be injurious to health.

4.2 No roosters are to be kept in any Urban Area, unless written permission has been granted by Council.

4.3 An owner or occupier of any property in an urban area may keep no more than 8 chickens (or other poultry) without the Council's prior written permission. In assessing an application to allow more than 8 chickens (or other poultry), the Council will consider:

(a) the number of poultry at the premises; and

(b) provision for the welfare, hygiene, control, and confinement of the poultry; and

(d) the size of the property and proximity to neighbours, and

(e) any other factors it considers relevant.

4.4 Council may grant permission to keep roosters or poultry on such conditions as Council considers appropriate. If there is a breach of any condition, Council may revoke its permission.

5 NOISE FROM ANIMALS

5.1 No person may keep an animal that by frequent or long continued noise creates a nuisance by disturbing the quiet enjoyment of people living in the vicinity.

6 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES FROM BEEKEEPING

6.1 No person may keep bees in such a way as to cause (or be likely to cause) nuisance, offence or be injurious to health.

7 TRAPPING DEVICES

7.1 No person may set a trapping device.

8 OFFENCES

8.1 Every person commits an offence who breaches a clause of this bylaw.

SCHEDULE ONE

URBAN AREA

For an interactive viewer to see more detail follow this link:

https://huttcity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=5c088a6e4c7a4b72a827960bbc43cff1

Attachment 9

Control of Animals Stats as at 29 October 2018

Control of Animals – Statistics

Environmental Health

2010 – 2016 - Goats

Permission to keep a goat in Urban Area 8

Goat complaints (without permission) 6 (3 escaping, 1 inadequate fencing, 2 noise).

Other Animals – Urban Area

1 June 2017 to 31 May 2018

Roosters 16 (noise)

Chickens 6 (escaping, health nuisance)

Sheep 2 (noise, welfare)

Pigs 1 (health nuisance)

Animal Services

Stock and Roaming Animals Complaints- 1 June 2017 to 31 May 2018

	Urban	Rural
Goats	2	5
Sheep	5	16
Horses / Pony	3	1
Deer (from bush)	6	0
Cows / Bull	0	4
Lama	0	1
Pig	1	0
Rabbits	1	0
Roosters	6	1
Chickens	7	1
Peacocks / Peahen (from same property?)	4	0
TOTAL	35	29

Note: Figures do not include duplicate complaints about the same animal at the same time.

44 15 November 2018

Hearings Subcommittee

08 November 2018

File: (18/1775)

Report no: HSC2018/5/144

Prevention on Nuisance from Fires and Smoke Bylaw: Hearing

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the relevant information to assist the Subcommittee with the hearing of submissions.

Recommendation

That the report be received.

Purpose of Report

2. The relevant information is attached to assist the Subcommittee with the hearing of submissions.

Background

3. Attached is the following information:

4. A complete set of the consultation documents: The Summary of Proposal, Statement of Proposal and Draft Prevention of Nuisance from Fires and Smoke Bylaw.

5. One submission from Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) has been received and is attached to this memorandum. They don’t want to speak to their submission.

6. The issue of backyard burning is mentioned in the GWRC submission. Officers are aware that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is coming around to educating people about the impact of outdoor burning. They are now creating an education package to address this issue.

7. FENZ are also interested in trying to understand Territorial Authority and Regional Council obligations when it comes to smoke responses. This should be seen as part of the process associated with the ‘bedding down’ of this new legal framework.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Summary of Proposal – Prevention of nuisance from fires and smoke Bylaw July 2018	45
2 ⇩	Statement of Proposal - Prevention of nuisance from fires and smoke Bylaw July 2018	46
3 ⇩	Draft Prevention of Nuisance from Fires and Smoke Bylaw 2018	52
4 ⇩	SNF18/1 - Submission to The Prevention of Nuisance from Fires and Smoke Bylaw - Greater Wellington Council	55

Author: Graham Sewell

Principal Policy Advisor

Reviewed By: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

1. INTRODUCTION

Hutt City Council proposes to replace the existing Hutt City Council Bylaw 2008 Fire Prevention (“the Bylaw 2008“) with a new bylaw relating to fire nuisance (“the proposed Bylaw”).

2. background

The Council is required to review its Bylaw relating to fire prevention before 1 July 2018, under section 159 of the LGA. Under sections 159 and 155, the review of a bylaw must take the form of reconsideration of the matters that the Council is normally required to consider before making a bylaw.

Under section 145, the Council may make bylaws for its district with the purposes of:

(a) protecting the public from nuisance;

(b) protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety;

The 2008 Bylaw can be viewed by visiting the Council’s website: www.huttcity.govt.nz

2.1 The perceived problem

The proposed Bylaw is a consequence of the enactment of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and the Fire and Emergency (Fire Permits) Regulations 2017. It established Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) as the organisation that will bring together urban and rural fire services. This also requires Council to amend its current bylaw to reflect the new legal framework.

To obtain a fire permit applicants now need to apply online to the Fire and Emergency (FENZ) website. The FENZ website is: www.checkitsalright.nz

The proposed Bylaw is intended to meet Hutt City Council’s new role and responsibility under the Act and Regulations as noted above. This new role is focussed on the ability to regulate for the control of nuisance or health and safety risk from smoke from fires.

The perceived problem means that a bylaw about nuisance from fires and smoke from a fire is consistent with the provisions in the LGA relating to the Council’s bylaw-making powers and also with the Act and Regulations 2017 as noted above. The Council considers that it is still necessary to have a bylaw relating to nuisance from smoke and fire for the purposes of:

· protecting the public from nuisance (section 145(a)); and

· protecting, promoting and maintaining public health and safety (section 145(b));

The Council therefore proposes to make the proposed Bylaw to regulate nuisance from fires and smoke. The proposed Bylaw is generally intended to ensure adequate controls and monitoring are established to meet public expectations of the Council’s legal responsibilities concerning nuisance from fires and smoke in Lower Hutt.

2.2 Most appropriate way to address perceived problem

Changes have now been created with the passing of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and the Fire and Emergency (Fire Permits) Regulations 2017. The appropriate option is to meet the new requirements resulting from this new legal framework. This will require Council to amend the current bylaw to meet the new legal framework.

Section 11 of the FENZ Act 2017 outlines the main functions of FENZ that includes the following:

(a) to promote fire safety, including providing guidance on the safe use of fire as a land management tool; and

(b) to provide fire prevention, response, and suppression services;

FENZ has advised that given their legal requirement around fire safety (to ensure a fire is well managed and doesn’t get out of control) the control of nuisance or health and safety risk from fires and smoke is something Council needs to address via a bylaw.

Summary

2.3 Most appropriate form of bylaw

The proposed Bylaw addresses the perceived problem by providing Council with the necessary legal powers to address a number of unwanted consequences from certain activities associated with fire.

The proposed Bylaw clearly states the Council’s position by stating whether or not an activity is permitted and which activities constitute an offence of the proposed bylaw. The Bylaw also sets out what action needs to be taken to comply with it.

The proposed Bylaw reflects a number of the Council’s existing policies and practices, and also reflects community goals that have been identified by the Council.

The proposed Bylaw is therefore the most appropriate form of bylaw. It clearly states the Council’s position, how the Bylaw can be complied with and addresses the perceived problem.

2.4 Implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”)

As mentioned, section 155(2)(b) of the LGA requires the Council to determine whether the proposed Bylaw gives rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is the Council’s view that no provision of the proposed Bylaw is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3. the proposed bylaw

This section outlines the outcome of the review of the existing Bylaw, and provides an explanation of the proposed Bylaw.

3.1 Additions, modifications and deletions made in respect of existing bylaw

With the passing of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017 and the Fire and Emergency (Fire Permits) Regulations 2017 a new legal framework has been established with a new role and responsibility for the Council to undertake. The proposed bylaw reflects that new role and responsibility which has resulted in the clauses in the 2008 bylaw needing to be completely updated.

3.2 Explanation of the proposed Bylaw content

In general terms, the proposed Bylaw provides a mechanism by which the Council can prevent or manage the perceived problems associated with fire. The following outlines the rationale for the inclusion of each of the clauses in the proposed bylaw.

Proposed clause 1 – Purpose and Application of bylaw

This clause is proposed to identify what the purpose of the bylaw is, the legal powers this bylaw is being made under and the specific matters to be addressed by this bylaw.

Proposed clause 2 – Interpretation

The purpose of this clause is to state the meaning of certain words so it is clear what is intended.

Proposed clause 3 – Nuisance or health and safety risk from fires or smoke

The purpose of this clause is to define what creates a nuisance, health risk, or safety risk and what an Authorised Officer can do in those situations.

Proposed clause 4 – Offences and cost recovery

The purpose of this clause is to outline how a person can commit an offence and how Council may recover any costs when it acts under the provisions of the bylaw.

4. process for the development of the proposed bylaw

An analysis of all submissions will then be presented to the relevant council committee for consideration. The proposed bylaw will then be referred to the Council for consideration and adoption.

1 PURPOSE AND APPLICATION OF BYLAW

1.1 The purpose of this bylaw is to:

(a) protect the public from nuisance related to fires and smoke; and

(b) Protect and maintain public health and safety around fire and smoke (with regard to aspects other than fire safety).

1.2 This bylaw is made under section 145 of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 64(1)(a) of the Health Act 1956.

1.3 Nothing in this bylaw derogates from the Fire and Emergency Act 2017 or regulations made under that Act. To the extent that it is covered by that Act, nothing this bylaw:

(a) Relates to the removal of fire hazards; or

(b) Declares prohibited or restricted fire seasons; or

(d) Relates to the prevention of the spread of fires involving vegetation.

2 INTERPRETATION

2.1 In this bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) “Authorised Officer” means an enforcement officer authorised under the Local Government Act 2002, an Environmental Health Officer authorised under the under the Health Act 1956, or any other person authorised by Council for the purposes of administering and enforcing this bylaw.

(b) “Council” means Hutt City Council.

3 NUISANCE OR HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK FROM FIRES OR SMOKE

3.1 No person may light, or allow to remain lit, a fire that creates a nuisance, health risk, or safety risk to any person or property.

3.2 No person may permit smoke, noxious fumes or any other matter to be emitted in such a way as to create a nuisance, health risk, or safety risk to any person or property.

3.3 If an Authorised Officer is of the opinion that clauses 3.1 or 3.2 of this bylaw are being breached, or have the potential to be breached, they may take reasonable steps to abate, or cause to be abated, the nuisance or risk.

3.4 For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in clause 3 of this bylaw applies to fire safety risk governed by the Fire and Emergency Act 2017 or regulations made under that Act, including the matters listed in clauses 1.3(a)-(d) of this bylaw.

4 OFFENCES AND COST RECOVERY

4.1 Every person commits an offence who:

(a) breaches clauses 3.1 or 3.2 of this bylaw; or

(b) interferes with or fails to comply with the reasonable direction of an Authorised Officer, acting under clause 3.3 of this bylaw.

4.2 Council may recover any costs it incurs as a result of acting under the bylaw. Costs are recoverable from:

(a) the owner of the property on or from which the nuisance or risk originated; and/or

(b) from any person or persons who caused the nuisance or risk.