1 PROPOSAL LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT FOR REVIEW REASONS FOR REVIEW WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR AMENDING THE BYLAW?... 5

Transcription

1 This is a statement of proposal prepared in accordance with section 83(1)(a) Local Government Act 2002 ( the LGA 2002 ) in relation to the review of the Stock Control Bylaw Council report #

2 Contents 1 PROPOSAL LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT FOR REVIEW REASONS FOR REVIEW WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR AMENDING THE BYLAW? WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED? WHAT CHANGES TO THE BYLAW IS COUNCIL PROPOSING? REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION HOW CAN I HAVE MY SAY? WHERE DO I GET COPIES OF THE DRAFT STOCK CONTROL BYLAW 2016? APPENDIX 1: STATISTICS FOR ANIMAL RELATED ACCIDENTS IN THE GISBORNE DISTRICT... 1 Page 1

3 1 Proposal (Council) is proposing to review its Stock Control Bylaw 2008 (the Bylaw or current Bylaw) and replace it with a revised Stock Control Bylaw 2017 (the draft Bylaw). The current Bylaw has not been amended since its adoption in A copy of the draft Bylaw being proposed by the Council is attached to this proposal. The purpose of this Statement of Proposal is to describe the details of the draft Bylaw (especially where it differs from the current Bylaw and to explain the reasons for those differences). 2 Legislative Context for Review Council is reviewing the current Bylaw. The Bylaw is legally required to be reviewed and Council is taking the opportunity to ensure that the Bylaw remains appropriate and relevant. The Council is able to make a Stock Control Bylaw under section 145 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) to: protect the public from nuisance; and protect, promote and maintain public health and safety. Section 155(1) of the Act requires, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, a determination as to whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. Section 155(2) of the Act states that, if it is determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, it must be determined, before making the bylaw, whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw. Section 155(3) of the Act requires that no bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, notwithstanding section 5 of that Act. 3 Reasons for Review The current Bylaw was adopted in 2008 and covers the droving of stock on State Highways and Local Roads within the district. It requires a permit for any overnight droving and general controls for droving during the daytime. There are no controls within the bylaw regarding the wandering of stock on roads or grazing of stock on road sides. Both of these are recognised by Council officers as being issues within the district that have potential to result in harm to the public and therefore it is considered appropriate to review the Bylaw to address these matters. The statistics for Animal Related Accidents in the Gisborne district for 2006 to 2015 are located at Appendix 1. During this time a total of 149 accidents involving animals occurred, with an average of 15 each year. While the significant majority of these accidents were non-injury, advice has been received that there were deaths prior to 2006 as a result of unsupervised stock on the road. It is estimated, by the New Zealand Transport Agency [ NZTA ] that in the past 10 years the crashes have resulted in an overall social cost valued at over $8,300,000. Of the animal related accidents 99% were a result of stray animals, and 81% of accidents occurred in dark/twilight conditions. The majority of animal related accidents have occurred on State Highway 35, followed by State Highway 2. There is a lesser incidence of animal related accidents on the local roads of the district. Page 2

4 Issues Following a review of the relevant legislation and other councils bylaws, telephone and face to face meetings were held with internal stakeholders of Council s Enforcement Team, Animal Control Team and Tairawhiti Roads ( and NZTA). Meetings were also held with external stakeholders: Federated Farmers and Maori land agents. These meetings sought to understand the problems that stakeholders have currently with the controlling of stock on district roads and using the existing Bylaw. Discussions were also had regarding the effect of uncontrolled stock on people and the roading network, and potential solutions that may address these matters. A visit to the Tolaga Bay and Tokomaru Bay area was also undertaken to view the existing fencing and farming environment. The outcome of this review was that it confirmed the issues that internal stakeholders raised, that the wandering of stock onto roads occurs due to poorly maintained, or lack of appropriate, fencing of paddocks. Wandering stock together with the grazing of stock unsupervised and unfenced on road sides is a significant safety concern within the district. These issues are further discussed below. Droving of stock The current Bylaw provides for droving. However, it requires compliance with other documents, e.g. NZTA standards, and requires the reader to cross reference between documents to understand what traffic management measures need to be put in place to comply with the Bylaw. The movement of stock along roads, particularly on a regular basis, can create a significant road safety risk and can cause damage to the road surface, road verge and drainage, as well as contamination of adjacent watercourses due to effluent runoff from the road. The northern part of the district has low levels of droving activity and the droving that does occur is on an irregular basis. In the western and southern parts of the district a large amount of droving along roads occurs, often on a regular basis, and this can be through intersections and over bridges causing traffic delays and road damage. Federated Farmers also has concerns regarding the behaviour of road users when around stock on the road, as they may try to push through the droving. This is outside of the scope of a bylaw. Wandering stock As shown in the accident statistics the wandering of uncontrolled stock onto roads, particularly state highways, is a significant issue. The ability for stock to wander is due either to poorly maintained fencing or a lack of fencing. There are many identified cases in the northern part of the district where fencing is poorly maintained and this either requires the removal of overgrown vegetation (such as blackberry), the replacement of fence posts and/or wire, or the relocation of the fence due to stream erosion or land instability. In parts of the district on remote rural roads there are often no fences and stock are free to range across the road. In both cases this results in uncontrolled stock access to roads that can cause a traffic safety hazard if appropriate systems are not in place. With the continuing increase in traffic volumes on these roads, particularly logging trucks, there is an increased likelihood of accidents. The lack of fencing of watercourses and paddocks can also enable stock access to roads and beaches. Stock can cause damage to watercourses and increase erosion of stream banks and dune systems. In some cases, the ability to erect fencing is difficult due to the topography of the land, e.g. steepness, proximity to watercourses, or the presence of significant vegetation that precludes Page 3

5 access. In other cases, the cost of repairing and maintaining, as well as installing new fencing, is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. In some places cattle stops have been used in the past to control animals where there are no fences. Although appropriate in some circumstances, cattle stops require maintenance particularly to ensure the drainage channels are not blocked. With the change of land uses in the area, particularly to forestry, often the stops do not cater for the heavy logging trucks and are damaged during logging. It is the adjacent landowner s responsibility to maintain the cattle stop; however with changes of property ownership this maintenance often does not occur. Due to these factors, in the majority of cases, the cattle stops have now been removed but no replacement fencing has been installed therefore allowing animals to wander. Grazing of road reserve The grazing of stock on the side of roads without controls in place can cause both traffic safety issues and damage to the road verge. In many instances Council is unaware of the grazing of verges that is occurring and this grazing is often either unfenced or unsupervised by the stock manager. In some instances, the grazing of road sides has been undertaken for many years (and sometimes used more often in drought conditions), often through a gentleman s agreement with the owner and a council officer. The grazing of animals on the verge of state highways in particular has the potential to be dangerous for both animals and humans, and is not supported by the Council or Tairawhiti Roads. The tethering of horses on state highway verges is also a common practice in some areas and this can be problematic in locations where it can be difficult to see that they are tethered and where they can be spooked easily by noise and passing vehicles. The grazing of bulls and stags in these areas is of concern given the disposition of these animals and potential contact with people. Stock in urban areas There are some concerns over the presence of non-domesticated animals in urban areas and townships, both grazing private land and road sides, and moving through these settlements. There is also concern, as identified above, with stock being on beaches. Land ownership Significant areas of land are held in multiple-owned ownership due to it being Maori land. Multiple-party ownership can cause difficultly with enforcement if the onus is on the owner of the land. Page 4

6 4 What is the Process for Amending the Bylaw? A draft Bylaw has been prepared by the Council for consultation in terms of section 86 of the Act. The process The timeframes Your involvement Develop the draft Bylaw Environment Planning and Regulation Committee sign off Bylaw for consultation 22 March 2017 Call for submissions on the draft Bylaw (using the special consultative procedure in the Local Government Act 2002) Submissions Open 25 March 2017 Close 28 April 2017 Hold a hearing for submitters who wish to present to Councillors directly Hearings 21 June 2017 Adopt the Bylaw Council approval of Bylaw 17 August 2017 Notify the Bylaw and effective date (as per Council resolution) Public notice in Gisborne Herald 19,23 August What Options Have Been Considered? For this review, Council has considered the following broad options for managing stock control: Option 1: Status quo. Retaining the current Bylaw as is. Option 2: Bylaw review Review the current Bylaw to address the concerns identified above. Option 3: Utilise legislation only Do not have a bylaw, and rely on other legislation. Options Assessment Option Benefits Drawbacks Status quo Low cost to Council and users Significant road safety risks not managed Excludes the ability to manage stock grazing and appropriate fencing of boundaries Current Bylaw is not user friendly Bylaw review Proactive, opportunity to educate owners of their requirements Consolidated requirements in one place Higher enforcement costs than status quo Costs to owners to appropriately fence boundaries adjacent to roads Page 5

7 Requirements clearer for stock owners Safer roads Utilise legislation only Less overlapping regulation Multiple parts of legislation that only apply in silos, not fully addressing the issues raised Difficult for both Council and the public to interpret Difficult to prosecute 6 What Changes to the Bylaw is Council Proposing? Council is proposing to adopt Option 2 a review of the Bylaw to better manage stock movement and grazing of roads in the district. The updating of droving provisions and the addition of provisions around stock grazing on road reserve, and boundary fencing, have been considered appropriate by Council and other parties. In summary, Council is proposing the following: Droving of stock Provide for emergency droving. Require droving of stock to occur on private land except where there is no alternative. Provide for droving of stock on a local road (no Stock Permit required) provided the following standards are met: o Droving occurs during the hours of daylight; o Sheep and cattle numbers do not exceed: 3000 sheep; or 600 cattle; o Stock are kept under the control at all times, by a number of competent drovers appropriate to the ratio of stock. Also to the least possible disruption to other road users and landowners; o At all times during the droving procedure, appropriate warning mechanisms must be used, these may include: Orange flashing warning lights / flagman Warning signs Road cones High visibility clothing worn by drovers; o The droving will include no more than 1 movement in any one week; o The droving will be completed without the stock having to be pastured and rested overnight; and o The owner is responsible for the removal of excess excrement from the road carriageway and entrances to the road. A Stock Permit is required if: o There is non-compliance with the standards outlined above. o The movement of stock is on or along a State Highway or beach. o Droving of stock other than sheep or cattle is required. Allow a horse which is being led or ridden or which is drawing a vehicle of any description to be on a road. Specify that a livestock course or underpass may be required where regular stock crossings or droving occur. Page 6

8 Use the consultation process to educate farmers and road users on their responsibilities and expectations when around stock on roads. Grazing of road reserve Provide for the grazing of stock on a formed local road (no Stock Permit required) provided the following standards are met: o Temporary fencing is used and the temporary fence shall be located not less than 4.5 metres from the road centre or 1.5 metre clear of the road carriageway whichever is greater, or stock are under the supervision of a competent person. Also the fence is erected on one side of the road at any one time. Safety reflectors (and live wire, if electrified) are fitted to fencing; o Temporary fencing using steel posts such as waratah standards and barbed wire are not permitted; o As soon as the enclosed areas of road have been grazed off the temporary fence shall be completely removed; o Grazing shall only occur during daylight hours; o Grazing shall not occur during wet weather conditions where stock may cause damage to the drainage system and quality of the road reserve surface; and o Stags, bulls or stallions shall not be grazed on road reserve. The grazing or tethering of any stock on road reserve on a formed State Highway or a beach is prohibited. Specify that the stock owner is responsible for any damage which may occur as a result of grazing on the road reserve. No gates, barriers or fencing are able to be placed across a road or cause any obstruction to traffic without prior permission from Council. Fencing land adjacent to roads Specify that it is the owner s responsibility to ensure stock do not wander onto roads. Within one year of the anniversary of the Bylaw appropriate fencing shall be installed on all property boundaries adjacent to a state highway where paddocks are utilised for stock. If Council has concerns around the safety of road users on a state highway, Council can require the owner take action immediately to appropriately fence the road boundary to the Council s satisfaction. Within three years of the anniversary of the Bylaw appropriate fencing shall be installed on all property boundaries adjacent to a local road or beach where paddocks are utilised for stock. If Council has concerns around the safety of road users on a local road, Council can require the owner take action immediately to appropriately fence the road boundary to the Council s satisfaction. Specify that on a local road the use of warning signs and/or cattle stops across the road or similar mechanisms may be used instead of property boundary fencing. This exemption will require a Stock Permit, and will be assessed on a case by case basis to ensure risks are managed. In the definitions, specify that appropriate fencing means a fence that, as to its nature, condition, and state of repair, is reasonably satisfactory for the purpose that it serves or is intended to serve. This includes the erection, replacement, repair, and maintenance of a fence in whole or in part and may include a permanent or temporary fence that is of a sufficient standard to hold stock. A fence means a fence, whether or not continuous; and includes all gates, culverts, and channels that are part of or are incidental to a fence. A Page 7

9 fence shall include a natural barrier (such as a bank or cliff) if sufficient to hold stock but not a natural or artificial watercourse. Person Responsible Specify in the bylaw that the person who is the manager or owner of the stock is responsible for the control of the stock. Enforcement Provide for appropriate enforcement tools to be utilised by authorised Council officers. Provide a penalty regime on a daily and overall basis to act as a deterrent for noncompliance with the Bylaw requirements. In addition to the timeframes identified for fencing of land adjacent to roads above, a transition period of six months following the Bylaw becoming operative is proposed. This allows a period of time to inform the public of their responsibilities under, and requirements of, the new Bylaw. 7 Reasons for Recommendation The reasons for addressing the above matters are outlined below: Droving of stock Due to the droving of stock along roads as a common farm practice, particularly in the western and southern parts of the district, controls regarding this practice should be retained. However, it is important to make it clear that droving of stock on the road is not a preferred option due to safety risk and potential effects on the road, and providing access through private land is the most suitable and safe way of moving stock where this is available. Currently no permit is required for daytime irregular droving on local roads provided traffic safety standards are met. It is recommended this remain the case provided appropriate standards are in place to adequately cover potential safety risks. Permits for droving on State Highways, for regular droving, or where standard traffic safety measures cannot be met should be required. This enables the Council (and NZTA) to address potential risks on a case by case basis and impose additional requirements where necessary to ensure safety. If these requirements are not able to be adequately met, then Council would also be able to refuse the permit to drove. Rather than cross referencing relevant documents, e.g. the NZTA guidance, it is considered more effective and user friendly to state the specific requirements for stock droving within the bylaw. The requirements have been developed utilising the standards recommended by NZTA and any other best practice. Grazing of stock Grazing of stock on the side of State Highways is not recommended due to the high traffic volumes and the high risk of accidents. Further, it is not recommended to allow the grazing of stock on beaches as stock can create a public nuisance and can wander onto roads. Local roads are deemed to be more acceptable for grazing due to the lower road safety risk, provided appropriate controls are put in place to manage and mitigate these risks to a practical minimum. These controls have been designed to ensure that road users are aware of the grazing and can alter their driving accordingly. There are some unformed paper roads within the district that could be available for grazing on a longer-term basis. These are generally paper roads or areas that are no longer required for roads Page 8

10 due to realignment etc. Some of the paper roads do provide public access to, for example, fishing locations and should therefore not be closed off permanently or sold. Fencing land adjacent to roads Poor maintenance or lack of fencing has resulted in safety issues which need to be addressed. It is considered that the most effective way to manage such safety risks is to clearly stipulate in the bylaw the requirement to appropriately fence property boundaries that adjoin roads where stock are being grazed. While it is recognised that there is significant time and cost involved in the construction and/or maintenance of fencing to contain stock, this needs to be weighed against the cost of accidents (social costs and human lives). It is therefore recommended that a staged approach to the requirement of the implementation of appropriate fencing be undertaken, with an initial focus being on the state highways as this is where the risk (both likelihood and consequence) is greatest as a result of uncontrolled stock. This should be followed by the appropriate fencing of stock along local roads. As the risks on some local roads are much lesser than others, a pragmatic approach is recommended, providing the ability to apply for a fencing exemption through a Stock Permit. It is considered that the use of cattle stops in some situations may be appropriate; however, if logging trucks utilise the same road then it is unlikely they will be acceptable. The Council already has a Cattle Stop Policy that sets out the application process, design and funding requirements for Cattle Stops. It is recommended that this process continues to be relied on. On remote rural roads, or paper roads the use of gates, cattle stops or warning signs are likely to be sufficient to minimise traffic safety risks. If Council has concerns for the safety of road users on any road in the district as a result of uncontrolled stock, it is recommended Council be able to require the owner to act immediately to appropriately fence the road boundary. Council could identify high risk areas through developing assessment criteria such as surrounding land use, vehicle movements, complaints, accident statistics etc. It is recognised that the increased cost of compliance to owners is a significant issue. A significant proportion of the State Highways in the region are already fenced, although maintenance is an issue and an on-going cost. However, this needs to be balanced against the social costs of not acting and the general responsibility that owners (including stock managers) have not to affect the safety of road users. There are a number of ways the Council could reduce the costs of fencing, including: Council could utilise its own funds allocated through an Annual Plan process to ensure its roads are appropriately fenced. However, while there is public benefit (the safety of road users), this would be an expensive exercise for Council and some members of the population would benefit specifically by not having to maintain their land and appropriately manage their stock. This is therefore not recommended. Council could consider a rates relief process to reduce compliance costs for stock owners. Ultimately, however, it is a private responsibility to manage stock in a way that does not affect the safety of road users. Allowing the use of temporary fencing or a fencing exemption on a local road when and where appropriate. This may be useful in areas with topographical constraints or when grazing is temporary. This is recommended. Page 9

11 Requiring appropriate fencing allows Council to take a proactive approach to manage road safety risks. The staged approach to the requirement of the implementation of appropriate fencing gives time for Council to work with key stakeholders to ensure positive results. Stock in urban areas Currently there are stock grazing in urban areas, generally on private land. The management of animal keeping is currently controlled under the Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw It is not considered there are compelling reasons at this stage to change this. Furthermore, the restricting of stock and horses from urban areas would require review of the Public Places Bylaw Issues with non-compliance and animals causing a nuisance can be addressed through the provisions and enforcement mechanisms of these existing bylaws. Land ownership Due to complex land ownership, it is recommended that the requirement to comply with the Bylaw should be placed on the owner, which, in relation to any stock, includes the person having the charge of the stock or the management thereof, rather than the property owner. Education It is considered that education is an important part of any change in regulation. It needs to be communicated that the overall aim of the Bylaw is to prevent accidents and that this requires stock owners to take responsibility for their stock. Proposed education themes include the responsibilities for stock owners to appropriately manage stock to reduce road safety risks and public nuisance, and awareness for drivers on defensive driving around stock. The education could take the form of public meetings (discussing proposed changes to the Bylaw), advertising campaigns and brochures. There are also potential opportunities to utilise groups such as Federated Farmers to disseminate messages. Enforcement Pragmatically, non-compliance with the Bylaw would primarily be identified through complaints or where Council identifies high risk areas. If Council wished to take a more restrictive approach associated enforcement costs would be significant. Justification Council considers that the draft Bylaw is consistent with the Act and the most appropriate and proportionate way of promoting responsible stock control in the Gisborne District while minimising negative impacts and the potential problems with stock movement and grazing. Any restrictions proposed are consistent with the criteria within the Act, being to: protect the public from nuisance; and protect, promote and maintain public health and safety. The Council considers that the draft Bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and only seeks to impose justifiable and reasonable limits on people s ability to undertake stock movement and grazing on roads in the district. 8 How can I have my say? Submissions may be made on the Draft Stock Control Bylaw 2016 and these should be received by the Council no later than 28 April Page 10

12 Any written form of submission will be received and considered. Submissions can be via letter or and you can make your submission by: POST TO DELIVER TO ONLINE PHONE Freepost 65 Stock Control Bylaw P O Box 747 GISBORNE 4040 To Customer Service desks at either 39 Gladstone Road Te Puia Springs Service Centre Complete this form online: Phone: or and one of our friendly Customer Service staff will fill out this form for you over the phone. Please state in your submission if you want to speak at a Council hearing about your submission. Submitters should note that their submission will be copied and made available to the public after the submission period closes. 9 Where Do I Get Copies of The Draft Stock Control Bylaw 2017? The draft Stock Control Bylaw and this proposal are available from the following locations: 39 Gladstone Road Te Puia Springs Service Centre Te Puia Springs HB Williams Memorial Library 53 Awapuni Road Gisborne website Page 11

13 Appendix 1: Statistics for Animal Related Accidents in the Gisborne District Page 1

14 Page 1

15 Page 2

16 Page 3

17 Page 4

18 Page 5

19 Page 6