In September 2022 Council approved the review of the Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2012. We went out for consultation from 25 January to 16 March 2023 and received 37 submission to the proposed draft bylaw.
The new Keeping of Animals Bylaw 2023 became effective from 10 September 2023.
The changes to the bylaw included:
- People can now keep 2 beehives on a property in an urban area without a permit. Previously it was up to 3 hives depending on the size of the property and surrounding dwellings.
- A new clause aims to ensure feral or stray animals don't become a nuisance - a person must not provide food, shelter or comfort to an animal that the person does not own, in a way that results in the animal becoming a nuisance to other persons – this is considered a minor change, and information is included about how to comply.
- a minor technical change to the definition of urban vs. rural area – clarifying that people living in “commercial” or most “industrial” zones except the “rural industrial” zones are considered in the “urban area”. This was unclear in the previous bylaw.
The review process of the bylaw
We reviewed the outdated Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2012 and identified improvements to clarify and simplify the bylaw, including changing the name to Keeping of Animals Bylaw.
The aim of the bylaw is to protect the public from animal nuisance through general and species-specific regulation of animals (except dogs), bees and poultry to reduce the incidence of odour, noise and vermin.
The statement of proposal outlined the proposed changes to simplify and clarify provisions around the keeping of poultry, bees and pigs, to reduce the number of poultry allowed in the urban area, and to add a new provision clarifying how the bylaw applies to feral and stray animals.
The current poultry provisions are not clear and contain some confusing and unnecessary statements about when approvals might be needed. Council receives some complaints about poultry in residential zones, but not a significant amount. Most of these complaints are regarding nuisance caused by roaming poultry or poultry attracting flies and rats. The current limit of 12 head of poultry on a property is relatively high.
The provisions allow an exception to the restrictions on residential zones for properties in areas deemed to be ‘rural in character’ by Authorised Officers. This is difficult to apply consistently in practice.
Objective
Enable the keeping of poultry in urban areas in a way that effectively minimises nuisance and health risks, by using clear poultry keeping provisions that are easy to understand and can be applied consistently.
Options considered
Option One: Reword the poultry keeping section to be more user-friendly and retain the current limits and rules. Remove the ‘rural character’ exception.
This option involves simplification of the provisions, removing the confusing and unnecessary statements and ensuring the rules are clear. This option retains the current limit of 12 head of poultry on a property, as well as the current setbacks required for poultry houses and runs, and fencing requirements. This option is effectively the status quo and the number of poultry allowed on residential properties is in line with many other councils’ bylaw rules for poultry keeping.
Removing the exception for residential properties that are rural in character will make it more straightforward for enforcement staff to apply the Bylaw, and those affected will be able to apply for a written permit for exceptions.
Option Two: Reword the poultry keeping section in line with Option One, including removing the ‘rural character’ exception and reduce the limit of the number of poultry that may be kept in urban areas to 6.
This option involves simplification of the provisions, removing the confusing and unnecessary statements and ensuring the rules are clear. This option reduces the limit for the number of head of poultry that may be kept on a property to six in order to minimise nuisance, but retains the current setbacks required for poultry houses and runs, and fencing requirements.
Preferred option
Option Two: Reword the poultry keeping section to be more user-friendly and reduce the limit of the number of poultry that may be kept in urban areas to 6.
Current bee keeping provisions are difficult to enforce and unable to adequately deal with the increasing number of complaints about bees, and the increasing popularity of hobby beekeeping in residential areas. In addition to the general nuisance provisions, the current bylaw imposes specific regulations on keeping bees including hive limits of between zero and three hives depending on the size of the property and if there are dwellings or sensitive uses on adjoining properties. These provisions are unnecessarily complex.
Objective
Enable the keeping of bees in residential areas in a way that effectively minimises nuisance and health risks, by using bee keeping provisions that are easy to understand and can be applied consistently. Provisions should allow for some flexibility and a clear compliance process.
Options considered
Option One: Remove all provisions specifically regulating bees, and instead rely wholly on the general rule(s) regulating nuisance caused by any animal in any part of the district.
This option simplifies the bylaw and provides a high degree of flexibility when responding to issues. However, it may result in a lengthier resolution process when issues occur with no specific regulations to guide a response.
Option Two: Retain some bee provisions and simplify hive limits.
This option provides some specific regulations while still allowing a degree of flexibility when responding to issues. It sets hive limits to two hives for any property in urban areas, instead of different limits depending on size of the property, and otherwise provides flexibility for staff to take a common-sense approach to resolving issues.
Option Three: Remove the specific bee provisions and replace with a general clause regarding bees not causing a nuisance, and guidance on limits or other conditions that Council may impose if nuisance does occur.
This option reinforces the purpose of the bylaw as regulating nuisance, rather than prescribing the best way to keep bees. It removes residential hive limits entirely. While this provides enhanced flexibility when responding to issues, there is concern that removing limits entirely may lead to an influx in nuisance complaints. Deciding the appropriate hive number on a case-by-case basis may also cause possibly lengthier resolution processes when issues do occur.
Preferred option
Option Two: Retain some bee provisions and simplify hive limits to 2 hives for any property in the urban areas.
The current pig keeping provisions are unclear, overly complex and difficult to apply.
Objective
Enable the keeping of pigs in rural areas in a way that minimises nuisance and health risks, by using clear and effective pig keeping provisions that are easy to understand and comply with.
Options considered
Option One: Status quo. Retain the current pig keeping provisions.
This options only advantage is that it is unlikely to affect anyone currently keeping pigs in rural areas. However, it results in the bylaw remaining overly complex. The way the existing setback provisions are communicated may not adequately achieve the purpose of the bylaw and desired outcomes from regulating pig keeping because they are unclear and therefore difficult to apply consistently.
Option Two: Amend the setback regulations in the pig keeping provisions for consistency and simplicity of application.
This approach would bring the regulations more in line with common practice among other councils and increases the ease of use of the provisions. There is a possibility the changes might affect some individuals currently keeping pigs if their setbacks are not in line with the amended rules, however the amended setbacks do not differ from the current setbacks when applied correctly.
Preferred option
Option Two: Amend the setback regulations in the pig keeping provisions for consistency and simplicity of application.
It is unclear whether feral/stray animals are within the scope of the current bylaw, and if so, how the bylaw applies to situations where these animals cause a nuisance.
Objective
Clarify how the bylaw applies to feral or stray animals, including where responsibility lies to abate nuisance and health risks.
Options considered
Option One: Status quo. Rely on general nuisance provisions when responding to nuisance issues relating to feral/stray animals.
When nuisance occurs from feral/stray animals, it often falls outside the regular meaning of a person keeping animals. This becomes difficult for Council to respond to such issues, and unclear for residents to interpret.
Option Two: Add new clause regulating nuisance caused by feral and stray animals being encouraged onto private property. (Preferred)
Specific regulation identifies where responsibility lies to abate nuisance caused by feral/stray animals. This clarifies residents’ responsibilities, and Council’s role in nuisance abatement, which enhances use and application of the bylaw. The clause clarifies that people must not encourage a feral or stray animal to become a nuisance, and that the owner or occupier of the property from which such animal emanates must abate the nuisance caused by the animal.
This is also in line with a common approach taken by other councils.
Preferred option
Option Two: Add new clause regulating nuisance caused by feral/stray animals being encouraged onto private property.
Documents
Statement of Proposal - includes the legislative framework
