Four-dog limit retained after strong public feedback

In a reversal of its original plans, Shellharbour City Council has decided to retain the old limit of four dogs per residential property after strong public feedback.

At Tuesday night’s council meeting (25 February), councillors voted on the Keeping of Animals in Residential Areas Policy, which was developed in response to a significant increase in complaints about animals causing a nuisance or negatively affecting the neighbourhood.

The policy originally included a reduction in the number of dogs allowed on residential properties from four to three, but was met with opposition during a public consultation period from December, leading councillors to adopt a more flexible approach.

During the meeting, Cr Rob Petreski moved a motion to split the document into two parts, separating guidelines from the enforceable rules, allowing council officers to assess situations based on performance rather than strict numerical limits.

The policy provides clear guidelines for council staff and pet owners, in alignment with council’s responsibilities under the Local Government Act (1993).

The council meeting also resolved the development of guidelines for safe and responsible dog ownership in regards to the behaviour of all dogs.

“I think that will satisfy most of the residents that I spoke to, and I think it’s a sensible adjustment to a policy that is needed and something that will aid council in better managing these situations,” Cr Petreski said.

He said feedback had included how limiting the number of dogs did little to address some of the issues and did nothing for dogs or human health and wellbeing, while losing the RSPCA meant that it needed to move to another model like this.

“This is a sensible approach where we have a policy that council officers can use to implement and make sure we do have reasonable standards for both people and their pets, but it also has a guide to give people a rough idea of what our expectations are per the size of land,” he said.

“But of course, it’s a guide, so it’ll be up to council officers, if there are any outstanding issues, to take a look at that situation on its merit and make a determination based on that situation, rather than a blanket approach.

“I believe that this was always the intention of council officers, but I think it was miscommunicated to a degree.

“It’s quite clear that our residents are animal lovers, and we want to make sure that we have a fitting environment for both our residents and their pets.”

Cr Lou Stefanovski said he moved the original motion in December to reduce the dogs, but after listening to the speakers and community feedback, he supported the changes.

“I had no real scientific proof why I did that,” Cr Stefanovski said.

“The reason I did that was, quite simply, my family is a dog person family. We had three dogs at one stage.

“It was not only hard for us, it was harder for the dogs.

“We couldn’t always exercise them. We couldn’t give them love and attention at times.”

However, Cr Kellie Marsh said she wasn’t happy with the number being placed in the policy, after hearing feedback from a resident who was concerned the policy “could be potentially weaponised against her”.

Cr Marsh said while she thanked council staff for exemptions to the policy for registered breeders and exhibitors, registered animal welfare and rescue organisations, and approved animal boarding and training establishments, she didn’t think council had it right when it came to the numbers.

“A guide is always open to interpretation, and that’s what concerns me with this,” she said.

“I’ve sat and listened to many animal groups, including Animal Welfare League and a number of others, who have said to me that in other councils, putting numbers on these things just doesn’t work.

“And we’re all adults, not one size fits all with everything.

“So how can we accept our animals and our pet ownership to be that way as well?

“I think that we’re close to getting this right with a lot of things that council officers have implemented, but as far as the numbers are concerned, I’m sorry, I don’t support it.”

In response, Cr Petreski said he had similar concerns after speaking to residents.

“I know that numbers do frighten some people,” he said.

“That was the exact purpose for separating the policy from the guidelines, because the policy is what’s enforceable. The guidelines are purely that – they’re just guidelines.”

The policy will be used as a framework to consider the size of the property, where the animals will be kept, the type and number of animals, consent from the property owner, the likely impact on the animals on the environment and the area, and written support from neighbours, which will help with applications for exceptions.

Mayor Chris Homer said he had received a lot of feedback, including from peak bodies, breeders and owners, and was pleased to see the policy “finessed in such a way that I think is very palatable moving forward”.

“It’s not about numbers; it’s about behaviour and environment in essence,” Cr Homer said.

The amended Keeping of Animals in Residential Areas Policy was approved, with Cr Marsh and Cr Mitch Ellis voting against it.