Community & places · Bega Valley Shire Council
Dog declaration procedures deferred as Bega Valley seeks stronger safeguards
A five-four council vote has sent proposed procedures for dangerous and menacing dog declarations back for changes, including written reasons, access to adverse material and disability supports.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
Bega Valley Shire Council deferred consideration of proposed procedures for dangerous and menacing dog declarations in a five-four vote on 23 September.
Resolution 116/26 requires the draft procedures to be revised and brought back to council. The requested changes must address the absence of external review for menacing dog declarations, written reasons setting out findings of fact and the evidence relied on, and access to adverse material before a determination is made, with an opportunity for the applicant to respond.
The resolution also calls for officers involved in an original declaration to be excluded from the assessment panel and for the meaning of independence at the panel’s third step to be defined. Council asked staff to review a proposed requirement that the entire process be completed within 10 business days of an application being received.
The revised documents must also identify the mandatory consideration under section 39(2A) of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) for menacing dog declarations. They are to include reasonable adjustments, supported decision-making and recognition of advocates or support people, with the resolution referring to council’s obligations under the Disability Inclusion Act 2014 (NSW).
A foreshadowed motion proposed adopting two new procedures and revoking the currently adopted dangerous and menacing dog appeals and revocation procedure once the new procedures were adopted. The carried motion and resolution 116/26 instead deferred consideration of the item, requiring revisions and a further report to council.
The minutes record Crs Allen, Fitzpatrick, Nadin, Noble and Porter voting for the deferral, and Crs Daly, Haggar, Mudaliar and O’Neil voting against it. No date was given for the revised procedures to return.
What deserves a closer look
The carried motion and resolution 116/26 defer consideration and request revisions; the alternative adoption motion was foreshadowed, not recorded as adopted.
The listed safeguards are requirements for revising the drafts, not an adopted replacement procedure.
The minutes specify no date for the revised procedures to return.
Questions for follow-up reporting
When will the revised procedures be listed for consideration by council?
How will any external review for menacing dog declarations operate under the revised documents?
What happens next
Revise the draft procedures to address the matters listed in resolution 116/26.
Report the revised procedures back to council at a future meeting; the resolution specifies no return date.
Check the record
These passages were matched to the source text. Read them in context in the original minutes.
Resolution 116/26 deferred consideration of Item 8.7 and requested that the draft procedures be revised and reported back, addressing the absence of external review for menacing dog declarations.
The motion was put to the vote and it was CARRIED IN FAVOUR: Crs Allen, Fitzpatrick, Nadin, Noble and Porter AGAINST: Crs Daly, Haggar, Mudaliar and O'Neil 116/26 RESOLVED on the motion of Crs Porter and Nadin That Council defer consideration of Item 8.7 and request that the draft procedures be revised and Council Meeting Minutes 23 September 2026 - 9 - reported back to Council, with the revisions to address: (a) the absence of any external review in respect of menacing dog declarations, having regard to the note to section 41 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW);
Item 8.7, resolution 116/26, opening and clause (a)
Open original minutes ↗The listed requirements include providing the applicant with written reasons setting out findings of fact and the evidence relied upon with the decision, and providing any adverse material and an opportunity to respond before a determination.
(b) a requirement that written reasons, including the findings of fact and the evidence relied upon, be provided to the applicant with the decision; (c) a requirement that an applicant be provided with any adverse material and given an opportunity to respond before a determination is made;
Resolution 116/26, clauses (b)–(c)
Open original minutes ↗The list includes excluding officers involved in the original declaration from the assessment panel, defining independence for Step 3 and reviewing the requirement to complete the process within 10 business days of receiving an application.
(d) the exclusion from the assessment panel of any officer involved in making the original declaration, and a definition of independence for the purposes of Step 3; (e) a review of the timeframe at the Notification clause, which presently requires the entire process to be completed within 10 business days of receipt of the application;
Resolution 116/26, clauses (d)–(e)
Open original minutes ↗The list includes identifying the mandatory consideration under section 39(2A) for menacing dog declarations and providing reasonable adjustments, supported decision-making and recognition of advocates or support persons, consistent with Council's obligations under the Disability Inclusion Act 2014 (NSW).
(f) identification of the mandatory consideration at section 39(2A) of the Act in respect of menacing dog declarations; and (g) provision for reasonable adjustments, supported decision making and the recognition of advocates or support persons, consistent with Council's obligations under the Disability Inclusion Act 2014 (NSW).
Resolution 116/26, clauses (f)–(g)
Open original minutes ↗The vote list records five councillors in favour—Allen, Fitzpatrick, Nadin, Noble and Porter—and four against—Daly, Haggar, Mudaliar and O'Neil.
IN FAVOUR: Crs Allen, Fitzpatrick, Nadin, Noble and Porter AGAINST: Crs Daly, Haggar, Mudaliar and O'Neil 8.8 Draft Library Strategic Plan 2026–2030 – Endorsement for Public Exhibition 117/26 RESOLVED on the motion of Crs Daly and Nadin That Council resolve: 1.
Resolution 116/26, voting list before the Item 8.8 heading
Open original minutes ↗Cr O'Neil foreshadowed a motion to adopt two new dog declaration procedures and revoke the currently adopted Procedure 4.04.07 once the two new procedures were adopted.
03:49 pm Cr Daly returned to the meeting. 03:51 pm Cr Noble returned to the meeting. A motion was foreshadowed by Cr O'Neil That Council: 1. Adopt the draft 'Procedure 4.04.08 Evaluation of Owner Representations Against a Notice to Declare a Dog Dangerous or Menacing' at Attachment 1. 2. Adopt the draft 'Procedure 4.04.09 Evaluation of Applications to Revoke Dangerous or Menacing Dog Declarations' at Attachment 2. 3. Revoke the currently adopted 'Procedure 4.04.07 Dangerous and Menacing Dog Declaration Appeals and Revocation' once the two new procedures are adopted.
Item 8.7, foreshadowed adoption motion
Open original minutes ↗Source record
Reported from the public minutes of Bega Valley Shire Council’s ordinary meeting on 23 September 2026.
Key facts from the minutes
- Council resolution 116/26 deferred consideration of the dangerous and menacing dog declaration procedures and required revisions.
- Requested revisions must address the absence of external review for menacing dog declarations, written reasons, access to adverse material, exclusion of officers involved in the original declaration from the assessment panel and a definition of independence for Step 3.
- The proposed 10-business-day completion timeframe must be reviewed.
- The revisions must include reasonable adjustments, supported decision-making and recognition of advocates or support people.
- The deferral was recorded as passing 5-4, with no return date specified.
Why it matters
- The decision requires revisions to proposed procedures for challenging dangerous and menacing dog declarations before they return to council. It does not adopt the proposed replacement procedures.