There were no apologies.

Pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Chairman called for late items to be accepted.

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the following late items be accepted for discussion.

- Application for a General Managers Certificate

The item was not on the agenda because information had become available after the agenda deadline.

Discussion on the item could not be delayed because consideration needed to be given to the matter before the next meeting.

HC01/1 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

HC01/2 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

There were no matters arising from the minutes.

A notice under Section 55 of the Dog Control Act 1996 was served on a Jennafier Elizabete Annan of 1B Corbett Street, Paeroa on the 14^th December 2000 following a formal complaint received by Council’s Dog Ranger on the 12^th December 2000. An objection to the notice had been received.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.15 am. The hearing commenced at 9.15 am.

Miss J Annan attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Miss Annan advised that the dog in question was not her dog but had been in her care. The Animal Protection Society had since taken the dog away to be re-homed. Miss Annan asked if she could be told who laid the complaints against her.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager outlined the situation regarding the complaints received. As a consequence of the complaints Council was required to carry out an investigation. Council’s Dog Control Officer had reached a conclusion and a notice had been issued. Miss Annan was required to convince the Committee that there was now no longer a problem.

Miss Annans view was that the dog had been removed and that was the end of the problem.

When asked how often there was no one on the property with the dog, Miss Annan advised that she was usually at home. Miss Annan advised that she intended to have a two metre high fence erected across the front of the property so the dog could not see out onto the street. The main times the dogs barked was when someone came to the gate or when another dog passed by. The dog did not bark nonstop.

The Supervisor – Monitoring Officer outlined the Notice under Section 55 of the Dog control Act 1996 that had been served on Miss Annan. He also outlined the options that could be taken into consideration by the Committee.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager explained that the term persistent barking did not mean barking all the time.

The Dog Control Officer outlined the two complaints that Council had received and the steps that had been taken by him to monitor the situation. There were a number of options that were open to Miss Annan to help control the dogs barking when she was away from the property.

It was noted that because of the boundary of the property being right on the footpath and there being high pedestrian traffic that the erection of a fence may help.

Miss Annan advised that there were tenants in the building that fed, watered and regularly walked the dog while she was away. There had been a number of changes to the dog’s environment and the dog had been pining due to Miss Annan’s absence. The dog had the full run of the property and slept inside at night. Miss Annan admitted that the dog did have a bark on it, but did not bark that often.

Cr Tregidga advised that there was a problem and the degree of the problem and what action should be taken was the concern.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager clarified from the records that the date the other dog had been uplifted by the Animal Protection Society was 17^th October 2000. The second complaint had been received on the 14^th December 2000 and it was after receiving this complaint that Council had issued the notice.

The issue that the Committee had to decide upon was whether there was a persistent barking problem. The objector had to present a case proving that this was not the case. The second complaint had been received after the other dog had been removed from the property. It was not the staff or Councils desire to uplift the remaining dog and there were a range of options open to help prevent the problem of the dog barking persistently.

The hearing closed at 9.55 am.

The Committee advised that Councils decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 10.00 am until 10.10 am.

THAT the exclusion of the public from the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation in:

(a) Any proceedings before the local authority where:

(i) A right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the final decision of the local authority in those proceedings.

HC01/3 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

HC01/4 Tregidga/Carmine CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

HC01/5 Tregidga/Gordon CARRIED

An application by Beverley Anne Hobman of Waihi for a General Managers Certificate.

A detailed report was tabled.

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to Sections 121 and 122 of the Sale of Liquor Act 1991, that a General managers Certificate be granted to Beverley Hobman as per the following prescribed format.

Subject to the requirements of the Act relating to fees, and to the provisions of the Act, relating to the suspension and cancellation of Manager’s Certificates, this certificate shall continue in force.

1. Until the close of the period of 1 year commencing with the date of its issue; or

2. If an application for renewal of the certificate is duly made, until the application is determined,

3. If the certificate is renewed, until the close of the period for which it is renewed.

HC01/6 Tregidga/Carmine CARRIED

An application had been received from JV & EA Bould, 57 Fishermans Bend Whiritoa, for an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

A report outlining the application was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 10.15 am. The hearing commenced at 10.25 am.

There was concern that due to the weight of the spa pool cover that it would be inconvenient to close it each time after the pool had been used.

Due to the relevance of this issue it was decided to adjourn the hearing until some clarification could be obtained from the applicants.

The hearing adjourned until 3.00 pm on Thursday 8 February 2001.

The meeting closed at 10.45 am.

CONFIRMED

J Tregidga

March 2001