There were no apologies.

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

RESOLVED

- Waikato Regional Plan

HC03/18 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

HC03/19 Carmine/Hayden CARRIED

There were no matters arising.

HC03/20 Tregidga/Hayden CARRIED

It was noted that an appeal had been lodged with the Environment Court against the decision.

On the 23^rd June 2003 a notice under Section 31(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996 was served on John Michael Doherty of 94 Hauraki Road, Turua.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 9.05 am. The hearing commenced at 9.11 am.

Mr J Doherty and Mrs C Doherty and Ms T Bradford (complainant) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mrs Doherty tabled a written submission in support of the objection.

The Chairperson advised that the extra required in dog registration fees if the dog was classified as dangerous was an issue that was determined by legislation and not by Council. The Dog Control Act stated that a person must be able to get to a door of a property without being confronted by a dog.

Mrs Doherty advised that the dog couldn’t leave property as it got attacked by other dogs and there were no areas to take the dog to socialize it.

It was noted that Council had established some official dog exercise areas but there were none in Turua.

Mr Sexton clarified that dogs could be walked in public in the Hauraki District as long as they were on a lead. However, under the proposed new legislation this could be changed.

The Dohertys did accept the fact that their dog Roxey had bitten Ms Bradford.

Ms Bradford outlined the reasons why she was on the Doherty’s property and what happened during the incident. She had been admitted to the Thames Hospital for treatment at approximately 3.15 pm. Ms Bradford commented that she did acknowledge that the dog was reacting in a territorial manner. However she wanted to ensure the safety of meter readers or any other trades people who would have to enter the property. She noted that the meter was located at the back of the house.

The Dohertys had notified the power supplier and told them that they had a dog on the property and requested that they be notified prior to a meter reader entering the property. This notification had now been sorted with the power company.

Mr Sexton outlined the incident that occurred on the 11^th July 2003. He advised that if the dangerous dog classification was upheld a requirement would be that the dog would have to be muzzled only when it went off the property. He commented that persons had the right of access to the front door of a house without fear of being attacked by a dog. He acknowledged that the Doherty’s property was fenced around the boundary.

The Chairperson commented that he did not think the incident could be ignored. The confinement of the dog so that someone could enter the property and reach the front door without being confronted by the dog needed to be addressed.

It was pointed out by Mr Sexton that this fencing requirement would become mandatory for all urban dog owners if Parliament passed proposed new dog legislation in its current form

The Doherty’s advised that if they were forced to fence property to contain the dog at the back then they would be forced to have the dog put down.

A suggestion was made that the property could be fenced down the drive way to allow people access to the back door of the house thus containing the dog in the front of the property.

Mr Sexton reiterated the fact that the proposed new legislative requirements would enforce all dog owners to provide access to a door of their house without people being able to be confronted by a dog.

The Power Company were now aware that there was a potentially dangerous dog on the property (94 Hauraki Road, Turua) and would not enter the property without prior arrangement.

The hearing closed at 10.10 am.

The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 10.15 am. The meeting reconvened at 10.30 am.

On the 27^th June 2003 a notice under Section 31(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996 was served on Robert Stevens of 8 Rata Street, Waihi.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been schedule for 10.15 am. The hearing commenced at 10.31 am.

Mr R Stevens, Miss S Stevens (daughter) and Miss Bowden (complainant) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

The hearing adjourned at 10.40 am. The meeting reconvened at 10.46 am.

Mr Stevens tabled a submission in support of the objection.

Mr Stevens stated that the dog named Indy was at home at the time of the attack. The other dog named Gremahl was at the Waikino School in Mr Steven’s car at the time of the incident.

Mr Stevens commented that he had since sighted another dog that looked like a purebred German Shepherd similar to his dog wandering on his property and up and down the street on occasion.

Mr Stevens advised that he left to go to Waikino School at 3.45 pm. His oldest son let the dog out immediately after Mr Stevens had left the property, to go to the toilet and secured it again by 3.50 pm when both his sons left to do their paper runs.

Miss Bowden (complainant) outlined the attack on her dog. Miss Bowden did not see the dog come out of the property but after the attack the dog retreated onto Mr Stevens property at 8 Rata Street, Waihi. She could not positively identify which dog it was that attacked her dog. Miss Bowden commented that she had taken her dog to the vets for treatment as a result of the attach at 4.30 pm that day.

The Dog Ranger outlined the incident. When he had first spoken to Miss Bowden to make sure the property the dog came from was 8 Rata Street, Waihi, Miss Bowden had confirmed this. She commented that she was aware that there were two dogs at the property but when asked if she could identify the dog, Miss Bowden advised that she was not able to identify which of the two dogs attacked. Thus Council had placed the dangerous dog classification on both of the dogs residing on the property. If during the course of the hearing one of the dogs was identified as the culprit then this could be changed.

Mr Sexton outlined the history regarding non registration and complaints regarding Mr Steven’s dogs. A notice was currently in force which stated that during the hours of darkness both dogs must be kept inside the dwelling and during the hours of daylight the dogs were not allowed to stay at home without someone present. This had not always been complied with and Mr Sexton had verbally cautioned Mr Stevens. A complaint had also been received from the Waihi Soccer Club regarding the dogs, resulting in another general caution being issued to Mr Stevens.

Mr Stevens commented that as the property was only a rental property he had been unable to fully fence it to contain the dogs. He confirmed that there had been previous problems with the dogs barking and now he kept the eldest dog confined to the house and the other younger dog, secured outside the house. As a result of this there had been no more barking. He described the dogs, and commented that the dogs could not be confused with each other as they looked totally different. Mr Stevens continued to describe the dog that looked similar to his that he had seen wandering the streets near by.

It was noted that the containment of the dogs in the house did not comply with conditions in the dangerous dog classification.

Cr Gordon asked for clarification on description of dog. Mr Stevens commented that Indy was the older dog a purebred German Shepherd and was the dog that was at home at the time of the incident.

Mr Stevens commented that he was looking for a more suitable property that would suit his needs and the needs of his dogs.

The hearing closed at 11.15 am.

The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 11.20 am. The meeting reconvened at 11.30 am.

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

Reasons:

HC03/ 21 Tregidga/Gordon CARRIED

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

Reasons:

HC03/ 22 Gordon/Tregidga CARRIED

The Committee considered this issue at 12.15 pm.

In October 2002 the Council heard and decided the Resource Consent application from the above to establish a Learning Centre on Lots 2 and 3 DPS 29502, Landlyst Road, Waihi. The Council granted consent subject to a number of conditions. The applicants have lodged an appeal with the Environment Court against parts of two of the conditions. Discussions have been held with the Consent Holder to seek to settle the appeal without the need for a full Environment Court hearing.

In addition the Consent Holder had submitted amended plans, seeking confirmation from the Council that these were in compliance with the resource consent that had been granted.

After considering both aspects of the matter the Committee confirmed that the settlement reached between the Consent Holder and Council staff is appropriate and that the amendments proposed are in accordance with the resource consent granted.

(B) I) That, subject to 140 metres of sight distance being achieved looking east from the entrance, the proposed relocation of the entrance approximately 50 metres to the east of the original location, is in accordance with the conditions of consent.

Note: this may result in part of the road needing to be lowered.

II) That, subject to one student dormitory block being deleted, the staff dormitory area be permitted to be separated from the main hall, and located as shown on the amended site plan.

Note: All dormitory blocks will need to fully comply with condition 3.

HC03/ 23 Tregidga/Hayden CARRIED

THAT the Council agrees to the settlement of the appeal by Waihi Academy of Studies on the basis that:

Condition 2 – the phrase

"the use of the buildings as an educational centre for Taiwanese students who wish to learn English and New Zealand culture and for New Zealand students who wish to learn Chinese languages and Chinese culture"

"the use of the buildings as an educational centre for students who wish to learn English and New Zealand culture and other languages and cultures."

The Waihi Academy of Studies will withdraw its appeal on the maximum number of students and height of specimen trees at planting.

The Council provide written confirmation to Waihi Academy of Studies that:

The maximum student number applies to the students attending the Learning Centre. It does not apply to infrequent, one-off type school events such as interschool sports days or school plays/concerts.

Determination by Council which trees and numbers of trees need to exceed 2 metres in height at time of planting will be following consideration of detailed landscape planting plans.

03/24 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 12.40 pm. The meeting reconvened at 1.10 pm.

A report was tabled at the meeting.

The Council had lodged a reference (appeal) with the Environment Court against various of the decisions made by the Regional Council on its submissions on the Proposed Regional Plan.

The Regional Council was attempting to settle as many of the references on its decisions as possible and to this end had been working with referrers and section 271A and section 274 parties in a facilitated negotiation process.

To date this process had addressed references relating to chapters 1 Introduction; 3.1 water resources; water management classes; 4.2.2.1 river and lakebed structures.

Council staff had attended a number of these meetings. The meetings had resulted in some changes to the Regional Plan. Some issues had not been resolved and would need further negotiation or full Environment Court hearings.

Regional Council staff were presently drafting consent memoranda on those areas on which agreement had been reached. They required Council’s confirmation by 1 August that the proposed changes were acceptable to Council, so that they can take an agreed settlement to the Waikato Regional Plan Hearings Committee in early August.

After discussion on the matter it was decided:

HC03/25 Hayden/Gordon CARRIED

The meeting closed at 1.40 pm.

CONFIRMED

J Tregidga

July 2003