RESOLVED

THAT the apology of Cr J M Bubb be received and sustained.

HC05/09 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

There were no late items.

MEETING HELD THURSDAY 17 FEBRUARY 2005

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 17 February 2005 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC05/10 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION – MR & MRS SCHIPPER, 157 NGATAIPUA ROAD, THAMES (P06494) (18KB)

An application has been received from Mr and Mrs Schipper seeking an exemption from the fencing of swimming pool requirements.

A detailed report and letter from the applicants was attached. Original photographs of the windows and doors of the area leading onto the proposed swimming pool area were tabled at the meeting for the members’ consideration.

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

Mrs Schipper was present for the benefit of the hearing. She outlined the plan of the proposed swimming pool referring to the tabled photographs which showed the fencing layout of the pool area.

Mr Bierre spoke to his report. He stated that Mr and Mrs Schipper seek from the Committee, an exemption under Section 6 of the Act for the requirement for the sliding doors that open immediately onto the proposed pool area to comply with clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule, being the requirements to automatically self close, on the grounds that this would be impossible or unreasonable. The alternative is the construction of a pool fence between the house and the pool.

The pool area will be effectively fenced off from access by children other than those staying as invited guests, and therefore under the supervision of the house owner. It was noted however, that if children younger than 6 years of age were staying in house they could gain direct access to the pool if not supervised. The main access to the house for the public is via a separate door other than the sliding doors.

Mr Bierre stated that he considered the proposal complied to what is intended in the Schedule of the Act as all doors with access from the house into the pool area are fitted with tower bolts fitted above 1.8m from the ground which cannot be reached by a child under the age of 6 years.

Cr Gordon asked if or when the property is sold, is there provision that it be noted on the LIM report the reason and background for the exemption to the fencing of the swimming pool. It was advised that staff can include an advice notice with the consent application outlining the requirements of the exemption.

The hearing closed at 9.30am

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

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mr & Mrs Schipper seeking exemption from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable and also impossible for the access to the pool from the house to comply with the Act. Clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act allows for this specific situation on condition that the doors are fitted with a lock that, when properly operated, prevents the door from being opened by children under 6 years of age. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The exemption is subject to the following conditions:

That all doors with access from the house into the pool area be fitted with a lock that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years.

That the doors with access from the house directly to the pool are locked shut when the pool is not in use and under adult supervision.

HC05/11 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

An appeal has been lodged.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 10.15am. The hearing commenced at 10.15am.

Mrs Small (Applicant) and support person were present for the benefit of the hearing.

Mrs G Hantom (Complainant) was not in attendance for the hearing.

Mrs Small stated that her neighbour, Mrs G Hantom who resides five houses away from her house in Seddon Ave, Waihi registered a complaint with the dog control officer that on the night of 27 January 2005 she had seen a dog attacking her cat at 11.30pm on her property.

Mrs Small stated that her dog could not have been the offending dog as she was locked up and secured in a fenced enclosure on her property (which also has bolted gates), at the time of the alleged attack. Mrs Small advised that Mrs Hantom had stated that she had followed the offending dog when it had left her property and saw it enter the entranceway of 57 Seddon Ave. Mrs Small stated that the entranceway to her house is in Martin Road and not in Seddon Ave.

Cr Gordon asked Mrs Small to explain to the Committee members using the photograph showing the fenced enclosure of the back yard. Upon viewing the photographs, the members considered that the property was extremely well fenced.

Mrs Small was asked if she was sure the gate was definitely locked. In reply, Mrs Small stated that she was sure that her dog was inside her property as she had a routine every evening to secure her home and ensure her dog was locked up for the night.

Mr Sexton stated that in the observation of the dog he considered that the dog was not aggressive because of its age and state of health. The dog is a fawn coloured, cross bred Labrador which has been de-sexed and is approximately 13 years of age. The complaint was followed through in accordance with the requirements of the Act. He stated that when Mrs Small was informed of the complaint she was very surprised.

He stated that he took the dog to the complainants’ property for a positive identification, and the complainant on viewing the dog, stated that Mrs Small’s labrador was the dog she saw on her property attacking her cat on the night of 27 January 2005.

Following the incident, the complainant stated that she followed the dog back up the street where she saw the dog access the driveway of Mrs Small’s property in Seddon Ave.

In conclusion, Mr Sexton stated that due to the reported behaviour of the dog, it must be classified as menacing but as there was conflicting accounts of the dogs whereabouts at the time of the attack and the possibility that this could be a case of ‘mistaken identity’, the outcome from the evidence presented must be left to the Committee’s discretion.

Cr Gordon asked if the complainant actually saw the attack of the cat. In response, Mr Sexton stated that the complainant had informed him that the area was illuminated by security lighting assisting her to clearly identify the accused dog.

Mr Sexton stated that the fencing of Mrs Small’s property is in excellent condition, the dog is registered and no other complaints regarding the dogs’ behaviour have previously been received.

Cr Gordon commented that the dog is de-sexed and does comply with all the requirements to the Act.

Mr Sexton stated that Mrs Small is an abiding dog owner and has a classification of a VOL owner on record.

The hearing closed at 10.50am.

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

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the objection to the menacing classification be rescinded.

HC05/12 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

The meeting closed at 11.00am.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

April 2005