There were no apologies.

There were no late items.

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation from the period 1^st September 2006 are submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters be received.

HC06/50 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

MEETING HELD THURSDAY 19 OCTOBER 2006

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 19 October 2006 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC06/51 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

APPEAL TO DANGEROUS DOG CLASSIFICATION – J COWDELL-ORCHARD, 29 SCHOOL ROAD, KARANGAHAKE, PAEROA (63.100.023) (18KB)

An appeal has been lodged.

A detailed report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents was available.

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

In attendance for the benefit of the hearing were Mr and Mrs O’Leary (Complainants), Mr Orchard and Mrs J Orchard (nee Cowdell) and her son Scott (Appellants).

Mrs Orchard advised that she had taken ownership of her dog, Reilly, a female German Shepherd for the purposes of protecting her family and property since experiencing a burglary at her home. She agreed that Reilly has some behavioural issues which are being addressed by her attendance at a dog obedience programme.

Mrs Orchard was advised that no one can keep a dog solely for the purpose of protecting their private property.

Mrs Orchard provided an account of the incident. She stated that she did not witness the incident but that her son, Scott, was at home on the day of Thursday, 5 October 2006. Scott advised her that their dog, Reilly, had left the property and ran across the Karangahake School grounds to a group of people standing by the school in an excitable state. He recalled that Mrs Leary’s mother was startled by the dog causing her to fall. Scott considered that the fall was due to Reilly pushing her to the ground but did not consider that she was ‘attacked’ by Reilly.

Mrs O’Leary recalled the incident in question, stating that she did not agree with Mrs Orchard’s account of the incident and continued to relay her account.

Mrs O’Leary stated that a number of family members and her were visiting the historical school site to take photos. The dog in question rushed across the grounds of the school towards them. The dog barked at each individual member of the group. The dog seemed to be very excited and she considered it was acting aggressively. Mrs O’Leary’s mother was standing still by the decking of the new school building when the dog jumped up onto her causing her to fall. As she put her hand out to stabilise herself, she sustained an injury to her wrist. The dog was barking very aggressively when the boy ran over and tried to control the dog. The dog did not attempt to bite but certainly jumped up onto Mrs O’Leary’s mother.

The Dog Control Officer advised that he visited the owner’s property later that day. Mr Sexton spoke to Mrs Orchard’s teenage children (with authority to do so). They informed him that the dog bolted from the property and ran down to the grounds of the school. Scott stated that the dog lunged at the complainant and then stood over her while she was on the ground. The children tried to control the dog, but for whatever reason, the dog could not be controlled.

Mr Sexton advised that the property is open and is not fenced. Staff has not been able to receive an account of the incident from Mrs O’Leary’s mother. He noted that the dog showed some aggressive tendencies and could not be contained on the property.

Mr Sexton advised that the Principal of Karangahake School had informed him that one of his contractors had been bitten by the dog when working at the school site during the holiday period. The Principal was satisfied that the dog had been classified as dangerous.

There have been only two incidences in relation to the history of the dog. The dog is currently registered.

Mr Sexton advised of the requirements of the Dog Control Act whereby a dog classified as dangerous must adhere to a number of rules to protect the general public from harm.

Dog owners cannot own a dog for the purpose of being used solely as a ‘watch dog’ because a dog cannot identify a burglar from a general member of the public. He considered Reilly was displaying territorial tendencies.

Dangerous or menacing dogs must be on a leash at all times when in public. Dangerous dogs must be micro chipped, desexed and property must be fenced. Any incident involving a human being is classified as dangerous.

Mrs O’Leary provided a description of the injury her mother had received which was of severe bruising to her hip and a very swollen wrist.

Mr O’Leary commented that the dog was not protecting its owners or their property as Mrs Orchard had claimed. The dog ran from the property and away from its owners.

The hearing closed 9.55am.

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 report be received

AND THAT the Dangerous Dog classification be upheld.

HC06/52 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

The meeting closed at 10.03am.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

14 December 2006