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

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

The item was not on the agenda because the item was unavailable at the agenda deadline.

Discussion on the item could not be delayed due to a time constraint for the application to be processed.

HC06/44 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

MEETING HELD THURSDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2006

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 21 September 2006 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC06/45 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

APPEAL OF SECTION (55) DOG CONTROL ACT 1996 – BARKING DOG P BROMILEY-LOANE, 63 PIPIROA ROAD, NGATEA (63.100.026) (18KB)

An appeal has been lodged.

A detailed report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents was available for the Committee’s information.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.00am. The hearing commenced at 9.05am.

Ms Phoebe Bromiley-Loane (Appellant) and Mrs M Shelley (Complainant) were not in attendance.

Mr Sexton advised of the breed and age of the offending dog, being a German Shorthaired Pointer registered under the owner’s name of Ms Phoebe Bromiley-Loane of 67 Pipiroa Road, Ngatea.

A number of complaints regarding the persistent barking of the dog have been received. The dog owner has attempted to use methods to reduce the barking of the dog but the Complainant has advised that the dogs are still persistently barking. Mr Sexton advised that he has sent out information to the dog owners on ways to help reduce excessive barking. If the barking does not abate, a Section 56 Notice will be issued which involves the uplifting and removal of the dog as a final resolution to the issue.

Mr Sexton advised that he has spoken with the Complainant who has confirmed that the dog in question is the offending dog. He stated that as the barking has not reduced, there is no other redress other than to remove the dog. Mr Sexton commented that as the owners are not in residence during the day, it would appear that the dogs are persistently barking due to loneliness and boredom. Other neighbours have also advised of their concern regarding the persistent barking of the dogs.

The hearing closed at 9.25am.

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 Section 55 Notice be upheld.

HC06/46 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

CLASS 4 VENUE POLICY APPLICATION FOR INCREASE IN MACHINE NUMBERS (01.712.044)

The Planning and Environmental Services Manager tabled a report regarding an application received from the Water Safety Education Foundation who operates 12 gaming machines at the Ngatea Hotel. The organisation requests that the hotel be permitted to increase the number of gaming machines to 15.

It was advised that prior to lodging the application the applicants were given a copy of Councils Policy and advised that the application would not meet the requirements outlined in that Policy.

After consideration of the request, it was agreed that the application be declined on the grounds that the application to increase the number of gambling machines at the Ngatea Hotel does not fit within the requirements of the Policy and that the applicant be informed that a review of Councils Gambling Policy will be undertaken in March 2007.

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received.

HC06/47 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the application by the Water Safety Education Foundation to increase the number of gaming machines from to 12 to 15 at the Ngatea Hotel be declined

AND THAT the applicant be advised accordingly

AND THAT the applicant be further advised of Council’s upcoming review of the Class 4 Venues Gambling Act Venue Policy.

HC06/48 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

APPEAL OF SECTION (55) DOG CONTROL ACT 1996 – BARKING DOG J ATKINSON, 7 TOOMEY STREET, WAIHI (63.100.026)

An appeal has been lodged.

A detailed report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents was available for the Committee’s information.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.45am. The hearing commenced at 9.45am.

Mr J Atkinson and Ms A Morgan (Appellants) and Mrs Petersen (Complainant) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

The Appellants spoke in support of their objection to the Section 55 Notice. Ms Morgan advised that both she and her partner both work during the day. They have investigated options to reduce the persistent barking of their dogs. They have considered removing the dogs from the property during the day while they are at work but decided that this was not a viable option. They have also investigated the option of using an electric collar to encourage the dogs not to bark.

Mr Sexton advised that Mr Atkinson has three dogs registered in his name residing on the property, being one female Labrador (entire), one Labrador (de-sexed) and one Border Collie (de-sexed). Ms Morgan advised that one of the dogs is registered in her name. Mr Sexton confirmed that the dogs are registered solely under the name of Mr Atkinson.

The Complainant, Mrs Petersen has registered three complaints regarding the persistent barking of Mr Atkinson’s dogs. Following the last complaint received from Mrs Petersen, Mr Sexton visited the property at 7 Toomey Street where it was found that there were more than two dogs residing at the property, being in breach of the Council bylaw. He advised that the dogs were barking persistently, although he stated that dogs will generally bark if they encounter someone entering the property that they do not recognise. He advised that a Section 55 Notice has been issued and if the persistent barking does not abate, a Section 56 Notice will be issued for the removal of the dogs from the property.

Mr Sexton explained that if a dog barks only when someone enters the property, then ceases barking, this is not considered an offence. It is only when a dog barks persistently for no apparent reason that it becomes an offence.

Ms Morgan advised that they have housed the dogs on their property in kennels and on runs during the day so that they are not drawn to the attention of passers by. Ms Morgan provided correspondence received from a company manufacturing barking reduction collars. Copies of this information was distributed to Committee for their consideration.

Mrs Petersen was asked if the dogs barking have reduced. Mrs Petersen advised that there has been a notable reduction in the dogs barking.

Ms Morgan stated that she has observed passers by antagonising their dogs which has not helped the situation.

Mrs Petersen was asked to describe the location of her property in relation to the appellant’s property. Mrs Petersen advised that the two properties back onto each other. The kennels housing the dogs are located close to her house at the rear of the appellants section.

The hearing closed at 10.05am.

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 Section 55 Notice be upheld

AND THAT the owners be requested to reduce the number of dogs residing at the property to a maximum of two.

HC06/49 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

The meeting closed at 10.15am.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

9 November 2006