There were no apologies.

There were no late items.

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation from 1^st May 2007 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters be received.

HC07/66 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 21 June 2007 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC07/67 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

CANCELLATION OF CONDITIONS OF RESOURCE CONSENT : K F BRINKMAN, 28 PRINCES STREET WAIHI (82.716.227)

The members considered that the suggestion of an application to reduce the right of way width should be mentioned to the applicant as an alternative to removing the eaves although there was no guarantee that such an application would be successful.

OBJECTION TO DANGEROUS DOG CLASSIFICATION - Ms A M MOL, 4 WILLIAMS STREET, WAIHI (63.100.23) (18KB)

An appeal has been lodged.

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

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

Ms A Mol and Mr M Otway (Applicants) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing. The Complainant was not in attendance.

Ms Mol presented a written submission in support of her objection to the Dangerous Dog Classification.

Ms Mol advised that there are three dogs residing on the property. The two dogs which were outside on the section were Bruce, a 10 year old, male Border Collie and her partner’s dog, a Golden Retriever. Ms Mol and her partner were not at home on the day of the incident. On their return home, Ms Mol spoke with the Complainant’s husband on the telephone where he informed her of the incident involving Bruce. He told her that a complaint had been laid with Council and provided his wife’s account of the incident.

Ms Mol informed the Committee that following investigations into where Bruce may have accessed the hole in the fence, it was found that there was a gap in the fence in two places.

Ms Mol considered that the dog may have been provoked by the complainant while she was walking by and commented that she had observed that the Complainant did have a fear of dogs. Mr Otway advised that he has installed 6ft high fencing around the property since the incident.

The applicants stated that Bruce usually never left the property, but on this occasion, managed to get through a gap in the fence.

Staff Report

Mr Adams provided an account of the complaint received regarding the behaviour of Ms Mol’s dog. The Complainant advised that she was walking past a property on the corner of Williams Street and Kent Crescent when a Border Collie approached her on the road way, nipping her on the leg. Mr Adams stated that there were puncture wounds on the calf area of the Complainants leg. He believed it was a genuine attack which resulted in an injury. The Complainant did not seek medical attention.

Mr Adams advised the Complainant that she could make a complaint to Council. On 28^th of May, the Complainant lodged a complaint with Council and provided a sworn statement witnessed by a JP to classify the dog as dangerous. Following receipt of this statement, a notice was served on Ms Mol. Ms Mol then sought a hearing to be heard in support of her objection to the classification.

Mr Adams considered that Bruce did act in an aggressive way. Upon entering the property Bruce barked aggressively at him. He advised that the other dog residing on the property, a Golden Retriever, seemed excitable. Mr Adams did admit that the dogs could have been excited due to the fact someone was entering their territory and commented that it is natural for a dog to act defensively in this situation but should not be aggressive.

Upon investigation of the fencing at the property at 4 Williams Street, Mr Adams found two places where the dogs could escape.

Mr Adams advised that since the incident, extensive fencing has been completed around the section but if the classification is upheld, it would not meet the requirements of a dangerous dog classification. The dog would need to be secured away from the front of the dwelling. There is an area to the rear of the house which could be fenced off to secure the dogs which would meet the requirements of the Act.

In conclusion, Mr Adams recommended the classification be upheld.

Mr Sexton addressed the Committee. He advised he met with the Complainant and Mr Adams after the incident. Mr Adams advised him that he considered the Complainant appeared to have an obvious fear of dogs.

Mr Sexton considered that the fencing of the property has been improved but the main issue for the Committee to consider is whether the dog acted in an aggressive manner. He considered a classification was required under the circumstances and raised the concern that if Bruce was to change ownership and had no classification tagged; the dog could re-offend resulting in a further physical injury to a member of the public.

Ms Mol stated that she does not deny that the dog did act as described but still considered Bruce was an excitable dog and not an aggressive dog. When asked if Bruce is walked regularly, Ms Mole advised he is walked on a daily basis.

Mr Sexton advised of the conditions pertaining to the classification in which the dog owner must comply. He stated that if the ownership of the dog is transferred to another district, these conditions will still apply within that district.

The hearing closed at 10.10am.

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 is upheld.

HC07/68 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

The applications listed have been received seeking an exemption from the fencing of swimming pool requirements.

A detailed report from the Regulatory Services Manager and Monitoring Officer for each application including the applicant’s letter seeking exemption, photos of pool area and other supporting documents were presented for the consideration of the Committee.

The hearing commenced at 10.15am.

Mr Milne, 12 Bennett Street, Paeroa (05003/700.00) (25KB)

The Applicant was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Milne spoke in support of his application.

Mr East advised that Mr Milne has a swimming pool on his property at 12 Bennett Street, Paeroa, which is presently full of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via back doors and windows from the dwelling into the pool area. In addition there is a non-compliant gate that opens inward toward the pool area. Mr Milne and staff have had a discussion about this and I have inspected the gate and have found that the measures that Mr Milne has in place are effective in minimising the danger of young persons entering the pool area. Mr Milne also has assured staff that this gate is locked at all times while the property is vacant.

The gate has a return fitted and a self closing latch that is compliant other than the fact that the gate opens inward toward the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 12^th February 2007 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the doors and windows opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr Milne seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the back doors and windows from the dwelling open into the pool area.

In conclusion, staff advised that the doors are to be locked with a tower or barrel bolt. Inhibitors are required to be installed onto all windows opening onto the pool area. The gate accessing the pool does not comply. It must open outwards and not inwards and requires a lockable device to be installed to it.

The hearing closed at 10.25am.

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mr Milne seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable 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. In addition inhibitors that when fitted only allow the windows to open to a maximum of 100mm. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the doors from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the non compliant gate be padlocked shut when the pool is not supervised by an adult or the property is vacant.
3. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
4. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
5. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/69 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

The hearing commenced at 10.25am.

Mr F & C Bing, 31 Russell Street, Waihi (05020/199.01) (24KB)

The Applicants were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr and Mrs Bing spoke in support of their application for exemption to pool fencing. They provided a historical account of the construction of their pool which was originally built in 1974. The pool was fenced in 1998 and was inspected that year which was approved as meeting the required safety regulations at that time. The applicants considered they had met all pool fencing requirements following that inspection.

Mr East advised the applicants have a swimming pool on their property at 31 Russell Street, Waihi, which is presently full of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via a sliding door from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 21^st June 2007 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the door opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the sliding door from the dwelling open into the pool area.

Staff and Committee members advised the applicants that the regulations pertaining to pool fencing have changed since their inspection in 1998. Since that time, a number of strict safety conditions have been imposed to ensure the safety of children under the age of six.

Mr East advised that the locks on the door directly accessing the pool area now comply but there are no inhibitors installed on the windows. Inhibitors will have to be installed to meet compliance.

The members raised a matter of concern that the concrete grated fence located within the surrounds of the pool is a safety issue, in that a child could easily climb over it accessing the pool area. It was requested that the applicants seek advice from a building inspector on whether the fence complies with the safety standards.

The hearing closed at 10.45am.

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mr and Mrs Bing seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable 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. In addition inhibitors that when fitted only allow the windows to open to a maximum of 100mm. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the doors from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
3. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/70 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

The hearing commenced at 11.05am.

Mr R Foster, 6a Nahum Street, Paeroa (05003/634.00) (24KB)

The Applicant was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Foster advised that the windows opening onto the pool area do not have inhibitors installed. As the house has recently been sold, he intends to ensure all requirements of pool fencing are met. Mr Foster advised he has fitted tower bolts to the doors of the house accessing the pool area and agreed to ensure that inhibitors are installed on all windows opening onto the pool area before the new owners of the property take possession.

Mr East advised that Mr Richard Foster has a swimming pool on his property at 6a Nahum Street, Paeroa, which is presently full of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via a sliding door from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 17^th January 2007 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the door opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr Foster seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the sliding door from the dwelling open into the pool area.

Due to the change of property ownership being undertaken within a matter of days, Mr East advised Mr Foster that he would visit the property for a final inspection once Mr Foster had completed the installation of inhibitors on all windows accessing the pool area.

The hearing closed at 11.10am

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mr Foster seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable 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. In addition inhibitors that when fitted only allow the windows to open to a maximum of 100mm. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the doors from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
3. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/71 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

The hearings for the following applications commenced at 11.10am.

Mr J E Pullen, 8 Aorangi Road, Paeroa (05003/038.00) (24KB)

The Applicant was not in attendance.

Mr East advised that Mr John E Pullan has a spa pool on his property. The pool area has a pool fence that complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via a sliding door from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 11^th January 2007 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the door opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr Pullan seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the sliding door from the dwelling open into the pool area.

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mr Pullen seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable 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. In addition inhibitors that when fitted only allow the windows to open to a maximum of 100mm. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the doors from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
3. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/72 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

Mr Parker, 6 Thames Road, Paeroa (05002/793.00) (24KB)

The Applicant was not in attendance.

Mr East advised that Mr Parker has a swimming pool on his property at 6 Thames Road, Paeroa, which is presently full of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via a sliding door and windows from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 16^th January 2007and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the doors and windows opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr Parker seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the sliding door and windows from the dwelling opens into the pool area.

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mr Parker seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable 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. In addition inhibitors that when fitted only allow the windows to open to a maximum of 100mm. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the doors from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
3. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/73 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

Mr Stowers, 65 Savage Road, Waihi (05050/009.00) (24KB)

The Applicant was not in attendance.

Mr East advised that Mr Stowers has a swimming pool on his property at 65 Savage Road, Waihi, which is presently empty of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via french doors and windows from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 31^st January 2007 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the doors and windows opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr Stowers tenant Mr G Paulsen seeking a waiver on behalf of Mr Stowers from the fencing requirements where the french doors and windows from the dwelling open into the pool area.

Staff requested that the french doors have a key lockable device installed and the windows onto the pool area have inhibitors installed.

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the doors from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
3. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/74 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

Mr R P Gerrard, 13 Cornwall Street, Waihi (05020/306.14) (24KB)

The Applicant was not in attendance.

Mr East advised that Mr Rodney P Gerrard has a swimming pool on his property at 13 Cornwall Street, Waihi, which is presently full of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via a sliding door from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 16^th February 2007 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the door opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr Rodney P Gerrard seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the sliding door from the dwelling open into the pool area.

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mr Gerrard seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable 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. In addition inhibitors that when fitted only allow the windows to open to a maximum of 100mm. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the doors from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
3. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/75 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

Mr Evans, 271 Back Miranda Road, RD6, Thames (04680/096.00) (24KB)

The Applicant was not in attendance.

Mr East advised that Mr Evans has a swimming pool on his property at 271 Back Miranda Road, RD6 Thames, which is presently full of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via French doors and windows from the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 5^th February 2007 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption or waiver in place for the doors and windows opening directly into the pool area from the dwelling. An application has been received from Mr Evans seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the French doors and windows from the dwelling open into the pool area.

Mr East requested that inhibitors are installed on all windows accessing the pool area.

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mr Evans seeking a waiver from the requirement of Clauses 8 to 10 of the Schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable 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. In addition inhibitors that when fitted only allow the windows to open to a maximum of 100mm. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

1. That all doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area be fitted with a key operated lock that when properly operated prevents the doors from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. All windows opening out into the pool area are to be fitted with an inhibiting device to prevent the window being opened more than 100mm.
2. That the doors with access from the dwelling into the pool area are locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.
3. That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.
4. That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/76 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

Mr & Mrs J and E Bould, 57 Fisherman’s Bend, Whiritoa (05052/110.00B) (21KB)

The Applicants were not in attendance.

Mr East advised that on the 25^th June 2007, he inspected the spa pool at 57 Fisherman’s Bend, Whiritoa, which is owned by Mr J V and Mrs E Bould for compliance with its exemption under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. The inspection revealed that the spa pool was full of water; the cover not locked down and therefore did not comply with the special exemption granted by Council in February 2001. The exemption was granted on condition that the cover is locked down when the spa pool is full of water to a depth of greater than 400mm and unsupervised by an adult.

This is not the first occasion where an inspection has revealed that the Bould’s were not complying with the conditions of their exemption. Council’s records indicate that the spa pool was full of water, unattended and the cover not locked down on the 28^th August, 30^th October and 1^st November 2001, 13^th February 2002 and 27 November 2002.

In addition, an overwhelming amount of resources have been used inspecting the compliance of the spa pool to the conditions placed on the owners by the Council in 2001.

Mr East commented that on the occasions that Council staff has inspected the spa pool for compliance, a non complying situation has been found. While the owner has rectified the situation on each occasion, it would appear that the owners of the property are not taking the conditions seriously.

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT Council revoke the exemption and require the owner to fence the spa pool in accordance with the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

AND THAT a ‘Notice to Fix’ be issued to the Applicants.

HC07/77 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

The hearings closed at 11.25am.

The meeting closed at 11.30am

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

August 2007