RESOLVED

THAT the apology of Cr B A Gordon be received and sustained.

HC07/109 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

W Harris, 4 Te Angi Street, Turua (04710/076.02) (22KB)

The applicants are seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their spa pool.

A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was presented.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.40am. The hearing commenced at 9.20am.

The applicant was in attendance.

The applicant is seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. The alternative is the erection of a compliant swimming pool fence. The Spa pool is currently in use and the owner has removed the spa blanket and replaced it with a NZS 8500: 2006 compliant lockable hard cover.

The Spa Pool is non compliant with the NZS 8500: 2006 Standard 3.10 in that the side of the Spa pool measures 670mm, 90mm short of the 760mm standard under NZS 8500: 2006. The occupant of the property has agreed to construct a stand for the Spa pool to sit on to meet the NZS 8500:2006 standard for height being 760mm.

It was advised that the cover as proposed by the applicant will not significantly increase danger to children six years of age and younger, as long as it is locked in place and only removed while under adult supervision.

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.

W Harris, 4 Te Angi Street,Turua (04710/076.02)

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

HC07/110 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

Mrs E Roebuck, 15a Parfitt Place, Ngatea (04771/569.00) (24KB)

The applicants are seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their swimming pool.

A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was presented.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.20am. The hearing commenced at 9.30am.

The applicant was not in attendance.

Mrs Roebuck seeks from the Committee, a waiver under Section 6 of the Act for the requirement for the doors that open immediately onto the 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. In addition Mrs Roebuck is seeking from the Committee, a waiver under section 6 of the Act to allow inhibitors to be fitted to inhibit the windows to 100mm maximum opening capacity.

The pool area is effectively fenced off from access by children other than those staying as invited guests, and therefore under the supervision of the house owner. It should be 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 doors to the pool area from the living area.

The hearing closed at 9.35am.

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

Mr E Roebuck, 15a Parfitt Place, Ngatea (04771/569.00)

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mrs Roebuck 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, Mrs Roebuck seeks from the Committee a waiver to allow her to fit inhibitors to the windows that give direct access to the immediate pool area, under section 6 of the Act. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

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 door 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.

That the door with access from the dwelling into the pool area is locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.

That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.

That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/111 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

Mr & Mrs J & M Leslie, 8 Matai Street, Kerepehi (04750/027.00)(24KB)

The applicants are seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their spa pool.

A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was presented.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.30am. The hearing commenced at 9.40am.

The applicants were not in attendance.

Mr and Mrs Leslie seek from the Committee, a waiver under Section 6 of the Act for the requirement for the door that opens immediately onto the 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. In addition Mr and Mrs Leslie are seeking from the Committee, a waiver under section 6 of the Act to allow inhibitors to be fitted to inhibit the window to 100mm maximum opening capacity.

The pool area is effectively fenced off from access by children other than those staying as invited guests, and therefore under the supervision of the house owner. It should be 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 doors to the pool area from the living area.

The hearing closed at 9.45am.

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

Mr & Mrs J & M Leslie, 8 Matai Street, Kerepehi (04750/027.00)

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

That the request from Mr and Mrs Leslie 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 door is fitted with a lock that, when properly operated, prevents the door from being opened by children under 6 years of age. In addition, Mr and Mrs Leslie seek from the Committee a waiver to allow them to fit inhibitors to the window that gives direct access to the immediate pool area, under section 6 of the Act. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children.

The waiver is subject to the following conditions:

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 door 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.

That the door with access from the dwelling into the pool area is locked shut when the pool is not under adult supervision.

That the decision of Council be entered on the title of the land for the information of a future owner.

That in every other respect the pool and fencing complies with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

HC07/112 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

A Ohara, 490 Kaihere Road, Ngatea (04730/154.00) (21KB)

The applicants are seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 for their spa pool.

A detailed report from the Monitoring Officer including supporting documents was presented.

A hearing is scheduled for 9.50am. The hearing commenced at 9.50am.

The Applicants were not in attendance.

The applicant is seeking an exemption from all the fencing requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. The alternative is the erection of a compliant swimming pool fence. In the interim, until a decision is made, the spa pool is to remain empty of water.

The spa has a hard cover that is lockable. There are no further details that could be supplied. The Spa Pool is compliant with the NZS 8500: 2006 Standard 3.10.

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 the evidence the Committee:

HC07/113 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

OBJECTION TO SECTION 71 OF DOG CONTROL ACT (1996) : P PAKINGA, 297 FERRY ROAD, KEREPEHI (63.100.023) (27KB)

An appeal has been lodged.

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

A hearing was scheduled for 10.15am. The hearing commenced at 10.20am.

Mr Adams presented a report on the objection. He advised that Mr Pakinga owns a Red nosed Pitbull terrier he had in his care since September 2006. Mr Pakinga has received infringements for several offences to date relating to failure to de-sex, microchip, failure to keep dog under control, and a recent infringement for failure to notify address of menacing dog. He also has a total of $1700.00 in outstanding fines.

On 28 August 2007, a complaint was received regarding the menacing behaviour of Dollars from a neighboring property in Ferry Road, Kerepehi where Dollars was reported to have bailed up children walking on the road on their way home from school.

Also, on 28 August 2007, Mr Pakinga moved to a new address, 62B Puke Road, Paeroa. Two complaints were received about Dollars roaming without supervision near that address.

Mr Adams advised that when he visited the property he found the dog wandering free. He therefore uplifted the dog and impounded it under Section 71 of the Dog Control Act.

Mr Pakinga was advised that the dog would only be released under the following conditions:

That the dog be moved back to the Kerepehi address

Property must be fenced

Muzzle purchased and used if dog is away from property.

Following notice of this requirement, Mr Pakinga purchased a muzzle, had the dog de-sexed and micro-chipped.

Mr Adams stated that the issue of significant concern is also that the dog is classified by breed as being dangerous.

The history of Dollar’s behaviour was discussed. The dog has approached children. Fines have not been paid. Impounding fees to date are upwards of $1700.00 plus

In conclusion, it was agreed that if Mr Pakinga did not wish prosecution proceedings that he be given the option of surrendering his dog for destruction.

The hearing closed 10.40am.

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

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT this matter be prosecuted in the District Court with a view that the dog be forfeited and the owner, Preston Pakinga, be prevented from owning dogs in the future (disqualified owner) or the dog owner be given the opportunity to surrender the dog for destruction – this must be done in writing by Preston Pakinga, the owner of Dollars the offending dog.

HC07/114 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

The meeting closed at 10.50am.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

22 November 2007