There were no apologies.

There were no late items.

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation for the period 1^st August to 1^st October 2008 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters for the period 1^st August to 1^st October 2008 be received.

HC08/36 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 21 August 2008 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC08/37 Bubb/Leonard CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Wednesday 27 August 2008 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC08/38 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

WAIVER APPLICATION FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS ACT 1987 E A MCMURRAY & E L ROBERTS, 2 RUSSELL STREET, PAEROA (431111) (23KB)

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 attached.

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

A representative from Paeroa Heat and Pool (on behalf of the applicants) was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

RESOLVED

THAT the staff report be received.

HC08/39 Leonard/Gordon CARRIED

Mr East presented his report.

The spa has a hard cover that is lockable and is compliant with the NZS 8500: 2006 Standard 3.10, attached was a copy of the specifications and standards.

The hearing closed at 9.20am.

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:

HC08/40 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

WAIVER APPLICATION-FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS ACT-SWIM-03224, 65 RANGIORA ROAD, RD4, PAEROA, A YOUNG (435915 – SWIM-03224) (25KB)

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 attached.

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

The Applicant, Ms Roberts was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

RESOLVED

THAT the staff report be received.

HC08/41 Leonard/Gordon CARRIED

Mr East presented his report.

Mr East explained that Mrs Young has a swimming pool on her property at 65 Rangiora Road, Paeroa which is presently full of water. The pool area has a pool fence that complies in part with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, but there is direct access via a sliding door from the garage and back door of the dwelling into the pool area. Council staff carried out an inspection of the property on the 23^rd September 2008 and noted the non compliance in that there was no exemption/waiver in place for the doors opening directly into the pool area from the garage and dwelling. An application has been received from Mrs Young seeking a waiver from the fencing requirements where the sliding door from the garage and the back door from the dwelling open into the pool area. Photographs of the site were presented.

The doors that open directly into the pool area from the garage and dwelling have a securing devices fitted above the floor which can not be reached by a child under the age of 6 years old, as allowed under clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act, nevertheless this needs to be specifically approved by Council under section 6 of the Act. The securing device is capable of being locked.

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 the evidence the Committee:

An appeal has been lodged.

Attached was a detailed report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents.

A hearing has been scheduled for 9.30am. The hearing commenced at 9.35am.

The Applicant, Mr Ray Bassett was in attendance.

The Complainant was also in attendance.

Mr Bassett advised presented his evidence.

Mr Bassett advised that that he walks his dogs on leashes and lets them run for short periods around the Paeroa race course.

He provided the history and breed of his two dogs. One, (Zeus) a neutered Corgie/German Shepherd cross and (Zena) a neutered two year old male Akita/Blue Heeler cross. The two dogs both reside in Mr Bassett’s home and are inquisitive, friendly but territorial.

Mr Bassett stated there are many dogs in the neighbourhood and this is the only complaint he had received about the behaviour of his dogs. T

The incident happened when he was walking his dogs on Ainslie Road, Paeroa. They were under control but were not on a lead. One of the dogs confronted the Complainants dog at the fence of her property. The dogs met at the fence between the Complainants property and the road reserve. Mr Bassett broke up the altercation between the two dogs. He was unaware that the complainant’s dog was injured in the altercation. He stated that he takes full responsibility for the situation as his dogs were unleashed at the time of the incident. He assured the Committee that he is now more vigilant in restraining his dogs by the use of leads.

Cr Bubb inquired as to the characteristics and personality of the Japanese Akita breed. Mr Basset explained that they have the characteristics of domination.

Mr Bassett also stated that Zena is a dog that is strong but does not attack.

Mr Bassett was asked where he exercises his dogs. He replied that he walks the dogs around the stables area of the race course.

Mr Bassett was asked if one dog excites the other dog which makes them more aggressive together.

The Japanese Akita dog dominates by its presence rather than by aggression.

Mr Bassett was asked if there had been any issues with either dog in the past. At this point the complainant interjected stating that her dog has been attacked before by one of Mr Bassett’s dogs. When questioned further, the complainant advised she did not report the matter to Council.

Mr Sexton presented his report.

Mr Sexton stated that the menacing classification was issued following the complaint received regarding the behaviour of Mr Bassett’s dogs. There has been other complaints received pertaining to the dogs aggressive manner.

The issue in this case is that the dogs were unleashed at the time of the incident.

Mr Bassett has incurred $600.00 worth of fines which have now been cancelled as Mr Bassett has agreed with dog control staff that he will ensure that the dogs will be under control at all times.

At the time of the incident, Mr Bassett’s dogs were not on a leash. His dogs did cause injury to the complainant’s dog which required veterinary treatment.

Both dogs have been classified as menacing as identification of the guilty dog was difficult.

The complainant’s dog was on its owner’s property behind the fence at the time of the incident.

A member commented that it would appear one dog appears to be the aggressor and one to be the follower. It was therefore suggested that the aggressor should be classified as menacing and the dog that tends to follow.

Mr Bassett admitted he was at fault as he did not have his dogs on leads. He stated that he has remedied the problem now by always leashing his dogs when out in public and would continue to ensure they are leashed at all times in the future.

The hearing closed at 10.00am.

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 the menacing classification be upheld for the dog Zena and revoked for the dog Zeus.

HC08/43 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED