A report and supporting information from the Monitoring Officer regarding a yard requirement issue relating to the planting of a rural shelter belt on a property boundary in the rural zone was presented.

Mr East spoke to his report on the matter.

Initial contact was made by Mrs Barr in relation to concerns about a shelterbelt on the common boundary between Trish and John Barr and Derek Rolton and Christine Gallichan’s property at Parakiwai Quarry Road, Whangamata. Mr and Mrs Barr are concerned that the tree line will become an ongoing maintenance issue that will be at their cost to maintain. Mr and Mrs Barr’s access to the property is parallel with the shelterbelt and will need to be kept clear of any branches so that access remains unrestricted.

Mr Rolton has advised he planted the trees approximately seven years ago. Currently, the trees stand about 2.5 metres high and are situated approximately half a metre from the boundary that separates the Barr & Rolton/Gallichan properties.

Section 9 of the District Plan, Bulk and Location standard 9.2.2.3 is the requirement for yards with regard to Shelterbelts in the rural zone. The standard reads as follows;

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the Committee is of the opinion that the trees do not represent a shelter belt, and therefore, it is a civil matter for the adjoining property owners to resolve between themselves.

The Manager, Planning and Environmental Services spoke to the item that was raised at the Council meeting on 29 April 2009 concerning the regulations controlling the operation of fruit and vegetable hawkers.

HC09/33 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

A hearing was scheduled for 9.15am. The hearing commenced 9.25am.

Mr Stephen Pope (Appellant) and the Complainant were not in attendance.

The complainant informed Mr Adams that Gippsy jumped the fence of her enclosure which is about 1m 10cm height and attacked the retriever on the driveway.

The Golden Retriever received 3 deep puncture wounds in behind the right shoulder which required veterinary attention. The vet bill to treat the dog bites was $139.00.

Mr Pope has written to Council to dispute the classification of Gippsy and gives an excuse that the Retriever was on his property snarling at his partner. However this information only came to Council’s notice after his dog has been classified as Menacing. Mr Pope did not make a complaint to Council about this.

Council acknowledges that the Retriever was not confined or under control but because of the aggressive actions of Gippsy, the menacing classification was issued.

Conflicting information was that the complainant’s dog went onto Mr Pope’s property first. Mr Adams did not believe that the Mr Pope’s neighbour’s dog bailed up his wife on the Pope’s property. The Committee were advised Mr Pope’s property has a 1 metre high fence erected around it.

Mr Adams stated that when visiting the Pope’s property, Gippsy has shown aggressive tendencies when running free in an open area but when she was in a more enclosed area she was not aggressive.

The issue concerning Mr Pope is of a ‘roaming nuisance’ of the complainant’s dog because it entered Mr Pope’s property where the incidence took place.

The hearing closed at 9.40am.

A hearing was scheduled for 10.05am. The hearing commenced at 10.15am.

Ms Rhodes stated that she is the registered owner of two dogs, ‘Kuejo’ a female Pit Bull cross and a female Miniature Poodle named Rosie.

Kuejo has only three legs as one leg was amputated resulting from an injury incurred 12 months earlier when she was hit by a vehicle. The dogs are predominantly kept inside the house. When visiting the veterinary clinic to seek treatment following the accident, Ms Rhodes was advised that Keujo was unlikely to reproduce due to the injuries she had sustained. Therefore, Ms Rhodes considered there would not be an issue of Keujo breeding future Pitbull pups.

Mr Sexton spoke to his report.

Mr Sexton stated that Ms Rhodes dog ‘Keujo’ is classified as menacing due to its breed. He stated that he was unaware of the motor accident where the leg was amputated.

In reference to the disqualification classification, Mr Sexton explained that Section 25 of the Dog Control Act states that where the territorial authority has issued 3 infringements within a 20 month period, an owner becomes a probationary owner, and if these infringements are not paid by the stipulated date, the owner becomes a ‘disqualified’ owner.

Mr Sexton advised that letters are now sent out to probationary owners, as in this case, that they run the risk of becoming disqualified.

Mr Sexton stated that he has assisted Ms Rhodes with the medical costs of her dog through the RSPCA.

There is provision for veterinary surgeons to provide a reason for dispensation for de-sexing where surgery would compromise the health of a dog. This can override the rules of the Act.

Cr Bubb asked why is there cancelled notes on the status of offences presented in the attached history sheet?

Mr Sexton advised that the cancelled infringements on the history sheet attached are those where the dog owner has complied within the time period stipulated.

The hearing closed at 10.45am.