Cats and dogs not wanted
Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 9:28AM Byron Council are contemplating seeking orders under the Conveyancing Act enforcing a covenant preventing the ownership of dogs and cats in a sensitive native area.
DOGS and cats don't mix with native animals.
Which is why many years ago Grahame Baker and his partners in the environmentally-sensitive Lilli Pilli residential development at Byron Bay sought - and had approved by Byron Council - a covenant banning them.
But Mr Baker, who lives at Lilli Pilli, is concerned at Byron Council's "reluctance" to now uphold the covenant.
He said while the covenant had been respected by residents over the years, he was aware of several dogs and cats now being kept as pets on the estate.
He had sought action from the council on a number of occasions and had a majority of residents to sign petitions calling for the covenant to be upheld.
"But the council tells me they don't want to get into litigation with people who have a dog or a cat because of a lack of funds," he said.
He said people who had bought at Lilli Pilli were made aware of the covenant from the outset and the developers had even lost sales over the issue.
"But we also made sales to the type of people who wanted it," he said.
"It's not something we are trying to implement now. It has been in place all these years."
Mr Baker said because some properties had been bought and sold over the years, information about the covenant may not have been passed on to new owners.
He said initially Byron Council helped with the policing of the covenant, but now found "it all too difficult".
Mr Baker said he also had issues with the bicycle path the developers were forced to put in from the end of Lilli Pilli Dr to the railway crossing as a condition of consent.
He said cars were continually parked on the path despite signs prohibiting it.
The council wasn't policing it forcing mothers with prams and children on bikes on to the road.
Council's governance manager Ralph James responded to the claims saying it was debateable whether covenants restricting dogs and cats were legally enforceable or not.
Mr James said the two major offences for regulating development under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were 'development without development consent' and 'development not in accordance with development consent'.
He said it could be argued that the keeping of dogs and cats was not 'development'.
The council might be able to initiate enforcement action under the Conveyancing Act 1919 in the Supreme Court, he said.
However, no regulatory staff, including compliance officers, rangers and environmental health officers, were authorised or delegated under this Act.
For any litigation to proceed, the council needed to consider the costs associated and likelihood of succeeding in the courts.
Similarly an enforcement program would need to be included in the council's adopted compliance priorities program.
Mr James said pet-free areas were listed on property titles and new owners should be informed of this requirement by their real estate agent and property conveyancer.
At this stage, he said, self regulation was the best approach.
As far back as 2000, the Department of Local Government had sent a circular to councils raising concerns about the appropriateness of using planning instruments for animal control, he said.
Mr James said council officers undertook regular patrols of the area, with more than 117 parking fines issued for Cemetery Rd.
