Big Dogs Homestay owner Nancy Williamson said she believed she continued to be unfairly treated by the Central Otago District Council (CODC) due to an incident in February 2020 in which two dogs escaped from her Tarras property and killed 49 sheep.
While she accepted a flaw in her fencing had contributed to the dogs’ escape, the council was overlooking several improvements she had made to both her property and client vetting process in the years since, Mrs Williamson said.
"There’s no common sense, there’s no reasoning and there’s no consultation with me.
"It’s them and us. It’s a power thing, and it pisses me off."
Last year, Ms Williamson applied for a variation to her original resource consent for Big Dogs Homestay, first approved by CODC in February 2020.
If approved, the variation would have allowed the business to increase the number of dogs it could accommodate from six to eight, and for those dogs to be permitted to roam on an about 3.8ha area covering most of Ms Williamson’s property.
The existing consent requires dogs to be confined to a 3000sqm enclosure on the property’s eastern boundary.
Ms Williamson has argued this space is too small.
"I have tried keeping the dogs in that pen over there and it simply doesn’t work. They bark, they cry, I can’t control them."
Allowing the dogs to follow her around the property, including inside her home, ensured the dogs were comfortable while also letting her keep a close eye on them, she said.
In their decision to refuse the application, the CODC hearings panel said they did not consider that the applicant had "provided any new information" to justify changing the enclosure size, and believed increasing the number of dogs on site would "have unacceptable levels of effects" on the business’ neighbours.
Ms Williamson disagreed, and said allowing her clients’ dogs to roam freely made them much more agreeable and less inclined to bark.
"So I’ve changed the boundaries and I’ve said to the council, I haven’t lied to them about it, I said to the council I haven’t kept them in that pen since 2020 when the dogs escaped."
In that incident, two dogs escaped from the kennel by digging a hole underneath a perimeter fence only five hours after being dropped off by their owner.
In August that year, Ms Williamson was disqualified from owning a dog for five years, the maximum sentence possible under the Dog Control Act of 1996.
This sentence was reduced to two years after an appeal hearing at the Alexandra District Court in May 2022.
In his decision, District Court Judge Kevin Kelly said the reduced sentence was "proportionate to the circumstances" of the case, noting Ms Williamson’s investments to improve security on the property and "an absence of complaints for an extended period of 11 months".
"I consider that there is a need to bring home to Ms Williamson, in a way that the CODC has not been able to do to date, the consequences of her actions, and to reinforce that she must give importance to the protection of the surrounding community if she intends to run a homestay for dogs."
In response to a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request, a CODC spokesperson said it had received eight complaints about Big Dogs Homestay since March 2020, including an October 2020 incident in which a client’s dog escaped by scaling a deer fence.
Ms Williamson said she felt "terrible" about that particular incident, but had since implemented a more thorough vetting process of the dogs and their owners and improved her security, including a $20,000 double gate system.
Most of the other complaints were instances of neighbours or passers-by mistakenly associating wandering dogs with her business, she said.
"I get phone calls probably once every two or three months with somebody saying ‘we’ve just seen one of your dogs out on the road’ or ‘just seen them down by the river’ and I go, ‘excuse me, which dog is it?’ And it’s not mine.
"People assume if there’s a dog on the loose that it comes from my place."
She accepted some of her neighbours were opposed to any expansion, including two who made submissions against the variation application, but said their concerns had to be weighed against the number of locals and visitors who relied on her business as the only dog accommodation in the region.
"I get a lot of people who stay in town and bring their dogs here because the bach they’re renting, or hotel they’re staying in, can’t have their dogs.
"I’m it. So it’s a much-needed service."
The CODC spokesperson said Ms Williamson’s options included making an appeal to the Environment Court, requesting a judicial review or lodging another variation application.
Ms Williamson said all of those options simply meant "more money", and questioned why the CODC could not be more collaborative in its approach.
"They haven’t come to see me and sit and discuss and say ‘you know this is what you need to do and this is how we’re going to do it together’, you know?"
