Bauskis v Director General, NSW Agriculture
[2003] NSWADT 228
•10/13/2003
CITATION: Bauskis v Director General, NSW Agriculture [2003] NSWADT 228 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
John Peter Bauskis
RESPONDENT
Director General, NSW AgricultureFILE NUMBER: 033035 HEARING DATES: 5/05/2003 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 06/23/2003 DATE OF DECISION:
10/13/2003BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Apiaries Act - prohibit the keeping of bees - Apiaries Act - removal of apiary - Bees - prohibit the keeping of bees - Bees - removal of apiary MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Apiaries Act 1985CASES CITED: Wallace v Powell & Ors [2000] NSWSC 406
The Council of the Shire of Baulkham Hills v Domachuk (1988) 66 LGRA 110
Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169
Stormer and Another v Ingram [1979] 21 SASR 93
Parker v Reynolds (reported in The Times 17 December 1906)REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
A Johnson, solicitorORDERS: 1 The decision by the Director General is affirmed.
The Application
1 The Applicant, Mr John Bauskis, has applied for review of the decision dated 17 October 2002 by the Director General, NSW Agriculture (“the Director General”) to direct that Mr. Bauskis remove the apiary from his premises at 26 Togil Street, Canley Vale, New South Wales and to prohibit the keeping of bees on those premises. The Director General’s decision was purported to have been taken under section 18 of the Apiaries Act 1985 (“the Act”).
2 The history and facts of the matter are not generally in dispute. The dispute is centred on the extent of the problems experienced by Mr. Bauskis’ neighbours which are attributable to Mr. Bauskis’ bees and whether the Director General’s decision was reasonable in the circumstances.
3 The Director General’s original decision was taken on 17 October 2002. That decision was served on Mr. Bauskis shortly thereafter. By letter dated 25 November 2002 solicitors acting for Mr. Bauskis sought a review of that decision and provided material in support of that application. The internal review was finalised on 14 January 2003 and the decision (“the internal review decision”) was taken to affirm the Director General’s original decision. The internal review concluded that:
Relevant Legislation
“there are sufficient grounds for the order made on 17 October 2002 pursuant to section 18(1)(b), 18(1)(d)(i), 18(1)(e)(i) and 18(5) of the Apiaries Act 1985 in that Mr. Bauskis’ bees are causing a public nuisance and interfering with his neighbours’ use and enjoyment of their properties.”
4 The Director General’s power to restrict beekeeping on certain premises is governed by section 18 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act provides:
5 Section 35 of the Act provides Mr. Bauskis with a right to apply to this Tribunal for review of the Director General’s decision. Insofar as is relevant to these proceedings section 35 of the Act provides:
“18. Power of Director-General to restrict beekeeping on certain premises
(1) If at any time the Director-General is satisfied on reasonable grounds that, in relation to particular premises on which an apiary is being maintained:
the Director-General may, by order:
(a) a provision of this Act is being persistently contravened or not complied with,
(b) the keeping of bees or a number of beehives on those premises is a public nuisance or a danger to public health or public safety, or
(c) for any other specified reason those premises are unsuitable for beekeeping,
after such date as may be specified in the order (being a date not earlier than 14 days after the date of service of the order), and
(d) prohibit:
(i) the keeping of bees on those premises, or
(ii) the keeping of more than a specified number of beehives on those premises,
from those premises.
(e) direct that, not later than that date, the person who is maintaining the apiary or, if no person is maintaining the apiary, the person who established it:
(i) remove the apiary, or
(ii) remove the number of beehives kept on those premises in excess of the maximum number of beehives specified under paragraph (d),
(2) If at any time the Director-General is satisfied on reasonable grounds that an apiary is about to be or may be established on particular premises and that:
the Director-General may, by order, prohibit the keeping of bees and the establishment of an apiary on those premises.
(a) the keeping of bees on those premises would be a public nuisance or a danger to public health or public safety, or
(b) for any other specified reason those premises would be unsuitable for beekeeping,
(3) An order under subsection (1) or (2) is not effective unless it has been served on the occupier of the premises concerned and, where the occupier of those premises is not the person who maintains or established or, as the case may be, is about to or may establish an apiary on those premises, a copy of the order has been served on that person.
(4) Subject to subsection (9), an order under subsection (1) does not take effect until the date on which the prohibition specified in the order is to take effect.
(5) An order under subsection (1) or (2) shall, unless quashed under section 37, remain in force until it is revoked by the Director-General by a further order.
(6) A person shall not continue to maintain or, as the case may be, shall not establish an apiary in contravention of an order in force under subsection (1) or (2) and, where an order under subsection (1) contains a direction referred to in paragraph (e) of that subsection, shall not fail to comply with that direction before the date specified in the order for compliance.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(7) If the Director-General is satisfied that:
the Director-General may direct an inspector to remove the apiary from those premises to premises selected by the inspector on which it is lawful to establish an apiary or, if such premises are not available, to destroy or otherwise dispose of the apiary in such manner as the inspector considers appropriate, and on any such direction being given to the inspector, it is the duty of the inspector to comply with the direction.
(a) a person has failed to comply with a direction contained in an order under subsection (1) to remove an apiary from particular premises, or
(b) a person has removed the apiary concerned from particular premises in purported compliance with such a direction to other premises in respect of which an order under subsection (1) or (2) is in force,
(8) A direction under subsection (7) may be varied or revoked by the Director-General at any time before it is implemented.”
6 Section 63 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ("the ADT Act") provides for the approach to be taken by this Tribunal in determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision. Section 63 provides:
“35. Applications for review
…
(2) A person who is the occupier of, or otherwise has an interest in, premises in respect of which the Director-General has made an order under section 18 who is aggrieved by that order may apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of that order.”
The Director General’s case
“63 Determination of review by Tribunal
(1) In determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following:
(2) For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant enactment on the administrator who made the decision.
(a) any relevant factual material,
(b) any applicable written or unwritten law.
(3) In determining an application for the review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide:
(a) to affirm the reviewable decision, or
(b) to vary the reviewable decision, or
(c) to set aside the reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the reviewable decision it set aside, or
(d) to set aside the reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.”
7 The Director General’s case comprises statements and oral evidence from Mr. Bauskis’ neighbours who are said to be affected by Mr. Bauskis’ bees and from Mr. Rob Bowman, a Senior Inspector with NSW Agriculture.
8 Ms. Coral Slater’s house is diagonally behind Mr Bauskis' house. She states that for at least 3 years, she and her husband have experienced problems with bees in their back garden. There are large numbers of bees that fly around the garden, sit in the trees and on the grass. Ms. Slater usually puts out a water bowl for the native birds and this water was often so full of bees that the birds would not drink from the bowl. The bees were so numerous that she could hear them buzzing. Sometimes bees were carried into her house on clothing. She was reluctant to sit outside in her garden in summer and avoided walking barefoot in the garden. If she took food or drink into the back garden during the summer, the bees would swarm towards it. The bees would also swarm over the wet washing.
9 Ms. Slater conceded that the bees had never stung her. However, she stated that her husband has been stung 3 or 4 times. He has been stung on the foot, the hand and the leg. On one occasion, a swarm of bees was found in their garden. Ms. Slater stated that she and her husband were away for a short holiday in February 2003. On returning home one Tuesday 25 February 2003, she observed that there were very few bees in the garden.
10 Mr. Pedro Carvalho’s house is about 15 metres from Mr Bauskis' house. It is beside the house that is diagonally behind Mr Bauskis' house. Mr. Carvalho stated that he suffers from a number of allergies. He has been hospitalised from allergic reactions to medicine, including on one occasion when he was in a state of anaphylactic shock. He said that he was once stung on his face by a bee and that his face swelled up so much that he was unrecognisable. He is very worried that in the future he might have a serious reaction to a bee sting. Mr. Carvalho’s son and daughter are also allergic to bees. Both children are scared of bees and worry about what might happen if they get stung. They will not go outside if they see too many bees in the back garden.
11 Mr. Carvalho has a small pond in his back garden. He said that bees would land on the sides of the pond or on the plants. The bees would hover across the whole surface of the pond and on very hot days the whole surface of the pond would be covered with bees. The bees would cover the surface of other water sources in his yard. Mr. Carvalho said that he could see bees follow a flight path from Mr Bauskis' hives into his pond. He said that the bees in the back garden were a permanent problem. Sometimes the bees were so aggressive that he would have to run inside the house to avoid them. Mr. Carvalho’s family could not use the back garden during the day because of the bees.
12 Mr. Carvalho said that early in the week beginning 24 February 2003 he noticed a dramatic reduction in the number of bees. There were still a few bees in the garden, but nothing in the order of the number of bees that had been there previously.
13 Ms. Joan Scamarcia’s house is diagonally behind Mr Bauskis' house. Ms. Scamarcia has a pool in her back garden and she observed that throughout the summer there were always bees on the surface of the pool. Her family would have to skim the surface each time before going in the pool. On very hot days the whole surface of the pool was covered with bees. There were always bees in the pool when they wanted to use it. She also observed that sunburn cream seems to attract the bees. The bees were also attracted to a Grevillia bush that Ms. Scamarcia had growing near a covered patio next to the pool area. This meant that it was very unpleasant on the patio because of the bees. Ms. Scamarcia was also worried about cutting the grass in her back garden for fear of being stung. She, her son, her grandchildren and visitors to her house have been stung.
14 Ms. Scamarcia has grandchildren who like to swim in the pool in summer and they found the number of bees in the pool worrying. Ms. Scamarcia’s son reported the problem to NSW Agriculture after his grandchildren were unable to swim in the pool because of the number of bees.
15 Ms. Scamarcia said that she has had four bee swarms in her back garden in the last two years. The swarms have landed on a number of trees in her back garden and she finds it very frightening when the bees swarm. She observed however that there was a real drop in the number of bees from about the last week of February 2003. She stated that there were fewer bees in the pool than had usually been the case.
16 Ms. Suzie Vella’s house is 6 houses away from Ms Scamarcia’s house, which is diagonally behind Mr Bauskis' house. Ms. Vella has a pool in her back garden and she observed that throughout the summer there were always bees on the surface of the pool. Before getting into the pool, her children would always spend the first ten minutes cleaning dead bees out of the pool. On very hot days there were bees constantly coming and going from the pool. Some of the children would not go into the pool for fear of being stung by bees.
17 Ms. Vella also has a small pond in her garden. She said that on very hot days bees would cover the whole surface of the pond. Ms. Vella would not allow her two year old son go outside because there were too many bees on the grass and she was worried about him being stung. She does not use the back garden on a hot day because of the bees. Ms. Vella stated that her husband has a significant reaction to bee stings. He gets a large red swollen lump that lasts for four days.
18 Ms. Vella stated that on about 24 February 2003 she noticed a significant reduction in the number of bees in her back garden. She said that her family used the pool on the weekend of 1 and 2 March 2003 and that there were no bees in the pool filter and no bees on the surface of the pool. She observed that this was most unusual.
19 Mr Rob Bowman is a Senior Inspector with NSW Agriculture. He has held that position since 1998. From 1986 to 1998 he was an inspector with NSW Agriculture. Part of his duties as both an inspector and as a senior inspector is to conduct apiary inspections. Mr Bowman holds a Diploma in Applied Science (Agriculture) from Riverina College of Advanced Education and also holds a TAFE Certificate in Beekeeping. He has kept bees since 1994.
20 Mr Bowman said that in September 2000 three written complaints were made to NSW Agriculture in relation to the problems with bees that appeared to stem from hives kept by Mr. Bauskis. Mr. Ala Samara from NSW Agriculture investigated the complaints. Mr Samara recommended that an order be made requiring Mr Bauskis to reduce the number of hives. An agreement was reached with Mr Bauskis that he reduce the number of hives that he held and no order was made.
21 NSW Agriculture received further similar complaints in about September 2002. On 8 October 2002 Mr Bowman visited the houses of Mr. Carvallo and Ms Vella, both of whom had fishponds. He observed a large number of bees constantly streaming back and forth from each pond to Mr Bauskis' hives. He took photos of the bees at Ms Vella's house and Mr Carvalho's house. Those photos are in evidence. Mr Bowman said that he was unable to speak with Mr Bauskis as he was not home. He said that he later spoke with Mr Bauskis by telephone and that Mr Bauskis told him that he had nine hives at his house.
22 Mr Bowman said that ponds are ideal sites for bees to forage for water because they can drink from the edge of pond and can also land on plants to drink. The ponds were also cool and shaded.
23 Mr Bowman said that as a result of the inspection he recommended that Mr Bauskis be prohibited from keeping hives at his property. He said that his decision is not a reflection on Mr Bauskis' beekeeping skills. It is simply that, with the number of ponds and swimming pools in the vicinity, he considered that the bees would continue to have an impact on Mr Bauskis' neighbours even if there was a reduction in the number of hives. Mr Bowman provided a detailed explanation of how he reached this view. He also provided an outline of his understanding of bee behaviour in circumstances like those that existed in Mr Bauskis’ area and also provided information in relation to reactions to bee stings.
24 By arrangement with Mr Bauskis, the hives have been removed from Mr Bauskis' property and taken to Belgenny Farm in Camden.
Mr. Bauskis’ case
25 Mr. Bauskis appeared on his own behalf and sought to challenge much of the evidence presented on behalf of the Director General. In essence, Mr. Bauskis’ case is that the situation is not as serious as has been asserted and he argues that he should be able to retain some hives at his property.
26 The thrust of his application is for this Tribunal to make an order supporting Mr. Samara's recommendation requiring Mr Bauskis to reduce the number of hives to three.
27 Mr Bauskis agreed generally with Mr Bowman’s comments on bee behaviour, but disagreed with some of Mr Bowman's assumptions, with Mr Bowman’s calculations and with his conclusion. He argued that Mr Bowman's comments in relation to the subject of bee stings and allergies were not very helpful, and sought to clarify the issue.
28 Mr Bauskis agreed that Mr Samara did inspect his premises in January 2001 but said that at no stage did Mr Samara indicate that Mr Bauskis was to reduce the number of hives. Mr Bauskis said that he was not aware of any decision or recommendation that Mr Samara made. He only saw Mr Samara once and there was no follow up to his recommendation. Mr Bauskis said that he did not receive anything in writing, and was ignorant of any decision taken. It was only- two years later that he heard from NSW Agriculture. Similarly, if he had been notified of the complaints that his neighbours had made he could have taken some action.
29 Mr. Bauskis conceded that he has too many bees and agrees that the number of hives should be reduced to one or two. He also conceded that when he learned of his neighbours concerns he did not take it on himself to reduce the number of his hives or the number bees in his hives.
30 Mr Bauskis argued that the current situation is due to NSW Agriculture not following up on Mr Samara’s recommendations and communicating with him. He said he would be quite happy with two hives, thus relieving the situation for his neighbours. He submitted that the decision to prohibit the keeping of bees at his property is unjustified on the grounds of that the decision was made without due consideration, lack of impartiality, and lack of liaison with him in relation to the original report.
31 With respect to the evidence given by his neighbours, Mr Bauskis said that there is a lot of exaggeration among the neighbours to help their cause. He argued that bees do not prohibit people from swimming and do not cause damage to laundry. He said that he has seen Ms. Slater and her family sitting at their back porch numerous times in summer with out any problem from bees. He also observed that Mr. Slater has fruit trees near his back fence and suggested that the bees probably pollinate them and that is why he has such a good crop every year. He further observed that birds are not troubled about bees and most animals live together harmoniously.
32 Mr. Bauskis argued that there is no issue of public safety involved. A code of conduct for bee keeping exists and he complies with it. He said that severe allergy reports are mainly due to ignorance. He said that bees do not limit the use of back yards but that fear of bees is fed on ignorance. He said that education would rectify the problem and offered to supply documents regarding bee stings and allergies.
Findings of fact
33 Certain matters relating to the number and location of hives that Mr. Bauskis has kept are not disputed. Mr. Bauskis is responsible and diligent in his bee keeping activities. There is ample evidence that he attempts to abide by good bee keeping practices that minimise the risk that bees will be present outside his yard. Mr. Bauskis disputes the degree of effect that his bees have had on the lifestyle of his neighbours. In contrast, there is overwhelming evidence that Mr. Bauskis’ bees have adversely affected Mr. Bauskis’ neighbours. In my view, the evidence does not support Mr. Bauskis’ position on a number of matters.
34 Mr. Carvalho, his son and daughter are allergic to bee stings. These allergies are potentially life threatening and affect their lifestyles. Mr. Carvalho is anxious about the possibility of being stung by a bee. Both of Mr. Carvalho’s children are scared of bees and worry about what might happen if they get stung. They will not go outside if they see too many bees in the back garden.
35 Ms. Slater’s husband has been stung 3 or 4 times. He has been stung on the foot, the hand and the leg. On one occasion, a swarm of bees was found in their garden. They are reluctant to sit outside in their garden in summer and avoid walking barefoot in the garden.
36 Ms. Scamarcia’s family have regularly found bees in her swimming pool and they were often unable to swim in the pool because of the number of bees. Ms. Scamarcia has had bee swarms in her back garden and she finds these very frightening. She finds it was very unpleasant on her patio because of the bees. She, her son, her grandchildren and visitors to her house have been stung.
37 Ms. Vella also has a pool in her back garden. Throughout the summer months bees are regularly found on the surface of the pool. Her children are reluctant to go into the pool for fear of being stung by bees. Ms. Vella does not allow her two year old son to go outside because of the number of bees on the grass and she is worried about him being stung. She does not use her back garden on a hot day because of the bees. Ms. Vella’s husband has a significant reaction to bee stings.
38 In my view it is beyond disputes that the bees to which each of Mr. Bauskis’ neighbours referred came from Mr. Bauskis’ hives. On 8 October 2002 Mr Bowman visited the houses of Mr. Carvallo and Ms Vella, both of whom had fishponds. He observed a large number of bees constantly streaming back and forth from each pond to Mr Bauskis' hives. Each of Mr. Bauskis’ neighbours indicated that the number of bees on their properties were significantly reduced following the removal of most of the hives from Mr. Bauskis’ property.
39 I note that Mr Bauskis asserted that he did not receive any follow up advice from NSW Agriculture after the earlier complaints and that he was ignorant of any decision taken. The evidence appears to support that assertion. Mr Bauskis further asserted that if he had been notified of the complaints that his neighbours had made he could have taken some action. Notwithstanding those assertions, the evidence shows that when Mr Bauskis was made aware of the complaints against him, he took no steps to reduce the number of bees on his premises.
40 On the basis of this evidence I find as a fact that the presence of Mr. Bauskis’ bees has had a significant, detrimental affect on the lifestyles of his neighbours. I also find as a fact that there is an increased risk of Mr. Bauskis’ neighbours and visitors to their properties being stung if beehives are kept on Mr Bauskis’ property. As a consequence of that risk, Mr. Bauskis’ neighbours are unable to enjoy the full use of their properties. No matter how well managed the hives are, the evidence is clear that bees will search for water and plants if there is insufficient available in the immediate vicinity. This pattern of behaviour becomes even more pronounced in hot weather and in periods of drought.
Reasons and decision
41 As indicated above, the Director General’s power to restrict beekeeping on certain premises is governed by section 18 of the Act. Section 18(1)(b) of the Act provides that the Director-General may prohibit the keeping of bees on particular premises if at any time the Director-General is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the keeping of bees or a number of beehives on those premises is a public nuisance or a danger to public health or public safety.
42 The question for the Tribunal is whether the keeping of bees or a number of beehives on Mr. Bauskis’ premises constitutes a public nuisance or a danger to public health or public safety. I will first consider the issue of public nuisance.
43 In the matter of Wallace v. Powell & Ors. [2000] NSWSC 406 Hodgson CJ in Eq stated at paragraph 32:
44 In The Council of the Shire of Baulkham Hills v Domachuk (1988) 66 LGRA 110 the Supreme Court of New South Wales Equity Division dealt with the issue of whether the emission of offensive smell and fly nuisance which emanates from an accumulation of compost amounted to public nuisance. Waddell CJ in Eq. referred favourably to a statement by Denning, LJ in Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169 at 190:
“[32] A public nuisance is an act or omission which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of the life of a class of the public. ...”
45 The Chief Justice in Equity found that the circumstances which existed constituted a public nuisance and concluded that:
“I prefer to look at the reason of the thing and to say that a public nuisance is a nuisance which is so wide spread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large.”
46 In Stormer and Another v. Ingram [1978] 21 S.A.S.R. 93 the South Australian Supreme Court considered the meaning of the term ‘public nuisance’ specifically as it applied to bee keeping. Legoe J. discussed various authorities, including Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd, at page 103 of the judgement and observed in relation to Parker v. Reynolds reported in The Times newspaper of 17th December, 1906, page 12, column 5:
“[E]ach of these households suffers a nuisance from flies attracted by the large pile of stable manure for a period of at least six weeks after delivery concludes. The attraction of this volume of flies should be regarded as a nuisance as it has materially affected the ordinary physical comfort of each of the households.”
47 In my view, the inconvenience to Mr. Bauskis’ neighbours resulting from the presence of Mr. Bauskis’ bees is comparable to that caused by the flies referred to in The Council of the Shire of Baulkham Hills v Domachuk or the bees referred to in Parker v. Reynolds. The presence of bees on Mr. Bauskis’ property has increased the risk that bees will sting Mr. Bauskis’ neighbours and visitors to their properties. That presence has also more generally interfered with the ability of those neighbours to fully enjoy the use of their properties. I am satisfied that the presence of bees on Mr. Bauskis’ property has materially affected the ordinary physical comfort of each of the neighbours’ households and as such has constituted a public nuisance.
“The brief report states that the plaintiff and the defendant were neighbours and fellow members of the Bee Keepers Association. The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant to restrain him from continuing a nuisance. The defendant kept ten hives of bees in his garden and placed them against a fence which was common to both the plaintiff and the defendant and within about twenty feet of the plaintiff's house. The hives accommodated about half a million bees, and in the summer of 1905, these bees, according to the plaintiff invaded his house to such an extent as to be a nuisance and stung his wife, his children and servants. The plaintiff kept his bees about two hundred yards away in a field. The defended pleaded no nuisance was caused by the bees. Various experts were called, who gave evidence as to the habits of bees. Mr. Justice Phillimore in summing up said:
The jury found the presence of the bees constituted a nuisance, and an injunction was granted on the jury's recommendation that the defendant's hives be removed to a spot some two hundred yards away, a similar distance to that kept by the plaintiff.”
"This kind of action was a most unusual one. The allegation was that the plaintiff could not lead his ordinary life or eat his ordinary food without his household being in danger of constant stinging, so large a number of bees coming into the house. After reviewing the evidence his Lordship said that if they thought that the plaintiff could not live at home in the ordinary way in August according to the simple English ideas, and that his reasonable comfort was substantially interfered with owing the defendant's bees, they might come to the conclusion that there was a nuisance."
48 Having formed that view it is not necessary for me to consider whether the presence of bees on Mr. Bauskis’ property has constituted a danger to public health or public safety. In the circumstances, section 18 of the Act authorises the Director General to prohibit the keeping of bees on Mr. Bauskis’ premises.
49 The issue then remains as to whether the decision to totally prohibit the keeping of bees on Mr. Bauskis’ premises was reasonable. Mr. Bauskis argues that it is excessive. He submitted that the decision to prohibit the keeping of bees at his property is unjustified on the grounds of that the decision was made without due consideration, lack of impartiality, and lack of liaison with him in relation to the original report. In contrast, Mr Bowman said that he considered that the bees would continue to have an impact on Mr Bauskis' neighbours even if there was a reduction in the number of hives.
50 I found Mr Bowman to be an impressive witness. I do not accept that he took the decision under review without due consideration or with any lack of impartiality. In this regard, Mr. Bauskis’ assertions are rejected.
51 In agree with Mr Bowman’s view that it is probably that the bees would continue to have an impact on Mr Bauskis' neighbours even if there was a reduction in the number of hives. It follows, in my view, that the Director General made the correct and preferable decision in making the prohibition order. The fact that the Mr. Bauskis will be deprived of the opportunity to keep bees on his property cannot change the fact that Mr. Bauskis’ property is not suitable for bee keeping activities while his neighbours continue to be adversely affected by the presence of the bees.
Orders
1. The decision by the Director General is affirmed.