Rosamund De Zwart’s ponies are her life.
The West Pinjarra local, who suffered a major stroke almost ten years ago, has lived on her five-acre property since, hoping to retire quietly and devote herself to what she loves.
However a recent court decision has put Ms De Zwart almost $19,000 in debt to the Shire of Murray; a $2000 fine,$3,480 in “other” fees, and $13,500 to cover the Shire’s own lawyer’s fees and court costs. This is opn top of more than $3000 she spent on legal representation for herself.
The decision has not only put her into debt, but left her questioning what it is she has done so wrong to deserve it.
“I have no idea what I’m supposed to do now,” Ms De Zwart said.
“I don’t know how many times I’ve said I want to just end it. I just can’t see any way out.”
Ms De Zwart has been in deliberation with the Shire since 2011, when she was asked to remove ponies form her property due to her allegedly not meeting Shire planning standards.
However, Ms De Zwart argues she received approval from the Department of Agriculture to run a pony stud on her property, which was then accepted by the Shire.
“Back in 2011, I was sent a letter from the Shire that said they commended me on my work on getting the property good enough for the Agricultural department approval,” she said.
“Why would they commend me on that, and then rip it all out from under me now?”
The dispute between Ms De Zwart and the Shire began in 2011, when the then-planning and environmental services manager Patrick Ruettjes informed her she did not have planning approval to stock horses on her property.
This is despite the letter noting Shire of Murray planning regulations relied on the Department of Agriculture stocking guidelines, which Ms De Zwart had already met in 2009.
Ms De Zwart said she had never had any issues with her property or her keeping of ponies until neighbours started complaining to the Shire.
“I’ve done everything I possibly could to try and remedy it with the Shire,” she said.
“The Ag Department papers say I can have four to five ponies on my property at any time. I even got the stock down to one and-a-half animals – that’s a mare and a foal – but it still wasn’t enough.”
Ms De Zwart, who is on a disability pension because of her stroke, began keeping ponies as a hobby.
However, the ongoing dispute with the Shire and what she describes as a “poisonous” relationship with some neighbours – the result, she says, of the ongoing harassment related to her property – has not only halted her business, but has also deeply impacted her personally.
“You know, I can’t sleep, I keep worrying about how I’m going to be able to pay it. And then there’s the neighbours, they’ve all been turned against me.”
Ms De Zwart said she had several more ponies on a property in Yarloop which were evacuated following the bushfires in January, and since then she has had difficulty getting them back or finding another appropriate property to keep them due to the stigma against her.
“I’m trying to do my best, but there’s all these rumours flying around, like, ‘Oh, she doesn’t look after her animals properly, she has no right to look after animals’. And it’s just not true.
“I know, they’ve complained to me, they've complained to the Shire, they’ve talked amongst themselves. But I can’t do anything about that.”
The Shire’s dispute with Ms De Zwart revolved around the maintenance of her property, namely the need for adequate feed, irrigation and shelter.
Ms De Zwart admitted in summer months her property does lose vegetation, but not any more than the surrounding properties, and she is careful to maintain feeding for her animals.
“None of this happened before the properties around here started getting bought and more people moved in,” she said.
One of the main claims against Ms De Zwart from the Shire revolves around the keeping ten animals on her property.
However, in a letter to Ms De Zwart dated 13 April 2011, the Shire calimed these animals were split between three properties: Ms De Zwart’s, and two other properties owned by a neighbour.
Ms De Zwart said she had moved the animals to these properties after struggling to find anyone else willing to keep them.
An agreement was made, Ms De Zwart said, between herself and the land owner.
“He would be away for a long time, and his grass would grow up so we asked if we could keep some ponies on his property,” she said.
“It was just an agreement between us.”
Despite this, the Shire requested Ms De Zwart supply Equine Management Plans for her own property, but two other she does not own.
At one point, Ms De Zwart says, she was advised by a Shire official to euthanize her animals if she couldn;t find appropriate property to keep them on.
Shire of Murray CEO Dean Unsworth said the Shire does not comment on particular cases, but said they had endeavored to work with Ms De Zwart over an extended period of time to remedy the issue of overstocking on the property, which had “which had resulted in significant land degradation, dust and amenity impacts on the local area”.
“The community has an expectation that the Shire will act to ensure the environment and amenity are protected,” Mr Unsworth said.
“In circumstances where an issue cannot be resolved through negotiation, formal proceedings inevitably result.
“The recent decision in the Mandurah Magistrates Court highlights to special rural land owners the importance of properly managing their properties. Advice and assistance on land management practices are available from the Shire’s Environmental Services.”
The Shire has maintained the overstocking and poor maintenance of the property has resulted in degradation of surrounding properties, as well as the Peel-Harvey Coastal Plain Catchment.
However Ms De Zwart maintained she had spent 100 per cent of her time bringing her property up to a manageable level, including planting a range of trees, plants and grasses, as well as ensuring the property was properly irrigated.
“I’ve spent years planting throughout the whole place,” she said.
“The grasses have been there for years, they’re established. There’s no way they’ve only been there for less than a year.”
The Shire also disputed the irrigation of Ms De Zwart’s property, stating proper reticulation was needed.
However a Department of Agriculture spokesman and the Department’s stocking guidelines both confirm moveable pole irrigation – as Ms De Zwart has on her property – is adequate for the type of property she had hoped to run.
“It just seems to me that everything they’re doing is just one thing after another, like they’re trying to find every little thing wrong with what I’m doing,” she said.
“I don’t get it, because I’m the only one around here who gets this. I hate to complain, I don’t want to complain, But I’ve got no other choice now.
“I don’t understand why these other properties can have ten sheep on some, with no shelter, and I’m getting into trouble for having a few ponies.
“I just want to live my life. I’m not hurting anyone. I don’t understand why i can’t just live like I want to.”
