2 Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from
decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any
private or other external interest they might have.
4 Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the Puketapapa Local Board:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 12
December 2013, as a true and correct record.
|
5 Leave of Absence
At the close of
the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
6 Acknowledgements
At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been
received.
7 Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been
received.
8 Deputations
At the close of the agenda no requests for deputations had been
received.
9 Public Forum
A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members
of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority.
A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be
questions from members.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been
received.
10 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with
at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so
decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item
cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting
if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to
the general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the
beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the
item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation
may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent
meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
11 Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had
been received.
|
Puketapapa
Local Board
30 January
2014
|
|
Review of the dog access rules on the Onehunga
foreshore
File No.:
CP2014/00145
Purpose
1. The purpose of
this report is to provide an update on the review of the dog access
rules for the Onehunga foreshore, and to propose governance arrangements
between the Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa local boards.
Executive Summary
2. Responsibility
for local dog access rules has been delegated to local boards.
3. The Onehunga foreshore project is due to be completed in 2015. The
Onehunga foreshore is located mostly within the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board
area with a small triangular portion located in the Puketapapa Local Board
area.
4. If no review of
the Onehunga foreshore is undertaken, default dog access rules will apply.
Under the default access rules, dogs would be allowed under control on a leash
on the grassed areas and a time and season rule would apply on the beaches (see
maps in Attachment A).
5. The area
covered by the time and season rule would include the eastern beaches that have
been designed as bird habitat areas. It is noted that New Zealand dotterels
have been nesting on the site over the 2013 nesting season.
6. Both the
Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa Local Boards will have indicated a desire to
review the default dog access rules and will also consider options for shared
decision making to ensure a co-ordinated approach.
7. A shared
decision-making model will ensure a comprehensive and timely decision for the
entire foreshore area, the efficient use of local board and council staff time
and resources, and will avoid confusing the general public.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Puketapapa
Local Board:
a) Review the
default dog access rules on the Onehunga foreshore by 1 October 2015;
b) Establishes
the Onehunga foreshore dog access panel pursuant to standing order 2.8 and
schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002;
c) Delegates to
the panel in a), its powers and duties relating to the Auckland Council
Policy on Dogs 2012 subject to the following terms of reference:
i) the panel will only be responsible for deciding dog access
rules on the Onehunga foreshore contained in the Auckland Council Policy on
Dogs 2012.
ii) the panel will be responsible for making proposals, hearing
submissions, making decisions on submissions and on changes to the Auckland
Council Policy on Dogs 2012, and responsible for all other matters relating
to dog access on Onehunga foreshore. The panel will not require the approval
of the Maungakiekie-Tamaki or Puketapapa Local Boards in making any
decisions.
iii) the panel will consist of two members from the
Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board and one member of the Puketapapa Local Board.
iv) the panel will be responsible for appointing a panel
chairperson.
v) the panel, delegations and terms of reference will expire 30
September 2016.
d) Appoints the
following person(s) to the panel in a):
i) [insert names]
e) Where the
person identified in c) is unavailable the following person(s) shall act in
their place:
i) [insert names]
|
Discussion
8. Responsibility
for local dog access rules has been delegated to local boards.
9. The Onehunga Foreshore Project is due to be completed in 2015. The
Onehunga foreshore is located mostly within the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board
area with a small triangular portion located in the Puketapapa Local Board
area.
10. If no review of
the Onehunga foreshore is undertaken, default rules will apply. Under the
default dog access rules dogs would be allowed under control on a leash on the
grassed areas and a time and season rule would apply on the beaches (see maps
in Attachment A).
11. The area covered
by the time and season rule would include the eastern beaches that have been
designed as bird habitat areas. It is noted that New Zealand dotterels have
been nesting on the site over the 2013 nesting season.
12. Both the
Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa Local Boards will have indicated a desire to
review the default dog access rules and will also consider options for shared
decision making to ensure a co-ordinated approach.
13. The process to
review dog access rules are as follows (see Attachment B).
· Nov 2013 to Mar 2014 – Consultation and
research
· Mar to Apr 2014 – Local board workshop and
decision on proposed changes
· Jun 2014 to Aug 2014 – Public
notification, local board hearings and decision
· Sep 2014 to Oct 2104 – Implementation and
commencement of changes
14. Consultation is
being carried out on the basis of a straw-man (see map in Attachment A) with
the following selected groups by mid February 2014 – the Auckland Canine
Agility Club, Outreach Therapy Pets, Forest and Bird, All Breeds Dog Obedience
Training Club, Waikowhai Forest Restoration Network, Seacliffe Road Residents
Group, Big King Queens (dog walkers group), and the Kaitiaki Group.
Governance options
15. The following
reasonable and practicable governance options are available to the Puketapapa
and Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Boards:
1. Separate
decision-making
2. Joint working
party
3. Shared
decision-making
Option 1: Separate
decision-making
16. Each local board
would act independently of each other in making proposals, hearing submissions
and making final decisions.
17. Pros
· Local boards retain their full
independence to separately adopt a proposal, hear submissions and adopt a final
set of dog access rules.
18. Cons
· Potential for two different and
contradictory sets of dog access rules due to each board making independent
decisions,
· Potential for public confusion if two
different and contradictory sets of dog access rules are adopted by the boards,
· Potential public frustration over the lack
of a co-ordinated approach to decision making. For instance confusion about which
local board is responsible for what part of the Onehunga foreshore, potentially
having to make two submissions, and having to appear before two hearing
authorities.
Option 2: Joint
working party
19. Each local board
would agree to a joint working party. The joint working party would be
responsible for making recommendations on the proposal, decisions on
submissions, and final dog access rules. Each local board would independently
adopt a proposal and final decision based on the recommendations of the joint
working party.
20. Pros
· Local boards retain their full
independence to separately adopt a proposal and adopt a final set of dog access
rules,
· A member of the public will only need to
appear before one hearing authority,
· Both local boards receive the same
recommendation on proposed dog access rules, decisions on submissions, and
final dog access rules.
21. Cons
· The two tiered - two local board decision
making process would add additional time to the process and additional local
board member and staff time would be required without necessarily resulting in
a better outcome. Importantly, any delay in adopting a proposal in April 2014
or a final decision in August 2014 will mean a delay of up to one year (meaning
the new dog access rules will not be in place in time for the opening of the
foreshore to the public) or additional costs to the local board (possibly more
than $20,000).
Option 3: Shared
decision-making
22. Each local board
would delegate the board’s power to make local dog access rules within the
Onehunga foreshore to a joint panel. The panel would be responsible for
adopting a proposal, hearing submissions, and making a final decision. These
decisions would be final and would be reported to the local boards for
information only.
23. Pros
· Comprehensive decision making on dog
access rules for the entire Onehunga foreshore,
· A member of the public will only need to
appear before one hearing authority,
· More efficient use of local board member
and council staff time and resource (reduces potential for delays in
decision-making).
24. Cons
· Each local board would have less autonomy
in deciding the dog access rules within the board’s respective local board
area.
Other options
identified
25. A fourth option
that was identified which involved the Puketapapa Local Board delegating the
power to make local dog access rules within the Onehunga foreshore to the
Maungakiekie-Tamaki local board. This option was not developed further as
members of the Puketapapa Local Board indicated a preference for more active
involvement.
Consideration
Local Board Views
26. The views of
Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa Local Boards are being sought in parallel by
consideration of this report. The views of other local boards have not been
sought.
Maori Impact Statement
27. The views of
iwi, in particular the kaitiaki group for the Onehunga foreshore project will
be sought as part of the research and engagement phase of the review.
Implementation Issues
28. Issues related
to implementation relate to the local board costs holding hearings and
deliberations, for any additional research, engagement and public notification
initiatives, and for the cost of any signage.
29. The costs of
implementation are expected to be obtained from existing budgets. The cost of
signage will become clearer as the review progresses and has been identified as
a matter for inclusion as part of the Onehunga foreshore project.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Maps of current and possible dog
access rules for Onehunga foreshore
|
13
|
|
bView
|
Dog access rule review process
|
15
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Paul Wilson - Principal Policy
Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local
Planning Manager
Victoria Villaraza - Relationship
Manager
|
