|
Waitākere
Ranges Local Board
03 September 2015
|
|
Hearing and
deliberations report - proposed changes to dog access rules in the
Waitākere Ranges Local Board area
File No.: CP2015/17797
Purpose
1. To support the hearing panel with
the hearing and deliberation process on the proposed changes to local dog
access rules in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board.
Executive Summary
2. The Waitākere Ranges Local
Board at its business meeting on 14 May 2015 adopted for public consultation
proposed changes to local dog access rules on selected beach, foreshore and
park areas.
3. The public consultation submission
period opened on 12 June and closed on 17 July 2015. A total of 161 submissions
were received. A total of 33 submitters indicated they wished to be heard.
4. The
local board appointed a panel of the whole board and delegated to the panel the
authority to receive, hear, deliberate and make decisions on submissions and
other relevant information.
5. This report summarises the matters
raised in submissions and provides staff comments where appropriate to support
the panel during the hearing and deliberation process.
6. The hearing panel will first hear
from submitters who wish to speak to their submission, and then deliberate on
the matters raised in the submissions received. To conclude the process, the
hearing panel will adopt a decision report detailing the panel’s
recommendations to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board for amendments to the
Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.
|
Recommendations
That the
hearing panel:
a) in relation to proposed changes
to local dog access rules contained in the document titled ‘Amendments to
Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 – Waitākere Ranges Local Board May
2015’
i) receive this hearing and
deliberation report
ii) receive the 161 submissions
iii) hear the submitters who wish to
be heard in support of their submission
Author note: The following
resolutions are to be considered to conclude the deliberations.
b) Adopt the decision report titled
‘Hearing panel decision report on local dog access rules in the
Waitākere Ranges Local Board area 2015’.
Author
note: The hearing panel decision report is prepared as part of the
deliberation process.
|
Background
Proposal
7. The Waitākere Ranges Local
Board at its business meeting on 14 May 2015 adopted for public consultation
proposed changes to local dog access rules on selected beach, foreshore and
park areas (WTK/2015/73).
8. The proposed changes are
summarised on page 4 and in detail on page 25 of the ‘Statement of Proposal -
Amendments to Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 – Waitākere Ranges
Local Board’ contained in Attachment A.
Submission
process
9. The public consultation submission
period opened on 12 June and closed on 17 July 2015.
10. The notification of the proposed
changes included the following:
· notices to all registered dog owners with
their dog registration reminder letter
· a public notice in the New Zealand Herald
on 12 June 2015
· on the Auckland Council website and various local websites
· in the June People’s Panel e-update
· through local social media and print media[1]
· June and July e-bulletin emailed to stakeholder list and posted on Facebook
· notices to previous submitters on dog
access in the local board area
· Flyers distributed to the local
board office, libraries and the service
centre
· Posters displayed in shops and libraries throughout
the local board area
· Newsletters in community publications.
11. All relevant documents were made
available on the council’s website and through local libraries and service
centres.
12. A total of 161 submissions were
received.
Hearing and deliberation process
13. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board appointed a
hearing panel a panel of the whole board and delegated to the panel the
authority to receive, hear, deliberate and resolve on submissions and other
relevant information
(resolution number WTK/2015/73).
14. A total of 33 submitters have
indicated they wish to be heard. Copies of all submissions received are
attached to the agenda.
15. Hearings provide an opportunity for
submitters to speak in support of their submission and for members of the
hearing panel to ask questions to better understand the views of submitters.
16.
In conducting hearings and making decisions, the hearing panel must consider:
· the need to meet a range of statutory,
policy and delegated authority decision-making requirements summarised in
Attachment B, including the need to:
o ensure decisions provide for public safety
and comfort, protection of wildlife and habitat and the needs of dogs and their
owners
o ensure dog access rules are easy to
understand ‘on the ground’
· the weight it puts on the matters raised
by submitters
· information contained in the statement of
proposal
· other information received by the hearing
panel, such as this report.
17. At the conclusions of the hearings,
the panel will deliberate and confirm by way of resolution its decisions to the
governing body. These decisions will be provided in a report to the local board
at the 24 September 2015 business meeting.
Submissions
18. The submission form asked
submitters which parts of the proposal they agreed and/or disagreed with and to
provide further comments if they wished.
19. Matters raised in submissions have
been summarised into the topics as presented in the statement of proposal.
20. Of the 161 submissions received, 31
were opposed to the proposal in its entirety. Three submitters expressed
support for the proposal in its entirety.
21. A
number of submitters have provided feedback on dog access rules that is not
specific to any of the submission topics as outlined in the statement of
proposal and can be considered within any of the topics
in this report as follows:
· seven submitters
requested more under control off a leash dog access and one submitters
requested dogs to be under control on a leash at all times on all beaches and
parks
· five submitters
expressed general support for restrictions on dogs to protect vulnerable
wildlife, with one submitter requested that dogs should be prohibited at all
times from Kauri forest areas to assist with Kauri dieback issues.
22. No submissions were received in
relation to the proposal to remove the general under control on-leash or
prohibited rules for picnic areas, fitness apparatus areas, bushwalks and
habitats of protected wildlife species. No further commentary on these topics
is provided in this report and these rules can be adopted as proposed without
further discussion or deliberation.
23. Issues raised that are outside of
the scope of the proposal are addressed in submission topic 5.
24. For each topic, staff comments and
other information is provided where appropriate.
Submission topic 1 – Te Henga/Bethells Beach and
adjacent park
25. The proposal was to apply the following rules at Te Henga/Bethells
Beach:
· Dogs prohibited
north of the river mouth, beyond the small headland at the southern end of the
beach and on the dunes area next to the beach.
· Dogs under control
on-leash on the beach access track at the surf club
along the river and lagoon to the point where the beach area opens up to the
south.
· Dogs under control
off-leash from the point at the northern entrance where
the beach area opens up to the south to a point approximately 490 metres south
of the river mouth but under control on-leash between the surf lifesaving flags and between sunset and
sunrise.
· Dogs under control on-leash from the end of the
above off-leash area to the small headland at the southern end of the beach.
· Dogs under control off-leash on the grass area of
Te Henga Park bordered by Bethells Road and the car park driveway and carpark
area of Te Henga/Bethells Beach.
26. A total number of 189 individual
submission points were made regarding the various aspects of the proposal at Te
Henga/Bethells Beach.
27. Of the submission points made, 118
commented specifically on the different areas and associated proposed rules
(see map in Attachment C) of the proposal with both support and opposition
expressed for each one, this is summarised as follows:
|
Submission points on
individual beach area
|
Submission points opposed
|
Submission points in support
|
|
Area A - grass area of Te Henga
Park
|
3
|
3
|
|
Area B - access way along lagoon
|
6
|
8
|
|
Area C - main beach off-leash
area
|
9
|
8
|
|
Area D - on-leash area
|
10
|
3
|
|
Area E - prohibited area at
southern end of beach
|
7
|
7
|
|
Area F - Waitakere Bay
|
24
|
3
|
|
Area G - Dunes area of Te Henga
Park
|
4
|
12
|
|
Area H - O'Neills Bay
|
10
|
1
|
The remaining 71 submission
points made are summarised as follows:
· In support of the proposal – 7
· Opposed to the proposal -9
· Simplify proposed rules, too complex - 11
· No change to current rules – 9
· Provide more targeted and less generally restrictive wildlife
protection – 9
· Provide more off-leash access - 6, provide at least on-leash access
7
· Allow dogs only on a leash or prohibit at all times – 2
· Allow dogs off a leash in the water - 2
· Provide better for wildlife protection – 1
· Provide time and season rules (various options, including off-leash
in winter) - 8
28. The tables below details the issues summarised
above together with the reasons provided by submitters.
Table
1A: Te Henga/Bethells Beach and adjacent park – specific areas submission
points
|
Decisions sought by beach area
|
Sub points opposed
|
Reason(s)
|
Sub points in support
|
Reason(s)
|
|
Area A - grass area of Te Henga Park
|
3
|
|
3
|
Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
|
|
Area B - access way along lagoon
|
6
|
Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
Beach is
quiet
Only fresh
water place available to dogs
Beach is very
nice for swimming and playing in the sand
|
8
|
Wildlife
concerns Owners don't clean up after dogs
Beach is used
by many children/families
Dogs frighten
or attack children/adults
Beach is too
busy
|
|
Area C - main beach off-leash area
|
9
|
Not
appropriate for off a leash as is busiest part of beach
Wildlife
concerns
Owners don't
clean up after dogs
Beach is too
busy and is used by many children/families
Dogs frighten
or attack children
|
8
|
Dogs need adequate
exercise opportunities Beach is used by many children/families
|
|
Area D - on-leash area
|
10
|
Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
Beach is
quiet
Beach is
primarily used for dog walking/exercising Proposal too confusing
Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive Proposed rules too confusing
Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
|
3
|
Wildlife
concerns Owners don't clean up after dogs
Beach is used
by many children/families
|
|
Area E - prohibited area at southern
end of beach
|
7
|
Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive Wildlife concerns unfounded
Proposed
rules too confusing
|
7
|
Wildlife
concerns
|
|
Area F - Waitakere Bay
|
24
|
Beach is
quiet
Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities Proposal unfair to dog owners, too
restrictive Proposal too confusing and difficult to enforce
Wildlife
concerns unfounded
Limited off a
leash walking opportunities in the vicinity of Bethells Beach
Support
responsible dog owners
Dogs need to
be allowed on a leash at least
|
3
|
Dogs
interfere with belongings, picnics and other activities or try to take food
Owners don't
clean up after dogs
|
|
Area G - Dunes area of Te Henga Park
|
4
|
Wildlife
concerns unfounded
|
12
|
Wildlife
concerns
|
|
Area H - O'Neills Bay
|
10
|
Beach is
quiet
Dogs need adequate
exercise opportunities
Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive, Proposal too confusing and difficult
to enforce
Wildlife
concerns unfounded
Support
responsible dog owners
Beach is nice
for swimming and playing in
|
1
|
|
Table 1B: Te Henga/Bethells
Beach and adjacent park – general comments on proposal
|
Decision sought
|
Reasons why
|
# submission points
|
|
Oppose proposal as
publicly notified
|
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
9
|
|
Wildlife concerns unfounded
|
|
Beach is primarily used for dog walking/exercising,
support responsible dog owners, owners generally keep their dog/s well under
control
|
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
|
Proposal too confusing, difficult to enforce
|
|
Allows family outings with dogs
|
|
Allow dogs to be
under control on a leash and/or prohibited at all times
|
Owners don't try or are unable to control their dogs,
dogs jump on, lick, sniff or paw children/adults, I don't want dogs to come
up to me when I am at a beach
|
1
|
|
Simplify proposed rules,
too complex
|
Proposed rules too confusing, difficult to enforce
|
11
|
|
Dog owners flout rules
|
|
Provide more targeted
and less generally restrictive wildlife protection
|
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
9
|
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
|
Beach is quiet, proposed rules too confusing
|
|
Allow dog access
(e.g. On a leash or off a leash)
|
Beach is primarily used for dog walking/exercising,
support responsible dog owners, proposal unfair to dog owners, too
restrictive, owners generally keep their dogs well under control
|
7
|
|
Limited off-leash dog walking areas in vicinity,
wildlife concerns unfounded
|
|
Allows family outings with dogs
|
|
Wildlife concerns unfounded, support responsible dog
owners
|
|
Owners generally keep their dogs well under control
|
|
Proposal too confusing, difficult to enforce, dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
|
|
Support proposal as
publicly notified
|
Wildlife concerns
|
7
|
|
Proposed rules are clearer and easier to understand
|
|
Proposal provides a good balance
|
|
Provide better
protection for wildlife (e.g. Native birds)
|
Wildlife concerns
|
1
|
|
No change to current
rules
|
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
9
|
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities, limited
off-leash dog walking areas in vicinity
|
|
Proposed rules too confusing
|
|
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive, owners
generally keep their dog/s well under control
|
|
Support responsible dog owners
|
|
Apply a time and
season rule: Labour Weekend to Easter
|
Proposed rules too confusing, proposal unfair to dog
owners, too restrictive
|
1
|
|
Allow dogs under
control off a leash at all times in water
|
Not suitable/difficult/dangerous to walk a dog on-leash
in this area
|
2
|
|
Provide more under
control off a leash dog access
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
6
|
|
Dogs to be under
control off a leash before 10am
|
|
1
|
|
Dogs to be under
control off a leash in winter - all beach areas
|
Beach is quiet during winter
Proposed rules too confusing
Proposal unfair to dog
owners, too restrictive
|
3
|
|
Apply a time and
season rule: early June to End September
|
Beach is quiet
|
1
|
|
Adopt time and season
rule to entire beach area
|
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
2
|
|
Beach is too busy during the day but quiet during winter,
mornings and evenings
|
|
Dogs to be prohibited
at all times
|
Owners don't clean up after dogs or allow dogs to urinate
on sand castles, seats etc
Wildlife concerns
|
1
|
Staff
comments
29. The majority of submitters who
commented specifically on O’Neill Bay appeared to be under the impression the
beach is currently an off a leash beach, it is prohibited.
30. Most submitters who specifically
commented on the main proposed off a leash area commented that that is the
busiest part of the beach and therefore is not suitable as an off a leash area.
Submission
topic 2 – Piha and North Piha and adjacent parks
31. The proposal was to apply the
following rules to Piha and North Piha beaches and adjacent parks:
|
Piha Beach including the lagoon and stream area and North Piha
Beach up to 61 Marine Parade North
|
Dogs prohibited at all times on the beach and under control
on-leash at all times on all adjacent parks as follows:
· Piha South Road Reserve
· Piha Domain
|
|
North Piha Beach -northwards of 61 Marine Parade North to 61 North
Piha Road
|
Dogs under control off-leash, but under control on-leash between
the surf lifesaving flags and between sunset and sunrise and under control
on-leash at all times on all adjacent parks as follows:
· North Piha Strand
· Piha Esplanade Reserve
· Les Waygood Park
· North Piha Esplanade
|
32. A total of 87 submission points
were made regarding the proposed rules at Piha and North Piha beach.
33. Ten submitters supported the
proposal generally and 16 submitters expressed general opposition for the
proposal.
34. Six submitters requested the
current rules be retained.
35. Submitters also commented on
specific areas or aspects of the proposal (See map in Attachment C), this is
summarised as follows:
|
Decisions sought by beach area
|
Sub points opposed
|
Sub points in support
|
|
Lagoon area
|
8
|
1
|
|
Piha Domain
|
9
|
|
|
North Piha Beach
|
2
|
6
|
|
Piha Beach
|
14
|
1
|
|
Piha South Road Reserve
|
1
|
|
|
On a leash between flags
|
3
|
|
|
North Piha Reserves (esp Les
Waygood Park)
|
1
|
|
|
Support proposal as publicly
notified -sunset to sunrise restrictions
|
|
1
|
36. The remaining
eight submission points made are summarised as follows:
· Allow dogs to be under control on a leash and/or prohibited at all
times - 2
· Prohibited dogs at all times - 1
· Provide more on a leash access - 1
· Apply a time and season rule to Piha Beach - 3
· Provide more off a leash dog access – 1
37. The table below details the issues summarised
above, together with the reasons provided by submitters.
Table 2: Piha and
North Piha and adjacent parks
|
Decision sought
|
Reasons why
|
# submission points
|
|
Oppose proposal as publicly notified
|
Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
Proposed
rules too confusing
Beach is
quiet
Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
No known
problems
Many
submissions made on this issue last time round
|
16
|
|
Allow dogs to be under control on a leash
and/or prohibited at all times
|
|
2
|
|
Support proposal as publicly notified
|
Proposed
rules clearer and easier to understand, provides a good balance
|
10
|
|
Oppose proposal as publicly notified -
Piha Domain
|
Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
Suitable area
to exercise dogs, main beach is too far away for elderly dog walkers
|
8
|
|
Prohibited dogs at all times
|
Penguin
breeding areas
|
1
|
|
Allow dogs under control off a leash on
all North Piha reserves (esp Les Waygood Park)
|
|
1
|
|
Provide more on a leash access
|
Piha dog
community self-regulating
|
1
|
|
Dogs prohibited on Piha 9am - 7pm summer
only
|
|
1
|
|
Provide more off a leash dog access
|
|
1
|
|
Retain current mix of rules
|
Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
Proposed
prohibitions on Piha beach too restrictive
|
6
|
|
Apply a daylight savings time and season
rule on Piha Beach
|
Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
1
|
|
Apply a 10am-5pm summer prohibition on
Piha Beach
|
Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
1
|
|
Support proposal as publicly notified -
North Piha Beach
|
|
6
|
|
Oppose proposal as publicly notified -
Piha beach
|
Proposed
rules too confusing
Support
responsible dog owners
No known
problems
Swimming with
dogs not possible, dog owners will have to swim outside flags
|
14
|
|
Oppose proposal as publicly notified -
Lagoon area
|
Support
responsible dog owners
Never
witnessed a problem in 30 years
Swimming with
dogs no longer possible
More damage
done by people
Makes it
difficult to walk dogs, especially elderly dog owners
Dogs can be
off a leash in winter
|
8
|
|
Support proposal as publicly notified -
Piha beach
|
|
1
|
|
Support proposal as publicly notified -
Lagoon area
|
|
1
|
|
Oppose proposal as publicly notified -
Piha South Road Reserve
|
|
1
|
|
Oppose proposal as publicly notified -
Piha Domain
|
|
1
|
|
Oppose proposal as publicly notified
-on-leash between flags
|
Swimming with dogs will not be possible,
dog owners will have to swim outside flags
|
3
|
|
Oppose proposal as publicly notified -
North Piha beach
|
Beach is quiet
|
2
|
|
Support proposal as publicly notified
-sunset to sunrise restrictions
|
|
1
|
Submission
topic 3 – Local beaches (excluding Piha and Te Henga/Bethells)
38. The proposal was to retain the current
default on-leash rule for beaches but apply an under control off-leash rule to
nine specified beaches.
39. Only
one submission was received that discussed specific beaches covered by the
proposal. The submitter requested that dogs be allowed under control off a
leash at all times below the high tide mark at Titirangi Beach and Davies Bay.
40. One submitter expressed opposition
to the proposal in general, two submitters were in support of the proposal and
one submitter requested no changes to the existing rules.
41. Of the remaining 12 general
submission points made in relation to dog access rules on local beaches, two
points requested more restrictive dog access (on a leash or prohibited), five
points requested more off a leash access and five submitters made various
requests for time and season periods and time of day restrictions.
42. The table below provides an overview of all
issues raised.
Table 3: Local beaches (excluding Piha and Te Henga/Bethells)
|
Decision sought
|
Reasons why
|
# submission points
|
|
Location unspecified
|
|
Oppose proposal as
publicly notified
|
Owners generally keep their dogs well under control
|
1
|
|
Allow dogs to be
under control on a leash and/or prohibited at all times
|
Wildlife concerns
|
2
|
|
Owners don't clean up after dogs
|
|
Allow dog access
(e.g. on a leash or off a leash)
|
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive, support
responsible dog owners
|
2
|
|
No justification or evidence for changes
|
|
Support proposal as
publicly notified
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
Allows family outings with dogs
|
2
|
|
No change to current
rules
|
|
1
|
|
Allow dogs under
control off a leash at all times
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
2
|
|
You are taking away dogs fun
|
|
Provide more under
control off a leash dog access
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
1
|
|
Apply a 1 December -1
March time and season rule
|
Beach is quiet
|
1
|
|
Apply a 10am - 5pm
time and season rule
|
Allows family outings with dogs
|
2
|
|
Start a time and
season rule in December
|
No justification or evidence for changes
|
1
|
|
Apply a Labour
weekend to 1 March time and season rule
|
|
1
|
|
Titirangi Beach and Davies Bay
|
|
Allow dogs under
control off a leash at all times below high tide mark
|
Beach is quiet
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
Staff
comments
43. The comment made on time and season
rules includes comments from submitters who made generic submissions to all
local boards who are currently consulting on dog access rules and these are
therefore not specific to Waitākere Ranges Local Board area beaches.
Submission topic 4 – Default dog access rule – local
and sports parks
44. The proposal was to change the
default rule for parks to an under control on-leash rule and apply an under
control off-leash rule to 17 specific parks or areas of parks.
45. A total of 28 submission points
were made in relation to the proposal topic. Of these, nine made location
specific comments with the remaining 19 submission points referring to the
proposal in general.
46. Four submission points expressed
general support for the proposal, including one point referring to Armour Bay
in particular and 11 points were opposed to the proposal.
47. Three submitters requested more off
a leash dog access on parks, one submitter requested that on a leash access be
restricted to specific parks with identified wildlife and/or kauri dieback concerns
and one submitter requested more parks be under control on a leash.
48. Eight submission points requested
dogs be allowed under control off a leash on eight specific parks.
49. The table below provides an
overview of all issues raised.
Table 4: Default
dog access rule – local and sports parks
|
Decision sought
|
Reasons why
|
# submission points
|
|
Location unspecified
|
|
Oppose proposal as
publicly notified
|
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
11
|
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
|
Support responsible dog owners
|
|
Limited off a leash opportunities will stress the
remaining off leash areas
|
|
Dogs help with owners health and fitness
|
|
Support proposal as
publicly notified
|
Wildlife concerns
|
3
|
|
Dogs challenge or intimidate strangers
|
|
Irresponsible dog owners need to have dogs on a leash at
all times
|
|
Allow dogs under
control off a leash at all times
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities, proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
3
|
|
Support responsible dog owners
|
|
Provide less under
control off a leash dog access
|
Dogs frighten or attack children
|
1
|
|
Restrict dogs only on
parks with identified wildlife/kauri dieback concerns
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
1
|
|
Waitakere War Memorial Park, Clayburn
Reserve, Kowhai Reserve, Maywood Reserve, Tangiwai Reserve, Armour Bay, Opou
Reserve, Swanson Stream Esplanade Reserve, Rahui Kahika
|
|
Allow dogs under control off a leash at
all times
|
Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
1 submission point per each park listed
|
|
No justification or evidence for changes
|
|
Park is primarily used for dog
walking/exercising
|
|
Proposal unfair to dog owners, too
restrictive
|
|
Park is quiet
|
|
|
|
|
Staff
comments
50. Tangiwai Reserve, Kowhai Reserve,
Maywood Reserve and Clayburn Reserve are proposed to be under control off a
leash parks.
51. Armour Bay Reserve is proposed to
be an under control off a leash park except for the grass area immediately
adjacent to the beach. It is unclear from the submission whether the submitters
is requesting this grass area also be off a leash.
Submission topic 5 - Other matters
52. The matters within the
decision-making scope of the hearing panel are limited to the matters contained
in the proposal (Attachment A).
53. Matters raised by submitters
outside this scope are included in this section for completeness. Should the
hearing panel wish to consider any of these matters an additional (and
separate) process is required.
54. The table below provides an
overview of the issues raised.
Table 5: Other matters
|
Decision sought
|
Reasons why
|
# submission points
|
|
Other matters: out
of scope
|
|
Out of scope
–Waitakere Ranges Regional Park
|
NA
|
|
11
|
|
Out of scope –
Waitakere Quarry
|
NA
|
|
4
|
|
Out of scope – other
local board area park/beach
|
NA
|
|
9
|
|
Hunting dog
exemptions
|
NA
|
|
1
|
|
Other matters:
compliance and enforcement (including patrols)
|
|
Location unspecified
|
Provide more
enforcement
|
NA
|
15
|
|
Te Henga/Bethells
Beach
|
Provide more
enforcement
|
NA
|
1
|
|
Piha and North Piha
Beaches
|
NA
|
3
|
|
Other matters: dog
parks
|
|
Location unspecified
|
Provide more 'dog
parks'/'dog exercise areas'
|
NA
|
5
|
|
Other matters:
signage and information
|
|
Location unspecified
|
Provide better or more signage,
educational signage for wildlife restrictions encourages compliance
|
NA
|
14
|
|
Te Henga/Bethells
Beach
|
NA
|
5
|
|
Piha and North Piha
Beaches
|
NA
|
4
|
|
Other matters: Dog
ownership
|
|
Location unspecified
|
Provide amenities (e.g. dog bins and bags
or on-site composting facilities
|
NA
|
3
|
|
Te Henga/Bethells
Beach
|
Provide amenities (e.g. dogs bins and
bags)
|
NA
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staff comments
55. In relation to operational matters:
· submission points made relating to Waitākere Ranges Regional Park will be considered as part
of the review of regional parks
· Auckland Council’s Policy on Dogs aims to keep dogs as a positive part of the life of
Aucklanders by maintaining opportunities for dog owners to take their dogs into
public places while adopting measures to minimise the problems caused by dogs
· Auckland Council’s Licensing and Compliance
Services provides enforcement
· The provision of dog park amenities is a
matter for the local board as part of its administration of local parks
· signage will be improved as areas are
reviewed or as part of parks maintenance.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Statement of Proposal - Amendments to Auckland Council
Policy on Dogs 2012 - Waitakere Local Board
|
23
|
|
bView
|
Decision making framework
|
61
|
|
cView
|
Te Henga/Bethells Beach and Piha and North Piha Maps
|
67
|
|
dView
|
List of Submissions (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Shireen Munday - Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws
|
