|
Albert-Eden
Local Board Dog Access Review Panel
20 October
2015
|
|
Hearing and
deliberation report – Proposed changes to local dog access rules in the
Albert-Eden Local Board area
File No.: CP2015/21788
Purpose
1. To support the hearing panel
with the hearing and deliberation process on the proposed changes to local dog
access rules in the Albert-Eden Local Board area.
Executive
Summary
2. The Albert-Eden Local Board at
its business meeting on 6 May 2015 adopted for public consultation proposed
changes to local dog access rules for beach and foreshore areas and selected
parks.
3. The public consultation
submission period opened on 12 June and closed on 17 July 2015.
4. The Albert-Eden Local Board
appointed a panel of the whole board to receive, hear, deliberate and resolve
on submissions and other relevant information.
5. The hearing panel on 7 September
2015 received a report summarising the submissions, received more than 240
written submissions and heard from eight submitters (resolution numbers
AE/2015/93 to AE/2015/105 inclusive).
6. Following this meeting, it was
discovered that an administrative error had resulted in 93 submissions being
omitted from material provided to the hearing panel for their consideration,
and that 11 of those submitters stated they wished to be heard.
7. This report updates the report
received by the panel on the 7 September 2015 to include the matters raised in
all 336 submissions to support the panel during the hearing and deliberation
process.
8. The hearing panel will first
hear from the 11 submitters who wish to be heard in support of their submission
that were not provided the opportunity to do so on 7 September 2015, and then
deliberate on the matters raised in all 336 submissions received. To conclude
the process, the hearing panel will adopt a decision report detailing the
panel’s decisions to the Governing Body on amendments to the Auckland Council
Policy on Dogs 2012.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Albert-Eden Local
Board Dog Access Review Panel:
a) in relation to the proposed
changes to local dog access rules contained in the document titled
‘Amendments to Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 – Albert-Eden Local Board
May 2015’:
i. receive this hearing and
deliberation report
ii. receive the submissions
not received at the hearing on 7 September 2015
iii. hear the submitters who wish
to be heard in support of their submission that were not provided an
opportunity to be heard at the hearing on 7 September 2015.
b) adopt the decision report
titled ‘Hearing panel decision report on local dog access rules in the
Albert-Eden Local Board area 2015’.
|
Comments
9. The Albert-Eden
Local Board at its business meeting on 6 May 2015 adopted for public
consultation a proposal on changes to local dog access rules on the beach and
foreshore and selected parks as follows (resolution number AE/2015/59):
· prohibit
dogs at all times on the area of Eric Armishaw Park south of the internal
access road and car park to protect wildlife
· prohibit
dogs at all times on the foreshore south of the internal access road and car
park on Eric Armishaw Park to protect wildlife
· apply
an amended time and season rule on the beach and in the water from north of the
internal access road on Eric Armishaw Park to the northern headland of Point
Chevalier Beach of:
|
Summer (Labour Weekend until the 31 March)
|
|
10am to 7pm
|
Before 10am and after 7pm
|
|
Sand and Water
Prohibited
|
Sand and Water
Under control on-leash
|
|
Winter (1 April until Friday before Labour Weekend)
|
|
10am to 4pm
|
Before 10am and after 4pm
|
|
Sand and Water
Under control on-leash
|
Sand and Water
Under control off-leash
|
· allow
dogs under control off-leash east of the northern headland of Point Chevalier
Beach
· amend
the time and season rule on Coyle Park
· replace
the under control off-leash area on Gribblehirst Park with under control
on-leash
· amend
the dog access rules on Heron Park to implement the Heron Park Development Plan
· reclassify
dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas
· replace
the general rules for picnic and fitness areas with specific dog access rules.
Submission process
10. The public consultation
submission period opened on 12 June and closed on 17 July 2015.
11. The proposed changes were
notified as follows:
· A
notice to all registered dog owners with their dog registration reminder letter
· a
public notice in the New Zealand Herald on 12 June 2015
· in
the June local editions of Our Auckland
· on
the Auckland Council website
· in
the June People’s Panel e-update
· through local social media and print media[1]
· flyer drop to households in the Albert-Eden Local Board area[2]
· signs
placed in the affected parks
· to
local board registered stakeholders
· notices
to previous submitters on dog access
12. A total of 336
submissions were received. Of these submissions, 148 submissions were pro-forma
submissions relating to the time and season rules and 200 submitters were
identified as residents of the Albert-Eden Local Board area.
Hearing and
deliberations process
13. The Albert-Eden Local Board
appointed a panel of the whole board to receive, hear, deliberate and resolve
on submissions and other relevant information (resolution number AE/2015/91).
14. A total of 37 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:
- ensure decisions provide for public
safety and comfort, protection of wildlife and habitat, and the needs of dogs
and their owners
- consider the region-wide
standard summer beach times and season
- ensure dog access rules are easy
to understand ‘on the ground’.
· the
weight the hearing panel puts on the matters raised by submitters
· information
used to develop, and contained in, the statement of proposal
17. At the conclusion of the
hearings, the panel will deliberate and confirm, by way of resolution, its
decisions to the governing body. These decisions will be provided to the local
board for information purposes only.
18. It is noted that the hearing
panel on 7 September 2015 received a report summarising the submissions,
received more than 240 written submissions and heard from eight submitters
(resolution numbers AE/2015/93 to AE/2015/105 inclusive). Following this
meeting, it was discovered that an administrative error had resulted in 93
submissions being omitted from material provided to the hearing panel for their
consideration, and that 11 of those submitters stated they wished to be heard.
This report updates the report received by the panel on the 7 September 2015 to
include the matters raised in all 336 submissions.
Submissions
19. The submission form asked
submitters which parts of the proposal they agreed and/or disagreed with, and
to provide further comments if they wished. The majority of submitters provided
responses in this manner.
20. Matters raised in submissions
have been summarised into the topics as presented in the statement of proposal.
21. The submissions are analysed by
submission points rather than individual submissions.
22. In some instances, the feedback
from submitters related to dog access rules in general, rather than referring
to any of the specific topics of the proposal. This general commentary is
summarised in submission topic seven.
23. Issues raised that are outside of
the scope of the proposal are addressed in submission topic eight.
24. For each topic, staff comments
and other information is provided where appropriate.
Submission
topic 1 – Beaches and foreshore
25. The proposed
changes for the beach and foreshore area is to apply a time and season rule on
the beach and foreshore from the internal access road on Eric Armishaw Park to
the northern headland of Point Chevalier Beach and to allow dogs under control
off a leash on all other foreshore areas, excluding those identified for the
protection of wildlife.
|
Summer (Labour Weekend until the 31 March)
|
|
Before 10am
|
10am to 7pm
|
After 7pm
|
|
Sand and
Water
Under control
on a leash
|
Sand and
Water
Prohibited
|
Sand and
Water
Under control
on a leash
|
|
Winter (1 April until Friday before Labour Weekend)
|
|
Before 10am
|
10am to 4pm
|
After 4pm
|
|
Sand and
Water
Under control
off a leash
|
Sand and
Water
Under control
on a leash
|
Sand and
Water
Under control
off a leash
|
26. A total of 735 submission points
were made regarding the beach and foreshore provisions. The submission points
have a wide spread of views from more restrictive to less restricted dog access
rules for the beach and foreshore areas. The majority of submission points
relate to the adoption of the regional standard for the summer season (163) and
allowing under control off a leash access outside of core hours. There was general
support for the reduction in the summer core hours from 9am to 10am (171).
27. The table below provides an
overview of the issues raised including the reasons why.
Table 1: Beach and foreshore
|
Decision sought
|
Reasons
|
Submission Points*
|
|
General
|
|
Support proposal as
publicly notified
|
· Public safety and comfort
· Dogs jump on, lick, sniff, or paw
children/adults
· Protection of wildlife
· Appropriate to allow people to use the beach
without dogs
· Dog owners flout rules
· Beach needs to be available for everyone
· Dogs challenge or intimidate strangers
· Owners don’t clean up after their dog(s)
· Beach/Park is too busy
· Beach/Park is used by many children/families
· Dogs frighten or attack children
· Owners don’t try or are unable to control their
dogs
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
|
Total submissions: 15
• Local dog owner: 2
• Local non-dog owner: 9
|
|
Oppose proposal as
publicly notified
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· No justification or evidence for changes
· Existing rules are fine
· Owners generally keep their dog/s well under
control
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 21
• Local dog owner: 10
• Visiting dog owner: 2
• Local non-dog owner: 1
|
|
Dogs prohibited
|
· Public safety and comfort
· I don't want dogs to come up to me when I am
at a beach or parks
· Dogs frighten or attack children
· Owners don't clean up after dog(s) or allow
dog(s) to urinate on sand castles, seats etc
· Protection of wildlife
· Dog owners flout rules
· Safety and comfort
· Wildlife – There is a lot of wildlife or dog/s
chase wildlife present
|
Total submissions: 6
• Local non-dog owner: 5
|
|
Allow dogs to be
under control on a leash at all times
|
· Beach is used by many children/families
· Dogs frighten or attack children
· Owners don't try or are unable to control
their dogs
· Beach/Park is too busy
· Beach/Park is used by many children/families
· Dogs fight
· Safety and comfort
· Dog owners flout rules
· I don’t want dogs to come up to me when I am
at a beach or parks
· Owners don’t clean up after their dog(s)
|
Total submissions: 7
• Local dog owner: 2
• Local non-dog owner: 5
|
|
Allow dog access
(e.g. on a leash or off a leash)
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support responsible dog owners
· Owners generally keep their dogs well under
control
· I enjoy the company of dogs and usually like
it when dogs come up to me when I am at a beach or parks
· No justification or evidence for changes
· Beach/Park is quiet
· Beach/Park is primarily used for dog
walking/exercising
|
Total submissions: 26
• Local dog owner: 16
• Visiting dog owner: 1
• Local non-dog owner: 3
• Visiting non-dog owner: 1
|
|
No under control off
a leash access
|
· Owners don’t try or are unable to control
their dogs (e.g. owner unaware or unconcerned that their dog was causing a
problem)
· Dogs frighten or attack children
· Dogs interfere with belongings, picnics and
other activities or try to take food
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local non-dog owner: 3
|
|
Provide more under
control off a leash dog access
|
· Support responsible dog owners
· Owners generally keep their dogs well under
control
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Beach/Park is quiet
· Beach is very nice for swimming and playing in
the sand
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
· Allows family outings with dogs
|
Total submissions: 24
• Local dog owner: 6
• Local non-dog owner: 2
• Visiting non-dog owner: 1
|
|
Allow dogs under
control off a leash
|
· Support responsible dog owners
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
· Owners generally keep their dogs well under
control
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 6
• Local dog owner: 3
• Local non-dog
owner: 1
• Visiting dog owner: 2
|
|
East of the northern
headland – Allow dogs under control off a leash at all times
|
· I don’t want dogs to come up to me when I am
at a beach or parks
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 2
|
|
Allow dogs to be
under control on a leash and/or prohibited at all times
|
· Dogs challenge or intimidate strangers
· Dogs frighten or attack children
· Safety and comfort
· Owners don’t clean up after dog(s)
· I don’t want dogs to come up to me when I am
at a beach or parks
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local non-dog
owner: 1
|
|
Differentiate between
size and/or breed
|
· Support responsible dog owners
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 2
|
|
|
|
Time and season –
Summer season
|
|
Labour Weekend to 1
March – Region-wide standard
|
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Support responsible dog owners
· No justification or evidence for changes
· Beach/Park is quiet
|
Total submissions:
163
• Pro-forma submissions: 147
• Local dog owner: 51
• Visiting dog owner: 33
• Local non-dog owner: 17
• Visiting non-dog owner: 10
|
|
Labour Weekend to 31
March – Proposal as notified
|
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support responsible dog owners
· Beach needs 6to be available for everyone
|
Total submissions: 4
• Local dog owner: 2
• Local non-dog owner:
2
|
|
1 December to 1 March
|
· Beach/Park is quiet
· No justification or evidence for changes
|
Total submissions: 2
• Visiting dog owner: 1
|
|
1 December to 31
March
|
· Beach/Park is quiet
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 2
|
|
Time and season –
Summer – Core hours
|
|
9.00am to 7.00pm
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunity
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local dog owner: 2
• Visiting dog owner: 1
|
|
10.00am to 4.00pm
|
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 1
• Visiting dog owner: 1
|
|
10.00am to 5.00pm –
Region-wide standard
|
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local dog owner: 2
• Visiting dog owner: 1
|
|
10.00am to 06.00pm
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
· Beach needs to be available for everyone
|
Total submissions: 1
|
|
10.00am to 7.00pm –
Proposal as notified
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Support responsible dog owners
· Beach/Park is quiet
· No justification or evidence for changes
|
Total submissions:
171
• Pro-forma submissions: 146
• Local dog owner: 38
• Visiting dog owner: 34
• Local non-dog owner: 10
• Visiting non-dog owner: 10
|
|
Extend core hours
|
· Appropriate to allow people to enjoy the beach
without dogs
· Safety and comfort
· I don’t want dogs to come up to me when I am
at a beach or parks
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local non-dog
owner: 2
|
|
Extend core hours –
10.00am to 09.00pm
|
· Beach/Park is too busy
· Beach/Park is used by many children/families
· Dogs frighten or attack children
· Owners don’t clean up after their dog(s)
· Owners don’t try or are unable to control
their dogs
· Appropriate to allow people to enjoy the beach
without dogs
· Beach needs to be available for everyone
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Reduce core hours
|
· Beach/Park is primarily used for dog
walking/exercising
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
12.00pm to 04.00pm
|
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
Total submissions: 1
|
|
Weekdays – 12.00pm to
04.00pm
|
· Beach/Park is quiet
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Weekends and
Statutory Holidays – 11.00am to 05.00pm
|
· Beach/Park is quiet
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Time and season –
Summer
|
|
Dogs prohibited
|
· Owners don’t clean up after dog(s) or allow
dog(s) to urinate on sand castles, seats etc
· Beach/Park is too busy
· Owners unwilling or unable to control dogs
· Owners flout rules
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local non-dog owner: 3
|
|
Allow dog access
(e.g. on a leash or off a leash)
|
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support responsible dog owners
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 1
• Local non-dog owner: 1
|
|
No under control
off-leash access on beaches in summer
|
· Owners don’t clean up after dog(s) or allow
dog(s) to urinate on sand castles, seats etc
· I don’t want dogs to come up to me when I am
at a beach or parks
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local non-dog owner: 1
|
|
Provide more under
control off a leash dog access
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunity
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 4
• Local dog owner: 4
|
|
Core hours –
Prohibited – Proposal as notified
|
· Beach is too busy
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 2
|
|
Core hours – Under
control on a leash
|
· Allows family outings with dogs
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 5
• Local dog owner: 2
|
|
Core hours – Allow
dog access
|
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local non-dog owner: 1
|
|
Outside core hours –
Under control on-leash – Proposal as notified
|
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local dog owner: 2
• Visiting dog owner: 1
|
|
Outside core hours –
Allow dog access (e.g. on a leash or off a leash)
|
· Support responsible dog owners
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Allows family outings with dogs
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Outside core hours –
Under control off-leash
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Support responsible dog owners
· Owners generally keep their dogs under control
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Beach/Park is quiet
· No justification or evidence for changes
· I enjoy the company of dogs and usually like
it when dogs come up to me when I am at a beach and parks
· Appropriate to allow people to use the beach
without dogs
· Beach needs to be available for everyone
· Beach/Park is quiet
· Beach/Park is primarily used for dog
walking/exercising
|
Total submissions:
181
• Pro-forma submissions: 146
• Local dog owner: 43
• Visiting dog owner: 34
• Local non-dog owner: 10
• Visiting non-dog owner: 10
|
|
Mornings – Under
control off-leash
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 2
|
|
Evenings – Prohibited
|
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Evenings – Under
control on-leash
|
· Beach is too busy
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local dog owner: 3
|
|
Weekend and Public
Holidays – Core hours – Prohibited
|
· Beach is too busy (during time period
concerned)
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Weekend and Public
Holidays – Prohibited
|
· Beach/Park is too busy
· Beach/Park is used by many children/families
|
Total submissions: 1
|
|
Weekend and Public
Holidays – Outside core hours – Under control off a leash
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Weekdays – Under
control off a leash
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
· Beach/Park is quiet
· Beach/Park is primarily used for dog
walking/exercising
· Beach needs to be available for everyone
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Time and season –
Winter – Core hours
|
|
10.00am to 4.00pm –
Proposal as notified
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support responsible dog owners
· Appropriate to allow people to use the beach
without dogs
· Beach needs to be available for everyone
|
Total submissions: 11
• Local dog owner: 10
• Visiting dog owner: 1
|
|
11.00am to 4.00pm
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
12.00pm to 04.00pm
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
· Beach needs to be available for everyone
|
Total submissions: 1
|
|
Extend core hours
|
· Beach needs to be available for everyone
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local non-dog
owner: 1
|
|
Time and season –
Winter
|
|
Allow dogs under
control on a leash
|
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local non-dog owner: 1
|
|
Allow dog access
(e.g. on a leash or off a leash)
|
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local non-dog owner: 1
|
|
No under control off
leash access on beaches in winter
|
· Owners don’t clean up after dog(s) or allow
dog(s) to urinate on sand castles, seats
· I don’t want dogs to come up to me when I am
at a beach or park
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local non-dog owner: 1
|
|
Allow dogs under
control off a leash
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Owners generally keep their dogs under
control
· Beach is primarily used for dog
walking/exercising (during time period concerned)
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 5
• Local dog owner: 2
• Visiting dog owner: 1
• Local non-dog owner: 2
|
|
Provide more under
control off a leash dog access
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 1
• Visiting dog owner: 1
|
|
Outside core hours –
Under control off a leash – Proposal as notified
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Appropriate to allow people to use the beach
without dogs
· Beach needs to be available for everyone
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
· Beach/Park is quiet
· Beach/Park is primarily used for dog
walking/exercising
|
Total submissions: 6
• Local dog owner: 5
|
|
Outside core hours –
Under control on a leash
|
· Beach/Park is used by many children/families
· Dogs frighten or attack children
· Owners don’t clean up after dog(s)
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local non-dog
owner: 2
|
|
Core hours – Under
control off-leash
|
· Beach/Park is primarily used for dog
walking/exercising
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 2
|
|
Core hours – Under
control on a leash
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Time and season -
Sand and water
|
|
Adopt same rules to
sand and water (remove inconsistency between sand and water)
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Beach/Park is too busy
|
Total submissions: 5
• Local dog owner: 5
|
|
Allow dogs under
control off a leash at all times in water
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 6
• Local dog owner: 2
• Visiting dog owner: 2
• Local non-dog owner: 1
• Visiting non-dog owner: 1
|
|
|
|
|
* Whether a submitter is identified as a dog owner and living in the
Albert-Eden Local Board Area (or not) is determined by information provided on
submission forms, including local board area, suburb and post code.
Staff comments
28. As part of the
on-line survey undertaken during the pre-consultation, 647 respondents (51 per
cent non-dog owners and 49 per cent dog owners) commented as follows:
· local non-dog owners prefer the dog access summer time and season
rules to be aligned with daylight savings[3]
· dog owners prefer summer time and season rules to start on the 1
December (45 per cent) and end at the beginning of April which is similar to
the end of daylight savings[4].
· local
non-dog owners generally do not want unknown dogs approaching them while at the
beach (46 per cent), with 29 per cent being nervous around dogs, and 17 per
cent stating that they avoid beaches if there are likely to be dogs there
· dog
owners generally do not mind being approached by dogs (69 per cent), this drops
to 36 per cent for non-dog owners
· Forty-one
per cent of dog owners like being approached by dogs while it was 15 per cent
for non-dog owners.
29. The table below
shows a summary of the preferred dog access rules for the respondents to the
online survey from the Albert-Eden Local Board area.
|
Dog owners
|
Non-dog owners
|
|
Summer
|
Summer
|
|
10am
to 6pm
|
Before
10am and after 6pm
|
10am
to 6pm
|
Before
10am and after 6pm
|
|
Under
control on a leash
|
Under
control off a leash
|
Prohibited
|
Under
control on a leash
|
|
Winter
|
Winter
|
|
10am
to 5pm
|
Before
9am and after 5pm
|
10am
to 7pm
|
Before
9am and after 7pm
|
|
Under control off a leash
|
Under control off a leash
|
Under
control on a leash
|
Under
control off a leash
|
30. As part of the
face to face survey undertaken during the pre-consultation 234 respondents
commented as follows:
· non-dog
owners did not usually mind dogs approaching them (42 per cent)
· dog
owners indicated they usually liked dogs approaching them at the beach
· four
per cent of non-dog owner respondents avoided visiting the beach if there were
likely to be dogs present
· the
majority of non-dog owners (36 per cent) thought that summer rules for dogs
should begin at daylight savings
· 27
per cent of dog owners stated dog access rules should start at either daylight
savings, or 1st December
· the
majority of both non-dog owners and dog owners indicated summer dogs access
rules should end when daylight savings ends and had a preference for dog under
control off-leash at all times.
Submission topic 2 –
Protected wildlife areas
31. The proposal is to replace the
current general wildlife rule with a specific prohibition of dogs on Eric
Armishaw Park south of the internal access road and on the foreshore south of
the car park on Eric Armishaw Park.
32. A total of 26 submission points
were made that specifically related to the protected wildlife provisions on the
foreshore and Eric Armishaw park. One submission point generally supported the
wildlife provisions and five submission points supported the proposal as it
related to Eric Armishaw Park. The reasons included the protection of wildlife
and the public safety and comfort.
33. Four submissions sought the
retention of time and season rules with under control off a leash access being
sought in either the morning or evening. A total of 10 submission points sought
either on a leash or off a leash access at all time on Eric Armishaw Park. The
reasons for seeking dog access included the park being generally quiet, dogs
needing adequate exercise, supporting responsible dog owners and the proposal
being either unfair or too restrictive.
34. The table below provides an
overview of the issues raised including the reasons why.
Table 2: Protected wildlife areas
|
Decision sought
|
Reasons
|
Submission Points*
|
|
General
|
|
Support proposal as
publicly notified
|
· Protection of wildlife
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Allow dogs to be
under control on a leash at all times
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local dog owner: 3
|
|
Provide better
protection for wildlife (e.g. native birds)
|
· Wildlife – There is a lot of wildlife or dog/s
chase wildlife present
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Eric Armishaw Park
|
|
Support proposal as
publicly notified
|
· Protection of wildlife
· 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 or parks
|
Total submissions: 5
• Local dog owner: 1
• Local non-dog owner: 4
|
|
Require dogs to be
prohibited at all times
|
· Wildlife – There is a lot of wildlife or dog/s
chase wildlife present
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Allow dogs to be
under control on a leash at all times
|
· Park is used by many children/families
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 2
|
|
Allow dog access
(e.g. on a leash or off a leash)
|
· Park is quiet
· Support responsible dog owners
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 4
• Local dog owner: 3
• Visiting non-dog owner: 1
|
|
Provide more under
control off a leash dog access
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local dog owner: 1
• Visiting non-dog owner: 1
|
|
Allow dogs under
control off a leash at all times
|
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Retain time and
season rules - Under control off a leash in morning and evenings
|
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Park is quiet
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 2
|
|
Mornings - Under
control off a leash
|
· Park is quiet (during the time period
concerned)
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support responsible dog owners
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Dogs help with owners health and fitness
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 2
|
* Whether a submitter is identified as a dog owner and living in the
Albert-Eden Local Board Area (or not) is determined by information provided on
submission forms, including local board area, suburb and post code.
Staff comments
35. The dog access rules on the
foreshore within the Albert-Eden Local Board Area south of Eric Armishaw are
administered by the Department of Conservation. Under the Department of
Conservation rules dogs are prohibited from this portion of the foreshore.
36. Auckland Council biodiversity
staff have identified the shell bank at the southern end of Eric Armishaw park
as being important for the protection of shorebirds and dogs should be
prohibited from this portion of the foreshore.
Submission topic 3 – Coyle
Park and Gribblehirst Park
37. The proposal as it related to
Coyle Park and Gribblehirst Park is to amend the time and season rules for Coyle
Park to maintain the existing link with the beach time and season rules and
replace off-leash rule on Gribblehirst Park with an on-leash rule.
38. A total number of 19 submission
points were made on Coyle Park with two submission points seeking no change to
the access rules, nine submission points seeking more under control off a leash
access, five submission points seeking changes to the time and season rules,
two submission points seeking under control on a leash at all times, and one
submission point seeking dogs to be prohibited. Reasons included supporting
responsible dog owners and dogs needing adequate exercise.
39. A total of 14 submission points
were made regarding Gribblehirst Park. Two submission point sought the area to
be under control on a leash at all times for public safety and comfort reasons
and dog owners not being willing or able to control their dogs. A total of 12
submission points sought the retention of the under control off a leash rule on
Gribblehirst Park on the piece of land running parallel between the football
field and Sandringham Road. The reasons included support responsible dog
owners, the proposal being unfair to dog owners, dogs needing adequate exercise
and that owners are generally able to keep their dogs under control.
Staff comments
40. Auckland Council
parks and animal management staff have commented that:
· Coyle
Park is a high activity area and under control off a leash dog access is not
considered to be appropriate in terms of public safety and comfort during the
main use times
· the
under control off a leash area on Gribblehirst Park is considered to be too
close to the sports ground and complaints have been received by the animal
management staff.
Submission topic 4 –
Heron Park
41. The proposal as it relates to
Heron Park is to amend the dog access rules to implement the Heron Park
Development Plan. The effect of these changes are to switch the under control
off a leash area from the eastern to the western side of the park.
42. Dogs would be allowed under control
on a leash access to area east of the western end of the playground and allowed
under control off a leash access to the area west of the western end of the
playground and bounded on the western boundary by the stream.
43. A total number of 8 submission
points were made on Heron Park. Two of the submission points supported the
proposal as notified as the park is busy and the proposal supports responsible
dog owners. Six submission points sought additional dogs off a leash access for
the reasons of supporting responsible dog owners, dogs need adequate exercise
areas and the proposal is unfair or too restrictive for dog owners.
Staff
comments
44. As part of the
face to face survey undertaken during the pre-consultation 108 respondents
commented as follows regarding Heron Park:
· dog
owners have a strong preference for under control off-leash access on the
western and eastern sides of the path
· non-dog
owners have a preference for dogs to be either on-leash or prohibited on the
western and eastern sides of the path.
45. Auckland Council parks and animal
management staff are supportive of the Heron Park concept plan’s aim to move
the under control off-leash area from the eastern to the western side of the
path due to the ongoing development of the park and the location of the high
use activity areas.
Submission
topic 5 – Picnic and fitness apparatus areas
46. The proposal is to remove the
general rules for picnic and fitness areas.
47. A total of five submission points
was received that specifically addressed this topic, one in support and four
opposed to the proposal.
Staff comments
48. As part of pre-consultation, with
the exception of Coyle Park, Auckland Council parks and animal management staff
could not identify any picnic areas with easily identified boundaries or of a
meaningful size that justified a specific dog access rule, and did not consider
that fitness apparatus areas warranted dog access rules that are different from
the surrounding park rules. Coyle Park has been identified as a high use area and
these matters are addressed above under submission topic 3.
Submission
topic 6 – Dog exercise areas
49. The proposal is to reclassify all
dog exercise areas as under control off a leash areas (shared spaces).
50. A total of two submissions point
were made opposing the changes to the reclassification of the existing dog
exercise areas as under control off a leash.
Staff
comments
51. Auckland Council
parks and animal management staff identified all existing dog exercise areas as
shared spaces where dog owners are “shared users” and should be called “under
control off-leash areas”.
Submission
topic 7 - General comments on dog access rules
52. A total of 68 submission points
provided feedback on dog access rules that are not specific to any of the
submission topics as outlined in the statement of proposal and can be
considered within any of the above topics.
53. The table below provides an
overview of the issues raised including the reasons why.
Table 7: General comments on dog access
rules
|
Decision sought
|
Reasons
|
Submission Points*
|
|
Oppose proposal as
publicly notified
|
· Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support
responsible dog owners
· Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
· Existing
rules are fine
· Rules are
overly complicated
|
Total submissions: 16
• Local dog owner: 9
• Local non-dog owner: 1
• Visiting dog owner: 2
|
|
Provide more under
control off a leash dog access
|
· Support
responsible dog owners
· Owners
generally keep their dogs well under control
· Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
· Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Beach/Park
is primarily used for dog walking/exercising
· Dogs help
with owners health and fitness
· Allows
family outings with dogs
|
Total submissions: 19
• Local dog owner: 11
• Visiting non-dog owner: 3
|
|
Allow dog access
(e.g. on a leash or off a leash)
|
· Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
· Support
responsible dog owners
· Owners
generally keep their dogs well under control
· No
justification or evidence for changes
|
Total submissions: 13
• Local dog owner: 8
• Visiting dog owner: 2
|
|
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
· Dog owners
flout rules
· Dogs
frighten or attack children
· Beach/Park
is used by many children/families
· Safety and
comfort
· Beach/Park
is too busy
|
Total submissions: 5
• Local non-dog owner: 5
|
|
Allow dogs to be
under control on a leash at all times
|
· Beach/Park
is too busy
· Beach/Park
is used by many children/families
· Dogs
frighten or attack children
· Dogs fight
· Owners
don’t try or are unable to control their dogs
· Safety and
comfort
· I don’t
want dogs to come up to me when I am at a beach or parks
· Owners
don’t clean up after dog(s)
|
Total submissions: 3
• Local dog owner: 1
• Local non-dog
owner: 2
|
|
Require dogs to be
prohibited at all times
|
· Wildlife –
There is a lot of wildlife or dog/s chase wildlife present
|
Total submissions: 1
|
|
Provide off-leash at
all times areas
|
· Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
· Support
responsible dog owners
· Proposal
unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
|
Total submissions: 7
• Local dog owner: 3
|
|
Support proposal as
publicly notified
|
· Support
responsible dog owners
· Beach
needs to be available for everyone
· Dogs need
adequate exercise opportunities
· Dogs help
with owners health and fitness
· Owners
don’t clean up after dog(s)
|
Total submissions: 4
• Local dog owner: 2
• Local non-dog
owner: 2
|
* Whether a submitter is identified as a dog owner and living in the
Albert-Eden Local Board Area (or not) is determined by information provided on
submission forms, including local board area, suburb and post code.
Submission topic 8 -
Other matters
54. The matters within the
decision-making scope of the hearing panel are limited to the matters contained
in the proposal (Attachment A).
55. 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.
56. The table below provides an
overview of the issues raised including the reasons why.
Table 8: Other matters
|
Decision sought
|
Reasons
|
Submission Points*
|
|
Other matters: Dog
parks
|
|
Provide more 'dog
parks'/'dog exercise areas'
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 7
• Local dog owner: 2
• Local non-dog
owner: 2
• Visiting dog owner: 1
|
|
Other matters: Dog
ownership
|
|
Provide amenities
(e.g. dog bins and bags)
|
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Other matters:
Signage and information provision
|
|
Provide better or
more signage (e.g. clear, non-contradictory, correct)
|
|
Total submissions: 11
• Local dog owner: 3
• Visiting dog owner: 1
• Local non-dog owner: 6
|
|
Provide better or
more publicity (e.g. where people can take their dog, code of
conduct/conditions of use)
|
· Support responsible dog owners
· Rules are overly complicated
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Other matters: Compliance
and enforcement (including patrols)
|
|
Council should
provide more patrols and enforcement
|
· Proposal unfair to dog owners, too restrictive
· Support responsible dog owners
· Dog owners flout rules
· Owners don’t try or are unable to control
their dogs
· I don’t want dogs to come up to me when I am
at a beach or parks
· Owners don’t clean up after dog(s)
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 25
• Local dog owner: 7
• Local non-dog owner: 17
|
|
Other matters: Out
of scope - Maungawhau Mt Eden
|
|
Before 09.00am -
Under control off-leash
|
|
Total submissions: 1
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Other matters: Out
of scope - Takapuna Beach
|
|
No change to current
rules
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 1
• Visiting dog owner: 1
|
|
Other matters: Out
of scope - Cox's Bay
|
|
No change to current
rules
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Support responsible dog owners
|
Total submissions: 1
• Visiting dog owner: 1
|
|
Provide more under
control off a leash dog access
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
· Support responsible dog owners
· Beach/Park is primarily used for dog
walking/exercising
|
Total submissions: 2
• Local dog owner: 1
|
|
Other matters: Out
of scope – Meola Reef
|
|
Allow dogs under
control off a leash
|
· Dogs need adequate exercise opportunities
|
Total submissions: 2
|
|
Other matters: Out
of scope – Te Henga/Bethells Beach and adjacent reserves
|
|
Provide more under
control off a leash dog access
|
· Owners generally keep their dog/s well under
control
|
Total submissions: 1
|
|
Other matters: Out
of scope – Invalid submissions
|
|
Invalid submission
|
|
Total submissions: 1
• Pro-forma
submissions: 1
|
* Whether a submitter is identified as a dog owner and living in the
Albert-Eden Local Board Area (or not) is determined by information provided on
submission forms, including local board area, suburb and post code.
Staff comments
57. The provision of facilities such
as dog parks, lighting, amenities and seating is a matter for the local board
as part of its management of local parks.
58. Council’s Licencing and
Compliance Services provide enforcement and education services.
59. 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 – Albert-Eden Local Board
|
27
|
|
bView
|
Decision-making requirements
|
53
|
|
cView
|
Submissions Volume
|
59
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Justin Walters - Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws and Bylaws
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
